Thursday, September 28, 2006
It has taken me way too long to post this thank you to my friends at the Women's Republican Club of New Trier Township. I spoke to them on September 6, and I had the greatest time. I will post more photos in the future, but here's one that Smart Listener David, the very cool guy who gave me Hell's Bell, took of me.
Thanks David, and thanks to all the terrific people up north. I can't wait to see you all again!
Dumb as a Box of Rocks and Future Speaker of the House?
"This is a time when the Golden Rule really should be in affect. Do not do unto others, what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field.”
Nancy Pelosi, 9/27/06, on the floor of the House, opposing HR 6504, the Military Commissions Act
Can she possibly be serious? Leaving aside the fact that she misstates the Gold Rule, which I guess is no surprise since she’s a lefty from San Francisco, this dunderhead could be third in line for the presidency, and she thinks that the way to fight head chopping maniacs like Khalid Shiek Mohammed is to apply the Golden Rule?!!
If I thought the dems were really going to take over Congress in January, I would be scared to death. These democrats are dangerous! They are doing everything they can to bring on another 9/11. Fortunately, I think the good sense of the American people will prevail.
In the meantime, I have written to my congressman, who is a democrat, asking him to explain why he voted to make it more difficult to fight our Islamofacist enemy. Melissa Bean, hearing Dave McSweeney’s footsteps, obviously, is the only democrat from Illinois who crossed party lines to give the president the tools he needs to fight the war. So those of you represented by Rahm Emanuel and Jan Schakowsky might want to suggest that they have ‘splainin’ to do.
"This is a time when the Golden Rule really should be in affect. Do not do unto others, what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field.”
Nancy Pelosi, 9/27/06, on the floor of the House, opposing HR 6504, the Military Commissions Act
Can she possibly be serious? Leaving aside the fact that she misstates the Gold Rule, which I guess is no surprise since she’s a lefty from San Francisco, this dunderhead could be third in line for the presidency, and she thinks that the way to fight head chopping maniacs like Khalid Shiek Mohammed is to apply the Golden Rule?!!
If I thought the dems were really going to take over Congress in January, I would be scared to death. These democrats are dangerous! They are doing everything they can to bring on another 9/11. Fortunately, I think the good sense of the American people will prevail.
In the meantime, I have written to my congressman, who is a democrat, asking him to explain why he voted to make it more difficult to fight our Islamofacist enemy. Melissa Bean, hearing Dave McSweeney’s footsteps, obviously, is the only democrat from Illinois who crossed party lines to give the president the tools he needs to fight the war. So those of you represented by Rahm Emanuel and Jan Schakowsky might want to suggest that they have ‘splainin’ to do.
Dumb as a Box of Rocks and Future Speaker of the House?
"This is a time when the Golden Rule really should be in affect. Do not do unto others, what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field.”
Nancy Pelosi, 9/27/06, on the floor of the House, opposing HR 6504, the Military Commissions Act
Can she possibly be serious? Leaving aside the fact that she misstates the Gold Rule, which I guess is no surprise since she’s a lefty from San Francisco, this dunderhead could be third in line for the presidency, and she thinks that the way to fight head chopping maniacs like Khalid Shiek Mohammed is to apply the Golden Rule?!!
If I thought the dems were really going to take over Congress in January, I would be scared to death. These democrats are dangerous! They are doing everything they can to bring on another 9/11. Fortunately, I think the good sense of the American people will prevail.
In the meantime, I have written to my congressman, who is a democrat, asking him to explain why he voted to make it more difficult to fight our Islamofacist enemy. Melissa Bean, hearing Dave McSweeney’s footsteps, obviously, is the only democrat from Illinois who crossed party lines to give the president the tools he needs to fight the war. So those of you represented by Rahm Emanuel and Jan Schakowsky might want to suggest that they have ‘splainin’ to do.
"This is a time when the Golden Rule really should be in affect. Do not do unto others, what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field.”
Nancy Pelosi, 9/27/06, on the floor of the House, opposing HR 6504, the Military Commissions Act
Can she possibly be serious? Leaving aside the fact that she misstates the Gold Rule, which I guess is no surprise since she’s a lefty from San Francisco, this dunderhead could be third in line for the presidency, and she thinks that the way to fight head chopping maniacs like Khalid Shiek Mohammed is to apply the Golden Rule?!!
If I thought the dems were really going to take over Congress in January, I would be scared to death. These democrats are dangerous! They are doing everything they can to bring on another 9/11. Fortunately, I think the good sense of the American people will prevail.
