The Blue Site

"People Change" -Rockapella

PEOPLE CHANGE
Rockapella
Written by Scott Leonard

Didn't hear a tone, are you, hello?
Never hear a tone, I guess you know
I can't remember what I called to say
Thought you might be home on Saturday

I really can't believe it's been a year
It took a little time without you here
I'm guessing you survived alone somehow
It's good that I can joke about it now

I still avoid the park at Christopher
Never wanna feel the way we were
Unless I'm in a hurry for that train
And that's the only newsstand open late

People Change, everyday, change like you
I got all the time in the world
People cry all the time, cry like me
We got all the time in the world

It's been so long that no one even asks
And everybody's walkin on the grass
Grass that took a while to reappear
I'd forgotten green without you here

Christmas came and went upon this bench
Tryin to justify what made no sense
Now the ivy's overrun the tears
But it could never hide what happened here

People Change everyday, change like you
I got all the time in the world
People cry all the time, cry like me
We got all the time in the world

Fillin in the conversation by myself
Fillin in the reason why you leave me leavin, leavin
Thinkin back; the hope we had was more than mine,
The hope we had was more than mine
More than mine, I know it makes sense to you,
more than mine
Just make it make sense to me

Maybe I'm alive beneath the snow
Maybe you're too petrified to know
I can't believe that you would tell me lies
How could I have missed that in those eyes

Maybe if I only heard your voice
I would understand you had no choice
Though I'm glad it's clear for you to see
I wish that you would make it make sense to me

People cry all the time
Cry like me; I got all the time in the world
Flowin in and out your life
By tomorrow mornin
Flowin in and out my life...

People change, everyday
People cry all the time
People change, everyday

Lego Mini NBA Figures

I mentioned this in my livejournal...but, here are the NBA figures from lego I picked up yesterday. I bought the only 3 sets the store had (they were $1 at the dollar general store.) So, I have 12 little NBA guys so far...

I have to go at 9 this morning for more training at the PBS station. He said he'd probably have me come in Friday mornign at 9am too...and we'd skip thursday, since it's New Year's Day.

Wow. I just checked the lego site for other NBA stuff, and I noticed this ultimate nba arena thing...I'd like to get this.

I also noticed that the list price for the 3 packs I paid a dollar for is $8.99, and they cost $5.99 each on amazon.com. Too bad dollar general won't be getting the arena itself! That would probably be marked down big time from the $70 price on amazon.com

Left Coast Report

1. Lights, Cameras, Action Heroes

Whether you're living inside or outside the Hollywood beltway, there are two things about Arnold Schwarzenegger's foray into the wonderful world of politics that are especially interesting.

First, never before has someone run for statewide office at such a successful point in his entertainment career. Arnold has just had a blockbuster of a summer flick with "Terminator 3."

Second, he joins a long list of Tinseltowners-turned-politicians. Oddly enough, almost all of the civic-minded celebs have been of the Republican pinstripe. Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy and George Murphy are some of the Big R cases in point.

What's intriguing about the pattern is the fact that Hollywood is dominated by leftists who sign on the Democrat line. In addition to the Bush-bashing rhetoric we hear from the likes of Johnny Depp, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen et al., more than 80 percent of the entertainment dough from the last presidential election went to the Dems. And the industry was the sixth-biggest source of cash for politicos seeking campaign funding.

Academy Award winners are generally given the highest respect within the industry. But a look at where this group's campaign contributions went last cycle illustrates that when it comes to the politics of the A-listers, Hollywood is a one-party system.

Oscar-winning actors, directors, etc., gave a measly $9,000 to Republicans. On the other hand, Democrats got a whopping $381,000 out of the elitist bunch.

This got me thinking. If Hollywood is populated with so many liberals who are active enough to provide hefty monetary support, why don't they run for office?

I believe it has to do with something we all want but can't always muster. It's called guts. And conservatives in Hollywood seem to have a bit more experience in guts-building.

The way I see it, conservatives in Tinseltown have to be strong enough and willing enough to buck the tide, because liberalism is the prevailing force. It's hyped at business meetings, toasted at cocktail parties and sold at commissaries. To openly express ideas that run counter to the unofficial Hollywood manifesto can put a career at risk and throw a social life into the can.

Guts-building could have to do with playing an action hero, too. It could be that taking on a theatrical role can translate into real-life valor, because in addition to Arnold, action figures such as Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Clint Eastwood and Kurt Russell have also had the fearlessness to express conservative sympathies.

Whatever the case, if Hollywood liberals are thinking about taking the plunge into political candidacy, perhaps they ought to try out some new film roles as preparation.

The Left Coast Report can see it now - Ed Asner and Sean Penn could audition as the next Batman and Robin. Woody Allen could go for Spider-Man. Rob Reiner would make a good Hulk. And who knows, if they remade Wonder Woman, it might be enough to get Babs out of retirement.

2. Tony Randall Still Cranky After All These Years

Actor Tony Randall, best known for playing a character who didn't need a Queer Eye makeover, has a fantasy.

Is it going into space or discovering a cure for cancer? No.

In true Hollywood form, Randall wants to dis the president and vice president ... after he's dead.

Speaking to the National Funeral Directors Association, Randall said his dream was that when he dies, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney show up to pay their respects, but they are turned away because his family knows he didn't like them.

The Left Coast Report points out that even though leftists don't all believe in life after death, some apparently do believe in rudeness after life.

3. Salma Hayek's Bug Bites

Dr. Phil? Move over. South Beach Diet? Fuhgetaboudit.

Salma Hayek is here with unique diet tips that are sure to reduce your caloric intake as well as your appetite.

Don't expect a book on the subject, though. To follow Salma's advice, you have to eat bugs.

Hayek might not have known it, but growing up in Mexico was good preparation for any future appearances on "Celebrity Fear Factor."

The actress says insects are a delicacy in Mexico. "We have the crickets and then the ant's eggs, and then we have these worms," she explains.

But bug eatin' isn't exactly easy. Salma says: "You need the guacamole, otherwise they are slippery; they fall off the tortilla. But the guacamole really sticks them in there, and they're crunchy."

The Left Coast Report has a hunch that the critters taste just like pollo.

4. Al Frankenfurter

Al Franken just doesn't know when to stop ... talking, that is.

Franken's initial reaction to drug allegations against Rush Limbaugh was almost human. Almost.

He said: "I don't like Rush. I don't like what he does - but I don't wish that [addiction] on anybody."

But he couldn't leave things there. Instead, the author of "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot" let loose with something of rude, crude magnitude.

Franken said that if the allegations turned out to be true, he'd be "looking forward to the perp walk."

The comedy-challenged comedian said, "I'll be switching channels to get it from every angle." And he added, "My favorite part is when they push their heads to get them down into the [police] car."

The Left Coast Report says we'll be switching channels, too, whenever Al Franken is hot-dogging on the tube.

5. Beatle Bolshevism

Back when listening to Beatles music could get you placed in a work camp in Cuba, Silvio Rodriguez lost his state job because of his penchant for the Fab Four.

Now Rodriguez is one of Cuba's top folksingers. He was recently one of the participants in a peace concert that took place in a Havana park named after, not Vladimir Lenin, but - can you believe it? - John Lennon.

John Lennon's songs were a featured part of the commie concert.

John's sister-in-law, Setsuko Ono, announced that she was donating several of her sculptures to Cuba. And a local artist named Kcho covered a Sherman tank with a white cloth as a symbol of peace.

In his own gesture of peace, dictator Fidel Castro arrived wearing his communist military Sunday best.

Guess Castro and his cohorts must have glossed over a few of Lennon's best lyrics: "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow."

The Left Coast Report wonders if there are any plans for a gathering of Cuban comedians at the dedication of a Groucho Marx Square.

6. That Don't Impress Uma Much

The samurai sword-slashing star of "Kill Bill" recently took a swipe at Dubya.

Uma Thurman shared some of her career ideas for President Bush in the December issue of GQ: "He should have his own show."

Thurman added: "He's a very charismatic guy. He's funny."

It all sounded pretty flattering, but eventually it became clear something else was driving Uma's desire to see a presidential shift of pursuits.

"I really wish he wasn't running the country," the actress lamented. "I didn't want him to be elected, but I hoped he wouldn't do a bad job. I have to say it's been less than impressive."

The Left Coast Report sees two years without a repeat of 9/11-style terrorism, an economy on the mend, some cash in our pockets instead of Uncle Sam's, condemnation of D & X and an Oval Office draped in dignity again as pretty darn impressive.

7. The Case of the Bountiful Bolshoi Ballerina

A Moscow court has ruled that the Bolshoi Theater must rehire Anastasia Volochkova, a ballerina who was fired in September.

What was the reason for the dancer's dismissal? Allegedly, she was just too large.

According to the New York Times, the Bolshoi officials accused Volochkova of being too unwieldy onstage for the male soloists.

Russia's Labor Ministry urged the Bolshoi to take her back, but the theater said "nyet," throwing the case into the court's hands.

In the end, the court awarded Volochkova 190,000 rubles in back pay and damages.

The Left Coast Report hears that the Bolshoi Theater just received an application for ballet employment from a certain Albert Gore.

Oliver North Commentary

Peculiar perceptions
By Oliver North

American soldiers trapped him like a cornered rat hiding in a hole. And when he was caught, Saddam Hussein, the blustering, bloody tyrant who asked others to die for him, didn't even try to try to defend himself with the weapons at his disposal.

Just days before the capture, I interviewed Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division, for Fox News, who told me his troops would find Saddam near Tikrit. They did. But what the general didn't predict was the apprehension of this mass murderer would apparently drive many Democrats and their media friends around the bend.

The day after Saddam was videotaped being examined for lice by a U.S. Army doctor, Howard Dean, the front-runner among the nine Democrat presidential candidates, declared: "The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news for the Iraqi people and the world. Saddam was a brutal dictator who should be brought swiftly to justice for his crimes."

All true. But then Dr. Dean, who once mused aloud about whether President Bush knew about the September 11, 2001, attacks before they happened, went on to say he still opposes what we're doing in Iraq because, "The administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help, and at an unbelievable cost." The former Vermont governor followed this intellectual inconsistency with a schizophrenic assertion that: "The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will help keep our soldiers safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." How America could be no safer with the Butcher of Baghdad behind bars was not explained.

Unfortunately, Howard Dean isn't the only Democrat with a peculiar perception of Iraqi reality. Two days after Paul Bremer proclaimed, "We got him," Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, accused President Bush of manipulating the capture of Saddam for political purposes. Mr. McDermott told a Seattle radio audience that U.S. troops could have captured Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." He went on to posit, "It's funny, when they're having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something."

Bizarre? No more so than Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's assertion to Morton Kondracke of Fox News: "Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" Asked if she was joking, Mr. Kondracke replied, "She was not smiling."

Media coverage of the capture has been as surreal as the Democrats' conspiracy conjectures. After watching jubilant Iraqis celebrating Saddam's apprehension, ABC anchor Peter Jennings saw only sadness and morosely concluded, "There's not a good deal for Iraqis to be happy about at the moment."

Mr. Jennings "informed" the American public that life for Iraqi citizens is "very chaotic... beset by violence ... [and] not as stable for them as it was when Saddam Hussein was in power."

The anchors and talking heads pondered Saddam's trial and concluded it could be "embarrassing" to the United States.

CBS' Leslie Stahl taunted Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld about torturing Saddam. "Would we deprive him of sleep? Would we make it very cold where he is, or very hot? Are there any restrictions on the way we treat him to get him to cooperate more than he has been?"

NBC's Katie Couric said Saddam's capture was only "symbolic." She would be proved hopelessly wrong less than 24 hours later, as the 1st Armored Division, acting on intelligence secured from Saddam's capture, rounded up three former Iraqi generals who are suspected of supporting the terrorist resistance in Iraq.

All this twisted, blame-America-Bush-bashing and mind-numbing negativism has obscured some very important facts that need re-emphasizing:

Saddam is responsible for two horrific wars and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. His record is replete with the kind of atrocities that brought the United States into two world wars, a bloody campaign in Korea and the war I fought in — Vietnam. He raped, tortured, robbed, starved and murdered his own people. He acquired and used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and countrymen. He attempted to assassinate an American president. He trained and supported Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Muslim Brotherhood terrorists who killed Americans. Are we to believe al Qaeda was the only Middle Eastern terror group Saddam did not support?

The image of Saddam as a filthy, decrepit, coward captured — not killed — by an American soldier, is a powerful message to repressed people all over the globe that this is the way brutal despots go. Placing him on trial before the people of Iraq — not in The Hague or somewhere else — sends a clear signal to totalitarians, be they in Damascus, Tehran, Pyongyang or Havana — that they are accountable to the people they have tortured. Now, the most committed followers of Osama bin Laden have cause to wonder if their bearded leader who wants them to die for his cause would ignominiously surrender himself to the tender mercies of the International Criminal Court to avoid an untimely demise.

Finally, the loopy leftist rhetoric in the aftermath of Saddam's capture obscures the extraordinary courage, training, persistence and discipline of the American soldiers who pursued and caught the Butcher of Baghdad. Rather than waste time inventing crazy conspiracy theories and efforts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the Democrats and their media allies ought to simply try to hang around with these heroes for a few days. It would be good for their mental health.

Oliver North is a nationally syndicated columnist and the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance

Michael Jackson- Insane

Michael Jackson is insane...simply insane. He spokes to 60 Minutes last night, and he said it's perfectly fine to sleep in the same bed with young boys. That is completely abnormal and, as mentioned, insane. This alone proves the man is crazy- and makes it fairly certain that he is, indeed, a child molestor. No normal man sleeps with young boys, and with all the rumors of molestation, I think it's fair to say that this guy probably did what he's been charged with.

He also lied last night and claimed that cops roughed him up (his lawyer, scumbag Mark Geragos was with him the whole time) and that he couldn't even raise his arms more than a few inches afterwards...which, as pointed out on Fox and Friends, is totally untrue, since he flashed a peace sign and was smiling when he left the police station. This lie doesn't help his case at all...

Now, on the subject of his lawyer (and I guess defense lawyers in general), these guys are just scum for the most part. The same guy who is defending Scott 'I couldn't be more guilty' Peterson is defending Michael 'I'm a freak of nature who is also clearly guilty' Jackson. How a man like this can sleep at night, I have no idea. It's his life's work to try to attack victims (he has attacked the young boy who alleges molestation with Jackson, and he's attacked the boy's family), to find every loophole, and to deceive the jury as much as he possibly can to get his clients off- all for that paycheck. Wonder why people hate lawyers? Guys like this- that's why people hate lawyers. One thing about the attacks from Geragos on the boy and his family- this also proves Jackson a liar...if he truly cared for and loved this boy (and children in general), as he says he does, he wouldn't allow his attorney to attack this young boy and his parents. Sure, he would want to save his butt from the molestation that I'm 99% sure he's guilty of, but men who love children don't allow their lawyers to use such tactics...love isn't love only when it's convenient for you. Jackson loves himself and no one else...he has proven that time and time again with his outrageous behavior.

This whole case is digusting...and to Jackson- his dead career, which has been over for some time, will never EVER come back. His admitted improper relations with young boys, his alien-looking face (you can't have a career if people are scared to look at your face), and his lies about police brutality (which can be proven false)...all of these things together- he has made sure he will never ever have a career again. Good riddance to you, Jacko.

Jacoby: Hate Speech from the Left

HATE SPEECH FROM THE LEFT
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Sunday, December 28, 2003

In December 1994 I wrote the first of what would become a yearly series of columns on the subject of liberal hate speech. (See the series here.) That was the year Republicans swept the midterm elections to win control of Congress, and ideological passions were running high.

I had noticed that when a prominent Republican or conservative said something offensive about liberals, it typically set off a storm of media condemnation, while an anti-conservative smear voiced by a liberal or a Democrat rarely drew any protest. There was no end of sour commentary, for example, when Newt Gingrich recommended (in a GOP strategy meeting) that Clinton Democrats be portrayed as "the enemy of normal Americans." It was an outrageous remark, particularly from an incoming speaker of the House, and Gingrich deserved the drubbing he received.

But when Jesse Jackson explicitly likened the proposals of the new majority to Nazism and apartheid -- "If this were Germany, we would call it fascism. If this were South Africa, we would call it racism" -- there wasn't even a ripple of disapproval. Julianne Malveaux, a radio host and USA Today columnist, caught no flak when she prayed aloud for the death of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease," she snarled on PBS. "Well, that's how I feel."

What was true in 1994 remains largely true today. MSNBC fired right-wing talk host Michael Savage in July, and rightly so, when he told a gay caller to "get AIDS and die, you pig." The liberal Nina Totenberg, on the other hand, suffered no ill effects for saying, during the flap over General Jerry Boykin's views of Islam and the war on terrorism, "I hope he's not long for this world." When the startled host asked if she were "putting a hit out on this guy," Totenberg backtracked and said she only wanted to see him expire "in his job."

But this isn't the first time the NPR diva has publicly wished death on a conservative. "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind," she said of Senator Jesse Helms in 1995, "because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."

Such venom should be beyond the political and social pale. But too many liberals would still rather dismiss conservative ideas with a ugly slur than actually grapple with them on the merits. Debating the pros and cons of racial preferences or US foreign policy can be difficult; much easier to simply hiss "Racist!" or "Nazi!" or some equally poisonous insult.

"What you have now" -- this is left-wing activist and actress Janeane Garofalo, analyzing the Republican Party during an appearance at the 92d Street Y in New York earlier this year -- "is people that are closet racists, misogynists, homophobes, and people who love . . . the politics of exclusion identifying as conservative." That was apparentlygood enough to win her a guest-host slot on CNN's "Crossfire," where she offered this thoughtful critique of the Patriot Act: "It is in fact a conspiracy of the 43d Reich."

Ah, yes, the reductio ad Hitlerum. Why meet a conservative with facts or logic when you can simply tar him with the Nazi brush? Thus we had Nancy Giles on the "CBS Sunday Morning show" sourly tying Rush Limbaugh's "edgy" radio manner to you-know-who's. "Hitler would have killed in talk radio," Giles declared. "He was edgy, too." Ellen Gray of the Philadelphia Daily News struck a similar note in commenting on "The Reagans," the cancelled miniseries. "If Hitler had more friends," she told The Washington Post, "CBS wouldn't have aired [its Hitler mini-series] either."

But of course no one came in for more Hitler comparisons this year than George W. Bush. Third Reich references were practically a staple of antiwar rhetoric.

The president "is not the orator that Hitler was," acknowledged leftist commentator Dave Lindorff at Counterpunch.org. "But comparisons of the Bush administration's fearmongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels . . . are not at all out of line."

Such repugnant comparisons are in fact *wildly* out of line. But so long as the double standard persists, liberals will continue to make them with impunity.

Of course this complaint can be taken too far. Ed Gillespie, the Republican Party's chairman, has lately been accusing Democrats of engaging in "political hate speech" when they call Bush a "liar" or a "miserable failure." But there is a world of difference between labeling someone a failure and labeling him Hitler. My objection has never been to political elbow-throwing. What I have tried to argue is that certain kinds of insult -- those that joke about people's deaths, or slime them as racists or fascists or terrorists -- do such violence to our public discourse that they should simply be shunned.

Ten years ago almost no one was calling attention to this liberal slander problem; now magazine articles and even books are being written about it. Progress of a sort, I guess. There's room for a lot more.


(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

Ann Thitima

My new girlfriend, Ann Thitima.

Dean's Latest Idiotic Remarks

This guy just cannot stop with the stupidity. The scariest thing is that the liberals in this country are so out of touch with the rest of us (and reality itself) that they have this guy as a frontrunner.

NewsMax Report Prompts Dean-Bin Laden Retraction

Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean was
forced to retract comments yesterday where he warned
against prejudging the guilt of 9/11 terror mastermind
Osama bin Laden, prompted by NewsMax.com's coverage of the
story.

"As an American, I want to make sure he gets the death
penalty he deserves," Dean hastily told the Associated
Press, hours after NewsMax called attention to his bizarre
comments to the Concord Monitor, which posted its
interview with the leading Democrat earlier in the day.

In remarks that went unnoticed till late Friday, Dean had
told the New Hampshire paper, "I still have this old
fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is
very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not
to, in positions of executive power, prejudge jury
trials."

The news was further obscured by Monitor editors, whose
headline - "Dean's secure in his view of Saddam" - gave no
clue of the bombshell quote obtained by their reporter
Lisa Wangness.

Shortly after 5 p.m. Friday, NewsMax launched its own
report under the headline, "Dean Defends bin Laden" - the
first publicly available report highlighting the leading
Democrat's astonishing blooper.

"It took the former Vermont governor a few hours after the
story got picked up on the Internet and on wire services"
for Dean to react, the New York Daily News acknowledged in
Saturday editions.

By Friday night, Dean's tune had changed 180 degrees,
saying of bin Laden, "I share in the outrage of all
Americans . . . I just think this guy is outrageous."

Poll: O'Reilly 3rd Most Popular TV Figure

Oprah Keeps Favorite TV Personality Title
Harris Interactve Poll Names Talk Show Host Oprah Winfrey the Most Popular TV Figure Again

The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES Dec. 25 — Oprah Winfrey retained her title this year as America's favorite TV personality, according to a recent poll.
The Harris Interactive poll, released Wednesday, named the talk show host the most popular TV figure for the second year in a row. She also won in 1998 and 2000.

Since the poll began in 1993, Winfrey has consistently held one of the top three spots.

David Letterman took second place this year, followed by Bill O'Reilly, Ray Romano and Jay Leno.

Other celebrities to make the top 10 were Dr. Phil McGraw and "Daily Show" host John Stewart, who tied for sixth place.

William Petersen, of the drama series "CSI," came in eighth while Whoopi Goldberg finished ninth.

Jennifer Aniston, Ellen DeGeneres and Martin Sheen tied for 10th place.

The Harris Poll was conducted online with 2,376 adults in the United States from Nov. 17 to Nov. 23

Erasing Christianity

Very nice article about a huge problem in the U.S. Americans need to stand up to these lame attacks by liberals, who want more than anything for the country to be totally godless...and from there, I wouldn't doubt if communism would be next on their agenda.

I read about this sick man who created Kwanzaa (which I remember being taught about in school) from the book SCAM, which I recently finished. The article talks about his arrest for assault, and it goes indepth into his comments made about race relations (violence against whites, and his wish to break off into another country just for blacks with the U.S., etc.)

Here is a bit more about the creator of Kwanzaa

As for the so called holiday, Kwanzaa has its very own flag. It conists of black, green, and red. The Kwanzaa Information Center notes the flag's red color represents blood, and they say, "We lost out land through blood; and we cannot gain it except through blood. We must redeem our lives through the blood. Without the shedding of blood there can be no redemption for this (black) race."

They then go onto discuss how the flag is a symbol of devotion for the establishment of an independent nation for the "African" people on the North American Continient. Kids are often made to pledge allegiance to this flag to learn more about the "holiday."

Karenga explains Kwanzaa further, saying, "People think it's African but it's not. I came up with Kwanzaa because black people wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of Bloods would be partying."

There's the truth about this racist, divisive, and violent "holiday."

-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Erasing Christianity

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by Judson Cox

Dec 26, 2003

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton has ruled that the Byron Union School district was not indoctrinating students by requiring them to wear Islamic garb, memorize verses from the Koran, pray to Allah and play "jihad games" as part of a simulation approach to Islamic studies. The curriculum required by the California State Board of Education utilizes the textbook "Across the Centuries," published by Houghton Mifflin, which prompts students to imagine they are Islamic soldiers and Muslims on a Mecca pilgrimage. The students are encouraged to use phrases such as "Allah Akbar," (“Allah is great,") and are required to fast during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

It is remarkable that our schools would teach such a course when America is fighting a war against Islamic terror and thousands of Americans lay dead at the hands of Islamic fascists. The doctrine of diversity trumps both reason and taste. Islam may be a “religion of peace”, with highly nuanced interpretations of the Koranic commands to kill Jews and Christians, but if Muslim scholars can’t teach such nuances, should we rely on public school teachers? In the name of religious and cultural sensitivity, schools are forcing Christian and Jewish children to commit blasphemy. One cannot expect public school teachers to understand such a concept, when the Ten Commandments (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”) are banned from public schools. To guard against offense and indoctrination, public religious education should be comparative in nature.

The comparative study of religion is an essential facet of a liberal arts based education. The arts, literature, philosophy and order of a society are an expression of that culture’s religion. To try to understand western literature, Chinese social order or Middle Eastern history without a basic understanding of the religions of those cultures is as frustrating and incomplete as trying to read Homer’s Odyssey without a basic knowledge of Greek mythology - who is this Athena, and doesn’t she have anything better to do with her time than to screw with other people’s lives?

However, such a study of religion is not possible within our public schools. Even the most abstract references to Christian belief are being expunged from our language. Imagine the violent paroxysms of liberals if students were instructed to read the Bible, pray the Lord’s Prayer, emulate priests and nuns by taking vows of chastity or to study the writings of Martin Luther. During the Clinton administration, Janet Reno would have burned the schools (with the students in them) faster than you could say “intolerance.” We certainly cannot teach chastity in our schools – Planned Parenthood and GLAD would be appalled!

Every praiseworthy quality of western culture springs from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Literature, the arts, science, math and technology were preserved and promoted through the Church when the Dark Ages threatened to extinguish the spark of knowledge. The Constitution of the United States of America and the western legal system are based upon Biblical principals. Our valuing of human, civil and women’s rights are unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Christian ministers and priests demanded the abolition of slavery, not secularists or Islamists.
Karl Marx, said, ''My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.'' This is the driving force behind the secularization of American culture and the push for diversity. The most destructive force in human history (responsible for up to 200 million deaths and incalculable suffering) is behind the anti-Christian bigotry plaguing our nation. Although 84% of the population of the United States is self-identified as Christian (CNN/Gallup 2002), Christmas is being banned from the American lexicon.

Ron N. Everett, aka Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga, a black Marxist who realized that the best way to defeat Americanism is to subvert our religious heritage, fabricated Kwanzaa in 1966. He invented an African sounding holiday and Africanized Marxist precepts as its justification. In 1971, he was convicted on two counts of felonious assault and one count of false imprisonment, and sentenced to one to ten years in prison for beating and torturing two women who were members of his United Slaves, a violent nationalist rival to the Black Panthers. The propaganda of a violent and deranged lunatic is celebrated, while Christ is vilified. Peace on earth and good will to man be damned - Allah Akbar and Happy Kwanzaa!

----------------------
here is another nice article from the same website (the washington dispatch)

On Gay Marriage, Most Say "No"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive commentary by Chad Allen

Dec 26, 2003

Over the past two years, perhaps there has been no greater social debate in America than that of homosexual "marriage". From Rosie O'Donnell to the State of Massachusetts to the continued success of NBC's gay-filled "Will and Grace", it seems that the homosexual culture continues to gain increased media attention. Yet, despite the abundance of homosexual fanfare, most Americans are staunchly opposed to gay "marriage" and a majority actually believes that homosexual relations should be illegal.

This phenomenon of public opinion is rather surprising when you consider that "tolerance" remains the buzzword in our society regarding everything from religion to sexuality. We are told by countless opinion-makers that we are to tolerate the views and activities of others and not to question them. According to these individuals, anything less is barbaric and unsophisticated. The social theory of tolerance seems to have found root in America when it comes to religion and other social issues, but not so in regards to homosexual "marriage". Why? What makes this issue unique?

Let us first observe the latest data on this issue. Earlier this week, a New York Times/CBS News poll was released which showed that Americans oppose a law allowing homosexuals to marry by nearly a 2-1 margin (61%-34%), while 55% of Americans support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a woman and a man. Furthermore, and most surprising, 49% of Americans affirmed that homosexual relations should be illegal, with only 41% supporting homosexual relationships and 10% undecided.

Segmented results within the poll were especially interesting and shed some light as to why Americans are largely opposed to homosexual "marriage" and homosexual relations. Those respondents who were labeled "White Protestants" favored a man/woman marriage constitutional amendment by 60%-34%; opposed a law allowing homosexuals to marry by 70%-26%; and were in favor of making homosexual relations illegal by 56%-35%.

Without question, the data show that religion plays an enormous part in an individual's stance on the issue of homosexuality and the potential for homosexuals to "marry". Nearly all Protestant religions rightly teach, based on a mountain of biblical evidence, that engaging in homosexual acts is a clear violation of God's commands. Despite the fact that media outlets such as television and movies continue to promote the "normality" of homosexuality, religious teachings trump these ideas in the minds of Protestants.

Responses of those from the South largely were inline with those from white Protestants. This should come as no surprise as the influence of religion is strongest in the South and in some parts of the Midwest which comprise the "Bible Belt". Religion plays a key role for most people of Protestant faiths in the "Bible Belt" and these faiths continue to teach against the ills of society, which typically include homosexuality, adultery, and other activities which are deemed to be sin and have damaged America's families. As long as these faiths continue to teach against homosexuality, the court of public opinion will remain strongly opposed to the overall homosexual lifestyle and increasing rights for homosexuals in our society.

Opinions on homosexuality and marriage were also dramatically different when broken down by age group. The survey showed that individuals 65 years of age or older opposed a law allowing homosexual “marriage” by nearly 5-1 and supported a constitutional amendment allowing marriage only to be between a man and a woman by more than 3-2. However, adults between the ages of 18-29 favored allowing homosexuals to marry and opposed a man/woman marriage constitutional amendment.

While respondents 65+ years of age are products of the 50’s or earlier when homosexuality openness was still taboo, it’s likely that their views are also largely shaped by experience. America’s seniors have seen a society that completely opposed homosexuality versus today’s pro-homosexuality culture. Clearly they feel that society was better off when homosexuality wasn’t promoted in the media, our schools, and within our government.

Possibly the most fascinating results of the survey came from those individuals given the label “know a gay person”. While they were pro-homosexual in their responses, the margin was rather weak regarding the man/woman marriage constitutional amendment and was especially paltry in response to allowing homosexuals to marry.

These weak margins are surprising since many within the homosexual movement and their sympathizers state that individuals’ views regarding the gay lifestyle would be dramatically different if they knew gay people. Apparently this is not the case, as even those who know gay people have seen the damage homosexuality has caused families. In addition, they have probably seen some of their gay friends either die prematurely or become extremely ill due to AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases which tend to be spread in greater mass throughout the gay community.

The court of public opinion in America speaks convincingly. America believes that homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle and should not be promoted within our society by our government. Our government officials would be wise to note this fact.

A Christmas Message from the President

Christmas 2003

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
Luke 2:14

As families and friends gather to celebrate Christmas, we remember all the blessings that fill our lives, beginning with the great blessing that came on a holy night in Bethlehem. For Christians around the world, the birth of Jesus is a central religious event; an example of God's profound love for humanity; and the pathway to hope and to new life. Today, the
Christmas story still speaks to every generation.

This holiday season, as we share in the spirit of giving and enjoy familiar Christmas traditions, we give thanks for the wonder of God's love and rededicate ourselves to helping those in need. We also pray for our brave men and women in uniform, many of whom will spend the holidays far from home. Their courage and dedication is helping keep us safe and extending freedom and peace. We are grateful for their service to our country, and for the support and sacrifice of their families.

Laura joins me in wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. May the peace and goodwill of the season fill every heart and warm every home.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Bill O'Reilly: Trying Saddam

Trying Saddam
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Dec 25, 2003

According to a recent Gallup poll, most Americans want Saddam Hussein tried in an International Court, but 24% say a U.S. military court should decide his fate. This, of course, would be a disaster, because America's legal system is so screwed up, Saddam might wind up a winner. Here's what could possibly happen.
The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in San Francisco, a legal body modeled on the philosophy of Che Guevara and the most overturned federal court in U.S. history, might well rule the military court unconstitutional because as we all know, military people have strict rules of behavior and make judgments. The Ninth would never abide that.

Immediately after the Ninth ruled, Saddam would find himself in civilian criminal court and would hire Mark Geragos and Johnnie Cochran to represent him.

Geragos would book himself on the Larry King program and declare that Saddam was not responsible for the mass murderers in Iraq... devil worshipers were. Geragos would convince Larry that the devil people infiltrated Saddam's inner circle without his knowledge. Only Saddam's sons knew about the insidious activities. Too bad they're dead.

At the same time, Cochran would be asserting that U.S. forces actually planted the tens of thousands of bodies that were dug up in mass graves. Yes, that would have been difficult, Cochran would tell the E Entertainment Network, but if the Los Angeles police department could plant evidence on every single criminal case it had ever investigated, then surely the American Armed Forces could transport one hundred thousand dead bodies into Iraq.

E! would also report that Cochran had evidence Colombian drug dealers actually held Saddam hostage and ordered him to invade Kuwait.

In the preliminary hearing, Geragos would demand Saddam be let out of prison and housed at the Neverland ranch so he, Geragos, could do the needed leg work on the Michael Jackson case and Saddam's situation at the same time. Geragos would also file a motion to suppress everything Saddam has ever said in his entire life.

Meantime, Cochran would raise the race issue. He'd produce an American corporal who had uttered anti-Arab remarks while taking machine gun fire in a foxhole. Using that evidence, Cochran could then weave a brilliant line of logic: If Americans were so hateful towards Saddam's forces, why wouldn't they develop hideous weapons and violate international law? Anyone would, it was absolutely a matter of self defense.

Cochran would then have Saddam try on all his old uniforms and they would not fit. Obviously, then, this man isn't really Saddam after all. He's Scott Petersen.

Geragos would then jump in quickly. If Scott Peterson were in Baghdad all these years, he couldn't possibly have killed his wife Lacy and their unborn child. Different devil worshipers did that. And Geragos would convince Larry King that those people worked at Fox News. Al Franken would back him up.

In the end, Saddam Hussein would be acquitted by a jury which found reasonable doubt indeed. No weapons of mass destruction. Planted bodies all over the place. Devil people running wild. No wonder things went wrong in Iraq. But you can't blame Saddam.

The delighted dictator would then move to Florida and buy a nifty home near O.J., because the Sunshine State will let you keep your assets no matter how many people you kill and torture.

A few months later, Saddam would appear on Dateline and proclaim that he would spend the rest of his days trying to track down the real culprits in Iraq. He would also file suit for millions, claiming Michael Jackson had molested him at Neverland.

American justice. There's none better.

Thai Music

More Thai music from cute Thai girls. At least, I think these girls are Thai.

These 3 are a group called Zaza, from what I can tell on the net, and I actually like the song- "ay a gaw mai kid"/"ae ar kor mai kid"- I keep seeing those 2 different spellings. I might order the VCD with the karoke videos on it...the album is called Uncensor (again, this is the title as far as I can tell from the net.)

I couldn't find any other pictures of these girls besides the small one of the album above.

Ann Thitima is really cute in her videos too, but I can't find any pictures of her.

Attacks on Jesus on Christmas

Every year on Christmas Day, the Discovery Channel and the History Channel air programs about Jesus and the Bible. Programs that I always find offensive. The programs airing tomorrow deal with some subjects such as "who was the real Jesus?" "who REALLY wrote the bible?" "with the help of forensics, how can we prove that jesus never really rose from the grave?" and "was the star of bethlehem nothing more than an event with a constellation?" These two networks will air programs all day that attempt to attack the validity of the biblical tradition...and, they choose to do it on the day we celebrate the birth of Christ. If this isn't offensive, I don't know what is.

How these networks have the gall to air programs trying to knock down the virgin birth, the life of jesus, the writing of the bible, and the resurrection, on Christmas Day is beyond me. They do it for one reason...it's popular to attack Christians as morons and buffoons who believe in mythical nonsense voodoo that never happened, and hey- we at the Discovery Channel will do all we can to try to prove it. Of course, there's no way to prove it one way or another, and the evidence leads toward the traditional history being true if you ask me...but these people come up with everything theory on earth EXCEPT the theories that deal with the existence of God and such.

I just find it ridiculous that the Discovery Channel tries to paint the picture that they're all about science and reason...yet, they completely deny the theories that maybe there REALLY was a virgin birth, and that there were miracles performed, and that Jesus ACTUALLY rose from the dead.

Tomorrow, as we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, these networks will be doing their best to attack what we believe, and try to show us that we're complete morons, and that THEY actually have the truth.

It's nonsense...and it's quite offensive to air these programs all day on this particular day.
---------------
Just some of the programs they'll air tomorrow to try to destroy Christianity:

History's Mysteries
The Shroud of Turin

more below (read more)

NOTE: I haven't seen all of these programs. I saw the one about the 'real' Moses and the one about who "really" wrote the bible...so, I'm basing my opinion on these shows alone...plus, I have seen a number of programs on Discovery that seem to refuse to accept the traditional theories of the Bible. Plus, if you read the listings from tvguide.com, they don't sound very supportive, but rather more attacking.

I did look up the very long series (3 parts) of the film THE REAL JESUS, and from what I see, it's actually friendly to the Biblical history of things and to Christianity in general...so, I could always be wrong about other of the programs as well.

Who Was Moses?
60 mins.

This ambitious 1998 documentary attempts to uncover the identity of the historical lawgiver and the origins of the Ten Commandments.
Specifically, the program concentrates on “archaeological proof behind the story of Moses,” says executive producer Gaynelle Evans, and determines that there is “some archaeological [evidence] that supports the story in the Bible.” Such findings include a volcano on the Greek island of Santorini, which would have been visible to the Israelites on their flight, and accounted for the “pillar of fire” recorded in Exodus. It also may have triggered unusual phenomena, including plagues, storms---and a tidal wave that could have resulted in the parting of the Red Sea.
------------------
See? Great example right here...instead of accepting the biblical answer as the cause- they come up with theories such as a volcano that caused these MANY strange events...plagues, storms, the parting of the Red Sea- the bible is pure nonsense, and it was all caused by a volcano. We at Discovery can prove it!

Tales from the Left Coast

1. Rob Reiner Picks a New Dean for Hollywood

It looks as if celebrity politics on the national front are getting bigger by the minute.

In the 2002 election, guess who provided the fifth-largest source of dollars for federal candidates? It was none other than little old Hollywood. And as you might expect, 83 percent of Tinseltown's cash went to Democrats. So says Center for Responsive Politics.

Maybe this explains why there was such a big buzz when Rob Reiner announced he was placing his fund-raising talents behind East Coast presidential candidate and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. After all, Reiner raised more than $4.5 million dollars for Al Gore in 2000.

Meathead already hosted a power lunch for Dean with some of the largest contributors in Tinseltown, including film producer Steven Bing, producer Norman Lear, writer/filmmaker Nora Ephron and mogul Michael King. Martin Sheen has also thrown his support Dean's way.

The Left Coast Report routinely hears the naive ask, why should we care about what a Hollywood star or starlet says or does? Well, here's the big, fat moolah-soaked reason. When celebrities decide to lend their support to a candidate, the move can change a rarely recognized backbencher into a well-known frontrunner overnight.

2. Pistol-Packin' Penn

Sean Penn's car, a black 1987 Buick Grand National, was stolen in broad daylight while the actor was having lunch.

The crime took place on a busy street a block away from U.C. Berkeley. Penn's vehicle was found in Richmond, nine miles from where it was stolen.

Interestingly, a couple of Penn's guns were missing as well. Yeah, that's right. This peace activist had a permit to keep a semi-automatic and a revolver.

Inside the vehicle that was taken, Penn had a loaded 9mm Glock handgun and an unloaded .38-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver.

The Left Coast Report wonders aloud: Hmm ... a Glock semi-automatic and an S & W revolver? These anti-war pacifists sure seem to have good taste in firearms.

3. Barbra Streisand Borrows Phrase From Michael Savage

Barbra Streisand might not have done it intentionally, but the title and theme of her latest Web site ditty was previously popularized by ace talk show host and master wordsmith Michael Savage.

After a seething tirade about Bush's "lies," Streisand explains on her site how the president's action can "trickle down to the culture as a whole.

Streisand writes: "The president is our leader, the figurehead of the country, a father figure. Are the 'children' supposed to follow his example? Are we in an era of trickle-down immorality, like trickle-down economics? The country sees their leader not telling the truth. These actions send a message that you don't have to mean what you say, that you don't have to care about other people, that you can do whatever you have to do or say whatever you have to say to get ahead. Is that the message we want to impart to our children? Is that the culture we want to live in?"

The Left Coast Report wonders whether Streisand inadvertently left out the word "former" in her description of the president. Not only does the tattered shoe fit the ex-prez perfectly, we'd feel better about Babs if she admitted that worrying about trickle-down immorality was warranted all those years when her favorite compartmentalizer was dropping drawers in the Oval Office.

4. Dennis Miller Is Just Right

Dennis Miller has slowly journeyed to the conservative side of the political spectrum.

Now he has also become an important celebrity feature of President Bush's re-election effort.

In California, a state where in the 2000 presidential election he trailed Al Gore by 12 percentage points, Bush can use all the celebrity help he can get. As it turns out, he has gotten something else from the Golden State that every candidate dreams of: $5.1 million in campaign money.

While Bush was on the stump in California, his supporters got to hear some choice words from Miller.

He referred to himself as "a Rat Pack of one for the president in Hollywood."

He gave fuel to the recall Gray Davis forces when he observed that California was "now buying energy at mini-bar prices."

He teased earthquake-prone California by explaining that the state no longer had a San Andreas Fault. "It's Gray Davis' fault," chimed the comedian.

Applying some of his patented political humor to an appraisal of the Democrat slate of presidential wannabes, Miller said, "I haven't seen a starting nine like that since the '62 Mets."

His comment about Sen. Robert "KKK" Byrd of West Virginia drew a few moans. "I think he must be burning the cross at both ends," Miller wisecracked.

Proving the growing prominence of Howard Dean, Miller took a shot at the former Vermont governor. "He can roll up his sleeves all he wants at public events, but as long as we see that heart tattoo with Neville Chamberlain's name on his right forearm, he's never going anywhere," Miller quipped.

The Left Coast Report thinks now more than ever, it's Miller time.

5. Christina Aguilera Stymied by Styrofoam

Christine Aguilera has apparently acquired a new sense of eco-awareness.

Known to be a bit of a temperamental diva, Aguilera had a run in with a glitzy Hollywood restaurant over some leftovers.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the singer had finished her meal at a trendy eatery and had requested that the waiters place her uneaten food into a doggy bag. When she was brought the leftover food in a Styrofoam box, Christina purportedly blew her cork.

Aguilera was livid that this kind of environmentally unfriendly material was being used and began to give the waiter a lecture on the evils of the polystyrene plastic. Christina allegedly ended up storming out the door leaving her Styrofoam doggie box behind.

The Left Coast Report says Christina shouldn't worry too much about the biodegradability of Styrofoam. After all, parts of her body could last several thousand years longer than the little plastic food box.

6. Liz Hurley and Johnny Depp Go Commie Chic

Ernesto Guevara, a.k.a. Che, is hardly associated with the powder-puff lifestyle of Hollywood's rich and famous. No, Guevara is more often thought of as a guerilla warrior, ardent communist and advocate of the armed overthrow of the U.S. system.

But as reported by the New York Post, Elizabeth Hurley was recently walking around the streets of London dressed in a shirt with Che Guevara's face prominently displayed on it.

There was a problem, though. Hurley had accessorized the commie attire with a $3,000 Louis Vuitton bag. How unrevolutionary of her.

Johnny Depp, who says he no longer wishes to call America his domicile, apparently wears a medallion with an image of Guevara around his neck.

If these two examples aren't enough of a lefty love display, filmmaker Terrence Malick might direct Benicio Del Toro in a movie that's unimaginatively called "Che."

The Left Coast Report hears that some shops in Beverly Hills are now stocking up on Stalin shoes with matching Hitler handbags.

7. Yoko Ono's Piece Plan

Yoko Ono planned to perform in Paris for the second time a conceptual work called "Cut Piece."

The last time Ono rendered the world indifferent with this particular form of art was 40 years ago.

The 70-year-old plans to invite members of the audience to participate in cutting off her clothes one piece at a time until she's naked.

John Lennon's widow explains, "'Cut Piece' is my hope for World Peace."

The Left Coast Report contends that a fully disrobed Yoko might not bring about world peace, but the threat of a forced viewing may be helpful in getting some of the captured terrorists to talk.

"White Fear" and Tribalism Mentality

Great article from The Washington Dispatch. I just finished the book, Scam, mentioned at the end of the article, the other day, and it's a great read.

White America Is Responsible for the Success of Black Racists
Exclusive commentary by Patrick Rooney

Dec 22, 2003

Recent reports of Michael Jackson connecting with the Nation of Islam are not surprising. The man who has spent years running from his blackness is apparently circling the race wagons now that his own narrow rear end is on the line. If Michael continues to follow the path laid out for him courtesy of O.J. and Johnny Cochrane, this coming year could promise to be a long and uncomfortable one. And who will be primarily to blame for the coming uncivil disobedience and shredding of our national soul? White Americans. I’m not kidding.

You see, every thinking person understands that Michael Jackson is responsible for the downfall of Michael Jackson, not white folks. His career was tanking long before he trotted out the illegitimate Al Sharpton and called the president of his own record company racist and “devilish”.

Michael Jackson is responsible for paying millions to settle an earlier charge of sexual molestation. If he wasn’t guilty, he shouldn’t have paid, so an obvious perception of his own making has followed him. Michael Jackson is definitely guilty of extremely poor judgment at best—in paying, in inviting under-aged boys to Neverland for sleepovers, and in doing all this as a huge star on a world stage. Don’t you think the ravenous media might just be a tad interested in something like this, no matter the color of the alleged perp?

Every thinking person knows what’s going on here. Most whites understand it. Deep down, blacks know it too, but for the most part, their hatred of whites overrides their love of truth. The only reason black racists are interested in Michael Jackson right now is because he serves their selfish interests. His arrest gives credence to their lie that if you’re black and you do happen to make it in this racist country, if you get too big the man will surely put you in your place. This coming year, as the Jackson trial moves forward, millions of blacks will be herded in with this lie.

Black leaders have already started the mantras. Jesse Jackson, the would-be civil rights king on the wane, said, “One gets a sense that there is an emerging pattern here, and these high profile blacks who perhaps think they are the exception are maybe the example after all.”

Roland Martin, founder and editor of BlackAmericaToday.com told Fox News: “Has Michael lived a black existence? The answer is no. (But) look at O.J. [He] had less a relationship with the black community than Michael Jackson, but you still saw kind of ‘circle the wagons.’”

Then Martin said something very interesting: “This is sort of a tribal mentality [italics mine] that happens whether you’re black or you’re Hispanic or you’re a police officer.”

Martin is right, but what he doesn’t understand is that tribalism is nothing to be proud of. This tribalism is the problem in the black community, not its salvation. It is a joining together based on race and not character—ironically the very opposite of Dr. King’s dream—that has caused so much chaos in the community since the late 60’s. Though most blacks call themselves Christians, a religion based on spiritual identity, not skin color, in reality most practice the religion of tribalism.

But blacks make up only thirteen percent of the U.S. population. Even if one hundred percent of blacks practiced tribalism, it shouldn’t carry the day. Its dictates shouldn’t move the country. But these dictates do move this country in extremely negative ways. Don’t believe me, then why isn’t the “dishonorable” Louis Farrakhan exposed for the world-class racist and dangerous anti-American he is? Why is the “Rev.” Jesse Jackson still allowed to carry off loot from Wall Street and major U.S. corporations, even though he’s been thoroughly discredited as a racist con man and adulterer. Why is Al Sharpton considered a serious candidate for President of the United States, when he is a known liar (Tawana Brawley hoax), and racist rabble-rouser with a history of involvement with violence?

The final proof that black tribalism is carrying the day will be the trial of Michael Jackson. I will be shocked if it does not mirror the O.J. trial. It is possible the prosecution will bring forward overwhelming evidence, much like the DNA blood evidence in the O.J. trial. The trial’s outcome may rest on what the racial mix of the jury is. A black jury would likely acquit, no matter the evidence, like in the O.J. trial. And if he’s not acquitted? Then “Plan B” would be just fine—riots—like in the Rodney King trial. So the racists win either way.

But the real failure will not come from the black racist minority, but from the mostly white fearful majority, who carry far more numbers and political/cultural power. The majority has seen the history of the O.J. trial and the Rodney King riots. They know who the race-baiting, selfish black leaders are, and see through them. Some will make jokes privately, or make anonymous blustery comments on websites, but they will not do the right thing, which is to speak out openly and publicly about what is wrong in the black community, so that a positive change can come. Of course, many blacks see what is going on too. And now is the time to speak out about it, not after destruction takes place and lives are lost.

The term “White Fear” was coined by BOND Founder Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, and his excellent new book SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America explains the concept well, and also exposes the corrupt black leadership in a devastating fashion. This is an incredibly courageous man—but where are the white leaders out there matching this man’s courage in regards to race? Sure, we hear white talking heads bashing Howard Dean or Michael Moore or some other white crackpot, but if there are any prominent white men in America willing to fully and publicly confront the truth about the state of black America today, starting with its corrupt political and religious leadership, to its fatherless households too often headed by frustrated, mean women, to a gangsta rap-dominated, degraded culture, I can count them on one hand with fingers left over.

This is the real failure, and the fruits of the sin of omission—of not speaking the truth—will fall on the heads of this country, black and white alike. One cannot fear man and fear God at the same time. The black community is consumed with the hatred of whites. And white America is consumed with the fear of blacks, and the fear of being called “racists”.

It is clear to me that there is not much fear of God left in America. And this is what I fear the most about my country.
(on the washington dispatch site)

Nonsense from Gephardt Supporters

Here is a list of nonsense from Gephardt supporters. A list that isn't even true.

The Bush Economic Record:

Now, if these Gephardt supporters are going to claim this nonsense, they should at least try to get SOME of their facts straight. They should also not try to use stats like these at all, considering the fact that we all know Bush did not cause 9/11, which caused most of the economic issues. We also have to take into account the fact that most economists agree- the Bush tax cut helped stimulate the economy. I forget what Gephardt's position on the tax cuts is, but I think he's one of the candidates that would repeal them. If he did that, the economy would still be suffering from the effects of 9/11.

O'Reilly Back at Number 1 on NYT Bestseller's List

O'Reilly's Book Hits #1 on NY Times List
A Breaking News Report from NewsMax.com

Cable news talker Bill O'Reilly's latest book, "Who's Looking Out for You?" is on top of the New York Times nonfiction bestseller list -- hitting the #1 spot during the prime Christmas book buying season.

O'Reilly's book has leapt ahead of screeds by left-wing bomb-throwers Al Franken and Michael Moore.

The Fox News host's return to the top of the heap comes as "Living History," the Hillary Clinton memoir that O'Reilly has vowed to outsell, is nowhere to be found on the printed Times list.

Mrs. Clinton's book, which was expected to be a big holiday seller, has even disappeared from the extended list of the nation's 35 top selling books that the Times posts online.

Check out these great books that make the perfect Christmas gift:

Bill O'Reilly's "Who's Looking Out for You?"

Bernard Goldberg's "Arrogance"

Zell Miller's "A National Party No More"

The coffee table book "The Greatest Speeches of Ronald Reagan"

Carl Limbacher's "Hillary's Scheme"

James Hirsen's "Tales from the Left Coast"

Rich Lowry's "Legacy"

All of these books available at local book stores or at newsmax.com

Jeff Jacoby: Clark's Credibility Gap

CLARK'S CREDIBILITY GAP
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Sunday, December 21, 2003

Wesley Clark, the four-star general who commanded US forces in Europe during the Kosovo war, is running for president as an opponent of the war in Iraq. So what will he say, a questioner asks, when the Bush camp levels the obvious criticism: If General Clark had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

"If General Clark had his way," the candidate instantly replies, "we'd have had Osama bin Laden dead or alive two years ago, and the world would have been a lot safer. And then we'd have used the United Nations to go after Saddam Hussein the right way."

Coming from one of the other Democratic candidates, that might be dismissed as empty rhetoric. But Clark has had extensive experience in the Balkans and ought to know something about capturing international war criminals. After all, the two most-wanted men in the world before Sept. 11, 2001, were Radovan Karadzic, the former president of the Bosnian Serbs, and Ratko Mladic, the head of the Bosnian Serb army. They are widely considered responsible for the worst atrocities in Europe since World War II, including the bloody "ethnic cleansing" of Bosnia and Croatia, the murderous siege of Sarajevo, the slaughter of 7,000 unarmed boys and men in what was supposed to be the safe haven of Srebrenica, and the systematic rape of thousands of Bosnian women and girls.

Karadzic and Mladic were indicted in 1995 by the UN war-crimes tribunal, but their barbarity was common knowledge well before that. As far back as 1992 they were publicly identified by then-Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger as key war-crimes suspects. So how did Clark, who claims *he* would have "had Osama bin Laden dead or alive two years ago," collar the two Serb butchers?

Well, actually -- he didn't. Karadzic and Mladic are still at large.

And yet it probably is fair to say that Clark knows more about dealing with war criminals than the rest of the Democratic field. After all, none of the other candidates has ever horsed around with a mass murderer. Clark has.

On Aug. 27, 1994, when he was a three-star general working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Clark paid a visit to Mladic in Bosnia. In so doing, the Washington Post reported, he "ignored State Department warnings not to meet with Serb officials suspected of ordering deaths of civilians." Clark says he wanted to get Mladic's views for a policy paper he was writing and thought he had permission to do so.

Either way, Clark did more than take notes. The two men drank wine and posed for jovial pictures that showed them merrily wearing each other's caps. Mladic plied Clark with other gifts, too -- a bottle of brandy and a pistol inscribed, in Cyrillic lettering, "From General Mladic." It was, one disgusted commentator wrote at the time, like "Ike going to Berlin while the Germans were besieging Leningrad, and having schnapps with Hermann Goering."

Today Clark acknowledges that cavorting with the infamous killer "wasn't the right thing to have done." He says that after Mladic and Karadzic were indicted, "I did try" to apprehend them. But having to work with allies -- the stabilization of Bosnia was a NATO operation -- made it impossibly difficult. "Karadzic was in the French sector," Clark explains, and seizing him would have "required a degree of cooperation with other powers that proved difficult for some in the US government to accept. There remained rumors of some kind of French connection," he adds darkly, "rumors that have been denied vigorously by Paris."

Whatever the French may or may not have done, the failure to catch Mladic and Karadzic underscores some of the drawbacks to internationalizing US foreign policy. Clark experienced similar frustration during the Kosovo war, when bombing targets had to be approved in advance by the 19 NATO governments. Yet today, bowing to the Democratic fetish for multilateralism, he mechanically insists that the conduct of the war in Iraq be taken out of US hands and turned over to an international organization.

"I would go to NATO," Clark says, "and I would tell John Abizaid, the [US] commander, 'You're now working for NATO.' " And what would that change, exactly? Not much, Clark admits. "When you do NATO, it's the United States, anyway, that's doing it. I mean, NATO doesn't have an intelligence system. It relies almost exclusively on the United States." It is an incoherent position, and the more he tries to clarify it, the more he retreats into windy platitudes. "I think if the United States works in efficient multilateralism through NATO, we can move the world."

Before he became a presidential candidate, Clark plainly supported the Iraq war resolution; since entering the race, he has tied himself into knots insisting that he actually opposed it. Before becoming a candidate, he described Saddam as a menace requiring urgent action -- "the clock is ticking," he said last year. Now Clark labors to explain why Saddam *wasn't* a burning issue -- "there was no ticking clock," he said last week.

With each passing day, Candidate Clark sounds less and less like General Clark -- which is to say, less and less like the man so many Democrats were eager to support for president. Even for a commander who was first in his class at West Point, that doesn't seem like a strategy for victory.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

Good Riddance, Fool

I say good riddance to the murdering dictator supporter. One less oxygen-breathing idiot, a bit more oxygen for the rest of us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam's capture literally kills woman
From correspondents in Amman
December 19, 2003

A 70-year-old woman was overcome by grief at the capture of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and died of a heart attack after seeing pictures of the humiliating event, Jordan's Al-Rai daily said Thursday.

A relative of the woman, who was only identified by her initials, told the newspaper she broke into a fit of tears and died after she saw a dissheveled and haggard-looking Saddam in the hands of US troops.

The woman was "deeply saddened over Saddam's fate" and suffered a heart attack after seeing his images being flashed on television screens, the unnamed relative said, adding that she had been in very good health until then.

The Liberal Attack on Our Schools

This is just one example of the liberal extremism that is invading our schoos. I think it's about time we put a stop to scumbags like these...scumbags that supports terrorist actions against innocent people, scumbags who lie to our children, claiming the the US military is poisoning us, that the US military is killing women in children in Iraq, supporting Hussein's dictatorship, etc. These people are part of a larger overall group of liberals and anarchists who want to take control our schools. Articles like this should be a clear wake up call for all of us.

Time for a Google Bomb

I think this is wrong, because it totally screws up google, and messed up the search results, but since the idiots started this, I think it's time to join in and counteract their ignorance.

Click the name- Michael "Miserable Failure" Moore, and if enough people do this, we can reverse the lunacy from the left that has made the first google entry for the term "miserable failure" the white house homepage.

Speaking of the fat blubbering idiot- read Moore's nonsense reply to the many who have exposed the farce that is Bowling for Columbine. He admits he had facts wrong- but that's okay! He also admits that Lockheed Martin makes satellite rockets in Littleton, CO- instead of missiles used to kill people- which is what he blames the Columbine attacks on- claiming the kids lived so close to that military factory that of course they went on a killing spree! The goverment is to blame. In the film, Moore makes note of the missiles made there, but now admits rockets to launch intelligence sats are made there...but, he tries to twist the facts around to say he was right afterall. Read it for yourself, then read all the facts at www.moorewatch.com and decide for yourself whether this "whacko" is full of it or not.

Rocko's Modern Christmas

This is probably the BEST Nicktoons Christmas episode of them all...maybe even better than The As Told by Ginger Even Steven's Holiday Special.

Ridiculous Conspiracy Theories from the Left

I consider myself an independent overall, and I like to use my brain to think for myself. I voted for a democrat in the city election for mayor, and I supported Al Gore (until I found out he was illegally trying to control the election in Florida)...I also supported President Clinton, until I found out that he was a complete liar who lied to me and every other American- commited perjury and urged others to do the same. Not to mention the many clintogate scandals.

At this moment, I am finding myself sickened by the left- especially with these recent conspiracy theories these fools have come up with. Some say Bush timed the capture of Hussein to help him (which means, they're blaming him of putting our soldiers' lives at risk for his own gain), Dean has said that a theory that Bush was told about 9/11 before it happened by the Saudis is the most interesting theory (Dean, thus, blames Bush for the deaths of over 3, 000 Americans for his own personal gain), and Albright wonders if Bush has captured Bin Laden, but has him hidden away for personal gain (thus, blaming the president for the deaths of thousands killed by terrorists on the orders of Bin Laden.)

These attacks of Bush and the right are disgusting, and it shows the extreme views the overall Democratic Party are taking.

For now, I'll be sticking with the right- the ones who have a positive outlook for my country, and those who seem to have some sort of civility. Not all of those on the left are bad, but I'm seeing a definite pattern here that cannot be ignored.
-------------------
Dear Joshua,

Last week I told you about how Howard Dean had stooped to a new low by suggesting that President Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened and did nothing to stop it. This week two more Democrats joined him by floating more ridiculous conspiracy theories about President Bush.

First, on Monday Rep. McDermott, D-Wash., said that the Administration timed the capture of Saddam Hussein to help
President Bush. Tuesday night, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright asked Mort Kondracke if he supposed the Bush administration had Osama bin Laden hidden somewhere and were waiting until October to announce his capture. She was not smiling and when Kondracke told her, “you can’t possibly think that” she responded that “it was a possibility.”

When DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe was asked about Dean’s
9/11 remarks on CNN he refused to repudiate them. How can the Chairman of one of our nation's two parties treat as legitimate discourse the repugnant suggestion that the President of the United States had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks of September 11 but allowed them to occur? Will any Democrat seeking the highest office in the land repudiate this despicable approach to politics?

As Team Leaders you can help by writing letters to the editor, calling talk radio shows, talking to your friends. Tell the Democrats to stop encouraging such a despicable approach to politics.

Sincerely,
Ed Gillespie RNC Chairman

Jacoby on Hussein

JUSTICE AND SADDAM HUSSEIN
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

December 18, 2003
(on boston globe site)

President Bush and members of Iraq's governing council vow that Saddam Hussein will be "brought to justice" in a trial that meets the civilized world's standards of fairness. But let us be honest: There will be no justice for Iraq's former ruler.

To be sure, his judges will approach their task conscientiously and with dignity. He will be defended by competent counsel, who will be given the time they need to make their case. Witnesses for the prosecution will be subject to cross-examination. And if Saddam is convicted, he will have the right to appeal.

Nonetheless, justice will not be done. Not in any courtroom in Iraq, not in any courtroom on earth. How could it be? The very worst outcome Saddam is likely to face is a hanging or execution by firing squad. For a killer with the blood of one or two or 10 innocents on his hands, such a punishment might reasonably be said to fit the crime. But what punishment could possibly fit the crimes of a monster like Saddam, who is responsible for the murder and torture of hundreds of thousands of human beings?

"This is a regime" -- I am quoting *The Threatening Storm* by Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East scholar who served two tours of duty in Bill Clinton's National Security Council -- "that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all the bones in the feet of a 2-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. . . . This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or as a means of execution. . . . This is a regime that will drag in a man's wife, daughter, or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime that used chemical warfare . . . not just on the 15,000 killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan."

The liberation of Iraq from such mind-curdling horror was a profound moral achievement. It marks the fourth time in little more than a decade that the United States has freed Muslims from terror and totalitarian cruelty. To see Saddam being led from his pit, haggard and filthy and looking like a bus-station wino, was deeply satisfying, and no one relished it more than the Iraqis he had enslaved for so long. "The Fall of Saddam is Complete and the Sun has Returned to Shine on Iraq" was the headline Monday in Al-Zaman, Iraq's leading independent daily.

But not everyone is rejoicing. "The capture of Saddam has not made America safer," Howard Dean sulked, and there was mourning in Gaza City and Ramallah, where so many had danced on Sept. 11. The moral obtuseness extended even to the Vatican, where one senior official -- Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Institute for Justice and Peace and a former papal envoy to the UN -- expressed his "pity" for Saddam. "Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him."

It will be one purpose of Saddam's prosecution and trial to make it searingly clear, even to the Deans and Martinos of the world, that the US-led war in Iraq was a great blessing. It brought to an end one of the most evil regimes in human history -- and did so in the teeth of thunderous opposition. If it is organized properly, the trial of Saddam will lay the vast record of his sadism and bestiality before the world. For the first time, the tyrant's victims -- those who survived -- will have the chance to appear on the world stage and speak of Saddam's inhumanity to a rapt international audience.

And, no less important, they will do so in Arabic -- a crucial element in the war to pull the Middle East out of the dark ages.

It is Saddam and his accomplices who will be in the dock at the Baghdad Trials. But in a sense, those who willingly turned a blind eye to their crimes will be on trial, too -- the politicians and intellectuals and journalists and businessmen who preferred to overlook or excuse the savagery of the Ba'athists. The trials will be embarrassing to many in the antiwar movement and in the French-German-Russian "Axis of Weasel" who worked so strenuously to keep the United States from toppling Saddam. They may also embarrass the US government, which for a long time was among those that ignored Saddam's butchery. That history, too, should be brought out at trial.

At the trial of Saddam, as at the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961, the prosecutor will not stand alone. With him will stand hundreds of thousands of silent accusers -- the men, women, and children whose voices were forever stilled during the long nightmare of Saddam's reign, but whose blood has never ceased crying out from the ground.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

Full Bottom

I got Full Bottom- the complete series of the British series, Bottom today from Best Buy.

Actually, I didn't get it (myself), because I didn't go shopping, since I was so tired. I stayed home and slept a bit, and had someone pick it up for me. I only watched the very first episode, the episode I have already seen on the Young Ones DVD, so I can't say much about it yet. I will end up watching some of it this weekend, I'm sure.

I really should have gone to see what other TV on DVD they had. I need the complete Father Ted series, which I might get next week...but then again, as I think I said before, I want the Sports Night DVD set. That show is perfect in every way if you ask me.

I saw an advertisement in Video Store news for the DVD for Out Of Order, the Showtime series of this summer, but I still am not sure if it's just the "movie" (aka pilot), or the entire series. If it is just the pilot, will they be releasing the series itself? I still don't even see Monk the first season on DVD yet, but they have the pilot on DVD, and it's been out for months. We'll have to see, I guess.

I actually got two more issues of Video Store magazine in the past couple of days, so maybe they'll have more news in those issues, or maybe a review or a more indepth ad. Who knows.

Falwell: The Real Saint Nicholas

Falwell Confidential

Date: December 17, 2003
From: Jerry Falwell

THE REAL SAINT NICHOLAS

When Christmas displays are erected on public grounds across the nation, they typically must include a secular element in order to achieve legal requirements. In effect, a manger scene must include a depiction of Santa Claus or Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer before it passes constitutional muster. While I believe this is a nonsensical requirement, it is where the seemingly unending ACLU lawsuits against public religious displays have brought us in terms of social policy.

However, Christians can utilize this regulation to bring about a positive result. I encourage parents and grandparents to tell children the true story of Saint Nicholas - Santa's namesake - whenever they see a manger scene that includes a portrayal of Santa in the setting.

Saint Nicholas was born into a wealthy family about 350 miles northwest of Bethlehem in the fourth century. He was a man who loved children and his neighbors; he spent his life privately giving gifts to the unfortunate. These acts of Christian charity - usually made secretly - probably led to the policy of exchanging gifts during the Christmas season.

The history of Nicholas is blurry but there are many legends associated with the man. Apparently after his parents died, he inherited their fortune and chose to distribute it to the needy. Most famously, he lobbed bags of gold through the windows and down the chimneys of three sisters who had no dowry to allow them to marry.

Soon, Nicholas became Bishop of Myra, the city where he preached.

Ted Olsen, assistant editor of Christian History at Christianity Today, wrote that "it wasn't long before Diocletian and Maximian began their persecutions of Christians, and the new bishop was imprisoned." However, when Constantine assumed emperorship, Nicholas was released with many other persecuted believers and he returned to preaching.

After his release, Nicholas became a defender of the faith against Arianism, a heretical doctrine which asserted that Christ was not the Son of God, but a being nurtured by God the Father to the position of Son of God. Saint Nicholas reportedly traveled to the Council of Nicea and actually slapped Arius in the face in defense of the Gospel of Christ.

There are also dubious and debated elements to the ambiguous legend of Nicholas, but it appears to be quite clear that this was a man who attempted to convey the love of Christ in his life.

Mr. Olsen added, "When the Reformation came along, his following disappeared in all the Protestant countries except Holland, where his legend continued as Sinterklass. Martin Luther, for example, replaced this bearer of gifts with the Christ Child, or, in German, Christkindl. Over the years, that became repronounced Kriss Kringle, and ironically is now considered another name for Santa Claus."

This Christmas, if you see a public crèche that includes a depiction of Santa, I encourage parents and grandparents to share the story of Saint Nicholas with young children. This is a way in which to use a disagreeable situation for good.

And you can rest assured that if enough people start recounting the story of Saint Nicholas, the ACLU will probably panic and start bringing cases to ban Santa from the public square.

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Gore's Liberal TV Network Blocked

In his most humiliating setback since his failed coup attempt
of 2000, Al Gore is seeing his dreams of creating yet another
left-wing media outlet fall like chads from the hands of a
ballot-twisting Florida Democrat recount activist.

Thank Barry Diller, who despite Gore's begging is refusing
to lift his veto over the sale of the News World
International cable network from Vivendi Universal
Entertainment, the New York Post reported this week.

Apparently the Democrats will have to be satisfied with
NPR, PBS, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN ...

More from NewsMax.com
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

Tales from the Left Coast

Here's some tales from the left coast I got from an E-Mail from newsmax.com. I actually have the book this guy wrote (Tales from the Left Coast) on my amazon.com wishlist, because it looks funny...and I despise most of the Hollywood idiots politics and nonsense. Here are a few tales from the Hollywood pinheads.

-------------------
With the historic capture of Saddam Hussein, I thought I’d do my part to nudge the celebrity left into rhetoric rehab. Here are some words they can start eating.

1. Sean Penn’s Advertising Antics

Some Mexican officials in Nuevo Laredo aren't exactly nostalgic about the syrupy sounds of Air Supply.

In July 2003, actor and political bellyacher Sean Penn spent over $125,000 placing a full-page ad in the New York Times.

While Penn grumbled about the difficulty of getting his message out, the Times enabled him to do so in spades. He called America “a dictatorship.”

As to the question of whether the Iraqi people were better off without Saddam, Penn replied, “Who the [expletive] are we to say whether they’re better off?”

The Left Coast Report says if you don’t know whether the Iraqi people are better off without Hussein, you probably belong in one of those spider holes.

2. Michael Moore’s Off-the-Mark Message

In March 2003, king-size collector of corporate dollars Michael Moore drafted one of his mindless missives to the president.

Moore wrote: “As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.”

Lead stupid white man added, “How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war?”

The Left Coast Report points out that history has now corrected Moore, and Saddam Hussein is an army of none.

3. Janeane Garofalo’s Peace Perversion

Appearing on MSNBC in July 2003, Janeane Garofalo demonstrated that she’s unwilling to step out of the partisan box for even a moment.

Mike Barnicle asked Garofalo, “Who do you regard as a bigger threat to world peace: George Bush or Saddam Hussein?”

Garofalo responded, “I say at this point, for different reasons, they are both very threatening to world peace and to deny that is to be incredibly naive.”

The Left Coast Report recommends that we treat Janeane’s ideas on geopolitics just as we do Jessica Simpson’s ideas on tuna.

4. Babs’ Blather

Hollywood's hypocrisy is showing again.

In November 2003, Barbra Streisand posted this little ditty on her Web site: “It’s ironic that the larger fabrication is not this fictional movie with actors, but the real-life distortion of the truth told by this current president and members of his administration.”

Streisand advised readers not to believe “the implication that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11th” or “the charge that Iraq was aiding al Qaeda terrorists.”

We now know that Saddam was involved with the organization that planned Sept. 11 and that 9/11 techniques were taught to terrorists-in-training on a downed jetliner south of Baghdad.

The Dem diva also told readers not to believe “that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction that could be activated within 45 minutes.” But an Iraqi officer recently verified the info.

The Left Coast Report wonders if next Babs will blog that the guy in the hole was actually Bad Santa.

5. Breakfast With Saddam

Are the morning shows planning to serve up some crow omelet soon?

In February 2003, ABC’s “Good Morning America” showed Diane Sawyer walking the streets of Baghdad and stumbling upon some Iraqi kids who called the U.S. “bad.”

In a possible premonition of the kind of hole the Iraqi ruler would end up in, Sawyer then engaged in a joint performance of “Itsy Bitsy Spider.”

After finishing the arachnid rhyme, Sawyer said she “got a song back. It is a song about Saddam Hussein, his strength and their desire to protect him.”

In March, Sawyer chimed about Saddam, “I read this morning that he’s also said the love that the Iraqis have for him is so much greater than anything Americans feel for their president because he’s been loved for 35 years.”

In April, Lara Logan of CBS’s “The Early Show” twittered, “And people here have been buoyed by the sight of Saddam Hussein on Iraqi television last night … greeting people in a residential area of Baghdad.”

In November, “The Early Show” featured Harry Smith hyperventilating about the president wanting to defeat “terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to face them in our own country.”

Smith’s comment was “There’s no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Why does the president persist in tying those two together?”

The Left Coast Report cautions that if you indulge in this kind of breakfast fare, remember to keep the Pepto handy.

6. The Other Gore

Certain folks deserve two scoops of crow. Gore Vidal is one of them.

In a February 2003 discharge, the America-hating author declared, “Whatever Saddam has that might be atrocious – mustard gas, pox, viruses – we will ensure that he uses it.”

Gore’s people now claim that Saddam didn’t have and hide weapons “that might be atrocious – mustard gas, pox, viruses.”

In a separate spouting, Gore said, “Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say and not giving a damn.”

The Left Coast Report believes Gore and Saddam may actually have this bit of style in common.

7. Al Franken’s Freaky Fantasy

Back in 1999, prior to his lying liar book, Franken wrote “Why Not Me?”

In November of the same year, Franken appeared on the “Today” show with Matt Lauer to hawk his book. Unlike his fellow lefties, Franken had the right idea of what ought to be done with Saddam Hussein.

Lauer asked Franken, “You also, I think – you had threatened to assassinate Saddam Hussein?”

Franken shot back: “Well, I actually – this is in a high – in a manic high, I come up with a plot where I personally am going to assassinate Saddam Hussein by presenting him with a plaque as the world’s greatest granddad and hitting him over the head. And also during a high, I decide to have myself cloned.”

Franken developed the plot further, saying, “And, in fact, I am, and my embryo is placed in Anne Heche’s uterus, and my clone – Anne Heche, be generous – is the only human clone and becomes later the curator of the Franken Presidential Library.”

Too bad Franken didn’t stick with his head-bopping line of thinking. Instead he went off on a lying expedition of his own.

When Franken attended the White House Correspondents Dinner in April 2003, attendees got to hear him shout to Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, “Clinton’s military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?”

And in November, the Arab news wires broadcast an audiotape purportedly of Saddam Hussein. Evidently, Saddam referred to President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair as “liars.”

The Left Coast Report speculates that the references to Bush and Blair meant that Franken had a fan in a hole in Tikrit.

taken from newsmax.com E-Mail newsletter

Richard Roeper: The Idiot

In the spirit of "no-spin," I wrote this. Not a huge issue, but it's always nice to recognize spin, and be able to completely refute it with truth.

Dishonesty from Richard Roeper

Richard Roeper is an idiot, and I have the proof.

In Michelle Malkin's Dec 10, 2003 article, she posts a quote from Roeper from his Nov 5, 2002 article on the DC snipers.

Malkins points out over 10 exhibits for trial, pictures and rants from Malvo, where he praised the Sept 11 attacks and Osama Bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein. It's clear he is a muslim extremist...going as far as to change his name to show his muslim faith.

In Roeper's December 15, 2003 column (I tried to find the complete Nov 5, 2002 article, but I don't see an archive anywhere on the Chicago Sun Times site), he claims that:

She provided a "selective" list, and "ignored all the other sketches?" Richard, buddy- all she had to do was prove the fact that Malvo is clearly a muslim extremist- a point you denied, even going out of your way to attack conservatives for thinking so. She doesn't have to list any other drawings (tho, she links to the exact page with ALL of the exhibits that you claim she "ignored.") You're being intellectually dishonest, and that's just sad.

Also in his Dec 15, 2003 article, he says the following:

Wrong again, Richard. You're, once again, being dishonest. You never just said that they weren't al-Qaida, you said, "an awful lot of conservatives really, really wanted the snipers to be terrorists. But they were wrong. I'll say that because they never will."

So, they WEREN'T wrong, and you're claiming that you only pointed out that they weren't al-qaida, conveniently ignoring the fact that Malkin is actually debating you're erroneous claims that the snipers were not muslim "terrorists," which they clearly were.

It seems even The American Heritage Dictionary disagrees with Roeper on this one.

Finally, Roeper claims this:

Now, he's using the "they misunderstood what I said" tactic, another dishonesty, when it's clear that we aren't idiots who took your quotes out of context, but rather, you're not apt to admit you were wrong, and you refuse to apologize for painting the picture of rabid conservatives who want more than anything to pin the snipings on muslim terrorists (which they are.)

Roeper has convinced me of one thing...he's a complete joke, and honesty is not in his venarcular.

A few other great articles I found from Malkin:

The party of Maxine Waters (Aug 21, 2000)
The predators of Planned Parenthood (Dec 3, 2003)
Peace prize for a murderer? (Nov 22, 2000)
Terrorists with Tofu breath (Nov 19, 2003)

And---
Merry Holiday by Rich Lowry
Howard Dean's Foreign Policy by David Limbaugh

Ridiculous Racist Blacks

I'm reading SCAM right now by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, and I must say- most of the so-called "black leaders" are just downright insane. Here are a few things I have learned tonight about these "leaders."

US Rep. Maxine Waters (D) California, claims that crack cocaine was purposefully introduced into the inner cities in Los Angeles (her home turf) to destroy the black race. (more on her house of rep. page)

The article she cites has been completely dismissed as nonsense by many groups, including Accuracy in Media. (source)

This nutbag, who-remember, is an elected official of the U.S. federal government (scary- must be a boatload of brainless fools in Los Angeles, voting for her) claims that AIDS was also introduced into Africa and the inner cities- another one of the evil white man's ploys to kill the (newly) crack-lovin' black folk. Fight the man!

Scary enough? Spike Lee, always the constant racist, believes the claim. "AIDS is a government-engineered disease," Lee says. Bill Cosby, frighteningly enough, agrees with Lee and Waters and says, AIDS was "started by human beings to get after certain people they don't like."

Interesting, huh? I never knew Cosby was brainless...until now. I've been fully aware of the fact that Spike Lee is a brainless pinhead (yes, Spike...Spike TV "stole" your name.)

The scariest thing is- blacks buy into this BS in large numbers. According to a poll taken in 1995 of black church leaders-

Don't start with the racism nonsense- Jesse Lee Peterson, the author of the book, is a black man himself...and, unless he hates himself, and I assure you- he doesn't, he's simply speaking the truth. It seems that a great many have been brainwashed by the Jim Jones-like "kool-aid," as Peterson calls it, that these so-called "leaders" have been handing out.

Swingers: The Collectors Series DVD

I got the Swingers: Collectors Series DVD I ordered today in the mail. I just finished watching the commentary track with Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau- very funny insights they had into the film, and they have great chemistry in the movie and in the commentary track. Anyhow, this commentary was different, in that they had the ability to write on the screen in white- circling things, drawing arrows, drawing dolly tracks that were set but not used, and even playing a game of tic tac toe at the end (they clearly did the same thing on the commentary track from MADE- another film starring the two actors.) It was cool to see that on top of the audio commentary.

Swingers is a great film, I've had the VHS tape of it for years. I'm about to watch the documentary/behind the scenes stuff on the DVD now. There are also a couple of deleted scenes (more like deleted segments of existing scenes) on the DVD, and another commentary track by the director and someone else.

Now, I need to send of my money order for the Aqua Teen Hungerforce DVD that I also ordered from amazon.com.

I also checked out the VHS version of MADE from the library, which I'll probably watch tonight. MADE, as I mentioned, stars Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn together like Swingers.

Linda Cardellini

Linda Cardellini got all hot.

Jeff Jacoby: THE RESPECT DONORS DESERVE

THE RESPECT DONORS DESERVE
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Sunday, December 14, 2003

(on the Boston Globe site)

In lieu of a present, the bat mitzvah invitation from my niece suggested donating money to help feed the poor. It recommended one charity in particular, an organization that describes itself as "a Jewish response to hunger" and promises to allocate its money to "the most effective hunger relief organizations" in the United States and abroad.

I admired my niece's selfless spirit, and was glad to make a donation in her honor; I followed it up with a second donation a few months later. Then I discovered that a lot of this charity's money goes not to food banks and meals-on-wheels, but to lawyers and lobbyists with a political agenda that includes enrolling more people on food stamps and other government programs. Expanding welfare dependency may be some people's idea of "effective hunger relief," but it isn't mine. So I crossed this organization off my list of charities to support.

Of course, I had only myself to blame for not doing my homework before writing a check. Like most donors, I tend to rely more on trust and instinct than on research when it comes to charitable giving. I am also like most donors in making unrestricted gifts -- my modest donations have no strings attached, and the recipients can spend them as they see fit.

But what happens when a donation *does* come with strings attached and the recipient doesn't respect them? That's the issue at the heart of a number of conflicts that have jolted the philanthropic world.

Earlier this year, for example, Jane Fonda revoked the $12.5 million pledge she had made to Harvard; she was reportedly frustrated with the university's slowness in setting up the gender-studies institute her money was intended to endow. Across the Charles River, Boston University agreed to disgorge the $3 million that alumnus David Mugar had donated in 1988 for the renovation of a library named after his grandparents. The renovation never took place, and Mugar had threatened a lawsuit.

In New York, Adele Smithers has taken St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital to court, claiming that it used her late husband's $10 million gift for purposes other than the one he specified: an innovative form of alcoholism treatment. The heirs of pharmaceutical magnate John Searle are battling the Chicago Community Trust over control of a $280 million charitable fund he created. The family contends that Searle's will is being flouted, and they want to yank control of the fund away from the trust.

The biggest and most important of these disputes is unfolding in a courtroom in New Jersey. At stake are more than half a billion dollars -- and the future of one of the nation's foremost graduate schools of public affairs.

The story begins in 1961, when Charles and Marie Robertson donated $35 million to set up a charitable foundation at Princeton University. The creation of the Robertson Foundation may be the most generous gift in the history of American higher education: Its endowment is now worth almost $600 million, over and above the $200 million that Princeton has already spent.

The Robertsons made their gift for an explicit purpose: "to strengthen the government of the United States and increase its ability and determination to defend and extend freedom throughout the world." To that end, the foundation was directed to "maintain and operate at Princeton University, and as part of the Woodrow Wilson School, a graduate school where men and women dedicated to public service may prepare themselves for careers in government . . . with particular emphasis on . . . those areas of the federal government that are concerned with international relations."

But despite the donors' clear intent, few of the Wilson School graduates actually go on to foreign-affairs-related government jobs. University statistics show that Only 200 of the 1,720 students who earned MPA (Master of Public Administration) degrees between 1973 and 2002 took such positions after graduating. "Year after year," the Washington Post observes, "the school has churned out bright young men and women who go to work in nonprofit agencies and universities and private industry -- just about anywhere but the federal government."

The Robertson family has long chafed at this failure to live up to the foundation's mission. As far back as 1970, Charles Robertson wrote to complain about the "disappointing number of MPA degree holders in public service, particularly in the international agencies." For its part, Princeton argues that times have changed, that government service no longer holds the appeal it once did, and that "public service" is too broad a category to be restricted to government employment. In any case, the university says in its court filings, "alleged expressions of donative intent are legally insignificant."

They certainly aren't insignificant to donors -- and in this country, that means most of us. Americans donated $241 billion to charity last year, a level of private generosity unknown anywhere else. Very few of us will ever be able to match the munificence of Charles and Marie Robertson. But it isn't only multimillionaires who have the right to expect that money donated for a specific purpose will be used for that purpose. It's sad to see one of the greatest acts of philanthropy in US history become the subject of bitter litigation. But it would be sadder by far if donors came to believe that their intentions count for nothing.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

Hussein Captured- Newspapers Across the Country

I have 10 pages of pictures from various newspaper sites across the nation, and a few from outside of the U.S. declaring the captured of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam's Capture- Newspapers

Palestinians Support Hussein

Shocking...the Palestinians support Hussein, a fact we all knew, and they are supporting him still today. Why? Hussein has sent millions to the people in the area to carry out terrorist attacks...and, because Hussein sent scud missiles into Israel during the first gulf war- in an attempt to terrorize the democratic nation of Israel. They often hold rallies where they burn American flags and threaten Americans, supporting Hussein and Usama Bin Laden.

On the other hand, Israel's PM, Ariel Sharon, supported the US and allies and spoke out against Hussein.

Again, I can't understand how Bush has the audacity to support a palestinian state. Appeasement of the enemies of the United States is NOT a smart move.

Regime Gone

How can anyone see pictures like this or any of the video of the people dancing in the streets and NOT support the takeover of the Hussein regime?

Saddam Hussein Captured

Saddam Hussein has been captured by coalition forces in his hometown of Tikrit...

I will be posting a bunch of pictures here later...
---------------------
To : BREAKINGNEWS Subscribers
Subject : FNC Alert

MULTIPLE U.S. SOURCES BELIEVE FORMER IRAQI DICTATOR SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS BEEN
DETAINED IN IRAQ

**Watch FOX News Channel or go to http://foxnews.com for more
---------------------
Sent : Sunday, December 14, 2003 4:25 AM
To : TEXTBREAKINGNEWS@CNNIMAIL12.CNN.COM
Subject : CNN Breaking News

-- U.S. forces capture a number of wanted Iraqis in Tikrit, possibly including
former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, U.S. officials say. Identities still being
confirmed.
Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com (AOL Keyword: CNN) for the latest news.
---------------------
UPDATE 7:27 AM: Everyone should watch cspan to hear some of the nutballs who call in to voice their opinion. Some lady just called in and said 'THIS IS NOT SADDAM HUSSEIN.' She kept saying that if this IS Hussein, why don't they show him to the American people in shackles...and if it is him, then why are they not sending the troops home today, and why are they not giving all the power back to the people of Iraq? It was frightening that she was so clueless and so stupid, and she was completely serious! She then went on to say, "Bush didn't do nothing," (complete with double negative), and of course, she made it clear she was just another Bush-hater and her hatred of Bush was exposed in everything she said.

She finally went on to explain that all of this was a hoax and she was disgusted that the U.S. administration would do this to us.

A note to this lady- shoot yourself, because you're friggin insane.

I took screenshots of the news alerts on a bunch of different newspaper sites. I will post them sometime later today. I was thinking I'd go out to a book store or newsstand or wherever, and get a few different papers, but I doubt that's gonna happen.

From : CBSNews---Breaking_News Sent : Sunday, December 14, 2003 6:31 AM
Subject : Saddam Hussein Captured

The United States has confirmed that Saddam Hussein was captured Saturday in his hometown of Tikrit.
---------------------------------
From : CNN Breaking News
Reply-To : newseditor@MAIL.CNN.COM
Sent : Sunday, December 14, 2003 6:15 AM
To : TEXTBREAKINGNEWS@CNNIMAIL12.CNN.COM
Subject : CNN Breaking News

-- U.S. officials confirm former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein captured. Watch CNN
for live coverage.
Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com (AOL Keyword: CNN) for the latest news.
---------------------------------
From : BREAKING NEWS
Sent : Sunday, December 14, 2003 6:20 AM
To : BREAKINGNEWS Subscribers
Subject : FNC Alert

COALITION CONFIRMS SADDAM HUSSEIN CAPTURED

**Watch FOX News Channel or go to http://foxnews.com for more
---------------------------------
From : BREAKING NEWS
Sent : Sunday, December 14, 2003 5:25 AM
To : BREAKINGNEWS Subscribers
Subject : FNC Alert

U.S.-LED COALITION TO MAKE ‘VERY IMPORTANT’ ANNOUNCEMENT AT 7 A.M. EST NEWS
CONFERENCE

**Watch FOX News Channel or go to http://foxnews.com for more

Waco Revisited

I watched a documentary on Encore True Stories (I think that's what the channel is called) about the Waco incident in 1993. I wrote a review of the film, and I'm posting it here...

Waco: The Rules of Engagement
First off- the documentary is entertaining. Not sure if that's a good thing or not, since it's such a serious matter.

There seem to be some huge screwups with ATF and FBI, and there are many contradicting stories. Too many different stories from too many different people to possibly ever know the complete truth.

This movie seems to be very biased to paint the picture that Koresh wasn't brainwashing his people, that he was generally an okay guy who didn't do anything wrong- you don't get both points of view in this film. They also attack the ATF and FBI a lot, but don't seem to show the point of view supporting these agencies...only showing the supporters in the congressional hearings. Like I said, the film is very biased in this sense, so it makes it hard to get a complete picture of the entire situation. Showing all the evidence, not just from the side attacking ATF would have been helpful.

Also- during phone calls, I noticed that there is text on the screen many times that no one even speaks- a big mistake like is telling overall...in that, how can I sit here and trust all the evidence the filmmakers put forward, if they can't even accurately transcribe a phone call between negotiators and Koresh? When I noticed these mistakes, it, of course, made me wonder about all the rest of the "facts" put forward in the film.

No doubt Koresh was an unstable individual- there's evidence from many that he had sexual relations with children, he talks about his many "wives" and "children" when interviewed by other davidian members, he claims to be a final prophet of God...all of that points to a man who is not all there. And the fact that a religious sect has stockpiles of weapons (even if they did go to gun shows and tradeshows) is extremely creepy, and to me- that points to danger.

It seems most likely that both sides are wrong here. Members of the davidians did not have a right to shoot at ATF law enforcement agents, and ATF and FBI had no right to contradict themselves, and report things that were not true (the spokesman says that its unlikely that they used psychological tactics, such as loud music and bright lights, to agitate members, when it's clear from press footage that that happened a number of times.) Also, some congressional panel members investigating the issue seemed to attack all evidence by the koresh side, and abusing them verbally unnecessarily. I can understand the bias one would have against a religious sect like this- since, it's so outside of the norm, but it seemed unfair in a lot of points for congressmen, law enforcement spokespersons, etc to jump on certain stataments that were made.

In the end, this film doesn't help any of us get to the bottom of the issue- it's too biased one way, and there are mistakes made that make it unclear what evidence they put forward is true, and what isn't. It's unreliable in those aspects, and that affects the overall integrity of the film in my opinion.

Constance Marie- I Love You

Constance Marie (aka George Lopez's wife on the George Lopez Show) I love you, girl!

Just a Small Reminder

Just a Small Reminder

Now, if you can find me the pictures of Israelis rejoicing in the deaths of over
3, 000 Americans...I'll tell you these people DO deserve a state, from a campaign lead by the U.S government. You can't find those pictures, because they don't exist...so, I tell you- terrorist supporters deserve no help from the U.S.

Bill O'Reilly: Another Win for the Folks

Another Win for the Folks
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Dec 11, 2003

Abercrombie and Fitch has raised the white T-shirt and surrendered. It is pulling its soft-core porn clothing catalog because the outcry has hurt the only thing that matters to A&F: the bottom line.
Same store sales in November were down 13% in an approving economy. Apparently showing naked people in the catalog was stimulating--just not to clothing sales.

As you may know, Abercrombie and Fitch's target customer is between 12 and 25, so it is no wonder that a catalog promoting group sex would get some parents upset. A&F claimed the catalog was not sold to anyone under 18, but let's get real here: Kids were seeing it.

The catalog itself was perplexing as a marketing tool. It describes how great group sex is, and that dolphins do it. So what kind of clothing are dolphins wearing these days? Do they have little sweatshirts on while jumping each other under the waves?

The secular New York Times described the situation using the same tactic it did during the Reagan movie drama. The controversy was generated by "conservatives," those kill joy pessimists who want to ruin all the fun.

Here's how the Times put it: "After loud and sustained protests from socially conservative groups and feminist groups, the company announced ... it was withdrawing the (catalog)."

Sure. It's only those nasty right-wingers and feminists that stirred this up. Liberal or independent thinkers would never object to their kids seeing a half-dozen nude models doing the lambada together. In the world of The New York Times, everyday Americans would have no trouble with any of that.

Are you getting the picture here? Every time an issue of incredibly bad taste arises, like this catalog and the Reagan movie, the secular press tries to marginalize the opposition by defining it in political terms.

The truth is that most non-ideological Americans are getting sick and tired of offensive displays and outrageous behavior being rammed down their throats. Secularists do not want any judgments made about personal behavior, and if you oppose that, they try to make you out to be some kind of junior Jerry Falwell, demanding that everyone convert to Christianity. It's simply dishonest.

Here's proof that regular Americans have had enough. A new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll says that 87% of Americans approve of Nativity scenes being displayed on public property during Christmas. Perhaps that's because the federal holiday of Christmas honors the birth of Jesus so there might be some context here.

But you probably did not read about that poll in the secular press. Maybe if they threw some group sex questions in that survey, it would get wider exposure.

Never before in this country has such a slender secular minority had so much power. The ACLU has succeeded in knocking nativity scenes out all over the country against the will of the people. The New York City school system even forbids any display of the birth of Jesus in its buildings. So much for the history of a national holiday.

The one-two punch of outrageous and offensive behavior and the diminishment of public spirituality is something this country is going to have to come to terms with.

Time after time commerce and the polls show that Americans want traditional values and are appalled by inappropriate material marketed to children. In the end, the will of the people will likely prevail, as the Abercrombie and Fitch situation proves. But the proponents of a secular society are fierce, and they are not going away anytime soon.

Sending a Message to the Anti-Christmas Zealots at the ACLU

Very nice idea...send all your Christmas cards to mike, so he can deliver them to the anti-Christmas, anti-Christian, anti-Civil rights ACLU. These pinheads at the ACLU have attacked traditional values for years, and it's time we send them a message...Check out the article here, and send your cards along to Mike.

The Anti-Christmas ACLU
Mike Gallagher
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003

'Tis the season: The Christmas lights are up, the malls are playing carols, and somewhere in America, the ACLU is filing another lawsuit over someone having the nerve to try and celebrate Christ's birth.

The American Civil Liberties Union seems to delight in this relentless onslaught of litigation and persecution every Christmas season. And this year, it's worse than ever. Some town puts up a nativity scene, the ACLU files suit. Some hapless Santa attempts to explain the meaning of Christmas to a grade school student, the ACLU demands his termination.

Heck, even a Christmas tree causes these people to break out in a rash. The ACLU isn't allergic to pine needles, just the simple, beautiful public expression of celebrating Christmas the way this country has done for generations.

Just like clockwork, I read about the ACLU's latest anti-Christmas gripe and my blood boils. This year, I've decided to do something about it. I've asked my radio audience to help me send a message to the ACLU, a message that might not get them to change their position, but one that could strike a chord with Americans who are as fed up with their tactics as I am. You can help, too.

I've launched the "Merry Christmas, ACLU" project. I'm collecting hundreds and hundreds of Christmas cards from people all over the country. The ground rules for the cards are simple: be certain they have a Christmas theme, not some secular, watered-down one; write a personal message to the ACLU so you can let them know how you feel; and send the cards to me so that I can personally deliver them to their national headquarters in New York City sometime early next year.

I'm hoping for a "Miracle on 34th Street" type of response. Remember at the end of that Christmas classic how bags and bags of mail to Santa Claus were dumped on the judge's desk? In just two days, I've already received over 1,000 cards. We're off to a great start.

Oh, and I think I've figured out a way to force the pinheads at the ACLU to open each one: I'm told that a few listeners might enclose a check to "donate" to the ACLU's pitiful causes. Never one to miss an opportunity to collect money, I'm certain that the very possibility might be enough to make them open them all. Now, I clearly cannot promise that those few checks will ever clear the bank, but hey, one never knows ...

If you agree with me that it's time to stand up to the ACLU, feel free to send me as many Christmas cards as you can. Some listeners have sent me 25 or 50 at a time. Remember, make sure each one is hand-written by you and contains a message to the ACLU. Send your Christmas cards to:

Mike Gallagher's "Merry Christmas, ACLU!" c/o The Mike Gallagher Show 6400 N. Beltline Rd. Irving, Texas 75063

Again, I'll be sure to take all the cards we collect and drop them off at the ACLU's national headquarters. While this effort might not change their tactics, trust me, it feels great to be able to get off our chests how we feel about these folks, and even better to think of some sour-pussed ACLU employees sitting in a room opening card after card, hoping for a donation that might be mixed into all those wonderful Christmas messages from America's heartland.

Think of this as a type of silent yet powerful protest against the way the ACLU continues to try and hijack the spirit of the Christmas season each and every year.

Good things are happening in America: The economy is bouncing back, the war on terror continues to be an effective one, and Howard Dean is the best thing the Democrats have to offer. Take a minute this holiday season and let me show the ACLU how you feel about them.

Oh, and Merry Christmas (so sue me)!

Mike Gallagher's radio show, the sixth-most-listened-to talk radio show in America, according to Talkers Magazine, was featured in Joel Stein's essay in the Dec. 15, 2003, issue of Time magazine.

Jacoby on Republican Spending/ Falwell on so called "Diversity" and Religious Rights

Two articles- one in the entry, and the second under "read more."

First is Jeff Jacoby from the Boston Globe on overspending by the Bush administration (proving he's a fair commentator), and the second from Falwell on a small victory for Christians and so-called "diversity" weeks, which are nothing more than celebrations of homosexuality for the most part...

THE PARTY OF BIG SPENDERS
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Thursday, December 11, 2003

(on the boston globe site)

Once upon a time a Republican candidate for president named George W. Bush painted his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, as a reckless big spender whose fiscal policies would mean that "the era of big government being over is over."

Elect Gore, the Republican predicted, and before you know it the federal government would be as bloated and malodorous as a beached whale under a hot sun. "He is proposing the largest increase in federal spending . . . since the presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson," Bush warned. "His promises throw the budget out of balance. He offers a big federal spending program to nearly every single voting bloc in America."

So where do things stand three years later? Federal spending is growing faster than at any time since LBJ, the budget is hundreds of billions of dollars out of balance, and the president appears to support new or expanded government programs for just about every voting bloc in America.

It all calls to mind a political joke that made the rounds in the late 1960s: They told me that if I voted for Goldwater, we'd have race riots in our cities and half a million troops in Southeast Asia. Well, I voted for Goldwater -- and they turned out to be right!

But the fiscal debauchery of the Bush administration is no joke. Even before signing a huge expansion of Medicare into law this week, Bush was presiding over record-busting levels of federal spending. Brian Riedl, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, points out in a new monograph that government outlays in 2003 -- a staggering $2.15 trillion -- came to more than $20,000 per household. By that measure, government spending (in real dollars) is the highest it's been since World War II.

To be sure, some new spending was necessitated by Sept. 11. But as Riedl notes, most of the Bush budget bloat has had nothing to do with the war on terror, homeland security, or military operations. Between 2001 and 2003, the federal budget exploded by $296 billion, of which $100 billion (34 percent) was for defense and $32 billion (11 percent) was for 9/11-related costs, including compensation for victims and reconstruction in New York. The remaining $164 billion -- 55 percent -- went for programs and projects unconnected to 9/11.

To accommodate the extra costs of the war, the president and Congress could have cut back on nonsessential spending. Instead they lavish more money on both. The entire spending spree, meanwhile, is being financed with borrowed funds, which is why the Congressional Budget Office forecasts a deficit of $401 billion this year, $480 billion in 2004, and nearly $1.5 trillion over the next five years. (And that doesn't include the new Medicare drug benefit, which will add tens of billions of dollars to annual federal outlays). Sooner or later, every penny of those deficits will have to be repaid -- if not by us, then by our children.

What is even more outrageous about this Republican immoderation is how much of it is devoted to pure pork -- local projects that have no national significance or constitutional justification. As recently as five years ago, there were fewer than 2,000 pork projects, or "earmarks," in the federal budget. In 2003, there were more than 9,300, and the number will be even higher in 2004. The pork-packed omnibus appropriations bill now making its way through Congress, for example, contains hundreds of earmarks, including:

* $725,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia;

* $1.8 million for the Women's World Cup tournament;

* $325,000 for the construction of a swimming pool in Salinas, Calif.;

* $220,000 for the New Mexico Retail Association in Albuquerque;

* $270,000 for "sustainable olive production";

* $400,000 for the Speed Art Museum in Louisville, Ky.;

* $2 million for the First Tee golf program in St. Augustine, Fla.;

* $315,000 for Formosan Subterranean Termite research;

* $270,000 for potato storage in Madison, Wisc.

Long, long ago, in what now seems like a galaxy far, far away, Republicans opposed this kind of fiscal gluttony. The GOP was the party of budgetary sobriety -- the party that believed in local responsibility for local budgets and that didn't raid the federal treasury to buy off special interests. Back then, Republicans criticized Democratic profligacy. Now they seek to outdo it.

When Bill Clinton was president, Republicans in Congress fought hard to cut spending and balance the federal budget, with the result that government outlays during Clinton's first three years rose only 3.5 percent. But once there was a Republican in the White House, the GOP's fiscal discipline evaporated. Spending during Bush's first three years has skyrocketed nearly 16 percent, a record of fiscal irresponsibility we haven't seen since the Johnson administration.

Now, what he did say was going to happen if we elected Al Gore?

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)
-- ## --

Falwell Confidential

Date: December 11, 2003
From: Jerry Falwell

FEDERAL JUDGE SAYS PUBLIC SCHOOLS CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CHRISTIAN VIEW
ON HOMOSEXUALITY

Last week, a federal judge issued an important ruling that bears
significance for public school families that take seriously historic
Judeo-Christian values.

Detroit Federal Judge Gerald Rosen's ruling upheld the right of a Christian
student to express her religious beliefs that countered the one-sided
information campaign at her high school's "Diversity Week."

As we've seen many times, "diversity" is a misleading terms that typically
means that those holding Judeo-Christian values are eliminated from
so-called public dialogue.

In this case, the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center, a national
public interest law firm, filed suit on behalf of student Betsy Hansen whose
sincerely-held religious views were disallowed at the "Diversity Week"
program at Pioneer High School two years ago.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, praised the
ruling, saying, "Judge Rosen displayed judicial courage by refusing to bend
to the winds of political correctness, and he decided the case according to
the well established law. This is a tremendous victory for the First
Amendment rights of Christian students and a tremendous defeat for those who
consider public schools as their private platform to advance the homosexual
agenda."

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling this case, added, "This is a
victory for Christian students who desire to speak the truth about
homosexuality in their public schools. And it is a warning to public school
officials across this country: stop silencing the Christian view of
homosexuality and stop using the public schools as a forum to promote the
homosexual agenda."

The problem is that many public schools have become a haven of weighted
information programs that are designed to advance homosexuality as a viable
lifestyle. Those promoting these programs don't want even a hint of
opposition. As a result, those students who are raised in families that
uphold biblical values are subjected to teachings that radically differ from
what they learn at home.

In essence, family values are completely disregarded in order to promote the
homosexual agenda. Christian students are deceitfully instructed that those
who oppose homosexuality are purveyors of hate. If you disagree with us,
Christian students are told, then you hate us.

At Pioneer High School, education officials prohibited Betsy Hansen from
expressing her biblically-based beliefs at what was called a "Homosexuality
and Religion" panel. Apparently the Bible is objectionable material when
discussing religion these days.

In addition, Miss Hansen had planned to give a speech on the topic, "What
Diversity Means to Me." But hip school officials balked at the speech,
saying that Betsy's religious view toward homosexuality was a "negative"
message and would "water-down" the "positive" religious message being
conveyed.

That message - that homosexual behavior is not sinful even though the most
significant religious book in history takes a different view - has become a
source of indoctrination in these schools and any view that opposes it
simply will not be allowed.

It's called diversity.

Attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center (http://www.thomasmore.org) said
that school officials at this event handpicked religious leaders who
endorsed the school's pro-homosexual "religious" belief to sit on the panel,
and they denied the young student's request to have a panel member who would
express her own belief on homosexuality.

Thankfully, Judge Rosen saw through this "education" charade and issued a
70-page opinion that harshly criticized the school for outlawing a student's
legitimate religious views.

"This case presents the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high
school celebrating 'diversity' by refusing to permit the presentation to
students of an 'unwelcomed' viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and
religion, while actively promoting the competing view," Judge Rosen wrote.
"This practice of 'one-way diversity,' unsettling in itself, was rendered
still more troubling - both constitutionally and ethically - by the fact
that the approved viewpoint was, in one manifestation, presented to students
as religious doctrine by six clerics (some in full garb) quoting from
religious scripture. In its other manifestation, it resulted in the
censorship by school administrators of a student's speech about 'what
diversity means to me,' removing that portion of the speech in which the
student described the unapproved viewpoint."

Judge Rosen ruled that the Ann Arbor Public Schools and several of its
employees violated the student's constitutional rights to freedom of speech
and the equal protection of the law. He also found that school officials
violated the Establishment Clause by inviting the pro-homosexual clergy
member to hold a panel on "Homosexuality and Religion."

This decision is great news for students who are confident enough to
challenge school officials who attempt to impose a narrow and misleading
campaign promoting homosexuality in the classroom. The ruling should
empower these students to boldly stand on the truth of the Bible when
confronting social issues at school. I pray that there are thousands of
Betsy Hansens across this nation who will not stand idly by while their
religious views are trampled on by politically-correct school officials.

NY Times Wrong Again

The headline from the NY Times this morning:

Too bad Bush talked about this issue, and that was the exact opposite of what he said...the article goes on to claim:

When the President spoke on this issue, he didn't have that tone at all...which makes me wonder why the Times got this story wrong. You might remember their bleak holiday outlook the day after Thanksgiving, while every other major newspaper was reporting the exact opposite...now, we have this- add both of these to the scandals that have rocked that newspaper in the past year...I'm starting to see why so many people attack the Times.

Speaking of the issue- the Russians and the Canadians have said they won't write off Iraq'd debt, which is highly unfair to the people of Iraq, since the regime that mounted that debt is now gone. The international community is basically telling the Iraqi people that they don't care about their situation. These fools refused to help the U.S. and allies in taking out Hussein, now they're refusing to write off Iraq'd debt...stepping in the way of the United States at every turn.

There is no way these countries that stood in our way (they didn't just oppose the war, they blocked our actions in the UN, they refused to send military support, they refused to send money to Iraq, etc) should get any of the contracts paid for by the American taxpayers. That's only fair, and for the banned countries to get this attitude that we owe them something for nothing, is ridiculous. The countries that paid in blood should get the contracts in Iraq, not the countries that decided they would sit back and let the rest of the world take Hussein down, freeing 20+ million people.

Washington Dispatch on Cincinnati and Race Relations

Great commentary piece from The Washington Dispatch on the lack of responsibility coming from many black leaders in regards to the issue in Cincinnati and in general around the country. I have said it before, I'll repeat it now- most black "leaders" (at least they claim to be leaders), preach that you're not to blame for your actions...the police and the government are against you, so if something happens- it's their fault, not yours. It's sad and it's becoming very dangerous.

Two other articles-
The Death of Shame
Al Gore: No More Mr. Nice Guy

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Really for Peace?

Here is an article from CNN, about the first Muslim woman to win the nobel peace prize and her criticism of the United States. You will notice, like most muslims in the spotlight, she mentions the so called "occupation of Palestinian terroritories" (if you buy into that nonsense, I urge you to demand the United States promptly return Texas to the nation of Mexico), and she claims the following:

Don't give me that nonsense...the U.S. has used the war on terror to purposely restrict human rights and basic freedoms? That's a big charge...too bad it's rubbish, and you couldn't point to one thing that would make anyone with any reason to buy into that conspiracy theory. The U.S. has simply done what it needs to do to protect itself and its people- that's the government's mandate by the Constitution...and, it's common sense.

She also said the following:

Why? Maybe because the "occupation" - there is no such thing, Israel won the land in military conflict...military conflict that they DIDN'T start...to claim a nation is occupying land they won in a military battle that they were on the defensive in- well, that's just absurd, but it's just the usual nonsense coming out of the middle east on a regular basis. Again, if this is occupation, then the United States is clearly "occupying" Texas and most of the rest of the nation- don't forget the native americans who were forced off their land.

The UN is very much anti-Israel...since many of the members are middle eastern nations that oppose Israel's very right to exist. In my opinion, it's shameful that a peace prize winner, a so-called human rights proponent, would attack the U.S. and take the all-too-common anti-Israel stance like she has.

The Blame Game

Nutjob, Ozzy Osbourne has joined the growing chorus of celebrities, and Americans in general who refuse to take responsibilty for their actions. Osbourne, who is clearly a heavy drug user (watch one episode of that ridiculous MTV show, then try to tell me one word he just said), says he was addicted to painkillers- a drug regimen of 42 pills a day...but, it wasn't his fault! He blames his doctor for overprescribing the medication. Now, if we can just get Ozzy's doctor to tell him to jump off a cliff...

-------------------------------
From www.tvguide.com

THEY'RE NOT TIC-TACS: Ozzy Osbourne says his bizarre behavior on MTV's The Osbournes was the result of a 42-pill-per-day habit that he blames on a Beverly Hills doctor. Osbourne told the Los Angeles Times that his doc overprescribed a host of powerful antipsychotic and tranquilizing drugs. "I was wiped out on pills," he says. "I couldn't talk. I couldn't walk. I could barely stand up. I was lumbering about like the Hunchback of Notre Dame." On the bright side, it made for some great television.
-----------------

Speaking of television- below is another short story from tvguide.com. I continually ask myself how Saturday Night Live stays on the air...because, as they mention below- it does, indeed, suck.

IN RELATED NEWS...: Several NBC affiliates refused to air this weekend's SNL — featuring presidential candidate Al Sharpton as host — for fear it would activate federal "equal time" provisions and force them to offer air time to the eight other Democrats running for president. Millions of Americans, meanwhile, refused to watch the show for fear it would continue to suck.

No Difference in the 2 Major Parties?

Odd. C SPAN 1 is replaying a democratic event from Saturday, and the angry red faced maniac, Howard Dean, says that 50% of Americans have given up on voting, because they can't tell a difference between the two parties. Last I checked Dean is listed as a democrat...does that mean that he's basically a republican, since he's reaching out to those people who can't tell the difference between the two?

This guy cannot talk without being angry, angry, angry...I am so tired of seeing these pinheads on tv shouting, I hate Bush, I hate Bush- let's fix things by getting rid of Bush...what will I do as president? Well, let me tell you this much, it's not gonna be the same thing that Bush has done...Bush sucks, Bush sucks.

That's their overall message...I'll say it again- the democrats have absolutely no chance in 2004.

I'm just hoping that the media will start exposing more of the lies from the democratic candidates, showing the contradicting statements many of them make, and especially, I hope they expose the racist pig Al Sharpton for the fool he is.

It won't happen...but, I can still hope.

Oh, by the way- Dean just remarked that when Bush used the word "quota" to describe the admissions policy at the Univ. of Michigan, he was using the race card, playing on peoples' fears that they would lose their job or their place in college to a minority.

That's odd- affimative action is, by definition, a quota system. So, Bush merely stated a fact (stating facts is now playing the race card in Dean's mind.) And, losing your place in college to a minority with lower scores is the VERY reason we know about the Univ. of Michigan admissions policy...that all started when a white student wasn't admitted because she was WHITE, and they had to basically reach a quota of minority students...by giving minority students extra points just for the color of their skin- so, again, Dean tries to twist the facts and make the situation out to be something it isn't. He says that people are scared into thinking they might lose their place in college or jobs...yet, that's exactly what happened at UofM! And it's exactly what happens at universities and companies across the nation. Why lie? Can a candidate not be honest? And why is it that these candidates for 2004 are some of the biggest liars I have seen in recent history? There have always been dishonest candidates for president, but it seems to me that this bunch takes the cake...or maybe I'm just paying more attention.

By the way...John Kerry- ya know, the guy who looks like the ghostface killer from the Scream movies...used the F-word to attack Bush just recently. Here is a story about this from worldnet daily.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...we know. You were in vietnam, you were in vietnam,

you were in vietnam, you were in vietnam, you were in vietnam...no matter how many times you repeat it, you still have no chance of getting the presidency.

More Idiots in Cincinnati

More idiots in Cincinnati, claiming racism, murder, and police terrorism. Good thing people with brains don't take these fools serious.

If I were mayor of this city, I would crack down on these protestors, because they're creating a public danger...they're ignorance could be putting police officers' lives at risk, so I would crack down and put an end to this nonsense.

These fools claim that police have the blood of 19 black men on their hands- they don't mention any whites killed by cops...not sure if any whites have been killed...they neglect to mention the circumnstances in which the black men were killed- statistically, blacks commit far more violent crimes than whites, if you consider that whites make up a much larger percentage of the population (source)- black men actually commit more murders than white men, tho blacks make up less than 20% of the US population. I would wager to guess it's a really large margin in Cincinnati. (the stats I have read show that most of the deaths of blacks in that city were from black-on-black crime, a fact none of these racists would admit to.) They don't care about black men or women...or any other men or women of any color- they care about power and fear...you brainwash the people into being scared and you can control them. Shameless...

True Crime: Streets of L.A.

I sat down for an hour earlier to play the Playstation 2 game, True Crime: Streets of L.A. It, of course, reminds me of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, but I like the cars and the different choices in vehicles with Vice City- so far...I haven't played any of the missions, just drove around doing the mini-crimes while you're driving to your goal.

The controls are nice, but again, I'm trying to use the controls for Vice City when I play this game...since, they're very similar in there in-the-car, out-of-the-car action. You can take anyones car, and you can drive around doing whatever you want.

You have missions that have animated scenes in between them, with the characters being explained, and all of that...I didn't listen to or watch any of the scenes yet, so I have no idea what the game is all about. All I do know is that in this game, you're a cop- the good guy...and you're out to get the bad guys. The city of L.A. - you can go to Hollywood, Chinatown, Downtown, Beverly Hills, the 10 and the 110, the 405, etc. All like in real L.A. Not so sure if the streets are set up realistically, but it's a big area the game covers in general. I haven't noticed any buildings you can go into yet...and no people to interact with- unless you consider shooting, kicking, punching, or searching, "interacting."

It's decent so far...maybe better than Vice City, but I should know more later when I play some real missions. The character is pretty cool...some asian guy who can do some karate looking moves, kicks, punches, whatever...my only complaint so far is the sometimes awkward controls and the cars you can drive- they all seem very slow and don't seem to handle very well.

Interview

I just got back from an interview at WNIN...the local PBS station. The position is a weekend job for master control operator. I stammered on some of the questions, I wasn't nervous to begin with, but they were the sort of people who had no personality and didn't try to make the interview light at all. No smiles, no laughs, nothing. It's so hard to tell them "why you'd be a good addition to our team." and stuff like that. I have a hard time answering that stuff.

Anyhow, I don't know how well I did. The guy gave me a tour (it was a man and a woman interviewing me, the lady left and thanked me, I thanked her...then, the guy gave me a tour, showed me the control rooms and then took me down to the studio where they produce live stuff. He thanked me and said he'd be in touch, so we'll see. Today is Friday, so I will call them Monday morning to see if they made a decision. Let's hope...

Blue Site/Josh Imposters

I just noticed from my stats this site here-
http://www.loaded-gun.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=977

Someone has made a name claiming to be me and listing my website as their site. That's just weird...people really need to get a hobby, instead of trying to BE me.

I assure you, that is not me on that forum.

Government Waste- Spending Gone Wild

Interesting stats:

Congress 'Piles on the Pork,' Group Says
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
December 04, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - A group that monitors government waste is finding plenty to complain about in a huge new spending bill.

Citizens Against Government Waste said the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal 2004 - which contains seven spending bills rolled into one - "is stuffed to the brim with parochial projects."

The 1,448-page bill totals $820-billion, and because it is an "omnibus" bill, it is a magnet for pork barrel projects, the group said in a press release.

Here are some of the items CAGW believes taxpayers should find objectionable:

-- $18.5 million added by the House for the International Fund for Ireland;

-- $1 million added by the House for the Alabama Supercomputer Education Outreach Program;

-- $725,000 added in conference for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, Pa.;

-- $400,000 added in conference for the New York Botanical Garden's Virtual Herbarium project in the Bronx;

-- $387,000 added in conference for the Whittier Public Library Children's Area and History Room in Whittier, Calif.;

-- $250,000 added in conference for exhibits at the Cleveland (Ohio) Health Museum;

-- $200,000 added in conference for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland for the Rockin' the Schools education program;

-- $200,000 added in conference for the Historical Society of Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh for exhibit and curriculum development for the Western Pennsylvania Sports Museum at the Senator John Heinz Pittsburgh Regional History Center;

-- $50,000 added in conference for the Alaska Moving Image Preservation Association in Anchorage to digitize files/photos/videos of Alaskan history; and

-- $50,000 added in conference for the Imaginarium Science Center in Anchorage to develop science exhibits and distance discovery modules.

Citizens Against Government Waste describes itself as a nonpartisan organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government.

Jobs Really Lost Under President Bush?

I'm listening to Sean Hannity's radio show online right now. It's the archived show from today. Sean was giving out stats, debating the claim that jobs have been lost under the Bush administration. I went to the department of labor website, and from there on to to the bureau of labor statistics site- and here are the numbers of jobs from January 2001 (under Clinton) and October 2003 (under Bush):

---------------------------------------------------

So, if these numbers are correct- it seems that we've been lied to, and the U.S. economy HASN'T lost jobs under President Bush. I'm not sure what other factors are part of these numbers and stats, but on the surface it seems Hannity is correct.

I have to also mention the girl on the radio show from babes against bush...some guy came up with this (he's an idiot, as I saw him on Hannity and Colmes- he called Sean a liar, tho he never lied (I just heard the evidence myself, and he said 'stop smoking crack- genius debater, I know.) Anyhow, the girl who is Miss November in the calendar was asked about why she was against bush, and she said that her only role in the calendar (besides showing her naked body) was to get people out to vote, and to vote for the person they wanted to vote for...Babes AGAINST BUSH doesn't care how you vote, and they have no agenda (yea right.)

She got all pissy and they said goodbye. Sean had Flipper (or maybe someone else?) call her back and ask her..."what's the name of the vice president?" This bimbo asks "the vice president of the people who are doing the calendar?" -- (paraphrased) -- Sean said, no, the vice pres. of the country. The girl put the phone down and started talking to some guy in the same room named David, I think that was his name, saying that Sean was ridiculous and she wasn't going to talk to him about her political beliefs and stuff. She then hung up.

The guy who runs the calendar and puts it together called Hannity a liar earlier tonight on Fox News, saying that the girl DID know the Vice President's name...but, as I said- don't call someone a liar if they never lied. Then they guy went on about the issue, and said that Sean ambushed the poor girl. Note to girl- don't call into a radio show after you pose nude for a calendar BABES AGAINST BUSH and claim that you have no agenda...that you don't want to sway people away from Bush, and that you refuse to talk about your beliefs. You're a fool just like the other two pinheads with the calendar that appeared on the tv show after the radio show.

Hillary- "Building Morale" while Attacking the President

I cannot stand Hillary Clinton. She's a liar and a crook...both personality traits proven well beyond doubt by numerous writers.

I have been hearing about her comments in Iraq, tho frankly I'm not sure what her comments were. I hardly listen to anything this fool says, and I'm not about to start now.

Anyhow, I was reading slate (slate.com) and came across some comments about Clinton's trip to Iraq (poor Hillary was upstaged by the President, which must have been a complete shock to her, since she adores the spotlight), and some very interesting points are made.

She claims she went to bolster the morale of the troops...but, while talking to the troops, she attacked the Bush administration a number of times, saying that many Americans have questions about the policies of the administration- a comment I don't necessarily agree with- I think most Americans stand firmly behind the President on Iraq. She shows her true colors when she makes the sort of comments she did in Iraq.

She isn't interested in public service, and she isn't interested in the people she serves. What Hilary (and Willie himself) loves is to be in the spotlight...to be adored by as many people as possible. She has no interest in serving the common good in Congress- she simply wants the powe that comes along with a Congressional seat.

How else do you explain a campaign for Congress by a woman with no experience in any public office, whose only credits are completely failing in healthcare in Arkansas as the first lady of that state, and the entire nation as first lady of the country?

A woman whose "credits" are a long list of scandals including fostergate, filegate, travelgate, the white water land deals, the rose law firm scandal, the illegal practices by the McDougal-run S&L, the Lewinsky scandal (remember, it was all a "vast right- wing conspiracy" against her husband, that is- until he admitted he lied to his colleagues, the courts, and the American public about the matter), and a number of other scandals that should be haunting her now, but for some miracle are doing no such thing.

This is a woman who doesn't have an honest bone in her body, and would probably do anything- legal or illegal- to secure herself any position of power. She is not a person who needs to be telling our troops anything to try to bolster their morale- I don't think she could bolster morale if her life depended on it. I mean, this is the woman who was married to a president that was never respected by our men and women in uniform. As always, Hillary says one thing, while saying another out of the other side of her mouth.

----------------------------------
text below taken from (http://slate.msn.com/id/2091818/)

Sunday, November 30, 2003

Whose PR Stunt? From Reuters--

Dan Feldman, a National Security Council director under former President Bill Clinton, called the trip a "great PR stunt ... yet another in a long line of photo ops that don't say anything concrete about improving security and what our long-term plans are." [Emph. added]

How was Bush's trip just a "great PR stunt" (using Iraq "as his stage") and Hillary Clinton's trip not just a less-great PR stunt using Iraq as her stage? Both politicians met with Iraqis as well as American troops. Both discussed substance. The difference is that Bush has a central role in the actual decision-making structure while Hillary's trip was a classic self-promotional effort by one of 100 senators. ... And, pace Howard Owens, there was something unseemly about Clinton's inability to refrain from sniping at Bush until she returned home. It's not that she violated the hoary bit of etiquette that says a U.S. politician should never criticize a U.S. president on foreign soil. I've never completely understood that rule. If Hillary had gone to Iraq and flat-out blasted Bush, that would have been fine by me. The problem is she smarmily wanted to have it both ways, pretending her trip was in part a morale-building visit to the troops ("I wanted to come to Iraq to let the troops know about the great job they're doing") while she griped about the mission the troops were on. Here's a home state paper account:

The morale of the troops, she said, "is very high," but she said the military personnel with whom she spoke in meetings and during "two turkey dinners" wanted to know "how the people at home feel about what we are doing."

" "Americans are wholeheartedly proud of what you are doing,' " Clinton said she replied, " "but there are many questions at home about the (Bush) administration's policies.' "

Bet that fired them right up! ... [Links via Lucianne and Instapundit]

Update: Howard Owens and Bill Herbert take issue with the above post, largely on the grounds that a) what Hillary said was accurate--there are "many questions" at home and b) "military people aren't too fragile to be given straight talk" or to hear Hillary's criticisms of current U.S. policies. All true, but that's not the point. Even if military people are quite strong enough to hear antiwar criticism, surely at some point that criticism, however frankly expressed, can't be portrayed as morale building. If you went to Iraq and told the troops, say, that they were doing the bidding of Halliburton and imposing alien Western values in a way calculated to increase terrorism directed at Americans, that might be admirable "straight talk" but would be hard to honestly portray as letting "the troops know about the great job they're doing."

That's not the anti-Bush criticism Hillary made, of course. But what she did say struck me as neither as supportive nor as honest as it should have been. It would be one thing to tell the troops, "We're all proud of you, though there are many questions at home about whether we are withdrawing too fast or too slow, or becoming bogged down." It's another to say there are "many questions about the administration's policies." The first is the perspective of a citizen. The second is the perspective of a Democratic partisan. The first says that we're all in this together and we're all worried and we can disagree on how to do it and this is how I would improve things. The second says "this isn't America's policy, it's Bush's policy." It implies that whenever a policy comes in for criticism from voters, Hillary--who voted for the war, after all--will disavow any connection to it. This search for partisan advantage carried over into Hillary's other criticisms of Bush. Here, in particular, is a news report with Clinton comments Bill Herbert says are "constructive":

As she has on each leg of her three-day trip, Clinton questioned the White House battle plan for restoring order and stability to Iraq and Afghanistan.

"It's going to take more time than has been allotted for the process to take hold," said Clinton, referring to the July deadline by which Bush aims to transfer power back to the struggling Iraqis.

"I don't think we should be setting artificial timelines as this is a very challenging undertaking and we need to work with our Iraqi counterparts and make sure that the steps that are being taken are going to work," added Clinton, who is due back in Washington today. [Emphasis added.]

It seems to me this is not constructive. It's almost entirely a partisan cheap shot. "Artificial timelines" can be very useful, both in forcing action and making it clear that something --i.e., the transfer of sovereignty--will happen. I think Hillary knows this. The Bush administration is clearly struggling with the need for a quick transition, on the one hand, and the need for "the process to take hold" on the other. I think Hillary knows this too. If the process hasn't taken hold by next June, the Bushies may let the deadline slip--and Hillary knows that. But in the meantime, denouncing the "artificial" quality of the timeline is a nice, safe criticism for Hillary to make, along with all her other safe third-order process-criticisms of the war. If Bush hadn't set out a timeline, don't you think Hillary would be criticizing him for that--'We have no clear plan for restoring Iraq, no timeline. We are just muddling ahead,' etc? Hillary's criticism isn't a real criticism or an honest criticism, it's a strategic, partisan criticism, and it's the sort of un-straight talk she should drop when she's talking to the troops in a war zone.

I should add that until Hillary's Iraq trip, I--like many Democrats surveying the current presidential candidates--had been feeling strange new respect for her. Now I remember why I used to loathe her. ...

Update: Atrios notes Hillary is a member of the Armed Services Committee. Good point, but I don't see where that changes the picture much. She's still not making Iraq policy and negotiating with the Governing Council etc.. Bush is, and did some of this on his trip. Hillary's visit was still at least as much a PR platform as his was. And her negative comments were still partisan in a way that contradicted her pretensions to morale-boosting. ...

More: Dick Morris thinks the right thing for Clinton to do was "go to Iraq, say nothing but supportive things to the troops, make a point of avoiding criticism of Bush--and then unloose a salvo on arriving home." And the troops wouldn't hear that? I sympathize with Morris' critique, but tend to think geography is less important these days. The troops are never "out of earshot." The problem was the inauthentic nature of Hillary's criticism, not that she made it over there instead of over here. [Morris is competing for your anti-Hillary ecological niche, so you trash him--ed. Think he has that niche sewn up] ... 12:53 A.M.

Ah, How Quickly They Forget

How quickly liberals attack Bush, and how quickly they seem to forget. This CNN story from 1998 reports on, then President, Clinton's decision to order air strikes against Iraq, addressing the American people with the following quote:

It seems that most liberals have forgotten that Bush, who they cannot help but attack on every single issue, has done basically the same thing that Clinton did in '98, tho Bush has more resolve to finish the job.

Clinton made note that he knew Iraq had chemical, bio, and a nuclear weapons program after the first gulf war, and that Hussein still possessed the same weapons at the very end of his own term as President...yet, liberals, especially the 9 idiots (read- dem pres. candidates) attack Bush, claiming he misled the American public into war with Iraq based on lies.

Even Senator Hillary Clinton wants to jump on that bandwagon, calling Bush a liar, inadvertently calling her own husband a liar with the same comments aimed at Bush.

It's about time that liberals make up their minds on the issues, and stop contradicting themselves. It would quite helpful if they would stop using partisan politics at every turn, and be consistent on the issues that the American public face. They praised Clinton as a genius, tho they attack Bush for saying the same thing their beloved Commander in Chief said himself. If the 9 miserable failures (yes, I am now Dick Gephardt) don't cut the politics and nonstop attacks and stick to the facts, they won't have a chance in hell in '04...not that they have a chance anyhow, but still, they could give us all a nice surprise by uttering some ideas of their own and maybe some honesty with those ideas.

John Kerry's Flipflop

John Kerry is flipflopping now. He made extreme statements, claiming Bush is basing operations in Iraq on politics...and that we could be in Iraq for decades, comparing it to Vietnam (he's obsessed with Vietnam- yes, John, we realize you were in Vietnam, now shut up.) Then, he claimed that Bush is planning to cut and run, which is an outright falsehood, since Bush has said time and time again that he refuses to cut and run, and that no matter what political pressure comes, he will not sell the Iraqi people out and leave them. Kerry also said that Bush is irresponsible for planning to hand over power to the Iraqi Governing Council. Tho, Bush didn't plan on this originally, but only made these plans on this to appease the UN.

Kerry also claimed that anger, referring to Dean, will get the country nowhere, and that you have to have answers...yet, Kerry himself seems to be getting angrier everyday.

Some of Kerry's answers to the problems we face are appeasing the Iranians, claiming that we can have normalized relations with the leaders of Iran, who openly support terrorism, and are currently building nuclear weapons. He also says that NATO should have a bigger role in Afghanistan, and that the UN should take over in Iraq- the same UN that refused to help in the overtaking of the Hussein regime. Kerry claims to have ideas, but it seems that the majority of them are just plain bunk. Not to mention, he's starting to contradict himself like Dean and Clark.

The Deadly Truth about PETA

I have talked about the morons at PETA before, and I will continue to do so, helping to expose the truth about these dangerous extremists. Here are a few things that PETA doesn't want you to know, courtesy of a nice new site I found called consumerfreedom.com

"Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

— Ingrid Newkirk, President and Co-Founder of PETA

"Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works."

— Ingrid Newkirk, President and Co-Founder of PETA

“It would be great if all the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow.”

— Bruce Friedrich, PETA Campaign Director, July 3, 2001

Find out more information about the fools at PETA here.

The False Legacy of JFK

Another nice article from the washington dispatch. This one on JFK and some 'errors' surrounding his legacy.

