#1
And exactly what is anyone planning on doing about it?
I have lost all sympathy with the dark continent and while quite a few individuals are probably quite worthy until Africa gets its collective shi* together there's nothing we can do that will be of any use.
And no this is not the only place that this is happening but I feel the same way about the Arabs and Paki-wakis, etc. as well.
#3
I swear, every time I read something like this, or the link a couple of days ago here on the 'Burg about the belief that sodomizing a Pygmy would enable the rapist to develop supernatural powers, I begin to agree with Kim du Toit's old rant about just putting up a wall around sub-Saharan Africa and letting it fester itself into oblivion.
#5
With only a few modern exceptions rape has been a weapon of war since war was invented. Or before - I think chimps do it. It would seem to be a strategy of the genes - kill off the menfolk of the other clan or tribe and impregnate the women. The next generation is genetically half your clan's.
#7
Radical Islam LT Strategy > ASIA [Russ, Chin, India] = FUTURE MUSLIM/ISLAMIST NUKULAAR SUPERSTATE; FUTURE MUSLIM/ISLAMIST AFRICA = RESOURCES + CHEAP CANNON FODDER AGZ US-WEST, at least for the duration of the GWOT = 2050.
Majority of RUSS ARMED FORCES will repor be MAJORITY MUSLIM by 2015, + MAJORITY MUSLIM RUSSIA by 2050. CHIN + INDIA, etc. are also under great MUSLIM-SPECIFIC demographic pressures.
* RADICAL ISLAM > "NORMAL" GEOPOLITICS, PCORRECTNESS [read, APPEASEMENT], + SEX in LT may achieve what JIHAD = WAR in NT thus far hasn't???
* Shade of CNN versus FOX, aka CNN + CNBC/MSNBC + HLN, etc versus FOX, 3-plus DEMOLEFTIES = 1 GOP-RIGHTIE,.... etc.
#8
Say what you may about Africa, it is heaven
compared to ay-rabia...
Flying around the dark continent, black people
are actually nice to you.
Anywhere in muslim countries, you can see that they all hate your guts and they will do
everything in their power to make your
life miserable.
Black Africans may not be the sharpest knifes in the drawer(English for most is NOT their native tongue)but ALL muslims are assholes...the coran tell them to be such!
Africans may stab you in the back, but they will do it with a charming smile!
Monsieur Tiroir-Caisse(cash register)
Moise Tshombe, Congo-Katanga prime Minister:
Posted by: Ming the Merciless ||
05/15/2009 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
Just about a flying pig moment, as Uncle John is about to go under the bus. If he gets pushed out now the Dems will find someone who will run against Col. Russell in 2010 ...
Megadollar by megadollar, pressure keeps mounting for a House ethics investigation into the cycling of rich Pentagon contracts and campaign contributions through the appropriations empire ruled by Representative John Murtha. The latest disturbing tale is about Mr. Murthas nephew, Robert, whose defense subcontracting business lately has been winning millions of dollars a year in no-bid Pentagon contracts.
The nephew insists good work, not Uncle John, is the key to his success. But e-mails obtained by The Washington Post show the nephew touting family clout. One message advises a partner that a condition for keeping funds flowing mandates that part of the contract money, approved through Representative Murthas powerful defense appropriations subcommittee, be channeled to companies in Johnstown, Pa., his uncles home district. This has been a requirement for what I do to get dollars through, Robert Murtha declared.
Such alarming candor should spark an immediate ethics inquiry into possible violations of House quid-pro-quo strictures. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is resistant, even as Democrats rightly worry that the anti-corruption issue they won on will boomerang in the next election.
Federal agents already are looking into possible illegal contributions steered to Mr. Murtha and other committee members by the now defunct PMA Group. The lobbying firm was founded by one of the avuncular Mr. Murthas former protégés and made millions scoring big-ticket defense contracts.
Mr. Murtha and two subcommittee colleagues, Peter Visclosky of Indiana and James Moran of Virginia, received more than $4 million in campaign contributions from contract hungry PMA Group clients, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In two recent budgets alone, the three earmarked $137 million for PMA Group clients. It is time to follow the money all of it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/15/2009 14:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My prediction is he's back in 2010. He called his own constituents racist rednecks like a week befor the election and they still reelected him, for crissakes.
If it only affected them, I wouldn't care, but this guy's a national embarrassment...
The speaker is engulfed by her own game of political retribution.
Given House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's acknowledged skill at torturing the Bush Administration in recent years, it no doubt afforded her critics some pleasure yesterday to watch her twist in the wind in front of the press over what she knew and when about the CIA's terrorist interrogations. I must admit, I enjoyed it.
