Saturday, March 31, 2007

Sewing Machine Company is Big Rosie Supporter

On Friday's edition of The View, Rosie and friends made a big deal over the Janome sewing machine.

The company obviously paid a lot to have their product featured on the show.

Below is a link where you can contact them and let them know how you feel about it.

This is the first big step towards getting Rosie off the air.

  • Contact Janome

  • The contact request will ask you for a Model number. DC2007LE. It's the model that rosie is holding. For Dealer name F&S Fabrics will do nicely. It appears, however that you can also make both of these up.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Thursday, March 29, 2007

    Idiot Of The Week

    For the second time in three weeks, yet with far more disdain and disgust than on Friday, March 16, I feel that it is our patriotic duty here at Falling Panda to expose the consistent irresponsible and vile statements of now two-time Idiot of the Week

    Rosie O’Donnell- 2

    This week I am going to go even further and give a additional place on this week’s Wall of Shame to those responsible for continuing to put Ms. O’Donnell on the air and giving her a platform to express her sympathies for terrorists and America’s Enemies.

    So O’Donnell will be joined by:

    ABC and the Disney Corporation who owns that network

    This week O’Donnell’ s sympathy towards those who are responsible for killing America’s young men and women in Iraq was on full display as she said the following, regarding the kidnapping of 15 British soldiers by Iran:

    The British did it on purpose. They went into Iranian waters. [There’s a] U.S military build up on the Iranian border. We will be in Iran before the summer.”

    Her implication being that the kidnapping was some kind of stunt set up to justify an attack on Iran.

    In addition to this, she continues her misleading rants regarding her belief that the U.S. government was involved in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks and in bringing down WTC 7.

    Rosie’s statements make those of Ann Coulter seem trivial, and yet imagine the left-wing revolt if Coulter were given a permanent spot on The View.

    The liberal media would be calling for Coulter’s ouster on Day One.

    Five days a week, ABC gives this woman a platform to spew whatever crazy theories she has lifted from the far-left blogs the night before.

    She is cheered on by the politically unsophisticated fans of The View, who also happen to be made up mostly of 18-49 year old females, the same group who are obsessed with Anna Nicole’s Death and the primary consumers of tabloid gossip magazines. They also vote.

    She is America’s best-known lesbian and her behavior reflects poorly on others with alternative lifestyles and those who are fighting to bring their sub-culture into the mainstream.

    Both ABC and Disney are mainstreaming hateful nonsense which undermines our nation’s fight against those who wish to do us harm, and it’s got to end.

    Therefore, I am calling for a boycott of not only The View itself but of the shows sponsors, and will update the list of sponsors on a weekly basis.

    Here are the sponsors for Friday, March 30:

    Humira - Arthritis drug
    Pier 1 Imports
    Vaseline Intensive Rescue Body Lotion
    Pilsbury Toaster Strudel
    T.J. Maxx
    Stanley Steemer
    Reach One Ultimate Clean Toothbrush
    Janome Sewing Machine
    Tide Laundry Detergent
    Stainmaster Carpet
    Cottonelle Toilet Tissue
    Crest Whitening Rinse
    Disney's Meet the Robinsons
    Best Foods Mayonnaise
    Claritin -D
    Honey Bunches of Oats
    Loestrin 24
    I Can't Believe It's Not Butter
    BAM Power Cleaner
    Pepto Bismol
    Head And Shoulders
    Bush's Baked Beans
    Scrubbing Bubbles
    All Detergent
    Dove Ice Cream

    Please avoid these products and other products under the same brand names until ABC comes to its senses and takes O'Donnell off the show. As of now, I do not believe it necessary to boycott the parent companies of the products.

    I will continue to update this list occasionally until ABC decides to remove O'Donnell from the program.

    This shouldn't take long considering that since January The View has lost nearly one half million viewers.

    Therefore, this week for being a tool of the mullahs and America’s enemies, Rosie O’Donnell gets her second Idiot of the Week award, and ABC and Disney share in the honor for facilitating her idiocy.

    Runner Up: Sen. Chuck Hagel: I hate to break Reagan’s 11th commandment of “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican” but another great Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower once said that "...anyone who fights wars on a deadline, doesn’t know how to fight wars.”

    We already knew that the Democrats don’t know how to fight wars and are more interested in congressional micromanaging of the Iraq situation for political purposes than in victory, but Hagel is a Republican, at least in name.

    He should know better than to tell our enemies when we’re leaving, so that they can lay low, regroup and then ratchet up the violence once we’re gone.

    I know Mr. Hagel is running for re-election and he’ll probably win if he can hold onto the nomination, but with his vote he has doomed his chances of ever becoming a serious contender for the GOP presidential nomination.

    In fact I’m going to propose a deal on behalf of Senate Republicans right now.
    We’ll give you Hagel, for Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor ( who voted against the bill and the pork it contained) and a moderate to be named later.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Monday, March 26, 2007

    Don't Let Al Gore's Hyperbole, Stifle Debate

    Contrary to what liberals say, global warming scepticism is not exclusive to right-wing radio hosts and oil-company execs.

    Here, Michael Barone, author of The Almanac of American Politics and one of the most widely respected political analysts in the country, adds some credibility and visibility to the fact that we have not had a real debate on the facts of global warming as of this date.

    Scientists and climatologists are being routinely fired by Democratic governors for not blindly towing the Al Gore line as to the Earth's "fever."

