This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: Jonn Lilyea

  • Democrats discuss unringing the bell

    According to S.A.Miller in today’s Washington Times, Democrats are looking for another way to surrender to Islamofacist terrorism;

    “The 2002 authorization to use force has run its course,” said Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat and chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
        He announced the planned legislation jointly with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat who serves alongside Mr. Byrd on the Armed Services Committee.
        “It is time — past time — to decommission this authorization and retire it to the archives,” Mr. Byrd said on the Senate floor. “The president must redefine the goals and submit his plan to achieve them to a thorough and open debate in the Congress and throughout the country. That is the American way.”

    I guess they figured that the President’s veto didn’t absolve them of their 2002 vote for the use of military force against Saddam Hussein like they planned – so they’re just going to unring that bell. 

    Why would they, the day after they pledged to work with the President after he vetoed their first Capitulation Proclamation, decide to take another run at the surrender route? Easy. They climbed in bed with Cindy Sheehan, MoveOn.org, the KosKids, and ignorant oafs like Eugene Robinson and they’ve staked their political futures on being anti-George Bush and because they’re tied to the uneducated, emotion-driven drama queens of the Left and there’s no room for compromise with those emotional, intellectually-vacant freaks.

       “There is nothing off the table — including timetables. Nothing,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.
        His words were directed at peace activists who have unleashed their wrath against Democratic leaders in Congress for indicating that they will back down from Mr. Bush and nix a troop-pullout timetable from the war funding bill.
        “If they prove unable to stand up and do the job they were elected to do, there is no telling what will happen next [election] time,” said Dana Balicki, national organizer for Code Pink, a feminist group opposing the war in Iraq.
        “It’s about what you do, not what you say,” she said. “We will hold them accountable.”
        Cindy Sheehan, the activist who famously picketed the president at his Texas ranch, says her least favorite politician now is Mrs. Clinton because of her “unflinching support of George Bush’s war.”

    What’s that old saw about laying down with dogs? It’s all about holding on to their political cash now – having money for the 2008 election is more impoartant than our National Security.

    Meanwhile, over in the House, they’ve settled in to their own set of schemes, according to Anne Flaherty of AP;

    In a closed-door leadership meeting Thursday, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., suggested that the House guarantee funding of the war only through July. The bill would provide additional money after that point, but give Congress a chance to deny those funds be used if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks.

    Two months of funding at a time. Good job, nimrods. How brave of you all. And since the terrorists know know they only have to wait a couple of months, or they only have to fight a couple of months and sacrifice a few thousands of their jihadists to make it appear as if they’re stronger than they are, failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Anyone remember Tet of ’68? The Viet Cong were nearly wiped out – their losses were so bad that they ceased being an effective fighting force for the remainder of the war in Vietnam. But because they’d fought so tenaciously, the media thought they still had fight left in them and declared the war unwinnable – a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

    Elsewhere on the web, Captain’s Quarters’ Ed Morrissey writes about Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari’s plea in the Washington Post that we (Americans) not abandon Iraqis to the terrorists there. Roy Robison, on the American Thinker, accuses the Democrats of going “cowboy”.

  • Another thing that’s the US’ fault

    According to the AP (via Fox news and the Washington Post) some Cuban Army soldiers tried to hijack a charter flight to the US last night. They were thwarted and a Cuban Army colonel was killed. All very sad and I sympathizes with all of the people involved. However, halfway down the story, I find that it’s the US’ fault;

    “The responsibility for these new crimes lies with the highest-ranking authorities of the United States, adding to the long list of terrorist acts that Cuba has been the victim of for nearly half a century,” it said.

    Havana says U.S. immigration policies giving most Cubans almost guaranteed residency encourages them to risk their lives to get to the United States, and says that American officials have long tolerated — even encouraged — violence against the communist-run country.

    So it’s the US’ fault that Cuba kills it’s own citizens because they want a life in the 21st Century?

