Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
But they're trying........
Why is the mainstream media attempting (and failing) to find only the negative stories in the tragedy that is still unfolding in Southern California? For the past two days the msm has tried to drive a "story" that there was not enough equipment and manpower to battle the firestorms that broke out across the region. The FACTS are that while the infrastructure was mobilizing and setting up parameters, the wind velocity was so dangerously fierce that it was decided that the planes would remain grounded for the direct safety of the pilots and crew onboard. Ask a pilot if he would care to fly through mountain passes where the Santa Anna winds are blowing with gust ranging on some days between 75 and 110 mph. Meanwhile CNN this morning (Thursday, Oct. 25th) are still asking this question to anyone who will be interviewed still hoping to find an idiot that will say they could have flown. With the President now in flight to visit the region, I'm sure that it will be reported by one or more of the major networks that proclaim the President was too slow getting to the scene. The "hate Bush" agenda of the MSM (that began it's infancy in 2000) is to find FAULT where ever they can and "create" a connection to the Bush Administration. This agenda has become so obvious that even many on the moderate left have held their collective heads in shame. And yet they still continue to self-destruct what little credibility that remained within their "journalistic" prowess. Even as I write this MSNBC is running the story of Governor Schwarzenegger telling a "journalist"(paraphrasing) "you’re looking for mistakes in this operation and it's all good news". "As much as you hate it, it's ALL GOOD NEWS!"
While the Terminator was holding the reporter's hand (gently) he should have stuck his big powerful hand right in her face and said "talk to the hand". And then chucked the reporter and her MSM's ilk over the side of the hill and into the fires of their depravation. Of course this could only happen in the movies. Take # 2007.......Action!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Taming the Beast that's Still Hungry
With no loss for fuel supply, and fed by the Santa Ana Winds, the conditions for a perfect firestorm has taken it's toll on an area where close to 50,000 more homes are still in danger. From Fox News it's reported " In San Diego County, authorities placed evacuation calls to 346,000 homes while over 560,000 people were ordered to leave."
Here's a little info you may have missed Ms. Boxer:
California: Much of California will see above normal fire potential for the summer. Warm and dry conditions dominated California during May with near record breaking heat across the southern portions of the state. LINK
National Climatic Data Center, 15 October 2007:
This year has been very dry in southern California. As of September 25, Pasadena experienced its driest year since records began in 1878, and the mayor has asked Pasadena residents to voluntarily conserve water. LINK
Mechanical removal of the fuels has not kept up with the fuel build-up for several reasons. Some community covenants have restricted landowners since the 1920's from tree removal activities on private land within the National Forest. The Forest has not had an active timber harvest program for nearly 10 years. There are no lumber mills in southern California and now the current removal of dead and dying trees is difficult and expensive.
Changes in Wildland Fuel Conditions. Fire suppression activities over the last century have left much of the state’s wildlands filled with fallen trees, standing dead trees, and heavy undergrowth. As these fuels have built up, the risk of catastrophic fires has grown. In addition, several years of drought followed by insect infestations in Southern California and the Sierras have killed many trees, increasing the risk of large, dangerous fires in these regions of the state.LINK
Conflagration – A popular term for a large, fast-moving wildfire exhibiting many or all of the features associated with extreme fire behavior.
"The forest health situation on the San Bernardino and throughout the Pacific Southwest Region is very dynamic. The key to avoiding potential catastrophic wildfire is by taking a comprehensive, strategic approach with all involved organizations, and having all the necessary management tools available to use. Long-term success will also require building and maintaining relationships and cooperative planning that draws on the strengths of everyone involved."
Everyone failed Ms. Boxer --------- including you.
Update: Sister Toldjah has Harry Reid blaming the fires on global warming. This is our democratic leadership?
(photo credits to Fox News)
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
In the aftermath of the letter the U.S. Senate (written by the Majority Leader, Harry Reid) sent to Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays lambasting Rush Limbaugh for what they interpreted (via an out of context excerpt from Media Matters) as bashing military personnel who speak out against the war in Iraq, our esteemed "fabricators" and "spinmiesters" at the New York Times and the Washington Post have published these storys IN ERROR, again.
Stephanie Strom (at the NYT's) begins her "ill-informed" article by stating/repeating the outright lies that Media Matters started:
"After Rush Limbaugh referred to Iraq war veterans critical of the war as "phony soldiers," he received a letter of complaint signed by 41 Democratic senators. He decided to auction the letter, which he described as "this glittering jewel of colossal ignorance," for charity, and he pledged to match the price, dollar for dollar."
