They are the Kung-Funniest creatures on earth.....

They can karate chop yo' bad ass without warning...

..................and they've just been unleashed...

..............................................30,000 feet in the air

Asians on a Plane....coming to a blog near you. (Click on it...you know you want to. Especially since this motherfrakkin' post makes no sense, otherwise)

Hat tip: The Conservative UAW Guy (another way to get you to click to the source of my inspiration; check out his own creative photos).

Posted by: Wordsmith at 07:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 2 kb.

Temptation.....

Thanks Sparky for taking the time to create such an eye-popping salute to "Coconuts and Puppies".

For those of you who might be inclined to spend too much time viewing Wordsmith's clever video and perhaps garnering the wrath of the wife or girlfriend - - I've found the perfect website to help get you out of trouble:

Get Out of the Doghouse.

If you have found nothing on the website to help your predictament - there is always Tiffany's. I'm always amazed at how a little blue box can heal so many rifts in a relationship.

Posted by: Skye at 04:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

Since Skye was so kind and gracious as to post another gratuitous photo of Lee Adama (an opportunity to talk about BSG, I'm sure...or is it the other way around?), for the gents reading this blog, I bring you a video I made just for fun:

It makes its debut here, because it's not fit to publish anywhere else. Not Bosun's Sail Locker...Not Flopping Aces...and certainly not at Sparks from the Anvil.

Thanks Gary!

Enjoy, Skye and Ex-Donkey readers! And have a wonderful Saturday morning.

Posted by: Wordsmith at 09:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

H/T: Little Green Footballs

A note from the illustrator:

The point of the poster isn’t to bring humor from a dead baby - quite the opposite actually. It’s intended to use the same means and exploitation that the MSM use when ‘reporting’ on their stories - mainly photoshopped images and staged scenes.

Again, I have nothing but grief for the innocent lives lost in Qana. That said, I do have a problem with paraded corpses and false photography. Hezbollah has shown nothing but deceit in these recent events and I just thought it would be suitable to throw a little photoshop back in their faces.

Definitely a winner for the 2007 Academy Award for Best Picture. Don't you agree?

Posted by: Skye at 10:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Galactica Gets Dark(er) in Season Three

The first two seasons of Battlestar Galactica werenÂ’t exactly lighthearted affairs, but according to executive producer Ron Moore and star Edward James Olmos, the upcoming third year will be its darkest yet. In separate interviews, the two recently spoke to Now Playing about where the show is going and whatÂ’s in store for both the human and Cylon factions (Hint: ItÂ’s not going to be pretty for either side).

“The writing, the story, the character development is devastating,” Olmos says. “I cannot tell you. I worked last week and I’ve never had a week like that in my life, because everything that’s happening to the human species is into the final steps of its annihilation. So every single moment becomes the end of the existence of the human species, and it’s deadly when you are working at that level constantly. The attention is overwhelming. Both Mary [McDonnell] and I are sitting there going, ‘My God. This is too much.’”

Olmos revealed that the humans will use a pandemic to try and annihilate “a race” (he didn’t say which one, but it’s not difficult to guess) by infecting them with a deadly virus. He also talked about returning to the director’s chair for the 12th episode, which will be the first to air after the mid-season hiatus. The tone of the episode will be quite different from his previous effort, last season’s “Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down.”

“This one will be more connected to the main body,” he says. “The other one was a comedy. We decided to try one in the first season just to lighten things up. And it worked well. I thought it worked very, very well. It was very different, and it introduced some very strong characters. And in turn, those characters now are going to devastate you. What happens to them is brutal. It’s very sad.”

For executive producer Ron Moore, the turn to the dark side is something that was always part of the show’s natural progression. “I think we deal with some dark material in the third season,” Moore agrees. “I don’t know that it’s any darker than anything we’ve dealt with previously, but the show continues to sort of take risks and be provocative and do challenging stuff. I’m happy about that. But the show is not nihilistic. The show is not a bleak show about really depressing things. I think it’s really just about how people react and how people are and how people behave in situations and that’s what you’re tuning in to see.”

Moore adds that he’s not worried about the series getting too serious. There’s always a light at the end of the tunnel. “The show’s always had a dark premise at its heart, [but] the show’s also always been about hope and the human condition and the fact that these people struggle on in spite of everything that happens to them.”

Posted by: Skye at 09:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 492 words, total size 3 kb.

