For facts about politics and policies (okay, and some opinion)

 
Letter to Worldnetdaily.com

I would like to express my disgust with Ellen Ratner's continued attacks against America.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31160

This nonsense about America providing Hussein with WMDs is perpetuated through respected venues such as WND.

1) No government entity ever provided Hussein with WMDs
2) Private corporations and possibly some government entities were given the green light to provide Iraq with samples of certain contagion in order for them to use it in testing and serum/antidote manufacture.
3) Never has it been proven by anyone that there was ever the direct purposeful distribution of contagion to Iraq for the expressed purpose of killing millions of Iranians. If there had been, I’m sure that we would have seen the war crimes trials on that already.

I can’t believe you choose to host such a hateful person.

Her “pretend” article about Hussein’s trial is what she and her liberal left loons think is reality.

I’m sure you think that you are doing this because either you will stir up debate and increase your readership or that you want to pretend that you are being “fair and balanced”.

To use an overused comparison with a certain villain, America’s newspapers published Hitler’s articles. Did that make them better newspapers?

posted by Peter Shinn at 6:50 AM

 
Another note on the fire in Rhode Island

The media is just as big a part of the money for death as the reporter was. If out of decency they didn't pay for or show the film clips that the reporter shot there would not be a market for them.

I can't believe that there isn't a major outcry against this type of inhumanity. It looks like the public is just interested in viewing human suffering and doesn't see the horror.

Let me put this to you again. The reporter moved around filming people stuck in the doorway. Without helping those and others to escape he was personally responsible for the deaths of untold lives. And you are watching it on TV.

Send a letter to the news agencies at:
Comments@foxnews.com
CNN@cnn.com

Also email your local TV stations with your comments.
posted by Peter Shinn at 10:02 AM

 
Clinton's War

I did a little rant on Clinton not too long ago. I'm a conservative, what do you expect? :)

I finally found a great piece on what Bush says today on Iraq and what Clinton said during his wag the dog days. It's for all you libs out there that hate to say you're wrong.

Larry Elder put this together for worldnetdaily.com at http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31143

Here is just one part of that article:

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

George W. Bush, Jan. 28, 2003: "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region."

Don'tcha hate it libs? Sooooo, which is it? Was Clinton attacking Iraq to divert attention from his romances or was and is Iraq a serious threat?
posted by Peter Shinn at 12:22 AM

 
Reporter or human being?

All of us have seen the footage of the fire in Rhode Island from the Great White concert. I can understand the newsman filming the fire as it was starting. I can understand him filming it as he was making his way out of the club. What I can’t understand is how he could film people dying. There he was, panning, walking around to get better angles of the death and mayhem while people were dying and screaming right in front of him.

At what point are you not a human being and become just a spectator? Does having a camera allow you to ignore the pains and anguish from others as you catalog it for mankind?

In my opinion he should have done one of two things:
1) Toss the camera down & help pull people out right away
2) Set the camera down where it would still be filming while he jumped into rescue efforts.

Not up to me to judge. This guy has to live with the screams and deaths the rest of his life. There is no doubt that he could have saved many.

posted by Peter Shinn at 12:14 AM

 
Friday – 02/21/03

CNN – I love how the libs don’t want to admit that the majority of the media is liberal. A great example of how liberal they are was this headline on CNN:

“CNN/Times poll shows that 50% of American people think that Al Qaeda is a greater threat than Iraq.”

Why doesn't it read that 50% of Americans think that Iraq is a greater threat than Al Qaeda? Of course it is because libs don't want to do or support anything that Bush does, unless they have to for fear of being labeled obstructionists, or maybe even dangerous to society.

In my opinion, a conservative would say that Americans believe that both are equally threatening and both have to be dealt with.

I also believe that libs are playing politics with our lives. They look at the war on terror as an opportunity to get votes, and Bush and the Reps are getting too many of those, as was evidenced by the last election.

posted by Peter Shinn at 12:08 AM

 
Monday 02/17/03

Listen To Chirac, or in other words, be quiet & sit down!

Naughty naughty you eastern nations in Europe. You didn't listen to Mr. Chirac! Here is the big man's quote:

"It is not really responsible behavior; it is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet,"

That quote came from a Fox News article at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78810,00.html

And More from http://europe.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/18/sprj.irq.chirac/index.html

Chirac said: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."

