Teri O'Blog

Now for some good news

Regular listeners know that the U.N.’s gun grab plan has been the subject of several recent 2nd amendment updates on the show. If you haven’t been following this issue, you need to get in the loop because this is serious business. The U.N. wants to adopt something called a “Program of Action,” whatever the heck that means, that would abrogate our God-given right to keep and bear arms. Specifically, as reported by Cam Edwards on townhall.com here’s what it says:

“The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons can be exacerbated by the unregulated possession of small arms and light weapons by civilians not part of responsible military and police forces. The measures below can contribute to addressing this aspect of the illicit trade in these weapons.

(a) States will establish appropriate national legislation, administrative regulations and licensing requirements that define conditions under which small arms and light weapons can be acquired, used and traded by private persons.

(b) States will seriously consider the prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms and light weapons specifically designed for military purposes (e.g., assault rifles, machine guns, grenades and high explosives produced for military purposes).”

Cam Edwards, who hosts "Cam and Company" on nranews.com continues:

“When John Bolton spoke at the opening of the summit in 2001, he said, “We request that Section II, paragraph 20, which refers to restrictions on the civilian possession of arms, to be eliminated from the Program of Action, and that other provisions which purport to require national regulation of the lawful possession of firearms… be modified to confine their reach to illicit international activities.” The delegates blinked, and the language was removed.”

Yes! The good news is that Robert Joseph, our Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, made our position very clear, when he said “The U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and there will be no infringement of those rights. The United States will not agree to any provisions restricting civilian possession, use or legal trade of firearms inconsistent with our laws and practices.”

Thank God we have John Bolton and like-minded folks like Mr. Joseph to explain that unlike the state-enslaved folks in countries like Cambodia and Angola, where citizens have been disarmed (and slaughtered—coincidence? Yeah right), we are not subjects. We are not slaves. We are not victims. We are not serfs. We are free people and we intend to stay that way.

The Bridesmaid Was a Real Dog

Seriously. The Chicago Tribune reports today (6/28/06) on the latest trend, making your mutt a part of your wedding party. As regular listeners to the show know, the Husband and I have two precious mutts, both adopted from shelters. Had we had these two before we were married, I probably would have wanted to dress them up and include them in the wedding.

People who don’t love dogs don’t understand the amazing and inexplicable connection that some of us have with these canines, but it’s undeniable. And one thing’s for sure: your dog won’t get drunk and get in a shouting match with one of your new in-laws.

I asked the question on today's (6/25/06)show: Why is prosecuting members of the military, bravely fighting overseas to keep us safe, as criminals?

What exactly is an innocent “civilian” when you’re talking about a war zone? It’s a question that occurs to many of us as we ponder why suddenly it has become all the rage to prosecute members of our military for supposedly killing “civilians.” The MSM (mainstream media), in their rush to judgment, to demonize the military, rushes to label any person not in uniform killed in Iraq as a “civilian” before all the facts are in. When we learn the facts, we sometimes learn that the “innocent civilian” is in fact a terrorist. Yes, the term “civilian” and “terrorist” are not mutually-exclusive. Let’s remember the case of Iliaro Pantano, accused of killing two “civilians” who were in fact terrorists who deserved to be killed.

A quick question: if and when the Camp Pendleton 8 are exonerated, will that be on the front page of the New York Times and the lead story on the network news casts? I think we all know the answer.

What do I always tell you? Never Doubt Me

We like to say that our little Sunday show is the show that has all you missed from the previous week, or missed the chance to comment on, the hottest topics of the weekend, and your chance to get a jump on what everyone is going to be talking about on Monday. So I guess it wasn’t a surprise that we were the very first show anywhere to play the cringe-inducing Connie Chung chanteuse routine that was THE topic on Monday. Yes, Rush and Roe both played it, but you heard it here first.

Yes, it’s not only the show that makes you smarter. It’s the show that is so far out on the cutting edge we have to hang on to keep from falling off.

Please check back tomorrow for a preview of what we're working on for Sunday.

Thanks for listening! Enjoy what seems to be shaping up as a beautiful day!

Libs Say the Darndest Things, or Why the Democrats Will Not Take Back Congress This Fall

On Tuesday, 6/20/06 on MS-NBC's "Hardball," Norah O’Donnell, fillling in for the Screamer (Chris Matthews) asks perennial liberal loser/democrat "strategist" (sort of like the navigator on the Titanic) Bob Shrum “What does Senator Kerry think he‘s doing by proposing this amendment—and I realize you don‘t work for him-by first saying December 31st and then July 2007?”

Check out this answer, including my comments in all caps (no, I’m not shouting, but it’s the only way the primitive software we use for this blog will allow me to distinguish between speakers.)

