He just can't figure out why his column is getting so many angry responses.
Maybe it's because people are sick and tired of media manipulation? You know what I am talking about. Gerald Ford opposes the Iraq War (wrong). The Downing Street Memo (fraud). October "deadliest month" (not). The list goes on and on and people are, quite frankly, tired of the media lies. The people are revolting against the media because I think many of them blame the media for brainwashing the public into thinking that conservatism is wrong and evil. And it isn't.
Now Gil is going to have the "What me?" mentality. Right. Mr. 150,000 frozen embryos himself is going to wonder why his newspaper is getting angry responses.
Gil wants to convince us that the election results were not liberalism or conservatism movements, but populist. No, I think it was just that most Americans tune into the news and are brainwashed by a bunch of news monkeys (they fling poo).
Wouldn't you vote Democrat if Dan Rather convincing could show you that Bush is the Antichrist?
A segment of the population has become very aware of what is going on, while another segment (a larger portion) is not realizing it. Therefore, the smaller group is yelling and shouting in hopes that the others with the bag over their head will wake up and pay attention.
The louder they yell, the better. Gil just thinks this is so funny. But the truth is he is mocking it because he knows that it will result in the permanent erasure of the DNC.
Home of the ReBirTheRs
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
The Big Johnson Update
Full Story
Johnson remains in critical condition and has not spoken since the operation. It is not good news that he has remained critical for more than two weeks.
Johnson remains in critical condition and has not spoken since the operation. It is not good news that he has remained critical for more than two weeks.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Drain Bamaged CBS reporters
President Gerald Ford, Exclusive Interview on Military Intervention in the Middle East in Response to Oil Price Increases, Time Magazine, January 20, 1975, p. 21
Question. Moving to foreign policy, can you tell us more about the idea of using force in the Middle East and under what circumstances?
Answer. I stand by the view that Henry Kissinger expressed in the Business Week [interview]. Now, the word strangulation is the key word. If you read his answer to a very hypothetical question, he didn't say that force would be used to bring a price change. His language said he wouldn't rule force out if the free world or the industrialized world would be strangled. I would reaffirm my support of that position as he answered that hypothetical question.
Question. What would your definition of strangle be?
Answer. Strangulation, if you translate it into the terms of a human being, means that you are just about on your back.
Source: U.S., Congress, Committee on International Relations, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study, Report Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 94th Cong., 1st sess., August 21, 1975, (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1975), p. 77
What Ford REALLY said
You will notice that he stated that the justification of WMDs alone was a mistake in Iraq. I agree with that, and you will notice that Bush never made it the only justification.
He never states that the Iraq War was a mistake. He said that based only on public information, he would have not started war. But he did not have all the information the President had.
Question. Moving to foreign policy, can you tell us more about the idea of using force in the Middle East and under what circumstances?
Answer. I stand by the view that Henry Kissinger expressed in the Business Week [interview]. Now, the word strangulation is the key word. If you read his answer to a very hypothetical question, he didn't say that force would be used to bring a price change. His language said he wouldn't rule force out if the free world or the industrialized world would be strangled. I would reaffirm my support of that position as he answered that hypothetical question.
Question. What would your definition of strangle be?
Answer. Strangulation, if you translate it into the terms of a human being, means that you are just about on your back.
Source: U.S., Congress, Committee on International Relations, Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study, Report Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 94th Cong., 1st sess., August 21, 1975, (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1975), p. 77
What Ford REALLY said
You will notice that he stated that the justification of WMDs alone was a mistake in Iraq. I agree with that, and you will notice that Bush never made it the only justification.
He never states that the Iraq War was a mistake. He said that based only on public information, he would have not started war. But he did not have all the information the President had.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Friday, December 22, 2006
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Why Dems are "Dee Dee Dee"
Remember the Foley IMs/Emails? Think back about maybe three months ago. Still - there are no charges that I am aware of.
ABC: No charges likely for Foley
ABC: Dems knew about Foley emails
House ethics committee finds no rules broken
Democrats shopped Foley story to papers
Now the Dems voted blue on Nov. 7th to put a stop to the Iraq War. However, the President has decided to send MORE troops. It should make these gullible Democrats feel seriously ridiculous, but surely they will never confess the error of their ways.
Dee dee dee.