Ms. Strom waits until the bottom of the article to print what was really said by Limbaugh:
"Mr. Limbaugh has said that he was referring only to one soldier, who was critical of the war and had served only 44 days in the Army, never seeing combat."
In the meantime, Neely Tucker, (sex unknown at this print) at the Washington Post waste no time "spinning the story" with this headline:
Limbaugh Spins Reid's Letter Into Charity Gold
Tucker starts out this post by calling it "petty bickering", when in fact this is the most blatant attack by a government official on a private citizen in our nations history, followed by the LIE that brought this story an unprecedented 4.2 million delivered to a noble charity foundation that provides scholarships to the children of the fallen:
"Petty bickering about patriotism and Who Loves Our Troops More has never been seen as a financial growth industry, but there's no stopping American capitalism. This is why a perfunctory bit of political grandstanding, committed to U.S. Senate letterhead this month, became worth a reported $4.2 million yesterday, instantly becoming one of the most valuable printed documents of the modern era."
"The letter in question is an Oct. 2 two-pager from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to Clear Channel Communications CEO Mark Mays lambasting the syndicate's Rush Limbaugh, who had recently criticized U.S. troops who were against the war in Iraq."
While these two newspapers continue to lose readership and advertising dollars because they can't seem to get a story straight, Strom and Tucker might wonder whether their next paychecks will be coming from their parent company's or the National Inquirer.
For the TRUTHFUL RECORD, Limbaugh was referring to the "phony soldiers" such as Jessie McBeth and Jimmy Massey that fabricated (lied) stories about atrocities in Iraq. While most everyone knows exactly where Limbaugh stands and shows his unrelenting support for our military, Media Matters thought this little matter would not be noticed when they pulled Limbaugh's comments out of context and Senator Reid swallowed, hook, line, and "stinker".
Now you have the New York Times and the Washington Post (leading fabricators) not only missing the point of the entire story of a private citizen being admonished by a federal official, but still insisting on fabricating the actual intent that Limbaugh made in his initial scolding of the "phony soldiers". Who's PHONY now?
Update: Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has summed up the Reid/Limbaugh fiasco, while a commenter hits the nail on the head:
"The conservative thinks of a free-market way of raising private funds to aid a worthwhile causes and backs his commitment with his own money."
"The liberal asks other people to donate funds, doesn't donate any of his own money, and tries to take credit for the generosity of others."..........(PackerBronco)
Update 2: Sister Toldjah "feeds" Harry some crow here
Friday, October 19, 2007
Harry's letter to admonish Rush has reached the two million mark. The leftoids are in mourning.
"They have done nothing. It is they who need to "save face." We've got a little montage here of the Drive-Bys just beside themselves over the Democrats' inability to get anything done."
ROBACH: (music) It happened with war legislation, and now it looks like it will happen again with children's health care. The president takes a stand, the Democrats promise a fight, but in the end, the president comes out on top. FOREMAN: (music) Democrats at several levels of government are stumbling. CUOMO: Democrats appear headed for defeat in the battle over expanding children's health insurance.HUME: This looks like kind of an embarrassing defeat for the leadership BLITZER: House Democrats may be losing yet another battle, this one over domestic spying. YELLIN: Republicans are crowing and Democrats are trying to figure out what to do next. BASH: A rebellion among Pelosi's own Democrats...FRANKEN: Such a political debacle for the Democrats...COURIC: Why aren't these things getting done? CAFFERTY: You know, Ray Charles could have seen that was a stupid idea from the beginning. You're just doing a great job, Pelosi. Terrific.RUSH: That was Jack what his name, Cafferty, on CNN. You heard Katie Couric and a bunch of others in there. So we're winning. We're stopping these guys from their ridiculous pieces of legislation, and the Drive-Bys are getting real frustrated with them right along with the fringe lunatics that are in their base. LINK
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Kim Priestap at has posted an interesting article over at Wizbang that points out (rather blatantly) how our mainstream media manages to omit just enough of a story to fit their biased agenda:
"I know the mainstream media is reporting on General Sanchez' speech, but they reported only the part of his comments that were critical of the administration and how it conducted the war, completely ignoring his damning statements about their journalistic ethics, proving that what he said about them was on target. Since the MSM refuses to reprint the general's comments about the media, I will. This portion of his speech that was posted at Power Line had some errors in capitalization that I corrected. Read these comments carefully and take in how thoroughly General Sanchez hands the media their asses:"
Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen
Some of you may not believe this but I am glad to be here. When Sig asked me if I would consider addressing you there was no doubt that I should come into the lion's den. This was important because I have firmly believed since Desert Shield that it is necessary for the strength of our democracy that the military and the press corps maintain a strong, mutually respectful and enabling relationship. This continues to be problematic for our country, especially during times of war. One of the greatest military correspondents of our time, Joe Galloway, made me a believer when he joined the 24th infantry division during desert storm.
