You’d think that Sen. Bluster, aka Sen. Kennedy, wouldn’t embarass himself in public anymore but that doesn’t appear to be happening anytime soon based on this Washington Post op-ed, aptly titled “Roberts, Alito Misled Us”. It’s obvious that Sen. Bluster is attempting to mislead the public with this op-ed:

Over that time, my colleagues and I have asked probing questions and listened attentively to substantive responses. Because we were able to learn a great deal about the nominees from those hearings, the Senate has rarely voted along party lines. I voted, for example, for three of President Ronald Reagan’s five Supreme Court nominees.

Sen. Kennedy has rarely asked probing questions or “listened attentively to substantive responses.” One thing that Kennedy’s been reliable on is his character assassination of every Supreme Court nominee that a Republican has presented, starting with John Paul Stevens, and includes Justices Souter, Thomas, Kennedy and O’Connor. That list doesn’t even include his most famous character assassination, that of Robert Bork.

Here’s what Sen. Kennedy said at Justice O’Connor’s confirmation hearings:

“It is offensive to suggest that a potential justice of the Supreme Court must pass some presumed test of judicial philosophy. It is even more offensive to suggest that a potential justice must pass the litmus test of any single-issue interest group. The disturbing tactics of division and distortion and discrimination practiced by the extremists of the new right have no place in these hearings and no place in the nation’s democracy.” — Senator Kennedy, during Sandra Day O’Connor’s 1981 confirmation hearings

(continue reading post »)

In the most upbeat news I’ve read all weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has announce that Israel isn’t ready for a ceasefire…yet:

“I think it needs to be clear that Israel is not in a hurry to have a cease-fire before we reach a situation in which we can say that we achieved the central goals that we set down for ourselves,” Olmert said before Israel’s weekly Cabinet meeting. “This requires a ripening of the diplomatic process and a specific agreement regarding the formation of the force that will operate from the areas from which Israel was threatened in this period.”

Hallejuiah!!!

Israeli officials have said they want to crush the Hezbollah guerrilla group that controls southern Lebanon or at least push it away from the border, which then would be patrolled by a sizable international peacekeeping force.

I hope that Olmert orders the IDF to annihilate Hezbollah’s terrorists and their supporters. In fact, I wish Israel wouldn’t have ‘half-stepped’ their military campaign. I wish they would’ve taken the opportunity to annihilate Hezbollah terrorists right from the start.

Technorati Tags: Olmert, IDF, Hezbollah

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

Anyone thinking that the State Department is Israel’s friend is kidding themselves. Here’s proof positive:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is abruptly breaking off her diplomatic mission in the Mideast and returning to Washington after Israel’s deadly attack on a Lebanese village, a U.S. official said Sunday. Rice, who planned to head back to the United States on Monday morning, had hoped to leave the region after concrete progress on ending the fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah militia in southern Lebanon. But her work was hampered severely by Israel’s missile strike early Sunday that killed more than 50 people, including many children.

The coward that wouldn’t let the AP reporter mention them by name should be ashamed of himself/herself. This official completely ignores the fact that Sheik Nasrallah has promised more missile attacks on Israel:

Nasrallah also dismissed a new diplomatic effort by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to bring about cease-fire, saying the United States wants fighting to continue. His statement came as Rice arrived in the Mideast to visit Israel; a possible Lebanon stop has not been announced.
—————
“The bombardment of Afula and its military base is the beginning…, Nasrallah said. “Many cities in the center (of Israel) will be targeted in the ‘beyond Haifa’ stage if the savage aggression continues on our country, people and villages.”

(continue reading post »)

From time to time, I check out various liberal websites, sometimes for a chuckle, sometimes just to shake my head at their political analysis. This week, I found something that shows their political analysis skills are woefully lacking:

Another Week in the Life of the GOP
By Ian Christy
Posted on Fri Jul 28th, 2006
Our quote of the week offers more proof that Republicans are hopelessly out of touch:
“Not too many people work at minimum wage anymore. I don’t think it gets you anywhere politically.'’ — Barry Bennett, chief of staff for Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) on raising the minimum wage. [Columbus Dispatch, 7/28/06]

The sad thing is that Christy thinks that raising the minimum wage is an issue that enough people think so passionately about that they’ll abandon the GOP in sufficient numbers to elect Democrats. He couldn’t be more wrong. The people that think of the minimum wage with such passion are already Democrats. That issue is what’s best described as a turnout issue, something that increases turnout of your base.

As Karl Rove says, the key to winning elections and increasing the size of the majority is in increasing the size of your base, which is what he’s worked towards daily since the day after the first inauguration. (continue reading post »)

It’s crystal clear that Ned Lamont is creating alot of problems for the traditional left, especially amongst Jewish voters. That’s only one of the problems that a Lamont primary victory would pose.

“It does present a dilemma,” said Steve Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. “If you consider yourself first and foremost part of the pro-Israel community, you will stick with Joe Lieberman,” said Grossman, who also is a past president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “If you’re so overwhelmingly convinced that ending the war as soon as possible is of paramount importance, I could understand why you would find Joe Lieberman a candidate you could no longer support.”

Would a Lamont primary victory tell traditionally loyal Jewish liberals that their issues just aren’t that important? Lamont has shown a definite disinterest in Israeli matters, barely mentioning Israel on his section about the Middle East.

Lamont’s campaign says he is focused on Israel. “Israel’s security is a topic that is very important to Ned,” said Liz Dupont-Diehl, the campaign’s communications director. “He has a lot of respect for Israel.” She said Lamont had met with a number of Jewish leaders, but Jewish officials say they haven’t sensed any outreach. “I don’t think he’s spoken out effectively to things the mainstream Jewish voters feel,” said Richard Greenfield, publisher of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger.

It’s apparent that Lamont doesn’t care about Jewish voters because he hasn’t reached out to them or shown any understanding of the issues nearest and dearest to them. That isn’t sending a hospitable message to Jewish voters whose biggest concern is the protection of Israel. You can bet that Mssrs. Rove and Mehlman are plotting how they’ll exploit that issue.
(continue reading post »)

Friday, Warren Christopher wrote one of the most insulting op-eds in history. The good news is that Bill Kristol wrote a brilliant counterpoint article to rebut Christopher.

Christopher: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s just-concluded trip to Lebanon, Israel and Rome was an exercise in grace, bravery and, to my regret, wrongly focused diplomacy. Especially disappointing is the fact that she resisted all suggestions that the first order of business should be negotiation of an immediate cease-fire between the warring parties.

Kristol: First, “an immediate cease-fire must take priority, with negotiations on longer-term arrangements to follow.” In other words, the fact that one of the warring parties is a state that had withdrawn from occupied territory and was scrupulously complying with its obligations, and the other is a terror group that was arming itself to the teeth and killing and kidnapping citizens of a neighboring country, is irrelevant.

The term for Christopher’s approach is appeasement, which is based on moral equivalence. As Mr. Kristol notes, thinking that Hezbollah and Israel both have legitimate and equal gripes is insulting. Christopher’s approach amounts to telling Israel that they don’t have a right to defend themselves against terrorists who don’t think twice about killing innocent civilians. Christopher’s approach should be rejected by anyone with a sense of morality. (continue reading post »)

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited the US this week and gave a speech to the Congress on Wednesday, which several Democrats boycotted. The ever classless Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, wearing a cute little pink t-shirt with “TROOPS HOME NOW” across the front, interrupted al-Maliki’s speech with shouts of stupidity and poignant ignorance.

It was just after Prime Minister al-Maliki had made this comment, met with a standing ovation, that he was interrupted:

al-Maliki: My presence here is a testament of the new politics of a democratic Iraq.