ABC: No charges likely for Foley
ABC: Dems knew about Foley emails
House ethics committee finds no rules broken
Democrats shopped Foley story to papers
Now the Dems voted blue on Nov. 7th to put a stop to the Iraq War. However, the President has decided to send MORE troops. It should make these gullible Democrats feel seriously ridiculous, but surely they will never confess the error of their ways.
Dee dee dee.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Monday, December 11, 2006
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Gil Smart: "Stuck on Gay"
Oh look! Yet another column about gay marriage! Yippee!
Now Gil thinks the evil conservatives are out to designate gays as second-class citizens unworthy of the right to marry.
I suppose he feels the very same way about the other people the State does not recognize as marriage. Incest, bigamy and polygamy -- second class citizens, right?
Perhaps Gil could direct me to the individuals we are talking about? Certainly, there is a scientific test or physical attribute that we could clearly see that would reveal those who are "second class citizens". Oh wait, there's NOT.
Is there a "right to marry"? If so, I could go out into the village and claim my new wife under Medieval rules.
Is there really a right to equal benefits? And if they are "benefits", who are they "benefitting" if everyone can get them?
Is there a "right to social security"? No, you have to wait until you meet the qualification. Isn't that "age discrimination"? No, not in the morally wrong sense, anyway. It's a limitation that --gasp -- you must QUALIFY for.
Just the same -- marriage is something you have to qualify for. You must be a man and a woman. That's it. Very simple you would think except for those severally crippled with a liberal brain I suppose.
The loony left wants you to think that same sex couples are treated so "unfairly". Yet, if you ask them for instances of inequality --they come up empty handed. Or else, they come up with a situation which they "perceive" as unfair, but you can easily show them that their "fear" is irrational. Of course, they ignore the reality.
The man/woman attribute is a qualification some simply choose not to meet -- and then want to whimper and whine how unfair their own decision is. They want to blame the State for their own choice.
The libs don't like it when you question them. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Maybe that's why Gil is so "stuck on gay" this week.
Now Gil thinks the evil conservatives are out to designate gays as second-class citizens unworthy of the right to marry.
I suppose he feels the very same way about the other people the State does not recognize as marriage. Incest, bigamy and polygamy -- second class citizens, right?
Perhaps Gil could direct me to the individuals we are talking about? Certainly, there is a scientific test or physical attribute that we could clearly see that would reveal those who are "second class citizens". Oh wait, there's NOT.
Is there a "right to marry"? If so, I could go out into the village and claim my new wife under Medieval rules.
Is there really a right to equal benefits? And if they are "benefits", who are they "benefitting" if everyone can get them?
Is there a "right to social security"? No, you have to wait until you meet the qualification. Isn't that "age discrimination"? No, not in the morally wrong sense, anyway. It's a limitation that --gasp -- you must QUALIFY for.
Just the same -- marriage is something you have to qualify for. You must be a man and a woman. That's it. Very simple you would think except for those severally crippled with a liberal brain I suppose.
The loony left wants you to think that same sex couples are treated so "unfairly". Yet, if you ask them for instances of inequality --they come up empty handed. Or else, they come up with a situation which they "perceive" as unfair, but you can easily show them that their "fear" is irrational. Of course, they ignore the reality.
The man/woman attribute is a qualification some simply choose not to meet -- and then want to whimper and whine how unfair their own decision is. They want to blame the State for their own choice.
The libs don't like it when you question them. They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Maybe that's why Gil is so "stuck on gay" this week.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Friday, December 08, 2006
Breaking News! Foleygate bites the dust
Just saw on ABC News that the leadership did not break any rules in their handling of Foley.
Also saw that Pelosi was wrong about Al Qaeda being in Iraq. The ISG report says Iran and Al Qaeda infiltrated Iraq and were causing violence. Funny, when Bush says it - liberals laugh. But the truth is - Bush was right.
Also saw that Pelosi was wrong about Al Qaeda being in Iraq. The ISG report says Iran and Al Qaeda infiltrated Iraq and were causing violence. Funny, when Bush says it - liberals laugh. But the truth is - Bush was right.
Monday, December 04, 2006
Liberals desperately try to call Iraq "Civil War" before January. Coincidence? I think not!
Imagine the Democrats coming to power in Congress. Suddenly, Iraq erupts into an all-out Civil War. It would look bad. It could potentially spell disaster for Democrats and reflect on liberals, who have taken much of the credit for the Nov 7. elections, even though most candidates elected were Conservative-Moderate Dems.
