Tomfoolery of the Highest Order

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."

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.]

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)

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.

...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?

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.

and:

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?

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."

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]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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.]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

but I laughed at this borderline blasphemy.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

and...

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.

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.

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)

...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.

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]

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.

Frist May Make 2008 White House Run

Let us get through 2004 first, OK?

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

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.

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.

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.

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."

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!!

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)

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 is a post from the Professor's blog, one of the 16 blogs I read daily:

My wife and I just saw Chris Matthews' interview of Sen. John Edwards on "Hardball," and we were both very impressed. Best Q&A of the interview:

Matthews: Can you get back the lost jobs for the people of Pennsylvania?

Edwards: No. People deserve an honest answer.

I don't agree with Sen. Edwards' anti-NAFTA position, but I really respect his honesty in answering a tough question. Of course, he went on to explain what needed to be done to keep more jobs from being lost, such as eliminating tax incentives for American companies that move jobs overseas. This just seems to me a much better approach to defining a coherent position, unlike Sen. Kerry, whose positions seem to me to be whatever

As I write this, the results are too close to call, with both Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards getting around 39% of the vote.

UPDATE: Kerry is now projected to win. He is droning on and on . . . and on . . . and on . . . and on . . . . He is really a dull speaker.

This is my comment, more directed at his readers than at the Professor:

Professor,

For the first time tonight, I watched an entire Kerry speech. You know what? I knew the whole thing, and knew just what he would say right before he said it!! Someone tell him to have his people write a new one.

This is what bothers me about Kerry's (and Edwards' "Two Americas") nonsense. If one only listened to them speak, they would think that we were worse off than Cuba. Do they actually think anyone outside their party's hardcore will buy into it? This country is not even close to the despair these guys act like. And, I am tired of hearing about jobs and health care. No one should be looking to the Government for either. Repeal the tax cuts to pay for "invest" in health care since "we are the only "industrialized national without national health care?" No thanks!! I'm only rich to a Democrat (anyone who works to them is rich) but when you compare what I got from the tax cut to what I pay for my family's health care, my wallet comes out on top. National health care only assures one thing: We will all get an equally lousy level of health care. (Think I'm kidding? Take an honest look at Canada or Great Britain's health care systems)

Do you remember Cleo McDowell in "Coming to America?" He said something I'll never forget to the King: "Hold on just a minute. This is America, Jack!!!" Well, I say, "This is America, Jack. And the only thing that can keep you from a job and good health care is the Government." Kerry, Edwards, and their ilk want you to think the only thing keeping you from the unemployment line and debilitating illness is a Government they lead. Don't you believe it!!

Just keep my taxes low and clean up problems like Iraq and Al-Qaeda. That's all I want from the Government. I'll take care of the rest.

Erick at Confessions of a Political Junkie made this astute observation:

[John Kerry]"We don't need a president who just says, `Gentlemen start your engines'," Kerry said. "We need a president who says, `America, let's start our economy and put people back to work."

To interpret, "I'm running for President because the Senate does nothing. I'm bored and want to do something. The President has the ability to do something, but when you are one of 100, you can't do sh-t."

It's sort of crass, really. He takes a pot shot at the President for attending the Daytona 500 while he is missing Senate votes to run around the nation blaming the President for everything he thinks is wrong with the country.

Mark A. Kilmer simplifies that thought:

The President was campaigning in Daytona instead of mysteriously putting people back to work. It seems Mr. Kerry is traipsing around Wisconsin, begging for votes and money, when he could be in the Senate working to "put people back to work."

Simple, to the point, and shrewd.

The ol' shyster had a nice showing tonight. No one is happier than the press, who want a storyline. Sadly, they'll never fully point out why Edwards made a decent showing tonight. The people of Wisconsin got nervous over Kerry. While Kerry has been winning primary after primary because of the Democrat primary voter-imagined "electability" factor, the fact is the Democrats are not one bit inspired by this guy, and deep down they know that if they are not, the voters in the general election surely will not be. Edwards is no better. He can take his "Two Americas" stump speech and wipe his ass with it. Does he really think that he can sell that nationwide, across the spectrum? Please.

The biggest winner tonight: George W. Bush

Howard Dean is finished. Months of tomfoolery to end up wasting $40 million of other people's money for nothing. The next time you read about how Kerry (or Edwards) could actually beat Bush, just remember my favorite political cartoon, which was backed when media dopes actually thought Dean would beat Bush.

I predicted this yesterday:

And, this part belongs in James Taranto's Best of the Web Today's "Great Orators of the Democratic Party" section:

"We don't need a president who just says, `Gentlemen start your engines,'" Kerry said. "We need a president who says, `America, let's start our economy and put people back to work.'"

As I predicted, in today's Best of the Web Today:

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

"One man with courage makes a majority."--Andrew Jackson

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin Roosevelt

"The buck stops here."--Harry Truman

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."--John Kennedy

"We don't need a president who just says 'Gentlemen, start your engines.' We need a president who says 'America, let's start the economy and put people back to work.' "--John Kerry

First off, my interest level in this movie is high enough that me and two of my buddies have already bought our tickets to see it next Wednesday night, when it is released. Frankly, I have been beyond pissed off at the treatment that Mel Gibson has received over this movie, (especially from the New York Times' Frank Rich) and I am beyond outraged at the press for pushing the canard that this movie "will stoke the flames of anti-Semitism." Abe Foxman of that worthless bunch of two-faced shills at the Anti-Defamation League believes that this movie will "fuel the fires of anti-Semitism or reinforce them." Oh, please. The only people who will have anti-Semitic feelings after seeing this movie will be people who were anti-Semetic long before they walked into the movie theater. Foxman has been getting a lot of media exposure lately, and is milking it for everything that its worth. On the front page of the Anti-Defamation League's web site, we get this from Foxman:

"Over the last 2000 years, four words have fueled anti-Semitism: 'The Jews killed Christ.' We are concerned about this message wrapped up in a popular film that's couched as gospel truth and produced by a popular, creative genius." -- Abraham H. Foxman

Somebody needs to smack Foxman in the face and remind him of this undeniable fact: The Jews have no better friend than the Christians. While Muslims are all over the world preaching "Death to the Jews" and "Death to Israel," Foxman has nothing better to do than gripe about this movie? Of course, because the media doesn't care one whit about Muslim hatred towards Jews, not even Pinch Sulzberger at the New York Times, who is Jewish himself. Perhaps Foxman should be complaining about the New York Times' bias in favor of the Palestinians, and how this overt anti-Israel stance in the world's most influential newspaper actually fuels the fires of anti-Semitism and reinforces them. (In his ABC interview, Mel Gibson mockingly called The Times that "beacon of journalistic integrity." It was terrific.)

If I had the chance to tell Foxman one thing it would be this: Christians know who killed Jesus, and it surely wasn't the Jews. We are all culpable.

The real issue here is the liberal media DOES NOT WANT THIS MOVIE TO SUCCEED. Luckily, they are too arrogant to realize that the constant degredation of this movie only assures its success. What the liberal media is afraid of is that people, after seeing this movie, will rediscover their spirituality. I'm not predicting a new revival or another Great Awakening here, only a new awareness of the greatness that was and is Jesus Christ. And, in this election year, they surely know that any rediscovering of what Jesus stood for only favors Bush. Think I am stretching here? Then consider this: Over the last month, Stephanie and I have taken Emily from here in Albuquerque to visit Philadelphia, Maryland, and Phoenix, to have her meet friends and family. My aunt, a devout Methodist, loves President Bush. Her friend, a Baptist who is very active in her church, loves Bush. And, her aunt, a Mormon, "prays that Bush is re-elected every night." Polls, schmolls. I never listen to them. And even though they agree that Christians favor Bush, I am convinced from my own experiences that those who are religious and attend church regularly will vote for Bush 10-1, maybe even 100-1. The liberal media already knows this.

Contrast the negative attention given to the Passion of the Christ with the more positive attention given to the ridiculous Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus Christ Superstar, and that piece of crap pawned off as art "Piss Christ." And, let's not forget that waste of a book, The Da Vinci Code, which just recently received huge (positive) press coverage and an hour-long ABC special. To them, bashing, blaspheming, and mocking Jesus=Good, celebrating or sympathetically portraying Jesus=bad.

I look forward to seeing this movie and reviewing it here. I expect it to be tough to take, very emotional. As in an informal poll, I'd like to ask you this: What is your interest level in this movie? On a scale from 1-10, please leave a comment and let me know. For the record, mine is a 9.5, Chris is a 9, and Kent is an 8.5.

The thousand fighting styles of Donald Rumsfeld.

(Hat tip: Tim Blair)

Nice work by Thomas Oliphant, who does what a reasonable person would think impossible: He makes Wesley Clark and John Kerry the innocent vicitms of recent events, while reminding everyone that George W. Bush dishonest for "not releasing" all of his National Guard records like he promised, all in the same piece. Must be nice to have the ability to selectively forget events that do not conform to your desires to bash Bush and cheerlead for the Democrats.

[Disclaimer: The Boston Globe is owned by the same dopes as the New York Times]

Not satisfied with his total destruction of the Constitution, and not weeping because there are still worlds to conquer, the evil John Ashcroft is now violating German civil liberties by forcing airline passengers to undergo iris scans. Next thing you know, he'll make disfavored speech against homosexuals a crime in Canada.

The Mudville Gazette has a brilliant take on Kerry's reaction to Bush at Daytona. Money quote:

We've reached a point where a Party's likely presidential candidate has actually fulfilled satire. Is that funny or frightening?

Read the whole thing.

There are links to two Scrappleface takes, and I just had to add this picture from one of them:

Yesterday, President Bush went to the Daytona 500 and was cheered wildly. The AP, as one would expect, did their best to ruin it. At first they were surprisingly positive:

DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. - President Bush (news - web sites) throttled up his re-election campaign Sunday by donning a racing jacket and opening the Daytona 500, NASCAR (news - web sites)'s most prestigious event and one that draws a prized voter profile.

Gentlemen, start your engines!" Bush said, squinting up from pit road to the grandstands, where some 180,000 fans roared. They were promptly drowned out by the scream of stock car engines roaring to life.

Bush seemed to relish a chance to see what he called "one of America's great sporting spectacles."

