Yacht Barnacle: the John Kerry Story

When it comes to hypocrisy, criminality, duplicity and elitism, is there anyone in America that tops John Kerry? For you drones: that's a rhetorical question.

BigGovernment.com has obtained records of Massachusetts Democrat Senator John Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz’s stock portfolios that show almost perfectly timed pharmaceutical stock trades during the Obamacare debate, which fattened their already enormous personal fortune.

...Sen. John Kerry’s position on the powerful Senate Finance Committee’s Health Subcommittee gives him direct access to critical information regarding health care policy. In July 2009, pharmaceutical industry representatives met with key members of Congress to flesh out the Obamacare bill. Then, in November 2009, with the bill’s passage was looking more likely, the Kerrys’ portfolios reflect a drug stock buying spree...

...Even as their portfolios reflected aggressive purchasing of drug company stocks, Sen. Kerry was dumping investments in health insurance companies.

...[Peter Schweizer's new book] Throw Them All Out contends that Sen. Kerry is no stranger to making huge profits off of health care-related trading based on his rare access to information. “Some of [Kerry’s] biggest scores,” writes Schweizer, “were tied to his knowledge of obscure matters that had huge ramifications for certain companies.”

One such instance occurred in 2007, when the government was deciding whether an anemia drug made by Amgen would receive Medicare reimbursement. Before news of the congressional negotiations went public, however, the Kerrys’ investment fund executed two perfectly timed stock sales. On May 4th and 7th, between $500,000 and $1 million worth of Amgen were sold off. The move helped him avoid between $50,000 and $100,000 in losses.

Another example of Kerry’s deft congressional trading happened in 2003 during the negotiations over the prescription drug benefit plan. Kerry’s Senate committee was in charge of the plan’s oversight. In 2003, writes Schweizer, “a stunning 111 transactions of pharmaceutical companies and health insurance companies” were made to the Kerrys’ portfolios.

Peter Schweizer's book is a must-read.


Hat tip: Instapundit.

Oh, This is Rich: HuffPo Nut Can't Remember When Members of Congress Ever Met With Foreign Leaders Against the Will of the White House

Some crackpot named Amanda Terkel, writing at the execrable Stuffington Roast, is shocked -- shocked! -- that a member of the the House majority met with the Israeli P.M.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday during a meeting in New York that the new GOP majority in the House will "serve as a check" on the Obama administration, a statement unusual for its blunt disagreement with U.S. policy delivered directly to a foreign leader...

...Ron Kampeas from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency news agency found Cantor's comments extremely surprising, writing, "I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another -- building in Jerusalem, or somesuch -- lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations. But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary."

What a tool.

It's certainly easy to forget this meeting of Democrat Chris Dodd (D-CT) with Syrian dictator-slash-Iranian-terror puppet Bashar Assad against the wishes of the Bush White House.

Or this meeting between the pathetic John Kerry (D-MA) and Assad.

Or the time that the disgraceful Bill Nelson (D-FL) met with Assad.

And who could forget this meeting between Stretch Pelosi and Assad?

Not only did Democrat leaders meet with the head of the terror-state; not only did they fly across the globe to meet; but they also did so in the midst of the Iraqi conflict in which:

• Syria was secretly building its own nuclear facility (later destroyed by the Israelis, thankfully)...

• Credible military reports stated that Assad was (and is still) holding Saddam Hussein's WMDs...

• And, worst of all, Syria was actively exporting weapons to Iraq's insurgents during the war that were used to kill American troops.

In a late update to the article, however, Terkel happens to remember one of many visits by Democrat leaders to express support for Syria's terror-state, but only to attempt to point out GOP "hypocrisy".

Yes, dimwit, because Syria -- a puppet of Iran -- was and is a known terror-state and avowed enemy of the U.S. Its support for Hezbollah, for instance, was also instrumental in the bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines.

Not that you'd remember any of that, "Terkel" -- if that is your name.


Hat tip: Memeorandum.

Shocka: New York Times and WikiLeaks Organize Al Qaqaa II (i.e., Yet Another Desperate October Surprise Intended to Swing the Elections)

Problem is: the illegal immigrants, felons, dead people, government dependents and union bosses -- the Democrats' core constituencies -- don't read the Times, so it's unlikely that Al Qaqaa II will have the same kind of impact as version one.

Why do I call this latest Halloween Surprise "Al Qaqaa II"?