    Cuba also blames the US for it’s economic woes because we stopped buying their sugar, their rum, their fruit and (sadly) their cigars. Well, I remember when Coca-cola was made with sugar and I miss it. I’ve smoked Cuban cigars with Cuban rum and it’s a delight – one of my greatest delights. I sorely wish that the US would start trading with Cuba once again. But to imply that Cuban Communism doesn’t work because the US capitalists won’t trade with it is just insane and hypocritical.

    The same goes for US immigration policy towards Cuban refugees. It’s the same policy that West Germany had for East Germans who escaped – would the Left complain about that policy?

    I guess it all boils down to the fact that if Cuba wasn’t a repressive dictatorship that kept it’s people in the 1950s living in tarpaper shacks on unpaved streets and if Cuba allowed US companies to reclaim their properties and their businesses and pay decent wages, maybe the people wouldn’t be trying to hijack planes and riding innertubes to Florida.

  • Me? I’ll vote for any Republican.

    I’ve heard, and read, so many Republicans complain about certain members of the Republican field of candidates and declare “I wouldn’t vote for that guy under any circumstances!” Well, I “feel” the same way sometimes. There are none of the top three or four that excite me to action. But the alternative is frightening.

    Reading the websites of the Democrat candidates is like looking through a tear in time and space.

    Apparently Barack Obama has been busy during his two years as a Senator;

    Reaching across the aisle, Obama has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur.

    I’m sure the folks in Darfur are grateful that Obama has stopped the genocide being inflicted on their population. I suppose they all live on peaceful cul de sacs now that the genocide has ended. And I suppose Obama personally went to Libya and disarmed Gaddafi – what a brave soul.

    As far on the war against terror goes, Obama, apparently had intelligence that no one in the federal government had;

    In 2002, then Illinois State Senator Obama said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and that invasion would lead to an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

    How did that youngster know about the status of Hussein’s weapons when the entire world thought he had weapons? And President Bush said the same thing about the length of time and the cost, didn’t he?

    Energy? Obama is a “leader”;

    Senator Obama has been a leader in the Senate in pushing for a comprehensive national energy policy and has introduced a number of bills to get us closer to the goal of energy independence.

    Does that mean that he’s for drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf or opening the reserves in Alaska? Of course not;

    By putting aside partisan battles, he has found common ground on CAFE, renewable fuels, and clean coal.

    Yep, that’s the ticket – half-assed, feel good, “progressive” non-solutions. A fine candidate , indeed.

    But, try to find out what Hillary Clinton’s issues are. You have to slog through through her biography to find…nothing;

    Hillary has not wavered in her work to expand quality affordable health care to more Americans…

    Her strong advocacy for children continues in the Senate…

    Hillary has been a powerful advocate for women in the Senate…

    Hillary is strongly committed to making sure that every American has the right to vote in fair, accessible, and credible elections….

    Nothing disagreeable there. So she’s a bland candidate with nothing to offer Americans except bland platitudes – and don’t forget to sign up to have a Hillary Party in your home or hand over some cash – these webs sites ain’t free ya know.

    And my personal favorite, John Edwards – I’d vote for him in a primary because he’s so fricken transparent in his hypocrisy.

    On his web site Edwards claims he wants to end our dependence on foreign oil – no, not by drilling our own oil, by;

    …investing in clean, renewable energies like wind, solar, and biofuels to create a new energy economy, developing a new generation of efficient cars and trucks, and putting new energy-saving technologies to work in buildings, transportation, and industry.

    Of course if we don’t drill our own oil, we’ll still be buying foreign oil for those “efficient cars and trucks”, won’t we? But not to worry, Edwards will be leading us to energy independence because his mega-mansion and his campaign are “energy neutral“. Apparently just by declaring that in public makes it so.

    But that ain’t all! Edwards is going to eliminate poverty;

    Every day, 37 million Americans wake in poverty.