Irshad Manji is one of those brave Muslims who is an outspoken critic of Islam and the Jihadists. There is NOTHING WRONG with criticizing your own faith. It's healthy when there is so much to be critical of. She has received praise from fellow "moderate" Muslims for speaking out openly and vocally; and of course, she also receives many death threats (probably from some of the same "moderates" as well), which she forwards on to the FBI. I first heard of her on the Dennis Prager Show about 2 years ago. She was on Laura Ingraham about a week ago. Here is what she wrote in an op-ed for the NY Times that week:

Muslim Myopia

By IRSHAD MANJI
Published: August 16, 2006

New Haven

LAST week, the luminaries of the British Muslim mainstream — lobbyists, lords and members of Parliament — published an open letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair, telling him that the “debacle” of both Iraq and Lebanon provides “ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.” In increasingly antiwar America, a similar argument is gaining traction: The United States brutalizes Muslims, which in turn foments Islamist terror.

But violent jihadists have rarely needed foreign policy grievances to justify their hot heads. There was no equivalent to the Iraq debacle in 1993, when Islamists first tried to blow up the World Trade Center, or in 2000, when they attacked the American destroyer Cole. Indeed, that assault took place after United States-led military intervention saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo.

If Islamists cared about changing Iraq policy, they would not have bothered to abduct two journalists from France — probably the most antiwar, anti-Bush nation in the West. Even overt solidarity with Iraqi suffering did not prevent Margaret Hassan, who ran a world-renowned relief agency in Baghdad, from being executed by insurgents.

Meanwhile, at least as many Muslims are dying at the hands of other Muslims as under the boots of any foreign imperial power. In Sudan, black Muslims are starved, raped, enslaved and slaughtered by Arab militias, with the consent of an Islamic government. Where is the “official” Muslim fury against that genocide? Do Muslim lives count only when snuffed out by non-Muslims? If not, then here is an idea for Muslim representatives in the West: Go ahead and lecture the politicians that their foreign policies give succor to radicals. At the same time, however, challenge the educated and angry young Muslims to hold their own accountable, too.

This means reminding them that in Pakistan, Sunnis hunt down Shiites every day; that in northern Israel, Katuysha rockets launched by Hezbollah have ripped through the homes of Arab Muslims as well as Jews; that in Egypt, the riot police of President Hosni Mubarak routinely club, rape, torture and murder Muslim activists promoting democracy; and, above all, that civil wars have become hallmarks of the Islamic world.

Muslim figureheads will not dare be so honest. They would sooner replicate the very sins for which they castigate the Bush and Blair governments — namely, switching rationales and pretending integrity.

In the wake of the London bombings on July 7, 2005, Iqbal Sacranie, then the head of the influential Muslim Council of Britain, insisted that economic discrimination lay at the root of Islamist radicalism in his country. When it came to light that some of the suspects enjoyed middle-class upbringings, university educations, jobs and cars, Mr. Sacranie found a new culprit: foreign policy. In so doing, he boarded the groupthink express steered by Muslim elites.

The good news is that ordinary people of faith are capable of self-criticism. Two months ago, 65 percent of British Muslims polled believed that their communities should increase efforts to integrate. The same poll also produced troubling results: 13 percent lionized the July 7 terrorists, and 16 percent sympathized. Still, these figures total 29 percent — less than half the number who sought to belong more fully to British society.

Whether in Britain or America, those who claim to speak for Muslims have a responsibility to the majority, which wants to reconcile Islam with pluralism. Whatever their imperial urges, it is not for Tony Blair or George W. Bush to restore Islam’s better angels. That duty — and glory — goes to Muslims.

Irshad Manji, a fellow at Yale University, is the author of “The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith.”

Posted by: Wordsmith at 09:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 744 words, total size 5 kb.

Kidnapped from Gaza City on August 14th, FOX correspondent, Steve Centanni and cameraman Olaf Wiig were shown on videotape Wednesday to issue statements. From the LA Times:

The purported kidnappers spoke out as well. A heretofore unknown group calling itself the Holy Jihad Brigades claimed responsibility for the abduction and demanded the release of all Muslim prisoners held by the United States — "everybody without exception" — within 72 hours.

"Release what you have, and we will release what we have," the group said in a statement to reporters. "If you implement our conditions, we will implement our promise; otherwise, you will have to wait, and God will be the judge."

The statement, in elaborately religious language, included references to several Koranic verses, one of which alludes to the exchange of prisoners in wartime. It was not immediately clear whether the statement referred to prisoners in the U.S. or in American facilities in Iraq; Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and Afghanistan.

I pray for the safe release of Centanni and Wiig, and that they are reunited with their families.