A few months after the 2004 presidential election, Jonah Goldberg dredged up the long since forgotten dirty trick pulled by the New York Times-Fishwrap, which was clearly designed to swing last-minute support to John "D-Student" Kerry.

On Monday, October 25, 2004, the New York Times published a 2,600-word front page story headlined “Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq.” Written by three Times journalists [alleged that] 380 tons of very high explosives–munitions that could be used by Iraqi insurgents to attack American troops–were missing, and had probably been looted, from Iraq’s Al Qaqaa weapons-storage facility.

The story, published eight days before the presidential election, caused an immediate uproar. Aides to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry quickly arranged a conference call with reporters that Monday morning to push the Times’s findings...

Despite questions raised by critics about the story’s accuracy, completeness and timing, in the days that followed the Times mounted the journalistic equivalent of a full-court press on Al Qaqaa. On October 26, the paper ran a front-page article on Kerry’s quick pickup of the issue... That same day, Times columnist Paul Krugman charged that the administration’s handling of Al Qaqaa was part of a “culture of coverups.” ...The next day, October 27, the Times published two stories on the subject... Columnist Maureen Dowd also mentioned Al Qaqaa in an article entitled “White House of Horrors.”

The paper published two more stories mentioning Al Qaqaa on October 29 (one was another Krugman column), then two more on October 30, then two more on October 31, and then two more on November 1, the day before Election Day. Each day Kerry, who abandoned much of his planned final-week strategy to concentrate on Al Qaqaa, tried to capitalize on the latest reports. In all, in the eight days from October 25 to November 1, the Times published 16 stories and columns about Al Qaqaa, plus seven letters to the editor (all of which were critical of the Bush administration).

...And then, abruptly, it stopped. In the four months since the election, the Times appears to have simply dropped the Al Qaqaa story, publishing nothing about the munitions dump and the supposedly critical issues it raised about the Bush administration’s handling of the war in Iraq...

Simple: it was thinly disguised agitprop, designed to sway the masses the way Julius Streicher might have: by using "The Big Lie". And, yes, I'm using Nazi allusions because (a) they're accurate; and (b) I'm sick of the liberals constantly referring to those who love the Constitution as Nazi extremists, when it is they who constantly advocate for bigger government and for more centralized control without any limits whatsoever! But I digress...

Six years later, basically to the day, the Times will run a sensationalistic Sunday hit-piece designed to: (a) swing the elections; (b) undermine our troops; (c) hurt our allies; and (d) salvage six wavering subscribers.

And all of it will have the same impact as Al Qaqaa I. Which is to say: bupkis.

And they wonder why no normal American trusts the media. Get out on Tuesday morning with the other patriots. Line up thousands strong with your neighbors, family and friends. And help crush the liberal-progressive-Statist-Marxist machine. This time, we really are doing it for the children.


Hat tip: Memeorandum.

When Leftist Drones Attack!

Apparently, asking a question about an unusual display of military medals and ribbons on civilian attire has raised the hackles of the hard left Democrats. In this case, a thread on Free Republic mentioned the magically expanding ribbon rack of one Connie Pillich, an Ohio Democrat legislator and hard-core tax-and-spend liberal in the mold of Nancy Pelosi.

Many veterans pointed out the display of medals and ribbons on civilian attire appeared, well, a bit tacky. But one extremely brave commenter named Anonymous ripped this august journal for even discussing the topic.

The last time someone made fun of a veteran was when Mean Jean Schmidt made her infamous comment that became a Saturday Night Live legend.

Be careful who you piss-off. Veterans don't like to see criticism of one of their own, especially when neither you nor Wilson have done anything to serve your county.

Representative Pillich has served her country.

Questioning her medals was one area you never should have touched, especially as a front for Wilson.

You have discredited yourself and your blog.

I think you can call her Representative Schmidt, nut-rack. As for myself and Wilson, you have no idea who we are or what we've done, crap-clown.

Oh. Yes. I'm sure our proud vets and their families really appreciate the Democrat Party's support:

• John 'Our Soldiers are terrorizing women and children' Kerry: "I am confident it will not work... I am confident it will. Not. Work."

• Nancy 'Stretch' Pelosi: "The surge has failed."

• Little Dick Durbin: "The administration's policy in Iraq has failed."

• Diane 'Franken' Feinstein: "Today a majority of the Senate sees that the Surge is not working!"