Today, I will attempt to do two things - first I will give you my assessment of the military and press relationship and then I will provide you some thoughts on the current state of our war effort. As all of you know I have a wide range of relationships and experiences with our nation’s military writers and editors. There are some in your ranks who I consider to be the epitome of journalistic professionalism - Joe Galloway, Thom Shanker, Sig Christensen, and John Burns immediately come to mind. They exemplify what America should demand of our journalists - tough reporting that relies upon integrity, objectivity and fairness to give accurate and thorough accounts that strengthen our freedom of the press and in turn our democracy. On the other hand, unfortunately, I have issued ultimatums to some of you for unscrupulous reporting that was solely focused on supporting your agenda and preconceived notions of what our military had done. I also refused to talk to the European Stars and Stripes for the last two years of my command in Germany for their extreme bias and single minded focus on Abu Gharaib.
Let me review some of the descriptive phrases that have been used by some of you that have made my personal interfaces with the press corps difficult:
"dictatorial and somewhat dense",
"not a strategic thought",
Liar,"does not get it" and
The most inexperienced LTG.
In some cases I have never even met you, yet you feel qualified to make character judgments that are communicated to the world. My experience is not unique and we can find other examples such as the treatment of Secretary Brown during Katrina. This is the worst display of journalism imaginable by those of us that are bound by a strict value system of selfless service, honor and integrity. Almost invariably, my perception is that the sensationalistic value of these assessments is what provided the edge that you seek for self aggrandizement or to advance your individual quest for getting on the front page with your stories! As I understand it, your measure of worth is how many front page stories you have written and unfortunately some of you will compromise your integrity and display questionable ethics as you seek to keep America informed. This is much like the intelligence analysts whose effectiveness was measured by the number of intelligence reports he produced. For some, it seems that as long as you get a front page story there is little or no regard for the "collateral damage" you will cause. Personal reputations have no value and you report with total impunity and are rarely held accountable for unethical conduct.
Given the near instantaneous ability to report actions on the ground, the responsibility to accurately and truthfully report takes on an unprecedented importance. The speculative and often uninformed initial reporting that characterizes our media appears to be rapidly becoming the standard of the industry. An Arab proverb states - "four things come not back: the spoken word, the spent arrow, the past, the neglected opportunity." once reported, your assessments become conventional wisdom and nearly impossible to change. Other major challenges are your willingness to be manipulated by "high level officials" who leak stories and by lawyers who use hyperbole to strengthen their arguments. Your unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda driven biases contribute to this corrosive environment. All of these challenges combined create a media environment that does a tremendous disservice to America. Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and by extension you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved. We realize that because of the near real time reporting environment that you face it is difficult to report accurately. In my business one of our fundamental truths is that "the first report is always wrong." Unfortunately, in your business "the first report" gives Americans who rely on the snippets of CNN, if you will, their "truths" and perspectives on an issue. As a corollary to this deadline driven need to publish "initial impressions or observations" versus objective facts there is an additional challenge for us who are the subject of your reporting. When you assume that you are correct and on the moral high ground on a story because we have not respond to questions you provided is the ultimate arrogance and distortion of ethics. One of your highly respected fellow journalists once told me that there are some amongst you who "feed from a pig's trough." If that is who I am dealing with then I will never respond; otherwise, we will both get dirty and the pig will love it. This does not mean that your story is accurate.
I do not believe that this is what our forefathers intended. The code of ethics for the society of professional journalists states:...public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility
The basic ethics of a journalist that calls for:
1. Seeking truth,
2. Providing fair and comprehensive account of events and issues
3. Thoroughness and honesty
All are victims of the massive agenda driven competition for economic or political supremacy. The death knell of your ethics has been enabled by your parent organizations who have chosen to align themselves with political agendas. What is clear to me is that you are perpetuating the corrosive partisan politics that is destroying our country and killing our servicemembers who are at war.
My assessment is that your profession, to some extent, has strayed from these ethical standards and allowed external agendas to manipulate what the American public sees on tv, what they read in our newspapers and what they see on the web. For some of you, just like some of our politicians, the truth is of little to no value if it does not fit your own preconceived notions, biases and agendas.
It is astounding to me when I hear the vehement disagreement with the military's forays into information operations that seek to disseminate the truth and inform the Iraqi people in order to counter our enemy's blatant propaganda. As I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled. There is no question in my mind that the strength our democracy and our freedoms remain linked to your ability to exercise freedom of the press - I adamantly support this basic foundation of our democracy and completely supported the embedding of media into our formations up until my last day in uniform. The issue is one of maintaining professional ethics and standards from within your institution. Military leaders must accept that these injustices will happen and whether they like what you print or not they must deal with you and enable you, if you are an ethical journalist.