    The attempt by Democrats to stymie this debate for political gain is incredibly hypocritical, especially considering that it was these same people who were falsely accusing the administration of attempting to stifle dissent in the lead up to the Iraq war. This accusation was of course, played against the backdrop of the far-left in this country saying some of the most vile, mean spirited and misleading things that anyone has ever said about a sitting commander-in-chief and those who support him.

    It doesn't help the cause that Al Gore is leading the charge either.

    Looking back on his tenure as VP, his failed campaign for the presidency, the Florida recount and his turn to the far-left after those votes were deemed not to have been cast in his favor, anyone who has been paying attention knows that the credibility, sincerity and temperament of the true father of the Internet, has often been called into question.

    So here is the Barone piece.

    It does not imply that Gore is wrong in his assertion, that the Earth has a "fever", it simply wants a debate as to where the right place is to stick the thermometer.

    Gore's Faith Is Bad Science
    By Michael Barone

    Al Gore likes to present himself as a tribune of science, warning the world of imminent danger. But he is more like an Old Testament prophet, calling on us to bewail our wrongful conduct and to go and sin no more.

    He starts off with the science. The world's climate, he reports, is getting warmer. This accurate report is, however, not set in historic context. World climate has grown warmer and cooler at various times in history. Climate change is not some unique historic event. It is the way the world works.

    Not this time, Gore says. What's different is that climate change is being driven by human activity -- to wit, increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Which means, he says, that we have to sharply reduce those emissions. But what the scientists tell us is that some proportion of climate change is caused by human activity and some proportion by natural causes -- and that they can only estimate what those proportions are. The estimates they have produced have varied sharply. The climate change models that have been developed don't account for events of the recent past, much less predict with precision events in the future.

    To which the prophet replies, with religious intensity, that all debate should be over. Those scientists with inconvenient views should be defunded and silenced. We should replace scientific inquiry with faith. We should have faith that climate change -- "global warming" -- is caused primarily by human activity. And we should have faith that the effects will be catastrophic, with rising oceans flooding great cities and pleasant plains and forests broiled by a searing sun.

    Even The New York Times bridles at this. After Gore won the Academy Award for his film on climate change, the Times printed an article in which respected scientists -- not Republicans, not on oil company payrolls -- charged that Gore has vastly exaggerated the likelihood of catastrophic effects.

    When you read the fine print of even the scientific reports that Gore likes to cite, you find the same thing. Gore foresees a 20-foot rise in sea level -- 240 inches. The IPCC panel report foresees a maximum of 23 inches. Gore says that "our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this." Geologist Don Easterbrook says there have been shifts up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century."

    Science says that we should learn more about possible bad effects of climate change and calculate rationally how we can mitigate them. As the economic journalist Robert Samuelson points out, there is little that we can feasibly do in the short term to reduce carbon emissions, though over the long term we may be able to develop substitutes for carbon fuels.

    As the environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg points out, the Kyoto Treaty that Gore helped to write (but which the Clinton administration never asked the Senate to ratify) would produce very little reduction in climate change at very high cost.

    But religious prophets are not concerned about costs. Gore calls for an immediate cessation of new carbon-burning facilities. In other words, stop economic growth. But stopping economic growth in the developing world means consigning millions to miserable poverty. And we know what stopping economic growth in the developed world can mean.

    Read the history of the 1930s: fascism, communism, world war. There are worse things than a rise of 1 or 2 degrees Centigrade.

    The natural human yearning for spirituality has produced in many people educated in secular-minded universities and enveloped in an atmosphere of contempt for traditional religion a faith that we vulgar human beings have a sacred obligation not to inflict damage on Mother Earth. But science tells us that the Earth and its climate have been constantly changing.

    Gore and his followers seem to assume that the ideal climate was the one they got used to when they were growing up. When temperatures dropped in the 1970s, there were warnings of an impending ice age. When they rose in the 1990s, there were predictions of disastrous global warming. This is just another example of the solipsism of the baby boom generation, the pampered and much-praised age cohort that believes the world revolves around them and that all past history has become irrelevant.

    We're told in effect that the climate of the late 1950s and early 1960s was, of all those that have ever existed the best of all possible climates. Not by science. But as a matter of faith.

    Here is the answer to Gore's Inconvenient Truth, The Great Global Warming Swindle.

    Of course Hollywood and the increasingly left-wing media won't even touch it, but that's to be expected.

    Perhaps Marc Cuban and Charlie Sheen would like to produce this instead of "Loose Change."

    But I doubt it.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Friday, March 23, 2007

    Idiot of the Week

    This week’s idiot, isn’t a “who” since it’s unclear who is responsible for the idiotic idea for which the award is being given.

    Therefore, the award will have to given to everyone at the web site which has won, and like The Stanley Cup should be printed up and spend at least a few days, framed in each household.

    So allow me to congratulate the employees of …………………………….........................

    .....for making that web site our Idiot of the Week.

    Last week, “bodog”, a gambling website, which focuses primarily on sports betting, started taking wagers as to whether or not Heather Mills (formerly Heather Mills McCartney) would have her prosthetic leg fall off while performing on the hit ABC show “Dancing With The Stars.”

    That’s right…her prosthetic leg.

    The rules stipulated that Mill's leg "must fall off, not be purposely taken off, during a dance routine for all Yes wagers to be graded a win."
    Most people voted “no” and I have to assume, were overjoyed when Mills got through her Foxtrot with leg intact.