With mockery even from Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, Mrs. Pelosi has turned herself into a spectacle about a subject that she and fellow Democrats had themselves reduced to a spectacle of demagogic accusation and blame, repeatedly threatening to put Bush officials in the dock for "condoning torture."
Permit us, then, to reel in this travesty and attempt to put both Speaker Pelosi and her targets in the Bush Administration into perspective. No, better yet, let Speaker Pelosi's California colleague, Senator Dianne Feinstein, do it. Asked this week about Mrs. Pelosi's variable recollections, Senator Feinstein, who chairs the Intelligence Committee, responded: "I think it's a tempest in a teapot really to say, Well, Speaker Pelosi should have known all of this, she should have stopped this, she should have done this or done that. I don't want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn't 2006, '07, '08 or '09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks."
GWB was popular, and the Repubs were in charge, and the country really was concerned about additional terrorist attacks, so it wouldn't have gone over well for the House Minority Leader, a noted weak-kneed liberal and nanny, to start making noises over the enhanced interrogation techniques. Nancy had to wait for her minions at MoveOn, CCR, Media Matters, etc to tear Bush down a fair bit before she could start whining. The military calls it, 'preparing the battle-space' ...
Indeed there were discussions about a second wave of attacks in 2002. In an interview two years ago, former CIA Director George Tenet said of that post-attack period: "I've got reports of nuclear weapons in New York City, apartment buildings that are going to be blown up, planes that are going to fly into airports all over again." It was precisely in this atmosphere, months after the initial, horrific attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, that the CIA asked the Justice Department for legal guidance on the now-famous "EITs," or enhanced interrogation techniques at the center of this current tempest.
Bush lawyers such as John Yoo and Jay Bybee produced memorandums carefully setting out the legal limits of what the CIA could do. Also in 2002, the CIA began the briefings of Congress on these interrogations that now haunt Speaker Pelosi.
Pelosi could have done the brave but politically stupid thing: she could have drawn a line in the sand and said, in effect, it doesn't matter how many Americans are at risk, waterboarding is wrong. She instead chose to be cowardly, craven, and still in power today.
If Washington were still able to conduct a national-security policy fitting the world's lone superpower, the Feinstein standard would apply to both Nancy Pelosi and the Bush officials. Instead, Congressional Democrats, unable to let go of their long Bush obsession, persist in calling for a Truth Commission, as did Ms. Pelosi herself yesterday in her prepared statement.
As long as Pelosi testifies first. And as long as I get to question her.
Amid her rope-a-dope session with a suddenly pugnacious press corps, Speaker Pelosi said one other thing that deserves attention by people still hoping to save Washington from itself. She suggested that we "must review" the National Security Act of 1947 with an eye toward giving "larger numbers of Congress" access to classified briefings. This in the interest of "proper oversight."
Is she serious? The mess that now engulfs her and other Democrats can be solved by giving more Congressfolk access to the nation's most sensitive secrets? Only a Member of Congress could conclude that you can enhance political accountability by making it more diffuse.
But it does allow more politicos to have more access to information that is useful in the knife-and-dagger work done in the halls of Congress. Such interesting 'gossip' that one could hear ...
Back in the 1970s, Congress in the spectacle of the Church-Pike hearings pilloried the CIA for being what Senator Frank Church called a "rogue elephant on the rampage." That exercise, it is now widely acknowledged, damaged U.S. intelligence-gathering for a generation.
Speaker Pelosi, John Conyers, Carl Levin and their supporters are now close to repeating this destructive exercise with hearings intended to be little more than bear-baitings of the defeated Bush Administration. President Obama in his fashion tries to split the difference by asserting that the CIA interrogators will somehow be fenced off from any such exercise while leaving the door open to prosecution of those who wrote the legal opinions.
This Administration uses the word "responsibility" a lot, and it would improve the charged political atmosphere of Washington considerably if senior officials there took the idea more seriously. Speaker Pelosi and other senior Members of Congress were brought into the complex loop of the post-September 11 world with a long series of CIA briefings, as the law requires. Now, when disclosure of the details of those briefings undermines the Democrats' political game, Mrs. Pelosi tries to dump responsibility back onto the CIA. Yesterday she even said the agency "gave me inaccurate and incomplete information." So CIA officials now led by Obama appointee Leon Panetta are lying. No wonder this draws the ridicule of comedians.
And retribution by the CIA. They simply won't forgive a politician who calls them a liar, especially not after the Church hearings debacle ...
Whatever one's politics may be, there has to be some recognition that Washington -- the U.S. government -- simply can't function if it is endlessly entangled in the exquisitely argued, one might say absurd, blame-games that she and some Democrats are running against former Bush officials, and that now threaten the political standing of the Speaker herself.
