The Left's Conspiracy to Kill Free Speech... er.. Talk Radio

In today's GrassTopsUSA.com Action Alert, Don Feder discusses the Liberal Left's potential reinstatment of the (un)Fairness Doctrine (FD), or possibly something worse - the Obamessiah's desire to eliminate free speech.

After eight years in the wilderness, the left expects a clean sweep in the 2008 election -- the presidency (and with it the federal bureaucracy) and larger majorities in both houses of Congress.

Looking ahead, liberals are determined to derail potential opposition to their plans to accelerate the deconstruction of America. Consequently, they have targeted talk radio. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is just one facet of their scheme to eviscerate the only part of the media controlled by conservatives.

Crucial to an understanding of the jihad against talk radio is this: The left will do anything to gag its opponents. From the college campus to the halls of Congress (think campus speech codes, think hate crimes legislation, think speech-suppression zones surrounding abortion clinics), liberals are the chief proponents of censorship in America.

How would the Fairness Doctrine affect talk radio?

Ah, the Fairness Doctrine -- the left's weapon of mass media destruction scheduled to detonate over talk radio. The FCC instituted said doctrine in 1949, when talk radio was 30 years in the future, television (limited to three or four channels) was just becoming popular and daily newspapers were the primary source of political opinion.

The Fairness Doctrine (which is anything but) required balance -- a "reasonable opportunity for ample play for free and fair competition of opposing views ... (for all) issues of importance to the public." In practice, it meant that if a TV or radio station say editorialized in favor of one side of an issue, it had to provide equal time to the other side.

In 1987, the Reagan FCC repealed the grotesque anachronism. Now, the left is panting to bring it back.

This is how the Fairness Doctrine would be applied to talk radio: If a station broadcast three hours of Rush Limbaugh -- or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or Dr. Dobson -- in the afternoon, it would have to provide equal time to The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Father Michael Pfleger or Osama bin Laden.

The problem is no one would listen to the later, hence it would sell no advertising and talk stations would very quickly switch to sports, weather, pet psychologists or 1970s' elevator music -- exactly what the left intends.

The Federal Communications Commission is comprised of five individuals -- two from each party, and a fifth appointed by the POTUS. Yet another reason for the American Conservative to hold his nose and vote for McCain November 4. Centrist though he may be, I don't think McCain would support reinstating the FD.

What about the Obamessiah? His position is that he doesn't support the FD. Instead, he would give control of the airwaves back to local communities and control ownership of stations. He would force local stations to meet with review boards of local communities to discuss their content.

The Senator claims he's opposed to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. If so, it's because he has something more ominous in mind.

Obama Press Secretary Michael Oritz says the candidate "considers this debate (over the Fairness Doctrine) to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible... That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increased minority ownership of broadcast and print outlets."

...Once you cut through the soothing Obama cliches, his plans for talk radio are chillingly apparent.

When the left says "diverse viewpoints," it means "our viewpoints." It wants diversity only where it's in the minority. Have you ever heard of liberals complaining about the lack of political diversity on college faculties?

Obama's objective in "opening up the airwaves to as many diverse points of view as possible" is putting doctrinaire leftists on boards of directors and installing them as program directors and in other management positions. He wants programming decisions made not by market forces but based on ideological considerations.

Some critics of talk radio want a shorter renewal period for broadcast licenses. They would force broadcasters to prove that they're "operating in the public interest" -- by meeting regularly with "community spokesmen," incorporating their recommendations in programming decisions and putting representatives of various leftwing interest groups in charge of what goes out over the airwaves.

...The foregoing amounts to stealth Fairness. It makes sense that, in anticipation of its new clout in Washington, the left is intent on silencing the opposition.

When you cast a presidential vote in November, you won't just be voting on federal judges or the future security of our nation, you'll also help to decide the fate of talk radio -- a medium that's gone from 360 stations in 1990 to over 1,300 today.

Well said. I'm not a McCain fan, but the Obamessiah scares me. Not necessarily the Manchurian Candidate, but not too far off. Vote for McCain unless you want another generation of 'fairness' in our media.
Read the entire article here.

Media malaise: no jokes about Obamessiah

In an article in the Columbus fishwrap (can't find it on their website) this morning from the New York Times News Service, writer Bill Carter laments that Obamessiah has no funny side:

"Comedy has been no easier for the phalanx of late-night TV hosts who depend on skewering political leaders for a healthy quotient of their monologues."