In the meantime, I have written to my congressman, who is a democrat, asking him to explain why he voted to make it more difficult to fight our Islamofacist enemy. Melissa Bean, hearing Dave McSweeney’s footsteps, obviously, is the only democrat from Illinois who crossed party lines to give the president the tools he needs to fight the war. So those of you represented by Rahm Emanuel and Jan Schakowsky might want to suggest that they have ‘splainin’ to do.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
What would we do without the Tribune (or do you say the Libune?)
“Voters painting state blue”
Front Page Headline: Chicago Tribune, 9/13/06
Stop the presses!! The story describes the results of the Libune’s latest poll, revealing the stunning news that Illinois is a democrat state. Who’d a thunk it? How convenient this little factoid is, too, since the democrats are so interested in the “culture of corruption,” and Illinois appears to be Ground Zero.
Is it just me or does it seem whenever the 5th column MSM doesn’t want to actually report the news, they create news with another idiotic poll?
“Voters painting state blue”
Front Page Headline: Chicago Tribune, 9/13/06
Stop the presses!! The story describes the results of the Libune’s latest poll, revealing the stunning news that Illinois is a democrat state. Who’d a thunk it? How convenient this little factoid is, too, since the democrats are so interested in the “culture of corruption,” and Illinois appears to be Ground Zero.
Is it just me or does it seem whenever the 5th column MSM doesn’t want to actually report the news, they create news with another idiotic poll?
Monday, September 11, 2006
Bill Clinton, Sandy Burger (or do you say Burglar?), and Madelyn Notbright say the docudrama “The Path to 9/11” is slanderous and inaccurate. You be the judge.
As you heard on yesterday’s (9/10/06) show, the Clintonistas, in a pathetic attempt to convince the world that Bill’s legacy is something other than a stained blue dress, are screaming about the inaccuracies in the movie “The Path to 9/11.” Their two biggest beefs are (1) any suggestion that Bill Clinton was distracted while in office by his dalliance with Monica and the resulting impeachment and (2) any suggestion that Clinton had numerous opportunities to apprehend Osama bin Laden before 9/11. Poor Alessandra Stanley at the New York Times got the Joe Lieberman treatment because she didn’t trash the movie and even had the audacity to point out that George Bush’s failings with respect to 9/11 were minor compared to Clintons, since the former was in office only 8 months compared to the Prevaricator-in-Chief’s 8 years. Her real sin was suggesting that Bill Clinton was distracted while in office. She even had to print a correction, assuring all the moonbats that when she said that the 9/11 report said Clinton was distracted, she misspoke! If she hadn’t, she probably wouldn’t be invited to a single party all holiday season.
I’m not so sure that correction should have been issued, notwithstanding the howling on the left. Could it been have any more hilarious when Keith “head in the subway door” Olbermann huffed and puffed, accused Ms. Stanley of doing her research in “an alternate dimension?” He should know all about that! It seems completely at war with human experience to think he wouldn’t be distracted. Isn’t that the whole point of having an intern play with your hoo hoo? In any case, KO was outraged, and quoted the report: “Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton’s problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President saying to him “that they were going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing.” All his aides testified to us that they based their advise soley on national security considerations. We have found not reason to question their statements.”
You see what I mean about this 9/11 report? Let me translate for you. All the Clintonistas we asked lined up and when we asked “was Bill Clinton serious about fighting these murderous headchoppers who first blew up the World Trade Center about a month after he took office?” they all nodded their heads up and down in unison and assured us that he had. As for no reason to question their statements, have you looked in Sandy Berger’s socks?
So I’m no fan of the 9/11 report, I consider it incomplete (Able Danger?) and inconclusive. Still, it’s one account, albeit a partial one, of what happened, and since Clinton’s defenders like KO want to cite it, here goes.
“We must then ask when the U.S. government had reasonable opportunities to mobilize the country for major action against al Qaeda and its Afghan sanctuary. The main opportunities came after the new information the U.S. government received in 1996-1997, after the embassy bombings of August 1998, after the discoveries of the Jordanian and Ressam plots in late 1999 and after the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000.” P. 348
Seems obvious. Also seems obvious who the president was from 1996-2000. Even those who went to government schools like me can figure that out.
“The U.S. policy response to al Qaeda before 9/11 was essentially defined following the embassy bombings of August 1998. We described those decisions in Chapter 4. It is worth noting that they were made by the Clinton administration under extremely difficult domestic political circumstances. Opponents were seeking the President’s impeachment.” (italics mine) p.348
Oh, but he wasn’t distracted by it. As we all know, he has an amazing ability to “compartmentalize.”
