Petition to Defrock Pfather Pfreaky

Otherwise known as Father Pfleger.

Here he is again at The Trinity United Church Of Christ:


The man is an embarrassment to the Catholic church, so I was pleasantly surprised to find (via Michelle Malkin) that a group of lay Catholic women who call themselves Catholic Women Against Politics And Hate Being Preached From The Pulpit have started a petition drive for the removal of Father Pfleger.

I know a lot of Catholics at the Ace Of Spades Father Pfleger thread were mortified, and embarrassed by this renegade priest being allowed to continue with his abuses against church teaching and tradition. If nothing else, signing the petition is cathartic.

Vote McCain!

I don’t say enough good things about John McCain. The truth of the matter is, I’m an arch-conservative, and let’s face it…McCain has done a lot of things to piss off conservatives, so much so, that it almost seems purposeful. And that causes many conservatives to stew.

Should I put up a McCain campaign button on my website? Should I drink the Koolaid, and become a good little Republican cheerleader for a guy I know is going to frustrate me in many ways as President, (if he wins the Presidency). I’ve never made any bones about whether or not I’d vote for the guy.

Nice Deb is voting for the guy.

The question is…Will I be able to enthusiastically support his campaign?

Well, the question really is…who would we rather have in the White House? The guy voted most Liberal congresscritter; the one with all the commie friends and terrorist endorsements?

Or the one with the American Conservative Union rating of 82.16, (as opposed to Obama’s lifetime rating of 7.67)?

I don’t know about you, but I’ll take the B- over the F- any day of the week.

And stories like this one make the koolaid taste less bitter:

One evening last July, Sen. John McCain of Arizona arrived at the New Hampshire home of Erin Flanagan for sandwiches, chocolate-chip cookies and heartfelt talk about Iraq. They had met at a presidential debate, when she asked the candidates what they would do to bring home American soldiers — soldiers like her brother, who had been killed in action a few months earlier.

McCain did not bring cameras or a retinue. Instead, he brought his youngest son, James McCain, 19, then a private first class in the Marine Corps about to leave for Iraq. Father and son sat down to hear more about Flanagan’s brother, Michael Cleary, a 24-year-old Army first lieutenant killed by an ambush and roadside bomb.

No one mentioned the obvious: in just days, Jimmy McCain could face similar perils. “I can’t imagine what it must have been like for them as they were coming to meet with a family that –” Flanagan recalled, choking up. “We lost a dear one,” she finished.

McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, has staked his candidacy on the promise that American troops can bring stability to Iraq. What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son, who spent seven months patrolling Anbar Province.

In his 71 years, McCain has confronted war as a pilot, a prisoner and a U.S. senator, but never before as a father. His son’s departure for Iraq brought him the same worry that every military parent feels, friends say, while the young Marine’s experiences there have given him a sustained grunt’s-eye view of the action and private confirmation for his argument that U.S. strategy in Iraq is working.

And then we have…Obama’s confirmation for his argument that U.S. strategy isn’t working:

Uh….he’s still working on finessing, and nuancing his position on that one:

This is a no brainer for me.

From hereon in…I will be strongly endorsing and supporting McCain, (warts and all).

The Narcissistic Qualities Of Barack Obama

The tell-tale “dead eyes”

Much has been written about Barack Obama’s charasmatic personality during his meteoric ascension to the top of the Democratic ticket. A reoccurring theme in many stories has been his apparent narcissistic qualities. Even though, for some time, I’ve been under the impression that Obama does indeed have some narcissistic qualities, I’ve resisted writing anything about it for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, I have no significant background in psychology, myself. I’m no expert, and can only claim to have a basic understanding of narcissistic disorder through what I’ve read independent of any sort of formal instruction. In other words, what do I know?

Secondly, this is a favorite ploy of the left. Bush (and conservatives) have been accused of every type of personality disorder known to man, (including narcissism), though on closer examination, one usually finds the diagnosis’ of disorder to be no deeper than, “we disagree with you so you must be crazy.”

Third…who cares? The man is still considered the second coming to millions even after the Reverend Wright, and William Ayers controversies; even after his terrorist endorsements, and commie connections came to light. So what if he’s in love with himself. To his narcissistic followers, that’s not a bad thing.

Finally…This assessment of Obama could be completely wrong.

But I don’t think so.

There’s just been so much written about Obama’s narcissism, going back over a year, (before he was even taken seriously as a contender), that it seemed worth looking into, and I thought it might be useful to bundle some of it up into one post.

As mentioned above, part of the reason for Obama’s success, I believe is the narcissism of his impressionable followers. Kathleen Parker put it this way at Real Clear Politics:

To play weatherman for a moment, he is a perfect storm of the culture of narcissism, the cult of celebrity, and a secular society in which fathers (both the holy and the secular) have been increasingly marginalized from the lives of a generation of young Americans.

All of these trends have been gaining momentum the past few decades. Social critic Christopher Lasch named the culture of narcissism a generation ago and cited addiction to celebrity as one of the disease’s symptoms — all tied to the decline of the family.

That culture has merely become more exaggerated as spiritual alienation and fatherlessness have collided with technology (YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, etc.) that enables the self-absorption of the narcissistic personality.

Grown-ups with decades under their double chins may have a variety of reasons for supporting Obama, but the youth who pack convention halls and stadiums as if for a rock concert constitute a tipping point of another order.

But it’s Obama’s own apparent narcissism that has most tongues wagging, many of them, psychologists who believe they’re able to detect most of the classic signs of the disorder in him. Here’s one I found in the comments section at The Debatable Land. This is from August, 2007;

Here are the DSM-IV criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (five or more listed below in order to make the diagnosis): 1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements); 2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; 3. Believes that he of she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions); 4. Requires excessive admiration; 5. Has a sense of entitlement , i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations; 6. Is interpersonally exploitative, ie., takes advantage; 7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with feelings and needs of others; 8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her; 9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

While most (if not all) politicians exhibit some or many of these characteristics to one degree or another, one has to meet at least five of these criteria for the diagnosis. I’ll let people decide for themselves. In my humble but professional opinion (clinical psychologist), my observations confirm to me that he clearly meets five and most likely more of the above criteria. I have never given a diagnostic opinion for anyone without evaluating them personally, so I am reluctant to make this decision. However, as a psychologist may be employed as an expert profiler, this is my firm diagnostic impression. I’m interested in what others may think, keeping in mind their training and experience.

Another commenter with personal experience with NPD:

Personally, I think Obama clearly has narcissistic personality disorder.
My mother was diagnosed with it also. So I too have a really good idea of what it looks like. And to me, in Obama’s case, it’s clearcut.

And when I’ve looked online, I’ve seen that I’m not the only child of a narcissist who thinks this about Obama.

If you look at Obama’s language in books and speeches, there’s actually a great deal of “I” usage. And he’s prone to occasionally speaking in the third person. What I find more striking is that his “we” usage is often odd, as though everyone is an extension of him. My mother does exactly the same thing (a naive observer could even mistake this for selflessness). As well as the use of vague pretty language (everyone thinks she’s on their side) and the smooth charm.

Another person who claims to have a background in Psychiatry:

…In fact a friend of mine who is a police psychologist examined a few of Obama’s videos and appearances where he was defending himself and we both saw the classic symptoms showed by suspects when they lie. To be specific we know that when a person is lying they will become extremely defensive, refusing to answer any questions and even accusing you of lying, meaning they have something to hide.

Of course there is nothing wrong with defending oneself against an attack, but in Obama’s case you notice it’s never about the specific charges against him, it’s always about the attacker – his “persecutor”. It’s about deflection. It’s like the kid who gets caught in the cookie jar by Mom only to complain about what his sister is doing.

Here’s Dennis Prager troubled by Michelle Obama’s remark about being proud of the United States for the first time in her life:

Sen. Obama later explained his wife’s remarks this way: “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America.”

I do not believe that Sen. Obama’s explanation is valid. I think Mrs. Obama said what she meant and meant what she said. But even if Sen. Obama’s reformulation of his wife’s remarks is valid, the fact remains that the closest person in the world to Barack Obama has never been proud of the politics of America, that it took her husband’s primary wins to change a lifelong lack of pride in anything about America’s political life. That’s troubling on its own — for his and her contempt for American politics. And it is even more troubling for its narcissism — do Sen. Obama and his wife believe that only his success has made American politics worthy of pride?

We are therefore confronted with either a contempt for America — if the original statement reflects Michelle Obama’s thinking — or some real narcissism on the part of both Sen. and Mrs. Obama. That narcissism is easily demonstrated. Just imagine if Hillary Clinton or John McCain had said they supported their spouse’s view that until their primary victories, they had never been proud of their country’s politics. Either of them would have looked foolish before the American people. That is why many believe Sen. Obama has been getting a relatively free ride in the American media, which largely adore him.

More blog buzz about Obama’s narcissistic personality here, here, and here.