Finally, I will leave this subject with a question that we must ask ourselves--who is responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the profession in order to ensure that our democracy does not continue to be threatened by this dangerous shift away from your sacred duty of public enlightenment?
Kim provides links to an AP report, the New York Times, and the Washington Post where the first two left out the Generals total disdain for the media's "selective" reporting completely and the Post managed to fit in one paragraph at the end.
While General Sanchez's scathing accounts of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war may be ill advised while American soldiers are in harms way, his out-right lambasting of the mainstream media's total misrepresentation and lack of factual reporting in the theater (THAT THE MEDIA OMITTED PURPOSELY) is a story in itself.
How can the people of this country find out what the truth is by reading what is supposed to be our main source of information when the MSM uses their editors as pawns to fit any agenda-driven (insert your own adjective and noun here). I will just come out and say what needs to be said:
"TO THE THOSE JOURNALIST AND PUBLISHERS WHO FIT INTO THIS STORY, YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A PACK OF LIARS THAT HAVE DISTORTED EVERY ACCOUNT OF WHAT WAS THE VERY BEST THIS NATION HAS INTENDED TO RIGHT THE INJUSTICE'S AGAINST US------I NO LONGER QUESTION YOUR INTEGRITY, YOUR ETHICAL STANDARDS, OR YOUR PATRIOTISM-----YOU HAVE LOST THEM ALL BY YOUR SHAMEFUL ACTIONS AND PITIFUL EXCUSE FOR WHAT WE USED TO CALL JOURNALISM.".........ROVIN
Update: Debow at Blackfive has a good post up and the comments (from some who are “military”) are well thought out and expressed.
Others posting on this story:
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Just when you thought you had seen almost everything the liberal democrats could do to prevent Gen. Petraeus and our military from achieving stability in the middle east, along comes the democratic Foreign Affairs Committee with an asinine resolution that may threaten military supply lines into Iraq:
A US congressional panel defied President George W. Bush on Wednesday and approved a measure calling the killings of Armenians early in the last century genocide. Bush had warned this would damage US goals in the Middle East.
The measure that would recognize the killings of Armenians as a genocide had been strongly opposed by Turkey, a key NATO ally that has provided support to US efforts in Iraq.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee's 27-21 vote now sends the measure to the full House floor _ unless the Democratic leadership reverses course and heeds Bush's warnings.
Bush and other senior officials had made a last-minute push to persuade lawmakers on the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee to reject the measure. LINK
With a majority of the peoples business yet to be dealt with in congress, the democrats "march" out a WWI disputable injustice to throw in the face of a country that has allowed the U.S. access to critical supply lines and safe passage into Iraq.
Shortly before Bush spoke against the resolution, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates stood before microphones on the White House driveway to express the administration' s worries.
Gates said that 70 percent of US air cargo headed for Iraq goes through Turkey, as does about a third of the fuel used by the US military in Iraq.
"Access to airfields and to the roads and so on in Turkey would very much be put at risk if this resolution passes and Turkey reacts as strongly as we believe they will," Gates said. He also said that 95 percent of the newly purchased Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles are being flown through Turkey to get to Iraq.
So, there you have it. Equipment critical to our military personnel may be held up or even delayed by months because of this resolution that happened almost a hundred years ago. First and foremost, I question this "leaderships" timing. What is the motivation for such a measure that could put our military in harms way? If Mr. Santos, (Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman) thought there were "security concerns", then why did he go forward?
The committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Tom Lantos, expressed concerns about security implications of the resolution but ultimately voted in favor.
This measure now goes to the house floor for a full debate and vote as soon as next week. Write your local representative and let them know that the full support of our military comes ahead of the senseless legislation.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Anti-capitalist socialist vs. a free market economy---where ideologys collide
We already have a government sponsored 401k retirement program. It's called Social Security, and it has not been solvent for years. If the democrats want the people of this nation to mimic the socialist policies of communist Russia a generation ago where dependency on the government failed, why don't they just come out and say it.
This nation was founded on independence and self-reliance of the individual and the framers saw how important it was to limit government intrusion. Every time we accept a new government "entitlement" we shackle and bind the next generation to a government controlled dependency. This is all about POWER AND CONTROL of our hard earned dollars to re-introduce the welfare state of the Carter administration that thought it was easier to feed the lazy who found it was more convenient to rely on the government than to get off their ass's and go to work every day.