"I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac said.

Chirac called the letters "infantile" and "dangerous," adding: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."

I think he means that you children should be seen and not heard, if you want to be accepted into the European Union that is.

You should have a good understanding what the ¡§Union¡¨ will be like now. Germany and France want to run the show & everyone else is expected to act appropriately.

Good luck :)

posted by Peter Shinn at 10:00 PM

 
Liberals and Democrats Beware

You folks haven't been paying attention. You are so caught up with the results of the last election and your hatred for the Republicans that you can't see straight anymore. I don't blame you, I blame your party. They have been feeding you crap for so long that the old saying is coming true, "You are what you eat", or in the tech world, "Garbage In, Garbage Out".

Think about it...so many still talk about the illegitimacy of the Bush election to this day. Let's look at hard cold facts and see if you can deal with them.

First of all, the election. In all recounts, including all the liberal press recounts & other teams hired by Gore, Bush won every one. Otherwise you would have been hearing from the liberal news, as in ABC, CBS, MSNBC, The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today and CNN daily how "Bush stole the election". Since that news didn't break, you only heard the story from whiny libs and Gore.

The Florida Supreme Court broke the law and should have been thrown in jail. They passed a new law and attempted to overthrow a United States election with their illegal act.

Check this out. Here is a statement from the Bush brief to the US Supreme Court:

The (Florida) supreme court reached this conclusion by an-
nouncing a new rule of law to constrain the Secretary's
discretion under Fla. Stat. §§ 102.111 and 102.112, de-
claring for the first time that "the Secretary may reject a
Board's amended returns only if the returns are submit-
ted so late that their inclusion will preclude a candidate
from contesting the certification or preclude Florida's
voters from participating fully in the federal electoral
process." Id. at 37a. Based on this newly fashioned,
hitherto unrecognized rule of law, the Florida Supreme
Court directed the Secretary of State to accept untimely
manual recount returns through Sunday, November 26,
2000. Id. at 38a-39a.

That came from the brief. Here is a link to the USA Today site with all the links:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/supreme4.htm

The point being that the Florida Supreme Court tried to rig the election, plain & simple. They attempted to change laws that were in the books to adjust a situation that they didn't like. If it had been the other way around, you know darn well that they would have pushed for the final certification of the election. Matter of fact, if Katherine Harris hadn't certified the election on time, they probably would have thrown her in jail!

The biggest mistake made was that the United States Supreme Court didn't throw the liberal Florida Supreme Court in jail for their election rigging attempt!

Yeah, I know, you libs don't believe reality so I'll throw some other things at you.

For years, while Clinton was in office, you hollered about how the Conservatives were just being square going after Clinton for his affairs in office. It would be one thing if he was just having casual flings, but let's look at what that one was about.

His affair with Monica Lewinsky...was that it? A cigar & casual sex in the White House...is that all it was about? Nope, that's what the libs & dems wanted you to think. The affair came up during the Paula Jones case. For those of you out there who aren't aware of that case, it is the one where Paula Jones alleged that he attempted to have sex with her. He dropped trough & made some suggestions that she didn't like!

So there he was, being questioned by the Grand Jury and he gave out lie after lie about his past. Of course he shared those same lies over & over to his wife and daughter, to America and the world. Think about it, he lied about not just one affair to his wife and child, but so many nobody even knows how many affairs that man actually had.

This is a man we trusted with enough nukes to annihilate the world many times over!

He had sex with Monica while Arafat was waiting on the other side of another room. That's how much he cares about the Jews, the Palestinians and peace in the Middle East.

Note which President's head is on the posters on this site and who the Palestinians are in an uproar about. He obviously wasn't loved in Palestine:
http://rotter.net/israel/

Here is the timeline on the Jones case:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/paula_jones/47938.stm

We were supposed to believe him when he said that he lobbed missiles into foreign countries, like Iraq and the Sudan, because it was something that had to be done.

Here is a page that has info on Clinton's attack on Iraq:
http://www.themilitant.com/1996/6032/6032_2.html

Note the comment from the Iraqi Ambassador to Greece Issam Saud Khalil where he condemned the U.S. missile attacks. He called the U.S. government "the new criminals of the modern age" and "policemen of world disorder."

