Friday, May 23, 2008

Update (PDF): Rove's Lawyer Ridicules Subpoena

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) issued a subpoena Thursday to former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove for testimony about politicization of the Department of Justice (DOJ), including the case of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was jailed for bribery in what was widely seen as a political prosecution.

In response, Rove's attorney Robert Luskin questioned why the subpoena was necessary and mocked Conyers in a letter copied to RAW STORY.

"I do not misunderstand either the Committee's procedures or the scope of its interest in Mr. Rove; nor, in light of your reported remarks about the need for 'someone' to 'kick his ass,' am I the least bit confused about the Committee's motives and intentions," Luskin wrote. "I confess, however, that I do not understand why the Committee is threating a subpoena to Mr. Rove for information related to the alleged 'politicization of the Department of Justice,' when, as the Committee is surely aware, Mr. Rove has already received a subpoena for the same subject matter from the Senate Judiciary Committee."

"I also do not understand why the Committee refuses to acknowledge that, in these matters, Mr. Rove is not a free agent," he adds. Read the letter here.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

House subpoenas Karl Rove in Justice Dept. Probe

I bet you thought all this was over and the whining Moonbats were on to other things.....WRONG.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed former White House adviser Karl Rove as part of its inquiry into whether the Bush administration politically meddled at the Justice Department.

Accusations of politics governing decisions at the agency led to the resignation of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers had negotiated with Rove's attorneys for more than a year over whether the former top political adviser to President Bush would testify voluntarily.


They have nothing else to do between destroying our faith in congress and pissing all over the taxpayer.

Happy hunting....

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Turn Out the Lights...

From Texas Rainmaker:



The party’s over…

Count me as one of those who couldn’t decide which was better: To watch the Democrats destroy each other on a daily basis… Or to watch the Clintons finally tuck their political tail between their legs and walk out (dis)gracefully.

Now it’s time for John McCain to find himself a good CONSERVATIVE second fiddle so the base can get excited about showing up to vote in November. Just be prepared for all out racial war from here on out… not because we’re all racists, but because racist Democrats will try to paint it that way. Every ad, every speech, every comment will be taken as having some racial connotation to it. Just get ready.

Either way, today is a special day. Good riddance, Clintons.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

You are mighty

type your name in the address below and run it.

http://www.yourname.youaremighty.com


Enjoy

Friday, March 21, 2008

Thursday, February 07, 2008

National Health Care - OK, OK, I take it back...

I know I've been ranting against any form of national healthcare. I've been against it because it smells too much like Socialism/Marxism. To me, national healthcare was the first step over the cliff into one (or both) of these forms of government. And, I was against it because the Hildebeast wants it.

So, partly because of what I've seen when living in countries that have this sort of care, I've re-thought this subject. National healthcare is something the U.S. needs. People do not need to be worried about how to pay for treatment or if the doctor is competent. We just have to be concerned with whatever ailment we have.

But, national healthcare can only be successful if it's run correctly. We shouldn't demand that people pay a deductible or premiums. We should not demand people pay for the care if they don't want it. If you work and are an american citizen you should be allowed this necessity. I've seen too many people denied quality care because they didn't have insurance. We should also me free, (like other countries are) to buy private health insurance if we want. England, you can have national care, but you can also buy private insurance. National healthcare shouldn't be the only choice for the country.

We won't have this national health care though because we will have to sacrifice. We won't be caught dead giving something up for "the good of the country." Hell no! Let the government figure that out. Most countries pay for that free health care with a huge sales tax, like 14 to 16 percent. Would you be willing to pay 16 percent of each dollar you spend, instead of the 7 to 9 percent we pay now?

Also, doctors, HMOs and pharmaceutical companies would throw themselves in front of a bus rather than give in to national healthcare. Do you honestly think they will give up those hundreds of thousands of dollars a month salary to be paid what the government will probably pay?

I think not.

So, national healthcare has a long way to go and frankly, I don't see it happening because of these factors I mentioned.

We need it, and I hope the Hildebeast can do it without destroying the democratic system we now enjoy.

I still won't vote for her.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008

Criminal Probe Opened over CIA Tapes

And so, the witch hunt continues:

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the
destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes and Attorney General Michael B.
Mukasey appointed an outside prosecutor to oversee the case…

“The Department’s National Security Division has recommended, and I have
concluded, that there is a basis for initiating a criminal investigation of this
matter, and I have taken steps to begin that investigation,” Mukasey said in a
statement released Wednesday.

