Republican Attack Machine

2009-08-18T22:00:00.001-07:00

What Chase did with it's TARP money

2009-07-23T22:55:00.001-07:00

Here's a picture of your TARP funds at work, utilized by Chase Bank to purchase an actual tarp with which to cover the Washington Mutual signage on the building that apparently came with the purchase of that banking institution. I work in this building in North Hollywood, CA. As you can clearly see, this particular tarp FAILED!

Shameless coverup: The Flight 93 mosque, Part 4

2009-02-08T21:09:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8GoejBgPt4&eurl=http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2009/01/caught-on-video-shameful-cover-up-of.html

Rush's Speech at Hillsdale College Churchill Dinner in Washington, DC

2008-12-06T00:02:00.000-08:00

Reagan roots. Reagan roots is not anti-Communism and low taxes and the Laffer Curve and all the other things that Reagan was dealing with at the time. Reagan roots are the roots of our founding. And the primary leg on that stool is individual liberty. This is a nation founded on the concept that we are individuals. We are not a collective. We are individuals. And that we do our best when we are working in our own self interest, not selfishness, but our own self interest, improving our lives, our families' lives; improves everybody's lives around ours in our communities, cities, towns, the nation at large. Individual liberty will never go out of style because as our founders correctly noted, it is part of our creation. It's what sets this country apart from every other collection of human beings in the history of the world. We have acknowledged that our creation comes from God, not from government, that our freedom is a natural yearning of our creation. And that is the natural yearning of our spirit, to be free, all humanity, all human beings. And as such, liberty will never go out of style. Freedom will never go out of style. We will never, ever say hopefully "the era of freedom is over." We will never say "the era of liberty is over." And as such, we will make a huge mistake if we fall in line with these dummkopfs, who think they're the smartest in our room, who say "the era of Reagan is over." Because the era of Reagan is basic Conservatism 101 which believes, what? The best in everybody. It does not look across a room of people with contempt. It does not look and see incompetence. It doesn't see black, white, male, female, gay, straight. It sees human beings.

Conservatism sees Americans, sees potential, sees great opportunity, sees an opportunity for people to be the best they can be using whatever ambition and desire they have. Reaganism conservatism does not need to be adapted to issues of the day. There's no such thing as the conservative version of Big Government. That is a sellout of conservatism. [Applause.] What we need to stand true on -- we have to have the courage to continue to teach people that sometimes the way they're going and the way they're voting is not good for them, not good for their family, not good for the country. It may feel good at the moment. It's always going to be a battle. I forget who said this, but it's true. Any group of two people or more, any organization that is not, by definition, conservative, will be liberal. Because liberalism is the most gutless choice you can make. Liberalism's following a cult figure. Liberalism is following a demagogue. Liberalism is doing whatever thinking -- you have to do anything with a liberal, you just have to think in a way that makes yourself feel good. Walk outside the hotel tonight. See a couple homeless people on the grate and go, "Oh, that's so bad. Wow, am I a great person, I care." Yeah? What did you do for them? Well nothing, but I care. Yeah, well where's your homeless ribbon? I don't see it.

Read the whole thing

It could happen here, too...

2008-11-26T23:08:00.000-08:00

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At
least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With
your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.
You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.
In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes
it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both
thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to
the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call
police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are
privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours
was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar
has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of
a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry:
authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.
"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you
shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find
an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities
acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.
But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve
to Die."
The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably
win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several
times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their
lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you
told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District
Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as
your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your
anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a
picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury
to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison...

This case really happened.
On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law
forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun
sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of
1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except
shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by
private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the
Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man
with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.
When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable,
or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up
law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up
all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The
Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away
most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed
self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant
gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was
no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or
robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several
elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no
fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen
most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given
three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British
subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by
police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered
and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

Please Vote McCain

2008-11-02T10:19:00.000-08:00

Lookit: I'm a nutjob w/ the politics, and I get that, but this election is just too damned important for America. For the America you've grown up in. What we're talking about here is the unchecked reign of liberal socialism taking over this country. That might sound like hyperbole. It isn't.

Barack Hussein Obama has said (out loud, and in public) that he wants to take more money from people that have earned too much of it (in his opinion), and give it to people who don't earn enough. He's thrown 3 newspapers that don't agree with him off of his campaign plane in order to make room for Ebony & Jet magazines. He had two TV stations that asked hard questions of Joe Biden removed from the list of "approved" news outlets allowed to interview his campaign. Operatives and donors for the Obama campaign dug through Ohio state government records for dirt on Joe "The Plumber" Wurtzelbacher (such as his tax records, criminal records, child support records, etc.) simply because Joe asked Obama if he would raise taxes on his small business, to which Barack responded, "When we spread the wealth around it's good for everybody," which exposed Obama as a socialist, and so Joe had to be destroyed.

