The Jake Files

June 1, 2006

Michael Moore Sued for $85 Million

Filed under: Liberals,Michael Moore,Moonbats — Amazing Jake @ 1:07 am

This made me smile:

A double-amputee Iraq-war vet is suing Michael Moore for $85 million, claiming the portly peacenik recycled an old interview and used it out of context to make him appear anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, 33, who strongly supports America's invasion of Iraq, said he never agreed to be in the 2004 movie, which trashes President Bush.

In the 2003 interview, which he did at Walter Reed Army Hospital for NBC News, he discussed only a new painkiller the military was using on wounded vets.

"They took the clip because it was a gut-wrenching scene," Damon said yesterday. "They sandwiched it in. [Moore] was using me as ammunition."

Damon seems to "voice complaint about the war effort" in the movie, according to the lawsuit.

But what the father of two from Middleborough, Mass., was really talking about was the "excruciating" pain he felt after he lost his arms when a Black Hawk helicopter exploded in front of him.

Damon wasn't expressing any opinion about the war, the suit charges, but rather extolling the drug. (snip)

Newsman Brian Williams ends the NBC clip by adding, "These men, with catastrophic wounds are . . . completely behind the war effort," according to the lawsuit.

That part, which wasn't shown in the Moore movie, is a far more accurate depiction of Damon's feelings, he said.

Lawyer Dennis Lynch said he took the case last year and they held off filing the lawsuit in a bid to settle the matter.

"We attempted to resolve the situation amicably with Mr. Moore [for a year] but he refused," he said.

Damon is asking for up to $75 million because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation."

In addition, his wife is suing for another $10 million because of the "mental distress and anguish suffered by her spouse."

I'm pretty anti-litigation for the most part.  I don't think this veteran is going to get very far with his suit, but I wish him luck.  In any event, it will draw more attention to the deplorable tactics of Michael Moore.


April 9, 2006

Mainstream Media Hysteria on Iranian Nuclear Contingency Planning

From the UK's Telegraph:

The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.

President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, who broke the story of the Abu Ghraib Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran's nuclear programme.

Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One alleged target is Iran's main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, 200 miles south of Teheran.

This has been all over the Sunday morning news shows.  Seymour Hersch is on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer right now talking about it.

Can I just ask a simple question here?  Does anyone seriously think that we do not have a detailed plan to invade, bomb, or strike with nukes, every single nation on earth?  That's what our military planners do – they make plans for any contingency. 

It would be grossly negligent if we DID NOT have plans to nuke, bomb conventionally, or invade by land, Iran or any other country.  Anyone who fails to realize that, or ignores the fact in favor of a good hysteria story, demonstrates just how little they understand national security issues.

February 12, 2006

Sheehan Withdraws from CA Senate Race (sigh)

Filed under: Cindy Sheehan,Democratic Party,Moonbats,Politics — Amazing Jake @ 8:15 am

I posted on January 30th on Cindy Sheehan’s flirt with a Senate run, and apparently there were not enough people that clicked the link to support Cindy’s run.

So it turns out that Cindy decided not to run:

“I, as an American and as the mother of a hero, pledge to do what I can as a citizen to end the occupation of Iraq,” Sheehan told reporters. “I am not running against Senator Feinstein, but I will continue to be a thorn in her side and a thorn in the side of any representative who is not stridently working for peace.”

I’m deeply disappointed.  On the other hand, if Cindy isn’t tied up campaigning in California, she can spend more time spreading her insanity all over the country.  And beyond!

January 30, 2006

Support Cindy Sheehan!

Filed under: Cindy Sheehan,Moonbats,Politics — Amazing Jake @ 10:31 pm

Help make Cindy Sheehan the next Senator moonbat from California, by supporting her efforts to unseat Diane Feinstein:

 Breaking News From the AP:

January 28, 2006–Cindy Sheehan, the peace activist who set up camp near President Bush’s Texas ranch last summer, said Saturday she is considering running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein to protest what she called the California lawmaker’s support for the war in Iraq. “She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won’t call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops,”…

Help Us Convince Cindy To Run: Click the “I Want Cindy To Run” button below

It only takes one second of your time to make your voice heard. The poll is totally anonymous. After clicking the button your vote will be recorded and the current total votes will be updated.

 I clicked.  You can too.  We can only hope enough people visit the site that Cindy is convinced she has a chance to lead the charge lead the MoveOn lemmings over the cliff.

January 6, 2006

The Judiciary Unhinged

Filed under: Judicial Activism,Moonbats — Amazing Jake @ 1:22 pm

This is outrageous

Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston admitted to sexually assaulting a young girl for four years, but was ordered by Judge Edward Cashman to serve only 60 days in prison.

The Burlington Free Press and WCAX-TV reported that prosecutors wanted an eight-year sentence and the state Corrections Department wanted three years. But the judge also was told that Hulett would not get any counseling for the crime until he was released because he was deemed unlikely to offend again.

Vermont state Republicans held a press conference to introduce minimum sentencing guidelines today. 

Republicans held a news conference Friday to introduce a bill that would require judges to impose a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison for aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault and second and subsequent offenses for lewd and lascivious conduct with a child younger than 12.

“Republicans are committed to providing a legislative correction to make sure this never happens again,” said House GOP leader David Sunderland.

Instead of working to change the legal system through the political process when he disagreed with the law, Judge Cashman instituted his own judgment by meting out this particular “punishment.” 

Worldnet Daily quotes the judge at length:

 The judge said that when he began 25 years ago, he handed down tough sentences but now believes “it accomplishes nothing of value.”

“It doesn’t make anything better; it costs us a lot of money; we create a lot of expectation, and we feed on anger,” Cashman explained to the people in the court, WCAX reported.


“The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn’t solve anything. It just corrodes your soul,” Cashman told a packed Burlington courtroom made up mostly of people related to the victim.

The judge is apparently more concerned with the rehabilitation of the offender than the safety and mental well-being of the victim, and the safety of the community at large. 

 According to the Center for Sex Offender Management, part of the US Justice Department, the 25-year recidivism rate for child molesters is 52% and for rapists is 39%.  I don’t know how Mark Hulett would be categorized in this study (news reports label him a child rapist as opposed to molester), but either way you look at it, he needs to be off the streets, NOT getting treatment.

Al-Qaeda Hails American “Defeat” in Iraq

Filed under: Moonbats,War on Terror — Amazing Jake @ 11:56 am

Powerline’s John Hinderaker comments on Al-Qaeda #2 Zawahiri’s proclamation of victory:

Zawahiri’s latest propaganda effort is consistent with the views of Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and other antiwar Democrats.


Blog at