• Patrick 'Traitor' Leahy: "We know that the President's Surge policy has not worked."

• Harry 'The Body Odor' Reid: "The war is lost. The surge is not working."

• Barack Obama: "20,000 troops is [sic] not going to make a difference."

Yes, I'm sure all of our veterans, the families of our veterans, our heroes, appreciate this despicable behavior by a political party that openly roots for our troops' failure -- for partisan gain -- while they are on the field of battle!

But don't question their patriotism!

Now get the hell off my blog, you Marxist loser. Never sully the pages of my blog again! And don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.


Nicknames: Mark Levin's Top 50 Nicknames

'This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow...'

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." -- Barack Obama, 3 June 2008

In the late nineties, members of the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were tasked with assessing the scientific validity of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Protocol was an international emissions reduction treaty which required signatories to cut overall greenhouse gas emissions.

The IPCC subsequently produced the Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry.

The report found that "carbon offsets" and "carbon trading" were viable ways to barter the right to pollute, because they would fund new forestry initiatives.

But one critical detail was never disclosed in the report.

That is: members of the IPCC, such as Pedro Moura-Costa (above) and Gareth Philips, had major conflicts-of-interest. They owned, created and/or worked for businesses -- such as Ecosecurities and SGS Forestry -- that would directly profit from the report's conclusions.

In fact, the IPCC panel members' companies were positioned to earn millions of dollars from the report. But the mainstream media did not report these conflicts and instead piled on the "global warming" and "carbon offset" bandwagons.

The carbon offset market quickly exploded. And, just as quickly, it became the subject of rampant allegations of fraud.

In 2009 the market was estimated to be $100 billion; it was so rife with questionable trading that the United Nations suspended the world's largest auditor of 'clean-energy' projects.

Put simply, a wide range of respected scientists, environmentalists, researchers, agriculturalists, and activists believe that carbon offsets are a "scam", "fantasy", "fiction", "nonsense", "fraudulent" and worse. And they've been saying so since 2000, though to read the daily fish-wrap you wouldn't know it.

The World Rainforest Movement, for example, investigated these bizarre financial ties and concluded that the IPCC report must "...be shelved due to their clear conflict of interest and a new report instigated which will be free of the taint of intellectual corruption."

To demonstrate the fraudulence of the carbon offset market, one need only request quotes from various carbon offset sellers. The price for offseting a flight from London to Toronto and back?

• $85: from Climate Care (UK), which says 6 tons of CO2 must be offset.
• $60: Carbon Neutral (UK), which says 4.3 tons of CO2 must be offset.
• $195: Climate Friendly (Australia) asserts that 11.63 tons of CO2 must be offset.
• $180: Green Seat (Netherlands) says 8.68 tons of CO2 must be offset.

Executive Summary: they're all making it up as they go along.

Whether you believe the world is warming or cooling, there is no arguing Democrats want more expensive energy for American citizens.

All that said, the real problem — and the reason Pelosi really does deserve blame — is that Democrats’ political goal of reducing carbon emissions continues to trump their populist rhetoric on gasoline prices. The two stances are impossible to reconcile. Try as they might to blame oil companies for the pain Americans feel at the pump, the Democrats want higher prices for gasoline — and for all forms of energy that emit carbon. Economic barriers against CO2 emissions are a requirement for environmental progress in the Democrats’ view, and this is the entire purpose of the carbon cap-and-trade system... to create economic disincentives for emitting CO2.

Because of the falsity of its premise, cap-and-trade is intended to do one thing: allow Democrats to control industrial policy.

It all comes back to carbon offsets, which represent the currency for the "global warming" scam promoted by the UN's IPCC and the Democrat Statists in Washington.

Whether it's through unelected bureaucrats at the EPA, outright cap-and-trade, or John Kerry's 'compromise' climate plan, the economic toll on Americans will be devastating. Even in the latter case, estimated GDP losses of $2.1 trillion and consumer electricity price increases of up to 42% are estimated in less than two decades' time.

Democrats want to control your life. Your health. Your private property. And they don't care what kind of scam they use to justify it.

Remember in November.


Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!

John 'D-Student' Kerry Handles Reporters' Questions on his $700,000 Yacht Tax Dodge With His Usual Grace and Aplomb: He Runs Away

Boston's WBZ television reports that John Kerry confronted reporters' questions on his $700K tax dodge with his usual courage and composure.