Posted by: Wordsmith at 01:09 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

The Daily Show is going to come to OH to cover the elections. You know, after we allegedly "cheated" in the last one, and this state is so important. That must explain why the area I live in is so depressed.

I'll tell you just "what the hell" a buckeye is, Jon Stewart.

Arrogant bastard.

Come talk to me, I'll give you a "unique perspective." The old one finger salute!

Damn Liberals.

(Cross-posted at Fiddle Dee Dee)

Posted by: Groovyvic at 07:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

AbdulSalam Sabbar, 6, waits patiently in his new pediatric wheelchair as CPT Charles Roberts, physician's assistant, 4th Battalion, 11th Field Artillery Regiment, shows his father how to make adjustments to it. Pic: SGT Rachel A. Brune

Picture curtesy of IraqiPictures

What a selfless act of good will these US soldiers are pictured bestowing to an Iraqi child and his father. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of similar photos and stories chronicling the interaction between Iraqi civilians and Coalition forces. In a striking contrast, there is not ONE picture or report of an insurgent terrorist group reaching out to the Iraqi population in such a manner.

It makes one wonder what inspires liberals in their staunch support of the Iraqi resistance? The picture below certainly begs the question "Where are good liberals dead? In the heart or in the head?

Picture curtesy of Zombie

Posted by: Skye at 10:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

The annual Beloit College Mindset List has been compiled and released for this year's bunch of incoming college freshmen.

Kids who were born in, gulp, 1988.

The year I graduated from high school!

Suddenly those stories that begin "when I was your age..." are coming to mind.

Posted by: Groovyvic at 07:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Liberal politics will prove fruitless as long as liberals refuse to multiply.

The midterm election looms, and once again efforts begin afresh to increase voter participation. It has become standard wisdom in American politics that voter turnout is synonymous with good citizenship, justifying just about any scheme to get people to the polls. Arizona is even considering a voter lottery, in which all voters are automatically registered for a $1 million giveaway. Polling places and liquor stores in Arizona will now have something in common.

Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.

Puts a whole new spin on the "Vote or Die" campaign. Based on this data, what are the chances of liberals adding themselves to the endangered species list?

The fertility gap doesn't budge when we correct for factors like age, income, education, sex, race--or even religion. Indeed, if a conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the conservative. Some believe the gap reflects an authentic cultural difference between left and right in America today. As one liberal columnist in a major paper graphically put it, "Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation." It would appear liberals have been quite successful controlling overpopulation--in the Democratic Party.

Perhaps an altogether larger reason for the baby gap between conservatives and liberals can be found in the results of this STUDy. Obviously stronger, more enduring competition is only one part of the puzzle in understanding the fertility problems encountered by liberals. In a revealing photo journal entry, Zombie captures the essence of the fertility difference (as diminutive as it is) between liberals and conservatives. Taking into account this lacking in the liberal persona and the not so appetizing choices that populate the liberal dating pool, it is no surprise for me to read that liberal fertility rates are dwindling in the wake of stiff competition.

Posted by: Skye at 08:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 508 words, total size 4 kb.

Stop the presses! I guess I take back any slander I might be responsible for in singling out Islam as the sole instigator of mucho violence in the world, today. Now we have militant Buddhist extremists on the war-path to beating the peace into ya:

An anti-violence demonstration in Colombo, Sri Lanka went Jerry Springer, Thursday, when hard-line monks stormed the stage of their pro-peace brethren. First the speaker and a hardliner went at it, punches were exchanged, and then it was on, with robes, fists, and monks flying across stage. The "peace protest" had been organized to find non-violent solutions to the 20 year civil war between Buddhists and Tamil Tiger rebels; and since today's brawl consisted mostly of Buddhist on Buddhist violence it sounds like they're moving in the right direction.

Anyway: Islamic terrorists better watch out! There's a new, old breed of fanaticism-hardened extremist in town:

Posted by: Wordsmith at 01:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 4 kb.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has frustrated Western officials by refusing to reply to their offer of various incentives in exchange for IranÂ’s discarding its nuclear program until August 22. The Western governments had asked Ahmadinejad to reply by June 29; why would Tehran need two extra months?

Farid Ghadry, the president of the Reform Party of Syria, has offered a provocative explanation for this delay. He asserts that the Supreme National Security Council of Iran chose the August 22 date “for a very precise reason. August 21, 2006 (Rajab 27, 1427) is known in the Islamic calendar as the Night of the Sira’a and Miira’aj, the night Prophet Mohammed (saas) ascended to heaven from the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on a Bourak (Half animal, half man), while a great light lit-up the night sky, and visited Heaven and Hell also Beit al-Saada and Beit al-Shaqaa (House of Happiness and House of Misery) and then descended back to Mecca.…”

So..is little hitler planning a recreation of the night the sky lit up over Jerusalem?