Because of Operation Desert Fox, the House delayed the Impeachment vote against him. What do you think?

Clinton lied to the Grand Jury, he lied to his family, he lied to America, he lied to the world. He paid $850,00 to Paula Jones, was disbarred as an attorney and was Impeached by Congress. All of that for a little lie about sex?

To me, the most important thing about all this was that if he would have kept his eye on the ball instead of his balls he might have done some good in this world.

Back then Clinton commented daily on how evil Saddam was.

Today, Mr. Dove makes unprecedented comments and challenges the current president almost daily. Here are some quotes on this site:
http://www.johnworldpeace.com/e021004a.html

Note the idiotic comments like "Military action in Iraq should be a last resort . . . I don't care how precise your bombs and weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will die," Mr. Clinton said". And how about this one "America was not blameless – it had armed Saddam with biological weapons in the 1980s when the US backed Iraq in its war against Iran". Let's look at that statement Mr. former President.

http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/biological_us_supplied.html

Note that we "supplied" Iraq with agents through the commerce department. These were legal transfers and were supposed to be to help them combat those illnesses. It was for medical investigation.

Mr. Clinton. Do you have proof that we supplied them with these agents in order to kill Iranians? Let me see, you're inferring this?

A couple more lines from that article:
---------------
One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations ( news - web sites) that it had made weapons out of all three.

The company sent the bacteria to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors concluded had been used as a front to acquire samples for Iraq's biological weapons program.
--------------

Whatever addresses those shipments went to, I don't see any proof that we intentionally tried to sell WMDs to the Iraqis.

An interesting thing about that site, johnworldpeace.com, is that the guy is obviously a religious loon. He has Hitler, Sharon and Bush together in a photo montage that he calls "The Three Kings, Armageddon comes". This nut also comments "Bush is an insane egomaniac and fulfills all the expectations of the Anti-Christ".

Another idiotic statement of his "At least Hitler was honest in his contempt for non Arians and hatred for the Jews".

Hey Mr. Worldpeace..no comments on the millions of babies that are murdered in the womb every year? What about the millions of Christians, Hindus, Jews that are attacked and murdered? I didn't think so, partisan rhetoric as usual.

It used to be that a conservative was a liberal that got mugged. Now they're getting killed and they're wondering..."what did I do to deserve that? I must have done something wrong".

That's exactly what the libs are saying about 911. In your eyes we must have done something arrogant and evil to get attacked like that. Think about it y'all, what do extremist Muslims hate? They hate adultery, stone to death offense. They hate homosexuality, stone to death offense. They hate decadence, not sure about the punishment for watching porn flicks, but I'm sure it's not pleasant. They hate obscene lyrics in songs, probably 100 lashes with a stick. They hate stealing, off with the hands. They hate drugs and alcohol, all you pot smokers and boozers out there beware. They don't support abortion. The list goes on & on.

Let's see now...who supports all those things? Well whatdaya know...the libs. Y'all let the criminals go, write the decadent songs, make the obscene movies, steal & claim "it's for a part in a movie". Will & Grace is the kind of thing you call entertainment. You believe that abortion is birth control. And so on. Not that conservatives don't indulge in some of those decadent things, it's just that you libs make it an art form in itself. Soooo, Mr. Clinton, think about it, you are one of those that are really responsible for 911. (chuckle)

Am I serious? I wouldn't go out of my way to hit every lib up with these comments without a chuckle, but hey, I'm not the only one that has made this connection.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=1315

Back to Iraq & Herr Clinton. Back when he was in office & used the Iraq situation as a distraction he actually spoke a lot of truth. Matter of fact, you'll be amazed at how what he says almost mirrors what the administration is saying today. Check this out:
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/1999/msg00185.html

That is the Clinton Address of Iraq Policy, dated March 3, 1999. Ain't it a drag Mr. Prez how this stuff comes back to bite you? :)

More to follow in days and weeks ahead. I hope to wake up some of you libs with lib dust in your eyes.