    Everyone involved in this thing deserves a beating.

    Obviously, the person at, who thought this up, needs psychological help.

    Anyone who took the wager, needs counseling, even If this was their first gambling experience, and anyone watching “Dancing With The Stars”, needs to get cable, because I refuse to believe that anyone with 500 channels, is going to voluntarily watch B-list celebrities, ballroom dance for an hour.

    I’m not exactly sure about this Heather Mills character either.

    She seems to me like a classier, less dead version of Anna Nicole Smith.

    They’re both models, they both married gazillionaires and then thought that they were entitled to their money once the marriage ended and they are both famous in large part because of their fake body parts.

    Mills is not well liked in England, but seems to be savvy enough to use her disability, and her short lived marriage to a Beatle, to her advantage.

    So set aside the fact that we are glamourizing gold diggers as of late, that's a matter for another post.

    What this whole thing tells us is that people will bet on anything, these days, no matter how distastefull, and that the viewers of “Dancing With the Stars” gave the Mill’s episode incredibly high ratings, for one of two reasons.

    Either, they wanted to see Mills overcome adversity and dance well despite her handicap, or they were hoping to see an unfortunate accident involving the leg.
    What does your gut tell you?

    Either way, the entire situation is just more proof of the world’s ongoing transition from a society that once had a basic sense of what was morally acceptable (i.e. betting on card games)to a world with an “anything goes” mentality (i.e. betting on whether or not a crippled woman’s leg will fly off on national television.)

    Or maybe we as a civilization are just experiencing a fascination with one-legged women.

    Here’s a poster for an upcoming Quentin Tarantino film, that has received a lot of attention:

    If that’s the case, then good for them. Cosmetic leg-removal procedures will be all the rage in Beverly Hills by next summer.

    So, you are the winner, but this was a big week for idiots, so let’s go over some of the runner’s up real quick:

    The Senate Judiciary Committee: For their ongoing attempts to embarrass the administration with a phony scandal. The President should ignore them until they tire themselves out and under no circumstances send anyone to testify in Patrick Leahy’s proposed perjury trap.

    Mark Cuban: The Owner of the Dallas Mavericks, for funding the release of “Loose Change” the wing-nut hit piece, which tries (and completely fails) to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

    House Democrats: For their cowardly war spending bill, filled with not only timetables for withdrawal, but also with lots of pork for peanut and spinach farmers

    Code Pink: Not just for their wrongheaded ideas disguised as a feminist crusade, but also for alienating the only people who even remotely support their crazy cause, by trying to invade their offices and “pin the war on the Donkey”. Namely, Speaker Pelosi. This is not how you get things done ladies. Keep it up.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Tuesday, March 20, 2007

    Here it is....

    For those of you who didn't take my advice and tune into O'Reilly last night, here is the clip of Sunsara Taylor on the show last night:

    Sphere: Related Content

    If you read only one article this week.....

    Make it this one:

  • The Battle For A Generation
  • Sphere: Related Content

    Monday, March 19, 2007

    More Anti-War B.S. from Sunsara Taylor

    If you want to see the misleading, and factually challenged habits of the far-left anti-war machine on display, tune into the first ten minutes of the O'Reilly factor tonight and watch Bill expose left-wing activist Sunsara Taylor. She really gets her lunch handed to her.

    The fact that these folks have been taken seriously in this debate is shameful.

    Fox News Channel
    11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific
    4am Eastern/1am Pacfic

    Watch and learn lefties...Watch and learn.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Saturday, March 17, 2007

    Good News From The Times of London

    Iraqis: life is getting better

    Marie Colvin

    MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

    The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

    One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

    Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

    Related Links
    Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?
    Violence slashed as troop surge hits Baghdad
    By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

    Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Happy St. Patty's Day

    From Congressional Leprachaun Dennis Kucinich

    Sphere: Related Content

    Friday, March 16, 2007

    Idiot of the Week

    Any time I'm having trouble thinking of something to write about, this woman is there to save me. So In her first of what is sure to be many appearances on Falling Panda's Idiot of The Week segment allow me to once again introduce............................................................................

    Rosie O'Donnell

    On the March 15 edition of "The View," Rosie O’Donnell brought up the news of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s many confessions.

    O’DONNELL: "I think the man has been in custody of the American government, in secret CIA torture prisons in Guantanamo Bay, where torture is accepted and allowed, and he finally is the guy who admits to doing everything. They finally found the guy. It's not that guy bin Laden. It's this guy they've had since ‘93. And look, this is the picture they released of him. Doesn’t, he look healthy?"

    A transcript of Mohammed's confession to 31 terrorist attacks was released today, but O'Donnell argued it came only after having a "hood on his head and being beaten to death."

    You can tell a lot about the type of people who oppose every action America has taken in fighting terrorism, by their willingness to sympathize with the terrorists over their American captors, simply because it allows them to believe the worst about the Bush Administration.

    Their outrage over the "torture" of mass murderer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is similar to when three terrorists in the prison where found to have hanged themselves in their cell.

    The left automatically concluded that they must have killed themselves because conditions at Guantanamo were so horrendous, seemingly forgetting that martyrdom and suicide are the standard methods by which these fanatics get their point across.

    Embarrassing the federal government is also a big plus for Islamo-Fascists, but yet Rosie automatically takes the side of the poor, put upon terrorist.