Senator John Kerry found himself answering questions Monday about his new $7 million yacht and the controversy about where he's docking it.

"There's nothing more to say about it," he told reporters at an event at the former South Weymouth Naval Air Station Monday... "Let's get this very straight, I've said consistently we will pay our taxes, we have always paid our taxes. It's not an issue period," he said.

...When asked "Did you berth the boat in Massachusetts?" he replied, "That depends on who owns it."

Then, he said to his driver, "Can I get out of here please?"

If you missed the original story, it turns out that Kerry docks his yacht in Rhode Island rather than in his home state of Massachusetts. This interesting gambit saved Kerry $500,000 in MA state taxes and $70,000 annually in excise taxes.

Last week, when the Boston Herald broke the story, Kerry's office released a statement saying, "The boat was designed by and purchased from a company in Rhode Island, and it's based in Newport at the Newport Shipyard for long term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes, not tax reasons."

"It's being worked on. It's under warranty down there. It's being worked on and it will come to Massachusetts and I look forward to that," Kerry said Monday.

Of course, like all elitist Democrats, Kerry lovingly decided not to volunteer the tax payments to his home state.

After all, although he and his wife are worth somewhere around a billion dollars, it's apparently not liquid. Liquid, get it? I guess he can't rustle up the cash to pay the taxes on his 76-foot yacht with two master cabins and a pilot house complete with wet bar and wine cooler.

The Nantucket Boat Basin [in Massachusetts] confirmed to WBZ on Monday that the Isabel has been docked at the marina "numerous" times this summer.

A spokesperson with the Department of Revenue who did not want to comment specifically on Kerry's case said ownership by an out-of-state corporation wouldn't matter. And, the law states if you bring the purchased property into the state within six months of buying it, you would be subject to the sales tax.

Coast Guard registration records show the vessel is owned by Great Point LLC, a limited liability corporation based in Pittsburgh, Heinz's longtime home.

So Kerry appears to have used the vessel repeatedly in Massachusetts, yet keeps it docked in Rhode Island "for maintenance" reasons.

And while he likely owes Massachusetts $700,000 in taxes, he hasn't paid them a dime.

Don't you just love the fact that these Democrat control-freaks never -- never -- voluntarily pay the higher rates they want you to pay? That's because they're hypocritical Statists who hate America -- and I hear that's the phrase they prefer.


Hat tip: Drudge. 'D-Student' Kerry Nickname: Mark Levin.

Exclusive Photo: Dick Blumenthal Receives Coveted John Kerry Endorsement and Gets to Wear His Magic Cambodian Special Ops Hat

I tried to stop myself, but I. Just. Couldn't. Resist.

Kudos to Lindsey Graham: Defer, Deflect and Delay Energy Tax

I've given Lindsey Graham plenty of grief over the years, but he deserves our praise today if Ben Geman's report is accurate.

Monday climate bill rollout scuttled as Graham decides to walk away

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) decision to walk away from Senate talks on climate change and energy legislation – at least for now – has prompted the measure's remaining architects to scuttle Monday’s planned unveiling of the bill.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who is crafting the bill with Graham and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), announced what he called a temporary postponement and said he remained committed to action this year on a sweeping climate and energy measure.

...Graham is upset over Democratic plans to take up immigration legislation this year – he accuses Democratic leaders of pushing forward immigration “haphazardly” and calls it an election-year political gambit.

Kerry praised Graham’s work on the climate effort and expressed hope that he would rejoin the initiative "once the politics of immigration are resolved," but vowed to press ahead one way or the other.

If Graham is doing his best to delay and deflect the National Social Democrat agenda, I salute him.

His office number is 202-224-5972. You can help strengthen his resolve by offering a word of encouragement.

Engagement with Syria working out well for Obama, Kerry and Clinton: Assad is arming Hezbollah with long-range Scud missiles

I wonder how all of those wonderful speeches, the flowery rhetoric and the humiliating, bended-knee outreach to the Arab Street is working out?

Syria Gave Scuds to Hezbollah, U.S. Says

Syria has transferred long-range Scud missiles to the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah, Israeli and U.S. officials alleged, in a move that threatens to alter the Middle East's military balance and sets back a major diplomatic outreach effort to Damascus by the Obama administration.

...Republicans pressed on Capitol Hill to block the appointment of a new American ambassador to Damascus, according to congressional officials. The White House said it was pressing ahead.