Here’s another little gem: “In February 1999, another draft Memorandum of Notification went to President Clinton. It asked him to allow the CIA to give exactly the same guidance to the Northern Alliance as had just been given to the tribals: they could kill Bin Ladin if a successful capture operation was not feasible. On this occasion, however, President Clinton crossed out key language he had approved in December and inserted more ambiguous language. No one we interviewed could shed light on why the President did this. President Clinton told the Commission that he had no recollection of why he rewrote the language.” p. 133.
Shazzam! I just don’t remember. Paging Jamie Gorelick: are you still going to try to convince us that the reason you tried to stop this movie is that you worked way too hard to get the truth to the American people? PULEEZE!!
Or how about this one: “Footnote 11. NSC note, Clarke to Berger, Dec. 4, 1999; Richard Clarke interview (Jan. 12, 2004)In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote “no.” p. 500
I think it’s pretty clear to knowledgeable observers that the reason so many democrats were going nuts last week over this movie is their belief that the Clinton legacy and the future Clinton presidency (there’s a scary phrase) could be threatened. The very fact that they were so frightened by a tv movie says everything you need to know about both.
As you heard on yesterday’s (9/10/06) show, the Clintonistas, in a pathetic attempt to convince the world that Bill’s legacy is something other than a stained blue dress, are screaming about the inaccuracies in the movie “The Path to 9/11.” Their two biggest beefs are (1) any suggestion that Bill Clinton was distracted while in office by his dalliance with Monica and the resulting impeachment and (2) any suggestion that Clinton had numerous opportunities to apprehend Osama bin Laden before 9/11. Poor Alessandra Stanley at the New York Times got the Joe Lieberman treatment because she didn’t trash the movie and even had the audacity to point out that George Bush’s failings with respect to 9/11 were minor compared to Clintons, since the former was in office only 8 months compared to the Prevaricator-in-Chief’s 8 years. Her real sin was suggesting that Bill Clinton was distracted while in office. She even had to print a correction, assuring all the moonbats that when she said that the 9/11 report said Clinton was distracted, she misspoke! If she hadn’t, she probably wouldn’t be invited to a single party all holiday season.
I’m not so sure that correction should have been issued, notwithstanding the howling on the left. Could it been have any more hilarious when Keith “head in the subway door” Olbermann huffed and puffed, accused Ms. Stanley of doing her research in “an alternate dimension?” He should know all about that! It seems completely at war with human experience to think he wouldn’t be distracted. Isn’t that the whole point of having an intern play with your hoo hoo? In any case, KO was outraged, and quoted the report: “Everyone involved in the decision had, of course, been aware of President Clinton’s problems. He told them to ignore them. Berger recalled the President saying to him “that they were going to get crap either way, so they should do the right thing.” All his aides testified to us that they based their advise soley on national security considerations. We have found not reason to question their statements.”
You see what I mean about this 9/11 report? Let me translate for you. All the Clintonistas we asked lined up and when we asked “was Bill Clinton serious about fighting these murderous headchoppers who first blew up the World Trade Center about a month after he took office?” they all nodded their heads up and down in unison and assured us that he had. As for no reason to question their statements, have you looked in Sandy Berger’s socks?
So I’m no fan of the 9/11 report, I consider it incomplete (Able Danger?) and inconclusive. Still, it’s one account, albeit a partial one, of what happened, and since Clinton’s defenders like KO want to cite it, here goes.
“We must then ask when the U.S. government had reasonable opportunities to mobilize the country for major action against al Qaeda and its Afghan sanctuary. The main opportunities came after the new information the U.S. government received in 1996-1997, after the embassy bombings of August 1998, after the discoveries of the Jordanian and Ressam plots in late 1999 and after the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000.” P. 348
Seems obvious. Also seems obvious who the president was from 1996-2000. Even those who went to government schools like me can figure that out.
“The U.S. policy response to al Qaeda before 9/11 was essentially defined following the embassy bombings of August 1998. We described those decisions in Chapter 4. It is worth noting that they were made by the Clinton administration under extremely difficult domestic political circumstances. Opponents were seeking the President’s impeachment.” (italics mine) p.348
Oh, but he wasn’t distracted by it. As we all know, he has an amazing ability to “compartmentalize.”