    She believes that we coerced him into admitting to every terrorist act that has occurred over the last 20 years.

    The confession was most likely exaggerated and the government has admitted as much.

    The Administration isn't saying that this confession explains everything, or that Mohammed is a universal scapegoat for Islamo-Fascism. But that's what Rosie and the Left-Wing bloggers are saying.

    They're spinning it as though this is some kind of way for the administration to explain away the inability to capture Bin Laden, and that our silly little interrogation techniques, which have been proven to have saved countless lives since 9/11, have no effect.

    See how the far-left spin machine gets its message out?

    In reality, even if if Khalid didn't play some role in the terrorist activities which he confessed to, he probably wanted us to think he did, and took pride in taking the fall for his terrorist brothers around the globe.

    Further showing that she doesn't pay attention, the picture of Mohammed that was released, was of when he was first captured four years ago, not of what he looks like now.

    Considering that inmates at Guantanamo have gained an average of 17 pounds since captured, my guess is that he's probably in pretty good health right now and has at least had a couple of showers since his capture.

    Add this to the ever growing list of dumb Rosie moments including her assertion that Christianity was just as dangerous as radical Islam and her inability to say that she wants the U.S to prevail in Iraq, and who can forget her spot on impression of all 1 billion Chinese people. Ching, Chong, Ching...Need I say more. So what can we conclude from all of this?

    Easy. Rosie O'Donnell consistently sides with fanatics and terrorists, over her own government. And she has no respect for people of Asian descent.

    And yet she remains on The View and is cheered by it's audience while Barbara Walters goes off to interview Hugo Chavez. (There's an idea for a guest host, next time Rosie's out due to her depression. Chavez and Rosie have similar views and are nearly identical.)

    That being said, I don't think that Rosie supports terrorist tactics.

    I do think that if Bill Clinton were in office and doing the same things that President Bush is doing right now, that Rosie and many other liberals and Democrats would be 100% behind him.

    It boils down to the reason that political parties were created in the first place. So that the electorate could vote for candidates without having to think about or understand the issues at hand.

    This concept has spread to any action the President takes against terrorists. The thinking is : If Bush did it, it must be bad.

    But it's not just BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)and some of them do side with our enemies and hope for U.S. failure, but for most, it's not that ideological.

    There is a lack of depth to their understanding of the type of enemy that were up against here, and there has been ever since September 12, 2001.

    Not understanding the terrorist's means of operation, is an easy out for folks like Rosie, because in order to truly understand it, you have to open your mind to the fact that military force and intense government tactics are the inevitable solution to the problem. It's the only conclusion you can come to when you look at the insanity and killing methods which these guys employ.

    So Rosie O'Donnell, you are our Idiot of the Week, and you deserve it, but you also represent a portion of the American population, that simply doesn't get it.

    My advice to these folks:Forget about The War on Terror. Stick to issues where peoples lives aren't at stake. Like gay marriage. It's easy to understand, so The View's audience can follow along, and two people of the same sex being together is far less harmful to society than getting blown up by a guy who really likes virgins.

    Runners up: & Richard Gere.
    Just a note on Move On. Their insistence that Democratic candidates boycott a debate sponsored by FNC was predictable, but also very dumb, and John Edwards avid support of the boycott was even dumber.

    If Edwards gets the nomination-which is becoming less and less likely-he is going to want to reach the many independents and Democrats in FNC's audience.

    If Move on, who now insists that "they own the Democratic Party" is going to force their candidates into ignoring America's most popular cable news network, just as they've forced their candidates into favoring surrender in Iraq, then they better come up with another way of reaching a couple million voters before election day, because no one's listening to Air America.

    Tip for Move On: Even if you think you "own the Democratic Party" Don't say that "you own the Democratic Party." It scares the hell out of the Democrats and Republicans have known it for years. Makes you look a little slow. Oh.....yeah....sorry. Sphere: Related Content

    Thursday, March 15, 2007

    I don't get it.....

    Why is the media so obsessed with Karl Rove? Is it because he engineered the defeat of their favored candidates in two separate elections?

    From ABC News

    New unreleased e-mails from top administration officials show that the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than the White House previously acknowledged. The e-mails also show how Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel — weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

    The e-mails put Rove at the epicenter of the imbroglio and raise questions about Gonzales'

    SO WHAT?!!!

    There's nothing wrong with discussing this. It would only be an issue if Rove put pressure on any of those attorneys to prosecute for political purposes or fired them for not doing so, and there's no evidence that he did, so why don't you left-wing media types wait for some facts to come out, before you go convicting this poor guy a second time for something that he had nothing to do with?

    Sphere: Related Content


    Anyone notice that the Dems have been a little less anxious to attack the administration than they usually are, in light of the recent revelations concerning Walter Reed. I wonder why?

    Sphere: Related Content

    Monday, March 12, 2007

    President Thompson?

    Sphere: Related Content

    Jeffery Toobin Can't Handle The Truth

    There's a reason as to why the uber-liberal New Yorker magazine is better known for it's funny drawings than its journalism.

    Here's Jeffery Toobin on the CIA leak case:

    "The investigation arose, of course, after the C.I.A. sent Joe Wilson, a former Ambassador to Gabon, on a mission to Niger, in 2002. He went to look into reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium yellowcake, which is used in the production of nuclear weapons, in that country. Wilson found no such attempt by any Iraqis, and said nothing publicly about his trip for more than a year."