The Scuds are believed to have a range of more than 435 miles—placing Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Israel's nuclear installations all within range of Hezbollah's military forces. During a monthlong war with Israel in 2006, Hezbollah used rockets with ranges of 20 to 60 miles.

Israeli officials called Scud missiles "game-changing" armaments that mark a new escalation in the Mideast conflict. They alleged that Mr. Assad is increasingly linking Syria's military command with those of Hezbollah and Iran.

...President Barack Obama has made engaging Mr. Assad's government a cornerstone of his Mideast policy, hoping to woo Damascus into a regional peace process and lure it from a strategic alliance with Iran.

...A spokesman for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, who went as an emissary to Damascus on April 1, said that he couldn't comment... Detractors of the White House's policy of engagement with Damascus seized on the news Tuesday as evidence Mr. Assad has no intention of breaking Syria's strategic ties to Tehran and Hezbollah.

... "It's increasingly hard to argue that the engagement track has worked," said Andrew Tabler, a Syria analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a regional think tank with no party affiliation that some view as pro-Israel.

Little wonder the Democrats are known far and wide as "The Party of Weakness".

This isn't going to end well.


Hat tip: Dan from New York. Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!

Can You Say "So Long Suckers" In Pashto?

Dan from New York:

BBC News, Sunday, 18 October 2009

The White House has said that it will take no decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan until it determines the new government is a "true partner".

Speaking to CNN, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said the US would want first to be sure that the government was capable of becoming a "true partner" able to govern the country.

"It would be reckless to make a decision on US troop level if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the US troops would create and become a true partner in governing the Afghan country," he said.
###

Let's say you're a Special Ops Marine "tasked" to take out a nest of Taliban holed up in some damn cave in the middle of the world's most forbidding terrain and you get wind of that little ballerina's CNN interview. That's going to pump up your gung-ho, isn't it? Helloo, BHO! You're supposed to make fools of your enemy... not your own troops.

Exit question: Which US general do you reckon is going to quit first?

A couple of days ago, I sarcastically twittered:

Breaking: President Obama to decide on Afghan troop levels "sometime after meeting with Balloon Boy" #balloonboy

I underestimated this administration's ability for self-beclownment.

One way Barack Obama will NOT introduce himself at the Convention

"Barack Obama, reporting for duty!!!"

History Lesson: How Democrats doubled down on defeat

A brief tour:

• Democrat Joe Biden, Jan. 2007: "If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake."

• Democrat Barack Obama, Jan. 2007: "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraqis going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

• Democrat Hillary Clinton, Jan. 2007: "I cannot support [the] proposed escalation of the war in Iraq."

• Democrat Barack Obama, Jan 2007: "I don't think the president's [surge] strategy is going to work."

• Democrat John Kerry, Feb. 2007: "The simple fact is that sending in over 20,000 additional troops isn't the answer--in fact, it's a tragic mistake. It won't end the violence; it won't provide security; ...it won't turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is already underway; it won't deter terrorists, who have a completely different agenda; it won't rein in the militias."

• Democrat Dennis Kucinich, Feb. 2007: "It has been proven time and time again that troop surges don't work."

• Democrat Harry Reid, Apr. 2007: "The war is lost... This surge is not accomplishing anything."

• Democrat Christopher Dodd, Apr. 2007: "We don't need a surge of troops in Iraq... there is no military solution in Iraq. To insist upon a surge is wrong."

• Democrat Barack Obama, Jul. 2007: "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."

• Democrat Dick Durbin, Aug. 2007: "By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that violence in Iraq is decreasing and thus the surge is working. Even if the figures were right, the conclusion is wrong."

• Democrat Jan Schakowsky, Aug. 2007: "I believe overall the surge is a failure. ...It’s clear to me we cannot win..."

• Democrat Joe Biden, Sep. 2007: "We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home... [When asked whether Iraq closer to political reconciliation than before the surge began, and would continuing the operation stop the killing between Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds?] ...The answer to both those questions is no."

• Democrat John Kerry, Sep. 2007: ""The president's escalation ... has failed to achieve its goal of bringing about a resolution of the fundamental conflict between Sunni and Shi'ite."

• Democrat Chris Dodd, Sep. 2007: "It pains me to say that ... the surge tactic is a failure — and that failure is reconfirmed everyday by unfolding events in Iraq."