    Yeah, they wake up about noon, roll over and turn on “The View” and grab the “Cheetos” bag next to the bed from the night before. Do any of these 37 million people have families that can start haranguing them about looking for work? Nope, but they’ve got John Edwards;

    We can reach that goal by creating and rewarding work, strengthening families, helping workers save and get ahead, transforming our schools, expanding access to college, breaking up areas of concentrated poverty, reaching overlooked rural areas, and expecting people to help themselves by working whenever they are able.

    It’s just that simple – just expect people to do better, and they will. Why hasn’t anyone else thought of this?

    And on the overarching issue of our time, our war against terrorism? Well, Edwards wants to restore our moral leadership in the world. How you ask? By surrendering and pulling our troops out of the war;

    …immediately withdrawing 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq, with the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within 12-18 months — allowing the Iraqis to assume greater responsibility for rebuilding their own country. It also means working to restore our legitimacy by leading on the great challenges before us like the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the genocide in Darfur, extreme poverty, and living up to our ideals in the fight against terrorism.

    I guess Edwards didn’t hear that Obama already ended genocide in Darfur.

    I’ll grant that none of the Republicans look particularly vote-worthy, but compared to what’s on the other side, they look like gems to me. For the best liveblogging of the Republican debate last night, see Sister Toldjah, for the best wrap-up see Rick Moran at the Rightwing Nuthouse.

  • Reality sets in for Dems

    So after a month of posturing and daring the President to veto their pork-laden Capitulation Proclamation, Democrats realized that they can’t even get the weakest version of their surrender passed. According to the Washington Times’ S.A. Miller and Jon Ward;

    The Democrat-led House yesterday failed to override President Bush’s veto of an emergency war-funding bill with a troop-withdrawal timetable for Iraq, after House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Congress should quickly pass a new version without a pullout plan.
        The attempt to reverse Mr. Bush’s veto failed in a 222-203 vote, more than 60 votes short of the needed two-thirds majority, which also would have had to have been mustered in the Senate.

    So now they have to get down to business and craft something the President will sign – like they should have been doing instead of making empty political statements and trying to pass the buck to the President for their own votes back in 2002. The Washington Post reports that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the darling of terrorists everywhere, was still feeling froggy;

    “We made our position clear. He made his position clear. Now it is time for us to try to work together,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said after a White House meeting. “But make no mistake: Democrats are committed to ending this war.”

    Pretty weak, though. The Republicans are committed to ending this war, too, Blinky – Republicans, mostly, want to end it so we don’t have to go back in another decade, as opposed to Democrats who want to end for a year or so and then blame the Republicans when it flares up again – just like they used the first Gulf War and it’s untimely end against Republicans throughout the 90s. 

    Bush said he is “confident that we can reach agreement,” and he assigned three top aides to negotiate. White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and budget director Rob Portman will go to Capitol Hill today to sit down with leaders of both parties.

    Sure they can reach an agreement – the Democrats figured out that Republicans and real Americans aren’t completely taken in by their over-heated rhetoric. And just to be clear, there were Democrats who voted against overriding the veto, too. From Politico;

    Seven Democrats broke ranks and voted with the GOP: Reps. John Barrow of Georgia, Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Jim Marshall of Georgia, Jim Matheson of Utah, Michael R. McNulty of New York and Gene Taylor of Mississippi.

    Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), a leading war critic and Democratic presidential candidate, voted “present.”

    Brave little Denny Kucinich couldn’t bring himself to vote for the failed bill. Truly the future firt Secretary of Peace.