Mark Steyn was taken aback by Obama’s reaction to Bush’s Knesset speech. If you remember, Obama was convinced that Bush, when speaking of appeasers, was referring directly to him:

It says something for Democrat touchiness that the minute a guy makes a generalized observation about folks who appease terrorists and dictators the Dems assume: Hey, they’re talking about me. Actually, he wasn’t — or, to be more precise, he wasn’t talking only about you. Yes, there are plenty of Democrats who are in favor of negotiating with our enemies, and a few Republicans, too — President Bush’s pal James Baker, whose Iraq Study Group was full of proposals to barter with Iran and Syria and everybody else. But that general line is also taken by at least three of Tony Blair’s former cabinet ministers and his senior policy adviser, and by the leader of Canada’s New Democratic party, and by a whole bunch of bigshot Europeans. It’s not a Democrat-election policy, it’s an entire worldview. Even Barack Obama can’t be so vain as to think his fly-me-to-[insert name of enemy here] concept is an original idea.

Yes, he can.

Then there’s Obama’s bizarre plan to rid the world of nuclear weapons:

I guess he’s going to be able to achieve all that based on his charm and good looks.

I may be just an armchair, amateur psychologist, but that right there is scary.

And here’s a recent example of what I would call narcissistic behavior, caught by Slublog at AOSHQ:

Yesterday, President Bush attended a number of fundraisers for John McCain. The media was not invited, and Barack Obama was outraged.

If you blinked, you missed it – John McCain and fellow GOPer President Bush held a private fund-raiser Tuesday night, but Democrat Barack Obama made sure it lasted all day. “No cameras, no reporters, and we all know why,” Obama said of McCain’s powwow with Bush.

“Sen. McCain doesn’t want to be seen, hat in hand, with the President whose failed policies he promises to continue.”

You guys know where this is going, right?Yeah, he’s being a hypocrite. That’s not the only private event he’s attended, either. And those “bitter” comments? They were also made at a private fundraiser. I guess Obama doesn’t want to be seen, hat in hand, with billionaires. Given the stupid remarks he made about guns and religion, “we all know why.”

UPDATE: (June 18):

Mary Katharine Ham agrees with me, noting that Obama is now selling on his campaign website:

…a faux-leather-bound collector’s edition DVD of the “More Perfect Union” speech. A piece of oratory ripe for canonization at the age of just three months. A piece of oratory so sage in its insight, so true in its observations, so riveting in its delivery, that the orator himself admitted it was all bunk just one month after its delivery, and yet still believes that you should own a copy of this “landmark speech” from which he has since entirely backtracked.

Not only is this a ridiculously egotistical move, even for a presidential candidate, but it’s yet another appropriation of traditional patriotic words and imagery by a man who has claimed to dislike the manipulation of patriotic imagery for political purposes.

UPDATE (July 14):

A couple more examples:

The Obama Presidential seal:

And Obama’s desire to give a campaign speech at Germany’s historic Brandenburg Gate:

The gate stood for 28 years behind the Berlin Wall in communist East Germany’s heavily fortified border zone. Probably the capital’s best-known monument, it was once a symbol of Germany’s Cold War division and now stands for its reunification.

Steg (spokesman for the chancellor), noted that the Brandenburg Gate has become “a place with a particular exclusivity, intensity and symbolism” in view of past speeches by sitting U.S. presidents and events such as a large rally in solidarity with the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

As a result, he said Merkel has voiced “great skepticism as to whether it is appropriate to bring an election campaign being fought not in Germany but in the United States to the Brandenburg Gate.”

Steg said that “no German (chancellor) candidate would think of using (Washington’s) National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for rallies, because it would be considered inappropriate.”

Angela Merkel reportedly found Obama’s plan to be “a bit odd”.

In a famous 1987 speech that used the gate as a backdrop, President Reagan urged Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to “open this gate” and “tear down this wall.”

In 1994, four years after German reunification, President Clinton spoke on the other, formerly eastern, side of the gate – declaring that “Berlin is free.”

Now Obama the candidate wants his turn?

UPDATE: (July 18):

Charles Krauthammer writes in The Audacity Of Vanity:

Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?

Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.

It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment” — when, among other wonders, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.” Obama apparently works alone.

Obama may think he’s King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.

After all, in the words of his own slogan, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” which, translating the royal “we,” means: ” I am the one we’ve been waiting for.” Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his lectern, until general ridicule — it was pointed out that he was not yet president — induced him to take it down.

UPDATE (July 23):

Yep, more and more people are are beginning to notice:

The Boston Globe, The Audacity Of Ego:

Barack Obama always was a larger-than-life candidate with a healthy ego. Now he’s turning into the A-Rod of politics. It’s all about him.

He’s giving his opponent something other than issues to attack him on: narcissism.

A convention hall isn’t good enough for the presumptive Democratic nominee. He plans to deliver his acceptance speech in the 75,000 seat stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Before a vote is cast, he’s embarking on a foreign policy tour that will use cheering Europeans – and America’s top news anchors – as extras in his campaign. What do you expect from a candidate who already auditioned a quasi-presidential seal with the Latin inscription, “Vero possumus” – “Yes, we can”?