You can't make friends with a hungry alligator in the swamp, you are food to him, not a buddy.














posted by Peter Shinn at 3:57 AM

 
I Was emailed this link:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_lewis2.html

I agree with a lot of what this person is saying.

The challenge for our government is to figure out how to be at war with terrorism and protect our civil liberties at the same time. At least we're not as bad as WWII...yet.

It will take years to figure out how to "investigate" to prevent 911 style attacks in this country. We will make mistakes for sure, but I would prefer that we err on the side of caution until we figure things out.

The thing to notice though is that this is a story from PBS, by Bill Moyers of all people. A liberal station with one of the most liberal and biased news representatives of all time leading the story.

I don't think that the article shows a wag the dog scenario. I believe Clinton performed more military action, criminally investigated and tossed the IRS at more innocent people to keep heat off himself than probably any president before him, & everyone knew it. Every time he was in front of the Grand Jury lying, there went the missiles. He was a liar and everyone knew it. Check this article out, it has some stats as well as commentary:

http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS2-99MQC/2-1-1999.1.html

Even when 74% of the people polled by a liberal polling company said that Clinton was not honest or trustworthy, they still gave him a top notch approval rating.

What do people not understand about honest and trustworthy?

Remember Hillary with her "Right-wing conspiracy" attack on the conservatives during the investigations against her hubby? Did she come out afterwards and say that her hubby was a jerk and has had more affairs then even she could believe? Nope, not a word, not even an apology for her conspiracy theory.

The Iraq War

What's fascinating is to read the dems words during the Clinton administration. Daschle for instance agreed with everything that Clinton said about us having to attack Iraq. Clinton's words were almost verbatim to Bush's about the Iraq issues and yet Daschle is attacking Bush, calling Bush a liar and accusing him of playing politics.

And here is our esteemed Gore, same as Daschle, against the war with reps in office but for it when dems are in office. This article is interesting though. It shows Gore actually supporting the attack during the first Bush administration:

http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/news-homeland-security-al-gore.html

I find that article interesting. It is about Daschle accusing Cheney of playing politics with the war on Iraq. At the campaign stop Cheney is telling folks to support the GOP candidate because he supports Bush. Wow, that's just terrible! Now why would anyone want people to vote for their representative because that person agrees with your party? Jeez, like the dems are out there stumping for their opposition candidates?

Another thing not talked about right now. Clinton's heroic mission into Kosovo saving the Muslims. Here's what those "liberated" people have been doing since the war:

http://www.kosovo.com/default2.html

Hundreds of thousands of non-Albanians and Serbs have been uprooted or killed while NATO and the U.N. look the other way.

I believe Christians and Jews, and any other religion in the world that is not a part of Islam needs to watch out. The radicals may not be the majority, but they are killing or by force converting millions of people that don't agree with their religion.

Here are some of their tactics:

http://www.jubileecampaign.co.uk/world/egy13.htm

And to wrap it up...

In my opinion, since 911 the dems think everything is still politics as usual. They look at major events that shape public opinion and affect elections like opportunities, and because a rep is in office during this "opportunity" they believe that they are missing out on the biggest slew of votes that they could ever hope to get from one event.

Their bitter divisive attacks on reps in the face of global danger is nothing short of dangerous and childish.




posted by Peter Shinn at 11:15 AM

 
The Rutherford Institute

They claim to be sticking up for the Honor Guardsman who was fired for saying God Bless America. Then when you go to the link that is posted on their & other linking sites it goes to a donor page.

http://tool.donation-net.net/entrance/enter.cfm?dn=1034&source=2000&CFID=3229216&CFTOKEN=60622802

Lame, get a life.

If you want me to sign your petition I would be glad to, but to direct me to a page where I have to give you money to do so is about as low as it gets!

I just went past the point where it asks me for information on the petition by putting in false information. Even though they don't ask you for money, it goes to a donor page. It even has the comment "no credit card information can be recalled" at the bottom of the page that I have linked up top. Because of that I did not want to continue signing the petition, but I was curious to see if they really asked for credit card information.

I was glad to see that they did not, but it is stupid to link this petition to a donor page. I'm sure there are many people that won't continue on because of that donor page & the petition won't get signed by as many people as it might be.

So it goes
posted by Peter Shinn at 12:19 PM