Bob Shrum: “Well, I think—look, in all of the years when the McGovern-Hatfield Amendment was being proposed, for example, to end the Vietnam War, as time moves on, the date had to move.”

OH THERE’S A BRILLIANT MOVE, CITING MCGOVERN AND THE VIET NAM ERA DEMOCRATS SELLING OUT OUR AN ALLY TO THE COMMUNISTS AND ENSURING NOT ONLY AN AMERICAN DEFEAT, BUT THE SUBSEQUENT BLOODBATH AND KILLING FIELDS THAT YOU GUYS SAID WOULDN'T HAPPEN. SURE THEY HAD TO KEEP WORKING HARD TO GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY, BUT THEY EVENTUALLY ACHIEVED THEIR GOAL, WHICH BY THE WAY HAPPENS TO BE THE SAME GOAL THEY HAVE DURING THIS WAR, INCIDENTALLY.

BS: “The question is whether or not you set a date certain, whether it‘s the end of 2006 or June of 2007, but I think John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, John Murtha have done the Democratic Party a favor. They‘ve gotten it off the dime. I think the country wants to set a date certain to end this involvement in Iraq.”

YOU JUST KEEP THINKING THAT, BOB. THOSE GREAT INSTINCTS OF YOURS HAVE SERVED YOU SO WELL OVER THE YEARS.

BS: “The Republicans say it‘s cut and run. I think John Kerry is right, that‘s it‘s more lying and more dying."

BOB, HERE’S A CLUE. THE PHRASE “JOHN KERRY IS RIGHT” IS A REAL RED FLAG THAT SOMETHING IN YOUR ANALYSIS MIGHT BE WRONG. (SEE PREVIOUS REMINDER OF THE VIETNAM BLOODBATH, WHICH JK SAID WOULD NOT HAPPEN.)

BS: “And you know what you just heard from Ken Mehlman on this show? You heard him baldly compare World War II to Iraq. But, let me tell you something. Pearl Harbor was real. The weapons of mass destruction were made up.”

WERE THE 3000 CIVILIANS SITTING AT THEIR DESKS, STARTING THEIR WORK DAYS ON A NEARLY PERFECT LATE SUMMER TUESDAY ONE MINUTE, ONLY TO FIND THEMSELVES FACED WITH THE CHOICE OF DYING FROM SMOKE-INHALATION OR LEAPING FROM A FLAMING 100+-STORY BUILDING THE NEXT, MADE UP?

YOU PATHETIC, CRYPTO-SOCIALIST PANTLOAD—GET A CLUE OR GET OFF TV!

What’s on Tap for Tomorrow’s (Sunday, 6/18/06) Show

Absolute proof (as if we needed any more) that the Democrats are in fact the Cut and Run Party (or do you prefer the September 10 Party?, the White Flag Party?,) from Friday’s Debate on House Res. 861.

Support the Marines and condemn the despicable 5th column MSM attempt to try and convict them in the press.

Hands down the most bizarre episode I’ve even seen on television

A Tribute to Dad (and men in general)

Waiter, Sparky will have the roast duck with the mango salsa—Chicago’s new doggie dine out ordinance

2nd Amendment Update-more about the UN's Global Gun Ban

And best of all, your calls about all that, the Sunday shows, and the breaking news of the day.

Can’t wait to chat you up!

Until then, stay cool!

T

Tragic, but Inevitable

As regular listeners know, I watch C-SPAN so you don’t have to. Also, Hardball, Olbermann’s nightly on-air temper tantrum/tinfoil hat club, Celebrity Fit Club, Real Housewives of Orange County, The View, and Oprah, although not every day I must admit.

One truly cringe-inducing show that we’ve shared with our lucky listeners is the hideously embarrassing “Weekends with Maury and Connie.” Who could forget Maury’s calling Connie a “package watcher” a couple of weeks ago? That sound bite is a keeper, all right. Well, it had to happen, and now the ax has fallen. The Chicago Sun-Times reports today (Tuesday, June 13, 2006) that Dan Abrams, host of “The Abrams Report,” has taken over MS-NBC in the wake of Rick Kaplan’s exit. Dan must have some brains. One of his first acts was to take his own show off the air, and also to mercifully end the brief run of Po and Con (one of the really mortifying features on this train wreck of a show). I guess he didn’t want to take the time to explain to Con that the letter writing bit with harpsichord music was never going to be funny, or that the faux Bickersons act was so stilted it made Al Gore doing comedy look like Chris Rock on a roll.