I used to think he was Captain Bullshit.

Now I think he is so dangerously narcissistic his ego just warps the world around him, like gravity, so that everything really does wind up revolving around him.

Patrick Ruffini (via HotAir):

This is pretty extraordinary. A candidate for the American Presidency is using flyers printed in German to turn people out for his campaign rally in Berlin on Thursday. This flyer can be found on a bilingual page on advertising the event … The German flyers bear Obama’s campaign logo and say “Paid for by Obama for America.” …

So, this isn’t just some sober, high-minded foreign policy speech, part of a foreign trip occurring under the auspices of his official Senate office. It is a campaign rally occuring on foreign soil. They are using the same tactics to turn out Germans to an event as they would to any rally right here in America.

He calls this “breathtakingly arrogant”.

Glenn Reynolds says Obama seems to be running for President of the World.

UPDATE (July 24):

This spoof poster about Obama’s trip to Berlin says it all:

Via Newsbusters: Jake Tapper from ABC is one of the reporters covering Obama on his overseas trip. Here are some of his thoughts:

Obama’s campaign has been pulling out all the stops, distributing these flyers in German to round up a huge crowd for his speech tonight, one the Obama campaign is billing at almost presidential. Even though he is not the president.

-to his hobnobbing with world leaders, to his military exercises in Israel and Iraq, everything about this trip is meticulously designed to make you comfortable with Obama as commander in chief. That started with his newly retrofitted plane. The American flag on the tail wing has been replaced by an enormous Obama “O.” And the slogan “change we can believe in” is on the sides. [Tapper is now inside the plane.] Inside, the plane has been redesigned to separate the senator and his staff from us lowly reporters. And this was the site of a big media mutiny the other day as Obama officials insisted they’d be able to brief us on background as anonymous officials. One of them said that’s what we did at the White House during the Clinton years. We pointed out they don’t work at the White House. Other flourishes, an Obama napkin holder after we refueled in Ireland.

UPDATE: July 28:

What I call “narcissism”, J.R. Dunn at the American Thinker calls “hubris”:

The operative term here is “hubris”. A word of Attic Greek origin, hubris was a major concept animating classical Greek thought. Hubris is overweening pride, an arrogance so profound and so visible as to affront the gods themselves. Hubris was a quality often identified with Greek tragic heroes. The hero allowed simple human pride in his accomplishments and station to burgeon to offensive proportions, at which point the wheels of fate began rolling. The ending was never good — the valiant Ajax stabs himself to death at a lonely spot, the kingly Oedipus is transformed into a howling, self-blinded wreck.
Barack Obama embodies hubris in chemically pure form. Not that he’s a tragic hero, or a hero of any sort, to anyone apart from his deluded legions of college freshmen. Beyond cleaning Hillary’s clock, he has no accomplishments to speak of, and as for his station… A glance at Trent Lott, Robert Byrd, and Ted Kennedy clearly reveals that “U.S. senator” is not a position of particular pride.
But even if he hasn’t founded cities, destroyed monsters, or led men into battle, Obama does share one quality with the heroes of the ancient world: an absolute conviction that he is superior to the ordinary run of humanity. Like them, Obama believes himself a man of destiny, and like them, Obama will go over the edge.
UPDATE: (August 2):
Another American Thinker, Kyle-Anne Shiver believes Obama is a gift from God:
Barack Obama actually appears to be running against God. By claiming that he can do things only God can do, like heal “broken souls” and fill up “holes” in people’s hearts, make all “divisions” go away and disperse with all inconvenient “distractions,” Barack Obama claims power that no mortal man, and certainly no mere president has ever had, or ever will have, no matter how much money he has to spend or how brilliant or how able he may be.
Most rational human beings know this without thinking hard.
That’s why this isn’t an ordinary election, and why it is becoming more absurd by the hour.
-Snip -
Obama has arisen from nothingness, from one accomplishment-free political gig to another, propped up by leftists adulators and sycophants, to offer a perfect portrait of socialism’s eternal snare. Forget God; put your hope in mankind. Human arrogance and narcissistic pride. From the fall in the Garden to the present, from generation to generation, Satan’s delusion holds sway with many.
Barack Obama is walking, talking, breathing narcissism. The iconography of his campaign is nothing, if not the glorification of Obama, a solitary, quite mortal man. They must glorify Obama’s image because, in reality, he has no accomplishments that bear mention.
Obama struts his nothingness with grace; even his detractors admit that.
What could more openly and more amply demonstrate the absolute emptiness of socialism’s promise than the perfectly empty resume of its newest hero?
The salvation that Obama offers comes in the form of radically changing America to a utopian state, which he contends will fix our “broken souls.” That simply is not within the province of his abilities.
As Pope Benedict has so wisely and emphatically stated:
Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.
Truth and Tolerance; p. 116
Barack Obama stands front and center now, offering the age-old false promise that mankind can save itself through “collective redemption,” and simply because he employs Christian language and symbols, no genuine lovers of God will be fooled.
Hope in God?
Or hope in Obama?
I thank God every day for giving us Americans such a clear and easy choice. Perhaps He is simply using Barack Obama to separate a bit of chaff from the grain.
Excellent piece.

