Theodore's World

Twenty-five years ago today, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States of America.

President Reagan walked the high ground and
stayed the course. I am forever thankful for his strengths
and knowing the cost of our Freedom and NOT allowing others
to change their calling.
~ Wild Thing

Some quotes by President Reagan:

We dare not shirk our responsibility to keep America free, secure, and at peace.
– Ronald Reagan, State of the Union Address, January 25, 1984.
America must remain freedom’s staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally.
– Ronald Reagan, Second Inaugural Address, January 21, 1985.
We must restore America’s ability to defend itself and fulfill its responsibilities as a trustee of freedom and peace in the world…
– President Ronald Reagan, Radio Address to the Nation on Administration Policies, August 25, 1984.
There must be no wavering by us, nor any doubts by others, that America will meet her responsibilities to remain free, secure, and at peace.
– Ronald Reagan, Second Inaugural Address, January 21, 1985.
My fellow citizens, our Nation is poised for greatness. We must do what we know is right and do it with all our might. Let history say of us, “These were golden years—when the American Revolution
was reborn, when freedom gained new life, when America reached for her best.”
– Ronald Reagan, Second Inaugural Address, January 21, 1985.
So, let me today speak for a united people. Let me say simply: We’re Americans. We love this country. We love what she stands for, and we will always defend her…. We live for freedom — our own, our children’s — and we will always stand ready to sacrifice for that freedom.
– President Ronald Reagan, Remarks at the Annual Convention
of the American Bar Association, July 8, 1985.
How can we not believe in the greatness of America?
How can we not do what is right and needed to preserve
this last best hope of man on Earth? After all our struggles
to restore America, to revive confidence in our country,
hope for our future, after all our hard-won victories earned
through the patience and courage of every citizen, we cannot,
must not, and will not turn back. We will finish our job.
How could we do less? We’re Americans.
– Ronald Reagan, State of the Union Address, January 25, 1984

“The house we hope to build is not for my generation
but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope
that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I
have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived
lives that were a statement, not an apology.”

“Every lesson of history tells us that appeasement does not
lead to peace. It invites an aggressor to test the will of a
nation unprepared to meet that test. And tragically, those
who seemingly want peace the most, our young people,
pay the heaviest price for our failure to maintain our strength.”
– Governor Ronald Reagan, Speech, Sept. 15, 1972.

* Michelle Malkin
* Mike’s America
* STOP the ACLU
* The Political Teen

Murtha’s Mangled Medal Stories
Found here at Media Research Center
by L. Brent Bozell III
January 17, 2006

Since November, the media have carried Rep. John Murtha around on their shoulders like a conquering hero for his opposition to the war in Iraq. They’ve thrown around the words “war hero” like clowns throwing candy at a parade. Murtha was broadcast far and wide attacking Vice President Cheney for his five deferments from Vietnam, suggesting these chicken hawks don’t like any suggestions about how to fight a war.
If Murtha were a Republican accusing a Democrat like this, we know what would happen. The so-called nonpartisan, objective, “mainstream” media would either (a) totally ignore him as an irrelevant, obscure House wacko, or (b) investigate his own military record to see if he earned all the “war hero” talk. And if discrepancies were found, all hell would break loose. And if you don’t believe me, just ask John O’Neill and the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, who underwent first (a) and then (b) when they challenged John Kerry.
But Murtha is a Democrat accusing a Republican. So it fell to the Cybercast News Service, (CNSNews.com, which I founded), and reporters Marc Morano and Randy Hall to look into the Murtha military record. What they found were a lot of similarities to the military record of John Kerry.
Like Kerry, Murtha’s medals came for surface wounds that never caused his evacuation from the battlefield, and like Kerry, he attempted to get his medals by political manipulation, in Murtha’s case, through then-Rep. John Saylor. But Saylor’s office felt it was odd for Murtha to seek medals for “superficial lacerations.”
Murtha also told differing stories about when and where he was wounded in action. A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story reported in 2002 that Murtha had facial lacerations. In 1994, the Uniontown (Pa.) Herald-Standard quoted Murtha saying he was “wounded in the arm” for one medal and “my knee was banged up and my arm was banged up when a helicopter was shot down” for the other. Then, Morano and Hall uncovered a June 1, 1967 report in the Johnstown (Pa.) Tribune-Democrat quoting from a letter from Murtha to his wife describing his injuries as being “struck in the ankle” by a “shot that ricocheted off the helicopter.”
Since there were so many similarities to Kerry – including the fact that author Morano was also one of the first reporters on the Swift Boat Veterans story – the left predictably threw an ugly fit. It was not long, then, for Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne to load his air-rifle for rhetorical battle. “I underestimated the viciousness of the right wing,” he began.
Even before he gets started, we know where he’s going, don’t we?. Liberals want to insist when they tout a “war hero” making their anti-liberation of Iraq talking points, it’s 100 percent beyond the pale of decency to investigate him. They want the world to know that when a “war hero” acceptable to them disagrees with President Bush, everyone must stop, shut up, and listen like an old E.F. Hutton commercial.
Dionne sounds just like his hero Bill Clinton as he proclaims to be maddened by “the unblushing hypocrisy of the right wing and the way it circulates…personal vilification to abort honest political debate.” As if that weren’t enough, there’s also this: “Moreover, the right has demonstrated that its attitude toward military service is entirely opportunistic.”
Now here is where we should all acknowledge our partisanship – I oppose the Clintons and the Kerrys, and Dionne favors them. But can Dionne honestly state that the left wing (and “objective” smearers like CBS) have not resorted to “personal vilification” on the military record of George W. Bush? Can he honestly ignore that the left has vilified the World War II military service of Bob Dole in 1996 (Robert Ellis in The Nation) and George H. W. Bush in 1992 (Sidney Blumenthal in the New Republic)?
More importantly, how dare anyone on the left accuse any conservative of attitudinal opportunism where military service is involved. Military service didn’t matter a bit to them when Bill Clinton was running, but was vitally important when Kerry was their man in 2004. They felt George W. Bush’s National Guard record was a scandal in 2000, but also didn’t want the media poring over Al Gore’s Vietnam service as a journalist. Four years later, there they were again, poring over Bush’s Vietnam-era service record.
It’s fair to state that on some investigative stories, only conservatives want the tough, thorough report, and on others, only liberals are really jazzed about it. But what about the public interest? A media revering the words “objective,” “nonpartisan,” and “mainstream” would investigate both Republicans and Democrats when politicians start dragging out their war records.

And here is another article on the same topic………….
Murtha’s War Hero Status Called Into Question
Found at CNSNews.com
Wild Thing’s comment……….
Like Kerry, Murtha has made a big political issue out of his Vietnam service. He should sign his form 180 and release his military records. If he were a Republican, the media would be screaming their heads off demanding that he make his records public.
How many times have you heard that Murtha was a “hero” and deserved respect….at the SAME time as he is behaving like a traitor and under suspicion by the ethics committee? Murtha has used his war service as his “blood earned right” to criticize the war and the President and the war. There would be only one way to end the questioning…..
Please note that Kerry has still failed to fully release his records, too. Murtha, like Kerry — ran on his military record….. He made a freaking career of his “military service”, his sacrifice recognized by his TWO Purple Hearts……..
I don’t think it’s asking too much.
Murtha is not honorable! Once ANYONE attacks his fellow brother in arms, no matter what his heroics; no matter what his medals, he looses all rights to that brotherhood of men! He is fair game, and if found to be a liar like John Kerry, then he needs to be exposed and forced to prove he earned the medals. Otherwise they have no meaning!
A May 12, 2002, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article reported that “Marine Corps casualty records show that Murtha was injured in ‘hostile’ actions near Danang, Vietnam, on March 22, 1967 and May 7, 1967. In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation.”
Yet on Murtha’s web site he claims he received all his Vietnam decorations in 1966 Helluva combat intel guy…got his medals before he was wounded????
If we do nothing and say nothing as some want to do, Muthra gets re-elected almost unopposed for the next two years Muthra gets to continue to destroy the moral of our troops from the floor of the house. Murtha expects us to respect his “present” based on his “past” (as did Kerry). Besides, if he is one of the people questioning others’ ethics, then his should be open for scrutiny as well. We have 160,000 troops over in Iraq that Murfa has made every hour more dangerous for them. Then there is the message of weakness and division that Iran and our other enemies hear. Murfa’s military service allows him to stake out the high moral ground and shriek his unamerican BS! If he misrepresented his service record he needs to be knocked off the hill.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
If Col Murtha wanted to quash this, he could release the records.
As President Reagan said, “Trust, but verify”.

My husband and I live in a quiet neighborhood. You might even say it is like a Norman Rockwell picture, with children on bikes and people walking their dogs in a peaceful place. Older families and young famlies starting out, each wanting a place that has not only the look but the feeling of security and safety. It was a beautiful Sunday morning, (6/26/05) the sun was shining and the birds were singing. You go outside to grab the newspaper and find…

.

YOUR AMERICAN FLAG, BURNT AND LYING ON THE GROUND. The cord to raise the Flag on the pole is also burned and singed. Several other homes had Flags burned as well, and many were attached to their homes (ours is on a pole in the front yard), also the Flag at the Country Club in our Association of home owners was burned.
I just froze, standing there with chills running up and down my spine. It felt like someone had stabbed not only me right in the heart but every man in my family that has served our country, and every Veteran. That was all I could think of, that someone had driven a knife right in all my Vets hearts and souls. My next thought was how do I tell my husband. He is a Vet and I hated that he was going to see this. But I had to tell him and when I told him I sobbed and we just held each other for a few minutes outside as we looked at what had happened. And the anger we had, well we were shaking we were so mad.
Why burn flags and set firebombs? Well, they told deputies they burned the flags because they are anarchists and don’t agree with several U.S. government policies, including the war in Iraq.
Some of the flags were attached to houses, that means they endangered lives to express their hatred of this Country.
And… they were even dumb enough to brag to the arresting officers about what they did.

Sheriff’s report statement: Baber and Richard were driving around the neighborhood in the early hours and stopped at several houses, dousing flags in kerosene and raising them up flag poles. At least one house was damaged.
Richard told deputies he also tried to set a car on fire by soaking a tennis ball in gasoline and shoving it in the gas tank. The ball wouldn’t fit, he told deputies, so he doused the car’s exterior with gasoline and tried to ignite it, but that didn’t work either, according to sheriff’s reports.
Why burn flags and set firebombs? Well, they told deputies they burned the flags because they are anarchists and don’t agree with several U.S. government policies, including the war in Iraq.
“I hate Americans,” one of them told a deputy, according to reports.

Baber and Richard burned the flags at homes in the **** **** subdivision, where they live with Baber’s parents, then set fire to a flag at its clubhouse, said Lt. Chuck Lesaltato, a spokesman for the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office.
“Our deputies came up on them as they were returning to their car,” he said.
The stupid moonbats were charged with several counts of arson, criminal mischief and possession and manufacture of a fire bomb.
A judge set bail at $101,120 for Baber, who was described in reports as a lookout, and $402,120 for Richard. Baber posted bail Monday night, but Richard remained in jail.
Richard was carrying a red gas container, the sheriff’s reports said. Deputies also found several beer bottles filled with kerosene, stuffed with rags, in a car parked nearby.

.

The parents of Scott Baber came to our home on Sunday July 31, 2005. It is interesting to my husband and myself, because on Friday July 29, 2005 I received a letter in the mail from the State Attorney’s office about Scott’s arraignment coming up. They said they wanted to apologize for what their son did. But they proceeded to make excuses for him as well as for Brian Richard. They told us their son never would have done what he did if he had not been drunk. They denied that Scott said he was the one that did that. There they stood lying to us about what his son had done, and then wanting us to understand his drunkenness was what caused him to burn our Flag. As we stood there and they did most of the talking, I thought my husband was going to punch the husband out a couple of time. They were arrogant and total liberals. They were not humble with their apology at all. More like trying to feel us out on our feelings to know how I might be writing my statement to the court.
I asked the parents if Scott was in jail and they said no he was at home. I told them they should use that opportunity to tell Scott what the Flag stands for, the lives that were lost in the wars, men giving their all so that he could live in the freedom that we people in this country enjoy. How the Flag is carried into battle, tell him of the raising of the Flag at Iwo Jima and other battles, and wars where the Flag may have been tattered and torn as the soldier carried it and placed it in the ground, how it stands for so much that has no financial cost, but the sacrifices of those defending it for us. Then I was shocked again as I head the father of Scott Baber say that Scott knew about the Flag and that Scott was a patriot. A patriot of what? Of terrorisim ?
Before they finally left I looked them both in the eyes, hard and said……..”I want you both to know with every atom in your being that your son should be sent to Gitmo as far as I am concerned. He owes every Veteran an apology and you can tell him from us that he burned the Flag of a home of a Veteran and a family where every man has served in every branch of the Military and fought in every war from WW11 up to now. One of my Uncles lost a leg in the Battle of the Bulge, another served on the Chosin Reservoir, and cousins in Vietnam and the list is long but their blood was shed and that Flag represents every war they all fought in for YOU to be free and safe. ”
How do I feel about what has happened ? There is a different feeling when a person has had threats made to them, property damaged, someone coming on our property to do harm to our property. It is an insecure feeling, of will this happen again, will these two get angry enough again to do more damage and where will they draw the line as to how extensive their evil deeds will be the next time. It is one thing to disagree with a war our country is in, it is one thing to wish Bush was not President, but it is another to take the action that these two did. What they did was a violent act and yes one of terrorism. They did not burn their own flag in their own yard, NO, they chose to go around our neighborhood and burn others Flags.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me, these two hate Americans and tried to firebomb America. Simply put, they are domestic terrorists and should be treated as such.
Everyone got involved, the Sheriff, a wonderful Detective that had just come back from serving in Iraq, the Assistant State Attorney, the Attorney General and homeland security, also the FBI. It was amazing how everyone of those on this case helping us was a Veteran. Even the President of our Association is a Disabled Vietnam Vet.
The man we bought the Flag and pole from is a Vietnam Vet, a wonderful man. We called him the following Monday bright and early and told him what had happened. He said he had heard about it on the news but did not know we were one of the victims.
UPDATE:
I am telling about this now because I did not have a blog when this happened and I want to share the update of what has happened.
So far they have only dealt with Scott Barber. What happens to the other boy will be next in a few months I think. We keep getting updates in snail mail from the State Attorney’s office. We received the update letter today and the contents are below………
Scott Barber:
Charges: Principal to arson first degree ( occupied structure) – 3 Counts
Possession of fire boimb
Principal to criminal mischief ( $200 or less) – 4 counts
On 12-20-05, the defendent entered a plea and was sentenced on the charges of Count 1, 2, 3 – Principal to arson first degree
Count 4 – possession of fire bomb
Count 5, 6, 7, 8 – Principal to criminal mischief.
At that time the court entered the following sentence:
Sentenced as youthful offender- adjudicated guilty – CT 1,2,3 – 56 months residental program, 50 hours of public service work per year (5 hours per month) (25 hours at a Veterans Organization, continue counseling, letter of apology, restitution, DNA sample, court costs;
CT 4 – 6 months county jail, 4 1/2 years probation;
CT 5,6,7,8, – 60 days county jail.

From Breitbart.com
The Washington Post shut down one of its blogs Thursday after the newspaper’s ombudsman raised the ire of readers by writing that lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave money to the Democrats as well as to Republicans.

At the center of a congressional bribery investigation, Abramoff gave money to Republicans while he had his clients donate to both parties, though mostly to Republicans.
In her Sunday column, ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that Abramoff “had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties,” prompting a wave of nasty reader postings on post.blog.
There were so many personal attacks that the newspaper’s staff could not “keep the board clean, there was some pretty filthy stuff,” and so the Post shut down comments on the blog, or Web log, said Jim Brady, executive editor of washingtonpost.com.
“We’re not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it,” Brady wrote on the newspaper’s Web site. “There are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech.”

From Washington Post.com
The Editors Discuss Site Policies, Design and Goals
Posted at 04:22 PM ET, 01/19/2006
Comments Turned Off

As of 4:15 p.m. ET today, we have shut off comments on this blog indefinitely.
At its inception, the purpose of this blog was to open a dialogue about this site, the events of the day, the journalism of The Washington Post Company and other related issues. Among the things that we knew would be part of that discussion would be the news and opinion coming from the pages of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com. We knew a lot of that discussion would be critical in nature. And we were fine with that. Great journalism companies need feedback from readers to stay sharp.
But there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we’ve decided not to allow comments for the time being. It’s a shame that it’s come to this. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it’s a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about.
We’re not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it. Any thoughtful feedback on that (or any other issue) is welcome, and you can send it to executive.editor@washingtonpost.com.
Thanks,
Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com
UPDATE, 7pm: As you might expect, we’re getting a ton of e-mail on this, and while I can’t answer those e-mails individually, I’ll address the two main points being made, that 1) we’re afraid of being criticized and, 2) that were no personal attacks, profanity or hate speech in any of the comments.
On the first point, washingtonpost.com has done an awful lot to be as transparent as possible. We’ve started a ton of blogs, we’ve linked out to bloggers who are writing (often negatively) about Post content and we’ve made journalists from The Post and post.com available to answer questions online on a daily basis. So I find it hard to make a case that we’re unwilling to be criticized. What we’re not willing to do is allow the comments area to turn into a place where it’s OK to unleash vicious, name-calling attacks on anyone, whether they are Post reporters, public figures or other commenters. And that’s exactly what was happening. That leads into the second complaint. The reason that people were not routinely seeing the problematic posts I mentioned were that we were trying to remove them as fast as we could in order to preserve the reasoned arguments many others were making. We removed hundreds of these posts over the past few days, and it was becoming a significant burden on us to try and keep the comments area free of profanity and name-calling. So we eventually chose to turn off comments until we can come up with a better way to handle situations like this, where we have a significant amount of people who refuse to abide by the rules we set out.

Wild Thing’s comment………..
This reminds me of something….. The first computer I bought was in 1997. I had been watching MSNBC and CNN about the Clintons.Night after night, day after day the endless sickening things they did. I was so outraged at all the ‘gates’ and the crimes, dead bodies surrounding their rise to power to keep them in power and their disrespect for our White House, our Military etc. I had to get a computer. The first day I had it I asked the man that hooked it all up for me……..” how do I get to MSNBC to their forums they call them on TV?” He had no clue what I was talking about but he showed me how to do a search to find it and I was all set. I thanked him and told him I had some dragons to slay. Always a girl of action haha I spent the first 5 hours ( that felt like 15 minutes online) searching for information to back up what I wanted to say. I knew it my gut they were criminals but I wanted quotes, dates etc.
Next I headed to MSNBC and started in. Chose a name to use and zap, pow,bang, k-boom I was having a ball. I was ranting to beat the band and telling how I felt about Bill and Hillary. Then I asked someone that was agreeing with me how did he post articles and photos. He was kind enough to tell me in an email and a whole new world opened up to me.
Back to the point sorry. haha What does this have to do with a newspaper online having to close their blog? Because in all the ranting I did, in all the furry of anger and rock solid rage that I had in me, not once did I personally attack another poster. I knew it would diminish the character I was trying to show was missing in the slime of the Clinton’s. The attacks I noticed came all from the left to all of us posting truth about Bill and Hillary. The attacks were vile, and they sometimes included threats. Physical threats to some of us, enough so that even MSNBC moderators sent emails to those of us getting them telling us they had banned the poster for a time out and the rest was up to us how we wanted to handle it. Many evenings I would sit and post with tears streaming down my face from the hurtful things posted to not only myself but to others and the ones being attacked a lot were Veterans and good people. I noticed something, even though I was crying, the attacks only made me more determined and stronger. It amazed me how this happened.
So why if the Blog at the Washington Post experienced the horrors from the left did they not just become stronger. More determined to take a stand instead of shutting down. True shutting down makes a bold statement too, but it is also a form of giving in which is more like taking two steps back instead of forward. I consider it a compliment if the left attacks. It means nerves are being hit and success has occurred.
It is a fact that liberals are mean and vicious. They have learned well over the years that they cannot win on honor, they have none. They cannot win with the truth, that is foreign to them. They DO win by being bullies, by hate speech and saying the word fight over and over again. They win because they have the media on their side to promote their lies and propaganda. They specialize in hate speech and slander. They thrust their finger in ones face and raise their voices to try to intimidate those they are speaking to and have used the monotone voice like Hillary does of the old Communist regime leaders as they did their speeches to their followers on the streets in Russia.
I am not surprised the Washington Post shut down a blog of theirs, just disappointed in them for their weakness. The left will look at it as a win, a victory believe me, and not be shamed by it at all.

HYPOCRISY n.: An Act Or Instance Of Such Falseness

And here are the top 10………………..
10. Larry Noble, Executive Director Of The Center For Responsive Politics, A Non-Partisan Government Watchdog Group, Says Democrats Are Just As Caught Up In The Abramoff Scandal. Noble: “I Would Say, Broadly Defined As A Question Of The Tribes’ Buying Influence In Washington, It Includes Democrats.” (Donald Lambro, “Dean Denies Party Ties To Abramoff,” The Washington Times, 1/11/06)
9. 39 Of 44 Senate Democrats, And 1 Of 1 Senate Independents, Have Accepted Contributions From Abramoff Affiliated Lobbying Firms And Indian Tribes. (Charles Hurt, “Dorgan Returns Abramoff Money,” The Washington Times, 12/14/05)
8. Abramoff Affiliated Lobbying Firms And Indian Tribes Have Contributed Over $3.1 Million To Democrat Party Interests Between 1997 And 2004. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 1/17/06)
“Of The 18 Largest Recipients Of Tribe Contributions Directed By Abramoff’s Group, Six, Or One-Third, Were Democrats.” (Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis, “Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations,” The Washington Post, 6/3/05)
7. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) Used Abramoff’s MCI Center Skybox For Fundraisers In 2002 And 2003, Without Proper Reimbursement. (Sharon Theimer, “Lobbyist Helped Draft Harkin Letters To Interior,” The Associated Press, 12/3/05)
6. Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) Former Legislative Counsel, Edward Ayoob, Was “Team Abramoff’s” Top Democrat. While Working With Abramoff, Ayoob Held Fundraisers For Reid And Contributed Nearly $40,000 To Democrats. (Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis, “Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations,” The Washington Post, 6/3/05; The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 1/17/06)
5. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Has Received $14,891 From Abramoff Affiliated Lobbying Firms And Indian Tribes. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 1/4/06)
4. Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), A Member Of The Democrats “Clean House Team” To Propose Lobbying Reform, Took A Trip To Northern Mariana Islands Improperly Paid For By Jack Abramoff. (Larry Margasak, “Records Say Travel By Two Democratic Lawmakers And Two Delay Aides Paid By Lobbyist And Firm,” The Associated Press, 5/3/05)
3. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Used Abramoff’s MCI Center Skybox For A Fundraiser In 2001, Without Proper Reimbursement, And Accepted More Than $10,000 In Contributions From “Team Abramoff” Lobbyists After Reviving One Of Their Issues. (John Solomon and Sharon Theimer, “Abramoff Investigator Used Lobbyist’s Skybox, Helped Client,” The Associated Press, 12/1/05)
2. Abramoff Affiliated Lobbying Firms And Indian Tribes Contributed More Than $1.2 Million To The DNC, DCCC, And DSCC. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 1/4/06)
1. Democratic Sens. Harry Reid (D-NV) And Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Are Reportedly Part Of “First Tier” Of Lawmakers Being Scrutinized By Justice Department In Influence Peddling Investigation. (Donald Lambro, “Dean Denies Party Ties To Abramoff,” The Washington Times, 1/11/06)
Yesterday, ( January 18,2006) the Democrats signed a declaration to rid the Congress of corruption and save the day. This sounds like one of those ‘promise rings’ type of measures that gives Democrats a good photo-op and makes it look like they are accomplishing something. Photo above is from C-Span
Wild Thing’s comment………….
Reid and Polosi took out a pen and piece of paper and say they now have struck a”pledge” with America that they (the RATS) will now take the government back from the evil corrupt Republicans by ”pledging” to the people that they are for ”honest leadership and open government”. All we have to do is put them back in the Whitehouse and give them the Congress and Senate back and everything we’ll be fine again!! Then they took out this giant pen and piece of paper and all the reporters took pictures of them signing their” pledge to America”!

The Democrats marched over to the Library of Congress for a staged signing ceremony. Ironically, the LoC website says the venue may not be used for political events. But nonetheless, the Dems staged an event at the Library of Congress where they signed a pledge “committing them to honest leadership and open government.”
Now did they not know that the Library of Congress is not allowed to be used for political purposes! ?!
The Library of Congress Guildlines
And this…….
Nancy Pelosi, has been claiming in recent weeks they want to ban lobbyist gifts to lawmakers. Well, isn’t it interesting that Nancy Pelosi voted AGAINST a provision in 1995 which would have banned lobbyist gifts to members of Congress!
Washington Post………
Congressional Democrats today( January 18, 2006) laid out a plan to change what they called a Republican “culture of corruption” in Washington, trying to secure a political advantage even as they wrestle with ethics charges against their own lawmakers.
Wild Thing comment……………
It is EXACTLY the same thing the GOP Leadership outlined at their presser yesterday. Exactly. As usual our Junk Journalists did NOT even cover what the Republican plan was before hyperventilating about the Dems.

And then on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace last weekend,

Harry Reid refuses to hold himself to the same standards he holds for Republicans, or even the standards of his fellow Democrats, who have returned donations they received connected to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Reid was unable to admit his hypocrisy for being connected to Abramoff, and once again refused to return the donations he’s received:
WALLACE: … One of the biggest scandals in Washington right now involves Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist who’s under investigation, and his clients.
It turns out that you received $66,000 in campaign contributions from Abramoff and his clients. Some of your colleagues…
REID: Chris, Chris…
WALLACE: May I ask the question?
REID: Don’t try to say I received money from Abramoff.
REID: I’ve never met the man, don’t know anything…
WALLACE: But you’ve received money from…
REID: Make sure that all your viewers understand — not a penny from Abramoff. I’ve been on the Indian Affairs Committee my whole time in the Senate.
WALLACE: But you’ve received money from his firm. You’ve received money from some of his clients. The question I’m asking if I may get the question out, Senator. Some of your colleagues, both Republican and Democrats, have given back campaign contributions that had any taint of Abramoff to it. Are you going to do so?
REID: Well, first of all, Chris, make sure that — again, I’ll repeat, Abramoff gave me no money. His firm gave me no money. He may have worked a firm where people have given me money. But I have — I feel totally at ease that I haven’t done anything that is even close to being wrong.
And I’m going to continue doing what I’ve done for my entire tenure in Congress. My record — any money that I’ve received — it’s a federal law. You can look who gave it to me, how much, when they gave it to me, and what their occupations are.
So don’t lump me in with Jack Abramoff. This is a Republican scandal. Don’t try to give any of it to me.

Harry Reid Says GOP Makes Mafia Blush
Human Events Online

In a mass e-mail today publicizing his “Jack Abramoff Rule” to bar lawmakers and staffers from receiving gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists, Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid discusses past threats on his life and tells supporters that the GOP’s “‘K Street Project’ is a shakedown machine that would make the mafia blush.”

He explains, “Republicans will be introducing their own ethics legislation. Quite frankly, having Republicans trying to clean up the mess in Washington would be like asking Jonh Gotti to clean up organized crime.”

Before drawing comparisons between Republicans and mobsters, Reid tells his supporters of his troubles as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, which was “being overrun by organized crime.”
In those years, Reid said, “there would be threats on my life, FBI stings and even a car bomb placed in my family’s station wagon.”
But, those experiences are incomparable to what he alleges is happening today. “I have been in public service for over 40 years and never been as disillusioned as I am today. … What is happening in Washington is every bit as corrupt as when Las Vegas was run by the mob, but the consquences for our country are worse.”
Below is the full text of the e-mail sent by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on behalf of Reid

Wild Thing’s comment……….
Poor old Harry seems to have forgotten the corrupt Clintons, Al Gore and the Chinese, the Daleys of Chicago, the Kennedy Machine, and Lord knows how many other examples of Dems distorting the democratic process!
This is ONLY a Republican scandal you say Harry???? huh? Patrick Kennedy was the second highest recipient of the Abramoff money, and he sure is no Republican. Abramoff was an equal opportunity kind of guy.
Dems are the “do as I say, not as I do”, or the “It applies to you, but not to me” party.

(more…)

Ever met a Hero? I have met thousands of them and I am still meeting them. They are the men and women that have served our country and keep my butt safe every day of every week of every year. They take risks you cannot imagine, more real then in some movie on the big screen. The leave loved ones back at home and pray they will wait for them.

Ladies and gentlemen I have written about a man named Jack Idema, a Special Forces Operator and his Task Force Saber 7. And I will continue to till he and his men are free.

One aspect of the case of illegally-imprisoned Special Forces soldier Jack Idema that I’ve stressed time and again is that the first ‘trial’, at which Jack, Brent and Ed were sentenced to between eight and ten years in prison, was a complete travesty. Of course, given the effeminate shrieking from human rights hustlers
that accompanies even the slightest deviation from due process, some people might conclude that Idema and his men received a fair enough hearing, and that a kind of rough justicfe was done. This was certainly the impression MSM were keen to convey in their coverage of the trial.
Here’s the BBC, who seemed to find it all
rather amusing:

There is no doubt that some hearings descended into almost comical chaos, with
witnesses having stand-up rows with Idema and the other Americans. And the
prosecution seemed to base most of its case on accusation rather than
evidence.
Translation was another problem – some of those chosen were not up to what was a difficult job.

… So what’s it to be? The travesty the Free Jack campaign claim, or the somewhat rowdy, but basically sound, trial MSM were witness to?
Well, a good place to begin putting our side of the story is with the trial judge, ‘former’ Taliban member Abdul
Baset Bakhtyari:

The original motion, like all motions filed, was ignored by Bakhtyari, who
claimed the Interim Criminal Code, was merely a guideline, not really law, and
that the laws of his former Taliban government would be applicable.

That’s not really a good start, is it? Because, as a generally-accepted rule, judges don’t get to choose which legal system they’re going to try a case under. More to the point, since Idema and his men had spent the preceding three years hunting, capturing and killing members of the Taliban, it seems almost laughable to suggest that Bakhtyari could have been viewed as even remotely qualified to preside over the case. The phrase ‘conflict of interest’ doesn’t even begin to describe this situation.
So much for the judge. What about the prosecutor, Abdul Fatah? After all, it was his job to assemble and present the case against Idema and his men — Surely if this had been done in a fair and even-handed manner, Judge Bakhtyari’s scope for mischief would have been severely curtailed?
Well, some hope. Prosecutor Fatah, you see, was an ex-KGB man, who’d worked for the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan. Here’s an example of how he conducted the case against Jack and his men:

Then Fatah would pass the note up to prosecutor Dawari, who would then walk
right up to the Judge’s bench and hand it to him while Jack, or later, one of
the attorneys, would be talking. Bakhtyari would then read the note, and make
some wild ruling. Regardless of how many times the defense objected or yelled
about the secret communications, Bakhtyari would just ignore the complaint.

… And so much for the prosecutor. What about a defence team? Well, although Idema and his men finally managed to acquire a U.S. lawyer, John Tiffany, to represent them, the state of play in the early stages of the trial was rather
different:

Bennett finally got a female Afghan lawyer in September 2004, ten days before
the final verdict. She met Bennett ONE TIME for 20 MINUTES. She promptly
informed Bennett that if she represented him Bakhtyari would not allow her to
speak because she was a woman, and he did not normally allow women to appear
in his court without a Burka. Then she dropped the real bomb– if she appeared
in court for Bennett, she would be murdered.

Now, if the Islamofascist judge, the resentful, ex-KGB prosecutor and defence lawyers placed under threat of death should they appear in court weren’t enough, there’s also the complete lack of evidence against Idema and his men.
Let’s be clear about this. I’m not saying the evidence presented by the prosecution was weak, or flawed, or fell apart under cross-examination. The prosecution simply produced no evidence against Jack Idema whatsoever. No
photographs showing marks of the torture Idema supposedly committed, no sworn-in witnesses. Nothing.
Even more galling, when Idema and his men attempted to present evidence that, in a normal courtroom, would have cleared them, the following occurred:

Jack read the law about being able to call a witness and Bakhtyari said,
"ok, call your witness." Fatah handed a secret note up once again.
This time to Prosecutor Dawari, who read it, smiled, then handed it to
Bakhtyari. The Taliban Judge read the note, chuckled, then said, "We will
save calling witnesses until the next hearing and you can do it then, this
hearing is finished." After four more hearings, and a verdict of guilty,
the defense had still not been allowed to call a single witness or ask a
single question of any of the terrorists who said the were hung upside down at
the first "press conference" which Bakhtyari later called a hearing.

Let’s put all of this together. Here we have a ‘trial’ in which:

• The judge is a member of the terrorist organisation the defendants were
  hunting

• The judge threw out the law of the land and tried the case under a
  completely different legal system

• The prosecutor conferred with the judge, passing secret notes and
  whispered advice to him

• Lawyers for the defence were threatened with death if they appeared in
  court

• No evidence of any kind was offered by the prosecution in support
  of the charges they brought against Idema and his men

• The defence were never allowed to present any evidence or call any
  witnesses

Question: What best describes the September 2004 trial? A shameful miscarriage of justice? Or, as the BBC would have it, ‘almost comical chaos’? The answer to this one should really be a no-brainer.
So what can we do about this? Well, for bloggers, there’s the weekly Free Jack Idema Blogburst. We are still really, really, really desperate for more people to get involved with this –The only way we can help Jack, Brent and Ed is by getting the truth about the case out to as many people as possible. Obviously, the more of us there are posting on this topic, the greater chance there is that our voices will be heard.
Anyone wishing to sign up for the Free Jack Idema Blogburst should email :
Cao or
Rottweiler Puppy for details.
If you want to know more about the story, Cao’s Blog has a large section devoted to Jack Idema. There’s also a timeline here, and, of course, a huge amount of information is available over at SuperPatriots, without whose work none of us would have learned about Jack’s story.
Finally, PLEASE NOTE: The SuperPatriots
and Jack images on this site are used with WRITTEN COPYRIGHT PERMISSION and any
use by any third party is subject to legal action by SuperPatriots.US
jack idema
afghanistan
Technorati Search for Jack Idema

The Free Jack Idema Blogroll:
The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
The Lone Voice
Red Hot Cuppa Politics
Kender’s Musings
Irate Nate
The Devil’s Kitchen
Cao’s Blog
Big Dog’s Weblog
Theodore’s World
NIF
Rottweiler Puppy
Making Headlines
My Newz n’ Ideas
Right For Scotland
Freedom Folks
The City Troll

 

 

They embrace the Sun and dance in the rain upon the winds of time.
In the places this side of Heaven that call to them.

Time runs the table, and yet…..
in one small moment,
the sky rests,
and the clouds open into blue.
Silence falls in circles
and the Sunlight carries a soft
dream
..down..down beside me
….drifting from a scream
of freedom, high above.
A bright moment…
…. Time falling.
….. upon the wind
A gift from the sky.
..gift of a Hawk!
…….the feather in my hand,
as I smile.
I touch the gift…
and walk away.
It has been a good day.
~ by Wild Thing

.

Wild Thing’s comment………………
Thank you Sparks for sending me this email from TomR.
TomR I love the Blue Angels and have been able to see them about 11 times. Before moving to Florida three years ago, we lived in Las Vegas for 6 years after living in Calif. for many years. So while living in Vegas we were invited several times to Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. and got to see them. It was such an honor to meet some of the men that flew and be able to welcome others home from serving in Iraq.
Thank you again for these awesome photos, I just had to share them on here because they are so special.

A-hem, now who only has sex in the bedroom?

Reuters- Quick! Move that TV into the den!

ROME (Reuters) – Thinking of buying a TV for the bedroom? Think again — it could ruin your sex life.
A study by an Italian sexologist has found that couples who have a TV set in their bedroom have sex half as often as those who don’t.
“If there’s no television in the bedroom, the frequency (of sexual intercourse) doubles,” said Serenella Salomoni whose team of psychologists questioned 523 Italian couples to see what effect television had on their sex lives.
On average, Italians who live without TV in the bedroom have sex twice a week, or eight times a month. This drops to an average of four times a month for those with a TV, the study found.
For the over-50s the effect is even more marked, with the average of seven couplings a month falling to just 1.5 times.
The study found certain programs are far more likely to impede passion than others. Violent films will put a stop to sexual relations for half of all couples, while reality shows stem passion for a third of couples.

Wild Thing’s comment………..
There probably is a even a newer study that says sex in the bedroom cuts TV watching in half. Hmmmm I wonder which came first………….. the lack of sex, or the TV? heh – heh
What the heck is wrong with those taking the survey anyway. Who in their right mind would choose TV over sex. Well wait a minute there are some shows I love but hey that is what the tape machine is for isn’t it? Sports is the only thing I can think of that would need to be seen as it happens. And why is the bedroom to that survey the all and be all. They obviously have no imagination or spontaneity.

CNSNews.com) –

As announced last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to meet today — Tuesday — to vote on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. But it’s not going to happen as planned.
Despite protests from Republicans, Democrats on the committee have pushed back the Judiciary Committee vote by one week, to Tuesday, Jan. 24, invoking their right to do so under Senate rules.

And this from National Review Online:

Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year.