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.

According to Drudge:

NEW YORK TIMES op-ed queen Maureen Dowd was left waiting by the phone by Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

After scheduling a phone interview with Dowd at her hotel in Des Moines, the candidate never called!

Dowd is preparing to write about the snub in her Sunday column, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

"I never got the five minutes with him!" Dowd regrets. "Which left me five minutes to think about why his candidacy was sputtering."

Alright Howard!! Good move, stiffing the old sea hag. I promise you Howie, if before you reach the Arizona primary, I suddenly become a government-dependent liberal who doesn't care about you raising taxes because I don't have a job and live off welfare, I'll consider voting for you just because of this.

Democrats, who never miss an opportunity to slander Bush as either being a racist or "insensitive to civil rights," are upset that Bush had the temerity to use the recess appointment powers granted to him in the Constitution by appointing Judge Charles Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Let's anazlyze this: Pickering is currently a federal judge. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to that position in 1990. Now, Pickering is one of the judges that Bush has nominated for the federal bench that is being held up by most of the Democrats in the Senate by a faux-filibuster. Democrats are accusing him of being a racist, despite the facts saying otherwise. That is to be expected. The ol' murdering drunk Ted Kennedy, for example, has nothing else to say, because he can't say what he (actually, the liberal activists who own him lock, stock, and barrel) thinks. I won't rehash his quotes on this, which sound like everything else he says. (He must have a form ready for the press, and his staffers just type in the name of the current person to be slandered) But, I will share two of my favorites: According to that French guy:

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry accused Bush of "ignoring the will of the people and threatening civil rights on behalf of right-wing ideologues."

Ignoring the will of the people? If you obstructionist wankers cared about the "will of the people," Pickering would have already been confirmed, because he has more than the 51 votes required. And, there's this:

Senate Democrats scolded Mr. Bush for "circumventing" the process by appointing Judge Pickering without the "advice and consent" of the Senate as required by the Constitution. "It is now clear that the White House will exploit any procedural tactic in order to pack the courts with right-wing ideologues," said Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat.

Only a liberal Democrat could say that a Constitutional provision is really "a procedural tactic." Earth to Daschle: It is your party that has made a mockery of the "advice and consent" process.

No matter how those weasel Democrats try to spin this, it is they who have caused this. They are wholly owned arms of groups like the ACLU, People for the American Way, NARAL, etc, and must keep judges who actually follow the Constitution off the bench at all costs. They want scumbags like Judge Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit, who see the Constitution as a "living, breathing document," twisted to suit whatever liberal cause that is being advocated.

The only thing Bush did wrong here was that he did not appoint all of the judges that are being faux-filibustered. (Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, Texas judge Priscilla Owen, Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada (who has since removed his name from consideration) and California judges Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown.) Bush needs to make this a huge campaign issue, and, if it were up to me, he would discuss this during the State of the Union. (Imagine how bad Democrats would look if he pointed out, for example, Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada, and explained their life stories, followed by the story of how a minority of Democrats are holding them back. He'll never do it, but what a splash it would make)

Take a minute to read the truth about Pickering. And, for laughs, read this awful piece by Nat Henoff, a lousy columnist in all respects, rip the press for their distortion of Pickering's record while finding a sneaky to way to oppose his confirmation.

Take a look at how Democrats have tried to punish other Democrats for supporting Pickering, proving once again how much liberals really support free speech when you don't parrot the company line. Intellectually honest Democrats are liberals are supporting Pickering all over the place.

Let there be no mistake: Pickering is being faux-filibustered because he is Christian and because the abortion lobby is against him. Anything else is subterfuge.

I was sitting in the Phoenix airport today, ready to enjoy that $29 if purchased 21 days in advance cattle car ride, otherwise know as Southwest Airlines flight #1661 to Albuquerque, and I saw a Los Angeles Times sitting unattended in the waiting area. I figured, "what the hell, enjoy the liberal tomfoolery while I wait for them to call us poor suckers with the C card." What I saw in the section called "Column 1" was shocking! (Link unavailable due to it being available only to 7 day subscribers to the paper,so I found the picture elsewhere. I am 96.2% sure it is the same one in the L.A. Times)



Why, that is Salman Rushdie and his actress girlfriend Padma Lakshmi. I thought there was a hit (fatwa) out on this guy for writing the book "Satanic Verses." I guess they canceled it. If not, Rushdie is going out in style, I'll give him that.

I wonder what Allah pundit thinks of this?

A few things about this: CBS has decided against airing the winner during the Super Bowl, citing their long-term policy against airing issue ads. Oliver Willis thinks CBS and Viacom are appeasing the powers that be. (Yeah, sure. They are so right-wing) While I, at the same time, think CBS should have accepted the ad, I am also glad they decided not to air it because I just do not want to watch political ads during the Super Bowl (God willing, the Eagles will be in it). Regardless, what started a train of thought that I must convey was this simple sentence in the article:

MoveOn is airing a 60-second version [of] the commercial, which was selected through a contest calling for anti-Bush ads, in advance of President Bush's State of the Union address Jan. 20. The group has purchased $300,000 worth of air time on Time Warner's CNN that starts Jan. 17 and runs through Jan. 21.

Why did the mention of a 60 second version get my brain flowing with thought? Let me explain. (You cannot discount this like you can a typical MoveOn pronouncement, which is full of canards and easily-discredited lies.)

I worked in radio for a long time. When I either produced or dubbed spots, they had to be 30 or 60 seconds. Often, there would be a 60 second spot, and an edited version of the same one, cut down to 30 seconds. If MoveOn has a 60 second spot ready to go already, then I am convinced they had the winner planned out well in advance. Am I a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy monger? I don't think so, so hear me out.

I sat and watched every spot that was a finalist. Most of them were simply outrageous and inflammatory. Run of the mill far-left nonsense, "Bush lied about WMD," "Bush killed Iraqi civilians," "Bush is a schoolyard bully," etc. The finalists were full of red meat for the typical MoveOn.org member. Why then, with judges who have made some of the most outrageous anti-Bush pronouncements, did they end up picking the most sensible, airable ad as the winner? Stroke of luck? Coincidence? I think not.

Watch the winner. I think even if you reject the message, you'll agree that, unlike most of MoveOn.org's tomfoolery, this is a perfectly reasonable and debate worthy ad, not easily dismissed like just about all of the other finalists.

The contest was billed by MoveOn.org like this:

Year after year, a few dozen Washington consultants make the great majority of political ads. They look the same, they sound the same – even the actors seem familiar. Perhaps as a result, voters tune out, even when there are critically important messages to convey. Sounds like they are looking for a regular person to make the ad. Something cool, slick, and outside the Beltway. A good idea actually, in theory. They continue:

That’s why we decided to launch Bush in 30 Seconds, an ad contest that’s intended to bring new talent and new messages into the world of mainstream political advertising. We're looking for the ad that best explains what this President and his policies are really about -- in only 30 seconds.

Now, no amateur or regular Joe would make two versions of the ad, one 60 seconds, then edit it to 30 seconds. The contest says in only 30 seconds, and I am sure every entrant took that limitation to heart. Now, let's look at the winner. He is Charlie Fisher, 38, of Denver, an ad executive at the Leo Burnett firm, who allegedly did the ad on his own time. (Who happened to fly all the way in from Denmark for the awards ceremony. Wonder how much that cost.)

Granted, MoveOn.org never said it was an amateur contest, but sure made it seem like it was for regular people:

The contest was created by MoveOn.org Voter Fund to try to make the political process more accessible to ordinary Americans unlikely to be hired to create advertising in traditional political campaigns.

Nice wording by MoveOn. I never took it to mean that someone from a major ad firm from Chicago would be the winner. (I guess since Leo Burnett lost the Delta Airlines account, this guy has had some time on his hands.) For further proof, look at what "contest" judge Margaret Cho said:

Bush in 30 Seconds was a brilliant concept and the night was devoted to all the people who made ads on their computers, using their own money, their own hearts and minds, and most importantly, their right to free speech. It was the first time in a long while where I felt proud to be an American. Yeah, sure.

Think about what I have said. A group that has made its name by promulgating the most egregious slander against President Bush (they did not have this visibility when they were dedicated to protecting Clinton) runs an ad contest. The contest gets the most attention by "accidentally letting slip through" a few Bush=Hitler ads. Their finalists are chock full of anti-Bush screed which have been discredited time and time again. The judges of the contest, some of the most shameless Bush haters around, "allegedly" pick the most sensible anti-Bush ad, which conveniently has a 60 second version ready to go within a week after the winner is announced. The winner was produced by a professional at a world-class agency, who has been in Denmark, so I'm sure that he isn't all of a sudden finishing the extended version. Those 30 seconds take days, even weeks, to do. In closing, ask yourself this:

What one issue has given MoveOn.org the level of visibility they currently enjoy? Without a doubt, it is the Iraq War, and their hardcore stance against it. Why, then, when trying to get an ad on the Super Bowl, the most watched TV program of the year, where the commercials are discussed as much as the game, does MoveOn.org want to run an anti-Bush economic message? The answer: Because even they know their crap will only play to the far left, and just about every one of their finalists would end up soiling MoveOn.org's name (yes, even more than it is now) with the average American who does not know or care about them. The majority of the American people would be appalled if they were to see just about every one of those ads on the Super Bowl. The people behind MoveOn.org are not dumb. They didn't turn a small website run out of their house into a political player by being idiots.

MoveOn.org played everyone on this. The contest was a sham.

[Update] Thanks for the e-mails (leaving comments would be better, so all can see and debate the merits) and thanks for, an example (if I missed you I'm sorry) to Lee from Right Thinking From the Left Coast, Erick at Confessions of a Political Junkie, and Kevin at Pundit Filter for the mentions. Let me clarify something: I am not saying it is a conspiracy like JFK or anything. I am just saying that MoveOn.org had a sham contest, and the facts speak for themselves. I was in radio a long time, and produced a lot of spots. I know a pre-selected and a professional spot when I see (or hear) one. There was no "contest." Simply put, they love accusing Bush of lying when the facts suggest otherwise. I am accusing them of lying when the facts suggest indeed they are. I have made a case that would get them indicted by a grand jury. Would it bring a conviction? Without more, no. But if you think about my case, you'll see I am a lot closer to being right than I am to being wrong.

I take what Dick Morris says very seriously. It is hard to deny his insight and political acumen, even if he did work for Clinton. His latest column is a sobering analysis of Bush's immigration plan. It'll make you think twice about your anger concerning the plan.

Nice speech today Al, discussing global warming on the coldest day in years. Let's review a few quotes:

"While President Bush likes to project an image of strength and courage, the real truth is that in the presence of his large financial contributors, he is a moral coward."

"[T]he Bush-Cheney administration is wholly owned by the coal, oil, utility and mining industries."

Hmm, Al. What about you? Funny how you sold Elks Hills oil reserves to Occidental Oil when you held stock in that company. Why doesn't anyone ask him about that? Gore is an irrelevant scum who thinks MoveOn.org is his ticket back to being a serious political player. Sorry Al. All I can say is: "MOVE ON!!!"

Seems that Jake meant to link to someone else. I figured when he said Anti-American, it must have been an error. His words:

Apparently, I got your link and someone else's (the offending party) blogs
mixed up. I'm sorry for the mistake.

~Jake

No problem Jake. Thanks for the mistake. Got me all riled up. I love that.

This story from Philadelphia is interesting to me on two levels:

Principal reassigned for using racial epithet in name-calling lecture

What was the principal doing? Why, she was telling that saying a certain word (I assume the n-word, the article doesn't say) was unacceptable!! She was re-assigned for actually saying the word when telling the students they cannot use it. This is pathetic. Racial relations must be real good these days, or else this would be a non-story. Race-baiters gotta complain when the can.

Second, the school, which is for visually-impaired students K-8 is now called the Overbrook Educational Center. When my brother went there 20 or so years ago, it was called Overbrook School for the Blind. Yes, a PC name change, but, for once, I am glad to hear that. Not every student there was blind, and the name was quite humiliating. (See, I am not a heartless bastard)

Some liberal called me a racist, homophobic, anti-American asshole. The racist and homophobe part is expected, since I am against the gay agenda and affirmative action. Liberals have no other card to play, because they can't debate on the merits, and they (might) know that such pro-gay and pro-affirmative action policies are FORCED on us by the courts because they can't be passed legislatively. I love how, to them, being in the majority makes you "out of the mainstream" or "extremist."

The thing that gets me is the "Anti-American" part of the insult. That is hilarious. Anyone who knows me, or reads this blog, knows that I am as far away from anti-American as it gets. (My family will get a huge laugh from that) Here, if you don't like what I say, there is a comment section for you to respond. I love debate. You'll never see me use words like "racist" or "homophobic" because they are words used to avoid debate. If I am wrong, tell me. If I am too extreme, then say so. Put your name to it, just like I do. Stand up and be counted. I am not anonymous here. My name, website, pictures, family pics, are all here for anyone to view. Nothing makes me be happier than being wrong. A perfect example: When Stephanie and I decided to have a baby, she wanted a video camera of the birth and her entire family in the delivery room. I said, "No way, no how, never, forget it." After a long spirited debate and compromise on some things, we agreed on the cameras and the family present. I was dead wrong, and she was right, and I am glad she argued about it. I almost made a huge mistake.

Lecture over. You can go back to your Playstation now Jake. Don't worry. You may have missed New Year's Eve, but you won't miss a Kucinich Presidency, because there won't be one.

If you happen to read this and you live in Michael Zucchet's district in San Diego, vote for a lesbian seagull* before you vote for this scumbag jango prick asshat. Before I tell you the main reason why I despise this douchebag, read about one of the scandals and federal investigations this guy has been involved in here, and here.

I watched this smarmy ass on The O'Reilly Factor tonight, and I wanted to take a sledgehammer to my TV. Zucchet is one of the 6 San Diego council members who voted to give the ACLU a nearly million dollar settlement and void the Boy Scouts lease at Balboa Park. The pompous ass is obviously an ACLU tool. Well, looky here, he was endorsed by the Queer Democrats of San Diego. And the gay political community has labeled him a "priority candidate." Coincidence? I think not. This is him right here.



He got real smug when O'Reilly mentioned that the Justice Department might investigate what the council is doing in this case. (Then again, this guy is already under federal investigation, so it may have been his experience as a suspect that caused his arrogance. He is, after all, out on bond) Watching his casual attitude towards tossing the Boy Scouts out of Balboa Park, quoting that far-left waste of a Judge Napolean Jones as the gospel pissed me off to no end.

If you have a minute, e-mail this guy and tell him to stop bending over for the militant gay lobby and the ACLU (same thing actually) and support a real American treasure, The Boy Scouts. His e-mail: mzucchet@sandiego.gov

or call him at (619) 236-6622.

Let's review: Corrupt councilman who is under federal indictment and is a "preferred candidate" of the gay community, who votes against a group that the militant gay lobby led by the ACLU hates, The Boy Scouts. Said councilman then votes to give nearly a million dollars to the ACLU. Does said councilman expect to see some of this back, especially since his defense fund needs some cash? What do you think? I promise you this: If the ACLU funnels a nickel to this guy, I'll find out about it, I promise that.

Just so you know, I have said many times here that I am not opposed to the gay lifestyle, as that is a personal choice, to be kept personal. But I am staunchly against having the the gay agenda imposed on us. I am not a homophobe, I have no fear of men. I am tired of the militant gay agenda getting preferential treatment over morality and decency. If the ACLU doesn't like it, then they do two things: Read their own views on the First Amendment, and then go fuck themselves.

* I will send $1 to the first person who explains that reference in the comments section.

There are certain writers whose work I read without fail because, in my view, they occupy a stratosphere all their own. I am talking about people like Michelle Malkin, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Cal Thomas, Larry Elder, David Limbaugh, Mark Steyn, Gregg Easterbrook (TMQ only. His New Republic work is painfully boring) Jayson Stark, and Peter King, for example. Thomas Sowell also is on that list. His latest column, Manufacturing Confusion, is a must-read. Anytime you hear from a jerkoff liberal who thinks that government is the solution to all problems whine about the so-called loss of millions of jobs caused by President Bush, just refer them to this latest example of Sowell's brilliance.

Pick which is more interesting to you: The ol' murdering drunk Ted Kennedy's latest Bush-bashing speech, or the police report on the accident where he killed Mary Jo Kopechne.

"Lie after lie after lie", the old Massachusetts said a few months back. And today, he said that what happened "broke the basic bond of trust between government and the people." I thought for a second he was talking about what he did at Chappaquiddick, but he was talking about Bush. (Here's Ted's car being pulled out of the lake, at approximately the same time he sobered up, and Teddy at Kopechne's funeral. Nice neck brace you got there Teddy.)

Hot off the AP wire:

Former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, whose presidential campaign never got off the ground, will drop out of the race and endorse front-runner Howard Dean, campaign officials said Wednesday. (in other related news, tomorrow I will announce that I am dropping out of the race for ACLU Director.)

Only in the Democratic Party could a Senator who got bounced out of office after one term, under a cloud of controversy, be a Presidential candidate. Of course she dropped out before any votes. (D.C. doesn't count. Those dopes re-elected Marion Barry) She might have gotten 8 votes in Iowa. Patricia Ireland (her campaign manager, the best example of how unserious Braun's campaign was) and NOW must be crying. I wonder if they'll support that domestic violence enabler Howard Dean now. They ignored Clinton's tomfoolery, so, why not?

I'm sure her dropping out will get about as much attention as her campaign.

Whether you think Bush's idea to return to the moon or a trip to Mars is a good idea or not (I do, man is meant to explore), you must admit this: People will be falling all over each other to be the first to go to Mars, risk be damned. Ask yourself, would you go if you had the chance to make history, to be the next Neil Armstrong or Christopher Columbus?

May God allow me to live long enough to see a man on Mars.

Headline on Drudge (and in James Taranto's column too):

GORE TO DECRY 'GLOBAL WARMING' ON NEW YORK CITY'S COLDEST DAY IN DECADE

Al Gore's is taking his tomfoolery to new heights!! Wow, on a day where the temperature will reach zero, Al will be talking about global warming. The man upstairs doesn't like him, I'm now convinced. Those wankers at MoveOn.org are, of course, sponsoring Al's speech. (Does anyone else besides MoveOn.org sponsor him these days? He seems to have become their de facto spokesman) Get this from the MoveOn press release:

Mr. Gore will issue an indictment of the Bush administration's inaction on global warming, linking the issue to U.S. national security. He will show that global warming is happening right now, and yet the President is choosing to help his coal- and oil-company supporters rather than advance modern technologies that can affordably solve this critical problem. The speech will also explore the administration's deliberate attempts to mislead the public as it attacks basic environmental laws and protection.

Global warming is a national security issue? Oh, stop it. Didn't the AIDS lobby try this a few years ago? This is the same guy who thinks taking out Saddam was a mistake, and had nothing to do with our security. Well, he does now anyway. Before MoveOn and George Soros was paying the freight, Gore thought differently:

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Global warming is a fraud. I can't wait to hear how algore links it to national security. This next part is not tomfoolery of the highest order, it is tomfoolery of a level that just cannot be quantified:

Even though forecasters predict Thursday night will bring the coldest temperature reading in New York City in more than 10 years [1 degree above zero], sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT that Gore is determined to deliver the speech -- hoping to make the case how "Global warming" is actually the cause of the record cold snap!

"The extreme conditions are actually the end result of the planet warming," Gore has told advisers, sources say, in explaining his motivations. "The Bush policies are leading to weather extremes."

Wow. I thought I remembered that there was cold weather before Bush took office!! I must have been mistaken. Beyond hilarious.

One other thing. If Gore was President on September 11th, couldn't you just hear him make this speech:

"My fellow Americans. On September 11th, terrorists of unknown origin attacked us. Let me assure you that all the resources of the FBI will used to catch the cowards responsible and bring them to justice. In addition, I will ask Congress to authorize new legislation which will allow us to study the root causes of terrorism so we may understand how and why this happened. And, I will be setting up a task force to prosecute any hate crimes that may take place as a result of this tragedy. Rest assured you will be protected from the inevitable racial violence that may take place due to your ethnicity. Many have asked why we do not retaliate immediately, and bomb Afghanistan. The answer is simple: We have not determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the cowards involved were connected to Afghanistan, and there is no controlling legal authority that would allow us to retaliate before such a standard is met. Plus, we fear that indiscriminate bombing of Afghanistan will cause such a detriment to the fragile eco-system of the indigineous Afghani oxen, that the damage would not be undone until long after our grandchildren's generation."

Didn't I tell you that the liberal media would cricle the wagons against the outsider Dean? Now, just 5 days before the Iowa caucuses, ABC News has revealed that Dean filed an affidavit in support of one of his former troopers, who was a spousal abuser, and lied about it later, saying he did not know. Now, ABC News could have run this before, but chose not too. They must have been prepared for this criticism, becasue they got this tidbit in:

Dean declined repeated requests over the last six weeks to talk to ABCNEWS about the case, but when the issue first came up in Vermont three years ago, he told WCAX-TV he did not know of the abuse allegations when he filed the affidavit.

A hatchet job on Dean for sure. you watch: The liberals, like Oliver Willis, Atrios, and Eric Alterman, for example, will find a way to blame this on the right-wing media. I don't know about you, but watching Dean (and Weasley Clark too) getting exposed for new tomfoolery every day has been a ton a fun for me.

Big ups to Chris over at Right Wing Ramblings, a proud member of the VRWC.

Check him out.

Professor Bainbridge is upset at former Labor Secretary Robert Reich's flat out lie on MSNBC's Hardball. My only question is...Why? Robert Reich is a far left liberal hack. Every time this guy is in an interview, you can't expect anything of substance. Has he ever gone a full interview without using the phrase, "Tax cuts for the rich?" I saw that weasel on The O'Reilly Factor last night (Reich is now Professor Reich at (stunningly) Berkeley) on a segment that was supposed to be about George Soros. Instead, Reich must have brought up Richard Mellon Scaife ten times, and O'Reilly kept cutting him off, telling him that the discussion was Soros. (By the way, I have yet to read a similar expose of Soros as this one about Scaife.)

My point is simple: Forget Reich. Do not take anything he says seriously. Professor Bainbridge should spend his valuable time on much more important things.

Think President Howard Dean can't push through his massive tax hikes because of a Republican Congress? Think again. Most of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2006 and Dean will veto any attempt to extend them.

Here's a calculator that can help you find out just how much Howard Dean's massive tax hikes will cost you every year. Try it. Then ask yourself how much you would be willing to donate to prevent Dean from ever becoming president.

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:





Hat tip: American Real Politik

Is Margaret Cho supposed to be a star? To who? Well, for her, I guess you have to take any chance at celebrity you can get.

This is the best article I've read in the New York Times in months. It's all about hockey dentistry, and its latest innovations. It is an excellent read. My favorite part:

Some people even theorize that the loss of teeth in a hockey game affected the course of scientific history. Seventeen years before Wilbur and Orville Wright flew their first airplane, Wilbur lost a few teeth in a game of shinny on ice in his hometown, Dayton, Ohio.

According to several biographers, Wright's mouth was clipped by another player's stick. During his recovery, he encountered physical and psychological complications and chose to stay at home instead of attending Yale. His reading included scientific books and journals.

Dr. Tom Crouch, the senior curator for aeronautics at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, said "the hockey accident is absolutely important" in Wright's life.

Great work by Joe Lapointe of the Times. Now we know why no one looks like Bobby Clarke anymore.

Here in Arizona, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the toughest sheriff around. We have a jail called Tent City, where inmates wear pink and get bland baloney sandwiches, and he even has a female chain gang. His latest thing: Forcing illegal aliens, who make up a huge percentage of our jail population, to register for Selective Service.

I'm sure liberal "rights" groups will somehow find an issue with this. After all, this guy is hated worldwide. The ACLU, Amnesty International, amongst others, hate this guy's guts. Germans even hate this guy. I remember once he was hugely criticized for saying that he "only answers to the people." (As if he should be answering to only the ACLU and their ilk) He was first elected in 1992, and been re-elected every time since.

I love this guy. He is a tough SOB. I voted for him last time, and will vote for him every chance I get. I only wish we had more law enforcement officers like this. His style should be the model everywhere.

This is Al Franken at the MoveOn.org thing last night:

"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."

Hardy har har. That's supposed to be funny?

Ex-President Carter to Offer Support for Dean

The worst President of my lifetime is endorsing Dean. This is hilarious. Really, this is a self-promotional opportunity for the ol' peanut farmer, trying to make himself relevant again. (I actually met Carter once, when he, former President Bush, and former President Ford, and (now former President) Clinton came to Philadelphia, and I gotta say this: He was very polite to me.)

Jimmy Carter backstabbed Clinton by going to North Korea just as Clinton was to announce sanctions against them, and has been a shameful Bush-basher over the last 2 years or so. He did next to nothing to get our hostages out of Iran. He is the definition of a miserbale failure. Howard Dean should have told Carter "no thanks." (Not that I'm not glad that he didn't)

Headline: Palestinian Authority Faces Financial Woes

Somehow, someway, this will be spun as happening because of "Israel's failure to make peace." The P.A. is fresh out of cash, and may not be able to make payroll: (damn, those Bush tax cuts are hurting everyone)

With unemployment rampant outside the public payroll, Palestinians could be facing unprecedented economic collapse after three years of conflict with Israel.
"We took loans from the bank for the past couple of months to pay salaries," Palestinian Economy Minister Maher Masri told The Associated Press. "If this situation continues ... we will not be able to provide salaries next month."

Good. Let them fall apart, and let the world try to deny the result. They are savages, pure and simple, and, you watch, they will turn their anger towards their real oppressors, the Palestininan Authority. This is my favorite part:

The World Bank says donors have grown weary at the lack of progress toward peace, while the Palestinians are facing a $400 million shortfall.
Masri said that Arab declarations of support for the Palestinians were not being matched by remittances, with only Saudi Arabia and Libya agreeing to send money. "The Palestinian cause is not the world's highest priority these days," he said. (Tell them to call Arafat for a loan.)

That's right, it isn't. Isn't it funny that countries are less willing these days to support terrorist groups? Gee, I wonder how that happened? It must have been U.N. sanctions or something.

If you read nothing else today, you must read Heather MacDonald's article in the City Journal about illegal aliens and crime. Yeah, illegals only come here to work and add to our economy.

According to Drudge, Michael Moore is going to endorse Wesley Clark. Let's think about this for a second. Moore is going to endorse Clark, who has bragged about his "successful" leadership of the war effort in Kosovo. Michael Moore compared the war in Kosovo to the Columbine killings. Hilarious. MOOREWATCH has the details.

I heard Vincente Fox talked about his vision of no borders between Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Well, sure. I would welcome my money joined with Bill Gates' and, say, Sean Hannity's, and gladly split it up evenly.

I have been to Mexico several times, and it is a third-world toilet. I wouldn't go to a podiatrist there. Even Bush knows what kind of filthy toilet it is:

Bush takes own water to Mexico

Good move, Mr. President. Montezuma's Revenge can be a real day-killer.

US military 'brutalised' journalists

If that is true, it is because they deserved it. According to The Guardian:

The complaint followed an incident in the town of Falluja when American soldiers fired at two Iraqi cameramen and a driver from the agency while they were filming the scene of a helicopter crash.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it, how journalists in Iraq have conveniently, time after time, happened upon an attack right after it happened? I'm sure the troops are well aware of the "luck" that these journalists have had.

Memo to Reuters et al: You are in a war zone, not Disney World. If it comes down to their lives or that of a teabag America-hating wanker reporter who is looking for every way to make the American soldiers look bad, then I'll pick our soldiers every time. Here's an idea: If you don't like it, go home.

Frankly, it has been 24 hours since the Eagles victory and I still can't believe they took their nuts out of the grinder the way they did. (Thanks to Mike Sherman for being a spineless dope.) Who the hell converts a 4th and 26? No one!!! I was sitting there, watching with Emily, and I thought it was over. No way they get this, I thought. But, McNabb came through, Freddie Mitchell (who I have labeled a first-round bust for the last two years) made a great catch, and the Eagles live for another day. I have waited 23 years now for the Eagles to get back to the Super Bowl, and have suffered through 2 straight NFC Championship game losses. Maybe, just maybe, Ye Football Gods are on the Eagles' side. Fly Eagles Fly!!

The Rams had a huge opportunity to beat the Panthers. Instead, Martz took no shots at the end zone, let the clock wind down, and played for the tie. Result: Rams lose in 2nd overtime.

According to Martz: "I felt like if we could get it into overtime, we would win this game,'' Martz said after the game. "I was very sure about the decision and I don't regret it.''

The Packers had a great chance to beat the Eagles. They had a 4th and a long 1, at the Eagles 41, with 2:30 left. If they convert the first down, the game is over. Instead, the Packers tried (weakly) to draw the Eagles offsides. It failed, and they punted. Result: Packers lose in OT.

According to Sherman: "We've been aggressive in the past, and been very successful [in that situation], but it was a long yard. [The Eagles] put their big people in the game. So we thought we'd pin them down in their end, which we did. I thought fourth and 26 was a pretty good situation to be in. We just didn't get it done." (By the way, this is all double-speak nonsense. The punt wound up in the endzone, which gave the ball to the Eagles at the 20, anet gain of 21 yards. After one play, a Duce Staley 23 yard run, the net gain was -2. Plus, the 4th and 26 had nothing to do with it. that was long after Sherman made this dumb decision. And, Ahman Green had 156 yards on 25 attempts, and 1800 on the season. If you can't count on that guy, then you should not be a coach)

The point of all this: When you play not to lose, you lose. When you have a chance to deliver the knockout blow, you do it, pure and simple. These are the Democratic equivalents:

Martz: "I felt like if we could get it into overtime, we would win this game" Democratic translation: "If we would have let the inspections run their course, Saddam would have disarmed peacefully."

Sherman: "We've been aggressive in the past, and been very successful [in that situation], but it was a long yard. [The Eagles] put their big people in the game. So we thought we'd pin them down in their end, which we did. I thought fourth and 26 was a pretty good situation to be in. Democratic translation: "Clinton sent cruise missiles to Iraq, and they could have possibly ended Saddam's weapons programs, but we had no way to verify. If we invaded, Iraq might have used chemical weapons on our troops. We kept sanctions in place which were hurting the Iraqi regime, like the U.N. Oil for Food program. Bush lied about WMD to get us to go to war anyway. They never had them."

Moral of the story: Go for the kill or wind up dead.

Read this headline in the New York Times:

US Soldier Killed in Iraq, U.N. Urged to Return

Get it? It reads like, "We lost another man, please come save us!! S.O.S. to the U.N.!!" How do they justify this headline? By taking this quote completely out of context:

"We would like (the United Nations) to have a real presence here,'' Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio, whose country sent troops to Iraq as part of U.S.-led forces, said in Baghdad.

As Lee at Right-Thinking from the Left Coast would say:

Oh, that liberal media.

The ACLU has decided to assist Rush Limbaugh in his fight to keep his private medical files sealed. How nice of them. Their objective is ridiculously transparent: For future use so they can say, "Hey, we're non-partisan and fair," which everyone who knows what the ACLU is all about knows is crap. Think I am kidding? Take this past ACLU release (please), where they equate defending NAMBLA, a group dedicated to advocating the lowering the age of consent so that they may, without fear of prosecution, have sex with young boys, with defending Oliver North, a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the (my favorite, a group of strange folk who irritate everyone at airports for handours) International Society for Krishna Consciousness. (They also mention the National Socialist Party; re: Nazis) Bullshit. Defending NAMBLA is a part of their true agenda, the advocacy of the lifestyles of the militant gay mafia, led by ACLU Director Anthony Romero and his boyfriends.

And, there's this: The ACLU has waged a jihad against the Boy Scouts for years. Let their be no mistake: They are only doing this because they are pissed off that the Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), that the Boy Scouts were a private organization, and as such could exclude homosexuals as troop leaders. Now, the ACLU is trying to exact revenge on the so-called First Amendment ground of "seperation of church and state" (funny, I never read those words in the First Amendment. It reads to me that Congress cannot establish a national religion or interfere with religious freedom) and have found willing accomplices in the courts. In San Diego, the ACLU has been trying to have the Boy Scouts lease cancelled at Balboa Park, a land tract that they have leased and maintained, without a nickel of public funds, for nearly 50 years. The gutless worms on the San Diego City Council have rewarded the ACLU with close to a million dollars for their efforts!!! This is a damn outrage!!!

What sickens me most is that a group that stands for God, Country, and real values is being swept aside for a group dedicated to homosexuals, anti-Christians, anti-Americans, terrorists, and criminals. If nothing else, ask yourself this: What has the ACLU created? Name me one person who has come from the ACLU to do great things? (You'll mention Felix Frankfurter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and be lost to name more.) Now, take a gander at the long list of Boy Scouts/Eages Scouts who have contributed great things to this country and the world. It is a long and distinguished one.

The Boy Scouts create, and the ACLU destroys. Please, someone, somewhere, stand up and tell the ACLU to go pound sand.

(The case is on appeal. Of course, the liberal Ninth Circuit will side with the homosexuals, and it will be up to the Supreme Court to save the Boy Scouts lease. Let's pray that they do.)

You must read this about Paul O'Neill's interview on 60 Minutes and the major distortion (to say the least) that is being lapped up by our friends in the liberal media.

Power Line, one of my favorite blogs, has the full story.

and a football game is not on, take a minute to watch the finalists for MoveOn.org's "Bush in 30 seconds" contest. Hilarious stuff. The irony of it all: Just about every one of them is a variation of "Bush is a liar," with the producers of these spots lying to make their point. (In one of the ads, the editing of what Bush actually said during last year's State of the Union address is slick as hell. When I worked in radio for 8 years, I could have edited anything to mean anything. Give me a Ted Kennedy speech and a few hours, and I'll make you think he is a disciple of Barry Goldwater.) Every liberal canard you've heard since day 1 of the Bush adminstration is covered. From Bush lied about WMD (of course, to believe that you must believe that Clinton, Kennedy, Daschle, Kerry, Levin, etc. lied too), to "We'll call you unpatriotic if you dissent," to "Bush has taken all of our civil liberties away," "Bush is destroying the envinronment," you'll get the full rehash of liberal tomfoolery. The children are well represented, as expected. The deficit numbers, unemployment figures, Iraqi civilian casualties are, well, outrageous. (The one that says we have only 3 allies at the U.N. is hilarious.) If you take the sum of all these ads, this is what you'll get: Bush lied about WMD's in Iraq to make companies rich and help billionaires, our children are going to pay for the rest of their lives to finance Bush's tax cuts, the world hates us, we haven't lost this many jobs since the Great Depression (yes, Herbert Hoover gets mentioned), and the United States is teetering on bankruptcy while Bush is wantonly destroying the environment. (What? No Bush=Hitler ads made the finals?)

The Orwellian aspect of most of those spots, America-haters wrapped in the flag, is breathtaking. What I find most ironic is that a website founded on the idea of telling us to "Move On" from Clinton's blatant lies now blantantly lies to impugn Bush.

If you care, this is my favorite one. All untrue, but very simple, slick, and to the point.

Hey, since Clark-bashing is in full swing right now, I thought I'd add some more, despite that I don't take this dope seriously. His campaign has been wrought with tomfoolery, and this surely deserves mention. Clinton's lap dog said:

A Clark administration would have pursued a strategy of removing the Taliban from power and capturing bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leadership without being diverted to a lesser issue.

Oh, really? I might believe that if it were not for that little inconvenient thing called his track record. Take a look at this photo:



Why, that's the fired, uh, retired General with Serbian war criminal Ratko Mladic, who is still on the loose, wanted by Interpol for a minor offense, Crimes against Humanity. And look at Weasley all chummy with the guy. The only thing missing from that photo is them smoking stogies and drinking cognac together.

Also, I have been seeing a TV commerical by Weasley called "Responsibility" that is playing here in Albuquerque (even available en espanol), where it touts his military service, and how he won a war with zero U.S. casualties and negiotiated a peace agreement. He even speaks four languages!! (Big f'n deal. So he can kiss French ass without a translator)



They seemed to have left out the part where he was canned for "integrity and character issues" or almost started World War III. Talk about a miserable failure.

(Hat tip: American RealPolitik)

Today's Wizard of Id has a brilliant take on global warming:



Global warming is a fraud, plain and simple.

There is a cheesteak joint in my hometown of Philly that has been there since before my mother was born. It is called Chink's. Yes, it is common knowledge that chink is used as a racial slur. No one disputes that. But the place was named after the owner's nickname, which was Chink. Some 21 year old woman, who is from West Virginia, is upset about it and wants the name changed. (Perhaps she should be more upset about the former KKK member who respresents West Virginia in the Senate) And, she has gotten the Anti-Defamation League involved. She says the name "dehumanizes [Asians]."

Boo-f'n-hoo. Now that she has gotten some press, she'll keep this crap going on as long as she can, I'm quite sure of it. I have eaten about 50-60 cheesesteaks from Chink's (YUUUUUMMMMMMMYY!!), and know some of the people there. I know for a fact it is not meant as a racial slur. If it were, they would not have been in business (since 1949) as long as they have. The only thing that pisses me off more than political correctness run amok is when some outsider tries to come in and tell you what's right and what's not. Get this:

Even the most innocent intentions doesn't make the word "chink" any less of a slur, said Andrew Rice, spokesman for the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, an Asian civil rights group in Washington D.C.

"People think that they can use terminology such as this and their intent makes all the difference, when in fact their intent really doesn't matter," Rice said. "Somebody walking down the street will not know about their intent."

"If you replace "chink" with any other racial epithet, people understand it very clearly. For some reason, when it's an Asian derogatory term, people don't get it," Rice said.

Oh, the victim card, "no one cares when it is directed towards Asians" crap. Using this dope's logic, then crackers need to find a new name. And, watermelons need to be called something else too. After all, "Even the most innocent intentions doesn't make the word 'watermelon' any less of a slur."

The problem with these civil rights groups and people like the 21-year old Park is that they are taught to find offense in everything. There is NO business in America that would use a racial slur intentionally as a name because they would not be in business long. These people need to shut up. If they want to find a real civil rights violation, start fighting against affirmative action, becasue therein is contained some of the most blantant anti-Asian bias one could find.

Of course, the idiots at National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium support affirmative action, completely oblivious that such policies discriminate against them. (This is no different than the NAACP supporting Jim Crow laws, which of course is laughable) Speaking of laughable, take a peak at their stance against "accent discrimination" under their Language Rights program. Read this liberal tomfoolery:

Because the APA community is largely foreign-born, language policies and accent discrimination have a disproportionate impact on APA immigrants. Lack of translated information and oral assistance means that limited English proficient APAs are less likely to understand and exercise their rights and obligations, less able to access government services, and less able to achieve economic stability.

Studies have shown that APA parents who do not receive the help of translators early in the family court process are more likely to lose their children. Studies have also shown that lack of English fluency is one of the biggest barriers to health care for the APA community. There is also an extremely high correlation between poverty and limited English proficiency in the APA community, but the ability of APA's to attain government assistance to health care or welfare benefits is limited by lack of access to information and lack of understanding of the process. Accent discrimination appears to hit those with Asian language accents more than those with European language accents.

Whose fault is it that people can't speak proper English? Not mine, not the United States Government's, but the immigrants themselves!! (Notice they go to the children card first, too.) Here's my favorite part again:

There is also an extremely high correlation between poverty and limited English proficiency in the APA community, but the ability of APA's to attain government assistance to health care or welfare benefits is limited by lack of access to information and lack of understanding of the process.

I thought immigrants came here to do the jobs that no one wanted, and contributed billions to our economy. I was told by the left-wing media that they were not here to leech off of welfare, but to work hard. But, there it is, right in their press release. They have a "right" to get taxpayer funded welfare, health care and translators. Instead of whining about how white immigrants are treated better than Asian ones, and pissing about getting taxpayer largesse, perhaps NAPALC shoud start up some English immersion courses.

There is only one entity that could defeat the United States: Ourselves. I am as sure of that as I am that Julius Caesar is dead. This is why: We have people like Chief Warrant Officer Aaron Weaver, an Army Ranger, and the rest of the world does not. Weaver was a man's man. One tough SOB. He fought in Somalia in the "Black Hawk Down" incident. He got testicular cancer, had surgery in 2002, fought his way back, and received a special medical clearance to fly in Iraq, where he fought for us at the same time he was fighting cancer.

We lost Chief Warrant Officer Aaron Weaver in the most recent helicopter attack in Iraq.

Now, Weaver could have mocked the Army's re-enlistment bonus and went home. Who would have blamed him? He could have said, "Hey, I can't go to Iraq, I have cancer." Who would have argued with him? Instead, loyalty to his unit and our country was paramount to him. I, for one, am most grateful for his service. You should be too.

His story is a great one that needs re-telling, on several levels: First, he is the greatness of America personified. Second, the attack on his helicopter is a reminder of the lowlife scum that we are dealing with. The helicopter shot down was clearly marked with a red cross, signifying it was a medical transport. Did that stop this human waste from attacking? Of course not. The only thing they know is killing. The rules of engagement do not apply to them. That is why they must be destroyed.

The anti-war protesters say they are the real patriots because they dissent. Yeah, OK. These vile anti-American scumbags are nothing compared to a fine soldier and man like Aaron Weaver.

May he rest in peace. And, Godspeed to his brother, Ryan Weaver, who is still serving in Iraq.

My #1 argument against affirmative action is that it is liberal condescension of the highest order. Simply put, it is an announcement to all minorities that "You are not good enough, and never will be, but, don't worry, as long as we Democrats are in power, we'll take care of you." To liberals, unqualified minorities deserved special treatment (i.e. The New York Times) but qualified minorities who happened to be Republicans are to be degraded as people only in their positions because of their race. Take Steven Ybarra, the coordinator of Latinos for Dean, who called Rosario Marin, a former treasurer who wants to run against Barbara Boxer in California, a "house Mexican for the Republicans." Nice, real nice. Marin's response was top-notch:

"Apparently, according to Mr. Ybarra and many of his fellow Democrats, if you are not a liberal Democrat, then you shouldn't be considered a legitimate minority. It doesn't matter that I'm an immigrant, the daughter of a janitor and a seamstress, or that I had to teach myself English because my first language was Spanish."

Now, get Ybarra's responses. First, to Univision, a Spanish-language television network:

Marin should be "proud of being called a house Mexican" in the same way as he is "proud to be the house Mexican for the Democratic Party."

And, now read his response to Fox News Channel:

"As far as I am concerned, she is a third level bureaucrat who was given a job by Bush so she could say that he had Mexicans working for him, and she's running for Senate so Bush can target Latino voters." It never crossed his mind that she earned her position, did it?

Ybarra's differing responses to these networks shows you where his true loyalties lie. What a dirtbag. Yet another reason to not vote for Dean, as if we needed another.

[update] I had a clearer thought about this I wanted to add. Ybarra had a conciliatory attitude towards the Spanish speakers audience, knowing they would not understand how it works here. On the other hand, his belligerence towards the English-speaking media shows that he knows that Democrats know exactly how things work here, that there is a racial double standard, and that insulting Hispanic Republicans is perfectly acceptable in the Democratic Party and their enablers in the liberal media.

If I took this guy seriously, I'd really be upset over the latest pronouncement from this lowlife scumbag, who is nothing more than Clinton's $5 whore. It seems that in his effort to attract woman voters, he is wearing sweaters instead of suits (yeah, that'll win their hearts) and has made this absolutely reprehensible statement:

"Life begins with the mother’s decision."

When exactly is that? Her decision to spread her legs? Or, whenever the mother deems that the baby she is carrying is worthy of life? And, if a 8-months pregnant woman decides that she does not want the baby, it is OK to have an abortion then? C'mon Weas. Think about what you said. Then there is this:

“I’m not going to be appointing judges who are pro-life,” he said.

Asked again how he will know a nominee’s position on abortion without applying a litmus test, Clark said:

“You just work through what the judge has done and if you find guys who follow judicial and established precedent, you’re not going to find a judge who is pro-life.”

Uh, memo to Weasley: That is a litmus test.

Clark's son and daughter-in-lawjust gave him his first grandson on Christmas. And, the baby was born a few weeks early. Clark, of course, said that he "couldn't be prouder or happier." Would he have felt the same if his daughter-in-law decided at that juncture of her pregnancy that she had changed her mind? I wish he would think, for just a moment, about the first time he held his grandchild, and then think again about what he said. He supports a baby just as fully developed as his grandson to be killed at a mother's whim.

I am pro-choice with caveats. If it were up to me, abortion would be illegal (health issues excepted, of course, but legitimate ones) after the first trimester. Partial-birth abortion is infanticide, plain and simple, and has no place in a civilized society. Emily is a month old today. Stephanie and I loved her when she was the size of a peanut. If we would have lost her at any point of Stephanie's pregnancy due to miscarriage, we would have been devastated. I cannot imagine how someone could choose to end a pregnancy late in their term.

Ask yourself this question: How many people do you know regret having an abortion? Now, how many of you know people who regret not having one. Think about that for a while. This sums up why I don't really care for abortion, and why I really despise partial-birth abortion:

Headline:

Aides Say Bush Is Already Absorbed in 2004 Race

Stop the presses!! Bush is aware that he is up for re-election in less than 10 months? Who knew? By the tone of this piece, it seems that the Times thinks that this is some sort of a bad thing. My favorite parts:

The president personally made the decision to hold the Republican National Convention in New York City, one adviser said.

"It's not a matter of turning everything over to Karl," said one top adviser, who asked not to be named for fear of angering the White House. "Karl is brilliant, but in terms of political strategy, there's no question that the president is intimately engaged. When he comes into a state, he will know exactly what his numbers are, whether people think the country is moving in the right direction, what his approval rating is."

You mean Bush decided to have the convention in New York all by himself? Oh, the humanity!! Gee, I thought that as the top dog in the Republican Party, it was his call. Don't you just love how liberals are trying to use the convention site against him? Talk about disregarding history. The decision where to hold the convention was made well in advance, as it always is. Holding the convention there was a way to add to NYC's economy, which is still recovering from the attacks on September 11th. (The 2000 convention in Philly was a boon to my wallet, that's for sure) And, I thought Bush was a clueless dope? You mean he actually knows what is going on? I am shocked I tell you, shocked!!

What a waste of valuable paper. Perhaps the environmentalists should target the Times for the useless cutting down of trees that allow this nonsense to be printed.

It seems that former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has written a nasty book about George Bush, which, since he is a former cabinet member, will get him a lot of love in the liberla media. Sunday night he is on 60 minutes, I am sure he will get multiple interviews on all the network morning shoes, Larry King Live, etc, you know, the usual liberal suspects. The part of his book that is getting the most play:

President George W. Bush's performance at cabinet meetings resembled that of "a blind man in a room full of deaf people."

Wow. What brilliance. Bush is dumb, and here's a new way to say it. I wonder ig he made that up all by himself. Here is the most I find most revealing:

Mr O'Neill was forced to resign as Treasury secretary in December 2002 after he declined to give full-hearted support for a new round of tax cuts, in a clear-out that also saw the dismissal of Larry Lindsey, the president's chief economic adviser.

Well, looky there. Bush fired the guy, and he has an axe to grind. Plain and simple. Was Bush justified in firing the guy? Absolutely!! His job as Treasury Secretary was solely at the President's pleasure, and why should Bush have someone in his cabinet who is not fully committed to one of the centerpieces of his presidency? (Besides, anyone who is against tax cuts should be working for Howard Dean, not Bush.)

Look for this flavor of the week to go bland real quick.

[Update] Double E sums O'Neill up quite nicely in a few sentences.

My NFL Picks this weekend:

Carolina +7 over St. Louis

New England -6.5 over Tennessee

Indianapolis +3 over Kansas City

Philadelphia Eagles -5.5 over Green Bay (Eagles 31 Green Bay 13)



Your best bet of the weekend: Don't take my advice when it comes to betting football.

Steve Buscemi is joining the cast of The Sopranos. I am hearing John McEnore in my head..."YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS!!"

According to the Washington Post:

Steve Buscemi, who has directed episodes of the series, has joined the cast as one such mobster, a cousin of Tony Soprano.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!! I pray that this casting decision will not be remembered later as the moment the Sopranos "jumped the shark."

President Bush announces possible immigration changes: I am pissed at Bush.

I get my W-2's back yesterday, and after a short look to estimate what refund I might expect, I realize that it will the highest refund I ever received.: I am quite pleased with Bush.

Hmmm....perhaps his timing is a bit more shrewd than I thought. Interesting thought, yes?

And, then there is this: Why would anyone in their right mind vote for Dean on taxes alone? I think every dope who intends to vote for him should be forced to go to this website first. After seeing what Dean would cost, only unemployed, government-dependent liberals, who whine that Bush doesn't give tax refunds to losers who never paid taxes in the first place, would still vote for that wanker Dean.

Our country really had a secularist founding. Who knew? I didn't. According to a Times Op-ed written by some dunce named Susan Jacoby:

On a deeper level, the notion that elected officials should employ a religious rationale for policy decisions is rooted in the misconception, promulgated by the Christian right, that the American government was founded on divine authority rather than human reason. When I lecture on college campuses, students frequently express surprise at being told that the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted any mention of God in order to assign supreme governmental power to "We the People."

Dismissing this inconvenient fact, some on the religious right have suggested that divine omnipotence was considered a given in the 1780's — that the framers had no need to acknowledge God in the Constitution because his dominion was as self-evident as the rising and setting of the sun. Yet isn't it absurd to suppose that men as precise in their use of language as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison would absentmindedly have failed to insert God into the nation's founding document? In fact, they represented a majority of citizens who wished not only to free religion from government interference but government from religious interference. (This last sentence is true, but surely not in the way Jacoby intends the reader to think.)

Read the bold part again. Take a second to think about it. Because God is not mentioned in the Constitution by name, there you have it: God had nothing to do with it!! Now, let's discuss some true "inconvenient facts" for Jacoby. This quote from James Madison:

"The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."

More from Madison:

"We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Or how about George Washington? (yes, I know he didn't write any part the Constitution or sign it, so save your e-mails to pounce on this to prove me wrong):

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."


Or, how about Thomas Jefferson:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Or this, from John Adams:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with humanpassions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, orgallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."


Or from John Jay:

"Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Or how about that so-called secularist Benjamin Franklin:

"The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth:'that God governs in the affairs of men.' And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

Or from Daniel Webster:

"Our ancestors established their system of government on morality andreligious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, cannot safely beentrusted on any other foundation than religious principle, not anygovernment secure which is not supported by moral habits.... Whatever makesmen good Christians, makes them good citizens."

What consists of Jacoby's proof that American was founded on secularism? Why, it is letters to newspapers and the words of a New York City minister, followed by convenient quotes from Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. Read this part of her Op-ed again:

On a deeper level, the notion that elected officials should employ a religious rationale for policy decisions is rooted in the misconception, promulgated by the Christian right, that the American government was founded on divine authority rather than human reason.

Yeah, quoting the founding fathers is really "promulgating misconceptions from the Christian right." Notice that Jacoby completely forgets to mention The Declaration of Independence. And, she forgets to remind us that before the Constitution, we were governed by the failed Articles of Confederation. This Op-Ed should have never gotten past their editors. It is pure liberal propaganda dressed as a correction of history. Susan Jacoby is Winston Smith in a skirt, using the perfect platform, the alleged newspaper of record, which cares little about accuracy when liberal myths need expanding.

Jacoby's agenda is exposed in 2 sentences:

Mr. Dean, the candidate stuck with the label (or libel) of being the most secularist Democratic aspirant, seems to be heeding the advice to get religion.

and her concluding paragraph:

Today, many voters, of many religious beliefs, might well be receptive to a candidate who forthrightly declares that his vision of social justice will be determined by the "plain, physical facts of the case" on humanity's green and fragile earth. But that would take an inspirational leader who glories in the nation's secular heritage and is not afraid to say so.

This is an endorsement of Howard Dean, plain and simple. If that was her goal, she should have just said so. First, Howard Dean has been "libel[ed]" by being labeled as the most secularist candidate. I guess since Dennis Kucinich (who no one besides far-left goofs takes seriously) is even worse, that proves her point. Ok. Then, her concluding paragraph is ntohing more than a variation of Howard Dean saying "We've got to stop voting on guns, gods, gays and school prayer." Even Howard Dean soon found Jesus after, because he quickly discovered that this attitude was a loser!! Of course, he (and this dunce Jacoby) wants to minimize the importance of religion, because the religious traditions of America get in the way of their agenda.

Gotta love liberal tomfoolery: "Don't vote on what is important to you, but what is important to us. You are religious? Well I am not, so don't base it on that. You like tax cuts? Well, I don't. I need your money for social programs, so don't vote based on that. You like having a gun, or believe that the right to have guns keeps criminals in check? Well, I believe in gun control, so forget your feelings on guns. You think gay marriage is immoral? Well, the interest groups that support me feel otherwise, so ignore your feelings on that too and vote for me." What arrogance.

We were founded on Christian beliefs. To say otherwise would be a bald-faced lie. If that dunce Susan Jacoby feels that it is just not fair that Dean has to bring religion into his campaign to win, then, well, TOUGH!! Move to France, where they love your idea of secular humanism.

(By the way, I say all of this as a marginally religious person, who really does not care either way about religion, or what anyone else believes. However, I will always defend Christian ideals and history from slander and obfuscation.)

Stephen Green, the Vodka Pundit, fisks that old sea hag Maureen Dowd's latest column brilliantly. Read it.

Maureen Dowd, the old sea hag who writes for the New York Times, is back after a month off. And, as only she could, she finds a way to discuss dykes and W in the same column. Shockingly, she says something very close to what I said a few posts ago:

The president said making illegal immigrants legal would "honor our values," while conservatives went on TV to howl that Mr. Bush was rewarding criminal behavior. The president probably figures that the Republican-led Congress will never pass it anyway, so he can get the credit in states like Florida without having to deal with the results.

A very shrewd observation by the ol' shrew. I'm sure she could have many more of these if she wasn't more interested in impressing the fellow Manhattan elitisits that she hangs out with at Manhattan cocktail parties and Starbucks.

By the way, the Times only ran an AP wire report on the Reinhardt decision. If they run something else, I'll let you know.

8 years in jail for importing lobster tails in plastic bags instead of cardbaord boxes? Get this:

Federal prosecutors decided that Honduran law was violated by the shipment because a few tails (3 percent of the shipment) were less than 5.5 inches in length. The Honduran government objects to this interpretation of its law and filed a brief in behalf of the defendants, but federal judges nevertheless convicted their fellow citizens for violating the Lacey Act by importing "fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any foreign law."

The real mistake here was that these "criminals" should have imported Honduran people, saying that they could not find an American who would use the New York Times for its most useful purpose of wrapping fish, for $5.15 an hour.

And, where is the ACLU in all of this? This is not only a due process violation, it is an Eighth Amendment violation too. In the case, Ashcroft deserves serious criticism for allowing this to happen. But, since the ACLU would rather lie about Ashcroft on things that help increase their membership, they have nothing to say about this.

If it weren't for this internet thing he invented, I wouldn't waste all my time blogging. It's all Gore's fault. My lawyer will be in touch with him. Hey, if this slob wants to sue a cable company for causing his addiction to TV, anything is possible.

I spend all day at work listening to conservative talk radio (Rush, Hannity, Savage, Liddy and Hill). I would listen to liberal radio (other than drab NPR) if it were on somewhere, but since it cannot compete without government funding, I can't. All day, I heard almost nothing but Bush getting ripped to shreds BY HIS SUPPORTERS!! I haven't seen Republicans this angry in a while, and, with good reason, as we are justified in our anger. If this policy proposal were to become law exactly as proposed, Bush's supporters would disappear in droves. (Still, you gotta say this: How many times have we heard, "We need a national dialogue on...(fill in buzzword here, usually race)" and then, after the election, nothing? We are certainly having a national dialogue on immigration, a most welcome occurence) After hearing hour and hour of angry opposition, conservatives saying Bush is selling us and America out, and liberals saying he is only doing this for his business supporters and political gain, I am left with these questions...and specualtive answers:

1 - Didn't Bush see this anger coming? He must have. Despite what Democrats, liberals, homosexuals, and Canadians (one in the same actually) say, Bush is no dummy, and the Valerie Plume tomfoolery was and is really nothing more than to oust Karl Rove, Bush's main man and certainly no dummy.

2 - What was/is he thinking? Is it simple political pandering, with Bush thinking that he can win Hispanic votes? Or, it is a proposal destined to fail, where Bush can look good to some for trying, and Republican Congressmen can look good to others for stopping it, each knowing the status quo will prevail? (Think Arlen Spector voting for school vouchers when he knew Clinton would veto it, and voting against it when he knew Bush would sign it.)

3 - Is it an inevitable failure designed to show Bush's base that he is responsive to their concerns, especially after his wild spending and silence on the Supreme Court's out of control liberalism? (If I had my choice, I hope this is what it is.)

4 - Does Bush feel that he is truly being a "compassionate conservative?" If you listened to his speech today, he talked about families being split up, people living in fear, and similar things like that. (For a second, I thought it was an ACLU scum lawyer slandering John Ashcroft) (Also, notice in his speech, there was no applause when he talked about securing our borders)

5 - Does Bush and his people feel that his currently high political capital, combined with the inept dopes running for the Democrat nomination, that now was the time to pull this idea out?

6 - Or, is this "Triangulation run amok?"

Frankly, I am shocked that Bush would unveil something this controversial in an election year. This could go down as the worst political move in history. It could be a stroke of brilliance. Or, it could be nothing. We'll soon see.

Let's face it. Illegal immigration is out of control. 10 million or so illegals cannot be deported. And, imagine if Bush proposed building a wall or putting the military at the border? Imagine what the ACLU and the other scumbag far left Communist Trotskyist groups like them would say and do!! These are the same people that say Bush=Hitler and blow a gasket because they think Ashcroft is looking at library records!!

Consider this as well: Imagine if Bush brought out this proposal on January 8, 2005, after he was re-elected. He would be accused of a bait and switch and a thousand different things. This is a no-win situtation for him. The easiest thing would be for him to ignore the problem altogether, something our last President was an expert at. But the realities are this: They are here, and they must be dealt with. I hope the debate continues like this. In the end, like almost all things, it will not be as bad as we think.

A few other quick things: Am I the only one who remembers that there was no outrage like this at Clinton and Gore's Citizenship USA (read this too), where they tried to add a million new citizens in time for the 1996 elections? Does anyone remember that Clinton angered his base by signing welfare reform in 1996, yet still won re-election? And, can anyone tell me of an instance (other than welfare reform, which was a muted rage anyway) where Democrats showed this kind of outrage at their own leader, as oppossed to their usual "Kool-Aid drinking" support?

Judge Reinhardt of the radical left 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a scumbag, anti-Christian, terrorist-loving, anti-American jerkoff liberal scumbag who, not coincidentally is married to Ramona Ripston, the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. (This is the same ACLU-hack who ruled that The Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and may not be recited in government schools) His latest crap: Ruling in favor of Hewlett-Packard, who fired a man for having anti-sodomy Bible passages at his work cubicle. In Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard, the Almighty Reinhardt decreed:

"[Peterson] violated the company's harassment policy by attempting to generate a hostile and intolerant work environment"

That's right. Peterson, by objecting to the gay agenda, is at fault here. As usual, you actually have to read the case to see how outrageous Reinhardt's ruling is. If you depended on the homosexual-loving New York Times, AP, and their ilk, they'll tell you that this is a "victory" for tolerance and diversity. (I'll update tomorrow on how the Times handles this. Just remember I said this) No, this is a victory for intolerance of Christians. You just know that if someone put up Koran verses or a fatwa calling for "Death to America" or "Death to Israel," Reinhardt would have had the got reinstated with back pay and damages, and ordered the entire company to undergo diversity training.

What the liberal media will not tell you is that HP has posters up praising their own diversity, and one of them was titled "GAY." Peterson, a devout Christian, put up Bible passages in response to this. (In other words, he would not parrot the liberal mantra) According to that ACLU tool Reinhardt, Hewlett Packard was not guilty of "disparate treatment" of Peterson, because Peterson did not offer evidence of, well, anything. In fact, it was Peterson, by posting Bible passages, who violated company policy in "attempting to generate a hostile and intolerant work environment and because he was insubordiante that he repeatedly disregarded the company's instructions to remove the demeaning and degrading postings from his cubicle." Reading that again. Reinhardt is casually assuming a openly Christian-based aversion to homosexuality is "demeaning and degrading." Of course, the feelings of gays are paramount to him, and the feelings and beliefs of Christians are worthless. And, this second part of the ruling is out-fucking-rageous!!!

Peterson offered to remove the Bible references that were offensive to others if the company removed the "GAY" poster, which was offensive to him, as a reasonable accomodation to Peterson's religious beliefs. According to Reinhardt, that would have placed an "undue burden" on Hewlett-Packard. (Yes, you read that correctly.) It would have forced HP to "exclude sexual orientation from its workplace diversity program" and would have "created undue hardship for Hewlett-Packard because it would have inhibited its efforts to attract and retain a quality, diverse workforce, which the company reasonably views as vital to its commercial success." There you have it. You need gays to be successful, not Christians. And, as further justification for this, Reinhardt cites an amicus brief submitted by companies in the Grutter v. Bollinger, the Michigan affirmative-action case. (Thanks a lot Justice O'Connor)

In sum, gay rights are paramount, and religious rights are nothing. Either parrot the gay line, or be silent, or you are unemployed.

(Oh, and so they do not go unscathed, Judges William A. Fletcher (in a double stunner, a Clinton appointee and a former Berkeley professor) and Ronald M. Gould (another Clinton appointee who went to University of Michigan Law) were silent concurrers in the opinion.)

If this does not tell you how important fighting for Bush's federal judge appointees is, then nothing will.

U.S. Security Needs Anger Some Europeans

When I see the European Press run an article sympathetic to American anger over those government-dependent Euro-wussies, maybe I'll care about their gripes.

The outrage over Bush's proposed immigration plan is a welcome response. For the last 2 days, all I have been hearing on radio and TV is this proposed plan, and all of the good and (mostly) bad about it. A lot of people in Bush's base are outraged, and are threatening to sit out the election. OK, fair enough. But, a few things people on both sides have not considered much, if at all. Most agree that immigration is a problem, and say we need a debate, a dialogue, a reforming of the law, etc. Well, here it is. Let's debate, argue, yell, scream, and fix this problem as best we can.

All I will say is this: I am against anything resembling amnesty or granting citizenship. If it were up to me, I'd tax them heavily and offer them social security benefits ONLY if they returned to their home country, based only on the years they paid into in, not a day more. (This Michelle Malkin column about Social Security upsets me to no end.)

What I am watching (with amusement) is the liberal reaction to this. Since Bush offered it, they will find fun and creative ways to oppose it. Get this:

"Extremely disappointing," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic immigrant advocacy group. "It's a serious backtracking to where the president was two years ago when the administration was prepared to provide some kind of path to legal status," she said. "They're proposing to invite people to be guest workers without providing any meaningful opportunity to remain in the United States to become legal permanent residents. It appears to be all about rewarding employers who have been hiring undocumented immigrants while offering almost nothing to the workers themselves."

Yeah, La Raza is a Hispanic immigrant advocacy group, just like the KKK was formed to promote Christian values. They only thing those racists advocate is all non-Hispanics leave the Southwest and give it back to them. (The Associated Press link I saved last night to put here today was changed to delete the "Hispanic immigrant advocacy group." I guess that was even too ridiculous for them to keep up. Imagine if a white advocacy group was called "The Race.")

This Marxist nonsense is just an example of what we will hear from all of the liberals over this.

The Bush campaign is paying close attention to swing states like Florida in 2004:

Goals for the Bush-Cheney campaign in Florida

Get 80 percent Republican turnout in all 67 counties.

Register 75,000 to 100,000 new Republicans in Florida.

Enlist 65,000 "team leaders" to court voters.

Mobilize about 7,000 precinct organizers to drive up turnout street by street.

These are ambitious goals that will require time, money and effort to achieve. You can help achieve them and ensure that the 2004 will be a landslide election that re-elects President Bush and strengthens GOP Congressional majorities that can implement a conservative agenda.

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 of these terrific blogs:

It seems that a woman in Ohio is claiming that she bought, and lost, the winning ticket in the Mega Millions lottery, worth $162 million. Sure, I believe her. And, as can be expected, the Smoking Gun has the background of the woman claiming to have bought and lost the ticket. Just look at her. She looks real honest.

I just listened to Senator John McCain on 550 KFYI-AM here in Phoenix and he said something really good:

Tomorrow, the President will start a national debate on immigration, which is long overdue."

The Senator has no clue how right he is. Let's get it on.

After thinking about my comments this morning, I had this thought. Perhaps Bush is forcing the Democrats to go on record. It is no secret that Democrats are pro-illegal immigrant and advocate of open borders, amnesty, and even voting rights for illegals. I would not be surprised to hear those dopes running for the Democratic nomination to find all kinds of problem with any Bush proposal, you know, the usual "process" argument. The current impression is that illegals and their citizen family members vote Democrat, thinking the Democrats are their friends. Perhaps Bush and Rove want to put an end to that.

A lot of my fellow Bush supporters are pissed about this. That was my first instinct as well. However, now I say to them "relax." Let this all play out first. This can be a winner in ways a first thought does not comprehend.

Imagine if a Republican said this about Ghandi:

"He ran a gas station down in St. Louis."

A Republican would get the Trent Lott treatment, be castigated from every network, liberal rag, and late night comedian. And, those jagoffs would demand that the Republican resign, undergo "sensitivity" training, and grovel to everyone for forgiveness. Then, after the Republican did that, they would really go to work on him.

But, since Hillary Clinton said it, you won't hear much, if anything about it. And you know this to be true, you leftist scum who might be reading this.

Paul Krugman, America's most dangerous liberal pundit, says this in his latest column:

The point made by Mr. Rubin now, and by Mr. Mankiw when he was a free agent, is that the traditional immunity of advanced countries like America to third-world-style financial crises isn't a birthright. Financial markets give us the benefit of the doubt only because they believe in our political maturity — in the willingness of our leaders to do what is necessary to rein in deficits, paying a political cost if necessary. And in the past that belief has been justified. Even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when the budget deficit soared.

But do we still have that kind of maturity? Here's the opening sentence of a recent New York Times article on the administration's budget plans: "Facing a record budget deficit, Bush administration officials say they have drafted an election-year budget that will rein in the growth of domestic spending without alienating politically influential constituencies." Needless to say, the proposed spending cuts — focused only on the powerless — are both cruel and trivial.

If this kind of fecklessness goes on, investors will eventually conclude that America has turned into a third world country, and start to treat it like one. And the results for the U.S. economy won't be pretty.

So, basically, if Bush doesn't raise taxes, we'll become a third-world country? Is Krugman really still considered a serious economist by anyone who isn't a leftist hack?

Well, Krugman at least doesn't say Bush isn't a grown-up this time. He instead insinuates that it takes maturity to raise taxes. How kind of him.

Hey Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, get this: Ass-kissing diplomacy and bribes don't work, peace through strength does. Get this headline:

N. Korea Offers to Halt Nuke Facilities

(Contrast that with the propoganda tool of North Korea, and their statement.)

That Brillo Pad head Kim Jong-Il knows he isn't dealing with those wimpy Democrats, which is why he went into hiding during the Iraq War, worried that he was next. Kim Jong-Il is all bluster and no balls. If we weren't worried about the people of South Korea, he would be sitting next to Saddam in some jail, and North Korea would be prime beachfront parking property.

North Korea has said before it is willing to freeze its "nuclear activities" in exchange for U.S. aid and being removed from Washington's list of terrorism sponsoring nations.

Sorry pal, no bribes coming your way anymore.

Washington has said it wants North Korea to verifiably begin dismantling its nuclear weapons programs before it delivers any concessions.

Something tell me that Bush has a bit more credibility in this area than his predecessors.

Tug McGraw, former Philles pitcher, died yesterday at the age of 59.

I love Tug, and always will be grateful for the memories he gave me. I am from Philly, born and raised within walking distance of the Vet, and a lifelong Phillies fan. I was 9 when he struck out Willie Wilson to give the Phillies the World Series, and will never forget the pure joy of it. And, the next day, I was at the long since razed JFK Stadium, where Tug spoke to about, oh, 100,000 people, and said:

"New York can take this championship, and they can stick it!!"

The Phils would probably have not won the 1980 Series without him.

After coming off the disabled list with shoulder tendinitis on July 17, he allowed just three runs in 52 1/3 innings the rest of the season, an 0.52 earned run average.
He was the winning pitcher when the Phillies clinched the National League East on Mike Schmidt's 11th-inning home run at Montreal on Oct. 4, 1980, then appeared in nine of the team's 11 postseason games.

I met him once when I was young. I'll never forget how nice he was to me. Thanks for the memories Tug. I'll tell my grandchildren about you.

I am very concerned, to say the least, on a policy to be proposed by Bush to deal with our ridiculous illegal immigrant problem.

Under the proposal, illegal aliens from Mexico and possibly other countries who pay Social Security taxes but provide false identification numbers would be allowed to collect benefits.
"The president has long talked about the importance of having an immigration policy that matches willing workers with willing employers," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan yesterday. "It's important for America to be a welcoming society. We are a nation of immigrants, and we're better for it."

Count me among the Republicans who are bitterly opposed to anything that resembles cost-free amnesty, de facto, de jure, whatever. There should be no reward for blatantly breaking the law. However, I am willing to discuss an intelligent solution to this problem. I live in both Tempe, Arizona and Albuquerque, New Mexico (don't ask) and I see first hand every day both the good and bad the illegals from Mexico bring with them.

My biggest concern is assimilation. To the mulitculturalists, that is a bad thing because that assumes American culture is better than Mexican culture. Being the jangos that they are, they do not (and refuse to) see the obvious: Those who cannot speak decent English all have shit jobs. They wash the cars, the dishes, the landscaping, and the dog work in construction. (Liberals reading this are thinking: "racist," "xenophobe," etc. Go ahead, say that, and ignore the facts) Ask yourself this: When have you bought a house from a real estate agent who did not speak English? Or go to a dentist who didn't speak English? You haven't. You may go to a bi-lingual professional, but there are none who are succesful in this country who speak exclusively Spanish.

(For example, In October, there was a high-rise fire in Chicago, where 6 were killed. Only one story I found mentioned that one of the dead was Teresa Zajac, a Polish housekeeper. What they did not mention was that because she did not speak English, she could understand not the evacuation warnings.)

You should read Victor David Hanson's book Mexifornia. It is an honest look at the issue of illegal immigration. If nothing else, one should read his explanation on how the close proximity to Mexico is not beneficial to Mexicans who come here. because they are so close, unlike say the Chinese, they are more able to live in insular communitites and never be forced to assimilate, and because going home often is easy.

As for Bush's upcoming proposal, it resembles a bill put forth by Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake. According to Flake, Congress is unlikely to endorse any plan unless, like his, it punishes those who would use the program as a quick path to legal residency status. The bill Mr. Flake, Mr. McCain and Mr. Kolbe endorse would impose a fine of $1,500 on those who attempted to exploit the new law, and force them to wait longer than normal to gain legal residency status.
"Our plan is not amnesty, and I don't think the president's is either," Mr. Flake said. "Once people recognize that is the case, you'll see a lot more support for it."

I look forward to hearing more on this. I am not overly concerned yet, because I think this may be election year politics. In other words, Bush is putting the carrot out there, but nothing will actually happen anytime soon. I only hope Bush learned the lesson of the California Recall. Because, in my view, Davis would have beat it if he did not sign the bill giving license to illegals.

About those Bush=Hitler commercials, according to one of those losers at MoveOn.org:

Wes Boyd, a MoveOn.org founder, fired back, saying Republicans were "deliberately and maliciously" misleading the public by asserting that MoveOn.org had sponsored the advertisements. "None of these was our ad," Mr. Boyd said in a statement. "Nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund."

Oh, really? Gee, how dare those dastardly Republicans act as if your group, by making them available on your web site, think that minor detail constitutes endorsement of them? Next thing you know, Republicans will act as if Howard Dean is anti-war simply because Dean has said so. More from that Berkeley moron:

Mr. Boyd conceded that the advertisements were "in poor taste," and said

Oh, so basically, the Republicans over-reacted to your simple oversight. Wow. How uncivil of them. Read this part again:

[H]e "deeply regretted" that they had "slipped through."

That's right. He only regrets they slipped through, because they have to answer for them. They know that even people who agree with them in principle on Bush will not send $$ to support that kind of discourse.

U.S. Keeps Libya Sanctions in Place

Libya can rejoin the civilized world when they earn it, not a minute sooner.

Who runs this site? Get this:

Democrats.com Presidential Reality Poll #40

Here are the results of Reality Poll #40, of last week's declared candidates:

Dennis Kucinich 181
Howard Dean 128
Wesley Clark 105
John Kerry 16
Dick Gephardt 12
Al Sharpton 12
John Edwards 11
Carol Moseley-Braun 6
Joe Lieberman 1

Reality poll? With Kucinich on top? OK, if you say so.

If you want to see real tomfoolery, hang out on that site for a while.

I love the new policy, US-VISIT, or U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology, where we are now scanning fingerprints and taking photographs of arriving foreigners. If anyone has a problem with it, I have simple solution: Stay home!

Since the only exceptions will be visitors from 28 countries whose citizens are allowed to come to the United States for up to 90 days without visas, and these countries not exempt are usually third-world scum-filled tracts of dirt, those weasels at the ACLU are, as expected, pissing and moaning. The headline of their press release:

ACLU Says New Border Fingerprinting System Likely To Sow Confusion, Tracking of Arab and Muslims Based on National Origin Will Continue

Confusion? Read their first paragraph:

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today warned that a new immigrant tracking program, known as US VISIT, can only increase confusion among immigrants to the United States in terms of when, where and how they have to register with the government, and will do nothing to end discriminatory tracking of Arabs and Muslims based on national origin and religion. Boo-f'n-hoo. It's gonna confuse those poor foreigners. Well, too f'n bad. If they are confused, then they can stay right where they are. As for discriminating against Arabs and Muslims, well, once agin, boo-f'n-hoo. Muslims and Arabs have brought suspiscion on themselves. Dennis Miller said it best:

We now have better security at Border’s bookstores than at our actual borders. Meanwhile, all we can do is kvetch about how wrong it is to search and profile people. Profiling? If you know that 15 out of the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists are from one country and you happen to notice that, it’s not profiling, that’s minimally observant.

The Anti-Christian Liberal Union is an anti-American organization that has one goal: To destroy our liberty under the ruse of protecting it. There is no Constitutional right to visit this country. this part is pure tomfoolery:

"The US VISIT program is also a large privacy violation waiting to happen, with records garnered under the program likely retained even after you've become a citizen, and a provision permitting their sharing with foreign governments," [Timothy] Edgar added.

So, in other words, we cannot gain information on anyone, because, if they eventually want to become citizens, we will have information that will keep them from becoming citizens. Privacy violation? Once again, if that is such a concern to visitors, stay home, and enjoy those wonderful rights you receive in Saudi Arabia. And then there is this:

In addition to confusion and bias, the program is also highly questionable from a national security standpoint, the ACLU said. In addition to excluding certain countries' visitors from its requirements, US VISIT still lacks an effective mechanism for tracking departures. And those seeking to avoid US VISIT altogether can simply enter the country through a port that does not yet have the system in place.

Additionally, there is talk of employing notoriously inaccurate facial recognition technology for US VISIT, which would likely result in hundreds of false national security alarms as well-meaning visitors are mistakenly identified as terrorists.

So, in the ACLU's view, the system is prone to mistakes, and visitors can avoid it, so it should not exist to begin with. Oh, ok. The concluding paragraph:

"Nobody is arguing with the principle of monitoring who enters and exits the country, but there are ways to do it, and ways not to do it," Edgar said. "So far, we haven’t even come up with an effective system, let alone one that doesn’t treat every Arab and Muslim, even every visitor, as a potential terrorist." Yeah, Ok. What bullshit. There is NO system, except wide-open borders, that the ACLU will not have a problem with. Well, I have news for Edgar: He is right, we cannot come up with a system that does not treat Arabs and Muslims as suspicious. And it is they, not the United States, that made it that way. Any legitimate visitor should not have a problem with that. But, since the ACLU is blatantly pro-criminal and pro-terrorist and anti-American, this is the stance they will always take.

Edgar should travel once in a while. I have been treated like crap going to Italy (found myself on the wrong end of a sub-machine gun at the Venice airport), France, South Korea (especially awful there, the only thing missing from that interrogation was a hot lamp over me), and even Canada. (Damn frogs at the Quebec border.) I dealt with it, and went along my merry way. Somehow, I got over the hurt feelings and the "privacy violation."

These are the people that Democrats, liberals, the New York Times, and Peter Jennings laugh at. Real Americans who wave their flags in love and respect for a soldier who died so that people like me could live a life of tomfoolery.

To the family of Specialist James Kiehl, age 22, from Comfort, Texas, who lost his life in Iraq, I thank you for your sacrifice. Don't listen to those low-life liberal Democrats, who are more interested in ousting Bush that in having an appreciation for what you lost.

(hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

Gotta love the hubris of that Manhattan liberal:

Howard Dean offhandedly promised to balance the budget "in the sixth or seventh year of my administration." Someone howled, and the audience, noticeably short of Dean partisans, broke up at the presumptuousness. Dr. Dean seemed not to realize that he was the butt of the joke, and even his campaign manager, Joe Trippi, later said he thought the crowd was laughing with him.

Laughing with him? Listen to the clip. They were laughing at him!! 6th or 7th year? This guy won't see a 6th or 7th second.

I really despise Stuart Scott. He is the downfall of ESPN personified. I just cannot watch this guy do SportsCenter. His latest brilliance:

"If you want to see why he's the co-MVP, wait until you see what he did in this playoff game!''

Who was he talking about? Peyton Manning, who went 22-of-26, for 377-yards and 5 TDs? No, he was talking about Steve McNair, who had 159 yards, with one touchdown and three interceptions.

Nice work, Stu. Dope.

According to this dope, the real reason Bush is popular: People are stupid!!

Shocking that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published this guest commentary. Who'd have thunk it?

...from those jokers at MSNBC:

Fratricide Isn't Always Fatal

Someone needs to buy their headline writer a dictionary. Fratricide means "killing of a brother." (or sister too in the PC dictionary)

MSNBC, an arm of the Democratic Party, will shamelessly stoop to any level to downplay all of the attacks on their hero Howie "my mommy taught me to be nice to servants" Dean by his fellow Democrats.

p.s. Thanks to several of the Dem candidates for writing more than half of Bush's campaign ads for him.

Gee, I was busy watching the NFL playoffs and the Sugar Bowl. You must be a real loser to sit through that tomfoolery rather than watching the NFL playoffs.

Go Eagles!!

Our friends at MoveOn.org have been running a contest called "Bush in 30 seconds"

In a stunner, one of the announced finalists was a Bush=Hitler spot. What creativity!! What originality!! No one else has called Bush that!! No wonder judges Michael Moore and Janeane Garafolo were impressed.

More seriously, it figures that MoveOn would love something like this. They sure don't let the truth get in the way of them telling their "so-called" truth about Bush. I am glad they picked (and quickly pulled, according to Drudge) this ad to show. I dare them to show this ad to the American public and put their name to it. MoveOn will join pets.com in the dust bin.

And, you can even buy a ticket to the event where they'll announce the winner. (Cheap seats already sold out! WOW!!) I can't wait to see the finalists and the winner. It should be hilarious.

Update: Here's a transcript of the commercial:

GRAPHIC: Pictures Of Hitler
HITLER: (Speaking In German)
CHYRON: We have taken new measures to protect our homeland,

GRAPHIC: Pictures Of Hitler
HITLER: (Speaking In German)
CHYRON: I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator,

GRAPHIC: Pictures Of Hitler
HITLER: (Speaking In German)
CHYRON: God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them,

GRAPHIC: Pictures of President Bush
HITLER: (Speaking In German)
CHYRON: and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.

CHYRON: SOUND FAMILIAR?
BACKGROUND: Cheering German Crowd

Sound familiar? Uh, No. When did Bush say anything like that? He didn't, that is why whoever put this crap together had to write bullshit like "God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them." September 11th is what made Bush strike at them. I could sit here for hours and write how Bush is nothing like Hitler, but why should I? Bush has in no way consolidated power like Hitler? Where is Bush's "Reichstag Fire?" Of course, 9/11 to some was Bush's Reichstag Fire...he did it and blamed poor Osama. Exactly what rights have Bush and Ashcroft taken away, besides those of terrorist scum? And, when has Congress delegated absolute power to Bush? I must have missed that. (I'm sure some dopes will say that was the Patriot Act, but that is a bunch of crap. Even the ACLU knows it.)

If Bush was anything like Hitler, the people here would not stand one day for it. He'd be gone, hook or crook. The probelm with those left wing losers are, to them, Bush is Hitler because their ridiculous agendas don't have a voice in this White House. Once again, I hope MoveOn.org airs an ad like this. It will finish them.

I love this guy Oubai Shahbandar, a self-described right-wing Arab. Despite being born in Syria, he is a realist about the Arab world. Best of all, despite not being born here, he is a proud American. How do I know this? I met him at Arizona State University, when we had a class together. I'll never forget all of the liberal tomfoolery when his group of College Republicans invited David Horowitz to campus to discuss his opposition to slave reperations. Of course, the alleged free-speech loving liberals had a coronary about it, and did everything they could to ruin his visit.

The other day, Oubai posted a column, imploring Muslims to stand with democracy, not dictatorship. Sadly though, I feel his call will go largely unheard, as groups like CAIR will continue to be the anti-American, pro-murderous tyrant groups that they are.

Some of his past work is well worth the time. Click here, here, and here to check out my favorites.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

The Internal Revenue Service is auditing about 800 of its employees after discovering that a handful of the agency's workers may have cheated on their tax returns.

Good.

Above was the title of a post at one of my favorite blogs, Confessions of a Political Junkie. I have thought about his reaction to a Washington Times article titled, Rumbling on the Hard-Line Right, for the last few days and feel the urge to add my penny and a half.

In this article, the Stephen Dinan quotes Richard Viguerie, the guru of conservative political direct mail:

"I'm beginning, for the first time, [to hear] people talk about 'it would not be the worst thing in the world if Howard Dean were president,' because the size of government would stay still rather than increase 50 percent under a second Bush administration."

I immediately thought that this guy may be playing both sides of the fence, keeping his options open for some Democrat business. Then, I read what Erick over at Confessions of a Political Junkie said:

First, full disclosure: while I don't know Viguerie, I know people who have worked and do work for him and I have used his direct mail company for clients with whom I've done political consulting. He and his company are committed to the cause.

OK, so if Erick is right, and I'm quite sure he is, then I am wrong there. But, why would this guy, especially one who is the "guru of conservative political direct mail," say something this dumb? To get his name in the paper? Who is he "hearing from" that would actually believe that under a Dean administration the size of government will stay static? There is only one way that would happen: If Dean cut military expenditures to pay for social programs, just like Clinton.

Yes, I am upset about the rampant spending by Bush, and the fact that he has not vetoed a single bill since he took office. And, I am sure that, as a conservative, President Bush and Karl Rove know that I cannot go anywhere else. But, I also know what he is doing. He is taking away the Democrats issues, a la Dick Morris' triangulation strategy.

Then, I read this: Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs

As expected, this is Bush's election year politics in action. We knew it was coming. If Bush wins big, or simply wins in November, will the ends justify the means? I say absolutely. Things have to be done that we as conservatives do not like. I may not like some of Bush's policies, but that in no way translates into me supporting someone else, because the only person I agree with 100% of the time is me.

Brian M. Riedl, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, made this astute observation:

"President Bush is not focusing on his fiscal conservative base right now. He's trying to position himself in between conservatives in Congress and the Democratic Party. It may be good politics, but it's bad policy, a lost opportunity to get runaway government spending under control." He is right. It is bad policy and good politics.

However, if anyone actually thinks that Dean will stop this out of control spending, then they underestimate the greed of liberal groups, who Dean would owe a lot of largesse to if he were elected. Consider this quote:

Richard Kogan, a budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning research and advocacy group, said the increase in military and domestic security spending in the last two years dwarfed the increase in domestic discretionary programs, which did not quite keep pace with inflation. The increases for defense, international affairs and homeland security have been much greater — and thus have played a much larger role in the return to deficits — than the increases for domestic appropriations," Mr. Kogan said.

So, in other words, the problem is not domestic spending, so don't cut any of that. (That would be against this liberal group's "Policy Priorities.") If government spending is going to come back under control, it is a second Bush administration that will do it. Dean surely isn't. He'll just push for higher taxes to, as he would surely say, to "fix the Bush deficit."

Simply, Bush is trying to avoid the fate of his father, who lost his bid for re-election. Only this time, the Democrats don't have the "worst economy since Hoover," "It's the economy, stupid," "Bush is trying to take Medicare away and kill old people," or his father's "Read My Lips, no new taxes" to use against him. (Honestly anyway) Will conservatives jump ship on him, or simply sit out the election over this? No way. Maybe in a pre-9/11 world, but not today. I like how Erickson puts it:

The elite conservatives in Washington, like Viguerie, are starting to rumble. It has not filtered down to the grassroots. Bush is a loyal guy who gets loyalty in return. He has given the conservatives enough social red meat. He now needs to deliver on the fiscal red meat. Rumors are circulating that he will in the State of the Union address.
In the meantime, Conservatives should not sit this election out. They should get active and vocal. They should reinsert themselves vocally into the debate and not be persuaded by pork. If they are, conservatives should run in primaries. Let's not move to another party. Let's take back our party. (Although I don't think our party has left us enough that we have to "take it back." Taking back the party is the Democrats problem, sure to increase when they nominate Dean)

A few months ago, The New York "Once Upon A" Times hired Daniel Okrent as the "public editor." He has been on the job a month now. As "public editor," Okrent is supposed to be the watchdog for the readers. After his latest bantering, it has become clear that Okrent is not a "public editor," but "Times apologist." OK, he does say this:

I'm still puzzled by the notion that a poll conducted by The Times is front page material. This is a good comment, deserving of more exploration. He does explore it some more, but not in the way he should. As the new "excuse maker" for the Times, he makes this sad statement:

The Times isn't alone in this habit, of course, but when any news organization touts its own polls while failing to note reputable polls conducted by others, I pat my pocket to make sure my wallet is still there. This isn't news; this is awfully close to promotion. So, the Times does it, but so do others. So, I don't trust it when anyone does it.

Then, Okrent discusses the misrepresentation of a Bush quote (surely not a first for the Times) where Bush said, "If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that." The Times reporter left off Bush's first two words, "If necessary," which makes a huge difference in the meaning. In a few hundred words, says the same thing as he did in four: "It was a simple mistake." That is difficult to accept, with the Times history of distorting quotes to suit their agenda. Okrent obviously knows that people like me will say this, so he beats us to the punch:

In the months before I started in this job, two instances of Times columnists' truncating or eliding quotations made some readers apoplectic. I'm trying to stay away from issues that arose before I started here, except insofar as they relate to running stories, so I'll leave further discussion of those incidents to critics, polemicists and the columnists' loved ones. (I assume that Okrent is referring to Maureen Dowd's "ellipses" trick on a Bush quote and Paul Krugman's regurgitation of a quote used in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which was already corrected before Krugman ran his column.) Okrent fails to realize (more likely, fails to admit) that the Times history is the crux of the issue here!! How does he handle this issue? Why, he explains to all of us that reporters in general selectively use quotes, and always have, because space does not allow a whole press conference to be reprinted. He says it much fancier:

Whether plucked from a press conference or a barroom conversation, quotes are not just reported - they're selected. Subject goes on at length; reporter picks a few especially revealing, juicy or simply interesting sentences; presses roll; and, later, the subject cries, ''Taken out of context!" But except when a newspaper prints verbatim transcripts, all quotations are taken out of context. The context is the actual conversation or press conference in which words get uttered; the printed pages of a newspaper can only rudely duplicate it.

Gee, Thanks. How revealing. Then, Okrent discusses the Times "cleaning up" a of Sylvester Croom quote, and compares it to the Bush quote omission.

But the two instances are different. In addition to being rendered inaccurately, Coach Croom's words may have lost a little of their flavor in the process; President Bush's were stripped of a crucial part of their meaning. Another poor excuse for the Times. And then there is this:

Judging by the reader mail that snowed me under in the days after Dec. 21, it's partly the paper's grudging unwillingness to acknowledge the relative importance of an error that makes some readers think that innocent missteps, like the dropped ''if necessary," are willful misdeeds. All quotations may be created equal, but all misquotations are not. In other words, readers overracted to an item that the Times felt to be insignificant, and that's that.

I don't expect any future Okrent columns to be different. Normally, someone who comes into a new job like this starts off "gung-ho," and "loaded for bear." It is clear that his column is only to answer reader complaints with fanciful excuses. What a waste. (People might ask why I care this much about the Times, and why I bother if I have come to despise them. See why I am angered by the Times by reading this.)

I'm going to try be like Brian and use as many references as possible, but sometimes the things I know aren't necessarily reported.

So, John Kerry has introduced a bill into Senate to reimburse soldiers (and that is in the Time magazine sense of the word) for their own body armor purchases. Great idea, but is he trying to drum up military votes for his next goal?

So I was reading about John Kerry, I thought his reimbursement idea was pretty right on. Then I found out that he believes in conscription!

Give it up buddy, the military prides itself on being a completely voluntary organization. Conscription would demoralize the troops more than you could imagine!

I dealt with conscripted troops before. I did a 6 month tour in Greece as security force. Let me tell you, from personal experience, conscripted troops are the most undisciplined, worthless and useless soldiers I have ever encountered. Conscripted soldiers do not serve out of a sense of duty but a sense of obligation.

Go'head John Kerry. Conscript and watch our numbers increase while our ability declines.

[Brian: You forgot to call Kerry that French dude!!]

A few days ago, our forces raided a mosque in Iraq. Of course, our friendly neighborhood media played it up as if we were desecrating a mosque, with headline after headline saying something like: U.S. Raids Mosque, Worshippers Protest. (see here, here.) According to the iman:

Al-Janabi, the imam, denied the raid had netted much weaponry. "In every mosque in Iraq we keep light guns for self protection," he said. "They claim it's an arsenal of weapons, but it's just for self protection."

Sure, if you consider "sticks of high explosives, hand grenades, AK-47 rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and thousands of rounds of ammunition" light guns. I guess to them, these are the Iraqi equivalent of a Saturday night special. And, unlike the liberal media, the blogosphere comes through with the real story. Check out the pictures of what was confiscated at this mosque from Sasha Castel at coldfury.com, here and here.

I grew up in Philly less than a mile from the Vet. I loved the Phillies (and I still do, of course) and still remember the team that won the 1980 World Series like it was yesterday. In Philly, Pete Rose is considered the guy who brought the Phillies over the top, the biggest reason the Phillies won the only World Series in their history. This week, Pete Rose is releasing a new book, and speculation is that he will admit he bet on baseball. And, I say: "Thank you Pete. It is about time."

After reading the Dowd report, it is difficult to believe anything but that Pete Rose bet on baseball. Rose, without question, is one of the all-time greats. He is the hit king, and, based on his on-field accomplishments, there is no question that he belongs in the Hall of Fame.

This whole situtation has gotten way out of hand. Bud Selig has acted vindictive and petty. But, Rose is by no means blameless. He should have admitted this a long time ago. Yes, Rose has been the runaway winner in the court of public opinion. People have fully agreed with his, "Hey, at least I don't do drugs. If I did, I'd be back already" attitude. However, winning in the court of public opinion has caused his arrogance to keep this charade going on far too long.

Finally, it seems Pete Rose has come to his senses. This is America, Pete!! People have been dying to give you a second chance. But, you have not done your part by not coming clean. In this country, the only thing people love more than an overnight success is a triumphant comeback.

I hope that this book is a true revelation, not a quick "I did it, but" followed by blaming everyone and everything associated with the commissioner's office. Nothing would make me happier than to have Pete come clean, saying something on the lines of, "I had a sickness. I could not stop gambling, and like many gamblers, I lied, lied, and lied, even after I was caught red-handed. I ask for your forgiveness." Then we can watch Selig cave to public pressure to reinstate him, or at least enough of a reinstatement to allow him in the Hall of Fame, where he belongs. Then on a sunny day in late July/early August 2005, we can watch Pete Rose inducted in Cooperstown. It's all up to you, Pete.

It seems that Iran is refusing our offer to send Senator Elizabeth Dole to deliver humanitarian aid in the wake of last week's earthquake. Those heartless mullahs would rather their people suffer than accept our no-strings-attached assistance.

How about this idea? Airlift supplies in anyway. Send a few transport planes with fighter escorts into their airspace, and drop ton after ton of food, clothing, medicine, VCRs, TVs, and tapes of both Saddam's statue coming down and Saddam getting his checkup after coming out of the spider hole, and on each box, write in Arabic, French, and English: "From your friends in the United States of America." (Farsi, actually. Thanks to B.C., Imperial Torturer for that correction)Wouldn't you just love to see that? Imagine the U.N. and the liberal media decrying Bush for violating Iran's sovereignty, and accuse him of fostering "instability" in the region. The liberal media would find a new level of creativity, and would invent new and hilarious Bush-bashing. Howard Dean would say something like, "America is now viewed with even more skepticism in the world after such a stunt, and America is still not safer after lending this assistance." John Kerry would say, "Bush's unilateral Iran policy spits in the face of our allies and hurts our ability to negotiate the nuclear disarming of Iran." Then, after the backlash, Kerry would say, "Howard Dean would have Iranians die needlessly to help his nomination chances." Dick Gephardt would be upset that non-union transport pilots would be used. Dennis Kucinich would vote to deny funding because we didn't include the Farsi-translated lyrics to Kumbaya in the containers. Wesley Clark would give the credit to Clinton, saying "Using the military as social workers was Clinton's invention." The New York Times would run the headline, "High number of innocent casualties due to Bush's reckless Iran policy," sub-headlined, "Many killed by dropped containers. Gay Iranians affected most." Reuters would headline the story: "U.N. member nation sends supplies to Iran." (Never noting that it was actually the United States) The BBC would report, "Rumours of U.S. assistance to Iran unconfirmed." Al-Jazeera would report this as another U.S. imperialist invasion into Iran and run video of a seance with Ayatollah Khomeini calling for "jihad" against the West.

Now, that would be tomfoolery of the highest order!!

Bob Kohn, author of Journalistic Fraud, wrote yesterday that he had some hope that the New York Times news pages would be less biased. Well, I think his hopes have faded already. Get this article by Steven R. Weisman, headlined:

Iran Turns Down American Offer of Relief Mission

Fair and reasonable headline. But, you just know the article is going to be typical Times tomfoolery in the third paragrpah:

Administration officials said Tehran cited the overwhelming difficulties facing relief workers in the ancient city of Bam in southeastern Iran as the reason it could not accommodate the American offer now. The officials did not rule out the possibility of a future visit, however.

Guess Wesiman just could not find room to mention this quote from Iranian President Mohammad Khatami:

"Humanitarian issues should not be intertwined with deep and chronic political problems," Khatami said. "If we see change both in tone and behavior of the U.S. administration, then a new situation will develop in our relations." (The AP, in an updated article, found the time to laberal this guy a "moderate." OK, sure he is.)

So, let me get this straight. Iran will not do us the favor of letting us help them unless we start treating them better?

The religion of peace has weighed in, too. They would rather have their fellow Muslims suffer than have us help:

We hate the arrogance of the Americans and we are sure that they haven't come for humanitarian reasons, but for other things like spying," said Abdullah Irani, a mullah from Qum, the main centre for Shiite clerics in Iran.

And, this brilliance from Iranian state radio. (Which sounds like a BBC clone):

"The Americans, by publicizing their aid to Iran, have ineptly tried to implement their duplicitous policy of creating a rift between the Iranian nation and government," state radio said in an unattributed commentary, adding that "our people's solidarity" will stop that from happening. "One should therefore not trust the expression of opinion, speeches and other optimistic signals that are sent by the American foreign policy authorities toward Iran from time to time," the radio said.

I guess the "unbiased" New York Times just did not have the space to get these quotes in.

The day after we caught Saddam, Howard Dean said, "The capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." Not to sound Clinton-esque here, but that depends on what the meaning of the word "safer" is. According to Dean and his liberals Kool-Aid drinkers, we are not safer because we have been under an orange alert, there have been terror threats, flight cancellations, etc. For a group of people who are supposed to be nuanced, rather than black and white, they sure fail to see the big picture. Since Saddam was caught, insurgent attacks have gone down, we have received intelligence that has allowed our fine men and women to raid pro-Saddam forces all over Iraq, we have discovered al-Qaeda training tapes in Iraq (yeah, al-Qaeda was the only group Saddam didn't support...sure), Iraqis are starting to realize Saddam is finished, Libya has decided to dismatle their weapons programs (and as a by-product, stop dealing in arms with North Korea and others), and North Korea is allowing U.S. inspectors in.

Expect the dominoes to keep falling. Is America safer? Sure looks like it is getting safer, step by step. Of course, Howard Dean can't accept that because it hurts his chances. Sorry pal, wrong again.

One other thing: These rampant flight cancellations and diversions may be not what they appear to be. They may just be a message to the world, especially terrorists, that we are watching, and would give them pause. Perhaps they are the product of an over-cautious Homeland Security Department. But, what do people, especially the Bush-haters expect? These are the same people who have tried to say Bush did nothing to stop 9/11 simply because Condi Rice told him that al-Qaeda might try to use airplanes. And, those who complain about orange alerts are the same people who would cry "Bush knew and never warned us" if another attack took place. There are two ways to handle this: Bush's diligence or Clinton's willful blindness. I think it is obvious which way works best.

It seems that North Korea has allowed U.S. inspectors to visit their nuclear sites. Let's see: Libya has agreed to disarm, Iran has agreed to inspections, and now North Korea too? This must be to strengthen their negiotiating position with the United States, similar to how U.N. sanctions made Libya give up its weapons. It can't be that the old Brillo Pad head Kim Jong-Il, like his brother in arms and trading partner Kadhafi, has been watching the news on his satellite dish now, can it?

Look for the liberal media to play this down. Hell, they are already. Look at the Associated Press headline, parroted by MSNBC:

White House Cool to N. Korea Nuke Visits

Gee, it never crossed their minds that such "coolness" is a diplomacy tactic, has it? The press seems to think because Congressional (rather than Administration) officials are going on the trip, it is insignificant. They conveniently forget that Bush has never given Kim Jong-Il the recognition he craves, and still will not do so. The statement:

But a White House spokesman said: "It should be clearly understood that groups or individuals acting outside the six-party talks wouldn't be acting on behalf of, or with the approval of the administration."

This is brilliant. The ol' Brillo pad head is treated like persona non grata by Bush at the same time our people are looking at his nuclear sites.

or sleeping off a day of drinking. Either way, I am shocked that Lee, the man behind one of my favorite blogs, Right Thinking From The Left Coast, has not mentioned this article yet.

S.F. man is homeless -- by choice: He has a trust fund but prefers life on the street, off the wagon

Read the article for yourself. I will refrain from comment, because I expect Lee, who lives in the Bay Area, to share some more brilliance on the homeless issue after he reads that.

2 headlines:

Iran Rejects U.S. Relief Pitch, for Now

Meteorite hits Iran

They disobey Bush, and look what happens. This must be Bush's doing. I can't wait for the Democratic Underground or MoveOn.org to reveal the truth on how Bush made this happen.

to not vote for Howard Dean. This headline from the Washington Democrat Talking Points Parroting Paper, more commonly known as the Washington Post:

Gay Community Gave Dean Early Boost sub-headline : Civil Unions Law Signed in Vermont Drew Supporters

Let's speculate for a second. Howard Dean becomes President. (Stop laughing!!) Now, who will he owe something to? That would be the gay community. You will see that he will sign every executive order he could possibly sign to give gays every right short of marriage. In other words, a de facto legalization of gay marriage. (Under a Dean administration, you can bet there would be a huge effort to make blogs like this criminalized "hate speech.") And, get this, right from the mouths of Dean's people:

With just one exception, every fundraiser Dean attended outside Vermont in 2002 was organized by gay men and lesbians, as were more than half the events in the first quarter of 2003, according to Dean advisers.

Yeah, this guy is real mainstream, a "centrist."

Now, call me cynical, but I wonder if the Washington Post put this out to disparage Dean. Recently, they ran a suprising editorial about Dean titled "Beyond the Mainstream." It would not surprise me in the least if this is yet another "circling of the wagons" of the Democratic establishment against Dean.

Note to the ACLU, GLAAD, and the so-called People for the American Way (yeah right): This is not a hompohobic post. I have no fear of men. I am against the homosexual agenda. (Their agenda, not necessarily against their lifestyle. I could give a damn if they prefer "hair pie or balls across the nose.") Get over it.

p.s. I'll send a copy of Bush v. The Beltway (or some other conservative book if I am too lazy to pull it out) if you are the first person to write in the comments where I got the reference "hair pie or balls across the nose" from.

Bob Kohn, who wrote a great book about the New York Times called Journalistic Fraud, wrote in his latest column about some recent encouraging signs that the New York Times may become less biased. Still, he is skeptical, concluding:

The question Times critics face this time is whether the paper has simply gone into another quiet period, when the liberal bias seems to have settled down temporarily, only to re-intensify during the upcoming presidential election cycle. Or, are we witnessing a Times that is truly trying to reform its news pages? (If you're thinking of writing me an e-mail expressing your skepticism on this score, don't bother. I'm with you).
Nevertheless, the New Year has ushered in a measure of hope on many fronts, and we should not be so cynical as to completely deny the possibility of reform at the New York Times. If I didn't think it could happen, I wouldn't be writing this column. Where I come from, optimism is a virtue, and at the beginning of every New Year, it's simply unavoidable.

While Kohn sees signs of hope in their news pages, the editorial page is beyond redemption. Consider this latest editorial about the "Wounded United Nations." Now, according to the Times editorial board, what has caused these wounds? Were they self-iflicted? From their lack of will to actually enforce their own resolutions? Their moral equivalency, like having Syria head the Human Rights Commission? No, of course not! The United States, led by that cowboy, caused them!!

It sure seems like Kofi Annan wrote this nonsense. Some fisking is in order:

These are difficult times for the United Nations. The Bush administration's taste for unilateral action and its doctrine of preventive war pose a profound challenge to the U.N.'s founding principle of collective security and threaten the organization's continued relevance. Since the day the administration took office, it has been chipping away at the multinational diplomatic system that America did so much to build in the past two generations. It has walked away from the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, waged war against the International Criminal Court and disparaged international arms control agencies and weapons inspectors.

Must we go over this Kyoto nonsense again? Yes, Clinton signed Kyoto, but that signature was as valid as if I signed it. Well, at least it has been about a month since the Times last lied about Kyoto. What the Times seems to be saying is that, despite the Senate not ratifying Kyoto, Bush should voluntarily follows its guidelines, and go totally against the will of the people. In other words, they want him to act like a Supreme Court Justice.

The International Criminal Court? Stop it. Why would Bush or the Senate ever turn over our soveriegnty to that joint, who would try any and every American and Israeli they could every chance they got? And, Bush was wrong for disparaging Hans Blix? Please. Hans Blix disparaged himself. U.N. Weapons Inspectors couldn't find a Muslim in Mecca during Ramadan.

The war in Iraq brought these conflicts to a new height. Washington's rush to invade split the Security Council in ways that have still not healed. Yet the months since the Iraq invasion have shown how much the United States still needs the U.N.'s unparalleled ability to confer international legitimacy and its growing experience in nation-building. Rush to invade? You mean Bush rushed despite 17 resolutions threatening war? Bush split the Security Council? So, France and Russia, who were going to protect Saddam (re: their contracts with him) no matter what, had zero to do with it. And, what is this "unparralled ability to confer international legitimacy?" Legitimate to who? Only American-hating people both here and abroad, who would rather see a U.N. failure than a U.S. success every day of the week. And, this part is hilarious: "growing experience in nation-building." "Growing experience" is a way not to say that the U.N. has failed everywhere in the world. In other words, it is like saying an aged QB, despite that he can't throw 30 yards down the field, and throws interception after interception, is preferrable because he has "experience." Yeah, OK.

And, the Times conclusion:

America needs the United Nations as an effective partner in Iraq, not as a whipping boy for the administration's continuing problems there. The U.N. needs to be involved, most immediately so it does not default on its responsibilities to the Iraqi people. By taking a strong role in shaping Iraq's return to the community of sovereign nations, the U.N. can also demonstrate that it is determined not to let its global influence be marginalized.

What?!! Since when have we blamed the U.N. for any problems in Iraq? They aren't even there!! If anything, we have rightly castigated them for their quickness to cut and run, trying to explain to those U.N. lovers like John Kerry that the U.N. can't be depended on. Even the Iraqi people know the U.N. has failed them for years. We do not need the U.N. Bush has already tried, twice (before and after the invasion of Iraq) and the U.N. did squat!! For such a cowboy unilateralist, Bush sure did a hell of a lot to get mulitnational involvement. I don't seem to remember the New York Times hero, Bill Clinton, going to the United Nations like that, or the Times criticizing him over Kosovo for using NATO, and not the "unique legitimacy" of the U.N.

Bottom line: The New York Times wants Bush to follow this foreign policy, a la the Wesley Clark model: Give "Old Europe" first refusal. If they say no, then do nothing. In other words, Jacque Chirac, Gerhard Shroeder, and Kofi Annan should be in charge of foreign policy. The New York Times needs to stop this line of thinking. The United Nations has failed. It is time to "Move On." ( I love using that against left-wing wankers)

I was over on my favorite liberal blog, Oliver Willis, and #6 on his wishes for 2004 is:

6. People who make stupid ass xenophobic statements should be slapped down.

(By the weapon, xenophobia means "fear of something alien, or unfamiliar.") In this statement, Oliver links to liberal dope CalPundit, who, if he weren't too busy buying stogies and entertaining a houseguest, would complain about an Instapundit post that says:

THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT TRY to play a "neutral arbiter" in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. We should, in fact, be doing our best to make the Palestinians suffer, because, to put it bluntly, they are our enemies.

There is nothing xenophobic or racist here. Reynolds is telling it like it is. The Palestinians are the problem!! I don't see Israelis walking into cafes and blowing up people, using nail bombs to make sure no one goes unscathed. And, guess what the only country in the Middle East where Arabs have the right to vote, and have any kind of freedom. That would be....Israel!!! The Palestinians have been in refugee camps under U.N. control for what, 35 years? 50? And, let's not forget about Kuwait, Jordan, Libya, and Lebanon for example, who have tossed out Palestinians by the cityload over the years. (That's real compassion for their Arab brothers, isn't it?) What Reynolds said was not racist or xenophobic, it was factual!!! The Palestinians need to be knocked into submission, plain and simple. Liberals cry racism and xenophobia when they know their argument is bankrupt. Face it: People who are Pro-Palestinian simply hate Israel. If Israel did half of what they were accused of, they won't have to build a wall to keep suicide bombers out: They would already be dead.

Take a moment to consider this: Let's say that the Palestinians get their own state. Then what? All of a sudden are they going to be singing Kumbaya with the rest of the world? Get real. And, take it to the extreme: Say they get their own state, and Israel is no more. Does anyone actually think they will all of a sudden live fruitful lives, have strong businesses, and be a player on the international stage? Not a chance. We all (even liberals) know better. And, think about another thing: Who has nothing to lose, and who has everything to lose in the Israel-Palestinian conflict? You don't need me to answer that, you already know.

(p.s. anyone ever notice that CalPundit looks like the pitcher from the movie Major League?)

President Bush must have wanted to send a strong messgae to Vincente Fox. How else could you explain this?

Strong Earthquake Rocks Mexico City

You know, if I were that Brillo pad head in North Korea, I'd play ball or else Bush will send a tsunami their way.