Tomfoolery of the Highest Order

Look like the old Ghana windbag doesn't confine his bullshit to New York City:

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has used his acceptance of an EU human rights prize to launch a scathing attack on Europe's attitudes toward migration and asylum.

Addressing the European Parliament today (29 January) on receiving the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, Mr Annan said that asylum seekers and migrants "should not be made the scapegoats for a vast array of social ills".[sic]

Kofi is right. Migrants arrive in European countries and immediately become valuable additions to society.

Mr Annan urged the EU to open up its borders: "Your asylum systems are overburdened precisely because many people who feel they must leave see no other channel through which to migrate".

"Many others try more desperate and clandestine measures, and are sometimes injured or even killed – suffocating in trucks, drowning at sea, or perishing in the undercarriage of aircraft."

Again, Kofi is right on the money. It is those draconian laws that don't allow lowlifes from the third-world to just walk in anytime they feel like it causing needless deaths. And, then there is this unmatched brilliance:

"We cannot simply close our doors, or shut our eyes to this human tragedy," Annan said.

Hey Kofi, you mean we shouldn't close our eyes except when it comes to Rwanda, Iraq, Burundi, East Timor, and the Balkans, right?

"A closed Europe would be a meaner, poorer, weaker, older Europe. Migrants are part of the solution, not part of the problem".

Hey, that's Donald Rumsfeld's line!! I'll take any bet from anyone who seriously thinks that Kofi Annan will move back to Ghana when his term is up. And to think, this scumbag is the guy that the Democrats want to give veto power over American foreign policy.

The next time Newsweek says their latest poll has Kerry beating Bush, and you see it being parroted on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc., just recall this:

Newsweek Poll: Dean Rising
Gore’s endorsement and alarm over Iraq give the Democratic candidate a boost

Dec. 13 - Former Vice President Al Gore’s endorsement of Howard Dean appears to have hurtled the former Vermont governor into a comfortable lead ahead of the other Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll.

Well, it was a comfortable lead over Al Sharpton anyway.

How the hell I missed Vermont and South Carolina, I'll never know.



create your own visited states map
or write about it on the open travel guide

create your own visited country map
or write about it on the open travel guide

Some people go to Allah is in the House or Scrappleface for good comedy. I, on the other hand, go to anti-Bush and liberal blogs for laughs. This entry is hilarious: (First see my post about this)

The Washington Post has published excerpts from a speech Bush gave at the Alfalfa Club Dinner over the weekend. Take a look: "Jimbo's been going around getting countries to forgive Iraq's debt. Next, I'm going to send him out and see what he can do about ours." "But what a stellar crowd," Bush continued. "It looks like the index of Paul O'Neill's book. Let me say something about that book. Paul said I was disengaged because he talked to me for 45 minutes and I didn't say a word. I wasn't disengaged. I was bored as hell and my mother told me never to interrupt. . . ." "I feel especially good tonight. The economy is coming back. We're creating new businesses. Just the other day, I read that Pete Rose and Bill Bennett are opening a casino."

This man has no clue! Why isn't the media attacking Bush for these improper comments?

I found the above nonsense at some site called Clark Community Network. How pathetic, that this is what they are complaining about.

I would like to thank the person who improved upon Al Gore's invention for allowing me to now have wireless high-speed internet access. Now, I can blog from the privacy of my own crapper. And, just a moment ago, after hearing another plop in the bowl, I was again reminded of that French liberal from Taxachussetts. He voted against the Iraq war in 1991, when the elder Bush assembled the largest coalition in history to oust Saddam from Kuwait. Yet, he voted for war in 2002, when there was only a "fraudulent coalition" was assembled. And, he has said this should not be a war on terror, but a law enforcement and intelligence gathering operation. Besides, according to la saveur française de la semaine, it's all an exaggeration anyway. This is from a guy who never saw a cut in intelligence spending he would not vote for. Yeah, let's go back to the Clinton approach. That will surely work just as well as it did before.

Many people are asking why Bush is laying low, and not going on the offensive against Kerry. Why should he? A few weeks ago, Kerry had to mortgage his house to keep his campaign afloat. Now, all of a sudden, Bush is doomed because of this guy? Stop it. When Kerry is finished with his war of attrition with those other Democratic dopes, Bush will unlock that $200 million dollar war chest and Kerry will never be able to compete. I suspect that Bush will not be running the same losing re-election campaign his father did.

That French liberal from Taxachussetts said this today:

"I've spent a career fighting against special interests," Kerry said. "I'll take a second seat to nobody in this race with respect to my lifetime fights against special interests and my efforts to run campaigns on a high standard."

And, this headline from the Washington Post:

Kerry Leads in Lobby Money - Anti-Special-Interest Campaign Contrasts With Funding

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has made a fight against corporate special interests a centerpiece of his front-running campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, has raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years, federal records show.

This guy will be every bit as fun to rip apart from now to November as Dean would have been.

Cure for cancer: 72 hrs of sex!

If it fails, so what?

I live in 2 of the 7 states that are holding Democratic primaries on Tuesday. (For the record: I am a registered independent who is voting for Kucinich. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!) I have been forced to sit through campaign ad after campaign ad. John Kerry talking about how he will stop "Bush's tax cuts for the rich." (Of course, to a Democrat, you are rich if simply get a paycheck drawn from a private company.) Even Kucinich has an ad, talking about how he will stop people from profiting in the health care industry. (Perhaps he should be runing for Prime Minister of Finland instead) Thankfully, Howard Dean is a victim of Bush's tax cuts, which have caused him to go from the richest candidate to one of the poorest, and I don't have to see his ads all the time. I can't wait until they pick which dope they are going to run so I can stop hearing from them all.

One other thing: I am tired of hearing about how John Kerry will destroy Bush over his military service. I have some free advice for Karl Rove and President Bush. Say this when Kerry runs to the Vietnam card in a debate, as you know he will:

"Senator Kerry, I applaud your honorable service to our country. Your actions in Vietnam were heroic, very reminiscent of what we are seeing today from our fine soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, Senator Kerry, it is your own actions since you returned from Vietnam that are suspect." From there, Bush can recite the laundry list.

Polls, schmolls. A weeks ago, Dean was the nomineem and he was beating Bush. Then again, so was Weasley Clark. Kerry is going to get steamrolled by Bush.

[Update: I am only registered to vote in Arizona, not both Arizona and New Mexico. Save your e-mails]

Take a good look at the woman pictured above. She is 99-pound Sonya Thomas, winner of Wing Bowl XII, held this morning at the Wachovia Center (home of the Flyers and 76ers) in Philadelphia. What is Wing Bowl, you ask? It's a glorified wing-eating contest, that started out small a dozen years ago, and now has become a huge event. Only in Philly can you get 20,000 people to an arena at 6 A.M to watch something like this. You could never pull something like this off here in Tempe or in Albuquerque.

Things like this make me miss my hometown of Philly. I have been to four Wing Bowls, and wish I could have been there this morning. Do yourself a favor, and watch some of the video of the qualifying, the procession, the Wingettes, and the actual contest. You'll be glad you did. Wing Bowl is tomfoolery personified.

If you can't watch all of this video, then at least watch this failed qualifier. If reading this and watching the video is the first you ever heard of Wing Bowl, please leave a comment about what you think.

I have made my support of the Patriot Act abundantly clear. I have never said it was some sort of panacea, but I have said many times that it is very sensible, and I reject the false dichotomy that we are giving up liberty for security. Plus, the ACLU has made a mint from opposing it. Anytime the ACLU hates something, you know right away it hurts either gays, criminals, and Christian-haters, people that are the ACLU's lifeblood. I have grown seriously tired of hearing the Patriot Act smeared time and time again by people who have NO EVIDENCE to back up their claims of Gestapo-like tactics from Ashcroft and his minions. Clifford May has a great column on the importance of the Patriot Act that you must read. For example:

The basic idea behind the Patriot Act is simple: Give those investigating terrorism the same tools already used by those going after mobsters and drug lords. The Patriot Act does not give the government more tools or allow laxer standards for investigations.

The Patriot Act also allows law enforcement agencies to share information with intelligence agencies. That was not permitted before the Patriot Act. The answer to the 9/11 intelligence question: “Why did no one connect the dots?” is this: It was forbidden for the FBI and the CIA to share their dots.