I can’t wait to see what fabulous programming they are going to come up with next. Dan, have you ever considered checking out Japanese tv? One of those shows featuring a hungry Komodo dragon lizard menacing the lunchmeat-laden heads of a half-dozen adolescent singing stars, each screaming head popping up through a hole in the table top where the dragon is walking—now that’s entertainment. That, or you do a show featuring interviews with disgruntled employees, only from MS-NBC, but also from Maury’s show. The one with the best story gets to host a prime time show on MS-NBC. It would be “American Idol” meets “The Apprentice” meets “Cheaters.” AT this point, I think it’s becoming WAY too apparent that I watch too much tv, so I’d better stop. Damn you, Tivo! (No, I couldn’t live without it.)

Another thought on al-Zarqawi's assuming desert temperature:

As one who has attended many meetings, I can say that the good news for Z and his peeps is that the meeting ended early.

****BREAKING NEWS******

For my initial take on the capture of Zarqawi (posted at 6:20 am), please visit http://teriobrien.webloggin.com/

Also, Hillarita Makes Ann Coulter’s Point

PLEASE CHECK BACK HERE FOR MORE UPDATES

Thanks!

Hillary Makes Ann Coulter’s Point

You have no doubt heard about the controversy surrounding the comment in Ann Coulter’s new book Godless about the Jersey Girls, Kristen Breitweiser, MS-NBC Screamer Chris Matthews’ frequent featured expert on foreign policy and her friends. To wit: in the book, Ms. Coulter apparently calls these babes out as “self-obsessed,” and goes on to add "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.” This comment has the MSM (mainstream media) apoplectic. Matt Lauer hasn’t been this disturbed in nearly a year, when a crazy-eyed Tom Cruise accused him of being “glib” and lectured him on biochemistry. While Matt seemed to understand that TomCat is no doctor, somehow he is horrified at the suggestion that Kristen Breitweiser is no expert on fighting the headloppers who determined to destroy Western civilization. That her husband was murdered on 9/11 by them doesn’t change that. If her husband had died of a heart attack, would that make her an expert on heart disease? I think not, and even Matt Lauer would probably agree. Why, therefore, is it wrong to point out that the Jersey Girls’ loss does not give them any more credibility on the issue of terrorism?

I admire Ann Coulter’s writing very much. She has been a guest on the air with me, and I agree with most of what she says. I don’t even necessarily disagree with her statement about the Jersey Girls. Here’s what I mean by not necessarily disagreeing. As those of you who have heard me talk about Kristen Breitweiser on the air know, I’m not sure I would characterize her insatiable appetite for media attention as a display enjoyment of her husband’s death. It could be simply her way of dealing with her grief. I don’t think, though, that Ann’s point was about Kristen per se. I think it was more about the cynical weasels with personal agendas like John Kerry and Richard Clarke who used her and her friends. Yes, Kristen was a willing participant, but I have given her a pass because of her loss, choosing to focus on the cynical manipulators behind the scenes. Ann’s point was that once again, the apparatchiks on the left are using mascots to says things that they, the puppet masters, don’t want to say, in the hope that the mascots can’t be criticized, that their personal suffering will be a shield against any legitimate objection to their policy positions.

Speaking of cynical manipulators, now here comes Hillary Clinton, never one to miss an opportunity to demagogue, to pile on.

"Perhaps her book should have been called Heartless," the senator said. "I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9-11. They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened."

The New York Democrat and former U.S. first lady said she found it "unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I've known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country." Hillary Clinton calls author's comments 'vicious,' Toronto Star, June 7, 2006.

I think Hillary is indirectly making Ann Coulter’s point by attacking her as “mean-spirited” for pointing out the obvious: that power-hungry politicians and their allies in the 5th column media are more than happy to use anyone to achieve power, widows, children, your dog. It makes no difference. I’m sure Kristen Breitweiser is concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country, just like all Americans, but not all of us made campaign commercials for John Kerry.

Is it just me …

Or is anyone else grateful that the Senate will vote on the marriage amendment today? Sure, in part its because this vote forces these weasels to go on the record to either stand up for preserving this essential institution or to endorse our society’s continued slouching toward Gomorrah (thanks, Professor Bork). Oh yeah, I almost believed that the democrats didn’t want this vote because it’s a waste of time and distraction from all the “important” things that need addressing like—let’s see--global warming, which democrat intellectual lights from Bill Clinton to John Francois Kerry to the 800-pound gorilla on this issue, who did look a tad porky last Sunday on Stephanopolis’ show, the deranged Gorebot have said is THE most important issue facing mankind. Buffoons promoting this man-made C02 global warming foolishness while complaining about anyone wasting time on anything are like Michael Moore bitching about the obesity “epidemic.” (An aside—why DO we have to medicalize every aspect of human behavior? Can anyone tell me?)

