June 27, 2005
Man punches shark as it attacks girl in Florida.
Surfer Tim Dicus, 54, said he heard 14-year-old Jamie Daigle's screams as the 8-foot shark bit into her leg. He then saw the blood spread in the bright blue waters.
"There was a big dark spot where she used to be," Dicus told CNN. "She was unconscious when I got to the blood pool. ... She was hurt really bad."
Daigle was facedown in the water with her leg ripped open from hip to knee when Dicus pulled her onto his surfboard. As the shark circled and came in for another attack, Dicus punched it in the head again and again as he paddled more than 200 yards to shore.
Hat Tip: NealeNews
Hillary Clinton's presidential bid can be defeated, easily, with the facts. She is a pure liberal, uninterested in national security and as incapable of defending America as her husband was. She is working very hard to make people believe that she is something she isn't: a moderate, defense-minded Democrat who cares deeply about America's safety, our families and our future. If her false advertising campaign succeeds, it will be because her Republican enablers made it possible.
June 26, 2005
Hat Tip: Lorie Byrd
Send White House National Security Adviser Steve Hadley to the U.N. and give Mr. Hadley's current job, which isn't subject to Senate confirmation, to Mr. Bolton. As a soft-spoken type, Mr. Hadley will have no trouble being confirmed, and no one at the U.N. will doubt he has Mr. Bush's ear. Meantime, the swap will send a message to Democrats that they can't deny Mr. Bush the foreign-policy advisers he wants.On principle, I'd almost prefer he leave the post vacant.
June 25, 2005
I love that quote so much - and the fact that it throws them into such a tizzy - that I've made it a permanent sidebar item, right underneath the Zell Miller quote.
The best part is that every stupid pacifist terrorist-coddling titty-baby comment made by MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, George Soros et. al. is there for the reading. Instapundit and Right Wing News have a few but there are so many more.
I hope every Liberal that hits my site sees that quote and loses it.
As Col. Jessup says "You can't HANDLE the truth!"
Lorie Byrd has an excellent post about this silliness.
And on a side note: The Sully Alert has been upgraded by WizBang to RED - "Filled with heart-ache at such gobsmacking vileness"!
And for posterity's sake, here's the link to the speech, and here are some highlights:
We are seizing the Mantle of Idealism. As all of you know, President Bush is making a powerful case for spreading human liberty and defending human dignity. This was once largely the preserve of liberalism - but Ronald Reagan changed all that. It was President Reagan, you'll recall, who said the policy of the United States was not simply to contain Soviet Communism, but to transcend it. And we would, he argued, was because of the power of liberty...
..."Liberalism is at greater risk now than at any time in recent American history. The risk is of political marginality, even irrelevance. [L]iberalism risks getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms." These are not the words of William F. Buckley, Jr. or Sean Hannity; they are the words of Paul Starr, co-editor of The American Prospect, a leading liberal publication...
...Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don't. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a "culture of life"; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion...
...But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can we found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers...
...In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States."...
...Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals...
...[I]t is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party - in this case, the Democrat Party -- when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common good. We need to learn from our successes - and from the failures of the other side and ourselves. As the governing movement in America, conservatives cannot grow tired or timid. We have been given the opportunity to govern; now we have to show we deserve the trust of our fellow citizens...
...At one time the conservative movement was largely a reactionary political party - and there was a sense of pessimism even among many of its ardent champions. You'll recall that Whittaker Chambers, who gave up his affiliation with Communism to join the West in its struggle for freedom, said he believed he was joining the losing side...
...For decades, liberals were setting the agenda, the pace of change, and the visionary goals. Conservatives were simply reacting to them. But times change, often for the better - and this President and today's conservative movement are shaping history, not trying to stop it.
June 24, 2005
The Mets are the only professional sports team that all the men in my family can agree on - should be a terrific outing. We'll be in the Upper Deck - TR22, row S if anyone wants to buy me a beer. Look for the four guys pumping their fists every time Pedro racks up a "K".
Have a good evening - the next time I post I will be choosing tomorrow's Diane Lane Photo of the Week.
UPDATE: 7:30am 6/25/05
METS WIN! 6-4 - Pedro was awesome although Jeter slammed a homer off his second pitch. What set the tone was a dropped fly ball by Bernie Williams and it all went down hill for the Yanks from there. Tino Martinez made it interesting in the ninth with a two-run homer but one out later and Mets fans and Yankee fans (the ones that were still there) were filing out of the stadium playfully (and some not so playfully) taunting each other. Man, the exit ramps smelled like B.O. and I had too pee something awful.
On a side note: Giuliani was there. Security made us take the long way around the stadium to get to our car in the parking garage.
Now that's what I call socialism! Can they itemize this on their income tax returns too?
One dormitory manager said: "If they want to spend the night with their girlfriends or boyfriends then they should pay. This is not their home. And it is not such a high price to pay."