LAST UPDATE: (August 7):
I’ll let the RNC’s, Audacity Watch take it from here.

What’s With The Dems’ Commie Style Posters?

I don’t know about you, but I think communist propaganda posters are back in style.

Obama started the trend. Compare and contrast:

Now Hillary has released her new poster:

How about McCain? Surely he wants to look progressive, too?

What an old fuddy-duddy.

Then again…he does have this:

For more compare and contrasts see Garling Gauge.

Hat tip: Cao’s blog.

Thanks to The People’s Cube for ‘Grope’ and ‘Damn’ because they cracked me up.


For some interesting background on the artist behind the Obama posters, see See-Dubya at Michelle Malkin.

Flight 93 Memorial Blogburst #32

Are you thinking of visiting the Flight 93 crash site? If you plan your visit for the weekend of August 2nd, you can help stop the gigantic terrorist memorial mosque that will soon start rising from the ground there.

August 2nd is the next scheduled public meeting of the Memorial Project, where anyone can sign up to speak during the public comment period. Tom Burnett Sr. (whose son Tom Jr. broke into the cockpit of the hijacked airplane) announced last Friday that he and Alec Rawls will be traveling to Somerset for the August meeting. They will be rallying outdoors, speaking at the public meeting, and visiting the crash site.

Mr. Burnett is asking other concerned parties who can make it to please come. The crash site is a beautiful and meaningful place to visit in any case, and here is a chance to make your visit even more meaningful. It is an opportunity to in some small way follow the lead of the heroes of Flight 93 by helping to stop the re-hijacking of Flight 93.

Mr. Burnett’s announcement came on the Mancow Muller radio show, where Congressman Tancredo was also a guest. When controversy over the Crescent of Embrace design first arose back in 2005, Tom Tancredo was instrumental in forcing the Park Service to alter the design. Last fall he noted that the giant crescent remains unchanged in the so-called redesign and asked the Park Service to scrap the design entirely. On Friday he said that he would help Mancow Muller and Tom Burnett to stop the crescent design (audio, 19 seconds):

Certainly I will do everything I can to help you. I will bring it to the attention of my colleagues. I’ll use the time I have on the floor of the House to rail against it.


Mr. Burnett said that he would join Mancow in going to jail for taking sledgehammers to the crescent memorial if this tribute to the terrorists actually gets built. (Audio, 25 seconds.)

Cao has the whole segment of Mancow and the two Toms up as a YouTube video, with her own background graphics.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Wednesday’s Hero:General Benjamin S. Griffin

General Benjamin S. Griffin

General Benjamin S. Griffin, commanding general, U.S. Army Materiel Command, talks with Brig. Gen. ShallalAbdul Rasool Habeeb.

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can go here.

By: Indian Chris, Right Wing and Right Minded

Moonbat Wants To Arrest John Bolton

Did you know that there is an *original* moonbat. Oh yes! His name is George Monbiot, (a UK journalist and Green Party member) and I’m guessing the word “moonbat” is a play on his last name. I guess if I really wanted to take the time, I could cite some examples of how Monbiot earned the nickname. But his latest antic, is enough to enter him into the Moonbat Hall of Fame, all by itself.

Because this Moonbat wants to execute a citizen’s arrest of John Bolton’s mustache, and is putting the call out to fellow moonbats. Can you believe this guy?!:

Author George Monbiot (original inspiration for the term “moonbat”) has declared that this coming Wednesday, after former UN Ambassador John Bolton speaks, that he plans to arrest the American for “war crimes.”