"...As yet, no true punch lines have landed."

"Why? the reason cited by most of those involved in the shows is that a fundamental factor is lacking in Obama: A comedic "take" on him, an easy path to an easy laugh, hasn't emerged -- as with the womanizing side of Bill Clinton, the goofy bumbling of George W. Bush or the robotic persona of Al Gore."

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the leftmedia doesn't want to tarnish the image of their obamessiah. I'm sure they have a "kid gloves" policy to leave their golden boy alone.

In another 'funny' piece on the back page of the fishwrap is an article from The Borowitz Report (also mentioned in today's Patriot Post):

THE LAST WORD
Editor’s Note: The following is satire.

“Saying he is ‘sympathetic to late night comedians’ struggle to find jokes to make about me,’ Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) today issued a list of official campaign-approved Barack Obama jokes.

The five jokes, which Sen. Obama said he is making available to all comedians free of charge, are as follows:

1. Barack Obama and a kangaroo pull up to a gas station. The gas station attendant takes one look at the kangaroo and says, ‘You know, we don’t get many kangaroos here.’ Barack Obama replies, ‘At these prices, I’m not surprised. That’s why we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.’
2. A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, ‘I was expecting the farmer’s daughter.’ Barack Obama replies, ‘She’s not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American Dream.’
3. A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says, ‘Why the long face?’ Barack Obama replies, ‘His jockey just lost his health insurance, which should be the right of all Americans.’
4. Q: What’s black and white and red all over? Barack Obama: ‘The New Yorker magazine, which should be embarrassed after publishing such a tasteless and offensive cover, which I reject and denounce.’
5. A Christian, a Jew and Barack Obama are in a rowboat in the middle of the ocean. Barack Obama says, ‘This joke isn’t going to work because there’s no Muslim in this boat’.” —Andy Borowitz

I'm issuing a Fatwa to come up with good Obamessiah jokes (non-racial). I'm sure we can come up with some, but I'll be willing to bet the Leftmedia will never publish anything remotely funny or truly critical.

Monday wisdom from the Gipper

“We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations. George Washington’s words may seem hard and cold today, but history has proven him right again and again. ‘To be prepared for war,’ he said, ‘is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.’ Well, to those who think strength provokes conflict, Will Rogers had his own answer. He said of the world heavyweight champion of his day: ‘I’ve never seen anyone insult Jack Dempsey’.” —Ronald Reagan

--from the Patriot Post

Friday wisdom from The Gipper

“Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes—one rich, one poor—both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other?” —Ronald Reagan

(answer: since the Democrats have been in power - CTD)

(h/t the Patriot Post)

Financial Terrorism on our markets?

In an opinion piece on Investor's Business Daily , Frank Ryan raises the issue: are our markets being manipulated by terrorists?

It only makes sense, in light of the global jihad going on against Western Civilization. The islamists are attacking us militarily, socially, and legally, why not financially?

Congress is investigating oil speculators, bank stocks are being pummeled, and housing prices are dropping precipitously in certain markets. And this is the good news.

I was always taught in my graduate and undergraduate classes that markets are rational, but after looking at the current market valuation of bank stocks, one must seriously consider if our markets are being manipulated.

It would be reasonable to question whether the U.S. is being subjected to an economic attack.

...The terrorists' goal is not to conquer us, but to defeat our way of life. If we limit the tools available to al-Qaida in our financial markets, the success of this type of economic attack would be minimized.

The threat is real. The solutions are realistic. The time is now.

The only contention I have with Ryan's article is the use of 'al-Qaida' as the source. I think that's a bit naive, unless you Connect the Dots from the Saudi royal family/Muslim Brotherhood/Wahhabists to AQ, which makes more sense. They have plenty of funding to attack us financially, thanks to our reliance on OPEC oil. We're directly funding the very people who want to put us out of commission.

Read the entire story here.

Obama's Real Experience: a big goose egg

In an article on NewsMax yesterday, Ronald Kessler details the massive results the Obamessia obtained as a leader, an activist, a lawyer, an Illinois state senator, and a U.S. Senator: exactly none.

A close look at Barack Obama's career reveals it has been even more mediocre than generally recognized.

...Obama admitted that he accomplished little but that he was able to cover that up with fancy talk about change.