So while it’s great to have this vote for that reason, but there’s something else I’m looking forward: no more cable tv montages of guys kissing! I don’t know how much more of those I can take!

Rahm's Rage

As we discussed on yesterday’s (Sunday, June 4, 2006), the democrat candidate running to fill the Congressional seat vacated by the disgraced Duke Cunningham, Francine Busby, made the mistake last Thursday that is death to any liberals’ election prospects. She clearly stated what she really believes, in this case about illegal immigration. Wake up, Francie! You just can’t do that! Do you think Barack Obama became a rising star by telling people what he really believes? Of course not! He knows that most voters aren’t in favor of big government, tax-funded do-gooder programs, nearly zero scrutiny of people showing up to vote, government-mandated racism and open borders. Ms. Busby told a non-English speaking attendee to one of her events that “you don’t need papers for voting,” and unbeknownst to her, she said it on tape.

You know who has got to be really hopping mad over this gaffe? That weasel, who if Bob Novak is to be believed, is in line to be Speaker of the House when the inevitable happens and the dems take over, Rahm Emmanuel. He’s the one in charge of getting dems elected to the House, so he can’t be pleased. That’s putting it mildly. Don’t kid yourself, he’s as likely to give Francine “tape recorder? What tape recorder?” Busby a pass as Tony Soprano would if Big T had spent over a $1 million on a project only to see some broad with a big mouth flush the whole thing down the toilet. I’m not suggesting Rahm will have her whacked, not literally anyway, although I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the bug-eyed lefty is on a plane to California right now, packing a 2 by 4 that he plans to use to explain a few things to Ms. Busby. OK, he probably won’t smack her up the side of the head, but she’d probably prefer it to having the DCCC do something even worse: deny her any cash for another race, assuming she loses. If the voters of the CA-50 have any sense, that’s, as we like to say on the show, the biggest no-brainer in the history of earth, exactly what will happen.

It’s actually rather sad because she did manage to cloak her response in a stupid euphemism about “papers.” What are we talking about here? Purebreed dogs? “You don’t need papers for voting” is another way of saying “you can vote even if you are not eligible to do, and even if your doing so makes a mockery of our elections because you are illegally in the country.” She didn’t come right out and say “you don’t need to be legally entitled to vote to actually vote, Amigo,” so she kept up the pretense up that far, but sadly everyone knows what she meant. So she almost pulled it off, which is probably exactly what will happen tomorrow in the election.

Let’s be very clear about what is happening here with this Haditha thing. The same 5th column media who has been praying, in that weird secular way that liberals pray, for a U.S. defeat in Iraq to make their Vietnam analogy complete, can barely contain their glee. Remember on last Sunday’s (5/28/06) when we talked about their various templates? The template for the war in Iraq is “no WMD, Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9/11, Bush lied, this is Vietnam all over again.” Never mind that we didn’t go into Iraq to exact retribution over 9/11. As I am fond of saying, we need to think 9/11, not 7/11, as in we are not going after the perp who stuck up the convenience market. Approaching the fight against these head-lopping hate-filled wackjobs isn’t about law enforcement. Bill Clinton tried that all through the 1990’s and we ended up with 9/11! So anyone who repeats this “no connection with 9/11” line is simply proving how clueless he, and Natalie Maines, Michael Moore, Chris Matthews, Dana Priest and anyone else who repeats that mantra is because we went to Iraq to prevent it from becoming the new Afghanistan. But since the template is “no WMD, no involvement in 9/11, we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq,” we don’t hear that. It doesn’t fit the template.

The Haditha story fits the left’s template perfectly. In fact, they were really stretching to try to use Abu Ghraib as this war’s My Lai, and that was a tough sell because it’s hard to convince anyone but the most demented lefty that what former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger called “animal house on the night shift,” and what we all remember as the girl who looks like Ernie from “My Three Sons” leading a guy on a dog leash and some guys with underwear on their heads is the equivalent of 300-500 civilians being executed with automatic weapons.

Now with Haditha they’ve decided that have their My Lai, and they hope they can follow the fine example of the traitorous anti-war left of the 1960’s and ‘70’s and use it to ensure our hasty retreat from Iraq, just as My Lai helped destroy American resolve to finish the mission in Vietnam. Never mind that neither John Murtha, nor Chris Matthews, nor Dana Milbank at the WaPo, or any of the other luminaries who have been falling all over themselves this week to pronounce the Marines guilty have a clue what really happened at Haditha. Facts don’t matter. Print the legend.

My only question is how are we going to keep from incessantly vomiting as we watch guys like John Murtha slander our troops in one breath while sanctimoniously claiming to “support the troops” in the next?