After running through a jawdropping series of falsehoods, exaggerations, and ignorant comments about Bolton’s career, Moonbat then issues his challenge:

Only when those who help to launch illegal wars fear punishment will future governments desist from launching them. As citizens I believe we have a duty to try to deter future war crimes. So I propose that we allow John Bolton to speak here, and then carry out a citizen’s arrest.
I’d like to see him try. John Bolton has chunks of guys like Moonbiot in his stool.
Meanwhile, somewhere in Minnesota, another Moonbat is far along in his long-shot bid (having already attended a court hearing) to have President Bush arrested when he attends the Republican Convention in August, for basically the same reasons.
Moonbats have been harboring these sick fantasies about “Bushco” for too long, now. These people are deranged.
It almost makes you wish for the Democrats to gain complete control of the government just to shut them the hell up.
By two ‘heavily built’ security guards:

Mr Monbiot was blocked by two heavily-built security guards at the end of the one-and-a-half hour appearance, before he could serve a “charge sheet” on him.

After being released by the guards the columnist – a fierce critic of the 2003 American-led invasion – made a dash through the rain-soaked tented village in a failed attempt to catch up with Mr Bolton.

During Mr Bolton’s talk, to a packed-out audience, Mr Monbiot had asked Mr Bolton what difference there was between him and a Nazi war criminal.

Mr Bolton said the war was legal, partly because Iraq had failed to comply with a key and binding UN resolution after the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

On the war’s legality, he added: “This is not my personal opinion, this is the opinion of the entire legal apparatus of the US government.”

Nuh uh. It’s still an illegal war…I saw it on a bumpersticker.

Is Violent Jihad Starting To Lose Its Allure To Radical Islamists?

In the past, moderate Muslim’s have condemned violence in the name of Islam. What’s surprising to hear now, is, more radical Muslims are doing it, too.

Lawrence Wright, author of The Looming Tower , (a book about al Qaeda’s road to 9/11) was recently interviewed by NPR, and had this to say:

… what’s fascinating is that they’re attacking (terrorism) on two grounds: One is that [violence is] not practical because it hasn’t achieved their purposes. And secondly, it’s sinful. It is placing the souls of the people who commit this violence in great jeopardy.”

Wright tells NPR’s Guy Raz that the two players behind the rift are Ayman Al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida’s No. 2 man, and Sayyed Imam Al-Sharif, also known as Dr. Fadl. Sharif, who wrote al-Qaida’s manual for jihad training, recently released a manifesto refuting those principles. (Here).

The fact that al-Qaida’s architect has changed his mind, Wright says, makes violence “harder to justify using that kind of thinking.”

He says al-Qaida is unraveling in some respects.

Wright goes on to say al Qaeda, much reduced from what they were, and clearly losing in Iraq, are losing popularity all across the Muslim world because Muslims tend to be the main victims.

I suppose for some, it’s still okay as long as Christians, Hindus, and Jews are the only victims, but progress is progress.

Wright also says

… people are beginning to question the use of violence not only in the case of al-Qaida but even in resistance movements in Palestine.”

Could we be on the verge of a major sea change in the way radical Muslims view their cause, and how to reach their goals? And if we are…don’t we have the Iraq war to thank for it?

Although there will always be those who don’t believe that Iraq was a proper battleground in the war on terror, there are others (like Abu Musab Zarqawi) who begged to differ.

And the truth of the matter is, the insurgents in Iraq who were sympathetic to al Qaeda’s cause, and saw themselves as brothers in arms with them against the American invaders, needed to see the animalistic brutality of al Qaeda up close and personal to see the light.

Terrorism just ain’t cool.

And the more al Qaeda in Iraq continues its method of operation, the more the Iraqi people turn against it.

If radical Muslims from around the world, are looking at terrorism, now as the wrong way to go about reaching their goals, (in part because of what they’ve observed in Iraq), then I think that would have to be considered a positive by-product of the Iraq War.


And very interesting, via Weasel Zippers:

al Qaeda discusses losing Iraq.

A Memorial Day Tribute

I love this quote: “The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage”.

God bless our fallen soldiers.

Profiles of some of our fallen heroes, here.

A Day That Will Live In Infamy

On May 24, 2007, I started this blog. Yes, today is my one year blogiverary, and I’m going to celebrate it by not being around to blog. The whole fam is heading for Memphis for the weekend. But before I leave I thought I’d do some reminiscing about the early days of this blog.

Day one: I try unsuccessfully  to log into The Hostages Blog to be a part time poster. Instead, I create my own blog, by mistake. My first five blog posts (not counting, “Hello World” *rolls eyes*) are, GASP!, Dammit!, I hate My Blog, This Is Dumb, and That Don’t Make No Sense. I am totally befuddled and out of my league. My friends from the Hostages and elsewhere come over (at my behest) and offer support and helpful tips. I figure I’ll play around with it for a few days…then delete the whole thing.

Day Two: I decide to try to post a picture. It ain’t much…but it beats the one I posted at the Hostages.

I’m literally starting from scratch. No clue what I’m doing.

Day Three and onward: I’m hopelessly addicted.