Not to mention what would happen if, in 2013, President Palin has a nasty streak in her and decided to let slip the hounds ...
Barack Obama won the election and as President he now has a government to run. With that responsibility comes the necessity to make difficult decisions, as those he has made on prisoner photos and military tribunals attest. If he is to succeed, he needs a capital city of responsible partners, not a running circus with the Speaker of the House at the center, blaming everyone else as she flees from any responsibility for what she heard and did.
#1
Nancy pants started this, and now says she objected to things she was never told about. When she says the Republicans are trying to shift the blame, isn't she really saying, "Mommy, those boys are picking on me"? What else is in those CIA memos that Nancy pants was told about that she is now lying about?
#2
Given House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's acknowledged skill at torturing the Bush Administration
She didn't show very much skill. She depended on the MSM to cover up her obvious flaws. Now that they have deserted her (she and Obama are "frenemies"), she is toast.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
05/15/2009 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Her main problem is that she has picked as her pet issue one that most Americans could give a damn about. And, as most people have noticed, her hatred of Bush verges on psychotic.
#9
The CIA probably IS lying, or at least Clintonizing the meaning of the word 'is'. But they should not be in the position of having to do so. Of course Pelosi is also lying - it's what politicians DO!
#10
As a long suffering conservative in Kalifornia I love watching it when a liberal squirm from their own lies. Can anyone really believe a thing she says anymore? Why is she still the Speaker? You know she is only two hearbeats away POTUS!
History doesnt repeat itself, Mark Twain once said, but it often rhymes. Barack Obamas young presidency is off to an undeniably impressive start, but before he gets too cocky, the president would do well to look back a few decades. At the end of April 1977, roughly 100 days after his inauguration, then-President Jimmy Carters approval rating was 75%, about ten points higher than Obamas today. The young Washington outsider carried an ambitious legislative agenda, even confiding in his diary that everybody has warned me not to take on too many projects so early in the administration, but its almost impossible for me to delay something that I see needs to be done. Carters hubris was present from his very first fireside chat to the nation in February 1977, during which he wore that (in)famous cardigan and promised to provide within 90 days a comprehensive plan for dealing with energy independence. The talk was only part of his Peoples Plan, a bid to talk directly to the American people through town meetings, radio call-ins, and televised addresses.
Starting to rhyme yet?
Shortly after that first chat, Carter took to working 80-hour weeks in a futile attempt to make good on his ambitious campaign promise of change. But, despite Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Carters efforts to cut pork-barrel projects and enact comprehensive reforms on energy and other matters strained the White Houses relationships with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Carter and the American people would follow a similar trajectory, culminating with his disastrous crisis of confidence speech during the energy crisis of 1979, a sanctimonious sermon in which he admonished Americans about the hazards of self-indulgence and consumption. The address became known as Carters malaise speech, and it only served to galvanize the publics lack of confidence in his leadership. After winning by just a few points in 76, Carter lost to Ronald Reagan by 10 in 1980.
To avoid a similar fate, especially with a party poised to rumble, Obama will need to remain level-headed and keep his hubristic tendencies in check. It probably couldnt hurt to avoid wearing cardigans, as well.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/15/2009 10:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What is the MSM going to call it?
Husseinitis?
Melon Madness?
Kenyan Fever?
Posted by: Ming the Merciless ||
05/15/2009 20:32 Comments ||
Top||
Video at link.
Columnist Charles Krauthammer on Nancy Pelosi's statement today: "The charge that the C.I.A. lied to her is extremely serious one. She is now at war with the C.I.A., and it has the means by leaking selectively of destroying her, and I suspect it will do that." I wasn't sure whether to put this on the Opinion page or Seedy Politicians, so if it gets moved, I will take note.
Krauthammer is always opinion and always good.
I guess it's destiny of a sort: powerful, self-absorbed politicians always go one step too far, and that is always their downfall.
#1
Predictive analysis: A very emotional televised weeping segment or mental breakdown and hospitalization will be next. Klingon credibility rises by the hour.
#4
From the film clips I've seen of her the last few days, it looks like she knows she is going down. She's like a moose in deep snow surrrounded by a pack of wolves. So, how is the new Speaker going to change life in Washington?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
05/15/2009 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Nancy pants is destroying herself by lying about government employees who document everything. The American voters may not know much about the treatment of terrorists, but they don't like being lied to by leaders. What is the lie today, Nancy pants?
#8
Her big mistake was that she thinks all of America will drink the same kool-aid lies her district drinks. I bet in Berkley 90% believe her. Now the amateur is about to deal with professionals. I see a book deal and speaking tour in her future civilian life...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
05/15/2009 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
whatadeal, you're talking about the voters of San Francisco. They're all just as loony as she is. Her main opposition in the last election was Cindy Sheehan. That should tell you something. I enjoy watching her squirm as much as anybody but I wouldn't count her out yet.