How could someone possibly argue against the last part? (Don't give me the story about old days when the FBI had files on Martin Luther King, etc, blah, blah, blah.)

Some people cannot grasp the difference between fighting gangsters and fighting terrorists. For those so challenged, here it is in a nutshell: Organized criminals are rational. They want to make money and they want to stay alive. By contrast, terrorists are not interested in getting rich, and suicide-terrorists look forward to their deaths -- so long as they have an opportunity, in the process, to murder you, your children and your neighbors.

If you disgree with me, then so be it. I just, for once, would love to hear a real good, non-hypothetical reason that these powers are not needed against terrorists.

I heard a lot of upset people going off the handle because of Bush proposing to increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28 — President Bush will seek a big increase in the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts, the largest single source of support for the arts in the United States, administration officials said on Wednesday.

I hate "Piss Christ" as much, or more, than anyone. But then I heard how much he was proposing.

Administration officials, including White House budget experts, said that Mr. Bush would propose an increase of $15 million to $20 million for the coming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

People are getting their balls in a twist over that pitance? The NEA is a joke, yes. I think they should be disbanded, and qualify for a listing on Fuckedcompany.com But I am not going to get upset at Bush for that. Who in their right mind is going to say, "Gee, I was going to vote for Bush because of his strong stance on terrorism, but I am not going to now because he is giving welfare to unemployed, useless artists." On the other hand though, no one is going to say, "Gee, I hated that warmonger Bush, but after him giving the $15-20 mil to those poor, starving artists, I am going to vote for him."

The Politboro Diktat has a list of rules for bloggers. If you blog, take or leave the advice, but it well worth a lok and subsequent contemplation. I'd like to add a few rules myself, in no particular order:

1 - Do not post what you saw on Drudge without comment. For example, do not waste a post by saying, "Drudge has this headline, xxx...developing" and end the post there.
We all read Drudge, and we know what he is reporting. It is a waste of everyone's time.

2 - Stop copying and pasting an entire article. Excerpt the most relevant parts, comment, and leave the link so no one can accuse you of being the old sea hag Maureen Dowd.

3 - Use lesser known bloggers as sources to refute or agree with. There are a lot of underrated thinkers around, if you only look you will see that. Do more than go to Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds and Daniel Drezner for ideas. I am tired of seeing "Sullivan said this, and he's right" along with the entire re-hash of what Sullivan said. We all read him too. Just excerpt and comment, but don't use Sullivan as a reference every 5th post.

4 - Respond to reader comments in the comment section more often, to clarify and/or enhance your original thoughts. Very few bloggers do this.

5 - Stop taking Atrios, Eric Alterman, and CalPundit seriously. They are beyond redemption.

That's my two cents.

(Hat tip: Confessions of a Political Junkie)

Guess who said this:

"You have a Jim Rassmann, who was a Special Forces officer that was blown off John Kerry's small boat. When John Kerry turned that boat back and hauled Jim Rassmann out of the water, risking his own life, what he has said: We leave no one behind. He didn't leave Jim Rassmann behind. He won't leave veterans behind. He won't leave our national security behind."

Why, the ol' murdering drunk himself Ted Kennedy!! Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.

I read once in James Taranto's column that "Life's too short to read Maureen Dowd." He wasn't kidding. Her latest garbage astonishingly finds a moral equivalence between Saddam and Bush/Cheyney. I'll just excerpt these parts:

[B]oth America and Iraq learned that when you try too hard to control the picture of reality, you risk losing your grasp of it. Funny, considering it is Dowd who has no sense of reality.

[The CIA] were probably relying too much on the Arabian Nights tales of Ahmad Chalabi, eager to spread the word of Saddam's imaginary nuclear-tipped weapons juggernaut because it suited his own ambitions — and that of his Pentagon pals. Chalabi made it all up so he could take over for Saddam. OK. Only the New York Times could print this stuff.

The vice president pushed to slough off the allies and the U.N. and go to war partly because he thought that slapping a weakened bully like Saddam would scare other dictators. The word about the Gaddafi capitulation must not have reached her at Starbucks yet. Dowd is beyond redemption.

One more thing: Take a look at the headline: Dump Cheney Now! Nowhere does Dowd say that Cheney has to go. (even though she surely yearns for it) In fact, Cheney isn't even mentioned until the second to last paragraph! The headline writer should be fired for that.

[Update] The Houston Chronicle's headline for the same column: Not racing toward Iraq accountability No comment necessary. It speaks for itself.

The former Labor Secretary wrote a piece for the New York Times today, and, stunningly, mentions another variant of his usual "tax cuts for the rich" again. Let's fisk, shall we?

More recently, the party could have used the threat of terrorism to inspire the same sort of sacrifice and social solidarity as Democrats did in World War II — including higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for what needs doing. In short, they could have turned themselves into a populist movement to take back democracy from increasingly concentrated wealth and power. I can't believe this broken record continues to get treated seriously by the media. His response to terrorism: Raise taxes.

In 1994, when battling for his health care proposal, Mr. Clinton had no broad-based political movement behind him. Even though polls showed support among a majority of Americans, it wasn't enough to overcome the conservative effort on the other side. By contrast, George W. Bush got his tax cuts through Congress, even though Americans were ambivalent about them. President Bush had a political movement behind him that supplied the muscle he needed. Americans ambivalent about tax cuts? Is he serious? Let's look up ambivalent in the dictionary. It means, "characterized by a mixture of opposite feelings or attitudes." Well, maybe at Berkeley, Brandeis, or to people who don't pay taxes felt ambivalent towards tax cuts, but people like me who get off their ass and go to work every day sure love them.

And, about Clinton's health-care proposal, if polls actually showed a majority in favor of them (a dubious claim at best), there would have been more support. The reason it failed is because Americans could not stomach 1/7 of the national economy being hijacked, and most Americans know that socialized health care only guarantees that we will all get an equal level of lousy health care. No thanks. (Funny, in this same column, Reich tells his his true feelings about polls: "Polls reflect little more than reflexive responses to what people have most recently heard about an issue." Exactly. they are worthless)

Reich is a dope who gets too much media exposure due to his availability. l'm sure when his book comes out this spring, we'll all get pounded over the head by him promoting it.

That these poor, oppressed Palestinians were forced to take cover amongst unarmed, innocent civilians. Take a look for yourself.



And then there's this:

Jerusalem Bus Bomber Kills 10, Injures 50

Israel must have made them do it. It can't be because they are murderous thug bastards now, could it?

(Hat tip: Little Green Footballs)

Because I get to read two of my favorite columnists, Ann Coulter and Larry Elder. This week, as only she could, Coulter sheds some light on the married life of that French guy running for President. The laugh line:

BRING IT ON!

I note that when George Bush directed that precise phrase at Islamic terrorists who yearn to slaughter American women and children, liberals were enraged at the macho posturing of it. But they feel "Bring it on!" is a perfectly appropriate expression when directed at a dangerous warmonger like George Bush. ("Bring it on!" was deemed better than Kerry's first impulse, "Let's get busy, sister!")

And Larry Elder, a man of brilliance, goes over the laundry list of possible reasons for Howard Dean's meltdown. Top-notch work, as usual, from him.

The latest from that Manhattan liberal:

[Dean] asked his staff to defer their paychecks for two weeks to recover from costly losses in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Gee, what happened to all that cash dominance that Dean had? You know, the one we heard about week after week? Where are all those supporters that Dean had from his "revolutionary" use of the internet for fund-raising? Must be in the same spider hole as Al Gore.

Oh, and two other things I found hilarious:

Dean's backers are dubious. In a conference call with members of Congress who have endorsed him, he was told bluntly that finishing second wasn't good enough — that he had to show he could win a primary.

Dean said a few months ago that if he won the presidency, "members of Congress were going to be scurrying for shelter, just like a giant flashlight on a bunch of cockroaches." He should have said that Congress would scurry for shelter like cockroaches as soon as his campaign tanked.

Dean scheduled a rally Thursday at Michigan State University, choosing to re-emerge after his New Hampshire loss in a state that doesn't even vote on Tuesday. But Michigan plays prominently in his strategy of focusing on states by delegate count, rather than calendar.

So Dean will have Michigan all to himself for a while. That strategy sure worked for Weasley Clark in New Hampshire, didn't it? Thanks for the memories, Howard.

I found this quite interesting:

U.S. planning al Qaeda offensive in Pakistan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military is making plans for an offensive that would reach inside Pakistan in coming months to try to destroy operations of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, the Chicago Tribune reports.

Why would we be telling them in advance that we are planning for an offensive? Isn't tipping them off a mistake, as the element of surprise is vital in an offensive such as this? I could not understand it, but then I thought of something I once read in a Supreme Court case, Ring v. Arizona. (see Arizona Supreme Court case for better detail)

The police then attempted to generate discussion between the conspirators about the robbery. On January 31, 1995, the police issued a news release that was aired on local television stations.
Defendant called Greenham at approximately 10:30 that evening and left a message on Greenham’s answering machine to “remind me to talk to you tomorrow and tell you what was on the news tonight. Very important, and also fairly good.”... On February 14, 1995, the police again attempted to generate conversation by airing a “Silent Witness” re-enactment on the local news that contained several deliberately incorrect details about the robbery and murder. Defendant called Ferguson at 10:51 p.m. to talk about the broadcast. Ferguson claimed to have “laughed my ass off” and said he was “not real worried at all now.” Defendant stated that “there’s only one thing that slightly concerns me,” and asked, “What if push comes to shove down the months and they ask for hair and fibers, so forth, and it happens to somehow . . . .” Later in the conversation, Defendant said, “there was a couple of in continuities (sic) to their story . . . . They showed a suppressed revolver of all things.”

So, in this murder case, the police needed information, and got some valuable investigative leads by getting their suspects to talk about it on a tapped phone line. Perhaps allowing the planned offensive to leak, the same tactic is at issue. This could be a deliberate misinformation campaign, designed to force al-Qaeda on the move, and to generate chatter on communication channels that we are monitoring. Perhaps our forces need more intelligence on where al-Qaeda is exactly, and forcing them on the run will make them expose themselves. I suspect this is why we know about this.

The alternatives are chilling. There could be a mole inside, a sympathizer or member doing what he can to tip off al-Qaeda. Or, we could have a military official who, for some reason, just wantonly leaks our attack plans to the press. I highy doubt these scenarios, and believe that my theory is close to true.

"Can't be my fault," Howard Dean must have thought to himself:

Howard Dean Replaces His Campaign Manager

BURLINGTON, Vt. - Democrat Howard Dean shook up his faltering bid for the White House on Wednesday, replacing his campaign manager with a longtime associate of former Vice President Al Gore.

After Howard Dean's debacle in Iowa (I am convinced disrespecting that old man is what killed his campaign), I started wondering why Al Gore himself wasn't out stumping for Dean in New Hampshire, even if it was for purely selfish reasons only. I thought Al Gore's endorsement was going to "cement Dean's status as the leading Democratic candidate?"

Paul Begala, a political adviser to President Clinton and now a host of CNN's "Crossfire," called the endorsement an "enormous boost" that would clearly give Dean momentum going into Iowa and New Hampshire.

Guess not. You gotta wonder though, if Gore's endorsement was such a big deal to Dean, why doesn't he have Gore out there for him now? Perhaps Gore now doesn't want to be aligned with a sinking ship. I think Gore wanted the huge shot of publicity that he thought he would get for weeks afterward. He surely didn't count on the Saddam capture a few days later to steal his thunder. Now, what many of us knew is not exposed for all to see: Al Gore's word means zilch. In fact, it may hurt more than help. The bright side is that he won't be stumping for the eventual nominee, who will avoid him as if he has SARS. Perhaps Murphy's Law should be amended to be called Gore's Law: "Whatever could go wrong, will go wrong if Al Gore gets involved."

Only in the New York Times could you find a profile about a transgendered former East German Olympic athlete suing over the physical and psychological damage "he" is suffering through due to steriod use, sanctioned by the now "in the dust bin of history" East German government.

(Side note - This reminds me of a joke I heard in high school: How do you know when the East German women's swimming team is in the race? You can see their balls hanging out of their swimsuits.)

If you read nothing else today, you need to read this. Yes, it is a sad story. That is beyond dispute. But read the subtleties of the article. Some examples:

Retired, unemployed, the social safety net of her country no longer available to soften her fall after reunification, Heidi began to experience a deepening sense of dislocation, despair and ambiguity about her sexual identity.

Think about that for a second. The end of social safety net, after the fall of a vile Communist government, is treated like it is a bad thing. Does the writer (Jere Longman) think that this "social safety net" makes up for the brutal treatment of East Germans by the Stasi, who were dedicated to keeping East Germans from crossing the Berlin Wall to freedom, not to mention about a thousand other things? The irony of the entire article can be found in that one sentence: The East German Government was awful, but they did provide comforting social services.

As Andreas, he has a goatee, wide shoulders and a narrow waist, and is handsome in a Three Musketeers kind of way. From this to "handsome to a Three Musketeers kind of way?" You try to imagine it. I can't. (I could not find an updated photo, only old ones when Andreas Krieger was Heidi.



This part is pure tomfoolery:

Eventually, Andreas accepted that Heidi's athletic performances had been fraudulent. This left him feeling sad and angry, Krieger said. Heidi had trusted her coaches and trainers as if they were surrogate parents. But the officials gave her drugs that pushed her in a certain direction, Krieger said, denying her the most important decision she could make.

"I didn't have control," Krieger said. "I couldn't find out for myself which sex I wanted to be."

I am sure the LGBT (or is it GLBT, or is it BLT, hold the mayo, I'm not sure) lobby will be pissed at me, but I must take issue with that statement. Couldn't find out what sex you wanted to be? Wow!! I didn't realize that "choice" extended that far. I always thought my sex was determined for me in advance. Who knew?

Read it for yourself. I can't stand it anymore.

About a month and a half ago, Howard Dean said he now thinks that because the French:

"Have seen how bad things can get with the United States, they might respond to a new president who's willing to offer them respect again."

Well, sure, if a new President is willing to bribe them for cooperation. Look at this headline:

Iraqi govt. papers: Saddam bribed Chirac

BAGHDAD, Jan. 28 (UPI) -- Documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry reveal he used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Such evidence would undermine the French position before the war when President Jacques Chirac sought to couch his opposition to the invasion on a moral high ground.

The French were dishonest, two-faced weasels on Iraq? I'm shocked!! I haven't been this stunned since Clinton said, "I indeed had a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate."

Remember when, right after we caught Saddam, the French were all of a sudden willing to make concessions concerning Iraqi debts? I remember a few bloggers suggested that they did this because they were afraid of what Saddam might say. (I wish I remembered which ones, to give them credit here) Talk about vindication.

I wonder if John Kerry still feels that we need the so-called "legitimacy" of our "allies" (re: France and Germany) at the United Nations.



Remember the end of New Jack City? Nino Brown is on the stand, and he stands up, motioning to the inside of his pocket, as if he has a list, and says, "If I'm going down, I'm going to take a whole lotta people down with me." Do you just expect Saddam, when his trial comes, to do the same exact thing?

John Kerry may be feeling good about himself right now after winning Iowa and New Hampshire. He may feel confident enough to tell Bush 'to bring it on." Well, Kerry will get what he asks for, if he ends up winning the nomination. I expect it will not go as well for him as he thinks. Reality will hit him soon enough.

Here are just a few of the votes John Kerry has cast in his long, shockingly liberal US Senate career:

-Voted against funding our troops in Iraq, one of only twelve senators to do so.
-Voted for at least seven major reductions in defense and military spending.
-Voted repeatedly to slash the budgets of intelligence agencies by billions of dollars.
-Voted for the largest tax increase ever.
-Voted for the death tax.
-Voted against a Balanced Budget Amendment at least five times.
-Voted for a 50-percent increase in the gas tax.
-Voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion at least three times.
-Voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, one of only fourteen senators to do so.
-Voted against requiring parental notification for minors' abortions.
-Voted against mandatory sentences for drug dealers.
-Voted to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.
-Voted against the death penalty for terrorists and cop killers.

According to Americans for Democratic Action, the premier liberal rating group, Kerry's voting record is more liberal than Ted Kennedy's. In addition to the above votes, Kerry was a radical Vietnam war protester, has called for "almost eliminating CIA activity" and wanted US troops "dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

This country cannot afford a Kerry presidency.

Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday, dozens of bloggers ask their readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign.

If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesdays simply by putting up a post like this one every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign. And then e-mail wictory@blogsforbush.com so that you'll be added to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:





Yeah, Kerry doesn't need a Southern State to win. Just ask President Gore.

A liberal District Court judge has once again decided that she, not Congress, is responsible for lawmaking:

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A federal judge has ruled that a section of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional, the first time any part of the sweeping 2001 anti-terrorism measure championed by the White House has been struck down.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins ruled that a measure of the act that bars giving "expert advice or assistance" to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations is too vague, threatening First and Fifth Amendment rights.

The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.

She is right, the law does not differentiate when it comes to groups listed on the State Department's Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. That is the entire point. When they appear on the State Department's list, it is unlawful to assist them in any manner. There is no distinction to be made by an individual. Congress has stated its will, and the State Department, by compiling such a list, is properly exercising the authority lawfully delegated to them as a member of the Executive branch. The AP article conveniently forgets to mention that the Tamil Tigers Eelam are on the State Department's list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations:

The case involved groups seeking to provide advice to displaced Kurdish refugees fighting for independence from Turkey. Some of the plaintiffs also sought to help the Tamil Tigers Eelam, a rebel group seeking a separate homeland for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.

To liberals, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The audacity of judges is astonishing. This decision is way beyond the scope of her judicial authority. Her decision will surely be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, who, being just as ridiculously far-left, will affirm her decision. (And, with that decision, the usual "Appeals Court issues strong rebuke to Bush Administration" headlines will surely follow) Again, it will be up to the Supreme Court to reverse this egregious decision. This process takes a long time, and I am quite sure that Judge Collins is well aware of this. Like I said before, we used to call autocrats like this feudal lords. Now, we call them federal judges. If you don't like the Patriot Act, then so be it. But, to silently acquiese to judges who substitute their own judgments for those of our duly elected representatives is a mistake they will eventually hurt us all.

[Update] Note to Discount Blogger: If you have no idea what the decision means, why waste valuable blog space on it?

[Update] The Yin Blog offers up thoughts on this that I had not considered. Even if Judge Collins was following Ninth Circuit precedent, I still feel the precedent is wrong, for the same reasons.

Those militant gays at the ACLU, who will go to any length to support the gay agenda, are now coming out in support of polygamy. Anyone who knows what the ACLU is all about cannot be surprised at this. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, foreshadowed that the Lawrence decision that invalidated sodomy laws would open the door for legal bigamy:

The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," Bowers, supra, at 196--the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, "furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," ante, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens' declaration in his Bowers dissent, that "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice," ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.

In Utah (where else?), three people who wanted to enter into a plural marriage but were denied a marriage license by Salt Lake County clerks filed a federal lawsuit in response. The Utah chapter of the ACLU is not involved in the case, but they sure are in support of plural marriage:

Dani Eyer, executive director of the ACLU of Utah, said the state will "have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society.''

"There's no denying that thousands and thousands are doing that here and will maintain that it's healthy,'' she said. "The model of the nuclear family as we know it in the immediate past is unique, and may not be necessarily be the best model. Maybe it's time to have this discussion.''

Think about what that dunce said. The onus is on the State to prove that bigmay is detrimental to society. Oh, please. Of course it is. Stable marriages, for the positive upbringing of children is vital to society. She says that "the nuclear family as we know it in the immediate past is unique, and may not be necessarily be the best model." Understand what she is saying. She is not just talking about bigmay, she is talking about gay marriage. It is pathetic that she acts as if a traditional family is a thing of the past. The nuclear family may not be the best model? Then what is? Two homosexuals raising children? One man, married to three women, raising 13 kids? That's the better model? Is this dunce serious? The ACLU will support anything that destroys the traditional family because they want to lend every bit of legitimacy possible to gay marriage. Make no mistake about it.

Soon, the ACLU will be defending this scumbag's "constitutional right" to beastiality.

From Robert B. Reich, former Labor Secretary under Clinton, in today's USA Today:

Even with some spending increases on education and health care, Democratic presidential candidates still can reduce the overall deficit by doing four things:
• Repealing President Bush's giant tax cuts for the wealthy. Most of the $2 trillion in cuts go to rich Americans, who already are richer than ever before. These tax cuts are the single biggest cause of the runaway federal budget deficit. Every Democratic candidate has promised to do away with tax cuts for the rich.

And, from Paul Krugman in today's New York "Once Upon A" Times:

This decline in tax collections from the wealthy is partly the result of the Bush tax cuts, which account for more than half of this year's projected deficit.

It is hard to fathom why these so-called experts are taken seriously. Krugman is beyond redemption. Reich, surprisingly, makes me even sicker than Krugman. He is way too available to the media. I see him all the f'n time on every network. His "tax cuts for the rich (or wealthy)" lines has become a running joke in my house. Stephanie, who knows nothing about politics, and really doesn't give a damn, sees Reich on TV and asks me, "Are you just watching to see how long he can go without saying 'tax cuts for the rich?'" I am so sick of this guy. The next time you see him on TV, do what I do, time how long it takes him to say "tax cuts for the rich." (And, you'll find this stunning: Reich is teaching at Berkeley this semester.)

W2's are due out by the end of this week. You'll see the "tax cuts for the rich" nonsense disappear real quick from the speeches of those losers running for the Democratic nomination.

One more thing, have you ever seen Krugman and Reich in the same place?

From the corrections page of today's New York Times, the alleged "paper of record":

Because of an editing error, a front-page article yesterday about David A. Kay, the C.I.A.'s former weapons inspector, misstated his view of whether the agency's analysts had been pressured by the Bush administration to tailor their prewar intelligence reports about Iraq's weapons programs to conform to a White House political agenda. Mr. Kay said he believed that there was no such pressure, not that there was. (His view was correctly reflected in a quotation that followed the error.)

"Kay thought there was political pressure...uh, we meant he didn't. What does it matter anyway? We think it, and only we count." That is what the NY Times should have written. And then there's this, on the same page:

A front-page news analysis article on Wednesday about the impact of electoral politics on President Bush's State of the Union address referred incorrectly to a statement in last year's address, about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. The president said Iraq had been seeking to buy uranium in Africa. He did not specifically mention the African country of Niger, though it was identified several weeks earlier — along with Somalia and Congo — in the National Intelligence Estimate provided to members of Congress on Iraqi purchase attempts.

Gee, only took them 6 days to fix that? And they couldn't bring themselves to say the full truth, that Bush said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Then again, we can't expect much from them anymore, except for liberal spin and dubious reporting.

From Al "I love the First Amendment until you disagree with me" Franken in front of MoveOn.org:

"I'm Al Franken. I'm here to present the funniest ad award. I'm a last-minute substitution. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was supposed to be the presenter, but unfortunately he was murdered."

And, then from the President in front of the Alfalfa Club:

On former secretary of state Jim Baker : "Jimbo's been going around getting countries to forgive Iraq's debt. Next, I'm going to send him out and see what he can do about ours."

"But what a stellar crowd," Bush continued. "It looks like the index of Paul O'Neill's book. Let me say something about that book. Paul said I was disengaged because he talked to me for 45 minutes and I didn't say a word. I wasn't disengaged. I was bored as hell and my mother told me never to interrupt. . . .

"I feel especially good tonight. The economy is coming back. We're creating new businesses. Just the other day, I read that Pete Rose and Bill Bennett are opening a casino."

I think it all speaks for itself, don't you?

(Hat tips: Confessions of a Political Junkie and Right Thinking From The Left Coast)

These dope Democrats make me laugh when they talk about rolling back Bush's tax cuts. Since they got to New Hampshire, I have heard all of them come up with some real slick explanations how letting tax cuts expire is somehow a good thing and their how tax plans are better than Bush's. (John Edwards explanation on O'Reilly tonight was particularly ingenious) Well, here's how I feel about losing my tax cuts and paying more taxes to support lazy, government-dependent bums:



To enhance my point, think about this quote from that shyster John Edwards:

"Now, I'm just asking, does it make any sense to you -- I'm just asking now, I don't know what you think about this -- does it make any sense to you for us to be spending Social Security money on tax cuts?"

Think about that. It's the government's money, not yours. To him, you are not keeping what is yours, the government is spending it on you. I wish someone threw a tomato at him for saying that crap.

Bill Clinton, as we all know, is writing a book. I am as excited about it as I am my next dentist appointment. Poor Bill. Writing this book has been "taxing both 'physically and psychologically,' said one of his unnamed lackeys. All of us who lived through his presidency know exactly how he feels.

Since I was a man of sheer brilliance last week in predicting Iowa (OK, my picks were a disaster; I'll save Jake the typing), I have decided to share my unmatched political acumen with you fortunate peons once again. My prediction is:

Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Lieberman, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton

I think Kerry is big stuff right now to the media, but New Hampshire people are unpredictable. Dean loses by a few, and we'll all hear stories about the "resurgent" Howard Dean. And, by Wednesday, we'll start reading the first obituaries for Weasley Clark's campaign.

Of course, if I am wrong, so what? It's the Democrats we're talking about here, and all of them are fighting to be the loser to Bush, despite what those dopes at Newsweek say)

More tomfoolery from Howard Dean:

"You can say that it's great that Saddam is gone and I'm sure that a lot of Iraqis feel it is great that Saddam is gone," said the former Vermont governor, an unflinching critic of the war against Iraq. But a lot of them gave their lives. And their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before."

Oh really? You mean except for the fear of getting their tongue cut out, or getting hacked up into pieces, thrown off buildings, sent through shredders, or being tortured mercilessly, their lives were just peachy before, huh Howie? What a jerkoff Dean is. I just love when they talk about the infrastructure, the power grid, and the water supply as if Iraq was like, say, Atlanta before. How could they possibly be worse off than before? And, here's my favorite part:

"Now I would never defend Saddam Hussein," Dean told the "Women for Dean" rally. "He's a horrible person. I'm delighted he's gone. Would there not have been a better way to get rid of him in cooperation with the United Nations?"

No, Howie, there would would have not been a better way. For the 1000th time, STOP IT!!! How could you cooperate with them when they had no intention of ever doing anything? And, by saying Iraqis now have a worse standard of living now, YOU ARE DEFENDING SADDAM HUSSEIN!!! you Park Avenue left wing weasel.

I can't wait to see him lose again in New Hampshire. I'm sure he'll be real subdued this time, but to slowly watch his campaign die is great. I guess that Bush-bashing and nonstop anti-war nonsense really isn't going to get Howie as far as he thought it would.

The New York Rangers, who have more dollars than sense, went out on Friday night and wasted even more millions on the girly man himself, Jaromir Jagr. Tonight, those Blueskirts got their asses handed to them by the Ottawa Senators 9-1, and I am still laughing my balls off!!

Think of the NHL as parallel to our school system. The Rangers, who have not made the playoffs in 7 years, are a public school and the New Jersey Devils, who have won 3 Stanley Cups in the last 8 years, are a private school. The Rangers, like a government run school, have major problems. How do they respond? They throw more money at the problem, and yet their problems still exist, and are even worsened. Why? Because they are filled with players who have ridiculous contracts and, because of those guarantees, have zero motivation to succeed. As a result, they suck. Like a public school, because they know that no matter how dismal the results, they will still have their jobs thanks to union protection and Democratic Party fealty, and there will be even more money spent, they are unaccountable. On the other hand, the Devils have limited resources, and must be innovative to succeed. Their income is strictly based on their success. And, they have a general manager who will not tolerate lousy performance or unaccountability. Thus, the incentive to succeed is readily apparent. This is similiar to school vouchers for private schools. Without success, the money does not come, and will never come. Think about it for a minute, and you'll get it.

For the record, as a Philadelphia Flyers fan, I am not happy the Ottawa Senators won, because they are #4 on my most hated list. #3 is the Toronto Maple Loafs (spelling intentional, you Yonge Street wankers.) #2 is the Devils, and #1 most-hated is the Rangers.

Ran into this site (I apologize to the blogger who I owe a hat tip to, I forget where I got it) and took a shot. It must have validity because my first two and last two Presidential preferences were dead on balls accurate. For my first two, it said my preferences matched up with Bush 100% and Joe Lieberman 51%. For the last two, it had Sharpton (28%??!!) and that big ear freaky looking dope Dennis Kucinich (17%)

Try it for yourself. It should only take a minute or 2.

If you want to get attention from the liberal media, tell that that Bush will lose to someone in the election. This is hilarious. 2 weeks ago, Kerry was getting smoked by Howard Dean. Now, he is beating President Bush. Yeah, OK. Let's have some fun.

From the latest Newsweek poll:

52 Percent of Voters Don't Want to See Bush Re-Elected (44% Do), 37 Percent Strongly Want to See Him Re-Elected, 47 Percent Strongly Do Not

Kerry also leads the pack of Democratic contenders among registered voters as the candidate who would have a better chance of beating President George W. Bush if the election were held today. A Kerry-Bush match-up would have Kerry up by 49 percent to Bush's 46 percent.

Read the entire article. They use the term "Democrats and Democratic leaners" 6 times. How many times do they mention "Republicans and Republican leaners?" ZERO!!

Newsweek ceased being a serious publication when they refused to print the Clinton-Lewinsky crown thing, which they had first. I never take polls seriously. Here's why:

If you have never heard of Laurie Mylroie, or read her work, you are not fully informed, plain and simple. She is a top expert on Iraq, and unmatched on that subject. She is convinced, for example, that Iraq was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. If you saw her evidence, you would be too. Take a moment and read her latest work. If you are opposed to the Partriot Act, and/or Bush's approach to the war on terror, it will make you re-think your opposition, if, and only if, you are intellectually honest.

Is there is a more intelligent thinker today than Victor Davis Hanson? Read his latest brilliance on the current situation in Iraq and the 2004 elections. Perhaps there is, but if you read his work religiously as I do, you may just come to the conclusion there isn't. My favorite part:

What is strange about our new European relationship is not that it has deteriorated, but that its Orwellian premises had not been questioned long ago. The Iraq war woke us from a deep, dangerous coma, and raised questions unasked for decades: Why defend a continent larger and more populous than our own? Why consider the German and French governments staunch allies, when, by any measure of their rhetorical and diplomatic anti-Americanism, they appear no different from — and indeed, far worse than — what emanates from a China, Brazil, or Middle Eastern "moderate" nations?

Europe, not America, has proved most interested in Iraqi oil over the last decade. Europe, not America, is apt to tolerate massacres in the Balkans or Iraq. Indeed, the victory in Iraq emphasized that our greatest sin is in being cumbersome and often acting belatedly to stop autocratic killing — but this is a far different moral quandary than never acting at all. When you look at Iranian fascists being wined and dined in Paris, count up all the corpses from the August heat wave, and contemplate the explosive issue of school scarves, France, not the United States, is the real sick puppy.

Top-notch work.

From the soon-to-be defunct San Francisco Chronicle:

Clark: GOP agenda at play in New Hampshire debate

Presidential candidate Wesley Clark on Friday complained that one of the moderators in Thursday night's debate was carrying out a Republican agenda by questioning his Democratic credentials.

Ha!! Read the entire article. It was all directed at Brit Hume for asking Clark a fair question: "When did you become a Democrat." Not a single mention of Peter Jennings, (who no one would call anything but a liberal) who grilled Clark on getting Michael Moore's endorsement. (And totally embarrassed him too)

From Byron York: Consider also Clark's response to questions about his embrace of the radical leftist filmmaker Michael Moore. Moore, who famously wondered why terrorists struck New York City on September 11 when there were so many Bush voters they could have targeted elsewhere in the country, endorsed Clark recently, and the two shared an on-stage love-fest. In his remarks at the time, Moore referred to George W. Bush as, among other things, a "deserter."

ABC's Peter Jennings, who shared moderating duties at the debate with Fox News's Brit Hume, asked Clark, "That's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict [Moore], and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so."

"Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this," Clark answered. "I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot."

Clark then said, "This election is about the future, Peter, and what we have to do is pull this country together." Clark explained that he believes he can accomplish that with "the support of a man like Michael Moore, [and] of a great American leader like Sen. George McGovern."

Still, Jennings did not accept Clark's claim to know nothing about the "deserter" charge. "Since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore were involved in, you've had a chance to look at the facts," Jennings followed up. "Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?"

"To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. I've seen — he's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign."

Oh, that liberal media.

Remember those 2 money grubbing sisters who screamed racism and (of course) sued over a Southwest Airlines attendant saying over the intercom, "Eenie, meenie, minie, moe; pick a seat, we gotta go?" Well, after a quick trial, the jury told them to go pound sand.

I am happier than hell to see that there is a jury with sense. Imagine if these women got paid for their "being offended." No telling what we would hear next.

President Bush in the State of the Union:

As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners or dismiss their sacrifices. From the beginning, America has sought international support for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support.

There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.

Matthew Hoy's response:

It was a good thing President Bush mentioned this in such a widely disseminated speech. The Democrat presidential hopefuls (and, as you shall see, Democrats in the Congress), especially Sen. John Kerry, have been characterizing the U.S. as going it alone. Kerry's characterization of those 34 countries is that they are a "fraudulent coalition."
Apparently for Democrats, any coalition without France and/or Germany isn't really a coalition at all. Democrat candidates have made a point of saying that they will "repair" the breach Bush has allegedly opened between the U.S. and France (the breach was really opened by France, not the U.S.). But if the Democrat candidate actually wins in November, what effect will his vitriolic attacks on the coalition of the willing have on the relationship between the U.S. and each of those countries? How will British PM Tony Blair react to being part of a "fraud?"

Great thinking, Matt.

Often, I see the ol' Sea Hag referred to as the New York Times "star columnist." A star how? With drivel like her latest column?

You wonder how many votes he scared off with that testosterone festival. Yeah, maybe in the feminine half of gay couples and men-hating lesbians.

...the self-righteous geographic litany of support? The Philippines. Thailand. Italy. Spain. Poland. Denmark. Bulgaria. Ukraine. Romania. The Netherlands. Norway. El Salvador.
Can you believe President Bush is still pushing the cockamamie claim that we went to war in Iraq with a real coalition rather than a gaggle of poodles and lackeys?

No, you dunce. I can't believe it is you who is making that cockamamie claim. Notice she did not mention Great Britain and Australia?

His State of the Union address took his swaggering sheriff routine to new heights. "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country," he vowed.

Translation: Hey, we don't need no stinking piece of paper to bring it on in other countries. If it feels good, we'll do it, and we'll decide later why we did it. You lookin' at me?

Aww. Bush is a meanie. He doesn't ask for the permission of a country smaller than Texas, who doesn't care if millions die and America gets attacked as long as those oil contracts keep paying for their welfare state. What Dowd wants is an effiminate, indecisive man in charge. Perhaps she hasn't had a real man lay her the pipe in a long time.

But Republicans were thrilled when Mr. Bush strutted up onstage on Tuesday night to basically tell the country that if you don't vote for him in November, you're giving up in the war on terrorism. "We've not come all this way — through tragedy, and trial and war — only to falter and leave our work unfinished," he asserted, as if all those Democrats racing from Iowa to New Hampshire in the middle of the night were crying out to the voters: "Falter! Falter!"

Uh, Ms. Dowd. That is exactly what those Democrats are doing.

Dr. Dean's poll numbers are diving because people freezing in New Hampshire think he's too hot. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are better at looking cool. But their dissing the U.N. — that palace of permission slips — and their doctrine of pre-emption are just as hot, and so was Mr. Bush's cocky implicit defense of the idea that if you whack one Middle East dictator, the rest will fall in line. "Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not," he said. "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible, and no one can now doubt the word of America."

Just as hot? Really? I don't remember Bush yelling and screaming like that dope Dean. I remember both of his speeches at the United Nations, asking for their assistance, even though he and everyone knows that the U.N. is a talk shop that will never do anything. He tried harder to save their so-called "legitimacy" than Kofi Annan ever did. How can Dowd possibly imply that Libya's capitulation is not because of what we did in Iraq? Her work is supposed to be serious analysis? Please.

Maybe he's right, but what about Bill Clinton's line that unless we want to occupy every country in the world, maybe our policy should also concentrate on making friends instead of targets?

Yeah, what about Clinton's line? Useless nothingness it is. You shallow Manhattan liberals do not understand or care about this, but friendship is a two-way street. If France, Germany, and Russia are "our friends," then being friendless sure sounds appealing.

The president and vice president like to present a calm, experienced demeanor, but their foreign policy is right out of the let's-out-crazy-the-bad-guys style of Mel Gibson's cop in "Lethal Weapon" movies.

Crazy out the bad guys like Martin Riggs? This, once again, passes for the analysis of a "star columnist?" Bush is doing nothing of the sort. Perhaps we should have opened day care centers in the Middle East so that the women of the Middle East could have enjoyed their freedoms and worked for that second income to avoid the ills of poverty which causes terrorism, right?

For proof of how intemperate their policy has been, compare this year's State of the Union with last year's. Last year it was all about Iraq's frightening weapons. This year the only reference was to "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."
Would Americans have supported a war to go get "program activities?" What is a program activity? Where is the White House speechwriters' ombudsman?

"Where is the White House speechwriters' ombudsman?" How cute!!! Perhaps Dowd thinks that WMD's appear simply when someone waves a wand and says "Chemical weapons...appear before me!!" Saddam had programs to maunfacture them. Even your hero Clinton said it many times. He thought that Iraq had them. But, get real. You don't have programs to manufacture chemical and biological weapons if you do not plan to threaten to use them, or to eventually use them. In fact, Saddam did twice, if Dowd will choose to remember, which she surely does not.

This woman has become pathetic. Her columns are incoherent, inconsistent, and full of shit. How many people (outside of her Starbucks-drinking pals) actually take this woman seriously anymore? I can't imagine there are many.

Today's Opinion Journal has a serious reality check on the Patriot Act. My favorite part:

The Justice Department says the Patriot Act has played "a key part"--sometimes the "leading role"--in a number of successful anti-terror operations. As for civil-liberties abuse, a useful measure of just how profoundly threatening the law is should be Section 223, the Patriot Act provision under which citizens can seek monetary damages if they are mistreated. To date, the number of lawsuits is zero.

Patriot Act haters, there's a comments section below. Use it. Stand up and be counted.

This morning, I read a bunch of blogs about the State of the Union. Confessions of a Political Junkie did his usual good work, Instapundit should have be called "Insta-punted" for his lack of analysis, Eric the Viking Pundit was solid, short and to the point as always, Lee at Right Thinking from the Left Coast, had to work so he blogged little about it (but got 227 comments for that post!!). I read others as well, some good, some not. But, one blogger, who probably worked harder than anyone on the State Of The Union, really got to me with one post. The Vodka Pundit (Stephen Green), who I respect a ton although I do not always agree with him, wrote:

Ha! Weak applause from a certain side of the aisle when Bush commented that certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act are due to expire.

Pull the plug already.

I was stunned at his dismissiveness, as if the Patriot Act is an obvious disaster. VP, who styles himself as a "First Amendment absolutist" and, from reading him daily, seems to be a real libertarian, has really dropped the ball on this one. Here's hoping that I can make him think about it, and you as well. Read Michelle Malkin, Heather MacDonald (perhaps the most underrated writer and researcher in the United States today), Barbara Comstock, and American Realpolitik, for starters.

Many of you should know immediately that if the ACLU is strongly against it, then there is some real validity to the law. How often are they anti-criminal? Never!!! Sadly, many people refuse to honestly evaluate a law that gives law enforcement the same tools they can already use against the mafia and other criminals. I'm sure if it was used against Enron, there would be total silence. You may not see it my way, but at least give it some honest thought. Fair enough, Mr. Green? If you have arguments for amending it, I am very receptive to tweaking it, as it surely isn't foolproof. But, it has many crucial provisions that are needed as currently written. Perhaps as you consider my point, you should re-read something you wrote on the 2nd anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

p.s. The Vodka Pundit's Fletch reference made my day!!

From Ann Coulter's column:

Ted Kennedy gave a speech last week in which he called the liberation of Iraq a "political product." Then again, Ted Kennedy calls Chivas Regal "that life-sustaining liquid."

Brilliant!!

- Is Ted Kennedy Saddam's lawyer? Did you see him shaking his head "no" when Bush discussed David Kay's report on weapons programs? And, I wish they kept the camera on him as Bush was listing Saddam's atrocities. Ted's brother's must be turning over in their graves.

- Charles Rangel looked like he was having a nice snooze. I guess he figured why bother to listen, he'll oppose Bush on everything anyway.

- Bush said, "No one can doubt the word of America." (Just ask Saddam or Kaddafi, I say) Could anyone have honestly said that about us when Clinton was in charge? And, did you notice that no Democrats clapped when Bush talked about Kaddafi disarming?

- I loved when Bush answered the critics who scream "unilateral" by naming just about every country supporting us. Once again, the Dems sat on their hands with no applause. I guess since France and Germany were not involved, it was unilateral. I wish Bush had said, "Sadly, Old Europe, i.e France and Germany, those ungrateful bastards, were a bunch of self-serving assholes who would rather see millions die than lose oil contracts."

-Where were the Supreme Court Justices? Only Breyer showed up. I guess Scalia and Thomas didn't want to be accused of bias and susbsequently asked to recuse themselves from any case that may be marginally similar to something in the speech they clapped about.

-Anyone else watch CNBC's coverage? I did for the fun of it. What tomfoolery. No wonder they have about as many viewers as a test pattern. On the Capitol Report, after showing Pelosi's and Daschle's pathetic rebuttal, they made sure to point out how it was tougher for those two because they did not have an audience or applause lines. (Boo-f'n who) Then, who do they bring on for "analysis" after? Why, none other than Rip Van Rangel and a Clinton speechwriter. It was piss-poor journalism, and that is being generous.

-Somebody forgot to tell Pelosi that even the New York Times admitted that Haliburton did not profit much in Iraq. Could Pelosi and Daschle have been more predictable? Every liberal canard was used. I love how he made Bush's tax cuts the reason for higher tuitions and state budget problems. (More on that later this week, when I have time to research it) (Bush's tax cuts make a perfect foil for tax and spend Democrats at the state level: Bush cut taxes and made us broke, so you have to pay us more. What a con job.) Do these Democrats really think repealing tax cuts is a winning platform. Like I said last week: W-2's are due in the next 2 weeks. Bush's popularity will be a lot higher when people start doing their taxes. You watch.

-Did anyone else notice that Bush, when looking at the Democrats, smirked a few times? I loved that.

- I loved see the Time Magazine soldiers there.

-Hillary is an ugly bitch. Howard Stern said it best years ago. He said, "Clinton should have held up a picture of Hillary for the grand jury to see and said 'Feel my pain.'"

- I can't wait to wake up tomorrow and read the blogosphere's take on the speech.

I like President Bush a ton, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on many issues. Like I have said many times, the only person I agree with 100% of the time is me. As such, here are some thoughts about his speech tonight:

- Was anyone else appalled (and at the same time amused) at the sheer recalcitrance of the Democrats every time Bush mentioned tax cuts? Excuse me lefties, but I can spend my money better than you can. There are two issues I consider paramount over all others: Terrorism and taxes, because I believe they are the two issues that Government can control and I can't. Education I got, and will continue to get, on my own, and I worked hard to earn a job that provides excellent health care for my family. In those two areas, inter alia, (I'm sure Erick Erickson will like my use of a legal term) I don't want, need, or depend on the Government, and they cannot ensure my success. (They have hurt my advancement in some ways, thanks to affirmative action, which pisses me off to no end) I want my tax cuts permanent. Robert Byrd doesn't need another bridge named after him on my dime. Ted Kennedy's union boys don't deserve my money to pay for ridiculous waste projects like the Big Dig. To see the Democrats attitude tells you all you need to know about those closet socialists. They think your money is really their money, and you should only get as far as they deem appropriate. F Off. I earned my money, and deserve to keep as much as I can.

- I liked Bush's support of the Patriot Act. Has anyone against it actually read the act, or even understand what it does? Why should law enforcement be allowed tools against criminals like, say, racketeers and the mafia, but not the SAME EXACT tools against terrorists? Why should there be a "wall of seperation" between law enforcement agencies when investigating terrorists, a wall made not of the Constitution, but by an order of Janet Reno? Maybe it needs some tweaking, I'll buy that. But I am damn tired of hearing how it is the beginning of a police state. You have to hand it to the ACLU. This is one of their best smear campaigns ever. And why not? Things like this help membership numbers increase. Don't let the ACLU lie to you about Ashcroft. He is no Patriot Act zealot, running rough shod over civil liberties. (Wouldn't you say almost anything about Ashcroft if it filled your bank account? The ACLU sure would. Read this (scroll down to story #2) The ACLU and their liberal comrades have had it in for him from day one, because he is devoutly religious and anti-abortion. The Democrats were pathetic when they applauded when Bush mentioned the Patriot Act is about to expire. Ask yourself this, and answer honestly to yourself. Since September 11th and the finding of mass graves in Iraq, what have you seen outrage the Democrats most? Was it Osama, Saddam, the 3,000 killed on September 11th, The Taliban? No, it has been Bush, Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, and tax cuts. That should tell you all you need to know about them and their priorities. The Patriot Act is not the Alien and Sedition Acts, and is not the Smith Act. Stop parroting the ACLU press releases. If you really care about privacy that much, stop using credit cards and banks. I just had a baby (well Stephanie did the real work, I watched and cried), and all of a sudden, I started getting coupons and ads in the mail for baby products. Somehow, they started right after I bought diapers, and paid with my Visa debit card.

-I loved Bush not once, but twice, expressing the need to stop "junk and frivilous" lawsuits. Did you notice that the Democrats did not applaud? Of course not. B.S. lawsuits are their lifeblood. Think I am kidding? Then read this, this, and this.

- Speaking of no applause and owning the Democrats lock, stock, and barrel, did you notice no Democrat applause when Bush pushed standards testing for grade school students? Of course they didn't. They are wholly owned by the NEA, who love the status quo, love the cash, and hate being accountable. Competition is the answer to better education.

-Bush is on to something about aid to community colleges. I spent two years at Camden County Collge in Blackwood, New Jersey, and let me tell you, it was the best time of my life. The place has great programs, especially a nursing school. I was involved with their radio station, and it was the best experience of my life. We had a great station, and a lot of guys who started there are now making a nice living in the broadcast industry. I also loved Arizona State, but it could never measure up to Camden County College in many ways. I hope something comes out of that proposal.

- I loved Bush's 2 slaps at Clinton: For his law enforcement approach after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and reminding everyone that is was Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

- I am undecided on Bush's immigration proposal. He sold it well, and I liked his clarity when he said, "I oppose amnesty." As I have said before, Bush has opened the debate on a problem that is there. He is not ignoring it, something that his predecessor did quite well. As of today, I am against it. But, like many things, in the end, it will not be as bad as I fear. I am willing to give him the benfit of the doubt as of right now. That could change in the near future however.

- I had mixed feelings on his programs for prisoners. I took a very liberal restorative justice class, taught by a very liberal graduate student instructor. I do agree that inmates who leave jail will be back quickly without a chance for an honest life. However, I am not sure this was anything more than a political move. Voting rights for convicted felons is becoming a huge issue, and studies show most ex-cons vote Democrat. This is pre-emptive triangulation. Smart politics, yes. Wise policy? Not necessarily. We'll see.

- I have always agreed with Bush's support for faith-based programs. (And I am not very religious) The facts are this: Faith-based programs have higher success rates for less money than government-run programs. I think lawsuits based on First Amendment "violations" are frivilous. (Erick E. will like this: This 7-page case in large type is well worth the read, and it is perfectly decided. Read how the Freedom From Religion Foundation argues that the unmatched success of this Christian based constitutes "a lack of choice" and therefore, is unconstitutional. The bankruptcy of the liberal argument when it comes to faith-based programs can be found all over that decision.)

- I liked (and so did Stephanie, who hates politics) Bush's call for high school drug testing, saying "We love you and don't want to lose you." And, I loved his calling the team owners, players, and unions on the carpet for steriod and performance enhancing drug use. Athletes may take the Charles Barkley "I'm not a role model" approach, and may have a valid point. Like it or not, they are role models. Bush was right in saying what he did. Liberals will hate this because Bush said it, and because they think teenagers should be free to do anything and everything, especially have abortions on demand.

In sum, I thought Bush gave a terrific speech that is open for much debate. He asked for some policies that deserved implementation as proposed (i.e. making tax cuts permanent, standards testing for schools, stopping frivilous lawsuits), proposals that need work and revisions but are very worthy of implementing (renewing the Patriot Act, Immigration plan) and ones that are questionable at best (prisoner programs).

Let the debate rage on.

I laughed my family jewels off when I read this article about Winston Churchill's 104 year old bird:

Despite her age, Charlie can still be coaxed into saying "(expletive) Hitler" and "(expletive) the Nazis," phrases no doubt taught to her early on when Churchill purchased the bird in 1937.

Classic!!!

You must take a moment to see the paint work on this Chevy. I would love to know who did this and how much it cost. WOW!!

(hat tip: Lee at Right Thinking From the Left Coast)

Who is my favorite Democrat? Is it Zell Miller, whose book, A National Party No More, was a great read? No, it is the greatest democrat of them all, the one and only, DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe. Singlehandedly, he makes me wants to donate hundreds, even thousands, of dollars to the DNC just so he stays in charge. Get this latest prouncement from him on CNN: (via Drudge)

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe asked on CNN if the direction of the Democratic Party will determine the direction of the party.

McAuliffe said: "Clearly, whoever the nominee of the Democratic Party will -- and I am -- no one in America wants a nominee more than I do. We're in the best shape we've ever been in. Millions in the bank, new headquarters, new voter files. I need a nominee, no question about it. But that nominee will then have one message. He will become the messenger, and it's his message that won the primaries.

Does he actually believe that? I hope so. So, according to him, the Democrats are in better shape than they were in back in 1993, when Clinton became President, and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress? If you say so Terry.

I was wrong about the Iowa vote. So what? If I cared, I would go into detail about it. But I think what killed Dean in Iowa was him yelling down that old man. That may play on Park Avenue, but it surely doesn't in Iowa. I loved watching him speak after the loss. He looked like he had a shit sandwich for dinner. It was great.

Frankly, Iowa doesn't mean anything. I'm sure that each candidate has already landed in New Hampshire. The whole thing doesn't matter anyway. It will only decide who we in the blogosphere will get to ridicule and expose for several months, and whose ass Oliver Willis, CalPundit, and Atrios will kiss this fall.

Just so I get my prediction on record, I say that Monday night Iowa this will be the breakdown:

Dean - 24%
Kerry - 21%
Gephardt - 21%
Edwards - 18%
Clark - 10% (higher than you'd expect even though he's not campaigning there. Watch Clinton's stooges spin this as a huge victory for him)
Lieberman - 8%
Kucinich - 1%
Sharpton - 1 supporter

What liberal media?

The first sentence from a Washington Post article should never have gotten past an editor:

The Bush administration's inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after public statements declaring an imminent threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has begun to harm the credibility abroad of the United States and of American intelligence, according to foreign policy experts in both parties.

Perhaps Glenn Kessler should have perused the Washington Post's website for a little fact-checking before he wrote that ridiculously dishonest sentence. In the 2003 State of the Union address, Bush actually said:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Oh, that liberal media. This articel should be an editorial or Op-Ed, not passed off as a "straight" news story. The article is hundreds of words which are doing nothing more than trying to say, "Bush lied." Get this:

James Steinberg, a deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration who believed there were legitimate concerns about Iraq's weapons programs, said the failure of the prewar claims to match the postwar reality "add to the general sense of criticism about the U.S., that we will do anything, say anything" to prevail.

Say anything huh? You mean, saying the same things that your fellow Democrats, including Bill and Hillary Clinton said, was nothing more than a ruse for Bush to get his way? Perhaps a refresher is in order.

One other thing: How come I have yet to read a story about the decline of French, German, or Russian credibility in the United States?

I was thinking of doing a Winston Smith, and erasing my last post, but I figured that I'd keep it up so I can re-live that "kicked in the balls" sensation for a while. What can I say about the Eagles? They quit in the second half. Their receivers are an unfunny joke, and Andy Reid was once again out coached rather badly. The Eagles played like they didn't give a damn. Todd Pinkston, who couldn't catch the clap in a Bangkok brothel, dropped everything thrown his way. I cared more about the Eagles winning than he did.

Note to Andy Reid: Sign Terrell Owens. Yes, he has an attitude problem and can be a serious distraction. But, it is time to make a deal with the devil. What you have been doing is not working. Watch the film. Carolina had ZERO respect for Thrash, Pinkston, and Mitchell, and rightfully so. You cannot come back next year with this band of jokers. And, re-sign Duce Staley. He, as usual, played his balls off. You can't replace that.

I cannot explain how much it will piss me off to see the Carolina Panthers in the Super Bowl. But, anyone who thinks they cannot beat the Patriots is kidding themselves.

Here we go again. The Eagles in the NFC Championship Game. I pray to God that the third time is a charm. It has been 33 years since the Eagles last were in the Super Bowl, so it is about time they got back. Memo to Andy Reid: PLAY TO WIN!! The last 2 years, I sat through the conservative, play not to lose game plan, and watched the Eagles go down in flames. I've had enough. I expect the game to be the Eagles season in a nutshell. They start awful, give up a ton of running yards, and own the second half. (Watch some game previews here)

Run Donavan Run. Go DUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCEEE!! Bust 'em up B-Dawk.

My pick: Birds win 24-17.



Bonus thought: The last time the Eagles were in the Super Bowl, they played the Raiders in the pre-season, regular season, and the Super Bowl. This year, they played the Patriots in the pre-season and the regular season. Will they meet in Houston? We'll know tonight.

Read this Jay Bryant column. The last paragraph sums it up perfectly:

The massahs were Democrats. The whip-toting overseers were Democrats. The Klansmen were Democrats. The filibusterers of the Civil Rights bills in the 1960's were Democrats. The liberals whose welfare-state policies destroyed families in post- Great Society inner cities were Democrats. That such a party gets to claim the allegiance of so many African-American voters is one of the great con jobs of all time.

It seems that those wackos at PETA have joined MoveOn.org's so-called contest winner in the reject column. CBS, citing its advocacy rules, rejected an ad that PETA wanted to run during the Super Bowl, which "asserts that meat-eating causes impotence, using two attractive women and an unlucky pizza deliveryman to make its point." PETA, as expected, is upset about the rejection. This quote by Lisa Lange, PETA's spokeswoman, is hilarious:

"In a sense, everything is an advocacy ad," Lange said. "Every time you run a burger ad, you're advocating that people eat meat. And meat-eating is a controversial activity."

Meat-eating is controversial? Who knew? I will try to remember that the next time I eat a double cheeseburger at Sonic or a big, fat, juicy steak at Outback.

Watch the rejected commercial. It is actually pretty damn funny.

I have seen plenty of Iowa tomfoolery all over TV today, the "enthusiasm" for the candidates, etc, etc. Big f'n deal. Of course each candidate has crowds, they're in Iowa!! This is Iowa's time to shine, because, come Tuesday morning, everyone will go back to not giving a damn about it. How important are the Iowa caucuses? Well, take a look at some past winners: Edmund Muskie, Tom Harkin, and Richard Gephardt, for example. The only people to win the Iowa caucuses who went on to win the Presidency were George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. (But, Carter was defeated by uncommitted, 37.2% to 27.6%)

I think I'll spend Monday night watching the uber-version DVD of Seabiscuit.

One of my favorite blogs, Confessions of a Political Junkie, brought up a recent duck hunting trip that Justice Scalia and Vice President Cheney went on together. Since the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case involving the Vice President, you just knew someone somewhere would cry foul. Well, once again, the liberal interest groups are out crying in force.

Scalia made a mistake when he recused himself in the Pledge of Allegiance case. I knew, after that, the liberal groups who hate Scalia would be emboldened, and try every chance they got to use Scalia's integrity against him. Perhaps Scalia should not have went duck hunting with Cheney at this time, that is a very valid argument. But, Scalia and Cheney are long time friends. If he recuses himself from this case, next thing you know, they'll want Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any case involving Presidential powers because Bush's father appointed him or some other pathetic reasoning. (Since Souter is a flaming liberal now, no one will mention him). This is just another attempt for liberals to get themselves a de facto majority on the Court (hell, they may have it already, thanks to O'Connor). They will never stop accusing the justices who actually believe in the rule of law and judicial restraint of the "appearance of impropriety."

I'll be more receptive to this argument for recusal when Justice Ginsburg recuses herself from every case that involves the ACLU. I have yet to hear anyone complain about a former ACLU director judging cases concerning the ACLU. Until then, I don't want to hear it about Scalia, who is a model of integrity.