    I can almost see Toobin, sitting in front of his computer screen, struggling like Captain Kirk under presure to keep the Wilson myth going.

    Can't......tell.....truth. what Joe Niger...alive.....

    So just to reiterate: What Wilson actually told the CIA, contrary to his own oft-repeated claims, is that he was told by the former mining minister of Niger that in 1998, Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from that country, and that Iraq's overture was renewed the following year. What Wilson reported to the CIA was exactly the same as what President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: there was evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

    That's bad Journalism. Bad, bad journalism.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Sunday, March 11, 2007

    Chavez and Belafonte: Partners In Policies That Keep People Poor, and Minorities Angry

    Harry Bananas:

    and Crazy Hugo:

    "Those who want to go directly to hell, they can follow capitalism," Mr Chavez said in the town of Trinidad in Bolivia.

    "And those of us who want to build heaven here on earth, we will follow socialism," he added.

    Yes Hugo, someday we will all swarm to that socialist paradise known as.....pfffft...ha-ha-ha...wait a minute, I gotta get a hold of myself here.....VENEZUELA! Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! I just pooped myself laughing.

    I can see the welcome sign at the border now.

    Venezuela: Now with plumbing!

    Belafonte is simply an unintelligent individual, but he's a celebrity so we've come to expect that.

    Chavez however is at least bright enough to have duped an entire nation into allowing him to become a dictator, so how can he possibly be dumb enough to still think that socialism can work?

    He must not read much. Well except Noam Chomsky, which Belafonte must read as well if he's bought into the whole America as an imperialist power concept, but then again, some American's are ignorant enough to buy into that at well, so it's obviously not a phenomonom that occurs strictly below the equator.

    And what's up with this guy and small animals? Seriously dude, you're creeping me out.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Berger vs. Libby = Media vs. Honesty

    Berger & Libby: A Tale of Two Crimes
    By Michael Barone

    "History will be kind to me," Winston Churchill once said, "for I intend to write it."

    Indeed, he did. His multiple-volume histories of the two world wars are still widely read, though discounted by professional historians as incomplete and in some ways misleading.

    Churchill is not the only politician who has wanted to write the history of his times; most politicians and political operatives want at least to shape the way history views their actions.

    Some are better at this than others. In the previous century, Democrats did much better at this than Republicans.

    Most of us still see the events of the first two-thirds of the 20th century through the words of gifted New Deal historians like the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who told the story as Franklin Roosevelt hoped and expected it to be told. And, to judge from the response to two recent criminal proceedings, Democrats are doing it better in this century, too.

    The first of these criminal proceedings, not much noticed, was the plea bargain of former national security adviser Sandy Berger for removing classified documents from the National Archives, where he had been reviewing them under the authorization of Bill Clinton in preparation for testimony about 9/11.

    What he admitted to doing, after first denying it, is extraordinary. On multiple occasions he removed documents from the room where he was reading them, concealed them in his pants and socks, hid them at a construction site outside the building, took them home, and, in some cases, destroyed them.

    Some of these documents may have been unique and may have contained handwritten comments that could have looked bad in light of what happened on September 11. I have known Berger more than 30 years and find it unlikely that he would have done something like this on his own.

    Did Bill Clinton ask him to destroy documents that would make him look bad in history? I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach when I ask that question. But this or something very much like it seems to be the only explanation that makes sense. The Berger case was prosecuted by career staff in the Department of Justice, with little publicity. In 2005 Berger was fined $50,000 -- not a ruinous sum for one of his earning capacity -- ordered to perform 100 hours of community service, and had his security clearance lifted for three years, which means he could come back in a new administration after the 2008 election. The attempt to write, or un-write, history -- if it was that -- evidently succeeded.

    Berger's treatment was light compared with that of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuted him for perjury and obstruction of justice for making statements contradicted by journalists Tim Russert and Matt Cooper, and last week, the 11-member jury found him guilty on four counts. He could face years in jail. The case arose out of attempts by Libby and others to refute the charges of retired diplomat Joseph Wilson that the administration had manipulated intelligence before the Iraq war.

    Wilson is the Titus Oates of our time, a liar whose lies served the needs of a political faction. Oates's lie was that there was a "popish plot" to murder King Charles II; Wilson's lie was part of the "Bush lied and people died" mantra that has become the canonical version of history to much of the mainstream media and the Democratic Party.

    Wilson's story, retailed to journalists and then presented in a column in The New York Times, was that he had debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger and that his report had circulated in the highest levels of the administration; he suggested that he had been sent to Niger in response to a request by Cheney.

    In fact, as a 2004 bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee found, all those claims were false, as well as his denial that his wife had recommended him for the Niger trip.

    Still, the "Bush lied and people died" mantra resonates. Yet there was no lie. Given Saddam Hussein's previous use of weapons of mass destruction and his refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors, George W. Bush had to assume he had WMDs, just as Bill Clinton had before him -- as we were reminded by Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

    The Libby verdict in no way undercuts that. But the Republicans are running behind in the battle to write history

    Sphere: Related Content

    Friday, March 09, 2007

    Idiot Of The Week

    Today, Falling Panda will unveil a new weekly segment called "Idiot(s) of the Week", where we will select one person or group of people who have behaved in a manner that is embarrassing to human kind and rip them a new one.

    And we could not have asked for a better bunch of Idiots for our inaugural post.

    And so, without further ado, let me announce this weeks idiots..................... Drum roll.....................................................................................................................................................

    Demetris McCoy and Vanswan Polty(That's right. Someone actually named their kid Vanswan.)

    If these names aren't familiar to you, allow me to refresh your memory.

    Earlier this week these two idiots were arrested for giving blunts (which is a type of marijuana cigarette) to two toddlers. One of them was five years old, the other was two. That's right, two years old.

    As if getting toddlers high isn't dumb enough, these braniacs decided to videotape the entire thing.

    If you haven't seen it, here it is. Try not to put your fist through your computer screen.

    Demetris and Vanswan think the stoned toddlers are the funniest thing that they have ever seen. For me this ranks near the bottom in terms of funny videos I've seen, only slightly above Schindler's List.

    The 17 and 18 year old call the children "potheads" and ask them if they have "the munchies." Nice. I hope Vanswan got some Cheetos, because I hear the food is pretty bad in prison.

    The kid's mother Shat....Shatorinana...Shatoorria...oh forget it, who appears to be about 11 years old herself, was apparently sleeping in the back room and expressed "shock" that the two teenagers, both with criminal records (surprise, surprise), whom she left her children in the care of, would do something like this, and is upset that her kids were put into foster care.

    Two years old!!!!!

    Sharonda McCoy, the mother's sister, is not surprisingly named Sharonda.

    Now, if you're an adult and you want to get high, that's fine, but subjecting toddlers to the effects of an illicit substance, and worse, encouraging them to use it, is child abuse.

    In my view the mother is just as guilty as the two young men. No responsible mother in her right mind would ever leave her kids unsupervised with a couple of repeat offenders.

    So for exhibiting enough stupidity to fill Bigfoot's Diaper, Vanswan Polty, Demetris McCoy, Mama McCoy and whoever videotaped this grotesque display of irresponsibility and child endangerment, are Falling Panda's Idiot's of the Week.

    Runners Up: Bill Maher & Ann Coulter

    Sphere: Related Content

    Thursday, March 08, 2007

    Pardon Libby Now!

    Krauthammer makes a good case, followed by Novak. Not simply that Libby is not guilty, but that the entire leak investigation should have been stopped as soon as Armatige was established as the leaker.

    I know, I said the other day that I respected the Jury's decision, but after seeing just how politically motivated they were-wanting to see Rove and Cheney in trouble, even though they had nothing to do with the case at hand- I have changed my mind.

    Bush should pardon Libby now. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but also because it would throw the left into a hissy fit, and make Joe Wilson's head explode.

    Bush Should Pardon Libby Now
    By Charles Krauthammer

    WASHINGTON -- There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing that you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory, and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.

    Scooter Libby has just been convicted for four felonies that could theoretically give him 25 years in jail for ... what? Misstating when he first heard a certain piece of information, namely the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.

    Think about that. Can you remember when was the first time you heard the name Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? OK, so it is not a preoccupation of yours. But it was a preoccupation of many Washington journalists and government officials called to testify at the Libby trial, and their memories were all over the lot. Former presidential press secretary Ari Fleischer testified under oath that he had not told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus about Mrs. Wilson. Pincus testified under oath that Fleischer definitely had.

    Obviously, one is not telling the truth. But there is no reason to believe that either one is deliberately lying. Pincus and Fleischer are as fallible as any of us. They spend their days receiving and giving information. They can't possibly be expected to remember not only every piece, but precisely when they received every piece.

    Should Scooter Libby? He was famously multitasking a large number of national security and domestic issues, receiving hundreds of pieces of information every day from dozens of sources. Yet special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald chose to make Libby's misstatements about the timing of the receipt of one piece of information -- Mrs. Wilson's identity -- the great white whale of his multimillion-dollar prosecutorial juggernaut.

    Why? Because on his essential charge as special prosecutor -- find and punish who had leaked Valerie Plame's name -- he had nothing. No conspiracy, no felony, no crime, not even the claim that she was a covert agent covered by the nondisclosure law. Fitzgerald knew the leaker from the very beginning. It was not Libby, but Richard Armitage. He also knew that the "leak'' by the State Department's No. 2 official -- a fierce bureaucratic opponent of the White House and especially the vice president's office -- was an innocent offhand disclosure made to explain how the CIA had improbably chosen Wilson for a WMD mission. (He was recommended by his CIA wife.)

    Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald's perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC's Tim Russert. Libby said that he heard about Plame from Russert. Russert said he had never discussed it. The jury members who have spoken said they believed Russert.

    And why should they not? Russert is a perfectly honest man who would not lie. He was undoubtedly giving his best recollection.

    But he is not the pope. Given that so many journalists and administration figures were shown to have extremely fallible memories, is it possible that Russert's memory could have been faulty?

    I have no idea. But we do know that Russert once denied calling up a Buffalo News reporter to complain about a story. Russert later apologized for the error when he was shown the evidence of a call he had genuinely and completely forgotten.

    There is a second instance of Russert innocently misremembering. He stated under oath that he did not know that one may not be accompanied by a lawyer to a grand jury hearing. This fact, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the case, except that, as former prosecutor Victoria Toensing points out, the defense had tapes showing Russert saying on television three times that lawyers are barred from grand jury proceedings.

    This demonstration of Russert's fallibility was never shown to the jury. The judge did not allow it. He was upset with the defense because it would not put Libby on the stand -- his perfect Fifth Amendment right -- after hinting in the opening statement that it might. He therefore denied the defense a straightforward demonstration of the fallibility of the witness whose testimony was most decisive.