He added that hundreds had already paid the charge, with male students particularly keen to pay and saving the receipts to show friends.
The university hopes to raise about Â£28,000 a year which will go towards repairs at the dormitories.
Should come close to 100 (Fahrenheit, not that metric crap) tomorrow. Glad I mowed most of my lawn yesterday.
Granted the weather here this spring has been unseasonably SHITTY but to get whacked like this is a bit of a shock to the system. Thank God I had central air put in last summer.
June 23, 2005
The Democrats are like Ken dolls who get upset because people won't pretend that they're GI Joes.So as Willy Wonka says: "you get NOTHING. You LOSE! Good DAY, sir!"
The Liberal side of the blogosphere is going COMPLETELY MENTAL over Rove's comments. Just do a Technorati search, it's hilarious!
The more I think about this the more brilliant it gets. Think about it.
Durbin made a comment that was so over the top and aimed at our military that the average person said "that's pretty absurd". If you ask the average Joe about Rove's comments you'll most likely get "sounds about right to me." The fact that Democrats are so freaking out of their minds shows how much it hit home.
If it wasn't true, they could laugh it off the way Republicans laugh off Howard Dean's stupid comments - and have some fun at Rove's expense.
In fact other than a few Conservative bloggers crowing about it, the impact of this story would have been minor if Dems ignored it. Now because of the apoplectic fits taking place in Washington - and soon the MSM - this will be the big story heading into the weekend news cycle.
And here's the story: Rove says liberals are titty-babies who care more about the rights of captured terrorists than protecting American lives. Now Liberals will have to spend the next several days trying to convince the American people that it's not true...and they can't. In fact, now we can play all the sound-bites and quotes of Democrats who have said at one time or another that we brought 9/11 on ourselves.
See the updates on Captain Ed's post
H-Bomb at Ankle-Biting Pundits has six reasons why this is a strategic disaster on the part of the Dems.
"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,'' Rove said Wednesday night. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."The aftermath of the attacks almost four years ago brought into the light the stark contrast between the two major political philosophies in this country, which helps explain why one is growing and the other is flailing.
"Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said we must understand our
Well, that didn't take very long. NY Senator "Chuck-E-Cheese" Schumer is already pissing and moaning about Rove's comments and demanding an apology.
Rove's response to Schumer should be a Durbin/"Hobson" fusion:
"To any of those who were offended by my remarks...sorry you feel that way. But the truth hurts, doesn't it? But on the other hand, go screw yourself."
UPDATE II: 1:29pm
Now Hillary, Lautenberg and Corzine are getting into the act. Drudge is reporting that the three of them will be issuing a statement shortly. Michelle Malkin has a post on the upcoming event. Stay tuned...
UPDATE III: 1:48pm
Democrats are freaking out. This is getting interesting. I think it's important to note that Rove said "conservatives" and "liberals", not "democrats" and "republicans". And all this right after Durbin's comments and his digging in until yesterday.
Has Rove intentionally set a trap here? We shall see...
UPDATE IV: 3:05pm
White House: Rove just "telling it like it is":
[WH Press Sec. Scott] McClellan says Rove wasn't getting personal, just describing different philosophies.
Looks like the White House was prepared for these remarks. Goes back to my question - is Rove setting the Dems up? Rove is too disciplined to let slip comments that would backlash. Hmmm.
I'm glad she's on our side!
By the required majority, the House passed an amendment by a margin of 286 - 130 to outlaw flag burning. Considering the process required to get any amendment passed, the future success of this legislation is in serious doubt.
But then, that's not the main point. Let's call a spade a spade here. Now that the measure heads to the Senate, Democrat Senators will be forced to stand up and be counted. Sure the standard Liberal icons like Teddy Kennedy will vote "no" and just about all of the Democrats from the Blue States will surely tow their party's line. No big story.
And what of those Democrats in the States that voted heavily for President Bush? The ones up for re-election in 2006 (and even 200 will be put into an uncomfortable situation - justifying a "no" vote to their constituents.
Look, most of the American people don't feel strongly enough about this amendment to fight for it - or even to pay much attention. But they recognize that there is absolutely no serious reason not to support it and that voting "no" is a reflection of the current state of the Democrat party. Are they going to accept such lame arguments as the one put forth by Hillary: "I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer"? What kind of political double-talk is that? What is the answer then, Sen. Clinton? For that matter, what is the question? Be honest. If the current base of your party didn't view the American flag as a symbol of oppression and imperialism what possible reason could you come up with to not support this? Anyone? Buehler...Buehler...?
At the very least it will remind unaffiliateds and even some disillusioned Democrats how much the party is becoming a Left-wing caricature of its former self. And maybe it will even help the GOP pick up a few extra Senate seats in the next election cycle.
June 22, 2005
Once a proud party of principle and vision...today a bunch of political hacks preening for the camera.
See the video right here (windows media).
118 queries taking 0.1328 seconds, 271 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.