White House party crasher Tareq Salahi is a muslim activist extremist

Debbie Schlussel posts the story of Tareq Salahi's ties to radical Islam (through his board membership of American Task Force on Palestine)- a story that the New York Times first reported and then deleted.

If it was not already clear, this story reminds us that The New York Times and the rest of the MSM/DNC will not only fail to report Islamic terrorist connections (even when those connections place the President in potential danger) they will actively hide and delete all references and facts that might reveal the truth.

Of course, the President was in no real danger, as the Islamic extremists have no intention of harming their greatest ally.

George Washington University Homeland Security Institute (HSPI) (HSI); Nidal Malik Hasan (Hassan)

Here is an interesting item from the Canada Free Press:

In 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Institute (HSPI) initiated a transition task force to help craft homeland security policies during Obama’s transition period. In May of 2009 HSPI finished its report titled, “Thinking Anew-Security Priorities for the Next Administration.” One of the members of this Obama transition project was none other than the Muslim murderer Nidal Hassan.

So while the Homeland Security Department was targeting the alleged "right wing," a future mass murdering muslim jihadist was helping to advise the administration on homeland security policies.

Nidal Malik Hasan now joins the ranks of Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and other terrorist advisers to President Obama.

Here is the HSPI website, in which they downplay Hasan's role.

Michelle Malkin posts on Muslim soldiers and their jihadi activities. So does Debbie Schlussel.

Nidal Malik Hasan

















Update - Atlas posted this story yesterday.

An Obama administration - surrender; Neville Chamberlain; Peace in Our Time

Go here to find the speech Neville Chamberlain presented to Parliament upon his return from England after surrendering to Hitler at Munich. This speech will give us a preview of the method Obama will use to explain the surrender of Iraq to Iran or some other ally to some other enemy. He will focus on the need for international control of the process as opposed to the pros and cons of losing an ally:

To those who dislike an ultimatum, but who were anxious for a reasonable and orderly procedure, every one of [the] modifications [of the Godesberg Memorandum by the Munich Agreement] is a step in the right direction. It is no longer an ultimatum, but is a method which is carried out largely under the supervision of an international body.

Nowhere does Chamberlain defend the occupation of a portion of Checkoslvakia by Germany. He simply focuses throughout his speech on the best way to accomplish that goal without the risk of "extremists" provoking a fight. We will hear more of this kind of talk over the next few years. Obama's main goal will be to pacify the rest of us while surrendering our strategic positions abroad and placing anti-American countries in positions of strength.

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn

It's one thing to dislike Bush, it's one thing to hate America. But it's quite another to hate America so much you reflexively take the side of any genocidal psycho who comes along.


In their terminal irrelevance, the depraved left has now adopted the old slogan of Cold War realpolitik: like Osama and Mullah Omar, Saddam may be a sonofabitch, but he's their sonofabitch.


Mark Steyn

Quote of the day - James Fagan (D. Mass.) [child rape victims]

"I'm gonna rip them apart. I'm going to make sure that the rest of their life is ruined, that when they're 8 years old, they throw up; when they're 12 years old, they won't sleep; when they're 19 years old, they'll have nightmares and they'll never have a relationship with anybody."

Massachusetts (Democrat) Representative James Fagan.

Fagan was speaking of child rape victims - not the rapists.

CNN does not know what party Fagan belongs to.

Just as Fagan's fellow Massachusetts Democrat William Delahunt favors Al Qaeda over the Bush administration, James Fagan actually views child victims as the enemy.

This statement was predictable - the Left vs. America.

Congressman William Delahunt incites Al Qaeda

As if trying to prove my point from this post, Massachusetts Congressman Bill Delahunt expressed his support for Al Qaeda today:

Massachusetts Rep. Bill Delahunt made the remark Thursday while questioning David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, during a House subcommittee hearing on interrogation policies. Addington said he couldn't discuss certain interrogation techniques because "Al Qaeda may watch C-SPAN," which was televising the hearing. Delahunt responded: "Right, well, I'm sure they are watching, and I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you Mr. Addington."

You can easily guess to which party Delahunt belongs.


As I wrote on Thursday:

The left views terrorists, criminals, illegal aliens, foreign enemies, etc. as little more than cannon fodder to use against its real enemy - average, taxpaying Americans. If we change our outlook and stop thinking of leftists as well-meaning or merely naive, we will no longer be surprised by each new leftist absurdity. We must get used to the idea that with each challenge that confronts America, we will face two enemies instead of one. The obvious enemy in front of us will be different in each conflict, but the second enemy standing behind us will always be the same.

Congressman Delahunt may wave the flag at campaign rallies, he may salute the flag or go through the motions of praying or saying the pledge or numerous other acts of faux patriotism, but when faced with a choice of the Republicans or Al Qaeda, Delahunt sides with Al Qaeda. Axis Sally was imprisoned for similar conduct. Delahunt and his party are not mere "clowns", as Michelle Malkin writes. This is far more deadly, and we had better treat it as such.

David Brooks; Barack Hussein Obama; "change"; Gunfights and knife fights - foreign and domestic.

As we learn more about Obama and the emptiness of his promises to "change" Washington, there are those who wonder if there is a positive side to Obama's cynicism and opportunism.

David Brooks seems to understand the real Barack Hussein Obama better than most people:

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

Brooks concludes, "all I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama."

Brooks








While the MSM/DNC fawns over Obama and his wife's fashion sense, the Republicans criticize Obama's "judgment" or lack of experience (as if he would make a better President in 4 or 8 years).

Obama's second face revealed itself again last week when, in speaking about the campaign, he said the following in Philadelphia:

If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.

This type of talk is another example of how Obama's mantra of "change" is meaningless. He brings to politics the same confrontational style that has dominated elections (and the intervening periods) for more than a generation.

"See-dubya" at Michelle Malkin.com spends a great deal of time speculating on how Obama might better apply this attitude to our foreign enemies than to domestic politics.

David Brooks concludes his column by missing the same point:

On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

Why do I think that Brooks has missed the point? Primarily because Obama and the Democrats have no intention of using any kind of toughness with U.S. opponents overseas. They never do.

For Democrats, toughness is reserved only for domestic opponents - not foreign enemies. The domestic enemy (capitalists, homeschoolers, Christians, crime victims, taxpayers, boy scouts, heterosexuals, flag wavers, etc.) must be fought "on the beaches," "in the fields," "in the streets" and "in the hills." The left "shall never surrender."

But with foreign opponents, all such toughness disappears. Obama wants only to meet with foreign dictators and terror supporters, no matter how odious and no matter how counterproductive such meetings will be. To Chavez, Ahmedinejad and Kim Jong Il, Obama offers neither a knife fight nor a gun fight. The knives and guns are reserved solely for Americans. In response to Kim Jong Il's endorsement of Obama, Obama supporters in this country - instead of pausing to rethink their positions in light of such foul company - immediately prayed for the death of Michelle Malkin. Such policy is not unique to Obama or to 2008.

Aside from the examples here, we saw the spectacle of abortion supporters, in the wake of 9-11, demanding that America's anti-terror efforts be devoted to fighting abortion protesters instead of foreign terrorists. We have seen repeated calls for tax increases since 9-11. I recall an Albert Hunt column in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, in which he celebrated the return of big government as a result of the attacks (as if big government had ever left). The left repeatedly makes comparisons between the Taliban and the "Christian right" in America. In 2002, Senator Patty Murray (D. Wa) praised bin Laden's policies on education and day care.

So in the wake of this generation's Pearl Harbor, leftists trained their sites, inter alia, on (1) taxpayers (2) Christians and (3) abortion protesters while using bin Laden as support for their domestic programs and using the attacks as a long awaited excuse to expand big government even further. The terrorist attacks of 9-11 provided, at worst, a distraction for the left from its war against its real enemy (the rest of us), and, at best, a new ally for the left in its crusade to expand the federal government. Senator Murray's speech showed that expanding federal day care and education are more important to the left than fighting the world's number one terrorist.
That the left would automatically question whether the "world's number one terrorist" is bin Laden or Bush is also noteworthy. Remember that Dennis Miller had to remind Jay Leno's TV audience that as between Hussein and Bush - "Hussein is the bad guy." Most leftists would not admit this fact and would go to great lengths to avoid making a public choice between the two.

More recently, the left has plotted to shut down an entire city so as to attack its real opponents - Republicans - in a series of military style maneuvers that the left would never use against Al-Qaeda.

The fact remains that the same left that supported the Soviets during the cold war now supports the terrorists. This policy makes no sense. While the leftists at least shared an ideology with the Soviets, they have nothing in common with Islam, except for the shared goal of destroying America. As I wrote three years ago:

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is no point to the left's anti-Americanism or to the left's destructive foreign policy. The Soviet Union, the chief beneficiary of the left's policies for so many decades, is gone. There remains no leftist ally for the MSM/DNC to aid. While it was plausible to imagine the left in bed with its Soviet co-ideologues during the cold war, the left has nothing in common with our current enemies, the Islamists. The left has nothing to gain from helping the Islamists except its own destruction alongside the rest of us.

The left views terrorists, criminals, illegal aliens, foreign enemies, etc. as little more than cannon fodder to use against its real enemy - average, taxpaying Americans. If we change our outlook and stop thinking of leftists as well-meaning or merely naive, we will no longer be surprised by each new leftist absurdity. We must get used to the idea that with each challenge that confronts America, we will face two enemies instead of one. The obvious enemy in front of us will be different in each conflict, but the second enemy standing behind us will always be the same.

• (1) Terrorists attack us while (2) the western left excuses and enables the terrorists and demoralizes and undermines us as we try to fight back.
• (1) Criminals tear at the fabric of society while (2) the left plays the race card and inhibits law enforcement efforts.
• (1) Illegal aliens colonize America and undermine the very nature of American culture while (2) the left plays the race card and prevents us from securing our borders.
• (1) Foreign dictators threaten to incinerate the earth while (2) the left seeks to bolster the foreign dictators' image and standing with their own people.
• (1) Foreign terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and (2) leftist politicians immediately responded by attacking a compound in Waco, ultimately burning dozens of people to death (while the Islamic terrorists plotted to finish the job at the WTC).
• (1) Energy prices threaten our economy while (2) leftists pursue policies designed to increase fuel prices.
• (1) Foreign countries surpass our declining industrial capacity while (2) the left seeks to destroy what is left of our industry through massive hoaxes.

Alien forces strike at our front while the left strikes at our back. (While high energy prices are not an "alien force," the left welcomes them as if they were gift wrapped in a turban or Che Guevara flag.) In every one of these examples, there is one element in common. The left works against the rest of us - no matter who the nominal enemy is. The left need not agree with, be coordinated with or make formal arrangements with our nominal enemy. The left supports our enemies anyway. Prior to 9-11, the left knew nothing of Islam except that Islam was yet another anti-abortion religion and that muslim countries had served as a convenient whipping boy whenever Bill Clinton got into trouble. Only on 9-11 did the left realize the potential of Islamic terrorism as a new found ally in the eternal war against the U.S.

It is time for the rest of us to stop talking about leftists as "well-meaning" or "well-intentioned" or "naive" or even "inexperienced." The left has plenty of experience. The left has more than enough experience to know better. The left is not naive. No one, no matter how naive, stupid or stubborn could be this consistently wrong for so long - especially where their positions just happen to be the anti-American position on each issue. As Ayn Rand wrote in December, 1962:

Fifty years ago, there might have been some excuse (though not justification) for the widespread belief that socialism is a political theory motivated by benevolence and aimed at the achievement of men's well-being. Today, that belief can no longer be regarded as an innocent error. Socialism has been tried on every continent of the globe. In the light of its results, it is time to question the motives of socialism's advocates.