Ladies and gentlemen, in a short space of time, Iraq has gone from a dictatorship to a transitional administration, and now to a fully fledged democratic government.

This has happened despite the best efforts of the terrorists who are bent on either destroying democracy or Iraq, but by the courage of our people who defied the terrorists every time they were called upon to make a choice, by risking their lives for the ballot box. They have stated over and over again, with their ink-stained fingers waving in pride, that they will always make the same choice.

Over fear…

Code Stupid: “IRAQIS WANT THE TROOPS TO LEAVE!  BRING THEM HOME NOW!  IRAQIS WANT THE TROOPS TO LEAVE!  BRING THEM HOME NOW!  END THE OCCUPATION!"

Oh, good lord lady.  She wasn’t even embarrassed by the fact that THE Iraqi representative was saying the opposite and had just received a standing ovation.  PM al-Maliki paused and grimaced in irritation.   Makes one wonder if the "terrorists bent on either destroying democracy or Iraq" isn’t Code Commie-Pinko.

Watch the Speech (via C-Span)

Watch the Interruption (hat tip: Expose the Left)

Read the Transcript (via Real Clear Politics)

How did this rude and obnoxious Code Pink rep get a ticket to the gallery for the Maliki speech?  A usual suspect:  NY-D Congressman Major Owens.  Liberals can’t stop misusing democracy if their lives depended upon it.

Meanwhile, Howard Dean called the distinguished al-Maliki an "anti-Semite".  Odd, since he’s been spotted wearing a keffiyeh like anti-Semite Yasser Arafat.

Because the Iraqi Prime Minister hasn’t publicly condemned Hezbollah attacks on Israel, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y said: "It makes me question what are we fighting for over there. Is it going to be enlightened leadership of Arab moderates, or the same old nonsense, replacing Saddam Hussein with some other unhelpful government?"

Let’s get real.  Saddam was not an "unhelpful government," he was a terrorist who killed his own people, Jews and citizens of neighboring nations. Al-Maliki is not another Saddam, nor is he an "anti-Semite."  Saddam, who paid young men and women to blow up Israelis, was an anti-Semite.  Hitler was an anti-Semite.  What we’re fighting for "over there", Congressman, is the freedom of an oppressed people and a secure Iraq that will be an anchor in the Middle East.  Here are just a few examples of how the new democracy in Iraq has changed the Middle East:

(continue reading post »)

That’s Andy McCarthy’s opinion of the Seattle murder rampage yesterday. Here’s part of Andy’s post:

A Muslim man walks into not just any building in Seattle, not even just any identifiably Jewish location in Seattle, but into the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, whose mission since 1926, according to the website it maintains, is to “ensure Jewish survival and to enhance the quality of Jewish life locally, in Israel and worldwide.”
The Muslim man has obviously not only carefully chosen the target but cased the place. There’s a security system, so he waits until someone attached to the Federation enters using her access code, then he pounces, forcing his way through the open door. He brandishes a large caliber, semi-automatic handgun. He announces that he’s a Muslim angry at Israel. Then he randomly, wantonly opens fire, shooting six women, one of whom is pregnant, one of whom is killed.
So what happens? The police don’t even want to admit that he’s Muslim (”You could infer that,” the police chief tells the reporters who press this patently relevant question). And the FBI insists it’s not terrorism.
Now, it could not conceivably be more clear that it is terrorism. If the FBI is saying they can’t link him to any known terrorist group, that doesn’t mean it’s not terrorism. It’s too early in the investigation to have run down whether the guy has ties to known groups; even if he doesn’t, not all terrorism is committed by known groups (sometimes the acts of terror are how we get to know them); and even if he is acting alone, federal law recognizes the concept of lone-wolf terrorism. It is terrorism because it is a sneak attack, in this case against civilians, which is motivated by a purpose to affect government policy and/or further a political/social/religious cause. The shooter was not there to rob the register or kill someone he knew over some private dispute.

