28th Bomb Wing Deploys from Ellsworth

More than 200 airmen with the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing left behind the frigid air of South Dakota and Ellsworth Air Force Base Monday - deploying to the warmer climate of the Middle East.

Leftist Talk Show Host: Bill Clinton is a Fibber

Of course the Clinton's are lying; they're talking, aren't they? The question is: will the American people hold them accountable for it. From the track record of 8+ years ago, I wouldn't bet on it.



On Hardball with Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz responds to a series of attacks Bill Clinton has leveled at Barack Obama

Socialized Medicine is Great...Until You Need It

You don't have to be a brain surgeon to realize that "free" socialized medicine is a BAD idea...but it helps.



Filmmaker Stuart Browning shows the callousness of "single-payer", government-run health care systems as practiced in Canada.

Someone Lied About Bush Lying

I knew this latest "Bush Lied" so-called report that was going around the internet yesterday was a load of bunk when I saw it.

I didn't have time to research it at the time, though a cursory examination of it was enough to know that it was just another empty smear job like we've seen repeatedly since before the Iraq War even started. Someone beat me to the punch and did a little background research on this so-called report and confirmed what I suspected: it's just more recycled Left-wing garbage.


Warner Todd Huston at the TownHall Publis Forum says the Center for Public Integrity behind it is, you guessed it, funded by none other than billionaire America-hater George Soros and other Leftist groups.

The Fund for Independence in Journalism, the other organization behind this smear-job, is also another Left-wing instrument.

Yet the "mainstream" media, like good little lapdogs, obediently put the story out there as if it was undeniable fact with the usual "nonpartisan" blah blah'ing.

Almost every--if not every--intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs or was working on them in violation of agreements he made at the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Why not take a look at what some of these Leftists were saying before they decided to try and get some political mileage out of bashing our wartime president:



Notice how they used terms like "no doubt about it," and "unmistakable" and "he certainly has" and "greatest security threat" and "he will rebuild" and "he will use his arsenal again" and "serving on the intelligence committee...briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons..." and "the lessons we learned after 911 is that we can't wait to be attacked again" and so on? Sounds pretty unambiguous to me.

And they can't say Bush was lying to them because many were getting their intel directly from our intelligence agencies, and a lot of this goes back to the Clinton administration that was saying the same thing.

What would these Leftists rather we use against Saddam: harsh language?

In fact, if Saddam didn't have WMDs, when why not let inspectors do their jobs without constant harassment from Saddam? And why risk losing his country and getting executed for his crimes (as he did) if he wasn't hiding anything? Some people (myself included) suspect he moved his WMDs or WMD components out of the country in the 8-month "rush to war" before we invaded, most likely to Syria.

Further, Intelligence expert John Loftus just a few months ago wrote about some rather damning documentary evidence from the minuscule portion of Iraqi documents that have been translated from the mountain of documents we seized after the invasion.

There are also those who suspect that the hushed Israli air raid on a mysterious Syrian target back in September 2007 may have involved an about-to-blossom WMD program. Might Syria have been using material they received from Iraq?

Even if there had been no WMDs, there were still plenty of reasons for invading Iraq:

1. Saddam had failed to comply with something like 17 UN resolutions. As a leading member of the UN, the United States' credibility was on the line in allowing this to pass unpunished.

2. Saddam fired on US warplanes flying the no-fly zone more than 200 times times in the year leading up to the invasion. Each one of those 200 firings was an act of war.

3. Saddam was funding Palestinian terrorists who were killing innocent Israeis, and one of his officials met with Mohammed Atta, one of the 911 terrorists, months before the attack. He may have had other connections with al Qaeda and the Taliban.

4. We needed (and still need) to deal with Iran, the foremost source of funding for terrorism in the world, and we could not do so with our flank exposed in a hostile Iraq.

Why would these Leftist want to malign a sitting president in the middle of a war in Iraq and a global war on terrorism? Many of them live here, their safety is at stake, and they enjoy the fruits of a healthy United States, so why jeopardize all that? Perhaps because they fundamentally misunderstand the nature and reality of evil in the world?

Would true patriotic Americans resort to lies and deception in order to gain political points at the expense of American credibility and national security?

Technorati tags: Bush, Iraq, WMDs, George Soros

On Pharmacists: Miraculously Missing the Point

Want to see an illustration of how liberals can't comprehend the truth, even after you've made it clear enough for a 5-year old to get?

Go over to DakotaWomen and read Anna's post on my comments yesterday regarding SB 164, the bill that intends to force pharmacists to violate their conscience or lose their job.

Amazingly, not only is the author of this bill completely oblivious to the fact that pharmacists are not "government entities" and therefore cannot commit "government intrusions" into people's private lives, but apparently Anna is equally oblivious.

In fact, in not selling contraception to a customer, pharmacists are not intruding into a customer's private life at all. After all, the customer is the person coming to the pharmacist asking for contraception. If their life is really that private, maybe they shouldn't ask for contraception at all. Government isn't forcing anyone to do anything when a pharmacist exercises his conscience and decides not to sell birth control.

It is, however, a "government intrusion" into the moral conscience of a pharmacists who believes it is immoral to sell contraception, if government tells him he must sell it or get another job.

Pharmacists aren't robots and they aren't dispensing machines. They bring their values and ethics to the job just like the cop, the waitress, the pilot, the doctor, and the computer programmer. Does any customer really want an immoral cop, waitress, doctor...or pharmacist? Not only is it unrealistic to ask a pharmacist to leave their morality at home, it's also a very dangerous proposition for their employers and customers.

But consider again the point Anna is missing here about what is being forced upon whom.

What kind of an upside-down fantasy world do liberals live in where they not only can't grasp the difference between a government entity and a private (i.e. not government) entity, they can't deduce that NOT selling a customer a product isn't forcing any morality on that person (the customer isn't being forced to perform any act, recite any creed, or change any way of thinking)...but FORCING a pharmacist to sell someone something is indeed forcing someone else's morality on that pharmacist, because the pharmacist is being forced to do something that violates his sense of morality in favor of someone else's sense of morality.

Some days when I listen to the liberal chatter in the news and on the blogs, I feel like I'm in a strange dream where reality is all out of whack, or that I woke up in some weird alternate dimension. But I guess that's to be expected in a society where all-too-many people are no longer grounded in absolute truth.

Anna apparently doesn't even recognize proper grammar when she sees it. The only grammar problem is how she combines her comments with a quote from me.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, here. But if I couldn't do any better than this, I think I'd stay out of the public eye and quit embarrassing myself...