It is time that we recognize the left for what it is - a willing partner with whatever enemy or problem confronts the U.S. It is time we treat the left that way. Otherwise, we shall never learn what is killing us. Barack Obama's opportunism, dishonesty, threats and other cynical activities do not translate into a tough foreign policy. They will translate into a foreign policy in which Obama and his administration are aligned with foreign enemies against the rest of us.
----------------------------------------
visit counter added 6-26-08

Quote of the day - Official Obama website

"GODDAMN (this) AMERICA! GODDAMN GEORGE BUSH’S AMERICA! GODDAMN THIS FASCIST “AMERICA”! GODDAMN AN AMERICA THAT FIGHTS WARS FOR OIL FOR ELITE WEALTH ACCUMULATION! GODDAMN AN AMERICA THAT DOESNT GIVE TWO SH*TS ABOUT THEIR POOR OR THEIR MINORITIES! F*** YOU PRESIDENT BUSH!

F*** this “Christian” movement."

From the official Obama campaign website. H/T LGF



--------------------------------------------------------
visit counter added on January 25, 2009.

Charlie Black's comments and Barack Hussein Obama's supporters.

John McCain should not apologize to Barack Obama for the comments of Charlie Black (who stated that a terrorist attack in America would benefit the Republicans). He should apologize to the American people, but not Obama. After all, any such attack would probably be perpetrated by some of Obama's supporters.

Quote of the day - Jodie Evans - [Osama had a valid argument]

Evans: We were attacked because we were in Saudi Arabia. That was the message of Osama, was that, because we had our bases in the Middle East, he attacked the United States.

Ibbetson: Do you think that’s a valid argument?

Evans: Sure. Why do we have bases in the Middle East? We totally violated the rights of that, that country. Why do we get to have bases in the Middle East?

Code Pink founder and major Obama donor and fundraiser Jodie Evans

Another Obama supporter, another embarrassment/ terror sympathizer/ lunatic/ anti-American; Guantanamo Muslim chaplain James Yee.

Another Obama supporter turns out to be an enemy of America - and not just in the same way that the New York Times or AP typically oppose America. James Yee opposes the U.S. in the old fashioned way. He supports terrorists to such an extent that prosecution would have revealed too many national security secrets:

[T]he charges were dropped, according to Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, because there were “national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence” if the case proceeded.

h/t LGF

Yee







As Charles wrote, he is the "perfect delegate for Obama." Democrat politicians in Olympia, Washington agree, and have selected Yee as an Obama delegate.

We are not supposed to criticize Obama simply because his supporters/friends/family are nuts, invent accusations of Nazism, hate America, were/are muslim, were/are communists, inflame the uninformed with false accusations, are criminals or are terrorists. But if Obama surrounds himself with such people, what kind of cabinet appointments will he make? Who will formulate his policies? Will Obama suddenly develop good judgment when he takes the oath of office and appoint only loyal, sane Americans? Or will he continue to surround himself with America haters, thus insuring the most disastrous possible policies toward terrorist nations.

Treason

Liberal Quicksand nails the real issue:

I’m not only questioning their mental health or ability to think and learn, I am flat out telling you that Democrat voters are traitors to this nation. I am not just questioning their patriotism. I am saying they are enemies of this nation. Pure and simple.

I explained one aspect of this pathological treason - MSM/DNC war coverage - here.

Here is the MSM/DNC pro-Castro discussion.

MSM/DNC coverage of Vietnam.

Miscellaneous quotes here, here, here and here.

MSM/DNC coverage of Iraq.

"Useful Idiots" (as explained by a Soviet defector).

Plus much more.

MSM/DNC celebrates Castro's reign

On August 2, 2006, I wrote the following predictions related to the MSM/DNC coverage of the anticipated death of Fidel Castro:

If and when Castro dies, I expect the usual MSM/DNC post-mortems on his life. His nearly five decades in control of Cuba will be glorified and whitewashed. His longevity will be trumpeted as an insult to the United States. Matt Lauer's teleprompter will tell us that five (or ten) Presidents tried to get rid of Castro and he survived anyway. Diane Sawyer's teleprompter will tell us of Castro's deep Catholic faith.