This is the cruel and harsh reality of the programs that the new Mrs. Bill Clinton intends to craft for the sake of the "needy". The tax relief programs that Reagan and Bush introduced is what has provided real growth for this nation by putting the money back into the hands of the individual. The democrats believe it's their money to re-distribute as they see fit.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
So, in the period of one week three lions of conservative talk radio are "lionized", impugned, and smeared by an almost methodical (well planned) duration of diatribes. Bill O'Reilly , Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage are now categorized as racial, military hating bigots according to the democratic left. Somewhere there has to be a offensive attack on Sean Hannity. From Harry Reid and Tom Harkin to the San Francisco Supervisors, government officials are now entering the fray. Isn't there something in the first amendment that prohibits the government from restricting free speech?
Much of this barrage is emanating from a far left web site called Media Matters run by a one time conservative David Brock. It has been reported that Brock is being paid around 200k a year to take comments and opinions out of context to fit the liberals contention that conservative thought is filled with (insert your own adjective).
With the fallout of MoveOn.org's "betray-us" ad in the New York Times, the left has been pulling out all the stops in an attempt to stop the bleeding. Or, as AnonymousDrivel (a CQ commenter) puts it, " a dream Karl Rove could have never envisioned" :
"Hmmm. Maybe the MSM poll du jour can ask who has more credibility: Harry Reid's Democrat-led Senate or Rush Limbaugh... assuming the people they poll even know who Reid is?While much of the attention is on Rush's comment about "phony soldiers" where it is obvious that he was referring to the Jesse Macbeth's fabrications, Savage is being attacked by the "kings and queens" of hypocrisy, the San Francisco Supervisors.
The "Betray Us" ad is providing sweet, delicious schadenfreude the likes of which a Karl Rove could have never envisioned. As the Democrats throw spaghetti at the fridge to try and rehabilitate themselves from their Soros-funded complicity, we observe the wonderful, and thankfully more transparent, theater that is politics.One would have to engage in the willing suspension of disbelief to think that Democrat wailing will tarnish Rush's known and undeniable support of the military. The Left's distraction can be seen for what it is and Rush has just been given more ammo to fire at his critics. It'll be a turkey-shoot."
From the WorldNetDaily:
San Francisco supervisors condemn Savage: Officials pass resolution against talker for 'hate speech'
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors today condemned nationally syndicatedradio talk-show host Michael Savage, whose program originates in city by the bay, for "hate speech."It was the board's second attempt at a resolution to condemn Savage for his criticism of illegal aliens in the U.S.In August, a single vote by a member whose grandfather emigrated from China seven decades ago halted a similar resolution in its tracks.The previous vote was 9-1, with third generation San Franciscan Ed Jew turning in the veto vote, after getting up and affirming Savage's First Amendment right to express his opinion.Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval had introduced the resolution in August to condemn the radio talker. After the vote, he called for the tally to be rescinded and the proposal sent to committee, which essentially is a polite way of letting the issue die."For the record, I do not agree with comments allegedly made by Mr. Savage, but the First Amendment gives him the right to make those comments," Jew said.Sandoval responded with a personal challenge to Jew."If this commentary was directed at the Chinese-American or the Asian community, you would not be resorting to this rigid formalism on your part," he said.
Daniel A. Horowitz of Oakland, Calif., wrote to Savage after Sandoval introduced his resolution."You have a strong federal civil rights action that you can file against Supervisor Sandoval and the city of San Francisco," he advised. "You have a constitutional right to state your political opinions and no city official has the right to lie about what you said or to call for a mob to come to your door to threaten you and to try to have you fired...............
It seems apparent that our dear friends on the the left are in the mode of a total meltdown when it comes to the first amendment rights that have stood as a bedrock for democracy. Many have also suggested that this is a precursor to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine", a sure fire way to "silence the lions".
Update # 3: Sharon at Gold Plated Witch on Wheels exclaims "If it wasn't obvious before, liberals hate free speech."
Update #4: Rush takes on Harry Reid
Monday, October 01, 2007
Ried is a Grade A Left-Wing Moonbat.
by Paul from Wizbang
With all the other good news coming out of Iraq this month (see below) Reid has to change the subject. So he introduced a bill condemning Limbaugh in the Senate. Big mistake. The movone.org and backfired on Democrats and so will this. The problem is Rush's comments where not egregious in any way. In fact, two days before Rush made his comments, ABC News used the same language and the same context to report on the Department of Justice crackdown called Operation Stolen Valor. -- As many people on the right know, there is a growing problem of "Phony Heroes." (Surprise! The Left has no idea what is important to our military!)……….Link
There's a healthy debate in comments...........
Two words ........ Jesse MacBeth