On the other hand, if Iraq is a "civil war" in November or December, then Democrats can pass off the blame on the previous administration much easier.
That is why one month before Democrats take control, the media is screaming "civil war", despite alot of reasons to suggest that Iraq is still at a "Crossroads" (Kofi Annan's phrase). Iraq really seems to be in an insurgency at this point and I couldn't figure out for the life of me what had so drastically changed to change "insurgency" to "civil war". (I keep careful track of alot of the Iraq issue).
It's kind of sad, really. Because rather than have the faith and conviction that we can succeed in Iraq, liberal Democrats seem to already be taking the position that America failed in Iraq. Rather than being responsible and accountable, these sniverals have decided to throw dirt in the face of their own country's elected leader and its representatives.
On the other hand, if Iraq is a "civil war" in November or December, then Democrats can pass off the blame on the previous administration much easier.
That is why one month before Democrats take control, the media is screaming "civil war", despite alot of reasons to suggest that Iraq is still at a "Crossroads" (Kofi Annan's phrase). Iraq really seems to be in an insurgency at this point and I couldn't figure out for the life of me what had so drastically changed to change "insurgency" to "civil war". (I keep careful track of alot of the Iraq issue).
It's kind of sad, really. Because rather than have the faith and conviction that we can succeed in Iraq, liberal Democrats seem to already be taking the position that America failed in Iraq. Rather than being responsible and accountable, these sniverals have decided to throw dirt in the face of their own country's elected leader and its representatives.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Say it with me nice and slow..."potential" for civil war
UN Statement by Annan
Iraq at the crossroads:
Annan warns of risk of potential breakdown into civil war
"The Iraqi people and their leaders have arrived at an important crossroads: if they are able to build firm foundations for the common interest of all Iraqis, the promise of peace and prosperity will be within reach. However, if current patterns of discord and violence prevail for much longer, there is a grave danger of a breakdown of the Iraqi State, and potentially of civil war. "
Iraq at the crossroads:
Annan warns of risk of potential breakdown into civil war
"The Iraqi people and their leaders have arrived at an important crossroads: if they are able to build firm foundations for the common interest of all Iraqis, the promise of peace and prosperity will be within reach. However, if current patterns of discord and violence prevail for much longer, there is a grave danger of a breakdown of the Iraqi State, and potentially of civil war. "
Democrats Quran at Oath Plan Criticized
Full Story
Fact: There is no elected President that did not swear in or get affirmed with a Bible in public.
Source
Fact: There is no elected President that did not swear in or get affirmed with a Bible in public.
Source
Liberals can't decide if it's "insurgency" or "civil war"
Gil Smart loudly declares this week that Iraq is in "Civil War". He couldn't be more wrong. Even the UN knows that the latest rash of violence in Iraq is "terrorist attacks" and will only say that Iraq is "almost" in a "civil war-like situation".
I found it interesting that in the same article Gil referred to "the insurgency". Sometimes I wonder if it's just a word liberals use without really knowing what insurgency means.
An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles.
Do liberals realize that they are contradicting themselves? Clearly, fighting with IEDs is not a "conventional" battle. It's guerilla tactics.
An insurgency makes alot more sense than a civil war. Kurds, Sunni and Shia are found outside the country of Iraq and even in other continents in the case of the latter two.
How many Confederates from Mexico can you think of? How many Yankess do you remember in history class from Canada? It was an "American civil war" because it was all contained in one nation. Those "factions" were all located in one country.
In the past, we've heard about Iraq "foreign fighters" and those crossing the borders to engage in fights with the US occupation forces. Does Gil really think these foreign fighters packed up and left?
I found it interesting that in the same article Gil referred to "the insurgency". Sometimes I wonder if it's just a word liberals use without really knowing what insurgency means.
an operation that aims to overthrow an existing regime, often using guerilla tactics.
An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles.
Do liberals realize that they are contradicting themselves? Clearly, fighting with IEDs is not a "conventional" battle. It's guerilla tactics.
An insurgency makes alot more sense than a civil war. Kurds, Sunni and Shia are found outside the country of Iraq and even in other continents in the case of the latter two.
How many Confederates from Mexico can you think of? How many Yankess do you remember in history class from Canada? It was an "American civil war" because it was all contained in one nation. Those "factions" were all located in one country.
In the past, we've heard about Iraq "foreign fighters" and those crossing the borders to engage in fights with the US occupation forces. Does Gil really think these foreign fighters packed up and left?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)