Then, their usual anti-Bush bias shined through:

The race provided an irresistible opportunity for Bush to woo tens of millions of NASCAR fans — the sport claims a fan base of 75 million — watching the televised event 8 1/2 months before the election. The crowd in the stands was almost exclusively white and heavily male. The phrase "NASCAR dads" has become political shorthand for voters who like Bush but who could be persuaded to vote Democratic if the issues and candidates were right.

It was also a plum chance to make a 19th visit to Florida, the state that decided the 2000 election.

According to Power Line;

UPDATE: The AP may have decided that their story wasn't sufficiently anti-Bush; a more recent version adds the observation, near the beginning of the article, that "The crowd in the stands was almost exclusively white and heavily male," thus, apparently, explaining the warm reception the President received.

Gotta love the AP. Made sure to remind everyone that this is an election year, and that's what his visit was all about. And they were sure to get this dig in:

He spent an unusually long time at the race — more than 2 1/2 hours, compared to the 55 minutes he planned at a Monday event on the economy across Florida in Tampa.

Read that sentence again. They impugned him already for something he hadn't even done yet.

And, as expected, Kerry was pissed about the President looking good, and the AP made sure to do their part to drag down Bush for his highly successful visit to the Daytona 500, placing this at the top of their wire all day.

Kerry Blasts Bush's Daytona 'Photo Op'

Oh the humanity!!! This is an election year, and how dare Bush do anything to help his re-election chances!! Get this:

Kerry, who has a commanding lead in the race to oppose Bush this fall, chided the president for taking time out Sunday to attend the Daytona 500, saying the country was bleeding jobs while he posed for a "photo opportunity."

And, this part belongs in James Taranto's Best of the Web Today's "Great Orators of the Democratic Party" section:

"We don't need a president who just says, `Gentlemen start your engines,'" Kerry said. "We need a president who says, `America, let's start our economy and put people back to work.'"

What brilliance!! And this is the guy who the Democrats think is the "most electable." Kerry is jealous, pure and simple.

Think about what happened yesterday. Does anyone really think that Kerry, even if he were President, could have pulled off at Daytona what Bush did yesterday? And, come to think of it, name me one place simialr where Kerry could go and get a rousing reception from 180,000 people. You can't. Think back to Bush's surprise visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving. He got a huge reception. If you noticed, most of the networks cut out that part and only showed his speech, because they didn't want you to remember the greeting he received. Now, if Bush showed up unannounced and got booed by the troops, (or at the Daytona 500) we would still be seeing that clip in continuous loop.

Think about Hillary Clinton's appearance at Madsion Square Garden after 9/11. She got booed, and VH-1 later edited that out and added cheers. Kerry would get the same greeting if he showed up unannounced at an event not heavily controlled and prepared in advance. Kerry feels confident blasting Bush to the TV cameras and in small groups because he knows they are on his side. I dare him to show up at a huge event like a race or sporting event and risk the reaction he'd get. Bush has the confidence to do it. Kerry surely doesn't.

I've tried to watch Conan O'Brien a few times, but I guess I just don't get that fine-tuned Harvard dry humor, so I could not enjoy it and usually changed the channel. This week, I heard about how Triumph the Insult Dog enraged people all over Quebec and spent a half hour looking for the clip, which I found here. The clip is f'n hilarious!!! But, I don't know which was funnier, Triumph, or the state-run media reaction in freedom-less Canada. Get this bunch of silliness:

O'Brien is a Harvard graduate, but he's been doing high school jokes about Canada on his show all week, slaying young Torontonians with moose, mountie and igloo routines, followed by the tasteless Quebec skit. Given the outcry yesterday, Conan will probably go home convinced we Quebecers are a humourless winter people who can't take a joke.

If Conan feels that way, he'd be 100% correct.

But I wonder how he'd feel if we let Canada's Insulting Beaver Puppet loose on U.S. TV to yuk it up about Sept. 11. We all have our raw nerves and O'Brien just hit ours.

How pathetic!! A few jokes about seperatists, national health care, and the personality of French-Canadians, and he compares it to September 11th. Funny how I don't remember a Quebec seperatist group causing the death of 3,000 people. And, if some Beaver Puppet came down and yukked it up about the September 11th, the guy holding the puppet would get his ass kicked all the way back to Frogville.

Read this next part in its entirety. It could just as easily came from Scrappleface or Blame Bush:

So is someone secretly behind this trouble, an enemy of Canada trying to get under our national skin and put an end to our current linguistic calm? Who gains by hurting Canada? Is this another Al-Qa'ida plot to pay Canadians back for Afghanistan? Could this be some Jacques Parizeau scheme?

No, I have a better theory.

For the last two years we Canadians have become more and more distant from a U.S. run by George W. Bush. We've proposed legalizing pot laws and gay marriage. We've refused to fight in Iraq. We've become so anti-Bush a poll in last week's Maclean's magazine found only 15 per cent of Canadians would vote for him as a leader.

Could it be that our growing U.S. criticism has set the Bush government out for revenge? Do the Americans secretly want to split up our two solitudes so they can pick up the pieces? Could the last week's events be part of a CIA plot to grab our oil, lumber, water and snow? Or our few remaining hockey stars?

I don't want to be paranoid, but is Conan O'Brien a CIA operative? Is his Insulting puppet a puppet of the CIA?

Fellow Canadians - English and French alike - don't be duped by this Yankee scheme to divide and conquer our country.

Let's resist the urge to get angry at each other and try to stay calm. We Canadians have enough problems of our own - we don't need foreigners to create more.

Is this guy serious? Since being a newspaper columnist in Canada makes him a Government employee, he must stupidly assume that Conan is controlled by the Government, just like he is. Maybe if he watched American late-night televsion, he'd find that NO ONE is above being mocked. Bush, Kerry, Dean, Rumsfeld, you name it. All are fair game. And, most importantly, no one gives a damn about Canadian opinion, and least of all the CIA. And, if we wanted your oil, lumber, and water, we'd come and take it, or buy it off your taxed to death socialist country. This wussy attitude is exactly why Quebec was ripe for Conan and Triumph to mock.

[Bonus laugh: Triumph the Insult Comic Dog got top billing on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno the night John Kerry was on]

This is brilliant.

BRISTOL, R.I. - A student group at Roger Williams University is offering a new scholarship for which only white students are eligible, a move they say is designed to protest affirmative action.

The application for the $250 award requires an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage" and a recent picture to "confirm whiteness."

"Evidence of bleaching will disqualify applicants," says the application, issued by the university's College Republicans.

You just hear the outrage now. How dare these "divisive racists" offer a scholarship based solely on if someone is white or not, the Hispanic and African-American groups will surely complain. Like the affirmative action bake sales, I expect this to be picked up all the over the country. Where do I send a check?

Submitted by Chris at Right Wing & Right Minded:

I was e-mailed this photo, in response to my asking for some better photos than the World Press Photo of the year. This is some of our fine Third Infantry men in Iraq. Thanks to Tim M. for sending it.

Click here to see it.

This is the most intellectually dishonest column I have read in quite some time. The saddest part is that Friedman is possibly the most repected columnist on the planet. I may only have a B.S. in Political Science from Arizona State University, but I know nonsense when read it. On the the fisking:

Imagine that Tim Russert followed his excellent interview with President Bush with an interview today with Mr. Kerry. Here's what I hope it would sound like. Mr. Russert: "Senator Kerry, you essentially voted in favor of the war, but argued that the way the Bush team carried it out was deeply flawed. Well, now we're there. Tell the American people how you would deal with Iraq going forward."

Senator Kerry: "Tim, before I answer that question, I first want to direct a message to the die-hard Baathists and Islamo-fascists who've been slaughtering Iraqis struggling to build their first democratic government. And my message to these terrorists is this: `READ MY LIPS — if I am president, I will not cut and run. I will not pull our troops out in the face of your intimidation the way Ronald Reagan fled from Lebanon.' Because that panicky retreat from Beirut in 1984 started us down this whole path, where terrorists believed if they hit us hard enough, we would run and they would get away with it. I hate how George Bush has prosecuted this war. I know I could do better. But I want every suicide bomber — from Bali to Baghdad — to understand one thing about a Kerry administration: `You can blow yourselves up from now until next Ramadan, but we'll still be in Iraq. You'll be dead, but we'll still be there. Which part of that sentence don't you understand?'

Has Friedman spent too much time in Amsterdam? This is wishful thinking at its best (or worst). Kerry doesn't have the balls to say anything like this. What in Kerry's history would suggest to Friedman that he ever would? Plus, even if Kerry actually (hahahaha) said this, everyone would know he was full of crap. Plus, blaming Reagan is simple and cheap, totally forgetting that Reagan did not make the same mistake again in 1986 when he had some AWACS pay a visit Tripoli. And, Friedman forgets the lessons learned during the Clinton administration, Mogadishu, the '93 WTC bombing, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, etc. How convenient.

"I don't say this to be macho-man, Tim. I'm not George Bush. I say this because it's the best way to save American and Iraqi lives. You see, Tim, I identify so strongly with my band of brothers and sisters wearing the American uniform in Iraq. The best way to endanger them is to suggest to the terrorists that there is daylight between me and President Bush — that if he won't run, I will. Well, there is no daylight on ends. A Kerry administration will see that Iraqis get every chance to produce their own representative government.

That's right, Kerry's not Bush. He's a gutless, one-world internationalist (much like Friedman) who wouldn't dare to look tough, lest you'd upset the fairy liberals and the French. (excuse the redundancy). As for relating to those "Band of Brothers," do you mean the ones Kerry stabbed in the back upon his return? And, how would Kerry give Iraqis "every chance to produce their own representative government?" Why, by bringing in Friedman's heroes, the United Nations, of course. Tell me this Thomas (or anyone else): Name me one place where the U.N. has done anything that could be remotely deemed successful?

"But there is daylight on means. You see, Tim, if I were president, I would insist that we have a real policy of energy conservation to enlist every American in this war, by asking each of us to choke off some of the funds going to the Islamist totalitarians.