    I’ve said time and again, the Democrats don’t control this country – except their own tiny, closed minds. They call a coupla seat victory in midterm elections a mandate to end the war, but if that were true, Republicans would be feeling pressure from the constituency – but they’re not. Well, mostly. from the Washington Times piece;

    “This bill is not the last word,” said the Maryland Democrat, who explained that the strategy to deal with the impasse is being developed. He said he expects the House to pass a new war-funding bill within two weeks, leaving the Senate two weeks to approve it before Congress takes a weeklong Memorial Day recess at the end of May.
        “We’re not going to leave our troops there in harm’s way at the point of the spear without the resources they need to achieve success,” he said, signaling that the leadership will fund the troops first and oppose the war later.

    That’s where the American voters are – think Old Finger-in-the-wind Hoyer would’ve made such a statement if he hadn’t done his research about where the majority of Americans stand? Nope. No way. From the Post’s story;

    House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq — such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias — to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq.

    Benchmarks have emerged as the most likely foundation for bipartisan consensus and were part of yesterday’s White House meeting, participants said. “I believe the president is open to a discussion on benchmarks,” said Senate Democratic Whip Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), who attended the session. He added that no terms were discussed. “We didn’t go into any kind of detail,” Durbin said.

    See, that’s what they should have been doing for more than a month now instead of running to a microphone and reminding us that they have a slim majority of the seats in Congress and whining that the President isn’t paying attention to their polling data. Apparently, Americans weren’t paying attention their polling data either.

  • Pelosi’s a hit – with Syrians

    Betsy Pisik writes in the Washington Times about Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s new constituency – in Syria;

       The California Democrat warmed Syrian hearts with her trip last month to Damascus, an event that people still share with visiting Americans as conversational currency.
        “Nancy Pelosi is good, yes?” asked a Damascus laborer who found himself sitting next to an American at a greasy gyro stand this week. “Nancy Pelosi, good American?”

    No, my friend, she’s not a good American. She’s a good Democrat which means, how you say, she talks a good game but she’s an empty suit. For example she made peace overtures to Syria from Israel which were lies and unsolicited. She did it to make nice with your slick-ass President and to embarrass ours as pointed out in this Washington Post editorial;

     Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,” she said.

    Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda.

    She not only took it upon herself to presume to speak for the American people, she also presented herself as a messenger of the Israeli government. If the Syrians like that, they don’t deserve a democracy.

    But back to the Pisik/WashTimes article;

        “She was enormously popular here, a hero,” said one such resident, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “This is the best thing that has happened here, if it proves [Mr. Assad] was right not to give concessions.” 

      Along with recent visits by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and officials from the European Union, the resident added, Mrs. Pelosi’s trip “bolsters the regime with the Syrian people, and it shows that isolating Syria won’t work.”

    See? By concessions, Syrians mean stopping Hezbollah attacks on Israel and infiltrating support to the anti-government forces in Iraq. In other words, Syrians think Pelosi gave them permission to continue to support terrorists. Pelosi is not a good American. 

    Mrs. Pelosi said she raised substantive issues with Syrian leaders, urging them to stop insurgents from entering Iraq, help win the release of Israeli soldiers thought to be held captive by Lebanese and Palestinian militias, and end Syria’s support for terrorist groups. 

    I’m pretty sure that if Pelosi did bring up those issues in her “private” meeting with Bashur, it was in such convoluted double-speak popular with elitist diplomats that only confuses the intended recipient.

    But this Iraqi woman kind of sums it all up;

      “She is a different face of America, but she does not have ideas, any solutions,” the Iraqi woman said. “I watch TV all day, and I know that only the faces change.” 

    I guess she fooled the Syrians, but the folks who have to bear the brunt of the results of her insolent posturing can see right through her.

     

  • Take THAT Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan

    I don’t usually post more article than commentary, but this story says it all.