Certainly a nuclear attack on Jerusalem or even an all-out conventional assault against Israel by Iran would be consistent with Ahmadinejad’s oft-repeated denials of Israel’s right to exist and recent predictions that its demise was at hand. He hinted at the use of nuclear weapons in his phrasing when he said that Israel “pushed the button of its own destruction” by finally retaliating against Hizballah’s relentless rocket barrage from south Lebanon.

Something tells me that little hitler is more froth than substance. I suspect come daybreak, August 23rd, Jerusalem will still be in the hands of it's rightful owners - the Israelis. Who would bet against that prophecy?

Posted by: Skye at 11:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

This is just gross. Wrong. I agree with the author: for once I actually agree with PETA.

I have no words. Just check out the link:

"Dances With Pigs"

P.S. This great article can also be found in The Conservative Voice.

(Also posted at Fiddle Dee Dee)

Posted by: Groovyvic at 07:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Old Soldier linked to a great analysis by Seth at Hard Astarboard. This is my comment there:

We often speak of "going on with our daily lives and not living in fear" as the best way to show the terrorists that they have not won. But the reality is, they have changed our way of life, and we have no choice but to do so, in order to protect ourselves from the reality of terrorism.

News must be reported; but everytime a terrorist act is broadcast, it is another victory for the terrorist. Because it means getting their message of violence out into the public consciousness. I sometimes wonder what if we never allowed any terrorist activity any airtime at all. Would it continue? After all, part of the motivation is to garner as much media attention as possible. They want the spotlight; they want the media to be complicit in their propaganda of terror.

If we only showed more resolve and a harder stance, it would minimize the impact terrorists see that they have on us. But when we broadcast our grief, our fears, our internal political bickering and dissention, they know that terrorism is effective..and that it works.

Posted by: Wordsmith at 09:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

Being anti-war does not equate to being pro-peace, in terms of achieving the desired result...which is peace. Not all wars need be fought, nor lead to peace. Yet some wars must be fought, and are carried out to achieve what words could not. And what of cease-fires? What is achieved, when one side has long ached for peace and the other side has long ached for the destruction of the other side? All it does, is perpetuate the status quo; and allows one side to reinvigorate its hatred and regroup and restrengthen itself for the next armed conflict. In order for there to be peace, both sides have to want it.

Thomas Sowell wrote another great peace...er, piece...during the month-long Hezbollah-Israel war. The whole thing should be read, but here I give you what I found to be the relevant excerpts. On second thought, it's difficult to cut out anything. So I'll just highlight what I found to be exceptional:

One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements — that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia — not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places — but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.

Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.

Posted by: Wordsmith at 09:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 827 words, total size 5 kb.

For this week's BSG installment, I thought I'd share a favorite BSG music video featuring the song "Someone To Watch Over Me" by the incomparable Ella Fitzgerald.

**SIGH** Can anyone deny that Lee and Kara's respective relationships with Dee and Anders simply pale in comparison to the chemistry of Lee and Kara?

Posted by: Skye at 10:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

No, Carter is not fishing for trout in an idyllic stream near his home. We should be so lucky! He's still fishing for compliments from the world at large, and this time he gets some from Der Spiegel, Germany's foremost "America Sucks" news outlet.

Carter, of course, brings up the usual canards of how President Bush has cut taxes to benefit the rich while the poor suffer and how Bush is breaking down that wall between church and state. He doesn't give specifics, however, telling readers that the details are in his latest book...the fact that most Germans won't bother to read the book and will be getting their information from this publicity stunt disguised as an interview notwithstanding. Of course, the Germans wouldn't find out from the book either that the administration is cutting taxes for those who pay the most of them. And a personal belief in God by the president is obviously a serious disintegration of the separation between church and state. Now you know!

Here's one of the more nauseating passages of the interview:

SPIEGEL: What makes you personally so optimistic about the effectiveness of diplomacy? You are, so to speak, the father of Camp David negotiations.

Carter: When I became president we had had four terrible wars between the Arabs and Israelis (behind us). And I under great difficulty, particularly because Menachim Begin was elected, decided to try negotiation and it worked and we have a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt for 27 years that has never been violated. You never can be certain in advance that negotiations on difficult circumstances will be successful, but you can be certain in advance if you don't negotiate that your problem is going to continue and maybe even get worse.