    Toensing thinks this might be the basis for overturning the verdict upon appeal. I hope so. This is a case that never should have been brought, originating in the scandal that never was, in search of a crime -- violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- that even the prosecutor never alleged. That's the basis for a presidential pardon. It should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial. It should be granted now without any further delay.

    And from Novak:

    In fact, her [Plame] being classified -- that is, that her work was a government secret -- did not in itself meet the standard required for prosecution of the leaker (former deputy secretary of state Armitage) under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That statute limits prosecution to exposers of covert intelligence activities overseas, whose revelation would undermine U.S. intelligence. That is why Fitzgerald did not move against Armitage.

    Actually, in my first interview with Fitzgerald after he was named special prosecutor, he indicated that he knew Armitage was my leaker. I assumed that was the product of detective work by the FBI. In fact, Armitage had turned himself in to the Justice Department three months before Fitzgerald entered the case, without notifying the White House or releasing me from my requirement of confidentiality.

    On Fox's "Hannity & Colmes" Tuesday night, superlawyer David Boies said Fitzgerald never should have prosecuted Libby because there was no underlying criminal violation. Boies scoffed at Fitzgerald's contention that Libby had obstructed him from exposing criminal activity. Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 election dispute, is hardly a Bush sympathizer. But neither is he a Democratic partisan trying to milk this obscure scandal.

    And as if we needed more proof of the media favoring Democratic felons over forgetful Republican's, WHAT IS GOING ON WITH SANDY BERGER?!!

    Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that he stole and destroyed documents which would have proven that the Clinton administration was embarrassingly uninterested in terrorism, or worse....God knows what was going on in that scandal ridden White House. But thanks to Sandy Berger, we'll never know.

    If anyone deserves to be locked up-if simply for the stealing- it's Berger.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Tuesday, March 06, 2007


    First of all let me commend the Democrats for finally admitting that lying under oath and perjury are crimes. It took you a decade, but you finally did it. Kudos.

    Now over the last few years it has become clear that most of the anti-Bush people who are overjoyed today at Scooter Libby’s conviction, have absolutely no clue as to what went down in the CIA leak case or how this conviction relates to Valerie Plame.

    Therefore for the benefit of the Florida Supreme Court and all of our dumb troops who are “stuq in Irak”, I’m going to explain exactly what happened and what lead us to this point.

    Here we go.

    Joe Wilson was sent to Niger by someone to investigate whether or not Saddam Hussein had sought enriched Uranium from that nation.

    He came back and told the Senate Intelligence committee that Saddam had indeed sought this Uranium, but to his knowledge had not been able to obtain it.

    In the President’s State of the Union address, George W. Bush said that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger, which was consistent with Wilson’s testimony as well as with British Intelligence estimates.

    Wilson then went to the New York Times and wrote an article basically accusing the President of lying about the Uranium, but omitting his testimony to the Senate intelligence committee, whom he had given contradictory testimony. The New York Times was of course, complicit in Wilson’s deception.

    When the article hit newsstands, the MSM predictably latched on to it as fact despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

    The administration was understandably confused as to why Wilson, who had been an outspoken critic of the administration, was sent on such an important mission in the first place, and then misled the American people about what he had found.

    It came out that Wilson was most likely sent to Niger with the aid of his wife who worked for the CIA.

    Several members of the administration talked to the media and explained to them what had happened and how Wilson had ended up in Africa. This included Richard Armitage, a high ranking State Department Official who was on record as being opposed to the war in Iraq.

    Plame and Wilson then came out and claimed that the Administration had intentionally leaked the name of Plame in order to get revenge on Wilson for his comments to the New York Times. This was a problem, because according to them, Plame was a covert CIA agent, and knowingly leaking the name of a covert CIA agent is illegal.

    So a prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was assigned by the Administration to investigate, as to whether the administration had done anything illegal.

    Here’s what he found.

    Fitzgerald found no evidence that anyone in the Bush Administration or the office of the Vice-President intentionally or knowingly leaked the name of a covert CIA agent, to the media.

    There was no evidence that this was done as a way of getting revenge for anything that Wilson said.

    It was not determined as to whether or not Valerie Plame had any kind of covert status at the CIA at the time of the leak in the first place, nor has it been determined at this point.
    This has lead most intelligence scholars to conclude that she in fact, did not.

    Somewhere along the line Scooter Libby gave information to Fitzgerald that did not match the established time line, which he had put together throughout the course of the trial.

    Fitzgerald filed no charges in regards to the alleged leaking of Plame’s name.

    When it was established that Bush's statement in the State of the Union address was factually accurate, the media clammed up. In a fashion similar to their screw ups with the Bush National Guard story and the terrorism financial tracking program, they tried to change the subject and hoped that it would go away.

    Without any evidence, Karl Rove was convicted in the media, his reputation sullied for no reason.

    In addition to this, the left-wing press made Joe Wilson their new darling allowing him full access to continue telling people that Bush lied, when in fact that it was Wilson who had been misleading the American people since his editorial was released.

    He was invited to college campuses, and put on the cover of magazines and is now the subject of a new Hollywood film.(I wonder who the protagonist of that one will be?)

    Most liberals that I have talked to have accepted as fact, what the media and the left wing bloggers have been saying about this case from the beginning, which is that Plame’s name was leaked as an act of revenge, in order to get back at Wilson for proving that the administration lied about Saddam’s intentions in Africa.