Here’s another little gem: “In February 1999, another draft Memorandum of Notification went to President Clinton. It asked him to allow the CIA to give exactly the same guidance to the Northern Alliance as had just been given to the tribals: they could kill Bin Ladin if a successful capture operation was not feasible. On this occasion, however, President Clinton crossed out key language he had approved in December and inserted more ambiguous language. No one we interviewed could shed light on why the President did this. President Clinton told the Commission that he had no recollection of why he rewrote the language.” p. 133.
Shazzam! I just don’t remember. Paging Jamie Gorelick: are you still going to try to convince us that the reason you tried to stop this movie is that you worked way too hard to get the truth to the American people? PULEEZE!!
Or how about this one: “Footnote 11. NSC note, Clarke to Berger, Dec. 4, 1999; Richard Clarke interview (Jan. 12, 2004)In the margin next to Clarke’s suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote “no.” p. 500
I think it’s pretty clear to knowledgeable observers that the reason so many democrats were going nuts last week over this movie is their belief that the Clinton legacy and the future Clinton presidency (there’s a scary phrase) could be threatened. The very fact that they were so frightened by a tv movie says everything you need to know about both.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Please come out and say "Hi!"
Hey there everyone,
You all know how that one of my greatest joys in the 4 years that I have been on the air on WLS is interacting with you, the listener, usually on the air, and occasionally in person. This coming week we have two chances to get some face time: one this Wednesday, September 6, at 1 pm when I will be speaking at Women's Republican Club of New Trier Township Fall Membership Tea. For more information, please contact the organizer Eva Sorock at sorock@sbcglobal.net
Also, on Sunday, 9/10, the Teri O'Brien Show will originate live from the Luxury Home Tour. Please visit the home page at wlsam.com and scroll down for the link for more info (it's under my photo on the right side--where else?), or visit chicagohometour.com
I look forward to meeting you in person! I can't thank all of you for all your encouragement and support!
Enjoy your Labor Day and have a great week!
Best,
T
Hey there everyone,
You all know how that one of my greatest joys in the 4 years that I have been on the air on WLS is interacting with you, the listener, usually on the air, and occasionally in person. This coming week we have two chances to get some face time: one this Wednesday, September 6, at 1 pm when I will be speaking at Women's Republican Club of New Trier Township Fall Membership Tea. For more information, please contact the organizer Eva Sorock at sorock@sbcglobal.net
Also, on Sunday, 9/10, the Teri O'Brien Show will originate live from the Luxury Home Tour. Please visit the home page at wlsam.com and scroll down for the link for more info (it's under my photo on the right side--where else?), or visit chicagohometour.com
I look forward to meeting you in person! I can't thank all of you for all your encouragement and support!
Enjoy your Labor Day and have a great week!
Best,
T
Friday, September 01, 2006
Many of us think that Governor Blago needs a babysitter, but this is ridiculous
On Wednesday, when I was in for Eileen Byrne (9-11 am), I mentioned that the governor’s babysitter was going to be deciding on the propriety of his administration’s awarding of government jobs, but I didn’t flesh out the story. Here it it:
“Betty Bukraba, 67, sits on the state Civil Service Commission, which in the coming months will be asked to decide the fate of two personnel agency workers Blagojevich fired for allegedly giving special treatment to politically connected job applicants.
Blagojevich appointed Bukraba to a six-year term on the board in October 2003. She is paid $21,507 a year to be on the five-member panel.
Given the close relationship between Bukraba and the Blagojevich family, government watchdog groups have questioned her impartiality.”
“Blagojevich baby sitter has seat on civil service panel,” AP, 8/31/06
Biased? Not impartial? Gee, ya think?
And people wonder why I suggest that my dog should run for governor just to give us some decent choice between Blago and Judy In Disguise.
On Wednesday, when I was in for Eileen Byrne (9-11 am), I mentioned that the governor’s babysitter was going to be deciding on the propriety of his administration’s awarding of government jobs, but I didn’t flesh out the story. Here it it:
“Betty Bukraba, 67, sits on the state Civil Service Commission, which in the coming months will be asked to decide the fate of two personnel agency workers Blagojevich fired for allegedly giving special treatment to politically connected job applicants.
Blagojevich appointed Bukraba to a six-year term on the board in October 2003. She is paid $21,507 a year to be on the five-member panel.
Given the close relationship between Bukraba and the Blagojevich family, government watchdog groups have questioned her impartiality.”
“Blagojevich baby sitter has seat on civil service panel,” AP, 8/31/06
Biased? Not impartial? Gee, ya think?
And people wonder why I suggest that my dog should run for governor just to give us some decent choice between Blago and Judy In Disguise.