SPIEGEL: But negotiations failed to prevent the burning of Beirut and bombardment of Haifa.

Carter: I'm distressed. But I think that the proposals that have been made in the last few days by the (Lebanese) Prime Minister (Fuoad) Siniora are quite reasonable. And I think they should declare an immediate cease-fire on both sides, Hezbollah said they would comply, I hope Israel will comply, and then do the long, slow, tedious negotiation that is necessary to stabilize the northern border of Israel completely. There has to be some exchange of prisoners. There have been successful exchanges of prisoners between Israel and the Palestinians in the past and that's something that can be done right now.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Carter blames Israel earlier in the interview (of course!) and thinks that if we all sit down for a cuppa and a nice long chat, we can sort out the differences. What he fails to address, however, is that Hezbollah and the Palestinians don't really want peace: what they want is the total annhialation of Israel. Nothing else will suffice. But his one success (bolstered by the fact that Israel and Egypt at the time were ready for negotiation no matter who brokered it) makes him an expert on every situation in the Middle East.

More:

SPIEGEL: Should there be an international peacekeeping force along the Lebanese-Israeli border?

Carter: Yes.

SPIEGEL: And can you imagine Germans soldiers taking part?

Carter: Yes, I can imagine Germans taking part.

SPIEGEL: ... even with their history?

Carter: Yes. That would be certainly satisfactory to me personally, and I think most people believe that enough time has passed so that historical facts can be ignored.

Because international "peace keeping" forces have been so successful in the past. And the Germans wouldn't take part anyway. They're too busy acting as though they're above the fray. (Here's an interesting bit of German and Muslim history that doesn't get talked about much these days.)

What really sticks out in this interview is how many times Carter refers to how things affect him: he's distressed, he'd be personally gratified, when he was president, blah blah blah.

Reading the whole thing is a great idea if you're dieting...it'll help to keep your appetite at bay.

Burnishing his reputation...
one interview at a time

Crossposted to Blogmeister USA

Posted by: Pam Meister at 09:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 693 words, total size 5 kb.

Michael Moriarty wants to be our next President. Click the link to read his interview with The Conservative Voice.

Moriarty has recently announced his intention to run for President of the United States in 2008. He's also a frequent contributor of numerous political columns to the ESR (Enter Stage Right) online Journal of Conservatism.

More on Michael Moriarty here.

Posted by: Groovyvic at 09:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Over the weekend, I was in downtown Little Tokyo, for Nisei Week. I think I must have missed out on the weekend protests, as I've been checking out Zombie's photos from the San Francisco anti-U.S./Israel rally.

I should have known that something was going on, as a couple of people walked by my booth with placards. I tried to catch up to them, to find out what their signs said, but it was crowded and I had to return back to my booth. I suspect there must have been a San Francisco equivalent going on by city hall, which is only blocks away from Little Tokyo.

I did manage to get a couple of photos of Japanese-American war veterans in the parade:

Instead of republishing some of the vile photographs of the leftie-lunatics this time around, I'll just provide you with the link. Although, this one seriously made me chuckle:

I wonder if the sign-holder is aware?

As Laura Ingraham said on her radio program yesterday morning, political ads should be made of these fringe-fanatics, come election time. Showing them off to middle America, and knowing which political party these nutters are more closely aligned to, can only be good for the Republican Party.

The pro-Israel counter-protestors, however, is a thing of beauty, and I have no problem, viewing and publishing these:

As AirForceWife put it, in a previous comment thread, in order for there to be peace, both sides have to want it. Israel has ached for peace...so much so, that with the help of President Clinton, 97% of the West Bank and 3% of Israeli land was brokered on behalf of peace. But Palestinians and the Arab world have not wanted peace with Israel: they have ached for Israel's destruction.

Tell me of an instance when Israelis have marched and chanted, "Death to Palestinians!" , "Death to Muslims!". Yet in the Islamic States, we have heard it so often from those practitioners of "the religion of peace", that we have grown desensitized to it. And the pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel Left excuse their behavior. Instead of recognizing the hatred of radical-Islamists (which infects even mainstream Muslims) as a source of the world's woes, they'd rather blame the U.S. and Israel for the evil conduct of others. After all, they can do this with the security of knowing we won't behead them for it. Criticizing Islamists, however, might get you killed. God forbid, we should be "creating more terrorists" by standing up to terrorism.

Born Again Redneck had also blogged the photos.

Posted by: Wordsmith at 03:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 448 words, total size 6 kb.