Mukasey named John Durham, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut, to oversee
the case. Durham has a reputation as one of the nation’s most relentless
prosecutors. He served as an outside prosecutor overseeing an investigation into
the FBI’s use of mob informants in Boston and helped send several Connecticut
public officials to prison

The CIA has already agreed to open its files to congressional investigators,
who have begun reviewing documents at the agency’s Virginia headquarters. The
House Intelligence Committee has ordered Jose Rodriguez, the former CIA official
who directed the tapes be destroyed, to appear at a hearing Jan. 16.

This is just what we needed. Another gutless attorney general. Another out of control special prosecutor. And another media circus.

Never mind there is no crime here, or even the possibility of a crime.

He served as an outside prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the FBI’s use of mob informants in Boston and helped send several Connecticut public
officials to prison.

And it sure sounds like Mr. Durham has his priorities straight, doesn’t it?

What a waste of the taxpayers’ money, just to placate the howling banshees on the left and in the media. (Though I repeat myself.)

Thanks to Sweetness and Light

From a Michigan State University Professor

The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman. Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student's Association. The e-mail was in response to the students' protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were 'hate speech.' Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:

Dear Moslem Association,

As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt , the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called 'whores' in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland , and the rioting and looting in Paris France. This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile 'protests.' If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave.
I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option.
Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially,
I. S. Wichman
Professor of Mechanical Engineering

As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn't like this too well. They're demanding that Wichman be reprimanded and the university impose mandatory diversity training for faculty and mandate a seminar on hate and discrimination for all freshmen. Now the local chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations , apparently doesn't believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion. (unlike the broad latitude given to the Islamists to spew their hate-filled raves) For its part, the university is standing its ground in support of Professor Wichman, saying the e-mail was private, and they don't intend to publicly condemn his remarks.

Monday, December 03, 2007

The 'Surge' Is 'Working'? Fine. Then Bush Should Be Impeached.

This column, from David Michael Green at the Smirking Chimp is a real eye catcher because if we could get enough liberals to buy into this thinking feeling, we might be able to get more of them to pull a Murtha and acknowledge that the surge is working,

But let's forget all that, and, just for the sake of discussion, assume
Little Bush has achieved something worthwhile in Iraq during 2007. Shouldn't he
be recognized for his achievement?

No. He should be impeached.

Some may claim that he has committed no crime related to Iraq (that's
actually an endless list, but don't get me started). For those folks, it is well
to remember that an impeachable offense is, as Gerry Ford once aptly reminded
us, anything that a majority of the House of Representatives believes it to be
on any given day. I'm not one who believes that this nuclear warhead of
constitutional government should be used lightly, but surely we can all agree
that gross incompetence and negligence are well within the range of what
constitutes an impeachable offense. Imagine if the country had a president who
had gone barking mad in his first year of office, and was making reckless
decisions that were grievously harming us. Would anyone argue that these
behaviors didn't rise to the level of impeachable offense, and that the country
should endure another three years of serious damage because insanity wasn't a
high crime or misdemeanor? Heck, would anyone argue that gross incompetence and
negligence aren't impeachable offenses when lying about oral sex is? (Okay - I
mean anyone besides those people?)

If the surge is working, Bush should be impeached precisely for the reason
that it is working. This is a president who was told by at least two top
generals in the military that he would need additional forces in Iraq in order
to succeed in his objectives. Notice that they were not saying that the war was
immoral or even a bad policy choice. They were simply arguing that to
effectively achieve the political objectives Bush was pursuing, he would, in
their professional opinion, need a much greater level of force presence. Notice
that the same president who today incessantly hides behind the supposed force
requirements of his generals, falsely claiming to defer to their military
judgement, not only disastrously failed to adhere to this advice in 2003, but
went so far as to cashier these career officials out of the military and destroy
their careers instead in order to send a warning to anyone else stupid enough to
be so candid.

Okay, so he's a liar and a hypocrite. That ain't exactly headline news. But
here's the larger point: If the surge is working, it would have worked a lot
better had Bush listened to Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki and others back at
the beginning. The fact that he did not demonstrates gross misjudgement which
quite likely has meant the difference between a stupid and ill-advised war that
might have ended quickly and relatively painlessly, on the one hand, versus a
stupid and ill-advised war that will probably never end and has taken over a
million lives so far, on the other. However ironic it certainly is, it is
nevertheless indisputable that the very 'success' of the 'surge', such as it is,
is therefore actually an indictment of Bush. It proves how dangerously wrong he
was when he rejected precisely this advice even before the war was launched. The
results of that failure of judgement have been astronomically huge and
catastrophically disastrous. Anyone guilty of such egregious errors has no
business being commander-in-chief, his slimy fingers gripping the nuclear
trigger. If the surge is a success, Bush should be impeached for gross
incompetence.