• Democrat Barack Obama, Oct. 2007: "[The surge is a] complete failure... Iraq’s leaders are not reconciling. They are not achieving political benchmarks."

• Democrat Harry Reid, Nov. 2007: "It is indisputable that the goals of the surge have failed."

• Democrat Joe Biden, Nov. 2007: "This whole notion that the surge is working is fantasy."

• Democrat Nancy Pelosi, Feb. 2008: "There haven't been gains [in Iraq]... The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."

• Democrat Carl Levin, Apr. 2008: "...the purpose of the surge as announced by President Bush last year... has not been achieved"

• Democrat Joe Biden, Apr. 2008: "The purpose of the surge was to bring violence in Iraq down so that its leaders could come together politically. Violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together... We Democrats understand that this war must end..."

• Democrat Bill Richardson, Jun. 2008: "[when asked if he was ready to concede that John McCain had been right in proposing the surge, said] "Absolutely not."

Peter Wehner concludes:

Democrats, then, have compounded their initial bad judgment about the surge with reckless obstinacy. As ethno-sectarian violence in Iraq rapidly declined, as al Qaeda absorbed tremendous military blows, and as political accommodation and legislative achievements have emerged, Democrats, rather than welcoming the progress, grew agitated. They embraced with religious zeal the belief that the Iraq war was lost; they therefore viewed the success of the surge as a terribly inconvenient development, one they sought to deny to the point that they looked silly and out of touch. Worse, Democrats acted as if they had a vested interest in an American defeat.

Rarely has a political party been so uniformly wrong, in such an obvious way, on such an important matter. And when Americans cast their vote on November 4, they should carefully consider how Barack Obama and the entire Democratic party fought ferociously and relentlessly to undermine a policy that has worked extraordinarily well...

Democrats called General Petraeus a liar. They said the war was lost. They claimed our troops were barbaric, killing innocent civilians with impunity.

They were wrong. They were unbelievably partisan, putting their interests before those of the United States and the safety of its military.

No party has been more wrong, more often, on serious issues of national import than the Democratic party since 1864.

As for Iraq? Well, let's just say that the Democrats' track record as the Party of Weakness and Defeat remains unblemished.

Update: Even preventing a holocaust wasn't a good enough reason for Obama to keep troops in Iraq:

Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there...

Linked by: Gateway Pundit and Wolf Howling. Thanks! Sources: Peter Wehner, Stephen Collinson, Democrats.org, New York Times, Think Progress, Democrats.org, Reuters, Carl Levin's Official Website, Chris Dodd's Official Website.

It almost happened

 
Not only did John McCain almost leave the Republican Party, he was seriously considered for a VP slot by John Kerry*.

This was one of the secret bumper-stickers produced as tests back in 2004.

* Who, incidentally, served in Vietnam and led a courageous Christmas attack deep inside Cambodia.

Interior Decorators at Hamas Headquarters

 
Yep, you guessed it: exclusive photos of Hamas' interior decorators at work.



I can't quite put my finger on what these pictures have in common.

Hat tip: LGF

The Contenders: Pickens vs. Kerry for $1 million

 
Sen. John Kerry, whose 2004 presidential campaign was shredded by critics of his Vietnam War record, said Friday he has personally accepted Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens' offer of $1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Pickens faxed a letter to Kerry on Friday indicating his acceptance, "I am certainly open to your challenge," but he said he would not pay Kerry unless the senator first provided him with copies of his wartime journals, any movies he filmed while on patrol and his complete military records for the years 1971 through 1978.

In addition, Pickens proposed a counter-challenge: "If you cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue, that you will make a $1 million gift to the charity I am choosing -- the (Congressional) Medal of Honor Foundation."

I'm looking forward to seeing Kerry's magic hat from his tippity-top secret "Christmas in Cambodia" mission.

Axis of Idiots

 
Now that the Democratic primary is heating up, J. D. Pendry's post from 2006 is worth revisiting (hat tips: Sgt. Kirk and Larwyn).

Jimmy Carter, you’re the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine sir. You wouldn’t amount to a pimple on a real Marines butt. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanimo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraq’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of the perpetrators of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a communist victory there. You’re a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we’ll run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

American news media, the New York Times particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America’s axis of idiots. Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war – this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

No Commander in Chief, you don’t get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It’s your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot.

They need you to do it now.

J.D., apologies for quoting the whole thing, but it's too good to cut into soundbites.