Charles Gibson's teleprompter will refer to Castro's Soviet bosses as his "allies."

Katie Couric's teleprompter will remind us that Elian Gonzalez has been safely reunited with his father.

All of the teleprompters will downplay Castro's instigation of revolution in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

I further predicted that no MSM/DNC outlet would mention Castro's assistance to Venezuela's efforts to destablize the rest of Latin America by using secret police disguised as medical doctors.

Even though Castro is not dead (he announced his resignation yesterday), these predictions are coming true. This morning on Today, Andrea Mitchell triumphantly announced that Castro had survived 10 U.S. Presidents, including George W. Bush (even though Bush somehow remains in office). The same people who barely contain their admiration for the fifty years of Castro's dictatorship (and who now urge the end of the embargo even though the dictatorship remains under different leadership) swoon over the candidacy of Barack Obama and the "change" he will bring to the U.S.
----------------------------
Michelle Malkin has more.

As usual, Scrappleface puts it all in perspective:

Experts suggest that as co-presidents of Cuba, Mr. Obama would be the mouthpiece, giving stirring six-hour speeches about the majesty and beauty of poverty in a Communist Utopia, while Mrs. Clinton would work behind the scenes to ensure full agreement with those speeches at all levels of government.

A Vietnam history primer; Tet Offensive

The Wall Street Journal today contains an article today that rebuts the MSM/DNC revised standard version of the Vietnam War:

On January 30, 1968, more than a quarter million North Vietnamese soldiers and 100,000 Viet Cong irregulars launched a massive attack on South Vietnam. But the public didn't hear about who had won this most decisive battle of the Vietnam War, the so-called Tet offensive, until much too late.

Media misreporting of Tet passed into our collective memory. That picture gave antiwar activism an unwarranted credibility that persists today in Congress, and in the media reaction to the war in Iraq. The Tet experience provides a narrative model for those who wish to see all U.S. military successes -- such as the Petraeus surge -- minimized and glossed over.

Arthur Herman provides some basic numbers that any student of that era's history should know:

The Tet offensive came at the end of a long string of communist setbacks. By 1967 their insurgent army in the South, the Viet Cong, had proved increasingly ineffective, both as a military and political force. Once American combat troops began arriving in the summer of 1965, the communists were mauled in one battle after another, despite massive Hanoi support for the southern insurgency with soldiers and arms. By 1967 the VC had lost control over areas like the Mekong Delta -- ironically, the very place where reporters David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan had first diagnosed a Vietnam "quagmire" that never existed.

The Tet offensive was Hanoi's desperate throw of the dice to seize South Vietnam's northern provinces using conventional armies, while simultaneously triggering a popular uprising in support of the Viet Cong. Both failed. Americans and South Vietnamese soon put down the attacks, which began under cover of a cease-fire to celebrate the Tet lunar new year. By March 2, when U.S. Marines crushed the last North Vietnamese pockets of resistance in the northern city of Hue, the VC had lost 80,000-100,000 killed or wounded without capturing a single province.

Tet was a particularly crushing defeat for the VC. It had not only failed to trigger any uprising but also cost them "our best people," as former Viet Cong doctor Duong Quyunh Hoa later admitted to reporter Stanley Karnow. Yet the very fact of the U.S. military victory -- "The North Vietnamese," noted National Security official William Bundy at the time, "fought to the last Viet Cong" -- was spun otherwise by most of the U.S. press.

Vietnam is spoken or written of in vague terms. References to "quagmire," "another Vietnam," "the limits to American Imperialism," etc. have nearly paralyzed American foreign policy for more than three decades. American policy in Vietnam was successful until American leftist propagandists and politicians squandered our hard won victory:

The failure of the North's next massive invasion over Easter 1972, which cost the North Vietnamese army another 100,000 men and half their tanks and artillery, finally forced it to sign the peace accords in Paris and formally to recognize the Republic of South Vietnam. By August 1972 there were no U.S. combat forces left in Vietnam, precisely because, contrary to the overwhelming mass of press reports, American policy there had been a success.