In the article, Kessler discusses BHO's experience:

• As an activist to clean up a black housing project in Chicago, BHO greatly exaggerated his involvement in a fight that was begun well before he was there, and continues unsuccessfully today (the project still has a significant amount of asbestos)
• As an attorney, in his nine years he has only ten court appearances and was mostly a pencil pusher working in groups of lawyers, drafting briefs and contracts
• In both the Illinois senate and U.S. senate, BHO has a record for voting only "present," a non-committal vote that accomplishes nothing. Only one measure he sponsored as a senator was enacted, a weak resolution a bill to “promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.” Big whoop.

As Kessler says:

In sum, it would be difficult to imagine a more mediocre record. Most candidates for dog catcher have contributed more to society. Yet with the help of adoring reporters, Obama has managed to parlay extraordinary speaking and political skills into a presidential campaign built on sand.

The idea that America might entrust its security and future to someone who has never demonstrated an ability to get anything of significance done is scary.

I've said it before: be afraid. Be very afraid. We don't need an ineffective pencil-pusher with his heads in the Marxist clouds running our country. Let's hope McCain uses this to his advantage.

Democrats want you to pay MORE for gasoline

A bulletin from GrassTopsUSA.com summed up the actions Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are taking to help you at the gas pump: none!

They are attempting to raise oil prices, increases taxes, and make more poor people yearning for their govvamint Robin Hood style (take from the 'rich' and give to the 'poor') handouts.

After GW's announcement that he would lift the executive ban on offshore drilling, letting oil companies get at the vast supplies of American oil, Harry Reid said he would do whatever it takes to block amendments that would lift the ban, in direct opposition to the wishes of the American people:

"House and Senate Democratic leaders plan to bring energy legislation to the floor this week, using procedural tactics designed to block Republicans from offering amendments that would lift the drilling ban."

"In the Senate, Democrats hope to take up as early as Wednesday a still-un-drafted bill that would tighten regulation of speculation in energy futures, which some lawmakers contend adds as much as 30 percent to the price of crude oil.

"Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said he would block any effort to propose amendments to the bill that did not deal directly with the speculation issue."

According to a number of recent polls, citizens are fed up with the game-playing in Congress:

• Rasmussen, June 17: 67% Favor, 18% Oppose ("67% Support Offshore Drilling, 64% Believe It Will Lower Prices")
• Reuters/Zogby, June 18: 60% Favor, 40% Oppose ("Most Americans support more oil drilling")
• Gallup Poll, June 19: 57% Favor, 41% Oppose ("Majority of Americans Support Drilling Off-Limits Areas")
• Pew Research Center, July 2: 57% Favor, 41% Oppose ("As Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Energy Exploration Rises")

Apparently, the data from the polls shows even liberals wanting to drill.

Meanwhile, the liberal Dhimmicrats in our do-nothing congress are trying to pass bills to raise taxes (Boxer climate bill).

When are they going to get a clue? We elect them, yet they don't do what we ask. And they don't get why their approval rating is nine percent (the lowest rating since they started tracking that sort of thing!).

Perhaps its time for another civil war. Let's tar and feather these goofballs and run them out of town on a rail.

GrassTopsUSA offers a link to send a fax blast to all of Congress with the message: Drill Here, Drill Now, Lower Gas Prices. Click here to visit the page and send your fax blast.

Wisdom from the Gipper: Appeasement

“Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy ‘accommodation.’ And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy one, but a simple one—if you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right... [E]very lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face.” —Ronald Reagan

'Nuff said. Are you listening, Obamaniacs?

(h/t The Patriot Post)

Justice, .357 style

And now for something completely different, brought to you by the framers of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights (in particular the Second Amendment):

From the Ocala, FL Star Banner (h/t Hot Air):

Woman, .357 blazing, chases intruders from home
By AUSTIN L. MILLER
Star-Banner

OCALA – Firing a .357-caliber handgun until it was empty, an Ocala woman chased two intruders from her home in the 3800 block of Southeast 68th Street on Wednesday morning.

Later Wednesday, Marion County sheriff's detectives had one home invasion suspect in custody and were looking for the second. Aaron Scott Beardsley, 25, was charged with armed home invasion robbery. Deputies were still looking for a heavy-set Hispanic male, about 6-foot-1 or 6-feet-2, who was wearing black shorts at the time, a dark T-shirt and a bandana.