Wow, the liberal mind at work is a real wonder to behold, isn't it?

We changed strategies, the change worked, and therefore Bush should be impeached. Of course, by that standard, the President in charge of every major war we've ever fought could be impeached because we changed strategy in some form or fashion in every one of them at some point.

PS: Should I even have written that last paragraph? Is it even necessary to refute something like this? Given that the most ridiculous ideas and conspiracy theories are taken seriously on the Left and even on certain parts of the Right (See the North American Union and the amero that Bush is supposedly going to implement next year), it's hard to tell sometimes.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Top Democrats balk on contempt resolutions

House Democrats have postponed a vote until December on contempt resolutions against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, delaying for now any constitutional showdown with the White House over the president’s power to resist congressional subpoenas.

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) has been pushing for the contempt vote, arguing that the White House must be held accountable for ignoring subpoenas issued by his panel as part of the U.S. attorney firing scandal. Other top Democrats, including Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have argued that the House should put off that fight while debates over Iraq funding and electronic eavesdropping dominate the floor. The contempt vote had been tentatively scheduled for Friday before Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) informed his colleagues that it was being delayed.

“[Emanuel] has been saying that this week is not the time to do this, that it
will step on our message on Iraq and FISA,” said a top House Democratic
leadership aide.


Emanuel could not be reached for comment by press time on Tuesday. The Illinois Democrat was overseeing an “issues conference” for House Democrats, urging rank-and-file lawmakers to hold more town-hall-style meetings with constituents in order to explain to them what Democrats have achieved since taking control of Congress.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is backing Conyers and wants a floor vote on the contempt resolution, but she has agreed to wait another few weeks before forcing a showdown with President Bush on the matter.

“I think it’s going to happen before we leave for the year, but not necessarily this week,” Hoyer said Tuesday.

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Off Topic Subject: Pharmaceutical Companies

It never ceases to amaze me how the drug companies can invent new diseases and conditions just to market their new drugs. They are the masters of the drug trade.

Here's an example. In a commercial last night, a drug company pushed its new drug for the treatment of...."Bipolar Mania."

WTF is that? I've never heard of "Bipolar Mania." Did someone just think this up or what? Who "discovers" these new ailments?

OK, they've convinced us that when we have too many bad days in a row, we're bipolar. That's treated with several fine chemicals they just happen to have in stock.

Now, these existing drugs are supposed to treat the symptoms of bipolar disorder, and I hear they work well. Apparently, they don't work well enough when it comes to the freaked out feeling you get when you're in a bipolar episode, so, you also need to get this new miracle drug to combat the bipolar mania.

So, you can be taking these existing drugs for the bipolar disorder, then you can take this new drug to treat the onset before it turns into the actual bipolar....WTF?

That's just an example. Another favorite example of the marketing and re-marketing of drugs can be seen on the shelf in Wal-Mart.

Go tothe pain reliever section and find Excedrin Extra Strength, Excedrin Migraine, and Excedrin Tension Headache. Read the contents and their amounts. You might be surprised to see all three have the same ingredients and the same amounts, (aspirin 500mg and caffeine 550mg). So, what's the difference between the three?

Marketing...that's the ONLY difference.

The last example of how these companies milk all they can from you and the insurance companies is what they do when they lose their patents.

As I understand it, a drug company has the patent on their new drug for only about two years. Then that drug becomes something like public domain. Companies can now create generics and the drug will eventually be forced to over the counter (OTA).

Take Prilosec and Nexium. Nexium is sold by prescription only and Prilosec is sold OTA.
Surprise...Nexium was Prilosec when it was prescription only. Same ingredients...no difference.

They lost the patent and had to create something else to keep charging the big bucks so...they reformulated Prilosec and turned it into Nexium. Then, they marketed it to be an aid in healing the esophageal damage from stomach acid...you know the "little purple pill?"

Here's a flash: ALL of these acid inhibitors...Prevacid, Nexium, and Prilosec, heal damage done by acid reflux...if you take them regularly. But this little purple pill is marketed as if it's the ONLY cure.

Give me a break.

Anyway, my two-cents.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Calls to Henry Waxman's Office

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This is Roseanne in Reidsville, North Carolina. Hi, Roseanne. It's nice to have you on the program.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I want to tell you what Senator [sic] Waxman's representative told me, and then I would like to tell you what I told him when he said something about the tone of the Internet. He told me that the senator's position was not being represented correctly, that what the senator actually believed and what was being reported weren't the same thing, which puts him in the same position you are in, doesn't it?

RUSH: You mean Congressman Waxman?
CALLER: Yeah, congressman. Sorry.
RUSH: You called his office after you heard the report that he has assigned investigators to monitor me and Hannity and Levin and our shows for irregularities?

CALLER: Yes. I called him this morning and I asked him how he could make an attack on the conservative talk show hosts who aren't telling me what to think, but instead they're simply representing what I already think, and before I could say anything more, he interrupted me and told me that the congressman's position was being misrepresented.

RUSH: The congressman's position is being misrepresented?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Uh, well. So your point is, well, they misrepresented my position, so the congressman and I are pretty much on the same page?

CALLER: Yes, but there was an oddity about the call. I was told to stick to the point, but I think this is kind of the point. There was an oddity to the call. I wanted to further explain. I wanted to hear an explanation. I wanted more, but... The man was very pleasant, and he was very kind, but he kept cutting me off. He didn't explain anything, and when he said something about the tone of the Internet, it was odd because I felt like the call was being led.

RUSH: The tone of the Internet?
CALLER: Yes, sir -- and then I hung up and then I called back after I reflected on it, and I said to him, I said, "Do you realize when you say 'tone of the Internet,' do you realize you can't or shouldn't regulate 'tone'?" And I said, "Do you realize that Hillary has always, as long as I can remember, attacked everything that I love and I believe in. If she had her own way, she'd wipe me and my kind off the face of the earth -- and, sir, tone, passion, is one and the same," and I asked him to explain that to Mr. Waxman, that tone and passion, and that if somebody's trying to bring you to extinction, you're going to have passion.

RUSH: Well, you know, I don't know how many people call Waxman's office.

CALLER: Yesterday I couldn't get through.


RUSH: Yeah, I'm sure, and I'm sure these guys had to devise a response, and they are probably tired, by the way, of taking all these calls, and that might have been why the representative working for Congressman Waxman was a little testy.

CALLER: No, he wasn't. He was very nice.

RUSH: Yes, but you said he kept cutting you off --
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: -- and trying to make his points and so forth, because I'm sure he wanted to get on to the next call. But it's interesting. The interesting thing that you point out that they say Congressman Waxman's remarks were "misrepresented." He didn't deny it, huh? Did the guy deny it, Roseanne? Or he just --

CALLER: He didn't explain, Rush. He just left it at that. He just left it that the --
RUSH: Misrepresented.
CALLER: -- congressman was being misrepresented, and the point that I asked him, if he would please make to the congressman was -- I didn't say it this way, but I'll say it this way to you. Rush, I'm an ornery woman. You can't put a thought in my head if I don't already have it, and I know you know that about women, because you've made that very clear. You don't put thoughts in my head. I have my thoughts. You voice my thoughts and you make me feel --

RUSH: Exactly!

CALLER: -- like there's a tomorrow.

RUSH: That's one of the secrets of this program is, that I validate what people already think. You are not the mind-numbed robots in this society. It's the Democrats who are mind-numbed robots and the kook-fringe base. They're the ones that don't want to think. They're the ones that don't think. They're the ones that don't want to be challenged on their preconceived little worldview for their own security. You're exactly right.

CALLER: Last week, when Harry Reid took you out of context, my nine-year-old screamed from his 360, "That's not what Rush said." My nine-year-old knew how to put you in context.

Read the rest at the link.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Muslims: Make Peace with Us or Die

A letter signed by over a hundred Muslim scholars sent to Christian leaders around the world declares that the survival of the world is at stake if they don’t make peace with Muslims.

Prominent Muslim scholars are warning that the “survival of the world” is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other.


We non-Muslims sincerely apologize if our women and children have been getting in the way of your exploding backpack bombs in cafes and discos in a less-than-peaceful manner.

Texas Rainmaker

Monday, October 01, 2007

Senator Reid - "Rush must Apologize" - Rush- "Say it to my Face, Senator"


Democrats go after Limbaugh

Democrats on Monday called on the chief executive of Clear Channel Communications to denounce remarks by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, whom they say made a “hateful” and “unpatriotic” attack on U.S. troops opposed to the war in Iraq.

Thousands of active troops and veterans were subjected to Mr. Limbaugh’s unpatriotic and indefensible comments on your broadcast,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in his letter to Clear Channel Chief Executive Mark Mays.

“We trust you will agree that not a single one of our sons, daughters, neighbors and friends serving overseas is a ‘phony soldier.’ We call on you to publicly repudiate these comments that call into question their service and sacrifice and to ask Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for his comments.”

Source


Rush’s Challenge to Senator Reid

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, in the last half hour, Harry Reid took to the floor of the Senate and proceeded to spend five-to-seven minutes denouncing me, spreading the smear that started last week on this phony soldiers business. He has prepared a letter to be sent to the CEO of the company that syndicates this program, and that letter he asked as many senators as possible to sign, offering them the opportunity to demand of my syndicator that I be condemned for something that I did not say, which Harry Reid knows I did not say.

The House of Representatives, I have just learned, is going to introduce a resolution this afternoon along the lines of the MoveOn.org resolution that was introduced last week, tit-for-tat, they want a vote in the House to condemn me, a private citizen, for something I did not say.

These people have had three, four days now to learn the truth about this, and they no doubt know the truth, which doesn't matter. What they are trying to do is flood a false story into the Drive-By Media and have that survive and suffice as the evidence and as the story of what I said when it wasn't.

Source

Sunday, September 30, 2007

It Takes a Village and About $5,000 to Educate a Child

It's a Woman's Right to Choose what to do with her own body. But should she foolishly choose to carry her pregnancy to term, then it's our responsibility as members of The Village to care for the child throughout its long and miserable life here in this human meat grinder known as "America" where no one can survive unless they are either born rich or nurtured from cradle to grave by a benevolent federal government.

That's why President Hillary Clinton, in her divine generosity, will be giving every child who manages to slip through the cracks of Roe v. Wade a $5,000 savings bond towards a college education. Where the money will come from to fund her bold incentive is unimportant, but I am sure none of us would object to a modest tax increase for a group of people that Hillary has demonized.

Let's spin the Wacky Wheel of Hate, shall we? Round and round she goes..where she stops, nobody knows! Who gets to foot the bill for Hillary's brilliant savings bond idea? Christian Conservatives? Nope. Big Oil? Nope. The Boy Scouts?

...and the winner is RICH PEOPLE!

For far too long, the wealthy elite have used their ill-gotten wealth to selfishly pay for the education of their own little snots, while their less fortunate neighbor kids are left out in the cold, where they ultimately freeze to death while George Bush laughs maniacally from the warm comfort of his palatial Crawford estate.

No more will they be allowed to skip out on their parental responsibilities to other peoples' children. And that goes the same for any of you deadbeat Moms and Dads out there who would rather have a few extra dollars in your paycheck than invest in someone else's kid's future.

It takes a Village to Raise a Child, you know. Once Hillary's education and Health Care plans come to fruition, financial independence will be a thing of the past. In fact, I envision an age when everyone will have to show proof that they are financially supporting a complete asshole stranger in order to get a job.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Waxman to probe Clinton files

What's this? Elmer Fudd investigating the Dems? Or is it just an act of appeasement?

In a concession to Republicans, House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) has promised to ask the National Archives for documents relating to President Bill Clinton’s Office of Political Affairs.

As a result, a Democratic push to investigate the activities of former White House senior adviser Karl Rove and other aides to President Bush could mean fresh scrutiny and publicity for long-forgotten meetings and presentations during the Clinton administration.

In a letter this week, Waxman suggested Republicans satisfy their curiosity by reexamining what he estimates are more than 2 million pages of documents about the Clinton White House and the Democratic National Committee that House investigators amassed in the 1990s.

Ahhh...here's the rub:

The extraordinary search was prompted by revelations that Bush aides have conducted political briefings for GOP appointees at federal agencies before big elections. Democrats have complained that the sessions could violate the Hatch Act, which is designed to insulate federal employees from political pressure.

The broadening inquiry, which Republicans contend will take the committee down unpredictable avenues, could be a headache for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is trying to push a message of change amid unwanted reminders of her husband’s administration, including a scandal centered on one of her biggest financial supporters.

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), the committee’s ranking member, has repeatedly prodded Waxman to see if the Clinton administration had done anything similar to the Bush White House’s political briefings.

In a five-page letter to Davis dated Monday that was provided to Politico, Waxman agreed to request the documents.