It sounds like he simply hated Jews and that he acted on that hate, which sounds like terrorism to me. Mr. McCarthy is right on the money in highlighting this fundamentalist mindset to everyone. Strip away all the peripheral issues (According to Hugh, the Agenda Media has picked up on his “history of mental” issues.) and it’s still obvious that we’re dealing with a terroristic mindset.

Just because they haven’t identified a group that he’s with doesn’t mean that he isn’t associated with a terrorist group.

Technorati Tags: Seattle Murder, Terrorism, Andrew McCarthy, Hugh Hewitt

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

It’s time that John Murtha came clean and showed us who he represents. In the past, people refered to Murtha as a “Democratic hawk”, something that I didn’t totally buy into. I certainly don’t buy into it anymore.

Still, it’s worth noting that Murtha got a -2 rating from Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel for 2003-2004. A -2 rating is roughly a D- or an F. Here’s how VoteSmart worded it:

2003-2004 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel’s position, Representative Murtha received a rating of -2.

The ‘parent’ organization for Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel is United for Peace & Justice, which advocates, among other things, getting us out of Iraq. Immediately. Here’s their official position on Iraq:

1. Bring the U.S. troops home now.

2. Iraqi sovereignty must be reestablished immediately.

3. The Iraqi people, not foreigners, should make the decisions about the future of their country, including security. Iraqis should decide the structure of their economy and control Iraq’s reconstruction. The corporate invasion of Iraq must be ended and the privatizations laws passed under the occupation repealed. Labor and human rights should also be guaranteed.

4. The United States should pay for the reconstruction of and reparations to Iraq, in accordance with international law.

5. The United Nations and other international organizations should refuse to endorse or collaborate with the U.S. occupation of Iraq. But once the U.S. ends its occupation, if representative sectors of Iraqi society invite it, the UN, backed by other international bodies such as the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, should help the Iraqis establish mechanisms through which to choose their own leaders and reclaim sovereign control of their own country.

Let’s fast forward to November 17, 2005. Let’s remember John Murtha’s press release from that day:

Staying the course in Iraq is not an option or a policy. I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. I believe it can be accomplished in as little as six months but it must be consistent with the safety of U.S. troops. We must insist that the Iraqis step up and seize their own destiny. (continue reading post »)

I’ll be blunt: I believe Kofi Annan is the worst the United Nations Secretary General in my lifetime, and that’s no small achievement considering past secretaries general. All the while Annan suffers minimal criticism from the United States and the European. He’s so inept, he’s dangerous.

Besides the rampant corruption — the Oil-for-Food Program, for instance — he’s allowed millions of people throughout the world to die at the hands of dictators, terrorists and other assorted thugs while he belly aches about the United States treatment of terrorists.

When he does act, he sends a bunch of so-called peacekeepers who have been known to prey on the very people they’re supposed to protect. In one case, blue-helmeted peacekeepers have reportedly raped African children. Many of these peacekeepers make the brutal French Foreign Legion look like boy scouts.

Annan also insulates himself from criticism by pointing his finger at the United States at the drop of a hat. Each time he slams the Bush Administration, he grows in stature with the Democrat Party and even some Republicans who genuflect at the altar of Globalism. Whenever a UN operation is successful — which isn’t often — it’s been the United States that’s done the bulk of the work and financing, but receives little credit.

Now Kofi Annan, who I suspect is a closet anti-Semite, is accusing the Israeli military of deliberately targeting UN peacekeepers in Lebanon. These peacekeepers — or observers, as the UN portrays them — are seen in a photograph on columnist/blogger Michelle Malkin’s website flying their UN flag directly adjacent to Hezbollah’s flag, so it isn’t much of a stretch to believe that they observed Hezbollah stockpiling weapons and rockets; observed perhaps, but didn’t report.

Few Americans were even aware there were 2,000 peacekeepers or “observers” posted on the Israel-Lebanon. In the six years they’ve been there, what have they been doing?
(continue reading post »)