Also- a British prison officer was fired recently because of a comment he made about terrorist, Osama Bin Laden...his supervisors said they had no choice but to fire him, because his comments (he threw some keys in a chute and when asked about why he threw them so hard, he explained there was a picture of Bin Laden there) were "insensitive" to some of the muslims in the area. Gosh, we couldn't have people being "offended" by a simple comment about the man who lead attacks that killed over 3, 000 innocent people! This is another example of liberalism at its worst. We want to protect everyone from being offended- even if they're "offended" by a comment about a mass murderer. This is absurd.
(story on yahoo news)

Howard Dean Unraveling Under Scrutiny

Dean and his angry, screaming, rants annoy me to no end- I have always said that his whole angry guy routine is wearing thin (it was always thin with me, since he makes no sense), and that screaming nonsense will never get anyone elected...so, I thought I'd post this nice article I found while browsing a bit ago.

Howard Dean Unraveling Under Scrutiny

by CK Rairden
(found at http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_7267.shtml)

Dec 3, 2003

Unpolished, angry and loud has elevated Howard Dean to the frontrunner perch of the pack of Democrat presidential wannabes. But Dean is uncomfortable being labeled as the frontrunner. And rightly so. The intense scrutiny is showing a side of Dean that his campaign would like to keep away from mainstream America for as long as possible.

Dean had a good gimmick campaign going until he vaulted to the front of the pack and began reading his own press clippings. He was under the radar screen, shouting and screaming all things anti-Bush and anti-war and the far left ate it up. They were his audience and no matter how foolish he sounded or looked it only reinforced his support among the angry. He was reckless, red-faced and ridiculous. But no one cared. He was merely a dark horse at the time.

Now everywhere you turn, Howard Dean in front of a TV camera or a radio microphone spouting the same nonsense. And now, people are listening because of his frontrunner status. In the last few weeks the scrutiny shows Dean is unraveling with some wild accusations and policy statements.

Howard Dean has:

--Told ABC news that he would unseal his Vermont gubernatorial records as soon as President Bush unseals his Texas gubernatorial records. He then was told that President Bush’s records are unsealed. He must now be true to his word and unseal his records or give his political enemies big ammunition. Of course unsealing the records may be worse.

--Claimed that if elected he would re-regulate key sectors of the U.S. economy, including reversing the deregulation of the media saying, “we’re going to break up giant media enterprises.” All that did was reinforce his big government, nanny-state label.

--Single handedly resurrected the Soviet Union (apparently confusing it with Russia) with this statement on Hardball, “I believe, to Iran is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran, I believe, most likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union and it may require us to buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran to prevent Iran from them developing nuclear weapons.” Not only is that some strange thinking on the Middle East but his “Soviet Union” comments magnifies his lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge.

--Led credence to a 9/11 conspiracy theory on WAMU radio (DC’s NPR) by stating “The most interesting theory that I've heard so far - which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved - is that [President Bush] was warned [about the 9/11 attacks] ahead of time by the Saudis.” His disclaimer was clever, but even repeating this gives his political opponents a reason to lump him in with the conspiracy theory kooks.

--Reinforced his peacenik reputation by telling Chris Mathews on MSNBC’s Hardball that the best way to reduce hostility between the east and the west is “ treat people with respect and they will treat you with respect.” Whew--let’s all join hands and sing kum-bah-yah.

Howard Dean needs to realize that he is not running for the mayor of San Francisco. He’s wrapped up the rabid anti-Bush voter, and even so it’s understandable that he doesn’t want to move to the center---but his blame America first, nanny state nonsense and conspiracy theories will be a hard sell to the mainstream.

When Howard Dean is speaking to his angry anti-Bush supporters, these views are worn as a badge of honor. But as these wild accusatory statements and far left policies leak out into mainstream America, Dean is hurt politically. He needs to reassess his campaign strategy and try to fade back into the background. No longer will Howard Dean campaign stops, meet-ups and town hall meetings go without cameras. His frontrunner status guarantees that.

But going on the Chris Mathews Hardball program for an hour, even as soft as Mathews was with him, and appearing on ABC only allows the real Howard Dean to be revealed. And it is ugly to the mainstream. If Howard Dean continues this strategy he will unravel and self-destruct too soon to win the Democrat nomination for President. Right now, it’s his to lose. And Dean can lose it if he doesn’t slow down and keep out of the spotlight as much as possible.

Howard Dean needs to take a page from North Carolina basketball legend Dean Smith’s playbook and go to the four-corner stall. He’s close to having this in hand, but too much offense can bring down his candidacy.

For Dean--it’s either the four-corner stall or a fiery flameout.

Racism in Cincinatti

This is making me sick. These morons- family members for the guy who died after he was taken into custody. I talked about it before (yesteday?)

They keep saying, he's not violent, and he's never been violent! These idiots are saying "what was done to provoke him and make him violent?"

They claim that the man never bothered anyone at the white castle where the police got him. Tho, that can't be true, since the employees of the white castle are the ones who CALLED police because of his behavior.

They claim that the video from the police cruiser was shut off to hide something.

They claim that the police are hiding stuff in their reports and investigation.

Here's the kicker- this was a 350 pound man who attacked police...the autopsy found traces of COCAINE AND PCP in his body!!!!! PCP makes you VIOLENT! He also had an enlarged heart, sleep disorders, and high blood pressure...and, umm the big one here- he weighed 350 pounds! How can we expect cops to go out and do their jobs, protect the people of the city, and NOT defend themselves against 350 pound maniacs high on PCP that repeatedly attack them? You will never see the white community in this city- or any other- start riots or hold press conferences claiming racism and conspiracies. Why is that you ask? It's that too many people in the black community (especially in this city) are obsessed with race. They have been brainwashed by the so called "leaders" of the black community- Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others...who put all their effort into making these people think that racism is a huge problem in 2003...that when anything happens- the first thing that should come to mind is racism. That, whenever bad things take place against you or your family- you should cry racism, because that's clearly why it happened. Too many leaders in the black community have a problem with personal responsibility. They refuse to admit that anything that happens is the fault of each and every person- it's almost always the fault of the evil white man who has opressed the black man and caused him to act the way he does.

Drugs in the community? That was caused by the economic opression of the white community- which forced the black community to live in poverty, which caused desperation, which caused people to turn to selling drugs, which turned into gang activity, which lead to an epidemic of criminal activity in general. ALL the fault of the white man. I could give a hundred examples of the evil things the big bad white man has done, and how he hates the black man and wants no part of him or his family. Or maybe...JUST MAYBE, we should all take some responsibility for our own actions and stop blaming everyone around us? Is it possible that the problems we face are of our own doing?

Anyhow, back to the subject at hand...

I am digusted by large groups of the black community in Cincinatti. They rioted over police protecting themselves before (from a man who SHOT at them!), and now they're claiming that this man is innocent of any wrongdoing, and it's clear that his violence was provoked by police, and that the police are to blame for his overall violent behavior (not the drugs)...also, they're claiming racism on the part of the police and the city, and they're claiming a conspiracy in this situation. The members of the community that are supporting these claims should be ashamed of themselves.

CNN is just as digusting. Wolf Blitzer said he was "beaten to death" by police- but that's a lie...he didn't die at the scene! CNN, again, shows they're totally inept. Also, MSNBC had text on the screen that said 6 officers were on leave due to the incident, yet they neglect to mention that putting officers on leave after incidents such as this is standard procedure...so, it easily leads one to believe that something MUST be awry, since they were put on leave, tho officers are always put on temporary leave when things like this happen and the department sorts things out.

I will post more facts about this soon. Not that I have a very big platform here, but whatever small platform I have- I'll use it to make sure these fools don't get away with the lies without being called on the carpet for them. I will make sure that the truth is exposed and that these racial profiteers are put in their place.

New ABC Series: Line of Fire

Just watched the premiere of ABC's new FBI/Mafia series LINE OF FIRE, starring Leslie Bibb. Really good show...only bad thing is the main star of the show- Leslie Bibb! Her character is a new special agent with the FBI, they showed her in the academy- she's a character you cannot stand...she gets in trouble at the academy for jumping into the pool and getting back on the platform to jump again (she can't swim, yet suddenly does fine on her second try miraculously), and the old guys talk to her about her problem with authority. It's all that "been-done-before" feeling with her character. She tells this sob story about how her husband died in the pentagon on 9/11, and how she promised, "I'll get those bastards," so she joined the FBI. I thought her overall story and reason for being in the FBI was lame and annoying. She then shows up a week early for her first assignment in Richmond, Virgina- she's replacing an agent who was murdered by this mafia guy at the beginning of the show, and her superior tells her to go home. She complains and says she wants to get started now, then the superior (Lisa Cohen) gets upset, tells her the guy just died that she's replacing...go home, I don't want to see you for a week. Dumbass new agent doesn't listen (that problem with authority again), and Agent Cohen is pissed, telling her she's never suspended an agent in the first 45 minutes.

I'm probably not making much sense to people who didn't see it, but these types of overzealous characters with lame backstories annoy me, and I need to vent my frustration on the issue! Well, that's that with that. (inside line from the show there)

Anyhow, the rest of the show is great. Nice cast- nice character, beautifully shot...looks more like a movie than an ABC series. The story is nice- this Malloy crime syndicate is at war with the FBI in Richmond, Virgina, the FBI agent is killed, the new agent is taking his place...the crime family is bringing in new blood (a guy we discover at the end is really an FBI agent undercover, who actually spent 2 years in prison undercover.) I'm sure this show will do well ratings-wise, and I'm sure the critics will like it as well. I'm just upset that I didn't tape the pilot tonight.

The series is pretty violent for network tv. A football player who screwed up a bet that the mafia boss made gets his arms and hands broken with a sledge hammer, while tied to a tree...then, there's a scene where the new mafia guy shoots this drug dealer, then pops an old lady walking down the street with groceries who saw him (later, we learn, it was all a setup by the FBI, helping the dealer go into protective custody, and no one was really killed.) There was also a scene where one of the mafia henchmen is in trouble for letting the dealer sell the boss' nephew crack (or something- it was somewhat confusing), and they had a pillow case looking thing over his head, tied to a chair on some dock...and they kept beating his head in, blood soaking the thing over his head- then the guy kicks the chair he's tied to into the water, drowning him. So, definitely a violent show for network tv- more on par with the Sopranos than Law and Order or any other crime drama on tv.

I'll be watching next week...probably taping the episodes from now on.

DEC 3, 2003 (2PM):

I read Matt Roush's review of this show in TV Guide, and he likes it a lot, but here is another review (not so positive) from some online newsletter I get. I'm confused...I thought the old lady who got shot wasn't really shot at all. If she was, then that made no sense, as this review makes note. I don't rememer any scenes where feds raided any mob hideouts, and the mobsters didn't look exactly beautiful to me. I did notice the fbi agent wearing the shirt with her boobs hanging out, which I found odd...but I surely wouldn't call the very short haired agent, Cohen (the woman who played the wife on 24 season 1) beautiful! She's not attractive at all if you ask me...unless you like women who look to be in their 40's with not very nice faces and short hair. I, myself, do not.

Anyhow, the mobsters on the Sopranos seem to dress nice...this review says that this show is trying to be like the Sopranos but fails. I think they were very similiar in how the mafia guys acted and dressed and all. Tho, we didn't see very many mafia characters, and we didn't to see any of them very long in last night's episode.

Touchy-Feeling Crime Boss in 'Line of Fire'
Tuesday, December 02
NETWORK TV should stop making gangster shows. They don't work. Not anymore. Not since "The Sopranos" ruined them for everyone else.

Why? Because "The Sopranos" got it right while the networks still get it completely wrong.

Mobsters don't look like models. They don't have great hair that tumbles.

They don't ever - did I mention ever? - deliberately have stubble or wear black jeans and shearling jackets à la Steve McQueen circa 1968.

Instead, mobsters wear terrible velor sweats, and their suits that have too much tailoring and too little style.

And ABC's new show "Line of Fire," which must have hired Barney's to do the costumes, gets the mobsters, their clothes, their lifestyles, and their behavior about as wrong as is humanly possible.

That said, I will also mention that "Line of Fire" doesn't get the FBI right either. FBI agents generally do not look like agents who model on the side, either. They don't go to work with cleavage and they don't sleep in push-up bras.

The days of models-as-tough guys went out with "Miami Vice." Networks: Stop trying to be what you'll never be, already, and try to make a show worth watching.

That said, let me tell you what works in "Line of Fire." For one thing the premise is a good one. It shows the parallel lives of FBI agents in Virginia and the "bad guys" (agents' favorite term) the FBI is trying to catch.

The baddest bad guy is the mob syndicate boss with the unlikely name of Jonah Malloy played by the unlikely David Paymer. Paymer looks as much like an Irish thug as I do.

I assume they were going for the young Uncle Jr. look, but it doesn't work. He's just not a scary guy no matter how many thugs he kills. It's like running away from your accountant. I run from mine, but it's because he always wants me to file my taxes - not because I'm afraid he'll set me on fire and break my legs.

The head fed is Lisa Cohen played by the wonderful Leslie Hope ("24"), who is also too good looking for the job. Her staff is made up of equally good looking people, none of whom have her ability to be so believable as to make you overlook her looks.

There are, of course, the young brash rookies and the rogue undercover agent, Roy Ravelle (gorgeous Anson Mount) who, for reasons not made clear - or maybe believable - has been taken under the wing of the dreaded Jonah Malloy much to the consternation of Malloy's usual right-hand mangler Stubbs played by Brian Goodman of the Steve McQueen clothing and looks.

In the premiere, two FBI rookies, after squabbling, are assigned together to Richmond, Va. This happens after rookie agent Todd Stevens (Jeffrey D. Sams) cheats on his exam and is found out by rookie agent Paige Van Doren (Leslie Bibb). Luckily for Stevens, he gets to save Van Doren from drowning, thus proving that he's not all bad; he's a knight in shining armor.

Instead of coming up with original ideas, "Line of Fire" rehashes the old patriotic mobster-who-doesn't-like-drugs routine.

What's even more curious is that the FBI doesn't nail the guy for getting an old lady shot by mistake. The agents are more dangerous than the D.C. sniper.

What really got my head shaking, however, are the scenes when the feds raid a mob nest and all those models go running into dangerous situations to arrest the equally attractive mobsters. Ludicrous.

That aside, there are some good things here.

The plots are good, if not original, and so far they've managed to avoid the pole-dancing girl in the bikini in the nudie-bar scene, which is regulation in shows like this. The acting is very good - don't hate them because they're beautiful - and the idea for the show is a good one.

No, it ain't "The Sopranos" and it ain't "NYPD Blue," but it ain't so bad that it doesn't stand a chance.

"Line of Fire"Tonight at 10 on ABC

Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

Rich Morons

Paris Hilton and Nicole (or is it Nichole?) Richie are complete idiots and their parents should be shot for being idiots themselves. I'm just wondering how Richie has so much money if her dad is an 80's hack with no career now...

These girls are so stupid in this new show, The Simple Life, that Paris actually asks what Wal-Mart is, and Nicole says that she heard people from the country hang out there. Paris is so dumb, she couldn't find reverse in the truck they were driving, and Nicole says she doesn't even know how to drive- way too many limo drivers for her, I guess.

This show and the Rich Girls show on MTV both prove that many rich people never teach their kids anything, and that the rich are so far disconnected from the rest of America, and reality itself, that it's scary.

Richie is hot as hell tho...at least she's got the going for her, unlike Hilton, who is a complete beast, no matter what other might say about her looks. Then again, Richie is a brainless heroin addict, currently in rehab, and Hilton is a jobless moron who loves to tape herself having sex with different guys.

Dean Comments

Dean keeps talking about the nonexistant "Soviet Union," and he refuses to release his files as governor of Vermont until "he" (Pres. Bush) releases his...tho, Bush's records as governor of Texas are available to the public and NOT in the Bush Sr. Library as Dean claimed.

Also, I find it odd that he keeps harping like an angry baby about Iraq- when MOST of the US public SUPPORTED the war in Iraq! He's also the guy that signed the civil union law in Vermont- another thing (gay marriage or unions- which is the SAME thing) that Americans are against overwhelmingly! Why does this guy go against the majority so far left and expect to be elected ANYTHING? Finally, if this idiot talks about balancing the budget for TINY Vermont, like it's some miracle, I will kick him in the head. He governed VERMONT for God's sake!

Also- the big fat drug raged idiot in Cincinatti, who died after police had a scuffle with him...I will talk about that later, as well as the IDIOTIC black groups (yes, any group that uses the race card to support the supposed rights of drugged up criminals who attack police ARE idiotic) that are trying to force action against the police. Too many in the black community in that city have shown their ignorance and irresponsibility on racial issues (that really had nothing to do with race, outside of their own imaginations) before with the riots and with other issues (you'll never see the white community rioting, face the facts.) I just think it's too bad that the cops didn't beat the guy WHO WAS ATTACKING THEM AND HIGH ON 2 DIFFERENT DRUGS AND HAD A MAJOR HEART PROBLEM to death themselves. It's a dangerous job, and it seems the public (usually black groups who won't face the truth that blacks commit more crime) cannot give these guys who risk their lives a break.

Take any of that as racist if you want...but, if you do, you, yourself refuse to face the clear facts (statistics included), and are prone to extreme ignorance.

Clark Strategy Downhill Again

Can Wesley Clark run a worse campaign? The man flipflops on issues, he yells at people when they read back his own statements, then he contradicts himself...now, he's saying goodbye to the common folk and hello to Hollywood. Read this article from the Washington Dispatch. Clark is so inept at running a campaign, you can't help but laugh at him.

Clark and the 8 other miserable failures (oops, that's Gephardt's line) need to take a page from the President's playbook.

NY Times Refuses to Acknowledge Big Holiday Sales

Someone on talk radio mentioned this today- I think it was Bill O'Reilly. Then, I saw the same news on Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume.

I did a bit of researching of my own, and found that the NY Times is one of the only major papers that had a negative outlook on holiday sales, and had a headline that read "Early Sales Appear Modest as Holiday Season Begins," while other major newspapers had headlines like these below:

and some notes within the articles-

The NY Times refuses to have a rosey outlook on the economy, despite the fact that every other major newspaper in this country has the opposite opinion, and the facts show some record setting sales for some companies. The NY Times proves its liberal bias once again with this story...refusing to accept the economic recovery that many are saying is a direct result from the Bush tax cuts. Their headlines during the Iraq War were nothing but doom and gloom, when other major papers were reporting good news from that country. Many pundits made comments about the difference in headlines then, and as they should- they are doing the same thing now. It's a shame that liberal leaning people in this country have to hope and pray that the economy fails and that the war in Iraq is a disaster...if not, Bush's numbers will stay steady, or possibly even rise, and they couldn't possibly let that happen. Once again, The NY Times shows that it is untrustworthy in reporting the facts. If it's not misleading headlines, it's plagarists stealing stories from other journalists...I'm just waiting to see what's next.