    When presented with the facts about the case however, they are thrown completely off guard, and generally attempt to change the topic.

    This pattern of immediate condemnation even without evidence is prevalent among anti-Bush people and even many moderates who have been mislead by liberals about this case as well as about a great many other issues, mostly surrounding the Iraq war.

    It is driven by those in the media and by the Bush haters, both of whom see McCarthyism and Richard Nixon lurking in the shadows, and yet fail to see that Bush's predecessor is responsible for a great deal of the shady figures seen lurking in the wings.

    I don’t know if Scooter Libby lied to the grand jury or not. I wasn’t on the jury, but I respect their decision.

    It is important however that we all know exactly how this case played out, and that we are able to identify the way it was explained to us by the mainstream media and then compare and contrast that with what really happened.

    I hope that this has been of some help, but trust me. I am well aware that a certain segment of the population will always believe what they want to believe, even if those beliefs are not able to peacefully coexist with facts. We have a name for these people. We call them liberals.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Monday, March 05, 2007

    Counter Coulter

    So how much do you want to bet that Ann Coulter saw this video before her big speech this weekend?

    Now before the Velvet Mafia starts fitting me for a pair of cement pumps, I want to say that I in no way condone the use of the word "faggot".

    I also do not condone those who have used the word "faggot" being forced to go to rehab. Ann made a good point there, which has been lost in the controversy.

    There are a lot of far better reasons to attack John Edwards, mostly for his consistent hypocrisy.

    For example.

    Ann Coulter using the word "faggot" BAD.

    Bloggers for his campaign attacking Christians OK

    2 Americas BAD

    Making millions as an ambulance chaser OK

    So now Edwards is going around, asking for money from people who hate Coulter, "Coulter Cash" he calls it, and saying that Jesus would be appalled if he saw the way America is today.

    Well yeah. If Edward's bloggers said the stuff about my mom that they said about the Virgin Mary, I'd be appalled too.

    Just a footnote on this whole thing. Today, CNN had a Coulter story front and center on their web page, but no mention on Maher.

    The Fox web site had both, of course.

    Sphere: Related Content

    Sunday, March 04, 2007

    Bill Maher: Rotten American

    I've always disliked Bill Maher. In fact, just listening to this mean spirited, comedian makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

    Like Keith Olbermann, Maher lets his nastiness spill over into his shallow political commentary.

    Essentially Maher is the left's Ann Coulter, except unlike Coulter, Maher rarely has any real political insight, and is not nearly as funny.

    He packs his show with liberals and they all gang up on the one consevative guest, who is booed by Maher's audience, who are probably only there because they couldn't get tickets to The View.

    Well he finally crossed the line with this exchange.

    Bill Maher Sorry the Assassination Attempt on Dick Cheney Failed

    Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 3, 2007 - 10:22.

    In 2002, ABC made the decision to not renew Bill Maher's contract after he made some disgraceful comments on his program "Politically Incorrect" concerning America's military response to 9/11. After what transpired on "Real Time" Friday, the heads of HBO should be equally outraged, if not more.

    As the discussion moved to the attempted assassination of Vice President Cheney last week, Maher asked his panel why it was necessary for the Huffington Post to remove comments by readers concerning their disappointment that the attempt failed. As the conversation ensued, Maher said one of the most disgraceful and irresponsible things uttered on a major television program since Bush was elected.

    In a nutshell, the host said the world would be a safer place if the assassination attempt succeeded. And, he even had the nerve to reiterate it. Here’s the deplorable sequence of events for those that have the stomach for it.

    Maher: What about the people who got onto the Huffington Post – and these weren’t even the bloggers, these were just the comments section – who said they, they expressed regret that the attack on Dick Cheney failed.

    Joe Scarborough: Right

    Maher: Now…

    John Ridley: More than regret.

    Maher: Well, what did they say?

    Ridley: They said “We wish he would die.” I mean, it was (?) hate language.

    Barney Frank: They said the bomb was wasted. (laughter and applause)

    Maher: That’s a funny joke. But, seriously, if this isn’t China, shouldn’t you be able to say that? Why did Arianna Huffington, my girlfriend, I love her, but why did she take that off right away?

    After some discussion about why Huffington should or shouldn’t have taken these comments down, the following occurred:

    Ridley: It’s one thing to say you hate Dick Cheney, which applies to his politics. It’s another thing to say, “I’m sorry he didn’t die in an explosion." And I think, you know…

    Maher: But you should be able to say it. And by the way...

    Frank: Excuse me, Bill, but can I ask you a question? Do you decide what the topics are for this show?

    Maher: Yeah, I decide the topics, they don’t go there.

    Frank: But you exercise control over the show the way that she does over her blog.

    Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)

    Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…

    Frank: I think he did.

    Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…

    Maher: No, no. I quoted that.

    Frank: You don’t believe that?

    Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

    Wake up, HBO: one of your hosts said the world would be a safer place if the Vice President of the United States of America had been assassinated.

    Yank this guy off the air right now HBO or I'm going to start watching Big Love on DVD instead.

    Oh and by the way, if you agree with him, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    Of course you are allowed to say vile things, but others are also allowed to attack you for saying it, and attack HBO or the Huffington Post for giving you a forum to say it.

    Bill Maher, you're a rotten American.

    Sphere: Related Content