    John Ward in the Washington Times writes about the pen President Bush used yesterday to veto the Democrats’ cobbled-together, pork-laden defense spending bill – otherwise known as the Capitulation Proclamation; 

        The pen was a gift from the father of a U.S. Marine killed in Iraq, who asked Mr. Bush last month to use it when he vetoed a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq.
        Robert Derga, of Uniontown, Ohio, gave Mr. Bush the pen after an April 16 speech by the president at the White House.
        Mr. Bush invited a number of “Gold Star Families” — families who have lost a U.S. military member in Iraq — to the speech, and met with them afterwards in the Oval Office.
    * * * * *

     “I looked the president square in the eye,” Mr. Derga said. “I looked at him and said, ‘Mr. President, if this Iraq supplemental comes down to a veto I want you to use my pen to do it.’”
        Mr. Bush “kind of looked at me funny for a moment and then said, ‘Absolutely,’ and then handed the pen to his assistant,” Mr. Derga said.
        “He assured me he would use it,” Mr. Derga said.
    * * * * *

      Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Derga was shutting off his computer at work, around 5:30, when he received a call from Jared Weinstein, Mr. Bush’s personal aide.
        Mr. Weinstein was calling “to tell me that the president had signed the veto with my pen.”
        “They wanted to again give their heartfelt condolences on our loss of Dustin,” Mr. Derga said. “I was pretty blown away is one way of putting it. I couldn’t believe he actually did it.”

    I thought it was more than appropriate. Please read the rest of the story for more background.

    UPDATE: The Washington Post is running the same story in an Anne Flaherty-written AP story – well sorta. You have to plow through a page-and-a-half of anti-Bush blather until you reach a two-paragraph blurb followed by;

    Minutes after Bush vetoed the bill, an anti-war demonstrator stood outside the White House with a bullhorn: “How many more must die? How many more must die?”

    Then another page-and-a-half of anti-Bush blather. But, there’s no bias in the media.

  • Joan Baez banned from Walter Reed

    I don’t usually comment on news about entertainers, but I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say that Joan Baez stopped entertaining anyone about 40 years ago – so my self-imposed restriction remains intact. Anyway, the Washington print media are a-buzz about the Army denying Baez entry to Walter Reed to screech for the troops. From the Washington Examiner;

    Folk singer and anti-war activist Joan Baez says she doesn’t know why she was not allowed to perform for recovering soldiers recently at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as she planned.

    In a letter to The Washington Post published Wednesday, she said rocker John Mellencamp had asked her to perform with him last Friday and that she accepted his invitation.

    “I have always been an advocate for nonviolence and I have stood as firmly against the Iraq war as I did the Vietnam War 40 years ago,” she wrote. “I realize now that I might have contributed to a better welcome home for those soldiers fresh from Vietnam. Maybe that’s why I didn’t hesitate to accept the invitation to sing for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, four days before the concert, I was not ‘approved’ by the Army to take part. Strange irony.”

    “Strange irony?” I don’t think it’s strange or ironic. For one thing, I don’t think most of the troops at Walter Reed even know what the ancient gasbag does or did. Other than playing for aging hippes who long for their wasted youth, what does she do for a living these days so anyone the age of our troops would recognize her?

    For another thing, we know that the 66 year-old would feel a need to “speak truth to power” and what volunteer soldier who just sacrificed a limb or their youth for their country want to hear about how Baez thinks they’re babykillers and puppy-rapers?

    From the Washington Post;

    Reached by telephone yesterday at her home in Menlo Park, Calif., Baez, 66, said she wasn’t told why she was given the boot, but speculated, “There might have been one, there might have been 50 [soldiers] that thought I was a traitor.”

    …or there could have been one soldier who actually remembered who the Hell you are. Maybe not that many, even. The fact that you contributed greatly to the disrespectful treatment of our troops when they returned from Viet Nam and the Army’s desire to comfort the wounded troops might have something to do with the Army’s decision. Think?

    “One of my more cynical friends said, ‘They let the rats in, why not you?’ ” Baez said, laughing, referring to a recent expose of living conditions at Walter Reed.

    I don’t know why you’re laughing. Do you and your friend think you’re better than a rat? Well, the rest of us don’t, ya old hag.