Friedman must be referring to that $1 a gallon gas tax he proposed. (I remember everything) Sure Tommy, let's punish the American people for their success. It'll make the U.N. happy, as well as the environmentalists and Al Gore. We suffer so that Islamists will suffer. OK. How about, we make them suffer while we don't? I think we'd prefer that instead. (at least us pro-American "flag-waving yahoos")

"I would immediately invite the leaders of the U.N., Germany, France and NATO to Camp David to rebuild the alliance that won the cold war, so we have the staying power to win this war of ideas in the Muslim world."

So, Kerry should advocate feel-good agreements that make for nice photo-ops and symbolism, but in reality accomplish nothing? (see Clinton and North Korea, Clinton and Russia, Clinton and China, the handshake between Arafat and Rabin on the White House lawn, for example) Worthless, Tommy, worthless. Germany and France did nothing when the Soviets had missiles pointed right at them from not-to-far distances. We paid for it all, and we protected them, while they bloated their socialist societies. What makes you think they'll stand up now, when they believe they aren't targets and are afraid of pissing off their uncontrolled Muslim immigrant populations? Dope.

And I would have my secretary of state out in the Middle East regularly, arguing our case, bolstering our allies and trying to bring about a secure peace for Israelis and Palestinians.

What's Colin Powell being doing Tommy? You act like he has been hanging out in Iceland or something. If they don't respect Colin Powell, what makes you think they'll respect whatever fellow one-world liberal that Kerry would appoint? Name me one person who Kerry would appoint that would get the respect that Powell doesn't. You can't, because those autocrats respect no one and no negotiation, only the use of force, which Kerry would never meaningfully threaten and carry out if defied. Democrats are so dumb, they, like you, actually think these 12th century maggots take agreements as seriously as Democrats do.

"Oh yes, Tim, my means would be very different. Unlike the Bush team, I understand that just because you have a hammer, not every problem is a nail. It takes more than force to win a war of ideas. But on ends, Tim, let no one have any illusions: a Kerry presidency will pay any price and bear any burden to try to build a decent Iraqi regime in the heart of the Arab world. My making that commitment now is the best way to prove to the terrorists that their actions are futile, and in that way save American and Iraqi lives. Failure to make that commitment would have horrific consequences for U.S. foreign policy.

So, Friedman would have had Kerry quote John F. Kennedy. And, he thinks that Kerry would actually do that, when his entire voting record has been on the side of weakening U.S. military and intelligence power. And, astonishingly, Friedman forgets that Kerry VOTED AGAINST financing the reconstruction of Iraq!!! Any tough talk by Kerry would be seen for what it is: hallow and empty.

"Tim, I am no dreamer. I've seen a quagmire close up. We can't want a unified, decent Iraq more than the Iraqis themselves. Ultimately, they will have to step up and come together around a plan and a leader. But the terrorists should have no illusions, and the Iraqi people should have no fears: America under John Kerry will give them every chance to succeed. We will not run."

Gee Tommy, I wonder who you are voting for. You can hope all you want, but Kerry is more interested in appeasing the world, not threatening them, and you OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THAT!!!! Why are you writing this crap? You might have well wrote a dream sequence where the Palestinians live in peace and harmony with Israel. Did Friedman even think about what he wrote? In other words, what he wrote was that he wished Kerry would tell everyone he wasn't as "macho" as Bush, yet talk as tough or even tougher than Bush has.

Thomas Friedman, you suck, you shameless liberal tool.

Via DANEgerus:



That about sums up the state of his campaign, doesn't it?

Some examples from Will's latest column:

Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase ``special interest''? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?

Is the National Rifle Association a ``special interest''? Is ``special'' a synonym for ``conservative''?

When you denounce ``lobbyists'' do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is ``liberal lobbyist'' an oxymoron?

You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?

You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?

In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression?

On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning ``the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?

The next day you said, ``I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?

On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote ``I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, ``I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?

You strongly praise former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about No Child Left Behind, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?

You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?

Brent Bozell's latest column is dead on. Money quote:

Tom Brokaw greeted Kerry's attacks by stating blandly that the Democrats are "anxious to show they will play hardball" on national security. Great. They won't play hardball with Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong Il, or France, or Germany, or Russia, or for that matter, anyone opposing the U.S. on national security. But they will play hardball with the Republicans. That ought to help Americans sleep at night.

Only gun "nuts," Southerners who long for the re-birth of the Confederacy, "wackos," Idaho compound dwellers, and jihadists support gun rights. Well, that's what the liberal media tells me all the time. Get this headline:

Accused U.S. Guardsman a Vocal Gun Proponent

SEATTLE (Reuters) - A U.S. National Guardsman accused of trying to help Islamic militant al Qaeda forces is a staunch gun advocate and was once arrested for approaching a school toting a rifle and a bayonet, local officials said on Friday.

Don't get me wrong. This guy is a scumbag who I wish was sentenced to ten minutes in a room with me and five of my old crew back in South Philly. But the media anti-gun bias is outrageous. And it gets worse:

U.S. officials have blamed al Qaeda for the Sept. 11, 2001, hijack attacks on U.S. cities and for attacking other American facilities around the world, as well as some recent attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq.

Blamed them? When did the AP get co-opted by Al-Jazeera? Just remember I said this: When his trial comes, his attorneys will argue for him to be tried in the civilian justice system. Then, they will argue that he was innocently using his First Amendment rights, and his arrst was nothing more than the U.S. Government interfering with the "free flow of ideas." And, since he is Washington state, his attorneys surely know that the Ninth Circuit Court would be receptive to this argument. (Think I'm wearing a tin foil hat? Read this then.) And, those useful idiots in the liberal media will jump at the chance to parrot this line. You watch.

Ryan Anderson is scum, who deserves harsh punishment. But the anti-gun bias and anti-American bias from the AP is pathetic.

This is the World Press Photo of the year, stunningly taken by a Frenchman, captioned: World Press Photo of the year 2003 by French photographer Jean-Marc Bouju of the Associated Press shows a detained Iraqi man comforting his 4-year-old-son at a regroupment center for POW's near Najaf, Iraq. Picture was taken on 31 March, 2003.



Of course, a poor Iraqi and his child, oppressed by the American occupation behind razor wire. Out of the millions they could have chosen, they pick this one? Disgraceful, to say the least.

I have an idea: Do you have a better choice? If you do send me the link. Or, better yet, if you took a better picture than this, especially if you attended an anti-war or anti-Bush protest, a political rally, or simply have a better or funnier picture of your dog, send it to me at slybri957@aol.com. All the good submissions will be shown, so send them!

I asked what ever happened to Willie Aames, and my favorite liberal blogger, Oliver Willis, supplied the answer. He's now, get this....Bibleman, pledged to fight evil in the name of God!!!

Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! One thing, can anyone explain why 80's stars like Willie Aames, Kirk Cameron, and William Zabka are all hard-core Christians now? I can't. As a Catholic, I do respect it though.

Thanks Oliver...I'm stuck at work and you made my day.

Get this headline:

Democrats Skeptical of Bush's Guard File

Of course they are. They were starting to get some traction on this until the facts came out. Even the Boston Globe has admitted that Bush's main accuser is full of holes himself. But, once again, the AP can't let reality get in the way of Bush-bashing. Note this biased opening:

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Hundreds of pages of documents that the White House said comprise President Bush 's entire military record offer no new answers to the election-year questions that have swirled around his Vietnam-era service. Democrats who have led the criticism greeted Friday's release of documents with skepticism.

You see, the White House "said," so the intention is to imply that it likely isn't true, since "we all know" Bush is a liar. And, the "offers no new answers" comes straight from the Democrat talking points. Offers no new answers? To who? The facts to support each side are these:

Bush was AWOL: A dentist and a few guys said they don't remember Bush being there and some guy, since discredited by the Boston Globe, said records were altered.

Bush was not AWOL: Bush's dental records, signed by the same dentist who said he doesn't remember Bush being there, and one of the same guys who doesn't recall Bush being there said himself, "I don't remember seeing him. That does not mean he was not there," said Wayne Rambo, who was a first lieutenant with the 187th Supply Squadron at the time. The AP contacted more than a dozen former members of the unit on Wednesday, and none could recall ever running into Bush. However, all were quick to point out that it was a large unit with up to 800 members and Bush was not a celebrity then. The evidence is crumbling by the minute, yet the press is running the Democrats talking points as fact, and the Bush team's responses as "skeptical." Notice the liberal media has mention ZERO mention of this letter to the Washington Times, by someone who served with Bush, any of this proof either. Oh yeah, and Bush's pay stubs and that minor matter of AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE!!!

Maybe Bush should have just said, "There's no controlling legal authority," or "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." That worked before. (Oh wait, they were Democrats, so they can say anything.) Perhaps this is what it will take to get them to stop the bullshit.

Compare these Sponge Bob images:



It seems that Wal-Mart has been selling the, um, other Sponge Bob Valentine's Day cards. Hilarious!!! It was an honest mistake, a printing error in China, but that won't stop the Detriot Free Press from taking full advantage of this opportunity to get their digs into the "evil racist" Wal-Mart.

AN UN-FUNNY VALENTINE: Greeting card picture evokes race stereotype

American Greetings Corp. calls it a regrettable printing error.

Somehow, boxes of SpongeBob SquarePants Valentine's Day cards are popping up in local Wal-Mart stores -- but the popular cartoon character found inside isn't his traditional yellow color.

He's black. And with his trademark big teeth and wide eyes, this SpongeBob seems similar to offensive images of African Americans portrayed in minstrel shows decades ago.

Talk about a stretch!!! Do they really think that any company would market an intentionally racist item? Get this dumb dunce:

Jemeka Garcia of Flint Township was skeptical of a mistake, in part because the cards appear to be well made. Garcia and her husband, Scott, complained to the Free Press earlier this week after their 6-year-old daughter discovered the different SpongeBob. The family purchased the cards at a Wal-Mart near their home so the girl could hand them out to her first-grade classmates.

"I want to know why the person did it," Jemeka Garcia said Thursday. "That's kind of a horrible prank. And what if some kid gets it" as a valentine?

Well, yeah, you dunce!! The only thing wrong with them was a printing error, but we can't let the facts get in the way of racial hysteria now, can we? Race relations are pretty good these days, or else the Free Press would not have to resort to this nonsense. (Shhh....don't tell that to the Democrats...it'll ruin their whole platform)

Because Rumsfeld calls it like it is, not how he wants it to be. Rumsfeld, when he was in Munich, was asked by a Palestinian why "the United States is worried about Iran and North Korea but is not doing anything about Israel's arsenal." Rumsfeld's response:

You know the answer before I give it, I'm sure. The world knows the answer. We take the world like you find it; and Israel is a small state with a small population. It's a democracy and it exists in a neighborhood. Many, over a period of time, [have] opined from time to time that they'd prefer it not be there and they'd like it to be put in the sea. And Israel has opined that it would prefer not to get put in the sea, and as a result, over a period of decades, it has arranged itself so it hasn't been put in the sea.

I'll add that no one, not even the Palestinians, is worried that Israel will use their arsenal unless they absolutely must. In other words, only if the choice is, use them or no more Israel. Everyone knows Israel is not the aggressor; it's just that many will not admit it.

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Thursday was a busy day at ABC, which picked up six comedy pilots, including untitled shows starring Jessica Simpson and John Stamos.

The Stamos project revolves around a guy on a date, with the show's entire season taking place over the course of the daylong outing.

Oh, yeah...I'll watch that. By the way, whatever happened to Willie Aames?

The Boston Globe and the New York "Once Upon A" Times are owned by the same people. Perhaps they should talk to each other once in a while. In Today's Times, both Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert add the Bush was AWOL to their usual Bush-bashing columns. The Boston Globe on the other hand, has this:

Doubts raised on Bush accuser- Key witness disputes charge by Guard retiree that files were purged

For at least six years, a retired Texas National Guard officer has maintained that President Bush's record as a member of the Guard was purged of potentially embarrassing material at the behest of high-ranking Bush aides laying the groundwork for Bush's 2000 run for the presidency.

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett, who has been pressing his charges in the national news media this week, says he even heard one high-ranking officer issue a 1997 order to sanitize the Bush file, and later saw another officer poring over the records and discovered that some had been discarded.

But a key witness to some of the events described by Burkett has told the Globe that the central elements of his story are false.

At least the Globe, who started this mess, is following it up with the truth. I'll bet dollars to donuts this story gets buried in the Times, if even mentioned at all. By the way, the Kerry story has about as much evidence, and yet it isn't deemed newsworthy. Hmmmm

Several months ago, I read a book by Diane Ravitch called the Language Police. it was all about how schools go to ridiculous lengths to remove words, pictures, and phrases from school textbooks. lest someone find a hint of offense. The book was both hilarious and infuriating. I recommend it highly. Today, in opinionjournal.com, she gives an update. It is well worth the read, especially if you have school-age children. My favorite part:

A textbook writer sent me the guidelines used by the Harcourt/Steck/Vaughn company to remove photographs that might give offense. Editors must delete, the guidelines said, ... To avoid giving offense to those who cannot afford a home computer, no one may be shown owning a home computer.

If you are one of those poor unfortunate souls, I say to tell your Dad to get off his ass and get a better job, or to work more hours, or to do something else, because what he is doing ain't working. If you are in a home for a single mother and can't afford a computer, I say to you, tell her "thanks for nothing, Mom. Now go make me a turkey pot pie." Either way, you are poor, lowlife scum.

Over 100 Migrants Found in N. Valley

Law enforcement officials Wednesday apprehended 156 undocumented immigrants who were being held by armed smugglers in a rented house in north Phoenix in filthy conditions without food or water.

A federal immigration official said he believes it was the highest number of people ever discovered in one location in the Phoenix area, which in recent years has become the nation's main transportation hub for illegal immigration.

First off, notice the headline is "100 Migrants" not "100 Illegal Immigrants." Read the article. The usual liberal bullshit. There were children, they were hungry, being held against their will, etc. Boo-f'n-hoo. Tell them to stay home in their wonderful, culturally-equal Mexico. (Notice you don't see anyone dying in the desert trying to get to Mexico)

Isn't it making an editorial comment to say a state is "banning gay marriage?" After all, gay marriage does not exist, so how can it be banned?

It's it more appropriate to say a state is "affirming the definition of marriage," whic is more accurate?

Courtesy: Confessions of a Political Junkie

Use the comments here to speculate on what you think the deal is with Kerry, what you think happened, and who is behind it. Have at it and let's have some laughs. Anything goes.

Told you, didn't I, that the liberal media won't let this "Bush was AWOL" meme die. Get this:

Military Dentist Doesn't Recall Bush

The White House released dental records intended to support President Bush's account of his Air National Guard service in Alabama, while several members of the Guard unit said in interviews they don't remember ever seeing Bush at their Montgomery base.

Nor does the dentist specifically recall treating Bush. But all of them told The Associated Press that doesn't mean he wasn't there, serving alongside hundreds of others in the Guard unit.

That's news? A few people don't remember Bush, so the implication is that he wasn't there? Stop it. The entire reason this isn't a viable news story is right in the article:

"I don't remember seeing him. That does not mean he was not there," said Wayne Rambo, who was a first lieutenant with the 187th Supply Squadron at the time. The AP contacted more than a dozen former members of the unit on Wednesday, and none could recall ever running into Bush.

However, all were quick to point out that it was a large unit with up to 800 members and Bush was not a celebrity then.

Funny that this nonsensical story just appeared on the AP wire, yet still nothing about the Kerry allegations. The "Bush was AWOL" thing has been proven again and again to be crap, yet they are still pushing it. And, the Kerry allegations, which have not been proven to be unfounded yet, are not mentioned at all.

Oh, that liberal media.

[Cross posted on my other blog John Kerry for President? You Must Be Joking.]

Drudge headlines:

CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN

Kerry commotion is why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision not to drop out of the race after Wisconsin, top campaign sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT....

A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked...

Maybe Howard Dean isn't so dumb after all. Maybe we'll just have to start "Howard Dean (or John Edwards) for President? You Must Be Joking" soon.

Those damn Israelis. How dare they build a fence? Don't they know that, according to the European Union:

It would cause further humanitarian and economic hardship to the Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians west of the fence are being cut off from essential services in the West Bank, Palestinians east of the fence will lose access to land and water resources. In this context the EU is alarmed by the designation of land between the fence and the "green line" as a closed military zone. This is a de-facto change in the legal status of Palestinians living in this area which makes life for them even harder.

Can't you just feel the outrage? Fences are inhumane, the latest apartheid, and only those evil Jews would dare do something like that!! Uh, maybe not. It seems, to stone silence from the Israel-haters (e.g The E.U., the U.N.), the Saudis are doing the same exact thing to keep out Yemeni terrorists:

Saudi Arabia, one of the most vocal critics in the Arab world of Israel's "security fence" in the West Bank, is quietly emulating the Israeli example by erecting a barrier along its porous border with Yemen.

The barrier is part of a plan to erect what will be an electronic surveillance system along the length of the kingdom's frontiers - land, air and sea. The project, involving fencing and electronic detection equipment, has been in the planning stages for several years. It may cost up to $8.57bn (£4.58bn). Behind the plan is a deep-seated lack of trust in the Yemeni authorities' ability to arrest infiltrators before they make it into Saudi territory.

And, get this part too:

In 2002, 36 Saudi border guards were killed in Jizan, a southern Saudi border town. The government says the smugglers provide the explosives and weapons used by radical Islamists inside the kingdom, who carried out two suicide attacks against civilian targets last year, killing more than 50 and injuring hundreds.

The perpetrators of earlier terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, spanning at least a decade, also used explosives from Yemen, state-controlled Saudi media has reported. They include the 1993 attack in the Bahah region, 200 miles south of Jeddah, in which 10 people were killed after a bomb was thrown into a mosque during Friday prayers, and a blast in Riyadh, the capital, in 1995 at an American compound, which killed nine.

Change a few words here and there, (i.e change Saudis to Israelis, Riyadh to Jerusalem or Tel Aviv) and ask yourself, "What the f is the difference?" NONE!!!

Like everyone, I have some qualms with Secretary of State. Sometimes, I think he is too much of an internationalist, and he has done little to change the "We're the lawyer for the world" State Department mentality. However, I think he is a brilliant man, with courage and conviction, and a great servant to the American people. Today, at a hearing in front of the House International Relations Committee, Powell took it to Democrat Sherrod Brown:

But when Brown contrasted Powell's military experience to Bush's record with the National Guard, saying the president "may have been AWOL" from duty, Powell exploded.

"First of all, Mr. Brown, I won't dignify your comments about the president because you don't know what you are talking about," Powell snapped.

"I'm sorry I don't know what you mean, Mr. Secretary," Brown replied.

"You made reference to the president," Powell shot back.

Brown then repeated his understanding that Bush may have been AWOL from guard duty.

"Mr. Brown, let's not go there," Powell retorted. "Let's not go there in this hearing. If you want to have a political fight on this matter, that is very controversial, and I think it is being dealt with by the White House, fine, but let's not go there."

Powell then went on to defend the Bush administration's assertions on Iraq's prewar weaponry. "We didn't make it up," Powell said. "It was information that reflected the views of analysts in all the various agencies."

But the dispute with Brown did not end.

"Are you shaking your head for something, young man?," Powell asked when he noticed an aide to Brown apparently disagreeing.

"I seldom come to a meeting when I'm talking to a congressman and I have people aligned behind you giving editorial comment by headshakes," Powell said.

Brown, defending his assistant, said "I think people have opinions."

I love that Powell, who rarely gets angry in public, used his stature to defend Bush. Do I expect to see this on the news tonight? No. Because Powell angrily defending the President on the manufactured AWOL issue would resonate with most Americans. The media knows that, so don't expect to see this story get much traction.

[Update: With a hat tip to the Countertop Chronicles, watch the video of Powell here)

Cuffed crook tries to buy bolt cutters

MAGNOLIA, Ark. -- James Cotton looked just like any other Wal-Mart customer buying a bolt cutter at 4:30 in the morning -- until the cashier noticed that Cotton was wearing handcuffs.

According to police, the clerk took Cotton's money, gave him the bolt cutter, then called officers.

Cotton was caught minutes later Saturday, after he had gone into the bathroom and cut off the handcuffs.

And then there's this:

Sorry, Right Number. Police Nab Phone Thief

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch police nabbed a mobile phone thief Monday when an officer dialed the number of his own stolen handset.
Wageningen police said a mobile telephone was stolen from a patrol car when agents were out dealing with a disturbance. An officer dialed the number and the phone went off in the pocket of a man nearby.

(Hat tip: Farm Accident Digest)

OPEC stuns world with plan to trim output 10%

OPEC, the cartel that pumps one-third of the world's oil, shocked the globe Tuesday by saying production quotas would be strictly enforced immediately and production would be cut again April 1, slicing output 10%.

I love that they were referred to as a "cartel" because that is exactly what they are, a criminal conspiracy run by criminal countries. Don't kid yourself, OPEC is doing this so that energy prices will rise and that will give the Democrats something else to blame Bush on, and to hurt the American economy. ANWAR, anyone?

From Cerdipity

Since I was born and raised in South Philly, and know Cheesesteak etiquette quite well, I love this picture and story about Kerry ordering a cheesesteak with swiss cheese, and have been meaning to mention it. (Plus, he has tomatoes on his steak!! A definite no-no)



For future reference Jean, you use two words to order a cheesesteak, the first word is the type of cheese (use only steak if you don't want cheese) and the second word is either with or without, meaning if you want onions or not. Simply put, order like I do: American Without. The only 3 types of cheese offered are Whiz, American, and Provolone. (South Philly is an Italina neighborhood after all) Got it? Good.

Once again, George Lucas is going to sell us the same thing we have bought many times before. And, you know what, we'll line up to buy once again. The original Star Wars trilogy is being released on DVD for the first September 21st, and I'll buy them that day. For years, I have had some Hong Kong imports with Chinese subtitles that I bought on eBay, and could not wait for the day that Lucas finally did this. I only hope the bonus discs kick ass. And they better!! George owes us something for putting up with Jar Jar Binks.

Remember this guy? You may know him better as "Mike" Hawash, the all-American name he came to use to get the support of the dopey left. And, support he got. Do you remember the hysteria, about how he was only target for his religion and ethnicity, etc, etc? Poor Mike, we hear again and again, a victim of the evil John Ashcroft and his new Gestapo. Those scumbags at the ACLU ran to his defense, so did the left wing blogosphere. Here was my favorite defense of him, from Floyd McKay of the (where else?) Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

In 1942, they came for the Japanese Americans and herded them into concentration camps in the desert. They lost three years of their lives and many of their possessions. Their offense was improper ancestral heritage.

In the '50s, they came for left-wing professors, labor organizers and bohemians, dragged them in front of cameras and microphones. They lost, in many cases, jobs and careers. Their offense was having radical thoughts.

On March 20, they came for Maher (Mike) Hawash, an Oregon software engineer, an American citizen of Palestinian ancestry. Federal agents seized him in the Intel parking lot, and a second team, with assault rifles and bulletproof vests, searched his home occupied by his wife and three terrified children.

How pathetic. Hawash was a victim of heritage and having radical thoughts. (I guess hating American and wanting to fight on the side of terrorists is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment to this dope)

Well, here's Hawash now:

PORTLAND, Ore. — The last three members of the so-called Portland Seven terrorist cell were sentenced Monday for trying to join the Taliban shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

Palestinian-born Maher "Mike" Hawash, 39, expressed remorse for his actions and pledged loyalty to the United States before he was sentenced to seven years in prison. Two brothers, Ahmed Bilal, 25, and Muhammad Bilal, 23, were sentenced to 10 and eight years, respectively. Neither made a statement.

Hawash — a former software engineer — was the first of the group to plead guilty to a lesser charge of conspiring to help Al Qaeda and the Taliban during the war in Afghanistan. In exchange for a lighter sentence, he became the government's crucial material witness and testified against the others.

"I reiterate my acceptance of full responsibility for this act. I do not blame anyone else," Hawash said in a statement to U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones.

"This act was done by me in a highly emotional state and was completely out of my character. When the media began to point at Muslims, I couldn't believe it…. I did not believe that the Afghan people had anything to do with this.

"I am still proud to be a U.S. citizen, and I regret my actions," Hawash said. "I wish to ask forgiveness from my family, my friends in this community and the people of the United States."

Testified against the others, huh? Some innocent victim. Remember him the next time you hear the ACLU, the left-wing terrorist-lovers, and their ilk run to someone's defense against the "evil" John Ashcroft.

Weasley Clark drops out of the Presidential race. Funny, he was never really in it. Winning in Oklahoma only showed what we already know: Bush will win Oklahoma easily.

Lee at Right-Thinking from the Left Coast, one of the top blogs going, and certainly one of my favorites, is going through a tough time right now, as his Dad is ill and will need an artifical heart. Send some well wishes to him and keep his Dad in your prayers.

Bush is a failure in Iraq because bin Laden is a failure in Iraq. Just ask the Associated Press:

Bin Laden May Have Recruiting Problems

By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A letter seized from an al-Qaida courier shows Osama bin Laden has made little headway in recruiting Iraqis for a holy war against America, raising questions about the Bush administration's contention that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.

That's right. Since bin Laden is a failure, then Bush is a failure!! This is the same idiocy that tried to say that the reason Libya gave up their WMD was because of negotiations and sanctions. It never crossed the writer's mind that maybe, just maybe, the reason bin Laden cannot recruit is because people have realized that this is not Bill Clinton they are dealing with, as Bush has said time and again, "American will not be intimidated by thugs."

(Then again, I thought there was no connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. That's what the Bush-haters, the Democrats, and the liberal press told me again and again.)

Read this quote:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that the letter, first reported Monday by The New York Times, shows that "Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism."

"There are foreign terrorists who realize the stakes are high and they seek to do everything they can to undermine the aspirations of the Iraqi people," McClellan said. "But democracy and freedom are taking root in Iraq and there's no turning back."

The letter, as quoted by the Times, acknowledges problems in recruiting Iraqis to join the fight against an American force "growing stronger day after day."

"Many Iraqis would honor you as a guest and give you refuge, for you are a Muslim brother," it said. "However, they will not allow you to make their home a base for operations or a safe house."

Now read the AP's analysis:

That suggests that Iraqis may be willing to support their homegrown insurgency but have little interest in backing foreign infiltrators. The letter's appeals for outside help raises questions whether al-Qaida had a support network here before Saddam's downfall.

That has got to be a mistake. For a second, I thought I was reading Scrappleface. Did he actually imply that Iraqis want the U.S. out of Iraq, but are picky about who does the dirty work? And, our fine men and women kicking ass in Iraq over the last year has nothing to do with al-Qaeda having no support network now, that this must mean they never had one? Pardon my Kerry, but that's fucked up journalism.

Well, looky here...There's the French guy with Hanoi Jane:



This is the best the Democrats have to offer: An honorable war hero who threw it all away when he came back, pissing all over America.

Expect Bush to go on the offensive starting real soon, if he hasn't already. His Meet The Press interview may have been just the beginning of his offensive against the Democrats and their outlandish lies.

Bush Lashes Out at Democrats Over Taxes

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. - His voice rising to a shout, President Bush (news - web sites) lashed out at Democratic rivals who want to roll back his tax cuts as he defended his economic priorities Monday in a presidential primary state where his record has been harshly criticized.

"There are some in Washington that are going to say, 'Let's not make the tax cuts permanent.' That means he's going to raise your taxes," Bush said at a factory. "When you hear people say, 'We're not going to make this permanent,' that means tax increase."

Tax cuts for the rich? My ass. Here's my personal example. I made four times what Stephanie did last year. (She had Emily in December, and did not work full-time, only part-time, after August, hence the disparity) I just did our taxes. If I claimed Emily, I'd get $2860 back. ($930 for me if not) If she claimed Emily, she gets $3880 back. ($620 for her if not) Take a guess who is claiming her. That the Democrats want to roll back the tax cuts under the "class-envy" tactic, which is patently false, tells you all you need to know about them, and who they appeal to, a bunch of lazy-ass Government-dependent people who must not pay taxes.

But, which I find more unfathomable, people who stand to lose a lot if Kerry become President are going to support him. For example, Stephanie's siser despises Bush, and would vote for Dennis Kucinich were he the nominee. This despite saying just 2 days ago, "I am getting back way more money this year than ever before." (Thanks to her two kids, my beautiful niece and nephew)

Now, she is a reasonable person who will vote against her interests come November. And, she is far from alone. I cannot understand that mindset.

I don't care much for Gregg Easterbrook's politics, but his football writing might be the best in the country. His take on the ruling that Maurice Clarett, at age 19, must be allowed in the NFL Draft, is right on point. If there is justice, Clarett will not get drafted. Of course, we'll hear the cries of "collusion," but the fact is that the NFL does not need teenagers in the league. Look at what 18 year old have done to the quality of the NBA. Frankly, the NBA sucks these days. The NFL does not need the same problems.

If you did not hear Al Gore's speech in Tennessee yesterday, you must listen. (Listen closely for his Southern twang that he seemed to pull out for the occasion.) He sounded like Howard Dean after he lost in Iowa. Al Gore has become even more pathetic than before. By the way, Al Gore would be President today if his own people voted for him. Even McGovern and Mondale won their home states.

There is a new blog, aptly named "John Kerry for President? You Must Be Joking" that you may be interested in checking out. You may find some of the posts here and there are exactly the same. Well, that's because that blog is run by the same guy....me. I will be using that blog to make sure that, between now and the election, that every reason that John Kerry should not be elected President is available for anyone with an internet connection to see. News articles, commentary (especially my own), political comics, pictures, you name it, will be there. President Bush needs to be re-elected. I shudder at the thought of a Kerry Presidency.

If you happen to be in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, and you are not white, beware of Dolpho the racist police dog.

It seems that a Russian Presidential candidate is missing. Ah, the more things change in Russia, the more they stay the same.

Stephanie and I saw Miracle today. We loved it. It made me reminisce about when I watched the game, on my black and white TV on top of the trash compactor in my kitchen, back in South Philly. The young kids of today do not remember when Russia was the vile and hated Soviet Union, so I doubt they will get the same impact from the movie as I did. Put it this way, hockey fan or not, you will enjoy this movie. (Take your family, as there is not one curse in it)

Liberals note that there is a lot of flag-waving and pro-USA scenes, so you may be offended. And, there is no moral equivalence between those no-good Commies and us. Perhaps they should have rated the movie NC-D. (By the way, the ACLU will enjoy the scene where Brooks is standing in front of the Christmas tree, and wishes his team "Happy Holidays.")

Get this latest nonsense from the Democratic front-runner John Kerry:

RICHMOND, Va. - John Kerry (news - web sites), a decorated Vietnam veteran and Democratic presidential front-runner, questioned Sunday whether President Bush (news - web sites) had fulfilled his Vietnam-era commitment to the National Guard.

"Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question," the Massachusetts senator said.

Wow. This has got to make miltary people all over the country really warm and fuzzy for Kerry. An honorable discharge is not enough for Kerry? Perhaps Bush should have gone to Vietnam, came home, thrown someone else's medals away, then slandered American troops in front of Congress, just like Kerry did. This part is astonishing:

Kerry insisted he was not making a political issue of Bush's Vietnam-era service, saying he had no trouble with the "many people" like Bush who served in the Guard to reduce the odds of seeing combat in Vietnam.

Not making an issue of Bush's service? What a lying sack of shit. If he is not making as issue of it, then why is he saying that "an honorable discharge does not answer the question?" This is a real jerkoff move by Kerry.

But he responded sharply to Bush's claim in a nationally televised interview that his honorable discharge from the National Guard should answer lingering questions about his service.

"The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was suppose to be? I don't have the answer to that question," said Kerry, who won three Purple Hearts, one Bronze star and one Silver star in Vietnam.

As Kerry has heard it raised. Just look at Kerry, trying to act as if others, not him, are making an issue of it. I hope Kerry is enjoying himself right now, because, soon enough, he will be answering for his past, and the things he will be in the defensive about sure won't be like the blatant lies that the Democrats are putting out about Bush.

I reiterate, Canada is not a free country. Now, the government-controlled media is going to put a seven-second delay Don Cherry's Coach's Corner, so the censors can make sure Cherry cannot get statements like this over the air, lest the gentile Socialist ears of the ultra-senstive Canadians find offense:

Mr. Cherry said the only players who wear visors are "European or French guys."

A few months ago, Cherry, while wearing an American flag tie, lambasted Canada for not supporting the United States in the Iraq war. Luckily, I saw the clip before the CBC's version of Winston Smith removes it from their website. (You know, I miss Cherry ripping the "Commie Russians" like he used to do)

This part of the article I find most hilarious:

Jean Augustine, Minister of State for Multiculturalism, said "the government will not tolerate statements that create dissonance in our society and disrespect for others."

Take a look at her profile. Her full title is Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Status of Women). Read the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. You just know that the liberals in this country would love to enact this crap here.

[Update: CNNSI's Michael Farber on the Don Cherry situation]

[Update: Mark Steyn on Cherry]

Oliver Willis, my favorite liberal blogger, can be a real hammerhead sometimes. Allow me to rehash one of his posts in full:

Dept. Of Unintentional Irony and Intellectual Dishonesty

Er, yes, would this Donald Rumsfeld so gravenly lecturing world leaders be the same Donald Rumsfeld who was complicit in the deaths of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war and looked the other way when Iraq gassed their own people? The same Donald Rumsfeld who clapped his hands in glee at 9-11 because he would finally get his excuse to go after Hussein?

This is outrageous, and so typical of the liberal mindet. Oliver finds a way to blame Rumsfeld for Saddam gassing their own people, and blames him for what Saddam did in the Iran-Iraq war. Oh, please. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Oliver conveniently ignores the reality of history during the 1980's. Plus, you'd never hear Oliver complain about how, when the Rwandan genocide was occuring, Clinton not only "looked the other way," he obstructed those willing to get involved by not lending African peacekeepers the armored vehicles they needed. Instead, he dragged out a lease negotiation for weeks. Plus, he and his administration refused to bomb the radio station barking out death orders on free speech grounds.

Someone answer these questions for me: Why are liberals so afraid of upsetting Europe? Why does Rumsfeld scare liberals? Why do I hear more outrage over Rumsfeld standing up for America than I ever hear about the attacks on September 11th, 2001? Why do I not hear this type of outrage at Saddam? And, why, just like Oliver does, do liberals find the most ridiculous ways to blame America for everything?

What pisses me off most is Oliver saying that Rumsfeld was "clapping his hands in glee" hours after a plane crashed into the Pentagon, when Rumsfeld was in the building at the time, and helped those who were injured. You should be ashamed of yourself Oliver, not only for that pathetic observation, but for your reflexive blame America first attitude.

You must watch this 1 minute 20 second video of Donald Rumsfeld speaking to those gutless Euro-wussies in Munich, the city of appeasement.

When you watch that clip, you will see why the liberals hate Rumsfeld's guts. Because he passionately and intelligently defends the United States, without regard for the hurt feeling of "Old Europe." Some quotes from his speech:

"I know in my heart and my brain that America ain't what's wrong in the world," he said.

So simple. So true. And you'd never heard it from the mouth of a liberal Democrat.

"There were prominent people from representative countries in this room that opined that they really didn't think it made a hell of a lot of difference who won," he said, nearly shouting. "Shocking. Absolutely shocking."

It is about time those scumbags were called on the carpet for their shameful behavior. And, as expected, the usual worthless Euro-crap was on full display:

Speaking to the conference before Mr. Rumsfeld's address, Mr. Fischer, the German foreign minister, said of the Iraq war that "events have proven the position we took at the time to be right." But he then repeatedly called for both sides to set aside their views on the war and work closely to ensure that Iraq does not fall victim to former members of Mr. Hussein's government and foreign terrorists operating in Iraq.

That's right. The German FM said that the events after the war proved that Germany was right to oppose it. Sure, those mass graves and Saddam's butchery, not to mention the threat of chemical weapons, did not upset them the slightest. (You don't really think Saddam had all of those atropine injectors around because he was afraid of the U.S. gassing Iraq now, do you?) After all, this is the same country that makes Saddam look like a rank amateur in the mass killing department and invented the concept of chemical warfare. And then, the "Old Europe" mindset shows front and center, yet again:

"We have to win the peace together," Mr. Fischer said, adding that only United Nations involvement could bring legitimacy to the process of restoring Iraqi sovereignty.

Legitimacy to who? With their record of failure, they are surely not legitimate to any intellectually honest person. The fact is that Germany and just about every other U.N. member loves using the U.N. as the perfect excuse to do nothing.

Americans are lucky to have Donald Rumsfeld. If he scares you, then you need to take a long look in the mirror. When it comes down to it, ask yourself this: Who would you rather have protecting you? The U.N., John "Terrorism is a law enforcement operation" Kerry, or Donald Rumsfeld?

I can just picture how this part of a John Kerry stump speech in Virginia came about:

Liberal law school graduate staffer: "You know, several years ago down there in Virginia, a woman got raped, and those extreme Republicans on the Supreme Court struck down the Violence Against Women Act. So, when we remind everyone about how extreme those bastard Republicans are, we'll make sure to mention it."

Thus, we get this from Kerry:

In his Virginia remarks, Kerry said Democrats represent the mainstream, Republicans the "extreme," on a number of issues, including tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, health care, violence against women, the federal judiciary, civil liberties and national security.

I expect the usual crap about taxes, health care, etc. But the "violence against women" is shameless and gratuitous. No one except the real hard-cores could possibly take it seriously.

I was making my one of my semi-regular visits to Instapundit, and saw this post:

MORE CRUSHING OF DISSENT: Perhaps the ACLU will get involved.

KIRTLAND, OH—Lakeland Community College near Cleveland, Ohio, has removed a professor of moral philosophy from his classes as punishment for refusing to hide his religious identity from students. The college threatened Dr. James Tuttle, who espouses traditional Catholic beliefs, with dismissal because he made statements on his syllabi and in class that disclosed his religious faith and how that shaped his personal philosophy.

The ACLU will get involved? Surely, Glenn Reynolds knows better. They will not stand up for any Christian, especially, a Catholic, who is openly discriminated against in this country. Now, if Professor Tuttle were Professor Muhammed Ali Akbar Agca Hussein, and his syllabi stated that his personal philosophy was shaped by the call to jihad and by his prayer for death to Israel and America, and the same thing happened, the ACLU would sue everyone who even thought it was inappropriate.

I love the NHL, and have for a long time. I've hopped planes and driven long miles just to see the Flyers play a road game. The game I love has huge problems. Because I care, I could go on for hours and hours, but I'll limit my complaints to the most important things:

1- Ticket prices are too high. My buddies Joel, Rich, and I split up season tickets for the Flyers for years. I moved away from Philly, and they, for the first time this season, did not renew. I would not have either if I still lived there. Now, if three guys with real decent incomes, who care deeply about the Flyers fortunes, are priced out of the arena, imagine how many lesser fans have dropped out aswell. This must change or else the NHL will die.

2 - The trap and the "clutch and grab" style of play. The New Jersey Devils have ridden this bullshit style of play to 3 Stanley Cups in the last 8 years, and, as always, success breeds copycats. (Disclosure: As a Flyers fan, I hate the Devils second only to Rangers) Since the NHL has overexpanded in the last decade, in order to collect those desperately needed franchise fees, has hurt the NHL immeasurably. Too many players in the NHL belong in the AHL. They can't keep up with the likes of Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Markus Naslund, Jarome Iginla (my favorite NHL player), and Paul Kariya, so they clutch, grab, interfere, and obstruct. Every year, we hear that more penalties will be called, and they are, until about the middle of December, and then they stop. In a nutshell, this is what pisses me off: A player dumps the puck in. The defenseman does not even turn around to go after the puck, he instead always skates backwards to block the path of the incoming forwards, holding him up until another defenseman scoops up the puck. This needs to be called every time until it stops. Plus, the obstruction of players away from the puck has become disgraceful. Mario Lemieux once called the NHL a "garage league." It is hard to argue with him.

3 - Player salaries are outrageous. The NHL pays out 76% of their revenues to player salaries. This may make your neighborhood Marxist happy, but for the health of the league it cannot continue. For every million dollars paid by the NHL in salaries, teams get an average of 32 points. That's not goals, that's points!! The players are living in a dreamworld. They vow to outlast the owners in the work stoppage that every expects after the season is over. If they do not come to realize that the money just isn't there, there will be NO NHL for them to come back to. Ottawa, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh have all filed for bankruptcy. Montreal, Calgary, Tampa Bay, Florida, Carolina, Phoenix, just off the top of my head, have serious revenue problems. The players know this, yet do not care. Look at the attitude of the Flyers' Jeremy Roenick, for example:

"I think it [a shutdown] is scarier for the sport and for the owners than it is for the players," Roenick said. "The players can play in Europe; they can play in different leagues. The owners? They can lose their franchises. They have to deal with the buildings that sit empty.

"Is Buffalo going to stick around? Is Carolina going to stick around? Is Ottawa going to stick around? Calgary? Edmonton? These teams are not going to be able to withstand one or two years [with no games]."

Sadly, Roenick sees the problem but refuse to acknowledge the inevitable result. How many teams would survive a long shutdown? I say the Flyers, Red Wings, Rangers, and Maple Leafs would for sure. But I can't say that about anyone else. In reality, Roenick is full of shit, and I suspect even he knows it. Europe is not a viable option, as players would likely make less than they would in a salary-capped NHL. The new WHA? Stop it. Think XFL and USFL.

The bottom line is this: The NHL must be destroyed to be saved. I hate sounding like that scumbag Peter Arnett, but that's what I feel must happen. The owners must lock out the players until they accept a hard salary cap, at about $25-30 million a year. based on a percentage of revenue. 2 Goalies + 6 Defensemen + 12 Forwards = 20 players = for an average of 1.25 to 1.5 million a year salary. Salaries have grown out of control. Last year's average payroll was $45.8 million, and the NHL has proposed a more than reasonable $31 million a year cap. If the players don't face reality soon enough, a lot of them won't have jobs in the NHL. It'll be back to the 11-hour bus rides for at least 100 of them, if not more. They'd better wake up.

The NHL needs to close down the 2004-2005 season and beyond if necessary to fix their problems right. Memo to Gary Bettman: Call your old pal David Stern and find out how he destroyed the NBA players union. And, also call Bud Selig for his advice. Then do the exact opposite of what he says.

As for the game quality itself, Bettman has mentioned some interesting things.

"Goalies handling the puck, goaltenders equipment, bigger nets, wider markings, moving the blue lines, using the tag-up rule, automatic icing, three points (rather than two) for a win in regulation -- they're going to being discussing everything,'' Bettman said Saturday.

My suggestions: No rule changes on allowing goalies to handle the puck, as puck handling should continue to make a goalie more valuable. In addition, force goalies to stop dressing like the Michelin Man. As for the icing rule, I am against the automatic icing rule in general. However, in the last 2 minutes, I would favor an automatic icing rule. Moreover, I would add a delay of game penalty for the team that ices the puck more than a set number of times, fluctuating by period, i.e. allow more icings in the first period than in the third. The only thing that pisses me off more than clutch and grabbing is clutching and grabbing combined with 30 icings in the last 10 minutes. The return of the tag rule would be a good thing, to help the flow of the game. As for the obstruction, we've been down that road too many times. The promise to strictly enforce obstruction and call penalties has been like the endless U.N. resolutions against Iraq: No one actually believes that they "mean it this time" because, well, they have never followed through. Lastly, a change I'd love is that a power play after a minor penalty is like one after a major penalty: It lasts the entire 2 minutes even if the team on the power play scores.

The NHL is a great league. Their playoffs, especially sudden-death overtime, are second to none in drama. The league is in trouble, and I hope that all parties have the guts to do what needs to be done to keep playing, keep each team intact, and make the game more affordable for more fans.

by Mark Alexander:

(Memo to thoughtful black Americans: The Republican Party is the party of Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Rod Paige; the Democrat Party is the party of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Maxine Waters.)

I'd add Sheila Jackson Lee and Charles Rangel to the Democrat list too.

I woke up this morning to the news that they found this beautiful little girl, the victim of a vile scumbag. I cannot even begin to convey my anger. North Georgia Dogma does it for me.

One of my favorite blogs, The Vodka Pundit, had a great caption contest for this picture:



The winner: AND THEN I'LL THROW A HALIBUT! AND A TUNA! AND SOME RED SNAPPER! AND A BUNCH OF MINNOWS! AND THEN I'M GONNA GET A WHOLE BASKET FULL OF FLOUNDERS AND THROW THEM IN WASHINGTON D.C.!

YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAGH!

Very funny, yes....but my favorite, from Ed Driscoll of San Jose, CA:

It's a Sicilian message. It means Howard Dean's candidacy sleeps with the fishes.


Hil-f'n-larious Ed. And great idea Stephen.

Surgeons Close Wounds with Paperclips

LONDON (Reuters) - British surgeons are endangering patients by using paper clips to close wounds and tongue depressors as splints for babies, a government agency said Tuesday.

For example, use of tongue depressors in a neonatal intensive care unit as limb splints led to two deaths and one amputation because of fungal infection," the agency said.

I'll say it again: National health care only assures all of us having an equally awful level of service. If you want top-notch health care, get off your ass and get a good job. I pay $370.00 a month, and Emily has great health care. The hospital even called twice on a Saturday to check on her when she was sick. I would never allow her to have such shoddy care like those teabags give to their babies.

According to a new poll, only 15 per cent of Canadians would vote for President Bush.

Like anyone here gives a damn what those 30 million Socialists think?

Just 12 per cent of [Canadians] feel Canada is better off since he took office.

Typical Canucks. Looking at Government, any Government, to blame if they are not better off. Canada is not even a free country. No free speech, government-controlled press, oppressive taxes, and universal health care that assures that every Canadian will get equally lousy health, which forces Canadians who need serious medical care to run for the border.

Get this part:

Clifford Krauss, Canadian correspondent for the New York Times, recently encountered two young boys on the street outside his Toronto home, holding a sign that read Honk if you hate President Bush! (This is a school project.) "I was shocked because of the word hate," says Krauss. "You'd never see a sign like that about Saddam Hussein, or Slobodan Milosevic."

A school project!! Those frogs and Cafucks up there are nothing but a bunch of gutless weasels, who are pissed simply because of their inferiority. Think about it for a second. They have the same background as us, had the same type of settlers, and a similar history. Yet, they are a weak state dependent on us for economics and security. They can blame it on us (and Bush) all they want. We know better, and so do they.

Bush's repeated "with us or against us" declarations have made it clear that there are new, tougher requirements for being America's ally. And as long as he remains well-positioned for another four years in the White House, we may have to do our share of puckering up. Canadians know that. We just don't have to like it.

That's right, eh? Pucker up baby.

[Update] We are supposed to take the feelings of a country that had no freedom of speech, and has done everything but officially announce that they are now a pro-homosexual agenda sanctuary. Get this: Speaking out against homosexuality is not protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No wonder they don't like Bush.

SAN FRANCISCO -- President Bush's budget plan includes a proposal to raise from $30,000 to $8 million the annual amount San Francisco officials pay to draw drinking water from Yosemite National Park.

Instead of throwing money in an attempt to reach out to a groups of dopes who would vote for Vladimir Lenin before they voted for him, Bush should be sticking it to them instead.

I found this part telling:

The city's congressional delegation has pledged to fight the increase, which comes as San Francisco faces a budget deficit nearing $300 million.

$300 million in the red!!! Yes, Bush's spending has been outrageous, but, forget that for a second. There is no way a city should be in this kind of a hole. Look at what funding every gay, transgendered, and homeless person gets you. Think of it like this: I eat the All-American slam at Denny's all the time, and I know to the penny what it costs me. Let's compare:

Essington, Pennsylvania : $6.64 Blackwood, NJ: $6.66 Tempe, Arizona: $6.68 San Francisco, CA: $9.72. (and that was May 2002!!!)

With all the takers living there, and the producers not being able to afford living there, it is only a matter of time before San Francisco crumbles. Of course, they'll blame it on all Bush and vote for another Socialist as always.

The liberal media is again try to use the decency of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia against him, trying to push him into recusing himself from a pending case that involves Vice President Dick Cheney. Hey, it worked on the Pledge of Allegiance case, so why not try again?

Scalia Was Cheney Hunt Trip Guest; Ethics Concern Grows

PATTERSON, La. — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) traveled as an official guest of Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) on a small government jet that served as Air Force Two when the pair came here last month to hunt ducks.

The revelation cast further doubts about whether Scalia can be an impartial judge in Cheney's upcoming case before the Supreme Court, legal ethics experts said. The hunting trip took place just weeks after the high court agreed to take up Cheney's bid to keep secret the details of his energy policy task force.

Ethical questions about Scalia? That's a crock. This is nothing more than an attempt at judicial intimidation. Scalia is a model of integrity. Funny, I don't remember anyone complaining about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg not recusing herself from Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union or Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, for example, despite that she was the American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Project, Founder and Counsel from 1972-1980. If Ginsburg recuses herself from any case involving the ACLU, or if she gets criticized in the media for not doing so, maybe I'll accept this argument about Scalia. Until then, I don't want to hear it.

know you best. Take a look at what a guy who has been covering the rude French guy for years knows.

CIA Boss: Iraq Not Called Imminent Threat

By KATHERINE PFLEGER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In his first public defense of prewar intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday that U.S. analysts had never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, the main argument used by President Bush for going to war.

When did Bush call Iraq an "imminent threat?" NEVER!!! The AP (and their ilk like the New York Times) perpetrates this lie every chance they get. Later in the article, some of the truth emerges:

In the months before the war, Bush and his top aides repeatedly stressed the urgency of stopping Saddam Hussein In a Sept. 12 speech to the United Nations, he called Saddam's regime "a grave and gathering danger." The next day, he told reporters that Saddam was "a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."

In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Ohio, Bush said "the danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time."

Yes, and Saddam was exactly as described. Only the blind Bush-haters can deny that. This is where the idea that Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat" came from. Read closely (especially you Jake) what 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.

Once again, the media stoops to deception in their quest to hurt Bush any way possible.

Yes, that liberal media

Please answer the following questions by indicating which letter contains the correct answer:

Please indicate which term does not belong among the others:
#1 - a) Paul Krugman b) Ted Kennedy c) Cal Thomas d) Liberal pussbag jerkoff e) Atrios

#2 - a) Viagra b) Porn c) Free blogging software d) annoying spam e) Paris Hilton video

#3 - a) Going to Canada b)Going to Jail c) Joining the National Guard d) illegitimate way to avoid Vietnam e) draft dodging

The answer to all of the above is C. John Kerry thinks that none of the above applies to #3, as he considers all of them equally illegitimate ways to avoid Vietnam, as he equivocates joining the national guard with running off to Canada:

"I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard," Mr. Kerry said. "Those are choices people make"

Does he actually think this will resonate with voters?

Expect to see quite a few similar stories to this one about that French guy and his "fight" against special interests:

AP Exclusive: Kerry Blocked Law, Drew Cash

WASHINGTON - A Senate colleague was trying to close a loophole that allowed a major insurer to divert millions of federal dollars from the nation's most expensive construction project. John Kerry stepped in and blocked the legislation.

Over the next two years, the insurer, American International Group, paid Kerry's way on a trip to Vermont and donated at least $30,000 to a tax-exempt group Kerry used to set up his presidential campaign. Company executives donated $18,000 to his Senate and presidential campaigns.

According to Kerry, these two events are not connected. Liberals will surely believe this logic. Hey, if they can believe that Libya giving up their WMD had nothing to do with what happened to Iraq, they'll believe anything.

Take a gander at this letter to the editor in the Philadelphia Daily News. Obviously, this dunce believes every scare tactic the Democrats have put out. The saddest part? Their are millions like her;

I SPENT LAST night trying to imagine what the future would be like if George Bush is re-elected. I predict that, if this happens, this is what life will be like in three years:

• A woman's right to a safe abortion will be illegal. (She must have missed the time Bush said he realizes that America is not ready for a total abortion ban)

• We'll still be in Iraq, dealing with a civil war, and 3,000 more soldiers will be dead

• We'll find out why we should have funded our first-responders.

• If you're gay, it will be illegal for you to have consensual sex with your partner in the privacy of your home. (Oh, please. This will never happen. Even anti-gay marriage types like me would never support this)

• Because of the deficit, the government will be forced to raid the Social Security trust fund. (Yeah, Bush will try to kill our old people. It seems that outrageous Medicare entitlement under Bush had exactly the effect many said it would: ZERO)

• The draft will be reinstated. (She needs to stop listening to Charles Rangel)

• We will be arguing over several other memorials for people who died in several more terrorist attacks on our soil because we failed to protect the borders and ports.

• We will still be the only civilized country with no national health-care program. (If she considers waiting 6 months to a year for a simple medical procedure to be more civilized, that I feel sorry for her. National health care only means an equally lousy level of health care for all)

• There will be no jobs, no home sales, no car sales - although Wal-Mart will be doing fine with cheap labor imported from Mexico and selling lots of cheap stuff made in China, sold to people who can't afford to shop anywhere else. (Yeah, OK. We'll be all sneaking into Mexico in no time)

• We will be on our way to the moon with rockets made by Halliburton's new subsidiary created specifically to go after all that space-program money.

• The Democrats who are left in power will be indistinguishable from the Republicans. The two-party system and all the checks and balances the Founding Fathers worked into our system will be dead. (I don't even know where to begin on that one)

This is not the America I want to live in. (Move to Canada then)

I believe Howard Dean is the only hope we have for saving America. (If he's the only hope for you, you'd better get across the border while you still can)

Anna Marie Olsen
Media

Reading things like this make wonder what world these people are living in. If any of it was true, NO ONE would vote for Bush, not even Republicans. Stop it!

The death tax is slowly being phased out. But, because of quirky Senate rules, it'll be resurrected in a few years unless Congress and the president kill it permanently.

Do you want to keep the death tax alive? John Kerry sure does. He's voted against every attempt to kill the death tax. If he becomes president, he'll veto any attempt by Congress to permanently abolish it. Kerry believes that death and taxes aren't just the only certain things in life, but that death ought to be taxed.

And the death tax isn't the only tax Kerry likes. He opposed both of President Bush's major tax cuts that returned some of your money to you. We can't let a tax-raising Massachusetts liberal like John Kerry become president.

Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday, I ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign.

If you've already donated and volunteered for the Bush campaign, then talk to your friends and enlist them in this battle for America's very soul.

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 do e-mail me at wictory@blogsforbush.com so that I can add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs.

There are now over 250 Blogs for Bush!! Visit some of them by clicking here.

John Kerry is the big dog, for the moment. Here's the reality check.

I was looking at the financial situations of all the candidates for President and had an interesting thought after seeing this:

Spending:

President Bush - $31,662,441
Howard Dean - $31,414,497
John Kerry - $23,255,627

Cash on Hand:

Bush - $99,106,652
Dean - $9,647,361 (that's gotta be wrong by now, but OK)
Kerry - $1,605,428

Now, I have yet to see one television commercial for Bush, and he has spent $31 million. What has he spent it on? I can only imagine that he has a fury ready to be unleashed as soon as the Democratic nominee is established for certain. A lot of my fellow Bush supporters seem to be getting nervous lately. I tell them to relax, because, no matter what, the Democratic candidates will get all the attention during the primaries. Look at what happened to Dean. He was the next king, now he is nothing more than a court jester. Kerry may think he will get Bush on military service, but he is sadly mistaken. Kerry has been getting the kid-gloves from his Democratic opponents, who will never take him to the woodshed, not even Howard Dean. He says, "Bring it on!!" I say, "Jean, Ne vous inquiétez pas, volonté de Bush et vous ne l'apprécierez pas autant que vous pensez." (Don't worry, Bush will and you will not enjoy it as much as you think.) That "Bush went AWOL" dog won't hunt.

Get this headline:

OHL player suspended for slurring Flyers prospect

Now, how do you think he slurred him? Think of all the slurs you know. I'll bet the word "Euro" never crossed your mind.

"Euro" a racist slur? Stop it.

If I took this guy seriously, I'd rip Clark apart for this:

Clark appealed to group suspected of terror link

WASHINGTON - Retired Gen. Wesley Clark sought the political support of a Muslim group that is under FBI investigation for terror ties, sources told the Daily News.

How long before one of those Democrats show up at a mosque in a headscarf?

The Democrats must read the same memo about everything. Tonight, while watching Hannity and Colmes, in different segments I saw former Senator Gary Hart and former Congressman, former Ambassador to the U.N., and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson respond to a question about John Kerry's voting record in the Senate with nearly the same exact response:

"If you went through my voting record, or anyone else's, you'll find instances which can both be labeled 'strong on defense' and 'weak on defense,' so that's not an issue," or something close to that.

They got their story straight, that's for sure. I am sure we will soon hear instances of how Kerry's vote were "strong on defense."

You have probably seen this by now, but here's a Doonesbury cartoon from October 21, 1971, when I was 2 1/2 months old:

Sowell says:

Like every other liberal Democrat running for president since the 1960s, Mr. Kerry tries to avoid having voters recognize him as the liberal he is and has been for decades — anti-military, pro-quotas, pro-taxes, pro-illegal immigrants, and pro-teachers unions that have ruined our schools. What Mr. Kerry did more than 30 years ago is not the issue. What he has been doing since then is.

I agree.

About that French guy, Steyn says:

His vote against the first Gulf war was, he says, a sign of his support for the first Gulf war. Whereas his vote in favor of the Iraq war was a sign of his opposition to the Iraq war. And his vote against funding America's troops in Iraq is a sign of his support for America's men and women in uniform.
On the same principle, I think the best way voters this November can demonstrate their support for John Kerry is by voting against him. Just a suggestion.

Excellent work, as usual, from Steyn.

Bush is finished!!! Kerry beats him 53-46!!! How do we know this:

The poll, based on interviews with 1,001 adult Americans, including 562 likely voters, was conducted in the days after the New Hampshire primary.

No wait, Kerry beats Bush 51-42:

The nationwide telephone poll surveyed 1,219 registered voters from Jan.28-31. It had a survey error margin of about 3 percentage points. The survey asked 420 Democrats about the primary, with an error margin of about 5 percent.

I just love polls. I have been polled twice in the last month, once in Arizona and once in New Mexico. I told the woman who called in Arizona that I preferred Kucinich, and the guy who called me in New Mexico that I was voting for Lieberman. Polls are a joke.

From the Washington Post's Foreign Service:

Israel Puts Graphic Suicide Bombing Video on Web - Decision Touches off Public Uproar

According to this headline, we are all meant to think the public is upset at Israel releasing the video of the aftermath of yet another bus bombing. According to the reporter:

The decision to put the graphic five minute and 38-second video on the Israeli Foreign Ministry Web site just hours after Thursday's explosion, which killed 11 people and the bomber, has unleashed an emotional public debate in a nation weary of a conflict that has turned Israeli buses, cafes and public streets into targets and frustrated by political leadership on both sides that has not ended the violence.

Moral equivalence at its worst. Israel and the Palestinians are equally to blame for the carnage. Of course, unsaid is that the only thing Israel can do to stop the violence is to cease to exist. Only one person is quoted as being outraged at this video's release, a group who is really oppossed to Israel's building of a security fence:

"Showing bodies or body parts . . . lying on the ground and using it for political ends is disgusting," said Jeff Halper, who heads the Israeli Committee Against House Demolition, an organization that monitors Israeli military actions against Palestinians. He accused the Israeli government of "trying to sell a certain political program, the wall, and to recruit the dead for this mission."

That's right. How dare Israel do anything that might make people think that their policy of destroying the homes of Palestinian suicide (or homocide, whichever you prefer) bombers after they attack is justified!! Read about this ridiculous group here. Yeah, all they do is "monitor" Israeli military actions. Whatever the reporter says. Funny how these far-left moral relativists are made out to have legitimate complaints. Even funnier is how the media becomes their P.R. machine, without even collecting a few bucks from them for it. Don't you just love "liberal logic." Free press, free speech, and unfettered access to information are supposedly the most important things to them, but they whine like the bitches that they are as soon as the message, in this case a graphic video which tells the story without filter, exposes the bankruptcy of their position.

By the way, if you are feeling sentimental about the death of that anti-American scum Rachel Corrie, click here and scroll down a bit, to read the lyrics of a song dedicated to her. It will touch your heart.....uh, not.

Patriots 20 Panthers 16

Watch this flash video of Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice signing a song called "Saddam" to the tune of YMCA. Serious A-Grade tomfoolery.

(Hat tip: Discount Blogger)