How much you wanna bet the 'heavy-set hispanic male' doesn't belong in this country?

Anyway, thanks to the SCOTUS, we can feel secure in our homes once again (sort of). I bet you won't see this article spread around the mainstream media.

Newsweek Poll: Obama's glow may be 'fading'

Posted on Michelle Malkin's Hot Air blog yesterday comes a story about the latest Newsweek poll:

A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama’s glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month’s NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.

Now if there was just a way to eliminate BOTH candidates, I'd be a little more pleased. At least the Obamessiah isn't untouchable.

One interesting update to the article:

Update: A reader points out that the last page of the polling data shows a R/D/I split of 28/35/33, which doesn’t match the raw sample numbers. The report states that Newsweek weighted the data in accordance with demographic information from the Census Bureau. If they weighted the sample to this degree, then Obama’s in much bigger trouble than I first thought.

Hallelujah! Perhaps the American people are starting to figure out the rhetoric of B. Hussein Obama.

Read the article here.

Islamization: Stop Kidding Ourselves

In a symposium published yesterday on the pages of FrontPage Magazine, an assembled group of scholars discussed the challenges of confronting Islamization of western society, the daily jihad that's going on in our courts and MSM.

One participant, Abul Kasem, is an ex-Muslim who is the author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam including, Women in Islam and a contributor to the books Leaving Islam – Apostates Speak Out and Beyond Jihad: Critical Views From Inside Islam. He outlines what some would view as dramatic measures to curtail the growth of Islam in the west:

Surprisingly, it will not be that difficult to defeat the agenda of Islamists to plant the root of Islamic Multiculturalism in a free and democratic society. All that is needed is a good (or working) knowledge of Islam, its history of propagation through violence and terror, and its adoption of taqiyya and kitman when the going is tough.

Once non-Islamic the policy makers comprehend what Islam is about, it is quite straight forward to defeat it in its own game. In our interview, as well as in many of my other interviews, I have indicated a few methods to contain the rapid ingress of Islamic Multiculturalism.

Here are a few specific steps that the un-Islamic world might adopt to stop this menace:

[1] Adopt tough policies on the entry of Islamists to non-Islamic countries. However, we must make a distinction between the large number of in-name-only Muslims and the diehard, jihad-infused, conniving, pan-Islamists.

[2] Enforce strict restrictions on the construction of mosques and Islamic seminaries. If this sounds unethical/ and or infringing on the religious rights, please note
the non-existence and disallowance of construction of non-Islamic worshipping centres in Islamic Paradises. We must call spade a spade.

[3] Stop paying jizya to the Islamists. Do not accede to any unreasonable demands solely by the Islamists. Keep other religious people in mind. Why must Islam be treated more favourably than other religions? Ask the Islamists this simple question.

[4] Halt the interfaith dialogue with Islam. Remember, Islam is uncompromising. There is no way Islam will accommodate un-Islam. Please read this sentence one more time and memorize. You will save a lot of time and money wasted to please Islam. We do not have to please Islam.

[5] Assert the un-Islamic (non-Islamic) cultures, traditions, customs and ethos. We must let the Islamic world learn a bit that the world is not prepared to accept its 7th century Arab Bedouin customs and laws.

[6] Reject any demand to impose Sharia in a non-Islamic society; even if it is in the pretence for Muslims only. Remember, Muslims are the first victims of Islam.

[7] Muslims migrating to non-Islamic countries must sign a declaration that they do not believe in pan-Islamism. If found contravening their signed declaration they should be stripped of their citizenship and promptly deported to the Islamic Paradise they had migrated from.

[8] Proselytizing by Islamic dawa must be strictly controlled, and if necessary, banned. If you think I am being unreasonable. Please look at the laws of Islamic Paradises (such as Malaysia, Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria…) with regard to the propagation of other faith among the Muslims.

Once the civilized world adopts the above measures, we shall see how quickly Islamic Multiculturalism vanishes from the non-Islamic world.

I can't realistically see this happening in our PC society, especially with the likes of McCain or the Obamessiah running the country. Another participant, Rohan Gunaratna, demonstrates the current PC thinking by mainstream politicians, the military and the media: the problem is caused by a small group of people that are perverting Islam for their own use:

The challenge is the contemporary radical interpretation of Islam by a small groups of self appointed, taught or half baked clerics. Such a reinterpretation and misinterpretation seeks to create hatred against non-Muslims and Muslims who oppose the extremist views of al Qaeda and like minded groups.