#10
And, you know, the thing about a shark... she's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When she comes at ya, doesn't seem to be living... until she bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'...
#12
She will probably be re-elected in 2010 - all she has to do is please more than 50% of the voters in her lunatic district. Whether she will remain Speaker of the House in 2010 is another question.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
05/15/2009 23:01 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Wrong, given the current leadership of the US, it will be at Americas expense.
To even get to the table, the begging, whinging, and pleading that will be on display for the world to see will go down in history as the utmost low point of American prestige.
President Barack Obama arrives at Notre Dame on Sunday already triumphant, the champion of the pro-abortion rights lobby ready to be honored by America's pre-eminent Roman Catholic university.
This controversy has been spun as Catholics opposing a president offering a commencement address at Notre Dame. That's not really the issue. What most are angry about is that a great Catholic university is conferring an honorary degree upon a politician whose position on abortion is in absolute conflict with Catholic teaching.
Given how this has been spun, by an adoring pro-Obama (and pro-abortion rights) media, the weekend's news coverage is tiresomely predictable:
Christian protesters whose faith teaches them to oppose abortion will be depicted as intolerant extremist fanatics, perhaps just one step removed from the Appalachian snake dancers.
Obama will charm them and talk about furthering "dialogue," and he'll win rave reviews for courage. Most analysis will likely include the phrase "highly nuanced" to praise Obama's verbal dexterity. It took some time, but "nuance" finally surpassed "gravitas" in the lexicon of journalists hellbent on conferring virtues upon politicians who haven't earned them.
What's also evident is that with buzzwords like "diversity" and "nuance" flying around, the one person who has spoken most clearly in all of this has become a footnote: Mary Ann Glendon, a law professor at Harvard University and a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.
Perhaps Glendon has become a media footnote because what she said wasn't nuanced enough for the scribes. Yet rather than dance nimbly, the 70-year-old Glendon did something the best Catholic teachers do.
She stood firm. And she engaged in absolute clarity.
Glendon was to have received the Laetare Medal, described by Notre Dame as the most prestigious honor awarded to American Catholics. But in a completely non-nuanced open letter to Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins, Glendon turned it down.
In her letter, Glendon said that she did not oppose Obama speaking to the graduates. What bothered her was Notre Dame conferring an honorary degree on a president who supports abortion rights.
She noted that such an award would be in direct violation of a 2004 statement by U.S. Catholic bishops declaring that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."
"That request," wrote Glendon to Rev. Jenkins, "which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it."
So she turned down the university. Notre Dame scrambled to find someone else to accept the Laetare Medal, but there were no takers. That's understandable. Accepting this year's award after it was rejected by a Catholic upholding church teachings would be more than even nuance could bear.
What also bothered Glendon is that Notre Dame suggested her acceptance of the award would balance the Obama equation.
"A commencement, however," she wrote to Jenkins, "is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame's decision -- in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops -- to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice."
Glendon's letter was largely ignored in the media, particularly the Chicago media, which exhausted itself by mocking and ridiculing Cardinal Francis George for daring to stand up for his faith.
George suggested that it was "an extreme embarrassment" for a Catholic university to confer honors upon a pro-abortion-rights president. For this grievous sin against Obama, mayoral brother Billy Daley attacked the cardinal in a Tribune op-ed piece, calling the cardinal's stance "an embarrassment to Chicago Catholics."
And so, during Lent, we were treated to a Daley instructing the cardinal about what belongs to Caesar.
All that loud political anger was aimed at a priest who stood for his faith, as he prepared for Easter. Though I'm not Roman Catholic, I was hurt and personally sickened by the attacks against Cardinal George.
Glendon did not shout or mock or ridicule. Instead, she wrote a letter and turned down an honor.
By doing so, she offered a teachable moment about what remains rock solid in a faith that has lasted for 2,000 years.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Sean Braswell @ "The Stimulist"
Shortly after that first chat, Carter took to working 80-hour weeks in a futile attempt to make good on his ambitious campaign promise of change. But, despite Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, Carters efforts to cut pork-barrel projects and enact comprehensive reforms on energy and other matters strained the White Houses relationships with lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Carter and the American people would follow a similar trajectory, culminating with his disastrous crisis of confidence speech during the energy crisis of 1979, a sanctimonious sermon in which he admonished Americans about the hazards of self-indulgence and consumption. The address became known as Carters malaise speech, and it only served to galvanize the publics lack of confidence in his leadership. After winning by just a few points in 76, Carter lost to Ronald Reagan by 10 in 1980.