Think about this for a second: Newspapers, TV stations, and private citizens shut out & investigated for simply criticizing Obama. The democrat party wants to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine," which would shut down talk radio, and possibly even political blogs on teh internets. Imagine a Pelosi, Reid, and Obama trifecta w/ a veto proof majority in the Senate. Now think about what will happen if they can replace 3-4 Supreme Court justices in the next few years. That would mean unchecked power to socialize medicine, banking, the auto and energy industries, and the ability to silence any criticism, shut down conservative and Christian talk radio, censor the internet, and reallocate wealth from those who've earned it to those who have not (including illegal aliens). All of this without any Supreme Court oversight w/r/t the Constitutionality of any laws enacted against the 1st (or 2nd) amendment. Are we really prepared to do this to the United States of America? One party rule with an eye towards socialism? I don't believe that, but I'm scared I might be wrong. I have a tremendous lot of faith in the American people, and in my opinion they have to be smarter than that, but I'm still worried, because the media charged with informing the electorate about Presidential candidates has been completely in the tank for Obama.

Ask yourself, what do you really know about this man? Assuming for a moment that everything we all think we know is a Republican lie. He didn't spend 20 years in a black liberation theology church run by a racist Marxist, and even if he did, he never heard the preacher yell "G-d Damn America" "The US of KKK A" "America's chickens are coming home to roost" about 9-11, etc. He didn't get his first big job out of college from unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, and Billy didn't have Obama distribute $100,000,000.00 to Chicago area schools & community organization groups like ACORN to radicalize the youth. Obama never worked for ACORN ever, and certainly didn't train their volunteers to commit voter fraud, and his campaign didn't pay them $800,000.00 to "get out the vote" (wink wink) in swing state urban areas. He never said anything about spreading the wealth by taxing rich people so he could give their money to poor people. He certainly never pledged to cut military spending dramatically, to surrender in Iraq, to sit down and talk w/out preconditions w/ an avowed Jew-hating Holocaust denying head of Iran. He doesn't admire Hugo Chavez and the way he nationalized Venezuela's oil companies. Of course Bill Ayers didn't ghost-write "Dreams From My Father," and all of that terrorism he did was way before Barry launched his political career in his living room. He didn't take the extraordinary step of suing his opponents in state legislature races to eliminate black signatories to their petitions to be added to the ballot against him in primaries, or have anything to do with the sealed divorce records of his challengers for IL state legislature & U.S. Senate. Barack Obama did not, I repeat, did not vote 3 times (Three Times!) against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act," a measure designed to ensure medical care for babies that had survived botched abortions. He never bemoaned as a tragedy the fact that the court system was ill equipped to overturn the Constitution and begin administering "Social & Economic Justice" of the victims of American capitalism, and he certainly never compared the story of America w/r/t African Americans to Nazi Germany. Michelle Obama never said that for the first time in her life she's proud of her country, which in 2008 is downright mean, and her college thesis had nothing to do with lying about her beliefs to fit in with white people at Princeton. No, Barack Obama didn't vote present 150 times instead of taking a stand on positions affecting his district in Chicago, which is not a slum to this day, no matter what the right-wing press is saying. He didn't spend his entire U.S. Senate career (all 2 years of it) running for President, just like he didn't spend his 2 years as editor of the Harvard Law Review w/out writing a single thing for them (nor are the rumors that Rashid Khalidi got him in to Harvard and paid his tuition in any way credible, even if the LA Times has decided not to release the tape of that former spokesman for the PLO being praised by Obama at an Israel-bashing dinner in Chicago (again, with Bill Ayers & Bernadine Dohrn (unrepentant domestic terrorists who bombed the pentagon, U.S. Capitol, NYPD HQ, and planned on blowing up the officer's club @ Fort Dix until the people putting the bombs together ("Use carpentry nails for anti personnel purposes," said Ayers) blew themselves the hell up)). Barack Hussein Obama would never trash talk his own country in Berlin just to drum up angry anti-American world support for his campaign, and he never threatened to invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden, nor did he suggest that U.S. forces in the region were air raiding villages to kill civilians.

I could go on and on about what we need to assume isn't true about Obama, but let's just say none of that stuff is true either. It's all lies generated by the Republican Attack Machine. But what do you know about him other than that? Can anybody vouch for this guy who wouldn't immediately need to be denounced by the campaign for political expediency? What were his grades like at Columbia and Harvard? Can we read some of his papers to get a glimpse into how his mind works? Will he tell the LA Times to release the Khalidi tape, or release the gag order on his illegal immigrant deportation fugitive aunt living in that slum in Boston, who says she's not allowed to discuss their relationship w/ the press? Why have the press been camped out outside the home of Joe the Plumber, and no one thought to interview William Ayers on the candidate? I'm asking you to ask yourself, "What do we know about this man?" I know what I know about him, and not too much of it recommends him for the job. Is it possible that we are about to elect a man Commander in Chief that not even Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden thought was ready for the position until after they lost the primaries to him? What do you really know about Barack Obama? I'm asking you to stop and think about that before you vote, and if the answer is, "Not much," to do the responsible thing and vote the other way. This election is too important for America to find out (too late) that they've selected an unknown quantity.

Whatever you think about McCain, you know he loves this country and will be loyal to whatever's best for her no matter what the Republicans or the Democrats have to say about it. This is a man who wouldn't leave the Hanoi Hilton early because the code of conduct said "1st in, 1st out" and was beaten and tortured unrepentantly for 7 years longer as a result. This may be why military personnel support him by like 80%. John McCain wants to cut taxes, win the war on terror, keep Iran away from nuclear weapons, and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Governor Palin wants to drill for oil in ANWR and build a pipeline through Canada to deliver Alaskan oil to the lower 48 states. A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for lower gas prices and lower taxes. These policies will secure this country's economic future, and a vote for his opponent is a vote for the failed socialist policies of Europe & China (although, in fairness to China, they've essentially admitted failure and embraced capitalism (just ask Walmart, another of Obama's targeted enemies list)).

I don't usually do this sort of thing, but I'm asking you to ask yourself if the U.S.A. can afford to take this chance on someone about which we know nothing. I'm asking you to ask yourself, what has Barack Obama ever accomplished other than his meteoric rise to political power? If everything we think we know about him isn't true, then what is? No one in the media dares ask this question for fear of being removed from the inner circle of access to "The One," but shouldn't we know this sort of thing before voting for a President?

I know the last 8 years have been unpleasant in a number of ways. What am I gonna say about W? He stinks on ice, I get it. But the thing is, he’s not running. We get change no matter what happens, so let’s make sure it’s the change we need and want. Yes, adopting socialism and appeasement would be a change, but is that what we want? That’s what Hamas wants. That’s what Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi want. That’s what Hezbollah wants. That’s what Europe wants. That’s what China wants. That’s what John Kerry & Al Gore want. Do we as Americans want to be on the same page with these people, or do we want to stand as one for the principles of American Exceptionalism: Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness? Barack Obama does not believe that America is as great a country as we all think it is. He disagrees fundamentally with a number of the principals upon which this country was founded, and he wants to change them. Do you?

If any of the people on this list were already planning on voting McCain, then I hope this diatribe made you feel better about your decision. You are doing the right thing, and every vote counts. If you were planning on voting Obama, please don’t. If you can’t bring yourself (for whatever reason) to vote for McCain, please just don’t vote. Please don’t vote for someone about which you know nothing simply because he’s clean and well spoken like his crazy running mate says. Please don’t vote for a man who hung out with people who hate our country for the last 20 years. Please don’t vote for a socialist just because he has a “D” after his name. Please don’t vote for raising taxes in a tumultuous economy for the purpose of taking money from achievers and giving it to non-achievers. Please don’t vote for someone who wants to gut the U.S. military in order to appease our enemies. Please don’t.

These are precarious times for our country, so I’m asking you to think of yourselves.

Please don’t do this.

Vote McCain.

Algore's Bullshit!!!

2008-07-28T01:02:00.001-07:00

Penn & Teller RULE!

232 Years & Running Strong!

2008-07-06T01:49:00.000-07:00

In Congress, July 4, 1776

Friday 04 July 2008

»

by: The Boston Globe | Editorial

photo
Signing of the Declaration of Independence. (Painting by John Trumbull)

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

WHEN IN the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience heth shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the People.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States, for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislature, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Sign The Petition

2008-06-14T20:06:00.000-07:00

The drag lines, as seen from what will be the center of the giant Mecca-oriented crescent that is to be planted on the flight 93 crash site. (Photo by Alec Rawls, 2006.)

Sign The Petition

2008-05-26T01:02:00.001-07:00

My Message To Rush

2008-05-08T19:27:00.000-07:00

In response to his May 8th, 2008 remarks here:

RUSH: Now, there is no Republican attack machine. The Republican Party, as a party, does not have an attack machine. The Republican Party doesn't even have a defense machine. The Republican Party is just sitting around twiddling its thumbs and hoping people continue to send it money. The place where there are activists is in conservatism. And because of the total inability, lack of desire of the Republican Party to actually play this game according to the rules set by the aggressor, which is the Democrats; activists on the conservative side, such as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth will surface and tell people the truth about the Democrat nominee, John Kerry. Now, what you have to understand when you hear liberal Democrats or the media talking about a Republican attack machine, the translation for that is: "Damn Republicans! They're going to tell the truth about us again." A Republican "attack" or any "attack" on a Democrat or a liberal is by definition the truth, and as such, it's "vicious" and it is "mean," and it's "uncalled for," and we should not engage in attacks. The Democrats don't want the truth about themselves told and broadcast. So that's what the Republican attack machine is. The official Republican Party doesn't have one, conservatives who care about the future of the country in an ideological sense, know that defeating liberals is key to moving the country forward according to the way we see it; and as such, there are groups that will come forward, produce their own ads. Those groups now are, you know, probably going to be denounced by our Republican nominee, Senator McCain, if they happen to go too negative. But there is no Republican attack machine. There is a conservative survival machine, and it exists entirely to tell the truth!

I had to respond to Rush via the Super-Secret eMail...

Here is a copy of the email you just sent to Rush Limbaugh, The Doctor of Democracy

Hi Rush, Love you, love the show. I have to point out a misstatement you made on today's program with regard to the Republican Attack Machine. As the founder and proprietor of the blog at http://attackmachine.blogspot.com/ I just wanted you to know that we are active and out there fighting the good fight. Unfortunately I was unable to participate in "Betrieb Chaos," as I'd already voted for Mitt Romney in CA (although I was tempted to fly back to my home state of PA to vote later, as I did in 2004, but that would have been unethical). Just a heads up. Thank you for all you do, CinCUSOC!

But I agree with everything else he said, so please do send some money (not that I know how to make that work on these newfangled machines...Maybe you slide it into the floppy drive, somehow?)

The EnviroSocialists Have to be Stopped!

2008-04-25T19:32:00.000-07:00

Al Gore & Environmental Doomsayers Will Be Embarrassed in the Next 30 Years

It's great to see that these movements like the "Global Cooling" scare & the "Population Explosion" scare from the 60's and 70's just look silly in hindsight. I hope AlGore lives into a long and totally disgraced old age, just like Jimmah Carter.

Obama: God & Guns & Border Security Issues the result of Bitterness

2008-04-12T20:01:00.000-07:00

Photoshop courtesy of Michelle Malkin

Audio:

Full Speech Audio

Everyone is missing the boat on the Obama PA/SF situation. The real issue here is that Barack is positing that heartland Americans believe in their Constitutional rights to bear arms and practice their religion(s) freely, as well as the Constitution's requirement of the federal government to protect our borders, simply because some steel mills got closed down. The implicit suggestion is that if these folks are given governmental support, these rights will cease to be important to them. It would not surprise me at all that this is truly what he believes as a pure liberal elitist, and the thought of that ideology in the white house is bone chillingly frightening. Put an ad together with that message, and McCain'll be a walk into the White House without breaking a sweat.

Because Scientology is Pure Evil!

2008-03-29T01:20:00.000-07:00

RAM Endorses Jimmy Tide

2008-01-15T05:09:00.000-08:00

While we here at the Attack Machine rarely (if ever) endorse political candidates in the primary season, a man has clearly separated himself from the pack, much in the way laundry is separated whites from coloreds. His message is one for a cleaner America, and golly does this lil' fella know clean. Therefore, after long hours of deliberation, the Republican Attack Machine proudly endorses Jimmy Tide for the Republican nomination in 2008. May God bless the clean shirts of America, and may God continue to bless Jimmy Tide!
FRRRRRRUNKIS!!!

Vote Jimmy Tide '08!

Update, Greatest Video Ever

2008-01-14T20:06:00.000-08:00

Apparently, those wussies over at YouTube feel that showing our brave airmen kicking serious A$$ from their superior gunships and wiping out enemy resistance is just too much for the fragile sensibilities of people who regularly allow jihadi videos of all stripes to play unfettered. So here's the video, still hosted at LiveLeak:

Click Here for Apache Goodness

Greatest Video Ever!

2008-01-14T04:36:00.000-08:00

America's Mayor

2008-01-06T14:56:00.000-08:00

9/11 Truthers Always Lose

2007-12-23T23:49:00.000-08:00

My response to This Diarist @ the Daily Kos:

Mr. Hirschhorn,

I just completed your diary at Daily Kos and I had some quick observations for your consideration.

First, you state that, "Simply put, controlled demolition brought down three buildings, not fires from the impact of planes on two of them," without providing any sort of citation for this incredible claim, sans www.ae911truth.org. Frankly, I find this opening statement laughable from a former full professor of engineering. I'm not an engineer, but I know enough about demolition to realize that bringing down two structures the size of the Twin Towers would require thousands of man hours of preparation along with thousands of pounds of powerful explosives. This just isn't something a hundred odd black ops fellas could pull off in a weekend or two, and even if they could, evidence of the preparation would be more than apparent to anyone showing up to work in those buildings on 9/11/01.

But let's say the CIA (or some other shadowy agency) had the time and manpower to set up such a controlled demolition and then re-drywall the internal structure (after having torn through a good deal of the place to plant the explosives and wire all of the charges for remote detonation) to the degree that it would seem all was just business as usual to people who'd worked there for years. Even under this almost certainly implausible (and solely for the sake of argument, I assure you) scenario, once the hijacked aircraft slammed into the buildings and set them aflame (even without the planes (not sure how deep your personal degree of conspiracy belief goes, there), I think we can agree the buildings were on fire for a bit before the collapse), the wiring for demolition charges would be melted through, making remote demolition impossible. Which is to say, provided the demolition was planned, once the building bursts into flames (for whatever reason), I think the idea of "control" goes right out the window.

As far as the third building (WTC7) is concerned, I've always been confused by the rationale for that (from the conspirators' point of view, I mean). Simply put, how does that help the cause of the operation? We've already got the Pentagon hit (with several hundred casualties), the Twin Towers destroyed (about 3000 dead), and the country as a whole is pretty much ready for some serious payback, no matter who gets hurt in the process. We're talking verifiable signs of national bloodlust, here. "Nuke 'Em" barely has the sentiment covered, seriously. What on earth would be the point of deliberately destroying an empty financial building in a controlled demolition hours later? Why risk it? Please, if you can explain this to me, I would be very appreciative (also, again on the feasibility of maintaining the wiring to all the charges necessary for a controlled demolition within a burning building).

But leaving the engineering feasibility of the three controlled demolitions aside, my second issue concerns your strategery for reconciling your concerns. After repeatedly claiming that the powerful elites, both Democrat and Republican, in the highest levels of government are all co-conspirators in this massive abuse of power over the American public, you then propose drafting "The 9/11 Truth Act of 2008" and submitting this proposal to the House and Senate of the U.S. Congress! Seriously!?! I literally laughed out loud when I read this. For a full minute, from the gut, and I'm not even kidding. Do you really think, after a government that can't do anything right (and I mean almost ever) pulls off a conspiracy of this magnitude, for this long, and with this level of success, that they're just gonna decide, out of the freakin' blue, to let you wreck it with some amateur citizen drafted legislation? Oh, and then the President is going to sign it into law, or else all of the 9/11 Truthers aren't going to vote for him (for the record, I don't think he's throwing his hat into the ring this time out (and technically, as far as I know, Congressional investigations don't need to be signed into law by the President, or did Bill Clinton sign off on the whole Whitewater thing?)). This whole idea is logically contradicted by the first half of your diary's claims of massive government corruption and by the nature of the conspiracy itself. Good luck with that.

And finally, my third issue stems from your statement regarding the reasons for the conspiracy, "The 'why' is obvious: To justify an unjust war to serve corporate interests and greed." Assuming this is true, if the whole point of this "conspiracy" was to get the authority to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, wouldn't the conspirators have the good sense to at least frame some terrorists from Iraq and Afghanistan? Of the nineteen (alleged) hijackers, here's the breakdown: one from Egypt, one from Lebanon, two from the UAE, fifteen from Saudi Arabia. Why haven't we invaded any of these countries yet? Just curious.

Again, I'm not an engineer or an expert in geopolitical affairs, but in my humble (albeit amateur) opinion, if the 9/11 truth movement does in fact get to display its beliefs on the national stage in front of the House or the Senate for the purposes of this new investigation, you need to have some plausible answers to these obvious questions at the ready.

Looking forward to your prompt reply,

~Wingnut523

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery." ~Winston Churchill

Always fun to have fun with the Truthers

Update His Reply (and my retort):

What I find terribly sad about your lengthy email is that ALL of your issues/concerns have been fully addressed by extremely competent, professional people that have devoted much of their lives to examining what really went on. There simply is no substitute for someone like you spending maybe 50-100 hours honestly reading a tremendous amount of material available on the Internet; a terrific starting point is the site I provided, because it is truly focused on science and engineering; the other site I provided provides information on the remarkable array of the most reputable people one could imagine supporting the truth movement. Drop your ego and preconceived beliefs and open your mind and I am 99% certain that if you spend sufficient time studying materials you would join our cause; most of us went through that process; I spent incredible hours studying materials before I joined the movement. On a scale of 1-10 your level of information is no more than 1. And stop trying to find excuses to believe the official story.....

To which I replied:

Mr. Hirschhorn,

Thank you for your timely response. While I appreciate your promptness, I must point out that you seem to have missed the ultimate point of my correspondence. Surely you don't expect to tell Senators and Congressmen that if they have basic questions regarding "The 9/11 Truth Act of 2008" that they'll need to do 50-100 hours worth of reading on the internet beginning with your favorite 9/11 Truth websites. These are our elected representatives. They don't even bother to read multi-billion dollar budgets before voting on them. Some of them probably don't even understand how to access the internet (I'm not kidding). Perhaps you should assign some of the "extremely competent, professional people" to address the elected folks, as your response indicates that you're not the guy to talk to w/r/t specifics. Which, on your scale of 1-10 would put you (best case scenario) at about a 6. My reasoning here is that, if what you say about this conspiracy is true, the top of the pyramid (i.e. the architect of the conspiracy) would rate a 10 on the scale. His immediate underlings and the bureaucratic infrastructure would come in at around 9ish, while the (alleged) terrorists and their victims are at 8. Since you've allotted the next available slot to "extremely competent, professional people," your best case finish is a 6 (unless, of course, you are in fact a contributing conspirator (or, I guess, a victim, which seems unlikely given your ability to type and respond to queries)). As I've achieved level 1, my 50-100 hours of study should (presumably) advance me through 2-5 (I wouldn't presume to achieve your level, sir). As far as the middle bit's concerned, if one eliminates the ego and spends sufficient time in any area of study, the odds are good that one would make a valuable asset to the studied area's defense. That doesn't make a lick of difference regarding the truth off the matter, however. To use your analogy about telling children about their mass murdering parents (arrogance being the centerpiece of persuasive debate, as you well know), try having O.J.'s kids spend 50-100 hours researching their father's case on the internet and see whether they come away as a part of the movement to have him put away for life. You might have some luck with his older daughter. At least that's the word on the street. But I digress.

Talk to you again in 50-100 hours.

Merry Christmas,

~Wingnut523

Be Reasonably Afraid. Be Very Reasonably Afraid...

2007-12-16T04:12:00.000-08:00

From Ron Silver's blog on Pajamas Media:

In February of 2004, NYU held a conference about fear. The conference was called “Fear: Its Uses and Abuses.” In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, posters with crude caricatures of Japanese and Nazis appeared with “Warning! Our homes are in danger now!” Exclamation points at the beginning and close of the warning, in case the message escaped us. It was called propaganda. As reported in the New York Times, in an article by Edward Rothstein, (propaganda’s) “accepted function was to galvanize, urge, justify, remind and yes, frighten.” (italics mine)

After the Second World War, with Truman’s approval rating in national polls falling more than 50 points, the president and his secretary of state, Dean Acheson, called in Senator Arthur Vandenberg, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and explained to him how the Communists were establishing a beachhead in Greece that would threaten all of Western Europe. According to Tim Weiner, author of Legacy of Ashes: “The U.S. was going to have to find a way to save the free world-and Congress would have to pay the bill.” Senator Vandenberg replied ”Mr. President, the only way you are going to get this is to make a speech and scare the hell out of the country.” On March 12, 1947 the president made that speech to a joint session of Congress. He argued that money needed to be sent to Greece, because they “were threatened by the terrorist activities of thousands of armed men.” Thus the president’s decision with Congressional approval led to one of the early battles against Soviet domination. These cold and not so cold wars would last for more than 50 years, culminating in the Soviet Empire’s defeat. Fear was the lubricant. At times there was domestic overreaction as the rise of politicians like McCarthy and Nixon took advantage of the fear. And grievous mistakes were made that scarred many of my generation and I daresay our nation. But our nation survived the excesses and survived the Soviet threat.

After September 11, with the emerging threat of Islamic terrorism becoming more manifest in the public mind (many of us took this threat more seriously than others prior to this atrocity), what sticks out most immediately is how, again according to Edward Rothstein, there were “[s]o few examples of graphic American propaganda and none using ethnic or racial caricatures. Yet beginning with Al Gore, who delivered the keynote address at the Conference, the former vice president asserted again and again that the American government is preoccupied with instilling fear.” The conference was essentially about fear being encouraged by our government and exacerbated by the media. It was compared with the irrational fear of Communism and the perversions of McCarthyism.

Read the whole thing.

The Chinese Are Coming

2007-11-05T14:21:00.000-08:00

FBI Thinks China Is Greatest Threat

The Federal Bureau of Investigation believes that China poses the greatest threat to the U.S. in terms of espionage — and that thousands of “front companies” in America have been set up to aid Chinese spying, according to the Maldon Institute.

A new report from the respected think tank, titled “The Chinese Secret Intelligence Service,” warns, “China’s intelligence services today consist of a vast shadowy organization that employs approximately 2 million full- or part-time agents.

“Federal officials in the United States, in numerous interviews during the past year, say and have said that there are more foreign spies operating in the United States than during the Cold War . . .

“In size and numbers, no country now can equal the numbers of Chinese spies in our country.”

The report quotes David Szady, FBI assistant director for counterintelligence, who said in a recent interview that the Chinese spymasters “figured out that what they want is throughout the United States, not just embassies, not just consulates. It’s a major effort.”

The Maldon Institute report states: “The FBI believes that for the next 10 to 15 years, China is the greatest threat to the United States.

“The Bureau believes that today there are more than 3,000 ‘front’ companies in America whose real job is to direct espionage efforts. Then there are thousands of Chinese visitors, students and business people: how many of them have tasks to perform for Beijing’s Ministry of State Security?”

A great deal of the FBI’s information comes from the highest-ranking Chinese defector to arrive in Washington: Xu Junping, director of Strategy in Beijing’s Defense Ministry.

He claims that for five years he oversaw all operations against the U.S. and set up the business plans for the more than 3,000 Chinese companies launched to operate across the United States, according to the report.

The report also intimates the success of the Chinese espionage: “An analyst in the Defense Intelligence Agency informed a colleague that during the past three years, the Chinese have stolen $24 billion worth of secrets, and that many of these items enabled Beijing to accelerate its space program . . .

“The FBI also is following up on a number of investigative leads, such as who is funding individual Chinese students and which students, after graduation with a computer or other science degree, seek employment with a high-tech company.”

Having Your Cake & Eating it, too...

2007-11-03T18:27:00.000-07:00

Will Miracles Never Cease?

2007-10-28T21:27:00.000-07:00

Opie in Malibu doing the Lord’s work…

Racist Literature

2007-04-27T13:50:00.000-07:00

Zombie on the scene again... Berkley

For everyone that missed Midnight Mass...

2006-12-26T02:01:00.000-08:00

Pope Benedict XVI's midnight mass homily:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

We have just heard in the Gospel the message given by the angels to the shepherds during that Holy Night, a message which the Church now proclaims to us: "To you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger" (Lk 2:11-12). Nothing miraculous, nothing extraordinary, nothing magnificent is given to the shepherds as a sign. All they will see is a child wrapped in swaddling clothes, one who, like all children, needs a mother’s care; a child born in a stable, who therefore lies not in a cradle but in a manger. God ’s sign is the baby in need of help and in poverty. Only in their hearts will the shepherds be able to see that this baby fulfils the promise of the prophet Isaiah, which we heard in the first reading: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder" (Is 9:5). Exactly the same sign has been given to us. We too are invited by the angel of God, through the message of the Gospel, to set out in our hearts to see the child lying in the manger.

God’s sign is simplicity. God’s sign is the baby. God’s sign is that he makes himself small for us. This is how he reigns. He does not come with power and outward splendour. He comes as a baby – defenceless and in need of our help. He does not want to overwhelm us with his strength. He takes away our fear of his greatness. He asks for our love: so he makes himself a child. He wants nothing other from us than our love, through which we spontaneously learn to enter into his feelings, his thoughts and his will – we learn to live with him and to practise with him that humility of renunciation that belongs to the very essence of love. God made himself small so that we could understand him, welcome him, and love him. The Fathers of the Church, in their Greek translation of the Old Testament, found a passage from the prophet Isaiah that Paul also quotes in order to show how God’s new ways had already been foretold in the Old Testament. There we read: "God made his Word short, he abbreviated it" (Is 10:23; Rom 9:28). The Fathers interpreted this in two ways. The Son himself is the Word, the Logos; the eternal Word became small – small enough to fit into a manger. He became a child, so that the Word could be grasped by us. In this way God teaches us to love the little ones. In this way he teaches us to love the weak. In this way he teaches us respect for children. The child of Bethlehem directs our gaze towards all children who suffer and are abused in the world, the born and the unborn. Towards children who are placed as soldiers in a violent world; towards children who have to beg; towards children who suffer deprivation and hunger; towards children who are unloved. In all of these it is the Child of Bethlehem who is crying out to us; it is the God who has become small who appeals to us. Let us pray this night that the brightness of God’s love may enfold all these children. Let us ask God to help us do our part so that the dignity of children may be respected. May they all experience the light of l ove, which mankind needs so much more than the material necessities of life.

And so we come to the second meaning that the Fathers saw in the phrase: "God made his Word short". The Word which God speaks to us in Sacred Scripture had become long in the course of the centuries. It became long and complex, not just for the simple and unlettered, but even more so for those versed in Sacred Scripture, for the experts who evidently became entangled in details and in particular problems, almost to the extent of losing an overall perspective. Jesus "abbreviated" the Word – he showed us once more its deeper simplicity and unity. Everything taught by the Law and the Prophets is summed up – he says – in the command: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind… You shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Mt 22:37-40). This is everything – the whole faith is contained in this one act of love which embraces God and humanity. Yet now further questions arise: how are we to love God with all our mind, when our intellect can barely reach him? How are we to love him with all our heart and soul, when our heart can only catch a glimpse of him from afar, when there are so many contradictions in the world that would hide his face from us? This is where the two ways in which God has "abbreviated" his Word come together. He is no longer distant. He is no longer unknown. He is no longer beyond the reach of our heart. He has become a child for us, and in so doing he has dispelled all doubt. He has become our neighbour, restoring in this way the image of man, whom we often find so hard to love. For us, God has become a gift. He has given himself. He has entered time for us. He who is the Eternal One, above time, he has assumed our time and raised it to himself on high. Christmas has become the Feast of gifts in imitation of God who has given himself to us. Let us allow our heart, our soul and our mind to be touched by this fact! Among the many gifts that we buy and receive, let us not forget the true gift: to give each other something of ourselves, to give each other something of our time, to open our time to God. In this way anxiety disappears, joy is born, and the feast is created. During the festive meals of these days let us remember the Lord’s words: "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite those who will invite you in return, but invite those whom no one invites and who are not able to invite you" (cf. Lk 14:12-14). This also means: when you give gifts for Christmas, do not give only to those who will give to you in return, but give to those who receive from no one and who cannot give you anything back. This is what God has done: he invites us to his wedding feast, something which we cannot reciprocate, but can only receive with joy. Let us imitate him! Let us love God and, starting from him, let us also love man, so that, starting from man, we can then rediscover God in a new way!

And so, finally, we find yet a third meaning in the saying that the Word became "brief" and "small". The shepherds were told that they would find the child in a manger for animals, who were the rightful occupants of the stable. Reading Isaiah (1:3), the Fathers concluded that beside the manger of Bethlehem there stood an ox and an ass. At the same time they interpreted the text as symbolizing the Jews and the pagans – and thus all humanity – who each in their own way have need of a Saviour: the God who became a child. Man, in order to live, needs bread, the fruit of the earth and of his labour. But he does not live by bread alone. He needs nourishment for his soul: he needs meaning that can fill his life. Thus, for the Fathers, the manger of the animals became the symbol of the altar, on which lies the Bread which is Christ himself: the true food for our hearts. Once again we see how he became small: in the humble appearance of the host, in a small piece of bread, he gives us himself.

All this is conveyed by the sign that was given to the shepherds and is given also to us: the child born for us, the child in whom God became small for us. Let us ask the Lord to grant us the grace of looking upon the crib this night with the simplicity of the shepherds, so as to receive the joy with which they returned home (cf. Lk 2:20). Let us ask him to give us the humility and the faith with which Saint Joseph looked upon the child that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit. Let us ask the Lord to let us look upon him with that same love with which Mary saw him. And let us pray that in this way the light that the shepherds saw will shine upon us too, and that what the angels sang that night will be accomplished throughout the world: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased." Amen!

Hat Tip:

Michelle Malkin

2006-12-21T20:53:00.000-08:00

dick in a box (better quality)

Ginger Lynn on Ventura

2006-12-20T22:52:00.000-08:00