To Congress and the public, however, the war had been nothing but a debacle. And by withdrawing American troops, President Nixon gave up any U.S. political or military leverage on Vietnam's future. With U.S. military might out of the equation, the North quickly cheated on the Paris accords. When its re-equipped army launched a massive attack in 1975, Congress refused to redeem Nixon's pledges of military support for the South. Instead, President Gerald Ford bowed to what the media had convinced the American public was inevitable: the fall of Vietnam.

The collapse of South Vietnam's neighbor, Cambodia, soon followed. Southeast Asia entered the era of the "killing fields," exterminating in a brief few years an estimated two million people -- 30% of the Cambodian population. American military policy has borne the scars of Vietnam ever since.

Quote of the day - Mark Steyn [New York Times]

Our war has one of the lowest fatality rates of any war ever, and, when they get so low that even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid temporarily give up the quagmire bleating, the [New York] Times invents bogus stories to suggest that the few veterans lucky enough to make it out of Iraq alive are ticking time-bombs ready to explode across every Main Street in the land.

Mark Steyn - 1-19-08

Previous - New York Times and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

New York Times on the Warsaw Ghetto uprising

Thanks to "Death by 1000 Papercuts" for alerting me to The People's Cube version of a hypothetical New York Times front page from the Warsaw ghetto uprising during World War II.


My question is, why didn't the New York Times actually use these headlines in 1943? We know that the Times writes today's stories that way - equating good with evil, blaming both sides, accusing those who defend themselves of overreacting, siding with U.S. enemies, etc. etc.

The accepted version of media history is that organizations such as the New York Times were patriotic during World War II and became "skeptical" of the government during Vietnam and Watergate. Establishment historians note the general supportive attitude of newspapers during WWII. The same historians note rising "skepticism" over the following two decades on the part of the media and attribute such skepticism to misconduct on the part of the American government.

In fact, the New York Times has been part of the fifth column since before World War II. But there was a very good reason that the Times (and others) did not oppose official U.S. interests during WWII. The New York Times' version of the ghetto uprising would have been just as bad as it is depicted on the above graphic had the uprising occurred two years earlier.

Prior to June 1941, Germany was allied with the Soviet Union. In June 1941, the Germans invaded the Soviet Union and threatened the workers paradise so admired by the left. The New York Times turned against Germany not out of a sense of patriotism or a lack of "skepticism," but out of loyalty to the Soviet Union. The Times and other media outlets saw a threat to their real ally. The U.S. just happened to be on the same side - thus making the Times appear patriotic.

Had Germany and the Soviet Union remained allied during the entire war, the Times' coverage of the war would have been very different. The graphic above is a good example. Leftist historians would today refer to WWII as a boondogle, where America learned the "limits of imperialism." Today, we would constantly hear warnings about not getting into "another WWII."

There is no real difference between the NY Times of Walter Duranty's day and the New York Times of today. The war coverage seems different because today we don't have the Soviet Union on our side to keep our newspapers loyal.

Quote of the day - Rush Limbaugh

"It's clear. The Democrats have taken sides. And it's not our side they've chosen."

Rush Limbaugh - 12-12-07

(commenting on Democrat opposition to interrogation of terrorists and Democrat attempts to dismantle America's intelligence apparati.)

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter

In the paramount threat of our time, the Democratic Party is AWOL. And those are the patriotic Democrats. The rest are actively aiding the enemy.

Ann Coulter

Quote of the day - Ann Coulter

Democrats should run Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for president. He's more coherent than Dennis Kucinich, he dresses like their base, he's more macho than John Edwards, and he's willing to show up at a forum where he might get one hostile question -- unlike the current Democratic candidates for president who won't debate on Fox News Channel. He's not married to an impeached president, and the name "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad" is surely no more frightening than "B. Hussein Obama."

Ann Coulter

Quote of the day - Thomas Sowell

It is not just in Iraq that the political left has an investment in failure. Domestically as well as internationally, the left has long had a vested interest in poverty and social malaise.

Thomas Sowell