“You have asked that the committee make a number of document requests of the National Archives for records of the Clinton administration,” Waxman wrote. “The Clinton administration was subject to vastly more scrutiny by this committee than the Bush administration has been, and many of the records you seek may already be in the committee archives."

“However,” Waxman continued, “I do agree that the committee would benefit from requesting copies of any political briefings that the Office of Political Affairs in the Clinton administration may have given to federal agencies.”
- I bet he said this with his fingers crossed behind his back.

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Rare Gorillas Helpless as Congo Rangers Flee Rebels

This has nothing to do with the Dem's witch hunt but it has to be addressed.

Comment: I rarely find anything in this world that angers me anymore. I've seen so much, I'm afraid I've become callous and apathetic toward the human race. But this....this saddens and angers me at the same time.

If I had the money, this is where I'd be...I'd be right there with an army to protect these creatures from the clutches of evil, heartless humans.

Whatever reason these rebels show to kill these protected animals, it's not justified, and it's just plain evil.

God, is there nothing we can do to stop this?

The UN is useless and those that are trying to protect them are outnumbered and outgunned.

I pray for the gorillas and my heart hurts knowing what they face.


Rangers protecting the rare mountain gorillas in the south of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Virunga National Park have been forced to evacuate their guard posts following several days of fierce clashes between the Congolese military and rebels in the area. Conservationists say they fear for the safety of the gorilla population, which is now completely unprotected.

Nine gorillas living in the troubled park have been killed this year. At least some of the deaths have been blamed on the same rebels who have now taken over large swaths of the reserve.

There are an estimated 700 wild mountain gorillas remaining worldwide. More than half live in Virunga.

"There are still no rangers whatsoever in the [gorilla] sector [of the park], so no monitoring or tracking of gorillas is going on," said Norbert Mushenzi, the park official in charge of the southern sector of Virunga—the park's only gorilla habitat. "This is very, very serious. We must be able to protect these animals, and at the moment we absolutely cannot." Overrun by Rebels Rebels loyal to renegade general Laurent Nkunda on Monday surrounded two ranger stations inside Virunga.

The men seized rifles and communications equipment and forced park workers and their families to evacuate. Fearing imminent attack, rangers fled a third post, Bukima—the gorilla-monitoring camp.

Since then rebels have overrun Bukima, according to officials of WildlifeDirect, a ranger-supporting conservation group based in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Kenya. "The situation at Bukima looks like it may calm today, and as soon as it does I will send trackers in to assess the situation of the gorillas," Mushenzi told National Geographic News on Wednesday. Virunga National Park straddles the border of the DRC, Rwanda, and Uganda. The area has recently seen heavy clashes between the Congolese military and Nkunda's troops, who are estimated to number about 8,000.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Schumer claims scalp in latest Bush win

The resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has many of the familiar features of President Bush's high-profile second-term failures: the firm resistance, the partisan acrimony, the eventual surrender. And one hallmark of second-term executive train-wreck: the fingerprints of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer. The Brooklyn Democrat has been a singular scourge of Bush's unhappy second term. He played a central role in an early, key Bush defeat, the collapse of the deal to sell a major port operator to Dubai Ports World (Remember that one?).

He was the first senator to call for a special prosecutor to investigate the exposure of former CIA agent Valerie Plame. And he was a leading face of the congressional push to investigate the firings of several United States attorneys, convening hearings that eventually produced Monday's resignation of Gonzales. "The 'Don't mess with Texas' crowd thinks they're tough. Meet Brooklyn hardball," said Ken Baer, a Democratic strategist.

The Gonzales affair was, for Schumer, a textbook case of his modus operandi. He was a loud, early voice raising the question of firings of U.S. attorneys, diving into the details of the story when the scandal was still bubbling up on liberal blogs. And he followed it relentlessly to the end, emerging Monday as the Democrats lead voice on Gonzales's resignation.

Schumer's hunger for press and his aggressive tone, Hill staffers say, sometimes rankle his colleagues, as they have throughout his career. But that same aggressiveness, speed and unabashed partisanship make him an effective foil for a White House known, until recently, for the same qualities. "A lot of senators are always so concerned about appearing senatorial," said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a group that has been involved in investigations of the Bush Justice Department. "He is less worried about always seeming so even-handed. He's much more willing to engage in partisanship than other senators."

His unembarrassed politics, his New York roots and his hectic, hard-charging persona have turned Schumer into a target for Republicans looking for a villain.

More at The Politico