Incredibly, from that humble beginning, I managed to be a top 10 finalist for Best New Blog in the 2007 Blog Awards.

Some Nice Deb Stats:

My best day ever: January 3, 2008 For Kumari Fulbright’s mugshot.

Second to best was Soldier Does Mean Harry Caray Immitation video, that was a big hit on July 3rd.

Both due to massive AOSHQ links.

Third would be My Reds For Obama post from earlier this month.

My top three hit magnets:

#1 Man Claims He Was Molested By Bigfoot

#2 Did The Chuck Norris Endorsement Cause The Huckabee Surge?

#3 The United States Redneck Special Forces


See what my adorable husband had made up for me?

He presented this banner to me in Memphis, (along with a bottle of champagne, and box of chocolates). He really is too good to me.

Mpls Activist/Paulbot Wants Bush Arrested At Republican Convention In August

Minneapolis activist/Paulbot/Gadfly, Ed Felien has filed a brief with a Hennepin County court charging Bush of crimes of murder, conspiracy to fix prices, and conspiracy to distribute heroin.

First, his pursuit of a war against the government of Iraq was not done in legitimate defense of national interest but rather in pursuit of personal wealth. His administration lied about the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and they lied about a connection between Iraq and international terrorists. They knew Iraq did not pose a threat to the United States. The only reasonable explanation for George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq was that he stood to personally benefit from the war.


The price of a barrel of crude oil has almost doubled since the beginning of the Iraq War. That has implications for the price of gasoline at every service station in Hennepin County.


Finally, George W. Bush should be arrested and prosecuted for his collusion with the opium warlords in Afghanistan to distribute heroin in Hennepin County.

The National Drug Intelligence Center in its Minnesota Drug Threat Assessment report of August, 2001, said “Historically, heroin abuse has been low in Minnesota, but there are signs of increased use. There were 36 opiate-related deaths in Hennepin County through September 2000, compared with 27 in all of 1999.”

A reporter from the Mpls. StarTrib was at the court hearing this morning, and reported on it thus:

During Felien’s nearly 20 minutes of wide-ranging argument, Larson advised him several times to slow down so the court reporter could capture his words.

Felien touched on Bush family history, claiming that the family has influential ties to “Saudi princes” as well as Afghanistan drug lords and the Mafia. He introduced numerous news articles to the judge regarding the Bush family and oil prices.

- snip -

At the end of a 30-minute hearing, Judge Gary Larson said he would rule in the normal course of business, but he did not provide a time frame. Felien’s request certainly had the feel of a very long shot.

Naturally this guy is a Paulbot who is the publisher of a weekly alternative newspaper, and hangs out with people like this:

Here’s his ‘Arrest George Bush’ piece at Protest RNC (I guess he’s not a ‘real Republican’).


(Keep this on the down low, mmkay?) But you can register here to submit an event on the Protest RNC 2008 event calendar.

Kind of like the Olympia Peace and Justice Community shenanigans some wingnuts (not me!) engaged in, last fall, (if you remember).


Bummer. A “Dr. Frankenfurter”, veteran of the Olympia Peace Community Calendar, reports failure in his attempt at creativity with the Protest RNC 2008 calendar.

“These moonbats delay and verify community events”, he tells me.

Hat tip: Crime Scene KC

Obama’s Reading Material

Wow, I don’t know if this is a book Obama should want to be caught reading, given his image as weak on foreign policy:

Here’s an exerpt from the book via Newsweek:

At the military and political level, we still live in a unipolar world. But along every other dimension—industrial, financial, social, cultural—the distribution of power is shifting, moving away from American dominance. In terms of war and peace, economics and business, ideas and art, this will produce a landscape that is quite different from the one we have lived in until now—one defined and directed from many places and by many peoples.

The post-American world is naturally an unsettling prospect for Americans, but it should not be. This will not be a world defined by the decline of America but rather the rise of everyone else. It is the result of a series of positive trends that have been progressing over the last 20 years, trends that have created an international climate of unprecedented peace and prosperity.

A review from NRO:

What Zakaria misses is that the relative decline of the U.S. is real, but that it already happened.  U.S. share of world GDP in 1945 is estimated to have been about 50%; this more than halved between 1945 and 1980.  The U.S. economic crisis of the 1970s was largely the result of this decline.  I’ve argued at length that the Reagan economic program was a creative and successful response to that crisis that has prevented the U.S. economy from going the way of Europe.  This program was focused on two things: sound money and deregulation, broadly defined.  It’s ironic that, despite the rhetoric, Reagan’s program was premised on a very clear-eyed recognition of relative American decline.  (It’s interesting, by the way, to see Reagan’s take on foreign policy commitments in this light.)

The ability of the U.S. economy to defy historical gravity for the past 25 years has not been automatic: it was earned in a set of pivotal political battles that were pretty much complete by 1984.  The next twenty years comprised, within the American economy, a Twenty Years War to implement this less-regulated system that has now reached maturity. We live in the new economy that it has created.  The danger of misdiagnosis of our current situation is that we will fail to understand the sources of our success and unwittingly throw them away.

Anyhoo….I’m not saying it’s a terrible book, (not having read it myself). I’m  just thinking *symbolically* … Not the best choice for Obama.

Hat tip: Gateway Pundit






Statement From McCain On Obama

Sen. John McCain issued the following statement, yesterday:

After Senator Obama’s own advisors and supporters backtracked from his stated desire to hold summit meetings with the leaders of the world’s worst regimes, Senator Obama himself has begun to reinterpret his stand. He now claims that some ‘fear’ to ‘negotiate’ with the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has called Israel a ‘stinking corpse’ or Ayatollah Khamenei, who called Israel a ‘cancerous tumor.’


I have news for Senator Obama: I have met some very bad people before in my life. It is not fear that drives my opposition to unconditional meetings with Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, and Raul Castro; rather it is my clear understanding that such a course will fail to eliminate the threat posed by these rogue regimes. I don’t fear to negotiate. Instead I have the knowledge and experience to understand the dangerous consequences of a naive approach to Presidential summits based entirely on emotion.

“The question before the American people is which candidate is best able to secure the peace for the next generation of Americans, a peace that will keep our nation safe, prosperous and free. Senator Obama’s desire to meet unconditionally in his first year at the presidential level with Iranian leaders is reckless, and demonstrates poor judgment that will make the world more dangerous.

With respect to Cuba, it is not America that needs to make unilateral concessions to the Castros – a ‘gesture of good faith’ as Senator Obama said yesterday – it is the Castro brothers who must allow the freedom they have so long denied to the Cuban people. Free the political prisoners, open the media, allow people to worship, schedule free and fair elections, and the United States will be happy to meet and talk. Until then, we cannot compromise our principles.

“Senator Obama has consistently offered his judgment on Iraq, and he has been consistently wrong. He said that General Petraeus’ new strategy would not reduce sectarian violence, but would worsen it. He was wrong. He said the dynamics in Iraq would not change as a result of the ‘surge.’ He was wrong. One year ago, he voted to cut off all funds for our forces fighting extremists in Iraq. He was wrong. Sectarian violence has been dramatically reduced, Sunnis in Anbar province and throughout Iraq are cooperating in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and Shi’ite extremist militias no longer control Basra – the Maliki government and its forces do. British and Iraqi forces now move freely in areas that were controlled by Iranian-backed militias. The fight against al Qaeda in Mosul is succeeding in further weakening that deadly terrorist group, and many key leaders have been killed or captured.

Read the the rest of it at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS.

Good on ya, Johnny. Give him hell.


Free Abdulkarim al-Khaiwani Petition Update

Between the story in The New York Times, a piece in the Swiss paper NZZ and 50+ posts in the blogosphere, Armies of Liberation blogger, Jane Novak has managed to procure 1172 signatures for the petition to free Yemani journalist, al-Khaiwani.

1172 lousy signatures.

WTF? With all due respect…we can do better. How hard is it to spend 30 seconds to sign your name to a petition that has the power to save a person’s life?

A fired up Conservative Belle asks that question and a whole lot more at her website.

Bottom Line:

Go sign the damn petition!


Posted in Bleg. 1 Comment »

Il State Senator:I have been advised to leave Barack alone…

Very Interesting. In 2002, the ‘Prince of Peace’, ‘Lamb of Chicago’ Barack Obama had to be physically restrained during an altercation in a room off the Il Senate floor where Senators Obama and Rickey Hendon had been shouting at one another.

Jim Geraghty reports:

For his part, the rarely reticent Hendon won’t discuss the altercation, except to confirm that it occurred. “I have been advised to leave Barack alone and that is what I am going to do,” Hendon said. “I am going to let things stay in the past. It happened. That’s all I can say. It happened.”

Some questions from Geraghty:

Lots of people get angry, and even the best of us have our tempers flare every now and then. But is this incident ignored because the image of a furious Obama, having to be physically restrained, so contrasts the nice guy/secular messiah image we’re seeing in the media?

Boy, that quote from Hendon sure sounds like clichéd dialogue from a mob witness from a cop movie, huh? Who “advised him to leave Barack alone”?

Any Democrat want to raise John McCain’s alleged “temper issues” after this?

I’ll answer that last one for him. Yeah. Of course they will.

They’re just that brazen.

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,591,658 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 509 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: