Wednesday, January 31, 2007

I'm Remodeling My House

Here's the start of a post from Uncle Jimbo over at Blackfive:

Accommodating Muslim intolerance

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

So now the prisons in the UK are going to turn all their toilets so Muslim criminals can crap in a directionally proper religious manner.

I have called my brother (who's a builder) and asked him to turn all of my toilets so that my ass-end will be pointing toward Mecca.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind..."I fart in your general direction..."

Read the rest of Jimbo here.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Timely...and Timeless quote from Thomas Jefferson

“[A] Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States... as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” —Thomas Jefferson

From Patriot


Blinking Pelosi

Got this one from my pal at

Sunday, January 21, 2007


I'm a fan of Indy (as long as they're not playing the Cowboys). Peyton did a great job tonight. In honor of the win...

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Chuck Hagel, American Traitor (screed 4)

I believe that we can have a loyal opposition. The problem is, when you're the opposition, you have an obligation to add suggested solutions to your opposition. For instance, let's stipulate that the American public school system is doing a poor job of teaching kids to read by the time they get out of high school. (Aside: If you don't agree to THAT premise, you can't READ). I think the schools are a problem, and I propose competition via vouchers. If you oppose school vouchers, you should state why, and state what your alternative solution is. And that solution should not be "keep the status quo". We've already stipulated that the status quo is a problem.

So...we have a problem in Iraq. In my humble opinion, the problem is NOT that we are not winning. The problem is we've politicised the war...and the soldiers aren't running it (I'm old enough to recall this same conversation about Vietnam...are you?).

The President of the United States has vast quantities of information available to him that you and I are not allowed to see...nor should we be. From my bald head to my toenails, I think Bush believed there were WMD's in Iraq...and, ahem, by the way, so did many Democrats. And there is a LOT more scary stuff out there that I don't know about, and I won't ever know about. But I damn sure want to be protected from it.

I have zero military jokes about's zero. Who in the world am I to weigh in on whether or not our military strategy is right or wrong? I might say, "Stop, the costs are too high". But even this is not really fair to POTUS. As long as I agree with the premise of "we're in Iraq to root out WMD's, protect us from terrorists using it as a staging area, and stabilize it so that we can be a friend", then POTUS gets to keep doing what he thinks is right.

I say, let the President prosecute the war his way (He's the CINC, after all. Read your Constitution, if you are one the the few, we lucky few, who could read out of high school). I am not in a position to say if he's doing it correctly or incorrectly. If I hear enough bitching from the Colonels and the Majors and the Captains, plus the senior NCO's, who are the tip of the spear, then I'll worry that we've got it wrong.

With all that said, Chuck Hagel strikes me as a traitor. I don't throw that word out there lightly. He wants to cause the US to lose the war in Iraq. If you want us to lose, or to pull out before we're done (that's not a high-school joke), you're for the OTHER SIDE. It's not a normal war (Lee vs Grant). It's bad dudes in the hood acting out, and the rules of engagement need to be "when threatened, shoot first, ask questions later". Plus, let's let the Dems run with one of their favorite themes...gun control. If you're on the street in Iraq with a gun, and you're not a cop or a US or Allied soldier, you get one warning shot, then you're toast. Plus, I don't see a lot of white-tail deer in Iraq, so let's take away their guns for 5 years, and let them earn back the right to own them. (Don't for a minute think I'm for gun control in the US. We have the rule of law in my hood. We don't need to control guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens...we need Concealed Carry...but I digress).

When Hagel wants the US to lose in Iraq, or to pull troops out before we have subdued the bad guys and set up an environment that won't harbor terrorists, he needs to explain a good alternative to setting up that safe environment. If he can't, then strap a chute on Hagel's back and drop him into a Sunni hood in Baghdad. God will sort em out.

Hagel should say, "I don't agree with how the President is prosecuting the war, and his plan does not have my concurrence, but, by God, American soldiers are in harm's way, the CINC sent em, and I'll support 'em". Then Hagel should proceed to tell us how he proposes to win the war...and that war is about keeping the "24", the Clancy, and the David Hagberg scenarios from becoming real.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Chuck "Bonehead" Hagel

Alright, at the risk of 3 screeds in a row, here's a quote from Senator Chuck Hagel (R, NE):

The plan is ``the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam,'' Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a hearing of the committee today. (H/T: Bloomberg)

Let's see...Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton come to mind as buffoons who committed foreign policy blunders greater than our new plan in Iraq.

Hagel needs to be taken out behind the woodshed by Bush (a la Reagan) and told to toe the damn line. Did Pelosi hit Hagel over the head with the gavel while she was all giddy and waving it around?

Here's a suggestion for Hagel: Head on over to Cabela's and shake hands there, asking these regular folks what they think about our efforts in Iraq. The hell with polls on the left and right coasts; Cabela's will give Chucky a much better picture of what his constituents REALLY think.

I really need to get off these blood pressure is getting too high.

Harry "Surrender" Reid

You just can't make this stuff up. This POS actually said:

Harry Reid on President Bush:

"I would hope the man realizes that more than 75 percent of his administration has been a total flop," said Reid. "There's 25 percent left. I hope he would [ask], 'What can we do together?' I repeat: It's as if he wants to fail." (H/T: National Review Online)

I am at a loss for words to describe my contempt for this "man". Wasn't there just an article about a woman removing a guys testicles with her bare hands? Nah, couldn't have been Harry...he never had testes in the first place.

The role of the Majority Leader is to reach across the aisle and work out compromises...not toss grenades to see how much (figurative) damage he can do by insulting the President. Even the Marine guards saluted Clinton as he entered and exited MarineOne...they didn't like it, but he was CINC. Poor Harry...he needs a week at boot camp to learn RESPECT.

I repeat: put a parachute on him and drop him into Anbar province with a fountain pen. Hell, drop him into one of the test ranges in Nevada...

Again, for the record (and for the Secret Service), I do NOT wish harm to come to Harry. I am insulted by him and wish to insult him in return.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Dick Durbin, Traitor and Scumbag

Pardon my language, but this jack-off should be voted out of office. Is it any wonder that he wants to pull our troops out of Iraq when this moron votes time after time to deny the citizens of Illinois the right to carry concealed weapons? If a turban-head tries to pull off a crime in Illinois, the most a citizen can legally do is throw spit-balls. Wonderful.

Durbin is a dirtbag that should be dropped into Bagdad with no body armor, no weapon (besides his twisted words), and an "America - Love it or Leave It" shirt on. We can then say goodbye to this waste of air.

I actually feel better now...not as good as if I could bitch-slap him (which I won't do, because assault is against the law). So, I wave my private parts at Dick-head Durbin.

I Want the Bumper Sticker

Check out this post from Crotchety Old Bastard. Gotta love this guy.

Monday, January 01, 2007

More Stupidity in the NYTimes

No real comment needed.

The Times Lies About Enemy Combatant Law [Andy McCarthy]
The Times is flat dishonest in its campaign against subjecting enemy combatants to military proceedings, which the Grey Lady passes off as a page-one news article. Correspondent Tim Golden writes:

Under a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in October, this double-wide trailer may be as close to a courtroom as most Guantánamo prisoners ever get. The law prohibits them from challenging their detention or treatment by writs of habeas corpus in the federal courts. Instead, they may only petition a single federal appeals court to examine whether the review boards followed the military’s own procedures in reviewing their status as “enemy combatants.” [Emphasis added.]

It's hard to quantify how inaccurate (and, one is compelled to conclude, disingenuous) this is.

First, the law that governs these detainees is not the Military Commissions Act that President Bush signed in October. As that act makes clear, the review of Combatant Status Review Tribunals is actually governed by a law the president signed a year earlier, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 — specifically, Section 1005 of that law.

Second, by definition, a federal appeals court is not only a federal court; it is also a higher federal court than the single district court to which U.S. citizens must petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Leaving aside, moreover, that it is unprecedented in the history of the United States for enemy prisoners to have access to our courts during wartime to challenge their status as enemy prisoners, the al Qaeda detainees at issue here have actually been given access to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which, aside from being superior to all district courts, is often regarded as second only to the Supreme Court in our judicial hierarchy.

Third, it is simply not true that the D.C. Circuit is limited to examining whether the military's combatant status review tribunals "followed the military's own procedures in reviewing their status as 'enemy combatants.'" To the contrary, in addition to determining whether the military followed its own procedures, Section 1005(e)(2) expressly calls on the court to consider "to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." (Emphasis added.)

To be clear, I believe the alleged combatants — aliens with no U.S. immigration status held by the military outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts during wartime — have no rights under the Constitution, and have rights under federal statutes only to the limited, if any, extent Congress has expressly made those statutes applicable outside our borders. Whether I am right or wrong about that, however, the detainees are still fully entitled to claim that the military's standards and procedures are inconsistent with federal law. They are not, as the Times asserts, limited to challenging whether the military's standards and procedures have been followed.

Fourth, the essence of habeas corpus is the right to claim that one's detention flouts fundamental rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States. While the detainees access to the D.C. Circuit is not called "habeas corpus," the Detainee Treatment Act precisely allows them to claim that their detention is in violation of their fundamental rights under U.S. law. Thus, although aliens held outside the U.S. are not constitutionally entitled to habeas review in the federal courts, Congress has substantially given it to them anyway.

Other than that, the Times really did a bang up job on this one.

Hat-tip: The Corner - National Review Online