Islamic scholar/terrorism expert (are the two mutually exclusive? Nope.) Steve Emerson chimed in with his take on the situation:

Emerson: Here we have the classic debate that surrounds the western conundrum in dealing with radical Islam. The solutions above range from an enforced abridgement of free speech (justified presumably by the comparable dangers of yelling fire in a crowded theatre) to the notion that the relatively small allure of Al Qaeda is the problem rather than the larger problem of militant Islam (justification of violence, belief in the imposition of the Sharia, support for radical Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah or plain old cultural jihadists) to the idea (fanciful in my opinion) that somehow the US model of how Muslims have assimilated should serve as the paradigm for how Muslims in Europe should also be treated and finally to the rather absurd notion (offered by Islamists in the West themselves) that radical Muslims in the West are merely acting out their “frustrations” out of “grievances.”

Let’s step back for a second and analyze the fundamental issues at hand without getting mired in the quicksand of sentimentality or the rhetorical bromides that make us feel good but are about as effective in fighting the Islamists as kumbaya sessions were in fighting the Ku Klux Klan.

Firstly, there are three types of jihadists or Islamists (a term that the Washington Post apparently feels might hurt the sensitivities of the jihadists): the military type (which we all recognize by the violence they inflict); the cultural jihadists—the ones that don’t pull the trigger but applaud those who do; and the political jihadists, who seek to change the balance of power by using Dawa, the ballot box and the tools of democracy. There is no one size fits all: Each one requires a nuanced response that ultimately seeks the same goal: defeating and delegitimizing the jihadists, first in the West, and then in the Middle East and Asia. Finally, there must be a recognition that virtually all Islamist movements in the world including the West originate in the Muslim Brotherhood, parent of Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and virtually every Sunni terrorist group in the world. The permutations of groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, and the Islamic Society of North America all originate in the Muslim Brotherhood, a fact recently proven by the release of internal MB documents in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a non profit shut down in December 2001 for serving as a front for Hamas.

Emerson goes on to say the problem of 'militant' Islam is much larger than al-quaeda and has much more influence on the muslim community than our policymakers believe.

Robert Spencer, author of several books about Islam who runs the website Jihad Watch, discussed the 'blind eye' our current government, military and society are taking to the real Islam:

Spencer: The difficulty we’re having in this Symposium stems from sharply differing assumptions about the nature of Islam and the sentiments of the great majority of Muslims. Abul Kasem wants “Muslims migrating to non-Islamic countries” to “sign a declaration that they do not believe in pan-Islamism,” and calls upon Western governments to “reject any demand to impose Sharia in a non-Islamic society.” Rohan Gunaratna, however, apparently disagrees, saying that “Islamization, a form of religiosity (being religious)” is not the problem, but merely “the contemporary radical interpretation of Islam by a small groups of self appointed, taught or half baked clerics.”

Spencer goes on to say:

Dr. Gunaratna seems to have missed entirely the traditionalist character of the jihadist appeal among Muslims: jihadists present themselves as the true and pure Muslims, reviving the authentic practice of Islam where it has fallen by the wayside. By means of this appeal, they have gained recruits among peaceful Muslims, nominal Muslims, new converts to Islam, and others. And no significant movement has arisen among peaceful Muslims opposing in any serious way this use of Islam.

Spencer's conclusions:

In light of all this, I’d say that the first thing we have to do is stop kidding ourselves. {emphasis mine - CTD} We have to stop soothing ourselves with comforting half-truths. Is the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism a recent invention by heretical clerics? No. Are all Muslims jihadists, or even anything close to a majority? No. But is this fact any reason to assume that the peaceful majority opposes the contemporary global jihad? No. Undoubtedly many do, but the moderates on which Dr. Gunaratna and Dr. Kruglanski and Ayla Iqbal have placed such hopes have not organized themselves, have not acted decisively against the jihadists, and have not delineated an Islamic theological position that rejects jihadism.

Consequently, I believe that depending on them is to lean on a weak reed, and that we need to take strong and decisive steps, such as Abul Kasem outlines, to protect ourselves. Those who have criticized his plan have failed to note that he does not include all Muslims as jihadists within it, but leaves room, in point 7, for Muslims to practice their faith in the West shorn of the political and social elements that would have them attempting ultimately to impose it upon non-Muslims and subjugate them.

Stop kidding ourselves. Riiigghhtt... Let's just leave Iraq, abandon Israel, and gather in a circle with our 'moderate' muslim friends and sing 'Kumbaya' and it'll all go away.

Read the details of the symposium here.

Bend over, here comes more 'love' from OPEC...

In this video from NozzleRage.com (h/t DebbieSchlussel), you'll see what buying gasoline does to you, especially at $4.00+ per gallon. Bend over and grab your ankles...



Funny. Butt true.

Jungle rescuers wore CHE t-shirts!

In an interesting angle on the recent rescue of three US citizens and others from the FARC revolutionaries in the Columbian jungle, the Patriot Post reports the rescuers wore Che t-shirts as a ruse to convince the revos they were with FARC:

FARC hostages rescued

Colombian soldiers staged one of the greatest hostage rescues in history last week, all thanks to a little acting. A disgruntled member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) decided to help the Colombian army rescue three American contractors, former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and 11 others held captive in the Colombian jungle. The double agent convinced the commander in charge of the hostages that FARC leaders wanted the 15 hostages transported to another location. The rescue crew of 12 Colombians—some dressed as FARC members and others wearing Che Guevara T-shirts and pretending to be part of a fake group called the International Humanitarian Mission—had a helicopter waiting to transport the hostages to their next destination. Everyone, including the hostages, was fooled until the Colombians revealed themselves once they were safely in the air.

Ironically, it was the Che T-shirts that were the most convincing part. “They were wearing Che Guevara shirts, and I thought: It’s the FARC!” said Betancourt. The Associated Press couldn’t bring themselves to mention that fact, calling the apparel simply “white” shirts. As Betancourt’s story is told, however, it will serve to bring down the myth that Che was a romantic hero instead of a terrorist thug. Indeed, Investor’s Business Daily notes, “In reality FARC is Che in action. No group has more right to claim the Guevara legacy than these jungle terrorists who actually have been at it since the days of Che.” The story also is damaging for FARC in that even Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez are distancing themselves from the terrorist group they have long supported.

As a thank you for Colombia’s daring rescue of three American citizens, we suggest that Congress pass the free-trade agreement currently being held hostage by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Maybe if Republicans wear Che T-shirts, they can trick her into it.

A quick perusal of major news sites reveals this quote from Ingrid Betancourt, the former Columbian presidential candidate:

"They spoke with Commander Enrique and Cesar," she said of her captors. As she looked closer, she saw that the men from the helicopter were wearing shirts emblazoned with the likeness of Che Guevara, the Argentine hero of the Cuban revolution. "I thought, this is FARC," she said.

Funny, I don't recall seeing any mention in the MSM TV news reports. God forbid we should link the Obamessiah campaign to FARC!

(note: the t-shirt image above is ripped from a CHE t-shirt site. I don't want to drive any traffic or give any credit to the site -- I don't want to aid the enemy!)

Obama, the national security neophyte

From Mark Alexander at the Patriot Post today, comes this article questioning the appropriateness of the Obamessiah for POTUS:

This week, Iranian Islamist Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad tested his new ballistic missile, the Shahab-3—range 1,250 miles. Next door in Iraq, 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” uranium ore, which Saddam intended to weaponize for use in his non-existent WMD program, were removed from Tuwaitha. (That’s enough for more than 100 medium-sized nuclear boomers.) And while al-Qa’ida has been routed in Iraq, there was plenty of evidence this week that jihadis are putting up fierce resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Seems like this is as good a week as any to pause and ponder, “Who should be our next commander in chief?”

The most important constitutional role of our president is that of commander in chief—which is why every Patriot, every American, every human on the planet, should be deeply concerned about the prospect of a “President Obama.”

If Barack Hussein Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, persuades voters that he is a “centrist candidate” and parlays that deception into defeating John McCain, there will be plenty of “change” in the coming years—unpleasant at best and catastrophic at worst.

Arguably, since our nation’s founding, no candidate has been less qualified than Obama to be his political party’s nominee for president of the United States. And nowhere is Obama more ill prepared than in matters of national security.

Not to mention just about any other requirement of holding the office.

I've been waffling on who is the lesser of two evils of the two candidates. My thinking is that if the Obamessiah gets elected, after four years of this total screw-up we'll see a conservative resurgence. If McCain is elected and we see a dip in the economy, people will be calling it Bush III and we'll pay for it with Democrats controlling the Congress for a long, long time.

I'm waffling no more. Given the two options, I'm convinced that B. Hussein Obama's presidency would simply be too damaging, too dangerous for too long for this country. Look at the thirty years of damage the last ultra-liberal nutroot (Jimmah Carter) did to the USA.

Read the rest of the article here, and you'll be convinced as well.

What Up, Dog? Replacing the National Anthem

From FrontPageMagazine comes this article by Dennis Prager discussing lefty nutjob Rene Marie who sang the "black national anthem" at the Denver mayor's state of the city address.

Last week in Denver, almost all the values of the post-1960s left were exhibited in one act.

It happened on the Denver mayor's most important day -- the one in which he was to deliver his annual State of the City Address. The day was to begin with the singing of the National Anthem by the black jazz singer Rene Marie. But Ms. Marie had, by her own admission, long had other plans. Instead of the National Anthem, she sang "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing," a song written in 1899 and often referred to today as the Black National Anthem.

What Marie did embodied a plethora of leftist ideals and characteristics: Ethical relativism, multiculturalism, the supremacy of feelings, the belief that artists are above normal ethical standards and group victimization.

What's troubling, in my mind, is that the same people who watch "the View" or applaud The Dixie Sluts would think how wonderful this is. The same people who have been teaching our children for a generation what an evil country the United States has become.

It should be noted that many individuals on the left condemned what Marie did. And it is not for me to judge whether they did so out of conviction or political necessity; one must generally judge actions, not motives. But to the sincere liberal and leftist, I ask: Do you not see how left/liberal values made this episode possible?

Individuals on the left may condemn what happened in Denver City Hall on July 1, 2008. But, in fact, it was a triumph of leftist values.

Final note: If you do not now fear for America's future, please go on the Internet and watch the Denver city officials respectfully watch a woman substitute her own song for that of the National Anthem. Watch how not a single official stopped her, or even demanded that the National Anthem be sung afterward. And listen to the applause. Then you will fear for our country's future.

Be afraid. Be very afraid (especially if you're a conservative white man).
Read the entire article here.

Stylish B. Hussein Obama Flip Flops available now!

In a mad moment of desperation/boredom, I designed these elegant Obama flip flops, inspired by this year's election for POTUS. Enjoy.

(Click the image to see full-size version.)

RINO hump image says it all...

I saw this image on the Objective Eye blog today, and it struck a nerve. Pretty much what's happening to conservative Republicans by RINOs -- like McCain now, George Voinovich & Bob Taft earlier.

Let's hope they'll at least use some lubication. I'm getting pretty chafed...

On the cusp of the “most spectacular” victory against Al-Qaeda

Once again, can you hear the crickets chirping in the MSM when it comes to discussion of a victory in Iraq?

You won't hear any such news here in the US of A, especially before the general election. The Times of London, however, is running the story (h/t to Hot Air):

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror. (emphasis mine - CTD2006)

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

Read the entire article here.

Vets for Freedom endorse 'change we can believe in'

This latest ad from Vets for Freedom comes at great embarrassment to the MSM and BHO (h/t to Hot Air Blog):

CLICK HERE to view "Finish the Job," an ad featuring eight veterans and one blue star mother—VFF members all. The ad was previewed Sunday on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos and will be the first television ad to air during our “Four Months, For Victory” campaign. The over $1 million ad buy will begin running in select markets on Wednesday, July 9th.

Althought I'm sure they'll continue to stick their head in the sand. The MSM and comrade B. Hussein Obama's minds are already made up, thanks to years of leftist indoctrination.

On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!

From the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action website comes an article detailing Obama's two faces about gun control. Once again, his actions speak louder than his words:

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of
general support for the right to keep and bear arms.

But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.

• FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.


• FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.


• FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.


• FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.


• FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.


• FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.


• FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.


• FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.


• FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.


• FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”


• FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.


• FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.


• FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.


• FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.


• FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.


• FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.


• FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.


• FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.


• FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.


• FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.


• FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.

For attribution to B. Hussein Obama's records on this issue, see the NRA-ILA website.