    After the concert, Baez said, Mellencamp left her a message to say, “I hope you’re not mad at me.” Her response: ” ‘Of course not. It’s an honor to be turned down by the Army.’ . . . But I would have been happier getting in . . . I thought times had changed enough.”

    You’re still living in the 60s and you “thought times had changed”? Remember the veteran who spit on Jane Fonda a few years back? What makes you think that there’s a statute of limitations on treason in the minds and opinions of Americans.

    The fact that Baez thinks that it’s an honor to be turned down by the Army, as opposed to being ashamed she’s been rejected by the institution that defends her right to sing what she wants, is proof the Army made the right choice.

    Personally, I applaud the Army’s decision. Usually, the Army makes the politically correct decision for PR purposes – this time they just made the right decision. Why give this brain-dead, crotch-rotted, screeching hag a platform from which she can bite the hand that feeds her?

    Army Strong!

    UPDATE: According to the Washington Post , “At Walter Reed, Mellencamp Shuts His Mouth and Sings”. You can bet that we couldn’t have counted on Baez to behave similarly.

  • Left’s new conniption fit (Updated)

    This afternoon Rupert Murdoch made a $5 billion bid for the Dow Jones Company which owns the Wall Street Journal. The Dow Jones Co.  stock shot up from $35/share to $55 in about two minutes after the bid. In fact before this bid, the stock had languished between $32 and $40 for years.

    Just as quickly as the stock spiked higher, Bernie Sanders (Communist-VT) shot to the nearest CNBC microphone to tell Larry Kudlow that Murdoch’s owning the Wall Street Journal would violate the Fairness Doctrine that Sanders is trying to get reinstituted into law. I think that’s a stretch.

    Murdoch owns local newspapers, a broadcast TV network and a cable news channel – no national newspapers like the Wall Street Journal. One of the Leftists on Kudlow’s show claimed that Murdoch would ruin the WSJ like he did with the Times of London (his words not mine – I have no idea how good or bad the Times does it’s business).

    Murdoch would be a fool to tinker with the internals of the extremely successful WSJ – besides it’s editorial and commentary pages are already fairly conservative. What could Murdoch do to make it moreso that frightens the Left so much?

    The Bancroft family, which holds a slim majority of the stock that controls the Dow Jones Company, have said they won’t sell, so the whole deal may fall through, but Murdoch is a pretty tenacious little Aussie. He probably wants the WSJ to bolster his planned Fox Business Channel venture and to cripple CNBC which has a colaborative agreement with the WSJ and it’s accompanying journalists.

    The Wall Street Journal is probably the most successful news organization in the country and their internet presence is unmatched – despite the fact that they’re one of the few who successfully charge a subscription fee. I’ve been a subscriber for years because, as a source, they are unimpeachable and they just have news and commentary not available anywhere else.

    I just about spit my chocolate milk out when Bill Press, on Kudlow and Company blurted out that Murdoch wanted WSJ so he could compete with the New York Times. Who wants to compete with that fat whale? That’d be like buying the Baltimore Ravens to compete with the Washington Redskins.

    But Press went on to condemn Murdoch and his News Corp. empire as a vast right wing conspiracy (oblivious, apparently to the Leftist media in this country).

    Now I don’t know if Murdoch’s latest acquisition is legal or ethical, I just know that if it gets the Left (especially Press and Sanders) in a lather, it must be good for the country. To quote Montgomery Burns on Rupert Murdoch, “He’s one beautiful man.”

    UPDATE: CNBC is totally freaking out this (Wednesday) morning over this story. Carlos Quintanilla began his “Squawk Box” show (ostensibly about the markets) by calling the bid “Rupert Murdoch’s lastest bid for world conquest” with a backdrop of the scene from Star Wars of Darth Vader light-saber fencing with Luke Skywalker. He’s apparently convinced that the WSJ will become a right-wing newspaper. What the Hell is the Wall Street Journal now? Leftwing? F’pete’s sake.