December 31, 2003
"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
December 30, 2003
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
December 29, 2003
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.)
December 28, 2003
December 27, 2003
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.
December 25, 2003
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!
December 24, 2003
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.
December 22, 2003
"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:
Actually, there are more jobs/people working today than in 2000. There was a net job loss, but it was only 300, 000, NOT 3.3 million. Remember the terrorist attacks on Sept 11? Remember the recession that STARTED UNDER CLINTON? How is Bush to blame for the recession he inherited?
And jobs are being created right now in December 2003, and 2003 is set to be the best year for the U.S. economy in 20 years.
Yes, and these same 41 million Americans had no health insurance under Clinton. So, Clinton is a "miserable failure" as well, right?
Actually, as I mentioned, the recession started under Clinton. So, get it right- "Clinton's" recession is in its 29 month. I also mentioned that the economy is turning around and records in various markets are being set in the past few months.
As they were under Clinton.
As far as I can tell, this isn't true either. Statistically, there's no way the economy/jobs are their worst since the depression. The economy is set to be the best in 20 years.
No idea where this fact came from...but even if you go with their inaccurate info. (3.3 million), there's no way possible that the last 11 Presidents (over 50-60 years time, have lost less than 3.3 million jobs. Then again, the correct number in NET LOSS is 300, 000. The fact is, more people are working in 2003 than in 2000.
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.
December 21, 2003
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.)
December 20, 2003
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.
December 19, 2003
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.
December 18, 2003
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 portraya