I knew there was something off about that DNC crowd picture


Back on Sunday I blogged about the Democrats use of a Canadian soldier’s picture on their vets and military family page. The photo of the soldier has been replaced with the photo of an American flag, but something else struck me in that picture, and I noted it in my post:

I’m still curious about the banner on the DNC’s Military Vets and Families page. When was the last time you saw that many happy Democrats in one room?

Sure enough, that picture is not a picture of Democrats smiling and throwing their fists in the air in support of our troops. The photo is a stock image taken from Photosearch.com (Hat tip: LGF).

How embarassing!

These photos, on the other hand, represent reality as it relates to anti-war/anti-military Democrats/liberals in a group setting.

Too hot to handle


The link is up at Drudge, and he reports the following:

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained an exclusive copy of a “scary” campaign advertisement created by Hollywood producer and director David Zucker that was intended to be used by GOP organizations in the closing weeks of the 2006 campaign.

However, the advertisement was deemed “too hot” by GOP strategists all across Washington, DC who have refused to use it!

In the ad, Zucker, producer of SCARY MOVIE 4, recreates former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s 2000 visit to North Korea. During the visit, Secretary Albright presented North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il with a basketball autographed by former NBA superstar Michael Jordan.

An actress playing Secretary Albright is shown presenting Kim Jong Il with the Michael Jordan basketball, painting the walls of Osama bin Laden’s Afghanistan cave and turning a blind eye to suicide bombers. In one scene her skirt rips as she changes the tire of a Middle Eastern dictator’s limousine.

One GOP strategist said “jaws dropped” when the ad was first viewed. “Nobody could believe Zucker thought any political organization could use this ad. It makes a point, but it’s way over the top.”

Zucker is the producer and director of comedies such as “Airplane” and “The Naked Gun.” In 2004, Zucker, a longtime Democrat, embraced the Republican Party based on concerns he had about national security issues and voted for President George W. Bush.

The vid in question? Check it out:

Heh ;-)

Here’s another one, courtesy of Move America Forward:

Can you imagine the outcry if either of those were to be released officially by the RNC? LOL …

Hat tip: Stop the ACLU and Hot Air

Update: Via Matthew Sheffield at Newsbusters:

The video sharing site YouTube, just recently purchased by Google, has once again allowed a band of determined users to censor something they don’t like.

The latest casualty is a a controversial spoof political ad by a Republican filmmaker David Zucker (producer of such films as “Scary Movie 4,” “Airplane,” among others) which depicts former secretary of state Madeline Albright, a Democrat who served in the Clinton administration, acting as a maid, servant and cheerleader for Islamic terrorists and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. After the Republican party declined to run with it, the ad was sent to Matt Drudge who splashed it worldwide by embedding it in a page on his site.

The story doesn’t end there, though. After Drudge picked it up, Democratic YouTube viewers used the site’s software to “flag” the video as “inappropriate,” a designation usually reserved for extremely violent or sexually explicit video clips. There is nothing even remotely sexual or violent in the clip. The closest thing to an explicit image in the ad is a scene in which “Albright” bends over and her skirt tears a bit in the seat, hardly the stuff that sets FCC commissioners’ hearts aflutter.

While you can still view the video if you watch it embedded on another web site, if you try to watch it on YouTube, you’ll be greeted with the message: “This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube’s user community. To view this video, please verify you are 18 or older by logging in or signing up.”

The Clinton apologists must have moved in fast on that one. I had to log in myself when I went to the site to view the vid.

Misc. links on Foleygate


Submitted for your perusal:

John McIntyre debunks the myth that the alleged ‘coverup’ of Foley’s behavior had anything to do with ‘saving a House seat.’ Pat Buchanan wonders if it had anything to do with the fact that some of the key people involved are gay, implying that the GOP may have wanted to avoide the appearance of homophobia.

— House Speaker Denny Hastert, meanwhile, has vowed to fire anyone involved in trying to sweep concerns about Foley’s behavior under the rug.

— An ex-page at the center of the controversy is being questioned by the FBI regarding the extent of the online contact between him and Rep. Foley.

John Fund provides some important facts about who knew what and when, and believes that this scandal, in part, has gotten to where it is today thanks to what he calls the “staff(er) infection.”

— Rob at Say Anything asks: What Did [DCCC Chair] Rahm Emmanuel Know And When Did He Know It?

Thomas Sowell on frivolous politics


The brilliant Mr. Sowell pens another must-read:

With a war going on in Iraq and with Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb that could change the course of world history in the hands of international terrorists, the question for this year’s elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.

That question also needs to be asked about the media. In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame’s identity as a C.I.A. “agent” — actually a desk job in Virginia — and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages.

This is the frivolous media — and the biased media. Republican Congressman Foley was wrong and is out on his ear. But Democrats in both Congress and the White House have gone far beyond words with a page and an intern. Yet the Democrats did not resign and Bill Clinton’s perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning of perjury by others were treated as if these were irrelevant private matters.

Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously. If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like “chicken hawk” or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as “unilateral” U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.

You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year’s election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better.

Weak-kneed members of both parties have been calling for a timetable to be announced for withdrawal from Iraq. No other war in thousands of years of history has ever had such a timetable announced to their enemies. Even if we intended to get out by a given date, there is not the slightest reason to tell the terrorists that. It is frivolous politics at its worst.

Read it all.

About those polls …


The GOP is tanking in the polls as a result of the trumped up Foleygate scandal, and as a result, the Dems and media are gleeful and more optimistic than ever that liberals will snag back control of Congress next month.

AJ Strata takes a look at those polls, and puts things in perspective for conservatives going into next month’s elections. Essentially he says to conservatives who might feel hesitant about voting this year: don’t stay home. Please vote.

Though there is some definite disappointment in the air with the Republican party, the best reason (in my view) to pull that lever for the R’s this November is Iraq. The thought of having the fate of Iraq rest in the hands of Democrats is enough to keep me awake at night. So is the thought of Democrats trying to impeach Bush over Iraq “lies” they know he didn’t tell – because they made the same or similar statements about Iraq as well over the years. House Democrats are salivating over the idea of impeaching Bush, even though Nancy Pelosi would like for people to think otherwise.

There is a lot at stake. Stop The ACLU is on the same wavelength, and has a roundup of other conservative bloggers who feel similarly.

Update: UGH (scroll).

The Norks test: US doubts it was nuclear


Bill Gertz reports from the Washington Times:

U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday.

U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast’s readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.

“We’re still evaluating the data, and as more data comes in, we hope to develop a clearer picture,” said one official familiar with intelligence reports.

“There was a seismic event that registered about 4 on the Richter scale, but it still isn’t clear if it was a nuclear test. You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives.”

The underground explosion, which Pyongyang dubbed a historic nuclear test, is thought to have been the equivalent of several hundred tons of TNT, far short of the several thousand tons of TNT, or kilotons, that are signs of a nuclear blast, the official said.

The official said that so far, “it appears there was more fizz than pop.”

Whether it really was a nuclear test, you can best believe that Washington, DC has taken notice. Which is exactly what Jong-il wanted, along with ‘concessions.’

Democrats, of course, are taking this opportunity to attempt to shore up their national security credentials, claiming the President has been ‘ignoring’ North Korea. Dafydd at Big Lizards rightly slams such Democrats, who simply cannot be trusted to tackle the problem that is Kim Jong-il.

More: Greg Tinti takes a look at the conflicting reports on whether or not this actually rose to the level of nuclear, and provides a reminder that this latest saber rattling on the part of the Norks is not going to be just a test of the US’ will, but the UN’s as well.

Also blogging about this: Michelle Malkin on the consequences of inaction, Mark Noonan at B4B, Brendan Loy, Blue Crab Boulevard, neo-neocon, Iowa Voice, Leaning Straight Up, Kevin/blogagog (heh)

Update I: Please make sure to bookmark this Onion-esque site ;)

Update II: Hugh Hewitt provides a reminder as to what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said about missile defense three years ago:

The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile.