Sunday, February 29, 2004

Nader ruined my daddy's chances!! 

Al Gore's daughter has been given some valuable space on Opinionjournal.com in order to remind Democrats not to vote for Ralph Nader. Very sad indeed. She sounds just like her Daddy too, without the screaming.

Since George W. Bush took office, a budget surplus of $230 billion has become a deficit of $521 billion, 2.7 million jobs have been lost, clean air standards have been weakened, civil liberties have been trampled, long-time allies have come to mistrust us, and we've spent $150 billion and almost 600 lives in a war to protect us from weapons that didn't exist. Given the extremism of Mr. Bush's first term, imagine what a lame duck Bush would do.

I won't even bother to respond to that, other than to say, "Hey honey, ask your Daddy about all the things he said about Iraq when he was VP."

Laugh of the week 

Those shameless frogs up in Montreal have stooped to a new low. (hat tip: Free Will)

MONTREAL -- Mourners expressed shock and distress over tactics by striking funeral-home workers who have hooted and cheered at recent funerals and viewings. At least three letters to the editor have been published in local newspapers by relatives outraged at the actions of Urgel Bourgie employees, who have been on strike since December.

Socialists on strike? Who'd have thunk it? Remember this the next time those frogs try to play the "morally superior" to us Neanderthal Americans role.

[Side note: The last time I visited Paris, I was riding on the Metro and we stopped at the next station, ho-hum. After a few minutes, I thought, gee, we've been here a long time. Turns out, the workers had themselves a wildcat strike. Privatize eveything, I say. And tear unions apart when the opportunity arises.]

Here's what I think of the Oscars 

Palestinian propaganda 

If you read this nothing else today, you must read this bit of Palestinian tomfoolery over at Little Green Footballs.

(note: that boy is as shot as I am)

Why I can't stand basketball anymore 

Here's a part of the game log of the Duke-Florida State game:

6:37 Florida St. - Alexander Johnson misses a hook shot
7:19 Florida St. - Michael Joiner dunks the ball
7:36 Duke - Shelden Williams dunks the ball
7:43 TV timeout
8:04 Duke - Daniel Ewing misses a three-pointer
8:34 Duke - J.J. Redick misses a three-pointer
8:49 Florida St. - Tim Pickett misses a three-pointer
8:57 Florida St. - 20 sec timeout
9:07 Duke - Daniel Ewing misses a three-pointer
9:21 Florida St. - Tim Pickett misses a jumper
9:59 Duke - Shelden Williams dunks the ball

Notice something? Without dunking, these guys can't hit a shot.

Yeah, Haiti was a tropical paradise... 

...until Bush decided to destroy it. Just ask John Kerry and the Democrats. It's all Bush's fault.

Wait a second, I thought they were against pre-emption? Well, I guess they are for it as long there are no American interests at stake. You just gotta love when they show their true "blame America first" bonafides. Here's that Harlem jackoff Charles Rangel:

"So I don't know who we deal with now, but one thing is clear: if you're elected as president of a country, don't depend on the United States to respect the rule of law," Rangel said.

And then there is this:

Kerry said Bush had "empowered the insurgents" by failing to step in sooner and added, "I never would have allowed it to get out of control the way it did."

And here's some brilliance from that shyster trial lawyer:

Edwards suggested it fit a pattern of "do nothing, do nothing, and when it gets to crisis stage, then we act."

Oh yeah? Name one instance where that was the case. This is coming from the same dope and dopes who now think we should have waited and waited on Iraq.

And, where is the "unique legitimacy" of the United Nations on this? Why haven't they acted to stop this? Bush has already "unilaterally" acted, while the U.N., sacrificing their dinner reservations at some swank Manhattan restaurant, are getting together to talk about it.

Here something to consider: Aristide lived in Washington D.C. after he was ousted in a 1991 coup. After becoming a favorite of the Congressional Black Caucus, he was reinstated by 20,000 U.S. troops in 1994. Clinton "insisted" he respect a constitutional term limit and step down in 1995. What year is this again?

And, where's France?

Let's review something 

Today, the New York Times has a scathing report on the corrupt U.N. oil for food program. Around the new year, the New York Times wrote this about Bush and his "failure" to bow to the United Nations:

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.


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.

After reading the report on the corruption and how the United Nations feigns ignorance of what was going on, can anyone honestly fault Bush for pushing them aside?

Saturday, February 28, 2004

Biology 101 for Abortion Advocates 

If you are one of the 9 people who read this blog regularly, you already know that I hate abortion. Read this column from the Right Sided Newsletter, written by long time nurse Barbara J. Stock. If you think a baby is nothing until he/she is born, then you definitely need to read this.

By the way, I learned something new from reading this: I never knew the word "fetus" was Latin for "baby." I can't wait to use that on someone who calls an unborn baby a "fetus."

Donkey talking points 

I am way beyond tired of hearing from the Democrats that there are no jobs. They must have all got the memo telling them to talk it to death. Last night, Emily decided at about 1:45 a.m. that she did not want to sleep, so I got up with her and watched the 2 a.m. replay of The O'Reilly Factor, being guest hosted by Tony Snow. Snow had on Linda Chavez and some "Democratic strategist" to discuss the National Journal's ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal member of the Senate. Of course, the strategist had nothing to say about that except something close to this: "I don't have Kerry's record on front of me, but I do know President Bush's record on jobs. Mr. President, where are the jobs? etc." It was a joke. According to this guy, Bush has now lost 3.5 million jobs. (At the rate Democrats are going, 150 million people will be unemployed by November) Even Tony Snow had to stifle a laugh, saying "I haven't heard that number before."

Democrats are pathetic. Between crying about "lost" jobs, talking about the increased reliance on soup kitchens, and (my favorite), "so many people have become discouraged, they stopped looking for a job," they show themselves to have no shame.

The way I see it, the President has nothing to do directly with jobs. He can only directly create jobs by increasing the size of government. Indirectly, the only thing any President can do is to cut taxes and foster an environment that encourages companies to produce and hire. As for me, the President can't get me a job, he can only get in the way of me getting one, with increased non-sensical regulations. How could anyone with half a brain fall for this Democratic scam? Listen to Kerry and his ilk. They want to cut "tax cuts for the rich." I don't know about you, but I have only ever worked for rich people. Poor people usually don't do much hiring. As expected, the liberal media carries the Democrats water on this issue.

Tim Blair shows you just how they do it. He went through the CNN archives to show how they present the numbers, depending on who is President of course. An example:

Here’s CNN in July 1996, as the Clinton-Dole election approached:

Economists didn't expect June's unemployment rate to be much different from May's, which was an already-low 5.6 percent. But in fact, it did fall -- to 5.3 percent. The unemployment rate hasn't been that low since June 1990.

And, there's this:

Gongloff repeated his line about Bush’s election chances earlier this month when a familiar number appeared:

The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 percent, the lowest level since January 2002, from 5.7 percent in December.

A weak job market could prove tough for President Bush as the November election approaches.

Oh, that liberal media.

[Bonus reading: Michael Ruff from the Flat Hat expresses more of this sentiment. Money quote: If you want a government to control your job, I think China and North Korea are accepting applications.]

[Hat tip to my man Mark A. Kilmer]

Examples of NY Times bias 

Bob Kohn is the top watchdog of the New York Times. His book, Journalistic Fraud, is a must read for anyone who wants to understand how the New York Times operates. Read Kohn's latest column, on how the Times never gives any credit to Bush and protects the Clintons to this day.

Friday, February 27, 2004

ACLU scumbags 

I've mentioned before how much I despise those scumbags at the ACLU, especially because they defend NAMBLA, yet are trying to destroy the Boy Scouts. Deroy Murdock sums up the problem with the ACLU quite nicely.

Am I the only one? 

Who heard Al Sharpton say, "Jew down the numbers" last night during that farcical debate?

Ich bin traurig 

Well looky here:

WASHINGTON - A once-bitter dispute over the war in the Iraq placed firmly behind them, President Bush and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder on Friday looked toward cooperation on Afghanistan, Iraq reconstruction and the Middle East.

Relations have recovered so well between the two leaders that a new area of difficulty, the weak American dollar, seemed to cause little more than a hiccup in their first White House meeting in two years.

I have a feeling that Germany has realized they are better off with us than France.

In other shocking news, Phoenix will be hot this summer 

The New York Times has endorsed John Kerry in the Democratic primary in New York, in what is surely a prelude to endorsing him for President. (They haven't endorsed a Republican since 1956, so I don't think I am going out on a limb here.) Amazing how their editorial board covers Kerry's "flip-flopping" ass, and finds gratuitous ways to bash Bush. I'll excerpt:

It's true that Mr. Edwards has as much or more experience than George Bush did when he entered the White House in 2001.

Bush was only Governor of the second largest State in the country. A one-term Senator who has spent nearly half his term campaigning for something else, missing vote after vote, has as much experience? Please.

Mr. Kerry, one of the Senate's experts in foreign affairs, exudes maturity and depth. He can discuss virtually any issue of security or international affairs with authority. What his critics see as an inability to take strong, clear positions seems to us to reflect his appreciation that life is not simple. He understands the nuances and shades of gray in both foreign and domestic policy.

That is pure comedy. I love their use of "life is not simple" and my most-hated word, "nuance," to excuse the fact that Kerry stands for nothing. In other words, we are too stupid to figure out that his lack of positions are a mark of Kerry's brilliance. Stop it.

This is the best part:

If Mr. Kerry wins the nomination, the Bush administration will undoubtedly attempt to paint Mr. Kerry as a typical Massachusetts liberal, but his thinking defies such easy categorization. His positions come from mainstream American thought, centrism of the old school. He has always worried over budget deficits. His record on the environment is extremely strong. He is a gun owner and hunter who supports effective gun control laws, a combat veteran who, having seen a great deal of death, opposes capital punishment.

That is hilarious. Kerry is mainstream. Who knew? The National Journal has named him the most liberal member of the Senate. To the far-left New York Times, however, he is a centrist.

The New York Times is becoming more like Scrappleface everyday. There is justice in the world, as advertising at the Times is falling and investors are downgrading the stock. I wonder why that is happening.

Hmm...how can I get my insignificant self noticed? 

"I know!! I'll start marrying homosexuals!! Yeah, that's it!!"

I'm sure that is exactly what this nobody mayor Jason West was thinking when he decided to allow gay marriage in his little shantytown in New York.

"Laws governing marriage in New York state are gender neutral, and the constitution of New York requires equal protection under those laws," West told CNN.

Didn't take long to get on CNN did it? Think he knew that when he concocted this scheme? Sure he did.

"I have a moral obligation ... to uphold the constitution of the state, and I intend to do so," West said.

No. He is making law himself.

Thursday, February 26, 2004

War for oil? My ass 

I am here in Phoenix, Arizona, and paid $1.96 a gallon regular today. Luckily, it is only $1.62 in Albuquerque. What is it where you are?

What liberal media? 

I just heard this "news" report on the radio:

"The Passion failed to meet opening day expectations of $30 million. Many theatre owners are calling it a disappointment."

Move along now. There's no liberal bias to see here.

Roger L. Simon on The Passion 

Someone named Roger L. Simon wrote a "review" on The Passion of the Christ and, frankly, it was the most flippant and angering one I've read yet, and I read a lot of them. I just know from reading it THAT HE DID NOT SEE THE MOVIE. What he writes is generic nothingness. Am I wrong? Read it for yourself and decide.

He calls The Last Temptation of Christ "powerful," which got my blood boiling, and really tells you all you need to know about where he is coming from. But, this part made me blow my top:

Finally, was it anti-Semitic? Of course, but what do you expect from a film that treats the whole subject so brainlessly? I think it’s anti-human as well.

Anti-Semitic? He never saw the movie. He couldn't have. He must have been listening to Abe Foxman's nonsense instead. Plus, even if he did see it, it is not the movie's fault that he doesn't understand the context of the story. The subject is treated brainlessly? No, only Simon's "review" does that. The conservative Christian is the best friend of the Jewish people. It pisses me off to no end that people "victicrats" like Simon spit in our faces in return.

Note to Simon: Jesus was a Jew, Mary was Jew, and Mary Magdalene was a Jew. Why would Gibson make a movie that celebrates them but villifies all other Jews? (Don't even bring up his father. My biological father is a convicted felon many times over. That has nothing to do with me, just like Gibson's father's idiocy has nothing to do with him)

And, when was the last time you heard so many critics complain about the violence level in a movie?

[Update: I should not have referred to Simon as a dope. For that, I apologize. But, nonetheless, I am standing by my harsh criticism of him. Seems his readers don't like me much. I already got 3 hate e-mails. Funny, they all were upset about me calling him names. Not one had anything to say about the substance of what I said.]

The Passion of the Christ 

I saw the movie tonight. It was stunning, gut-wrenching, upsetting, and uplifting. We got there a bit early, so I watched the crowd walking out of the previous showing. I studied their faces. There were few smiles, and lots of eye wiping. After I saw it, I understood why.

I went in prepared to see violence on a scale I had never seen in a movie before, especially after reading Roger Ebert's review, who said it was "the most violent film I have ever seen." Yes it was violent, but it was not nearly as violent as I had prepared myself for. Still, it was tough to take, and I have figured out why: Because it was Jesus on the receiving end. It never hit home like that when it was a nothing character in an insignificant action film. To watch Jesus suffer like that, for our sins, was the most upsetting experience I had in a movie theatre since I saw Snoopy Come Home on re-release when I was 5. And, like Snoopy Come Home, I cried on the way home thinking about it.

Jesus was and is the most controversial figure of all time. All of the controversy surrounding it has been nothing new really, because Jesus ignites it by simply being Jesus. The most irresponsible of all the critics has been Abe Foxman of the ADL, who is milking every last ounce of publicity for himself that he can get, right up to their latest complaint. I'd like to slap Foxman in the face for this outrageous statement, but I'll forgive him for he knows not what he does:

"The Passion of the Christ," the ADL said, "represents a setback to more than 40 years of Jewish-Christian relations."

Foxman isn't the only one who simply did not see the same movie I did. Here's a long list of selected comments from reviews, but I'll highlight the ones I think are the most ridiculous:

"The director claims he had no intention of making an anti-Semitic film and we tend to believe him, in much the same way we believe Larry Flynt when he says he's not misogynist." Huh?

"Mel Gibson shows once again that he's skilled at depicting violence. But you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of 'tolerance, love and forgiveness' that the producer-director-co-writer insists he's trying to communicate." Well, other than forgiving those who savaged him, and telling his followers to love those who hate them, I guess not. What did this guy want? Jesus to stand up and remind everyone about the evils of the Holocaust or push the acceptance of gay marriage?

"Bears the same relation to other biblical epics as a charnel house does to your local deli" This guy must have saved this one up. I had to look up charnel to find out it means "A repository for the bones or bodies of the dead." What a briilant analogy. He must be so proud of himself. This review quote says it best:

"The cinematic equivalent of a Rorschach inkblot: You will probably see in it whatever you choose to see in it. "

How right. I saw the greatness that was and is Jesus Christ. The anti-Christian liberals are doing everything they could to bring this movie down, because they know that most people will see exactly what I saw too.

This movie was, for me, a much needed reminder about Jesus. It could be said that I am a "lapsed Catholic." I would love to shake Mel Gibson's hand and thank him for making this movie. He deserves all the success that comes from it because he put his money and reputation on the line for something he believed in.

Perhaps the most rewarding part of the movie for me: Chris, Kent, and I spent an hour after the movie in the parking lot, discussing the movie, our interpretations of it, and about Jesus. It was great to talk those guys about something so important. I learned a lot about them and myself from that talk. (Contrast that with our pre-movie dinner discussion topics: Triumph the Insult Comic Dog and Vladimir Putin)

Scholars can debate if Jesus actually took that level of abuse, the length of his hair, his skin tone, whatever. The important part is that Jesus is once again relevant in the public sphere, which might be Gibson's greatest accomplishment.

Anyone up for a sequal, Jesus: The Resurrection?

Ann Coulter on the AFL-CIO 

Thanks to the over-regulated nanny state, labor unions are nearly obsolete. Several years ago I worked at a closed shop, so I was forced to join a union to work there. When our contract was up, the added amount the company wanted us to contribute to our health care made the shop steward and the union reps go nuts. They wanted to strike over it. I sat there in a meeting and told them once I missed my 4th day of work, I would lose more (there was no strike fund....hmmm) than the added cost for the year and there was no way I would vote to strike. Well, that convinced a lot of people, and the strike authorization vote failed big time. (Needless to say, the union fat cats never liked me after that)

Anyway, read Ann Coulter's latest column about how the AFL-CIO supports Democrats despite it being against their interests. Sadly, Ann Coulter takes a ton of undeserved heat. If you read her work with an honest mind, it becomes very difficult to say she's wrong.

Unions have long since past their usefulness for the average worker.

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Fisking the Discount Blogger 

The Discount Blogger is convinced that the backlash against Bush will cost him the election. (Read the entire thing) His closing comment:

That's my two cents. And a loss for the president in November is how I am calling it now.

Mark my words. Bookmark this post. We'll see.

He is wrong. Time for a fisking.

The culture war is going to blow up in the president's face. There will be a backlash. This time - against the president.

I think I am right when I predict that President Bush has just set himself up to lose in November. He made a serious political mistake today. And, make no mistake, it was all about politics. By supporting a constitutional amendment that will ensure that a class of people are forever denied rights that are guaranteed to others, President Bush has firmly inserted himself into the culture war - on the losing side.

Wrong. Bush has put himself on the winning side. If gay marriage had any real support, why are there 38 states (soon to be 39, Ohio is on the case) that codify that marriage is between a man and a woman? Compare that to the number of states that officially recognize it: ZERO. Massachusetts is having it being forced upon them by judicial tyrants, and look how they have responded. He goes on to list some things about Bush:

1. He's on record as opposing affirmative action

So what? So is the majority of America. Every chance Americans have had the chance to vote on the end of affirmative action, they have voted to do so. Even liberal bastions like Washington and California have done that. Once again, it took judicial tyrants to impose it on us.

2. He's on record as opposing a woman's right to choose

So what? A pro-abortion person words it exactly this way. An anti-abortion person would have said, "He's on the record against abortion." If abortion were left up to the states, instead of (you guessed it) it being imposed on us by judicial tyrants, it would be illegal in at least 20 states. Besides, Bush has always been on the record opposing abortion. (or as you call it, "a woman's right to choose.") DB needs to see more of what is around him. Most people don't give a damn about abortion. They see it as something for others to do what is best for them. Except for liberals, oppostition to abortion is not a negative to lots of people, even those who think it should be legal.

3. He's now on record as opposing gay Americans' right to the pursuit of happiness

Once again, it's all in the wording. Bush is on record opposing gay marriage being imposed on Americans who don't want it imposed on them, by, once again, judicial tyrants. If DB reads into it as "opposing gay Americans' right to the pursuit of happiness," he has spent too much time reading ACLU press releases and the New York Times. (The same thing actually)

4. He is on record as opposing life saving stem cell research

I don't know enough about this to comment, so I'll refrain for now.

5. He's on record supporting giving your hard-earned tax dollars to religious organizations

As opposed to what? Giving our hard-earned tax dollars to homosexual organizations? To pay for condom distribution or pro-gay literature? Memo to DB: A large majority of Americans are either religious or have family members who are religious. People know that faith-based groups get results for a lot less. For example, what is the purpose of trying to destroy the Boy Scouts? To keep homosexuals from feeling "excluded?" Please. Even people who are not religious know that religious groups are promoting good works and are more successful in helping substance abusers than those government-funded "throw money at the problem" groups.

6. He's on record as a supporter of amnesty (regardless of how he chooses to label it) for illegal immigrants

This is a very fair criticism of Bush, and deserves to be explored. However, this will not cost him the election.

No matter how you swing it though, President Bush has made himself a ton of enemies this time around. African Americans, women, academics, gays and lesbians - all of these groups will hammer each and every one of thse points extremely hard over the next eight months.

Where has DB been, in a cave? What over the next eight months will be different? These groups have been hammering Bush about since he was a candidate for President!! Look at the groups I placed in bold: None of them support Bush anyway! Never have, never will.

I hope the president remembers one thing: When the election is over, and in the event one of the Democrats is president, I hope he looks back and realizes that by immersing himself into a culture war with such a diverse base of Americans, he did it all to himself.

You can agree with his positions, or you can disagree with every one of them. I don't think anyone will disagree in a few months that he would have been much better off if he had just stayed out of it all. For opponents of the president, I think this constitutional amendment is a good thing. It's the last straw. It's one more step in solidifying the (mostly untrue) stereotype that people on the right in this country are racist, homophobic bigots.

Nice work DB. Real nice. Bush is showing leadership by jumping into the debate. Staying out of it and ignoring what is going on is what I would expect from a Democrat. And, how could Bush soldify the stereotype that people on the right are racist, homophobic bigots? The left is already convinced!!

Notice the one consistency about the points DB made? All policies that have been imposed on us by rogue judges, one that could never be implemented democratically. Yet, he thinks by standing on the side of things that could not be passed democratically, rather than on the side of judicial fiat, Bush is costing himself the election. Wrong.

If Bush loses come November, it will only be because the Democrats have convinced enough Americans that the terrorist threat is gone and the economy is in the shitter. None of the stuff that DB thinks is important will matter.

Any video of this around? 

L.A. Officers Kill Suspect as Viewers Watch on TV

If there is a video of this available on the web, by all means share the link with us in the comments.

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Woe Canada 

Well, looky here, Canada's socialist welfare state can't afford their military. And, why should they worry about it anyway? There entire defense strategy is the Monroe Doctrine.

Bush defending traditional marriage 

It is about time. I am way past tired of the way San Francisco and Massachusetts are forcing gay marriage on us. Like I've said before, this is a winner for Bush. (Side note: My best friend Joel was at the Flyers game tonight. During the intermission, they showed the local news and a part of Bush's speech today about his call for a constitutional amendment, lots of people in the crowd cheered) The response from John Kerry and John Edwards was a laugher. They both said, "It's for the states to decide." Gee, they don't feel that way about abortion. And, they failed to mention that California has already decided on gay marriage at the ballot box: They rejected it!! It is rogue judges that are imposing it on us, and Bush is rightfully using the bully pulpit to stop them.

Also, on this issue, I think today is the day Andrew Sullivan has "jumped the shark," at least in my eyes. His enraged response will surely color his view of Bush from now on. I have tired of him lately, especially since I feel like I have been reading the ACLU gay rights message boards instead of a responsible blog lately. Time will tell if my initial impulses are correct here. (By the way, what did Sullivan think Bush was going to do, endorse gay marriage? I think he was hoping Bush would put his head in the sand and ignore it.)

Monday, February 23, 2004

Liberal blog I discovered 

I found a blog written by some liberal named Matthew Yglesias. I saw him write:

I basically agree with Noam Chomsky:

It became a short visit.

President Bush today 

Take a minute and 19 seconds to watch a clip of Bush's speech today.

I wish this part was on the clip:

"The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions," Bush said. "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." His supportive audience erupted in laughter and applause.

September 11th "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" 

Have you seen the Brett Favre Mastercard commerical, where he says time and again, "I would have..." after he saw something wrong happen? Expect a lot of this type of September 11th "We (re: Bush) should have known, and done.." a lot between now and the election. The New York Times is now reporting this:

C.I.A. Was Given Data on Hijacker Long Before 9/11

WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 — American investigators were given the first name and telephone number of one of the Sept. 11 hijackers two and a half years before the attacks on New York and Washington, but the United States appears to have failed to pursue the lead aggressively, American and German officials say.

The information — the earliest known signal that the United States received about any of the hijackers — has now become an important element of an independent commission's investigation into the events of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said Monday. It is considered particularly significant because it may have represented a missed opportunity for American officials to penetrate the Qaeda terror cell in Germany that was at the heart of the plot. And it came roughly 16 months before the hijacker showed up at flight schools in the United States.

This being the New York Times, they would never let an opportunity to hurt the CIA pass. And, in the inference is that "Bush knew." Maybe this is a stretch, but with the Times' history, could you really say I am out of line? Of course not.

Just remember this as you read the many articles of this type to follow. Could you imagine what the New York Times would have written if certain actions would have been taking to prevent 9/11? You would have read something like this:

Yesterday, in a type of raid not seen since the Kristallnacht, the Bush administration stormed flight schools nationwide to arrest students taking flight training. The students, whose only apparent connection is being of Arab descent, were taken into custody and charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.
The FBI, enforcing warrants issued solely on the basis of a memo issued by an obscure desk agent at the Phoenix FBI office, claimed that these Arab men were plotting to simultaneously hijack four airliners and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and an undetermined Washington site, possibly the White House or the Capitol Building. The 19 men, speaking through their ACLU attorneys, denied any sinister intentions, saying they were only trying to lift themselves up from poverty.
"This is the most outrageous violation of civil liberties and racial profiling since the Japanese were interned in World War II," said Anthony Romero, the ACLU National Director. "These struggling students are nothing more than scapegoats for the radical Bush Administration and John Ashcroft, who will stop at nothing to turn back the clock on civil rights 1,000 years."

Come to think of it, I would have rather read something like this instead of seeing what happened. But you get the point. Even after September 11th, you still hear these types of outrageous statements immediately condemning the Bush administration and calling the person arrested "a poor, innocent victim." Frankly, we need to learn where the CIA messed up, but to point fingers at Bush or anyone else means that they are to blame for not being soothsayers.

Bottom line: The CIA has problems, but they are the result of working under excessive micromanagement by bureaucratic ass-kissers and ass-coverers who will always err on the side of inaction. I think the CIA's mandate should be simple. Do what you have to do outside the territory of the United States to eliminate terrorist threats. Buy who you have to buy. (Regulations against hiring certain types of shady characters are ridiculous. It's not like Tibetian Monks hang out with al-Qaeda) Kill who you have to kill. And destroy what you have to destroy. Be prepared to answer for anything you do, but you will get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to eliminating terorrists. Anything outside your mandate will meet harsh punishment. You know what needs to be done. Get to it.

This is what you get.. 

...when you treat terrorism as a "law enforcement operation," as John Kerry has said that he would do:

Legal Disputes Over Hunt Paralyzed Clinton's Aides

If John Kerry is elected President (yeah right), this is what we'll return to. Read the article and see for yourself. There are two parts I found striking:

In fashioning this sensitive policy in the midst of an impeachment crisis that lasted into early 1999, Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, struggled to forge a consensus within the White House national security team. Among other things, he had to keep on board a skeptical Attorney General Janet Reno and her Justice Department colleagues, who were deeply invested in law enforcement approaches to terrorism, according to senior officials involved.

Keep a skeptical Janet Reno on board? Why didn't Clinton fire her immediately? She serves at his pleasure. She spent most of her tenure covering his ass anyway. Part of the answer is contained in that paragraph: impeachment. You think the whole thing was "just about sex?" Think again.

And, this part is yet another part of a long line of massaging Clinton's legacy:

[Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy"] Berger later recalled his frustration about this hidden debate. Referring to the military option in the two-track policy, he said at a 2002 congressional hearing: "It was no question, the cruise missiles were not trying to capture him. They were not law enforcement techniques."

Perhaps in this instance he is correct. But, it doesn't change the fact the Clinton's entire Presidency was a law enforcement approach. Nice try, Sandy. It took impeachment for him to get tough.

Andy Rooney is a senile old geezer 

The old goat has embarrassed himself yet again last night on 60 Minutes, this time with more of his naked liberal anti-God mockery. His first sentence foreshadows where he is headed.

It doesn't seem right, but religion has been in the news a lot recently.

What doesn't seem right about it, Andy? He goes on to discuss Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson:

I heard from God just the other night. God always seems to call at night.

"Andrew," God said to me. He always calls me "Andrew." I like that.

"Andrew, you have the eyes and ears of a lot of people. I wish you'd tell your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos. I believe that's one of your current words. They're crazy as bedbugs, another earthly expression. I created bedbugs. I'll tell you, they're no crazier than people,” said God.

"Let me just say that I think I'd remember if I'd ever talked to Pat Robertson, and I'd remember if I said Bush would get re-elected in a blowout."

“As far as Mel Gibson goes, I haven't seen his movie, 'The Passion of the Christ,' because it hasn't opened up here yet. But I did catch Gibson being interviewed by Diane Sawyer. I did something right when I came up with her, didn't I,” added God. “Anyway, as I was saying, Mel is a real nut case. What in the world was I thinking when I created him? Listen, we all make mistakes."

His last sentence is a disgrace:

My question to Mel Gibson is: "How many million dollars does it look as if you're going to make off the crucifixion of Christ?"

Just look at Rooney calling Gibson a profiteer. Outrageous. Gibson has risked not only millions on a project that believed in, he risked his reputation. Plus, he busted his ass to get it distributed, and it is paying off for him. (I'd like to see Tom Cruise or John Travolta spend $30 million plus of their own fortunes on some Scientology movie) Rooney diminishes Gibson's effort to nothing in one sentence. If Gibson was only out to make a fast buck, he'd could have made Lethal Weapon 5 with no risk and a huge payday. Rooney is only preaching to his liberal choir anyway, those who are anti-Christian and anti-profit.

Andy Rooney needs to go away. He is reminding me more and more of Supreme Court Justices Thurgood Marshall and William O. Douglas, who were beyond pathetic at the end of their careers. Like those two, someone needs to gently (or bluntly) tell Rooney that it is time to retire for good.

Sunday, February 22, 2004

A.J Feeley traded to the Dolphins 

The Dolphins and Eagles agreed Saturday evening to the Feeley deal, which will become official March 3, when the league's current trade moratorium is lifted. In exchange for Feeley, the Eagles will receive a conditional second-round choice in the 2005 draft.

As a lifelong Eagles fan, I am proud of Feeley for saving the Eagles season last year. He went 4-1 while both McNabb and Detmer were injured. I think the Dolphins are getting a guy who can really be a terrific quarterback. I wish A.J. Feeley the best of luck.

Salmon Czar? 

Once again, Kerry sounds like he belongs on Scrappleface:

Kerry vows to name salmon czar

Sen. John Kerry would appoint a salmon czar who would answer directly to him and his vice president if he´s elected president.

Once again, I ask: This guy is really a serious candidate for President?

(Hat tip to my man Lee at Right Thinking From The Left Coast)

More reasons to love Donald Rumsfeld 

I cannot wait to sit and read Rowan Scarborough's new book "Rumsfeld's War" which is being released tomorrow. I love this excerpt I just saw on Drudge:

* al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein: Rumsfeld changed the rules of fighting against terrorists, focusing on one primary goal-killing them. Rumsfeld streamlined rules of engagement allowing soldiers on the ground to act quickly on new information. Rumsfeld also moved new special operations units under the control of the Pentagon. The book reveals how one such unit, the secret Grey Fox, could turn on cell phones without the enemy knowing it, allowing the CIA Predator to use the phone signal for a missile strike.

Liberals are going to get the vapors!! They think Rumsfeld should be appointing a commission to study the root causes of why we were attacked. I love Rumsfeld and his attitude. His continuing as Secretary of Defense is just another in the long line of reasons that Bush needs to be re-elected come November.

A review to follow soon.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Why is there even an argument? 

Take a good look at this picture:

That's Emily, less than two minutes after she arrived. I dare anyone to try and tell me that only a few minutes before this picture was taken, her life was worthless. Now, read this:

The House this week will set up an election-year showdown over fetal-homicide legislation targeting Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry and a handful of Texas Democrats who have opposed such bills in the past.
The bill, called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, would legally recognize two victims when a pregnant woman and her unborn child are harmed or killed.

How in the hell could anyone act like the murder of a pregnant woman results in only one victim? Because they fear it might affect abortion rights? Oh, please. STOP IT!! Take a look at Laci Peterson, whose family is pushing this legislation. Remember all the pictures of her on TV, with that beautiful smile of hers? You could just tell she was overjoyed with her pregnancy. Plus, she already knew she was having a boy, and had his name (Conner) picked out. She made her choice, and it was to have her baby. Her husband allegedly killed them. (I'll wait for the trial to pronounce him guilty, although I suspect he is) Ask yourself: How many victims here? Your answer will define you.

Yes, bringing this up is a calculated political move, designed to force John Kerry and other Democrats to go on the record. (Don't hold your breath. Kerry hasn't voted once this year and missed the vote on the partial birth abortion ban) Also, it is good politics. The only troublesome thing to me is that this is NOT ALREADY LAW. Kerry denounces special interests, but what other than his fealty to them explains this?

The bill would explicitly exempt legal abortion, but in an e-mail response to a constituent in June, Mr. Kerry disagreed, saying it would "clearly impact" abortion rights.
"I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Therefore, I do not support the Unborn Victims of Violence Act," he said in his e-mail.

You have what? What a crock!! Laci Peterson's mother has more sense than Kerry:

Laci Peterson's mother, Sharon Rocha, wrote to Mr. Kerry in July to convince him otherwise. She argued that California's fetal-homicide law has been around since 1970 and hasn't affected abortion rights there at all.
"What I find difficult to understand is why groups and senators who champion the pro-choice cause are blind to the fact that these two-victim crimes are the ultimate violation of choice," Mrs. Rocha said.

I cannot believe this legislation is even under dispute in a civilized society.

Saturday, February 21, 2004

Liberal hypocrisy yet again 

Only the ACLU invokes my ire more than that scumbag Ralph Neas and his Orwellian-named group People for the American Way. They are, as expected, outraged at President Bush's recess appointment of William Pryor. Here's the headline of their press release:

White House Puts Politics First, Constitution Last With Appalling Recess Appointment Of Bill Pryor

According to that vile bastard Ralph Neas:

President Bush keeps finding new ways to demonstrate his contempt for our system of checks and balances and his disrespect for the Senate’s constitutional role of advise and consent on nominations to the federal courts, not to mention Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties. It is hard to recall another president who has been so willing to treat the federal judiciary as a partisan political weapon.

Now, here's Neas when President Clinton recess-appointed Roger Gregory on January 27, 2000, with less than a month to go in his term: (their version of Winston Smith seems to have purged it from the PFAW web site)

"We applaud President Clinton's timely holiday gift to the people of these five states and to all of America," said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas, who was present in the Oval Office for President Clinton's announcement. "With this highly qualified appointment he has broken down a shameful and archaic barrier to equality that has no place in our nation in the 21st century."

This statement is troubling on several levels. First, look at the naked hypocrisy. Lame-duck President Clinton recess appoints someone, and it's a holiday gift. But when Bush does the same exact thing, it's "contempt for our system of checks and balances." What lousy weasels the PFAW are. Second, Ralph Neas was in the Oval Office? No wonder he hates Bush. He has no access to him. And third, Neas lauds the appointment of Roger Gregory because he is an African-American. Interesting, isn't it, that Gregory's appointment has "broken down a shameful and archaic barrier to equality that has no place in our nation in the 21st century," yet the same PFAW are solidly against Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American woman with a stellar record?

Then again, could anyone expect them to act otherwise. Oh, well. At least they don't try to pass themselves off as "non-partisan." Here's Ralph Neas' picture by the way. Nice rug, Ralph:

P.C. madness 

One possible future scenario:

A university administrator: "You are charged with a hate crime in violation of Campus Speech Code 98-07 for preaching anti-homosexual Bible verses outside the specified free-speech zone created under Campus Regulation 212-72. What say you?"

Student threatened with expulsion: "Sir, that was not me. At the time in question, I was in Jihadistan at an al-Qaeda training camp, learning how to construct a dirty bomb out of gardening materials in order to blow up the School of Business in protest of the neo-fascist policies of the Bush administration which causes wages to be depressed in sub-Saharan Africa."

Administrator: "I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. Back to class, young man."

Think that scenario is a farce? Well, something like that starts with this:

At Syracuse University, a student was recently detained by campus security. He’d been sneaking around a residence hall with his face painted black.

J’accuse! A dreaded blackface incident. In today’s politically correct campus environment, there’s no acceptable excuse for this behavior -- not even if the student is a theater major starring in an Al Jolson retrospective. And this student, a brother of Delta Tau Delta fraternity, realizes that.
So he told campus security that the blackface makeup was in no way racially motivated. No indeed. He told them he was merely on his way to burgle a house, and the blackface paint was camouflage.

Hilarious!!! He wasn't out in blackface to do something racist. He was on his way to commit a felony!! The silliest part: The school doesn't believe him!!

“We are still looking at it, investigating it and working with other departments on campus,” said Marlene Hall, director of Public Safety for S.U. “It could be burglary, it could be other things as well that we would be looking at.”

Wow. For a second, I thought I was reading Scrappleface.

Send Kerry some milk and cookies 

Bush is being a meanie, according to Kerry:

In a letter to Bush, Kerry wrote: "As you well know, Vietnam was a very difficult and painful period in our nation's history, and the struggle for our veterans continues. So, it has been hard to believe that you would choose to reopen these wounds for your personal political gain. But, that is what you have chosen to do."

Really? Hasn't Kerry reminded everyone every chance he got that he served in Vietnam? He brought it up, and now blames Bush for having the nerve to bring up Kerry's post-war hi-jinks. (Funny, I really don't remember Bush bringing up Vietnam yet. Do you? Leave it in the comments. A link would be nice too)

This part is hilarious:

"Saxby Chambliss, on the part of the president and his henchmen, decided today to question my commitment to the defense of our nation," Kerry said in Georgia, one of 10 states choosing electoral delegates on March 2.

Bush's henchmen? Wow. I guess Terry McAuliffe, a ton of other Democrats, and the lapdog media weren't acting as Kerry's henchmen when they pushed the "Bush was AWOL" lie even after the facts were put right in their faces. If Chambliss criticizing Kerry on his record upsets him now, wait until Kerry gets the full workover.

24 years ago today... 

The U.S. Olympic Hockey team beat those no-good Commies.

I hate to admit it... 

but I laughed at this borderline blasphemy.

Fish Wrap Tomfoolery 

Instapundit has a sad instance of quotation recycling by the New York Times. Stunningly, it's an anti-Bush quote. And, it's their favorite type of anti-Bush quote, a "I-used-to-support-Bush-but-not-no-more" type.

Osama caught soon? 

Reports from Teabag Country are that Osama is surrounded and may be captured soon.

A BRITISH Sunday newspaper is claiming Osama bin Laden has been found and is surrounded by US special forces in an area of land bordering north-west Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Sunday Express, known for its sometimes colourful scoops, claims the al-Qaeda leader has been "sighted" for the first time since 2001 and is being monitored by satellite.

The paper claims he is in a mountainous area to the north of the Pakistani city of Quetta. The region is said to be peopled with bin Laden supporters and the terrorist leader is estimated to also have 50 of his fanatical bodyguards with him.

The claim is attributed to "a well-placed intelligence source" in Washington, who is quoted as saying: "He (bin Laden) is boxed in."

The paper says the hostile terrain makes an all-out conventional military assault impossible. The plan to capture him would depend on a "grab-him-and-go" style operation.

"US helicopters already sited on the Afghanistan border will swoop in to extricate him," the newspaper says. It claims bin Laden and his men "sleep in caves or out in the open. The area is swept by fierce snow storms howling down from the 10,000ft-high mountain peaks. Donkeys are the only transport."

The special forces are "absolutely confident" there is no escape for bin Laden, and are awaiting the order to go in and get him.

If Osama is indeed captured soon, we all expect Bush to be charged with waiting to have Osama captured to get the maximum political gain. We heard similar charges when Saddam was captured, and that was 11 months before the election!! (My favorites: Bush wanted Saddam captured around Christmas so every would talk about it at holiday parties and family get-togethers, and to stop Dean's momentum after Al Gore's endorsement) If Osama was caught tonight, he will be accused of it, BECAUSE THERE IS NOT OTHER WAY TO DISPARAGE OSAMA's CAPTURE!!

Bush opponents are trying to intimidate him from pursuing Osama because of these inevitable charges. But, I have a theory you might consider: If Osama is captured, it might hurt Bush. Because, I think after that, many people will think that the war on terror is over, say it is time to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, and would vote for Kerry if he says its over. Clinton ignored terrorism with his see no evil, hear no evil, and "Terrorism? What terrorism? approaches, which gave every one a false sense of security. (Don't be surprised to hear one day that Bush won't capture Osama so he can keep the spector of terrorism alive and to continue to play on people's fears)

Sadly, this is what rank partianship has come to. Even the capture of the mass murderer Osama bin Laden is calculated in political terms.

Here's the cover of the U.K. Express:

This is like comparing Orwell's seminal work to my blog 

Nat Henoff, who I have said in the past is a lousy columnist in all respects, once again lends credence to my contention. His latest work, not surprisingly found in the Village Voice, is disgraceful in its moral equivalence, false analogies, and omissions. The dishonesty begins with the headline: Fred Korematsu v. George W. Bush Oh, please.

The point of his column is to compare the plight of Fred Korematsu, who was forced into an internment camp in 1942, and that of Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen declared an enemy combatant by President Bush, who was been sitting in a navy brig in Virginia for the past two years. This is a false analogy of the highest order. I'll get back to the legal questions, which indeed have merit, later. What I find appalling is that Henoff has the gall to compare "poor" Hamdi to Korematsu, who was a real victim of disgraceful government policy. The beginning of Henoff's column is correct, and is irrefutable:

By order of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944), Fred Korematsu had been deprived in 1942 of all his due process rights solely because he was a Japanese American. So were 120,000 other individuals of Japanese ancestry living on the West Coast. It was one of the most shameful travesties of justice in Supreme Court history.

It wasn't until 1988 that Congress passed a law apologizing for this wholly unlawful mass imprisonment. Each surviving victim of the presidential order and of the Supreme Court's turning the rule of law upside down was awarded the meager sum of $20,000 by way of redress.

In 1942, when he was 22 years old, Fred Korematsu—working as a welder in a California shipyard—had refused to be put into an internment camp. He was arrested and locked up. It was that conviction that the Supreme Court upheld in the 1944 Korematsu v. United States case, deciding that in wartime, the government could indeed put him away without a hearing and without any judicial determination that he had done anything wrong.

Henoff is absolutely right here. What happened to Korematsu, who was detained solely on the basis of his ancestry, was a travesty. It is this sentence that starts Henoff on the wrong path:

It is this king-like authority that George W. Bush now claims over those he designates as "enemy combatants."

Legally, yes. This is a legitimate question that deserves to be decided by the Supreme Court, who will hear the case in the next few months. But, there is a stark difference between Korematsu and Hamdi that Henoff conveniently omits: Korematsu was an American citizen, who by all accounts lived an honest life as a welder in California, and who was detained simply because he was Japanese. Hamdi, on the other hand, was only an American citizen by birth, and had not stepped foot on our soil since he was a toddler. And, the most glaring difference, Hamdi was picked up on the battefield in Afghanistan, fighting against American troops. Of course Henoff must omit this, because he knows that his ability to persuade is diminished to almost nothing if that fact is mentioned.

Henoff goes on to discuss that Korematsu has filed an amicus brief supporting Hamdi. I think Korematsu is misguided in lending his name and efforts to protesting Hamdi's detention, but that is a right he has earned. He doesn't realize that by lending his name to Hamdi, he cheapens himself. Because of Korematsu's fight, and his lifelong struggle to clear his name, Amercians are well aware of this shameful part of our history, and surely we will never again round up thousands of people based on race or ancestry, no matter what. (Look at what happened after September 11th. Nothing, except for a few dopes who did not receive sympathy from anyone.) The blame-America first crowd loves to remind us of what we did 60 years ago but never credit us for learning some important lessons from it.

While both sides legitimately argue the constitutionality of the President's actions, what is forgotten is how we got here. Our troops could have killed him or arrested him. They chose to arrest him. Bush could have had him detained, or placed him back in circulation, allowing him to once again be a threat to American lives. (Or opened him up to be killed the next time) Bush chose to detain him. Hamdi, who on his own accord waged war against America, now claims he deserves the protections accorded to American citizens. Some argue that this case asks the wrong legal question. Instead, some suggest that Hamdi, despite being born on American soil, is not an American citizen. I don't think that argument would get very far, as I doubt you could get any judge to rule that someone born on American soil, regardless of the circumstances, is not automatically a United States citizen.

However, there is an argument that Hamdi should no longer be considered an American citizen; that he expatriated himself on his own accord per Section 1481 of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, which in relevant part states that:

A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality...[by] committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States.

If the Government loses at the Supreme Court, and they rule that as an American citizen he cannot be held as an enemy combatant, I hope they turn around and charge him with treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution, where in Article III, Section 3, it states:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

I think the Government would have a good case against Hamdi, provided they could come up with two witnesses. If the Government were to do that, you watch Hamdi's attorneys turn around and argue that Hamdi is NOT an American citizen, and thus, not owing allegiance to the United States, cannot properly be convicted of treason. Think I'm joking? Then read this extremely interesting case from 1952, Kawakita v. United States, where an American citizen was charged with treason for aiding the Japanese in World War II, and used this very same argument as a defense.

I know this is a long post, but I feel very strongly about this. To sum up: Henoff was wrong to equate Korematsu with Hamdi, even if Korematsu has come out in Hamdi's defense. Korematsu, due to his race, was a victim of a wrong-headed policy which continues to embarrass Americans to this day. Hamdi is in the position he is in due to his waging war against our troops. Korematsu should not have lent his good name to Hamdi. Hamdi has a legitimate argument, but so does Bush. Hamdi should be charged with treason if the Court rules that cannot hold him anymore, and let a jury decide if he deserves to go to prison for his actions. His lawyers will all of a sudden claim he is no longer a citizen, as his citizenship is nothing more than a matter of convenience.

Got it? Good.

This says it all 

I often refer to political cartoons because they can say more in a drawing than I can in 1000 words. Via AmericanRealpolitik, I found piece of brilliance.

If you got a few bucks to spare 

I don't need it. I'm a Republican, so I'm filthy rich...just ask the Democrats. Since I get a paycheck from the private sector, I am automatically a greedy Capitalist, Republican pig. Anyway, forget that.

I despise Michael Moore, who is an arrogant prick who has made millions in the country that he hates. He is an elitist jerkoff who acts like he is a 9-to-5 hardhat wearing father of 3 who goes home to his wife of 22 years every night. Anyway, some friends of Lee at Right-Thinking From The Left Coast have been putting together a film about the real Michael Moore and they need a little help with the financing. Lee asked his readers to donate $5, which I did right away. I ask that you donate anything, even $1. Michael Moore makes lie filled fictional crap like Bowling for Columbine. It is time to turn the tables on him, and make a truthful film about that scumbag.

Go here and donate anything you got. A buck or 2 won't hurt. Let's show Michael Moore how real people make a difference.

Marxism and Mercantilism at the New York Times 

If you are one of the 11 people who read this blog regularly, you know that I think Bob Herbert is the worst columnist in America, even worse than with Dowd, Krugman, and Scheer. I will never forgive him for referring to patriotic Americans as "flag-waving yahoos" and his tired old lies about the long soup kitchen lines thanks to George Bush's policies, amongst a thousand other things. usually don't read his crap, but the headline on his latest column sucked me in. (Frankly, I really only read it because I thought he'd say something like "You know, trade is how we got slaves here") Anyway, here's the headline:

Dark Side of Free Trade

The only part I can bear to dicuss:

The middle class is in trouble. Globalization and outsourcing are hot topics in this election season because so many middle-class Americans, instead of having the luxury of looking ahead to a brighter future for the next generation, are worried about slipping into a lower economic segment themselves.

This is happening in the middle of an economic expansion, which should tell us that the terrain has changed. In terms of job creation, it's the weakest expansion on record. The multinationals and the stock market are doing just fine. But American workers are caught in a cruel squeeze between corporations bent on extracting every last ounce of productivity from their U.S. employees and a vast new globalized work force that is eager and well able to do the jobs of American workers at a fraction of the pay.


We've allowed the multinationals to run wild and never cared enough to step in when the people losing their jobs, or getting their wages and benefits squeezed, were of the lower-paid variety. Now the middle class is being targeted, and the panic is setting in.

Let me summarize: The economy is doing better, but only the companies are making money, by working its employees like dogs. Few people have a job. The ones who are lucky enough not to have their jobs moved to Indonesia are one step from the poorhouse. The people live in constant fear of economic catastrophe. The government doesn't control industry like it should. Workers of the world unite.

Ok, I made the last part up, but you get the point.

Friday, February 20, 2004

More on The Passion Of The Christ 

Industry insiders are shocked that this movie has racked up such an impressive amount of advance sales. (I already have 3 tickets for a 9:45 showing Wednesday night. Everything else was sold out, and I bought them 4 days ago) I'm not surprised at all. Our country is a Christian-majority and, unlike the insular liberals who think everyone is irreligious like they are, American is more than ready for a movie like this.

I am reminded of a scene from the highly-underrated movie RKO 281, where Orson Welles (as played by Liev Schreiber) discusses what project he wants to do after Citizen Kane. He wants to make a film called "The Life and Christ" and says to the character played by John Malkovich, "You must admit, it has a built-in audience."

How true.

What media bias? 

Have you noticed that every article about Bush lately, whether he is visiting the Daytona 500, speaking to the troops in Lousiana, or even about Chinese exchange rates, the media is sure to mention that Bush is facing re-election? If you haven't, you haven't been paying attention to what you read. You will now.

But, when it comes to Senator Tom Daschle, who is facing a tough re-election this November, the media glosses over that fact in an "oh by the way" fashion. In this article, it is not until the last sentence that they mention this:

Daschle faces a re-election race this year against former Republican congressman John Thune.

With that point being made, take a look at the "meat" of the article. This is what Daschle had to say:

PIERRE - Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., on Thursday praised the Bush administration's war and nation-building work in Iraq and said he has no serious concerns about the lack of weapons of mass destruction.

Daschle told state chamber of commerce representatives meeting in the South Dakota capital that he is satisfied with the way things are going in Iraq.

"I give the effort overall real credit," Daschle said. "It is a good thing Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. It is a good thing we are democratizing the country."

He said he is not upset about the debate over pre-war intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, an issue that has dogged President Bush as Democratic presidential contenders have slogged through the primary season.

"We can argue about the WMD and what we should have known," Daschle, the Senate minority leader, said.

Wow. Is this the same guy who said this, right as we were about to go to war in Iraq?

'I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country." (Watch the video clip here)

Hmmm. Why the sudden change in tone towards Bush? Could it be that Daschle is facing re-election in a state that is solidly pro-Bush? You'd think that they would mention his change of attitude and why. You can bet if it were Bush changing his tone, they would have reminded you 10 times that he was facing re-election.

(By the way, watch this video too. Bush is in top of his game, and they only show it for 3-4 seconds, then they give Daschle and that old coot Robert Byrd well over a minute. You can just feel the bias. Watch Daschle talking tough. Contrast that with his attitude today)

Remember this... 

...the next time you hear about those poor protesters not being allowed to get right up into Bush's face during the Republican convention in New York this September.

Convention plan puts protesters blocks away

Under a preliminary plan floated by convention organizers, the "free-speech zone" would be a small plot bounded by Green Line tracks and North Washington Street, in an area that until recently was given over to the elevated artery. The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July.

"The area looks a little silly, to be honest with you," said Urszula Masny-Latos, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild's Massachusetts chapter. "People will not be able to express their concerns with whatever will be happening, because no one will have access to delegates. No one will be heard, and the area is just too small."

There it is, in black and white. A "free-speech zone" at the Democratic Convention in Boston. Yet, in the same article, they make sure to mention that their are "concerns" about the "free-speech zones that Republicans are surely planning:

In New York City, where the Republicans will hold their convention this year, police are anticipating tens of thousands of protesters. No plans have been made for where protests will be allowed, but civil liberties groups have already raised concerns about potential police tactics.

Read that again. Civil liberties groups are already upset about what the Republicans are doing, even though they don't know exactly what yet.

As a side note, what both cities should do is bring in John Timoney (currently the police chief of Miami) to run the police response to protestors. In Philadelphia during the 2000 Republican convention (I was still living there at the time and I made a nice chunk of Republican cash that week), the Philly police under Timoney handled the protesters beautifully. It was such a good plan, protesters were forced to stoop to the most embarrassing claims of "police brutality" you have ever heard.

Another great move by Bush 

WASHINGTON - Bypassing angry Senate Democrats, President Bush installed Alabama Attorney General William Pryor as a U.S. appeals court judge on Friday in his second "recess appointment" of a controversial nominee in five weeks.

This is great news. Of course, the liberal media and the Democrats are making sure to tell you several things: Bush did this because it is an election year, Pryor is anti-abortion, Conservatives and Republicans are "in revolt," and hinting that Bush is doing something nefarious. For example, here is the opening sentence in the Washington Post:

President Bush bypassed the Senate on a high-profile judicial nomination yesterday for the second time in five weeks and seated William H. Pryor Jr., the Alabama attorney general and an outspoken opponent of abortion, as an appeals court judge through 2005.

Of, course, the usual suspects are out whining. John Kerry said:

"President Bush has taken yet another action to diminish his credibility with the American people," he said. "Today, he chose for the second time to bypass the normal Senate confirmation process to install another right wing judge to the federal bench."

After reading that, I decided to get in touch with that "living, breathing" Constitution that liberals love to talk about, but, despite all my efforts, I just could not find it. So, I decided to read the dead version instead. I found this Presidential power:

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Unlike the Democrats in the Senate, I read the whole thing, and I just could not find any part that said the the minority party could hold up the process even though the nominee has more than enough votes to be confirmed. As expected, that tool Charles Shumer does not see it like I do:

"The president is on shaky ground with the hard right and is using this questionably legal and politically shabby technique to bolster himself," Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a Judiciary Committee member, said on Friday. "Regularly circumventing the advise-and-consent process is not the way to change the tone in Washington. It's shabby and the motivation is political more than anything else."

Only a Democrat could call following the Constitution "questionably legal." And, Bush would not be forced to "circumventing the advise-and-consent process" if the process were carried out honestly. Schumer can go scratch.

I wondered why Bush didn't just recess appoint all of the judges being held up. Then I thought that maybe several of them did not want to be in limbo, and may have turned down a Bush offer to recess appoint them. This is a winning issue for Bush, if he pushes it. Most people don't care about the judicial confirmation process. When the Democrats attack one person, like Robert Bork, people may fall for their hyperbole. But, the usually disinterested public, if made aware of this situation, will be smart enough to know that when quite a few judges are being held up, despite having stellar records that can be easily explained, something isn't right about it all.

[The Professor's comments have me thinking and re-assessing my opinion here. While I stand by my opinion, there are additional factors that I have not considered before. Read this article as an example of the possible downside of recess appointments]

I may have to move to Idaho next 

Not really, but this is getting outrageous. The county next to the one I live in here in New Mexico has decided that they wanted attention too, so they are issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Sandoval County Attorney David Mathews (who should be fired immediately) all of a sudden discovered that it is illegal for his county to stop gay marriage.

On Thursday, Mathews said he was concerned that refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples could open the county to legal liability.
State law defines marriage as a civil contract between contracting parties but it does not mention gender. The only law that mentions gender is a 1961 statute that created the form used for marriage licenses and which asks for information about the male and female applicants.
But the Equal Rights Act of 1973 outlaws discrimination based on sex, Mathews said.

Wow. Only it only took 31 years to realize this, and it took the unique brilliance of David Mathews to discover it.

[The County Clerk] said she would issue marriage licenses to same-sex applicants until Sandoval County receives a legal opinion from the attorney general.

Here's a concept: Why not wait until the AG issues the legal opinion before doing this?

Mathews said he did not want Sandoval County to become a test case for same-sex marriage in New Mexico and that the county does not have a position on the issue.
"This is a statewide issue, and we need some guidance," he said.

If that's true, they why take this drastic step? This is nothing but a publicity stunt by an insignificant nobody. Luckily, the AG stepped in and declared gay marriages invalid in New Mexico.

New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid said the licenses "would be invalid under current law."
Madrid's "advisory" opinion came in the form of a letter to state Sen. Timothy Jennings, who had sought the advice after the marriages began Friday morning in Bernalillo.
"Until the laws are changed through the legislative process or declared unconstitutional by the judicial process, the statutes limit marriage in New Mexico to a man and a woman," Madrid wrote. "Thus in my judgment, no county clerk should issue a marriage license to same sex couples because those licenses would be invalid under current law."

The Sandoval county clerk doesn't even have the decency to conceal the intent, which is to be a progressive who can say, "Hey, we were one of the first."

"It's going to be across the country and so we wanted to be ahead of the curve," Dunlap said Friday.

Someone has to put a stop to this. A frog march or two would not be inappropriate right now, but we all know that is exactly what these people want, so they can be a hero.

Thursday, February 19, 2004

Wait a while, will ya? 

Frist May Make 2008 White House Run

Let us get through 2004 first, OK?

A lesson in economics 

The Vatican of Liberalism has a brillant post about tax cuts. Read it, especially you Jake.

Making a mockery of marriage 

Those clowns in San Francisco (and in Massachusetts for that matter) are making a mockery of marriage. But, they aren't the only ones. Take a look at what openly gay Phoenix Democrat Rep. Wally Straughn proposed today:

One rejected change would have required couples to present evidence that they are able to have children before they can get married. Another would have required couples who are married for five years and haven't yet had children to adopt them.

"I was trying to actually strengthen marriage, rather than just discriminate against particular couples," said Rep. Wally Straughn, a Phoenix Democrat who is openly gay.

He said his proposed changes were genuine and that he wasn't trying to mock the proposal.

Yeah, right. This in a nutshell is my problem with the militant gay agenda. They do think this is all a joke. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they got everything they wanted and couldn't play the victim role.

I heard on KFYI radio that a Democrat said that they should just let the Courts decide this issue. That woman should be removed from office immediately. I am sick of judges making the law, and want issues decided by my elected representatives. I'll say it again: If gay marriage passes legislatively, I'll support it. Until then, someone needs to put an end to this nonsense.

And look where I wound up 

Here in New Mexico, (OK, currently I'm in Phoenix, as I am every Wednesday-Friday, but I digress) the Legislature is not in session that long, compared to other states. I am now convinced that they are too bored, and have too much time on their hands. Read the section of the New Mexico Constitution regarding legislative sessions:

Sec. 5. [Time and length of sessions; items considered in even-numbered years.]
A. Each regular session of the legislature shall begin annually at 12:00 noon on the third Tuesday of January. Every regular session of the legislature convening during an odd-numbered year shall remain in session not to exceed sixty days, and every regular session of the legislature convening during an even-numbered year shall remain in session not to exceed thirty days. No special session of the legislature shall exceed thirty days.

B. Every regular session of the legislature convening during an even-numbered year shall consider only the following:

(1) budgets, appropriations and revenue bills;

(2) bills drawn pursuant to special messages of the governor; and

(3) bills of the last previous regular session vetoed by the governor.

(As amended November 5, 1940, November 5, 1946, and November 3, 1964.)

Since this is an even-numbered year, they only have 30 days to consider bills, and seem to have already run out of ideas. Why else would they offer up this?

'Breathalyzer in every car' bill passes house

Some state lawmakers are convinced they have the answer to solve the D.W.I. epidemic and want to require everyone on the road to take a breathalyzer test before they can start the engine of any vehicle.
Today, the proposal is one very large step closer to becoming law.

A bill requiring an ignition interlock device be installed on every car, truck, bus or motorcycle in New Mexico passed the state house today and is on its way to the senate.

This bill will affect gays and minorities much more than...uh, sorry, I thought for a second that I was writing for the New York Times. Seriously, this is f'n ridiculous. Every argument you can think of applies, but I'll just say this: I can see it now. 20 degrees out and my car won't start because of a misreading or a defect.

I won't argue that drunk-driving needs to be eradicated. But to punish everyone for the transgressions a few is outrageous. Perhaps, instead of wasting their time on this junk, they should make the sentencing for those convicted of DWI something closer to Draconian. I'd accept that. Take a look at the slap-on-the-wrist laws on the books now. They are a joke, almost as big a joke as requiring all drivers to have an ignition interlock device.

This is heart-breaking 

Pictured is the Liberty Bell which for years sat atop Veteran's Stadium in Philadelphia, a place where I have visited, oh, maybe 1000 times. I grew up within walking distance of the Vet, and went to more Phillies and Eagles games than you would ever believe. The place is getting the dynamite soon, and I am flying all the way back home to see. That place may have been a shithole, but it was my shithole. I feel like a huge part of my childhood will be blown up with that place.

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

And this is a problem? 

U.S. Foodmakers Blame Wal-Mart for Stunted Prices

At an industry conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, this week, makers of foods from cereal to soup lamented the difficulty of raising prices on such household staples when discounters like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. wield so much power over the grocery market.

Boo f'n hoo. Let me give you an example: The Smith's near by house charges $2.99 for a carton of orange juice that Stephanie drinks. The Wal-Mart Superstore charges $1.97. Why on earth would I buy it from Smith's?

The market always wins. These companies should know that. If Wal-Mart isn't paying them what they feel they need, then they shouldn't sell anything to them. Of course, they can't do that, so they need to find another way to get the profits they want. As Eric Cartman would say, "Quit your bitchin."

Yup, Iraq and Al-Qaeda have nothing to do with each other 

At least that's what the anti-Bush press and the Democrats have been telling me. I would like them to explain this:

7 Arrested in Iraq May Have al-Qaida Ties

Since the liberal media has never bothered to give this Weekly Standard article any credit, you may want to see it for yourself. Now, let's review something that was said in the past. Let's use, say, Paul Krugman, as an example. Here's the alleged economics professor last June 10th:

Yet dishonest salesmanship has been the hallmark of the Bush administration's approach to domestic policy. And it has become increasingly clear that the selling of the war with Iraq was no different.

For example, look at the way the administration rhetorically linked Saddam to Sept. 11. As The Associated Press put it: "The implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden's network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of such a link." Not only was there no good evidence: according to The New York Times, captured leaders of Al Qaeda explicitly told the C.I.A. that they had not been working with Saddam.

Take a second to ingest that. The sources that Krugman takes as the gospel are al-Qaeda and his own credibility-challenged New York Times. Yet, Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, the CIA, Clinton (uh, Krugman forgot about him) all are immediately branded liars. (Unless the CIA reports that they were told by al-Qaeda that they had no Iraq ties. In that instance, the CIA immediately becomes credible again.) This morning on the 1 hour and 5 minute flight from Albuquerque to Phoenix, I was reading Sean Hannity's new book, Deliver Us From Evil, and he made a point that is applicable here. (I am paraphrasing here)

"In the 1980's, the people of Europe, given a choice between trusting the word of a country (the U.S.) that saved them from Nazism and rebuilt them through the Marshall plan, and trusting the word that controlled half of Europe (USSR) against their will, they chose the Soviet Union." (Euro-dopes)

Bottom line, anyone who thinks that Saddam has no al-Qaeda ties must also accept this premise: That Saddam supported every terror group in the Middle East except the one that was by far and away more successful than any other.

Iraq a distraction from the war on terror? Uh........WRONG!!

Why I don't take polls seriously 

A months or so ago, Howard Dean was winning New Hampshire by 30 points, the nomination and beating Bush too. (I am not bothering to find the links, you already know I'm right) Sometime before too, Wesley Clark was beating Bush. Last week, Kerry was beating Bush. Now, we get this:

A sudden 6% shift in a Bush-Kerry matchup - Bush 48% Kerry 43%

Any day, Edwards will be beating Bush. Hell, if Oliver Willis ran, he'd be beating Bush at some point too. (Wait, he is running, and has a great choice for VP on his ticket too)

Blogs I read every day 

I mentioned that I read 16 blogs daily, so here they are, and why, in no particular order:

Allah is in the House - This blog is possibly the most overall brilliant and unique blog on the web. This guy doesn't blog every single day, but when he does, it must take him 8 hours to post. I love his mix of intelligence and humor, and I can only imagine the hate mail he gets.

Right Thinking from the Left Coast - Poor Lee lives in San Francisco, and he surely does not fit in ideologically. I love his wit and his searing commentary on the city he lives in, as well as his fiskings of Michael Moore. Plus, he does something that many blogs fail to do: He discusses his personal life and the hurt he is currently going through due to his Dad's poor health. I feel like I know the guy because of it. More bloggers should do this. I pay Lee my highest compliment: I would love to have a beer or two with the guy.

Power Line - This blog is actually a few guys from Minnesota who combine efforts. If you told me they were the top blog going, I would have a hard time arguing with you. Full of original thought, I constantly finding myself thinking, "Damn, I wish I thought of that first." This is what any serious blog should strive to be.

Confessions of a Political Junkie - Erick Erickson reminds me of myself most, without my level of sarcasm and blunt attitude. He (sadly) is a severly undervisited blog, like me. (hahaha) And, like me, he is accessible, quick to return e-mails, and happy to get whatever readers he can. Plus, it is obvious he blogs because for the enjoyment of clarifying and sharing his thoughts. This is the kind of guy who would be a welcome guest (along with his wife) in my home.

Viking Pundit - Eric Lindholm calls himself "the only conservative in Western Massachussetts." I feel sorry for him, being forced to live there. His blog is smart, short and to the point, and never fails to disappoint. Another undervisited blog.

Yin Blog - A law professor at the fine University of Iowa, Yin is a fair and reasonable professor who you would never hear David Horowitz complain about. I comment often on his blog because I feel my comments are worth something there. They are respected and challenged, which is something rare in the blogosphere. Plus, unlike many professors I had, it actually seems like Yin has a life!!

The Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiler - These guys have a vocabulary all their own. They may be hard to read at first, but once you get into their flow, you will see that they are perhaps the most brutally honest blog going. And, what I like most, is that no one, and I mean no one, is above their wrath.

Little Green Footballs - No one has better photos than them, and no one gives a clearer picture of the depravity of the Palestinians than LGF. Should be required reading for all who think that israel is the source of all the problems in the Middle East.

Oliver Willis - The only liberal blogger I read daily. I get the impression that he is the most respected liberal blogger on the conservative blogs. I like this guy for some reason. Oliver has a real future. He already has the reflexive anti-Bush and anti-Republican game down pat. But, he needs to have more original thought, and less deference to CalPundit, Eric Alterman, and Atrios. I expect to read his columns one day in a major publication, but that day will never come unless he starts to assert himself more. I've read his work, and know what he is capable of. I don't deny it even though I rarely agree with him. Oliver is a hustler, and where I come from, that is a positive. He smartly tries to make a few bucks by listing books at the end of his posts, amongst other things, rather than just having a PayPal button. Oliver reads this blog from time to time, and I hope he remembers what I said, because I mean it, despite all the criticism I give him here and in the comments on his blog.

Tim Blair - This Aussie is so good, he actually gets me interested in Australian politics. I never met an Aussie that I didn't like, and I'll bet having a few beers at the bar with this guy would be a memorable experience.

Mark A. Kilmer - I read him everyday, but his roundup of the Sunday morning political shows is not to be missed. Frankly, I have no idea why I haven't signed up for his newsletter yet.

Scrappleface - Who doesn't read this? Not only are their "news" stories hilarious, they are seriously thought-provoking.

The Vodka Pundit - I call Stephen Green the "Pat Burrell of Blogs." He either knocks the cover off of the ball, or whiffs badly. There is no in-between. VP should be a "top shelf" blogger, up there in hits and influence with Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan. Sometimes, he's a "fine vintage," and other times he's "bathtub gin." Stephen seems not to have the time for blogging, which is a shame. Why I read him mainly is that he is a libertarian who I don't always agree with. What angers me about him is that, time to time, he says something and does nothing to back it up. A perfect example, he live-blogged the State of the Union, and all he could muster about the Patriot Act was "Pull the plug already." OK, but why? Why bother to live blog without any insight? Frankly, I think he is a talented blogger and a cool guy who will never see his blogging potential due to his life responsibilities. I'll always read him, but I'd rather he posted once or twice a day and be "Dom Perignon", instead of his shorter and shorter postings, which at times make him no better than "moonshine."

Glenn Reynolds - Franky, I only read him because everyone else does. At times, his writing suggests he is posting because he feels that he has to, not because he wants to.

Andrew Sullivan - See instapundit above and add this: Andrew is getting tired of blogging, and it shows. Plus, he talks way too much about gay marriage. (He has gotten a lot of e-mails telling him this) To be brutally honest, he kinda lost me when he ended a post of the gay wedding in San Francisco with "We shall overcome." I don't like the "gay rights" movement acting like they are the same as 60's civil rights movement. Granted, I respect Andrew's views, and his comments on the matter are reasoned and not "in your face." And, I am sad that they guy is HIV-positive. Because of it, he surely see things in a different way than I do. But, like his writing now seems like an obligation, my reading of him feels like I do it out of obligation.

Best of the Web Today - Who doesn't read James Taranto's column? And, who doesn't love it?

I'm sorry if I left you out, especially if I chat with you on e-mail, but I have not pandered to anyone, and won't start now. Can you understand that? I read a lot of blogs, but these 16 are ones I never miss each day. Never.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Who Links Here # Robots.txt file created by http://www.webtoolcentral.com # For domain: http://www.djslybri.blogspot.com # All robots will spider the domain User-agent: * Disallow: