Wednesday, January 31, 2007


A few of the things that have been getting on my nerves lately:

The New Democratic Majority
OK, they won already. So when is the media going to stop obsessing on the point. Let's move on and get down to business for crying out loud.

Scared Republicans
OK, the Dems won. Get over it. Stop running scared and stand on your principles. If you're going to act like Democrats-Lite, expect to stay in the minority for a long time. Or to get bounced from office altogether. Why should we vote for imitation Democrats when we can have the real thing instead.

"Don't Call Us the 'Democrat' Party"
Yes we know, it's "Democratic" party. Implying that any other party isn't democratic. Grow up. The only thing worse than crybaby losers is crybaby winners.

"Bless Me Doctor, For I Have Sinned"
Rehab is the new route to absolution. Whether you're a congressman who hit on an underage page, an actor with a racial epithet-spewing potty-mouth, or a naughty beauty queen, just pack up and head out to rehab. Substance abuse is the new "the Devil made me do it."

Cickenhawk Arguments
I'm sick of hearing the "anyone who didn't serve, shouldn't send our troops into harm's way" argument. Or the b.s. about how more Democrats served than Republicans. The next time I hear one of these, my reply will be this: "Yeah, I don't think non-veterans should be allowed to hold office. Or vote. Or express opinions about politics and national policy. Freedom isn't free, and if you didn't pay, you should STFU." I don't really believe this, but it's sure to end the conversation.

So, what's been on your nerves lately?

Sunday, January 28, 2007


My blogging as of late has been inconsistent, so I haven't kept up on this story. In case you're not familiar with it, Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez stands accused of murdering Captain Phillip Esposito and 1st Lieutenant Louis Allen in Iraq in June 2005. All three were part of the New York Army National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division. Here's the latest:
Judge orders independent investigator in Iraq ‘fragging’ case

FORT BRAGG, N.C. - A judge has ordered the government to pay for an independent investigator who will help prepare a defense for a soldier accused of killing two superior officers in Iraq. Military judge Col. Patrick Parrish granted the request after lawyers for Staff Sgt. Alberto Martinez complained Army investigators haven’t cooperated with them.

Martinez, 39, of Troy, N.Y., is the only soldier known to be charged with killing his superior officer during the Iraq war, also known as “fragging.”

He is accused of killing Capt. Phillip Esposito, 30, of Suffern, N.Y., and 1st Lt. Louis Allen, 34, of Milford, Pa., by setting off grenades and a mine in their room at one of Saddam Hussein’s former palaces in June 2005. The pair were his superior officers in the 42nd Infantry Division of the New York National Guard.

Allen, who grew up in Chester, N.Y., was a biology teacher at George F, Baker High School in Tuxedo.

Before issuing his ruling, Parrish noted that a civilian defendant in a death penalty case could be given an independent investigator at government expense.

“Do you think that would sit well with Congress, knowing that a soldier has fewer rights than a person sitting in a federal prison?” Parrish asked military prosecutor Capt. Adam Siple.

Parrish gave the defense until Jan. 19 to recommend an investigator to be hired.

And this:
Military judge grants access to files in Iraq murder case

(Fort Bragg, NC-AP) January 11, 2007 - Attorneys representing a soldier charged with killing two superior officers in Iraq will get access to the government's electronic data, including classified evidence.

The military judge ordered the access Thursday. Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez faces two counts of premeditated murder in the deaths of Captain Phillip Esposito of Suffern, New York, and First Lieutenant Louis Allen of Milford, Pennsylvania.

Prosecutors say Martinez, of the New York Army National Guard, set off grenades and a mine in a room where Esposito and Allen were staying in June 2005.

The judge says that the government must allow access to both unclassified and classified data collected in the case. He also ordered the government to provide a computer expert to the defense lawyers.

Neither of these developments is unusual. This being a death penalty case, the court is going to bend over backwards to avoid looking as if Martinez isn't being given a "fair" trial. Of course to some people (especially the defense team), fairness is defined as a guarantee that Martinez gets off scott free.

This development is the one that really pisses me off:
At a November hearing, defense lawyers hinted that a Supreme Court decision barring the execution of mentally retarded defendants could keep the Army from seeking a death sentence against Martinez. They didn't elaborate.

(emphasis mine)

Mentally retarded? Martinez isn't just a soldier, he's a noncomissioned officer. Someone the Army had seen fit to give a position of authority to. It's disheartening enough that he may be a murdering sociopath, but now the defense team is going to tell the world he's mentally retarded?!?!

I apologize in advance for putting this so indelicately, but these lawyers are preparing to drop their pants and take a shit on the whole US Army NCO Corps. What's that going to do for the morale of our troops in harm's way? I guess murdering two men wasn't enough damage for him. Now his lawyers are helping him spread the pain. Disgraceful.

This whole episode just reinforces my belief that lawyers are no longer members of a profession. They are priests in some bizarre religion. A religion that performs sacrifices. Public safety. National security. And now the honor of our soldiers. All sacrificial lambs to some warped vision of "justice."

Friday, January 26, 2007


In his book Hurray! We're Capitulating!, German author Henryk M. Broder examines the western world's total lack of courage in the face of Muslim intimidation.  Der Spiegel has posted an excerpt from the book on their english language online edition.  Mr. Broder gets it.  Too bad so many of his European brethren (and their American admirers) don't.


And surprisingly, it's not the Europeans this time.
Chinese TV Network Bans Pig Ads During Year of Pig Celebrations Due to Muslim Sensitivity

SHANGHAI — Companies looking to reach China's consumer market with pig images during Year of the Pig celebrations next month will have to adjust after a national television network adopted a policy to be sensitive to the country's small Muslim population, according to published reports.

China Central Television said it would ban all verbal and visual pork references from advertisements during Lunar New Year celebrations next month, the Wall Street Journal reported. This week, the network banned a TV ad from Nestle SA featuring a smiling cartoon pig and the message, "Happy new pig year."

Too bad China's Christians don't merit such consideration from the government. What is it about Islam that even communist atheists are willing to kowtow to it?

Friday, January 19, 2007


I saw this story linked on the Drudge Report.  From the Hollywood Reporter:

Redford lands left hook, criticizes Bush policy

PARK CITY -- Robert Redford came out swinging at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival's opening news conference Thursday, attacking the Bush administration for its politics as strongly as he dismissed film buyers who want his fest to serve as a market.

"Anyone with a rational mind and a sense of decency is being positioned as a lefty by the extreme right," he said, responding to an attendee who asked whether he thought Sundance selections were politically oriented to the left. "I believe in the tenets of democracy, and when they get pushed, it pisses me off," he said.

Redford maintained that Sundance films always have been politically diverse but said that "in light of what's happened in the past six years, we haven't adhered to snuffing attempts from the administration. ... (Documentaries) have become more of a truth to power in an environment where lying is treated like a political asset."

"I'm left-handed," he joked. "I'm not a very moderate person."

So, first he complains about his political opponents labeling him and other dissenters as "lefty."  Then, in the same sentence no less, he labels said opponents as "the extreme right."  Irony, anyone?  And just to make the ridiculousness of his statement complete, he basically admits that he is a lefty.  This would be funnier if there weren't so many people who take these clowns seriously.

Thursday, January 18, 2007


I wish this was surprising.  From the Washington Times:

On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.

"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "

"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."

Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.

Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.

"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.

Don't even try to tell me these people aren't playing politics with our national security.  Of course Reyes is the same clown who didn't know whether al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite.  But colossal ignorance notwithstanding, Congressman Reyes should at least know what his own position is on a troop increase.  But don't expect an explanation as to why his position changed.  Reyes will count on the MSM to give him a pass.  And they will, as they always do for Democrats.  Unfortunately, most of the mushy middle--the much coveted "moderate" voters--still get most of their news from the MSM. 

h/t:  Drudge

Tuesday, January 16, 2007


Yet another example of why terrorism shouldn't be treated as a law enforcement issue (as if we really needed one):

Appeals court vacates sentence of 'millennium bomber' Ressam


I'm no psychic, but I saw this coming from way back.  From the National Ledger:

Fairness Doctrine:  The Plan to Silence Conservatives

Memphis, Tennessee: Media reform sounds like a good cause. But the gathering here of more than 2,000 activists turned out to be an effort to push the Democratic Party further to the left and get more "progressive" voices in the media, while proposing to use the power of the federal government to silence conservatives.

In short, triumphant liberals now want to consolidate and expand their power.

Several speakers, including Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Maurice Hinchey, declared that they think Congress should use a new federal "fairness doctrine" to target conservative speech on television and radio.

But while conservatives are not ashamed to be conservatives, because of the popularity of their ideas about freedom, a strong military, economic growth and traditional values, the liberals at this conference wanted desperately to avoid the use of the term "liberal," apparently because of its association with failed domestic, social and foreign policies. They described themselves and their causes as "progressive."

If this conference has an impact, and the participants were called upon to put pressure on the media and Congress, we should expect increasing references to the term "progressive" in coverage of controversial liberal initiatives, including the proposed agenda for "media reform." The only question is when congressional liberals get enough nerve to aggressively push this authoritarian attempt to muzzle their political opponents.

Free speech threatens one-party rule.  Just ask the GOP.  And the Dems, one election shy of a return to their "rightful" place as ruling party, won't stand for anything that threatens their grip on power.  If they regain the White House in '08, look for more legal limits to be placed on free speech, especially talk radio and the blogosphere.  If you have something to say about that, you'd better say it now.  While you still can legally do so.

Thursday, January 11, 2007


That's what Sen. Ted Kennedy is proposing (shocking, isn't it?).

Sen. Kennedy Seeks Universal Health Plan

WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal government should join the state of Massachusetts in enacting universal health coverage, said Sen. Edward Kennedy, the new chairman of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over numerous health issues.

Kennedy's home state is the first to require everyone to have health insurance, just as drivers must have automobile coverage.

Kennedy has his own version of what universal health coverage would look like. He wants to extend Medicare to all. In his first hearing Wednesday as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the Massachusetts Democrat called on 10 witnesses from all over the country to talk about how to make health care more affordable.

"Insurance coverage is down. Costs are up. And America is heading to the bottom of the league of major nations in important measures of the quality of care," Kennedy said.

(emphasis mine)

The bottom? Really? Then I guess we'll be seeing people hopping on planes to Cuba or North Korea so they can get complicated medical procedures done in nations with higher quality health care. Can't afford a plane ticket? That's OK, take a car ride across the border into Canada. As everyone knows, their healthcare system is a model for others to follow. Or is it? Before you answer that, you may want to check out this website for the documentary Dead Meat. Things up there are not good. And we're about to race into a similar situation at warp speed. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007


There's been something missing from this blog for the past couple of weeks.  You've probably noticed it if you're one of my regular readers.  That something is...content.  New content to be precise.  There are several reasons for this.  Time, convenience, and just plain old laziness are all part of the equation.  If I'm going to continue to maintain this blog, I'm going to need to make some changes in what I'm doing here and how I'm doing it.  I have a few ideas, but there's still some work to do.  In the meantime, you may want to check out these columns:

John Weisman takes a good look at changes at DoD

Ralph Peters looks at the reasoning behind the administration's choice for a new CENTCOM commander

John Stoessel examines the proposal to raise the minimum wage


Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter