The Blue Site

The Idiots at the Globe and Mail

Moronic Canadian journalists attack Fox News (and America in general) and the networks viewers, tho they don't get Fox News, nor have they ever seen any of it. Yet, they keep reminding you- they're honest. Yea...honest people hate things before they can even get a chance to SEE THEM!!

As you can see from this article, this journalist in particular hates America. He calls talking to Americans a "tonic." Yeah, because we know you and all other Canadians are so wonderful. One thing about Americans- we don't blindly hate Canadians...too bad we can't say the same for you. Blind hatred is a true sign of stupidity. So, hate away!

The Kerry Medal Meltdown

THE KERRY MEDALS MYSTERY -- AND WHY IT MATTERS
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Thursday, April 29, 2005

If John Kerry hadn't already clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, his medals meltdown on "Good Morning America" this week would have sunk his campaign. Much as Howard Dean's crazed "I Have A Scream" speech jolted voters into wondering whether someone so hotheaded should be allowed anywhere near the nuclear trigger, Kerry's abusive tirade on ABC gave millions of viewers a foretaste of how far presidential discourse will sink if Kerry becomes president.

Not one voter in 100 would vote against Kerry for trashing his Vietnam War medals at a Capitol Hill demonstration when he was 27 years old. What he did with his combat decorations in 1971 has no bearing on whether he is fit to be president today. That long-ago episode is an issue today only because Kerry's versions of it have changed so many times, and because it so perfectly typifies his lifelong habit of saying one thing today and something else tomorrow -- and then denying having done so.

So what *does* Kerry say he did with those medals? As with so many of his shifts and flip-flops, it's all on the record.

Take 1:

Q. Did Kerry throw his combat decorations away in a an antiwar protest 33 years ago?

A. Yes. As the Boston Globe reported on April 24, 1971, "John Kerry of Waltham, Mass., a former Navy lieutenant . . . said before he threw his medals over the fence: `I'm not doing this for any violent reasons, but for peace and justice, and to try to make this country wake up once and for all.' "

Take 2:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. Yes. In a Nov. 6, 1971 interview with WRC-TV, he recalled that the protesters had decided to "renounce the symbols which this country gives . . . the medals themselves." When the interviewer asked, "How many did you give back, John?" he answered: "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine." The interviewer noted that Kerry had won the Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts. Kerry: "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."

Take 3:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. No. In 1984, running for the Senate against a World War II Air Force veteran, he claimed he had refused to do so. "After showing a reporter his medals and ribbons on display in his Back Bay apartment," the Boston Globe reported on Oct. 15, 1984, Kerry "said he had disagreed with other protest leaders on throwing away medals." The medals he was seen tossing, Kerry added, were those of a "veteran from Lincoln [Mass.], at his request."

Take 4:

Q. Did Kerry throw his decorations away 33 years ago?

A. Medals, no; ribbons, yes. During his 1996 re-election campaign, he told the Globe that he only threw the ribbons pinned to his uniform. "Asked why he didn't bring his own medals to throw since it was planned weeks in advance," the Globe reported on Oct. 6, 1996, "Kerry said it was because he didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them." The medals he was seen tossing, he claimed, belonged to *two* other veterans -- the one from Lincoln and one from New York. "Kerry says he can't remember their names."

The variations don't end there. For example, his explanation that he "didn't have time to go home and get" the medals -- i.e., he would have trashed them if he could have -- is sharply at odds with his earlier "explanation" to the Boston Herald: "They're my medals. I can do goddam what I want with them."

On Monday's TV show, after being shown the tape of his younger self claiming to have thrown "six, seven, eight, nine" medals onto the trash heap outside the Capitol, Kerry heatedly insisted that he had pitched only his ribbons, not his medals. Then he insisted even more heatedly that "back then, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable. . . . there was no distinction . . . I think, *to this day,* there's no distinction between the two."

Well, if ribbons and medals are identical, then by his own admission he *did* throw away his medals. So why does he angrily maintain that he didn't? Why did he tell the Los Angeles Times last week, "I never, ever implied that I did it?"

Kerry could acknowledge that his various statements on the subject are inconsistent. He could apologize for his deception. He could even resort to the Bush Sidestep: "When I was young, I did a lot of foolish things." Instead he attacks the president over his National Guard service -- an assault he has now escalated on the campaign trail -- and accuses ABC of "doing the bidding of the Republican National Committee."

But the questions won't go away just because Kerry snarls at the questioners. By itself, the medals incident matters hardly at all. But as a surrogate for all the issues on which Kerry has ducked and dissembled, it matters very much.

"The candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner," the Village Voice remarked in an editorial this week. The Village Voice! If that's what they're saying on the far left, what must be going through the minds of the mainstream?


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

Idiots on Bush

Check out the pinhead (who cannot tell the truth- he lies in the very first paragraph) and his list of President Bush's "evil deeds."

Check out my comments on another LJ that explained the lie:

lol. found a lie in the very first "Evil deed."

----------------
"Bush likes to say that his enormous tax cuts that give hundreds of billions of dollars to America's wealthiest people are job-creation programs. But America has bled millions of jobs since Bush's tax cuts became law, so it's time to try something new."
----------------

first off, the job loss numbers are wrong. millions of jobs have not been lost under bush...half of the jobs in the country arent even counted on the list many bush haters take these numbers from. farming isnt listed in a lot of these numbers, nor are home based businesses. many would point to numbers that say there hasnt been a net loss at all. thats a matter of debate in the end. because no one can truly know how many jobs are lost or gained in any time period with so many "jobs" not even reported in the stats.

the clear lie here is tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. EVERY american who pays federal income taxes got a tax cut. so, unless every american who does so is part of the wealthiest americans group, then we know thats untrue.

the richest americans DO pay the bulk of the taxes...i guess its okay to punish people because theyve done well for themselves?

anyhow, as i said, millions of americans got tax relief- lower, middle, and upper class.

the economy is turning around, and nearly every economist says its due to the tax cuts...as they mention that tax cuts throughout the last serveral deacades have ALWAYS helped the economy. and, there was that teeny tiny terrorist attack in 2001 that screwed things up a bit.

so, the lesson? dont listen to a pinhead who lies within the first paragraph.

More Proof of the Liberal Bias in the Media

NBC's Today devoted a moving and inspirational segment on
Tuesday to a U.S. Army Ranger who was blinded in Iraq, Sergeant
Jeremy Feldbusch, followed by a live interview with Feldbusch and
a veteran blinded during World War II. But NBC's Ann Curry
couldn't resist trying to get Feldbusch to denounce the war. She
asked him: "Are you angry that what you were on a mission to
protect America against, weapons of mass destruction, may never
have existed at the time you parachuted into Iraq." Feldbusch
stood by how the war was justified, but Curry was not dissuaded,
pressing: "Was all of that worth the price you have paid?" And:
"The price you will pay for the rest of your life?"

MRC analyst Geoff Dickens caught the exchange which took place
during a lengthy taped piece aired during the 9am hour on the
April 27 show, in which Curry traveled to Blairsville,
Pennsylvania to chronicle Feldbusch's efforts to adapt to a new
life as a blind 24-year-old man. During the first days of the war
he was hit in the head with shrapnel.

As the two sat in what looked like a living room of a house,
Curry pressed him: "Are you angry that what you were on a mission
to protect America against, weapons of mass destruction, may never
have existed at the time you parachuted into Iraq."
Feldbusch: "We have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein in the Middle
East. We have taken him out of central control of the Middle East
and we're putting, trying to place a democracy in the center of
the Middle East."
Curry: "Was all of that worth the price you have paid?"
Feldbusch: "Yes."
Curry: "The price you will pay for the rest of your life?"
Feldbusch: "If I would have died while I was over there that
would've been worth everything that I've done."
Curry: "That commitment and caring brought him back recently
to the hospital where his life was saved to say thank you and to
cheer up the troops. Many waiting for reconstructive surgery...."

Following Curry's piece, live in studio, Matt Lauer talked
with Feldbusch and WWII vet Tom Broderick who was blinded during
that war. (NBC Nightly News ended Tuesday night with a story about
the two.)

Elton John Smokes Crack

First off, I don't watch American Idol...I don't watch any game shows. I used to watch price is right and all the game shows on USA Network during the day...but not anymore. Tho, if I had GSN, I'd watch them all the time.

Anyhow, Elton John claims the voting on American Idol is racist. Why? Well, here's what John says:

Ahhh...soooooo, because the ones YOU liked got voted off, it must be racism. I got ya. So, what if I said most of your music is downright terrible? Would you call me a bigot, because you happen to be gay, and I (personally) don't care for much of your music?

That's just hilarious. Because Elton John, who clearly thinks he is the lord christ, gets his favorites voted off, it's racism.

Interesting. He's gay and a stupid. What a combo!

Morons For Kerry

I just had to mention this idiot with the odd URL-

Here is my IM to the person who sent it to me...first, some comments from the site itself, and my reply to them to this person who sent the link. Totally making this guy look like a fool, but that wasn't too tough.
---------------------------
PART OF ARTICLE FROM: http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

To be fair, though, if I had turned the largest federal budget surplus into the largest deficit this nation has ever seen, abused the greatest patriotic sentiment felt in 30 years to fulfill my own personal agenda, and led our nation into unnecessary war under false pretenses, I'd be mudslinging too.

MY COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THESE LIES.

(11:28:08 PM): yea. golly...dont mention that little terrorist attack that took place. that couldnt have ANYTHING to do with it. no way. and the tech bubble that created all the money in the 90's that burst...gosh, that couldnt be at fault either. never. looks like were dealing with a genius here!
(11:29:27 PM): false pretenses? funny cause every member of the sec council said they agreed iraq wasnt fully complying and signed off on UN RES. 1441 that called for "serious consequences" if hussein did not fully comply with this one last chance...and he didnt, but they didnt act, because now we know many of these nations were involved in illegal oil trading with the regime! what an idiot to think someone is gonna read this and not poiint that out
--------------
funny...earlier in the writing, this guy says this

Trust me, buddy...you've no common sense. People with common sense don't hate people just because...they have legit reasons to not like a policy of someone. They don't leave out facts (as to the budget surplus/deficit issue), or claim Bush lied- when he didn't...or call it a meaningless war, when everyone on the sec. council agreed Hussein hadn't complied and still had WMD...after 12 years, 17 UN resolutions- people with COMMON SENSE take action.

So, another liberal fool who hates Bush for no real reason and wants to tell lies on his little website. No problem...I'm here along with millions of others to expose your lies and your nonsense. Good try, you lose...

Even MORE Arab Insanity

More insanity from those whacky arabs!

Leading Egyptian Journalist: The Jews are Behind Every Disaster or Terrorist Act
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD70004

This is so insane, it's scary. It's stuff like this that helps solidify my belief that the arab world in general is completely ignorant on nearly every subject out there. Hundreds of millions of people with no clue as to what's really going on...purposeful ignorance, the most likely reason, if you ask me. That is just completely crazy.

This all might not be the case (I don't live there, and I've never visted), but from everything you read in the western (read: not totally crazy) media, it's almost definitely true. Add that to the insane nonsense coming out of nearly every arab media outlet- and their obvious hatred of Jews and the state of Israel...plus, the commnents from arab leaders (I'm not aware of a single one who doesn't hate the Jews), and you've got a whole area of the globe that is either lied to, or hate the Jews so much they let themselves believe anything they hear about them. Either way, it's sad as hell.
-------------------
All of this article (linked above) is insane...from the internet hoax that jews were told not to go to work at the WTC on 9/11, and the guy claiming the US papers reported this...from the insanity about how the mosad carried out 9/11 to make arabs and muslims look bad...but, here is one part that stood out when i reread it-

"Terrorism is an Israeli product that Zionism invented in order to establish the State of Israel. Then this state used it [i.e. terrorism] in order to achieve its goals and aspirations to expand and to control the resources in the region. The Mossad carries out larger-scale [terrorism] in order to harm the good name of the Arabs, damage them and Islam, and slapping them [with the label of] terrorism.

That's hilarious. When have arabs EVER had a good name? Whew. That is comedy.

Christianity Under Fire- Falwell Confidential

Falwell Confidential

Date: April 22, 2004
From: Jerry Falwell

CHRISTIANITY UNDER FIRE

Recent circumstances have led me to believe that Christians in America are
increasingly at risk of becoming not just perpetual objects of ridicule, but
potentially of being openly persecuted and punished for their beliefs by
those pressing the absurd "tolerance" agenda.

One needs to look no further than the recent verbal assaults on President
Bush, who is outspoken about his Christianity, to see how secularists are
seeking to condemn him because of his sincerely-held beliefs.

In author Bob Woodward's new book, "Plan of Attack," President Bush is
quoted as saying he prayed "for the strength to do the Lord's will" before
committing the nation to war in Iraq.

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader subsequently claimed that Mr.
Bush is "unstable." Mr. Nader, referring to the president as a "messianic
militarist," actually suggested that Mr. Bush's reliance upon God is a
"separation of church and state" issue.

I wonder if Mr. Nader is even remotely familiar with the beautiful
expressions of faith of our Founding Fathers, men who possessed an acute
sense of indebtedness to Almighty God for helping them fashion this nation.
History recounts a profusion of unabashed indebtedness to God by our
Founders. I believe that Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin would
have been troubled by Mr. Nader's careless attack on President Bush's
convictions.

Thankfully, some of the president's defenders are attempting to shield him
from the gratuitous verbal assaults that have come into play.

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, retorted, "The president
turns to God for wisdom, and the elites get nervous. There is more than a
phobia at work here - it's a deep-seated hostility to any public expression
of religion."

I'll go one step further. This anti-Christian aggression is aimed at people
of faith who acknowledge the Bible as the inspired Word of God and who
endeavor to live their lives in devoted servitude to our beloved biblical
edicts. If the elites, as Mr. Donohue describes them, had their way, I
truly believe they would completely stifle the ability of Christians to
express themselves in the public square (and maybe even in many private
settings).

In this age of moral relativism, situational ethics and feel-good social
trends, absolute truth is seen as worthless and even dangerous to the public
good. Secularists know they will never be able to fully unleash their
agenda of utopian inclusion if Christians continue to have an influence on
the culture.

If you don't believe there is an effort to restrain biblical Christianity,
listen to this.

In Canada, the House of Commons has passed a bill that includes sexual
orientation as a protected category in the nation's genocide and hate-crimes
legislation. As reported at WorldNetDaily.com, critics of the legislation,
which was sponsored by a homosexual member of Parliament, believe that, in
some instances, the Bible will be tagged as "hate literature" under the
criminal code. In fact, the website reported that a Saskatchewan man has
already been fined by a provincial human-rights tribunal for taking out a
newspaper ad referencing Scripture that reproves homosexuality.

As I've reported in past columns, when my sermons air on Canadian
television, my staff must edit out any references to homosexuality or they
simply will not air. The collective mindset in Canada, for the most part,
is that the Bible is meaningless in terms of social policy.

In a troubling development, cloaked members of a group called the "Gay
Militia" this week disrupted a gathering of Christians who were discussing
the bill. They ranted, "Right-wing bigots go away; Gay Militia is here to
stay," while the Christians prayed for God's leading in the situation.

The scene was reminiscent of a December 1989 incident that took place at New
York's St. Patrick's Cathedral. A group of homosexual activists from "ACT
UP" thundered into the historic church as the late Cardinal John O'Connor
began his sermon and began screaming, throwing condoms at worshippers and
chaining themselves to pews.

The intolerance level toward Christians is becoming more and more fanatical
these days because homosexual-rights ideals have become completely
mainstreamed and accepted as established truth, especially in the media.
The impending result can mean only one thing - a growing undercurrent of
activity that seeks to brand Christians as social undesirables.

In the meantime, Christians need to heed the words of Jesus and be about the
Father's business. These are certainly troubling times, but believers need
to be equipped to invade the culture with the Gospel - even at the threat of
being labeled an extremist ... or worse. I can think of no higher honor
than being maligned or attacked for taking a stand for the Bible.

UN Political Cartoon

For those UN lovers out there who refuse to see the hypocrisy of this organization.

And, of course...something for the terrorist supporters who want to whine about the security fence...

John Kerry's UN Fetish

Here is Jeff Jacoby's new article...this time on John Kerry's "UN Fetish." First off, I have to say, this quote by Kerry [["George Bush has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."]] is WAY out of line. Quotes like this (and his infamous, GW "fucked up" quote from Rolling Stone- Kerry's way of kissing the younger crowd's ass, just like he'll switch and claim that he's Irish- he's not, to kiss the ass of the Irish when he talks to them) are why Americans, and I'm sure people the world over, cannot stand politicians in general. They seem to be, for the most part, hateful, arrogant men and women who are completely out of touch with the common man. Kerry needs to have some respect for, not just the president, but THE OFFICE of the President...

Jacoby is dead on in this piece. Kerry has no strategy whatsoever. His only claim is- Bush has alienated the world. He goes on and on about how Bush alienated the UN, and that's why they're not playing a bigger role in Iraq.

First- that's crazy. The members of the security council are almost surely guilty of taking money from the Iraqi regime in illegal oil shipments...we know that some of the nations are, indeed, guilty of this. THAT is why they didn't want Hussein overthrown...it's not because Bush is "inept" or "reckless" or "arrogant." Now, we find out that the UN is embroiled in the scandal with the food for oil program...which seems to indicate that high-ranking U.N. officials were taking bribes and funneling billions from the program, and dumping it straight into the lap of Hussein himself, while the Iraqi people starved.

Kerry's claims are just laughable in light of all that is going on in the UN right now. I won't even go into the fact that we're talking about a body that has nations like Syria in the human rights commission...a group that does NOT include the United States. Check out who IS part of the human rights commission (read the list, and you'll agree, it's a total joke.)

Some nations with the worst human rights records on earth have helped to "protect" human rights thru the UN Commission on Human Rights. The same body that has communist China as a member of the security council!

Kerry wants you believe it's Bush that alienated the UN and not the fact that the UN is so corrupt, and especially corrupt with Iraq, that there's no way they'd get involved, even if Hussein was outright murdering millions in gas chambers!

The UN is a farce, let's get that much straight. And Kerry's idea of going to that body and kissing the asses of corrupt governments to help with Iraq is plain crazy.

As Jacoby points out...Kerry is a one note kind of guy. UN, UN, UN, UN... He has no plan. He has no real ideas.
--------------------------

KERRY'S U.N. FETISH
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Thursday, April 22, 2004

For the better part of 18 months, John Kerry has bitterly denounced the Bush administration's conduct of international relations, above all in Iraq. Over and over he has pronounced his unsparing indictment: "George Bush has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."

That is remarkably hostile language for a presidential challenger. No major party candidate for the White House in modern times has so thoroughly abandoned the principle that politics stops at the water's edge.

On the other hand, voters clearly benefit when candidates articulate their differences, and make plain what is at stake on Election Day. After 18 months of honing his anti-Bush message, Kerry should be able to outline his alternative foreign policy with crystal clarity. He should have no trouble laying out a comprehensive vision for Iraq and the Middle East and explaining why it is superior to Bush's.

So why doesn't he do so?

On "Meet the Press" this week, NBC's Tim Russert pressed Kerry to spell out just what it is he hopes to accomplish in Iraq, and how his goals differ from Bush's. Among his questions: Do you believe the war in Iraq was a mistake? Do you have a plan to deal with Iraq? If you are elected, will there be 100,000 US troops in Iraq a year from now? Why do you say the UN and NATO should take over when they don't have the troops or the desire to do so?

Here is a representative excerpt from Kerry's replies:

"We need a new president . . . to re-establish credibility with the rest of the world. . . . Here is the bottom line: Number one, you cannot bring other nations to the table through the back door. You cannot have America run the occupation, make all the reconstruction decisions, make the decisions of the kind of government that will emerge, and pretend to bring other nations to the table.

"Now, finally, George Bush is doing what I . . . have recommended. In effect, he's transferred to the UN the decision about what government we'll turn it over to. But he won't transfer to the UN the real authority for determining how the government emerges, how we will do the reconstruction of Iraq. . . .

"If I'm president, I will not only personally go to the UN, I will go to other capitals. . . . I will immediately reach out to other nations in a very different way from this administration. Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the UN and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world."

No matter how the question is put, Kerry's answers on Iraq always boil down to a single recipe: Shrink the US role in Iraq and defer to the United Nations instead. That's it. That is the sum and substance of his thinking about Iraq. He doesn't relate it to the war on terrorism, to the future of liberty in the Middle East, to America's national interests. He repeatedly declares Bush a failure for not kowtowing to the UN and vows that in a Kerry administration, the UN will be given the commanding role it deserves.

Kerry has been talking this way for months. In his speech on Iraq at the Brookings Institution last fall, for example, he mentioned the UN no fewer than 25 times. ("We need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations real authority in the rebuilding of Iraq. . . . This shift of authority from the United States to the United Nations is indispensable.") By contrast, he mentioned terrorism just seven times. He mentioned freedom, democracy, and the Middle East not at all.

There is more of this UN fetish in Kerry's recent Washington Post column on Iraq. "The United Nations, not the United States," he writes, "should be the primary civilian partner in working with Iraqi leaders to hold elections, restore government services, rebuild the economy, and recreate a sense of hope and optimism among the Iraqi people."

When Bush speaks about Iraq, by contrast, it is clear that he has thought the subject through and related it to his larger goals in the world. Agree or disagree with Bush's vision for Iraq, there is no denying he has one. Consider an extract from his recent press conference:

"The defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere, and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver. . . .

"The consequences of failure in Iraq would be unthinkable. Every friend of America and Iraq would be betrayed to prison and murder as a new tyranny arose. Every enemy of America and the world would celebrate, proclaiming our weakness and decadence, and using that victory to recruit a new generation of killers.

"We will succeed in Iraq. . . . Iraq will be a free, independent country, and America and the Middle East will be safer because of it. . . . We serve the cause of liberty, and that is always . . . a cause worth serving."

The cause of liberty and the defeat of terror vs. the cause of a more powerful UN: In this first presidential election of the post-9/11 world, that is what the choice comes down to.

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

They Blow Up So Fast

Lagaan, Japan, and Bollywood

It's 3:24, I should go to bed...I need to get up sometime tomorrow and get my haircut...and then tomorrow night is the start of auction at work- 9 days of exciting bidding on some crap that I don't care about, I'm sure. All on TV. Wow o wow. I'll actually have a great deal of work to do as I understand it...but there will be free food and drinks, so that's good. There will probably also be a lot of people. which isn't good...because, I am terrible at walking thru an area full of people I don't know. Hell, I'm terrible at walking thru an area full of people I DO know. Hopefully, it won't be too bad...

I need to maybe go buy and pay my cable modem bill as well tomorrow.

I was watching Lagaan earlier (still have yet to watch the whole thing- all 3 hours and 40 mins of it.) I added this to my wishlist along with the soundtrack to the movie...

Nice that the girl on the CD cover is absolutely gorgeous...

A few minutes ago, I went to the rockapella site (one of the best groups ever) to see if the jukebox thing on their site would work for me, since I can't ever get it to play anything...it used to work fine, but now never works for me at all. I wrote down the price and stuff for their CD "Smilin'" and am going to order it soon, since it's impossible to find their CD's anywhere else.

They also have this one coming out in May, which is live, so that's always cool...

Speaking of Lagaan...tell me Gracy isn't gorgeous.

I'm off to get something to drink before I die of thirst and maybe watch Pieces of April since it's due back at the library tomorrow...

Here at Work- Just Me and My Coffee

So, I am at work...some people here today milling about. Actually, just a couple people in the studio, and one producer up here doing some editing in the avid room. Auction starts Tuesday and runs everynight for 9 days...maybe 10, I forget. Anyhow, they have tons of trash cans downstairs, because there will be lots of volunteers here Tuesday, and there will be lots of food for everybody...which is nice for me, because I will be here nights for auction Mon-Thurs and Sat and Sunday nights.

I know I will be pretty nervous with all the people here, and going downstairs to get food won't be the easiest thing to do, no telling how many people will be down there at any given time. Anyhow...it's all good, I guess?

They have a free coffee machine down there...with hot chocolate and cappucino as well. I went down and got one a second ago, and damn the cup was hot on the elevator ride up!

Not too much to do today, the tapes are set out for Sun and Mon, and I have the records all put in for Sun and Mon...and I did some other things to make sure we have time to do all the auction stuff, without worrying about all the other stuff.

I'm nearly finished with this book...100 pages to go exactly. I'm gonna finish it today, I'm sure, and I brought a short 211 page book to start when I do finish it. Fun stuff...

Character in Action

Falwell Confidential

Date: April 15, 2004
From: Jerry Falwell

CHARACTER IN ACTION

The nation's sports pages are occasionally awash with stories of corrupt
coaches, imprudent players, and internal scandals.

But this week on the campus of Liberty University, an astonishing act of
generosity and graciousness took place. I believe every sports page in the
nation should pick up on this story to counter the sordid tales that people
tend to remember.

Let me detail what transpired.

On April 14, in a convocation service in the Liberty Vines Center-with
faculty, staff and the entire student body in attendance, High Point
University star forward Danny Gathings, who had been awarded the 2004 Big
South Tournament most valuable player award, handed over the MVP plaque to
Liberty guard Larry Blair..

Why?

Because Gathings, who was an honorable-mention Associated Press All-America
selection this year, believed he had not earned the award. His conscience
simply wouldn't allow him to accept the award because he felt another player
was more deserving.

A few days prior to the convocation service, Gathings had gone to High Point
Coach Bart Lundy to tell him he felt he had undeservedly won the award.

Mr. Lundy said that Gathings told him, "Coach, I didn't deserve that trophy;
Larry Blair did."

It's a rare thing in this age of self-promotion and self-adoration to find a
young man who can take an honest look at himself and seek to correct what he
sees as an injustice. This is the true definition of personal sacrifice.

Liberty University Coach Randy Dunton said the act was truly generous.

"I salute Danny Gathings for his example of sportsmanship," he said.

As Gathings handed the MVP Award to Blair, he said, "I felt this was
something that I needed to do. Larry was truly deserving of this award and
I am happy to hand it over to him and honor his efforts as he helped his
team to win a championship."

Then, with a broad smile on his face, Gathings added, "Hopefully, I'll
deserve it next year."

In their three Big South tournament games, Gathings averaged 11.7 ppg and
8.7 rpg, while shooting 55.2 percent from the field (16-for-29). Blair
averaged 21.0 ppg, shot 55.8 percent from the field (24-for-43) and 56.5
percent (13-for-23) from three-point range, including a tournament-record
seven three-point field goals in the championship game. Liberty beat High
Point in the championship game, 89-44.

Per Big South Conference rules, Gathings cannot relinquish the MVP honor,
but may do as he sees fit with the MVP trophy.

Bart Lundy, Gathings' coach, was visibly moved by his player's action. He
said, "I personally know these two young men ... and even if you take the
basketball awards away, there are no finer young men in college athletics
today."

He noted the negative publicity that college athletics sometimes receives,
but said he was thankful to be a part of an action that countered the
occasional embarrassing happenings that tend to garner the national
headlines.

After Gathings presented Blair with the award, I was proud to shake the hand
of this fine young man who has displayed such great character. Needless to
say, the thousands in the arena gave this humble young man an extended
standing ovation.

I told him, "This is the type of thing that needs to be on the front pages
of all the sports pages across the country."

I wanted to salute Danny Gathings with this column. His magnanimous action
is truly inspiring and I do hope that many papers pick up on this story. I
believe it will inspire many young athletes to conduct themselves in a
similar fashion. The sports world, and indeed the entire nation, would be
all the better if there were more people like Danny Gathings.

"Who's Watching Us" by Bill O'Reilly

Who's Watching Us
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Apr 15, 2004

This checks and balances deal the founders set up has worked pretty well for us here in America. We have a process whereby most powerful people in the public sector can be held accountable for their actions by other powerful people. Hi, there, Richard Nixon. But there is no oversight on the press, which is a private enterprise. We get a free pass and now that's beginning to hurt the nation.
As you may know, the Federal Communications Commission is cracking down hard on Howard Stern and his outrageous brethren by fining companies that employ them if the shock jocks venture into the murky world of "indecency." You can't have sex on your front lawn, and you can't detail sexual activity on the airwaves owned by the public. Fine. But, to be fair, "indecency" should be explicitly defined by the FCC.

When it comes to the news media, there is no FCC to fine us when we do something unsavory like intentionally mislead the public. Let's cite a few examples, and please forgive me because some of these exhibitions are personal. Unfortunately, I am a primary source these days in confronting declining media standards.

When a fanatical Shi'ite militia attacked American troops in Iraq, many in the press labeled the situation "an uprising." But it wasn't. It was a well-planned power grab attempt directed by a militant cleric with ties to Iran. An uprising is when regular folks throw off those in power. The collapse of the Berlin Wall was an uprising.

But many newspaper editors chose to headline an "uprising." Some simply made a mistake, but others wanted to put the worst possible face on that action for political reasons. That is deceitful.

Here's another example. As you may know, The New York Times has done everything it could to disparage Mel Gibson and his movie about the death of Jesus. The Times lost the battle, but continues its jihad.

Last week Times reporter Anne Thompson played down the success of the film and wrote this: "(Gibson) was able to deploy partisan news-media pundits like Fox's Bill O'Reilly & to appeal to their constituents to show their support by seeing the movie."

Thompson's statement is flat-out false. I never recommended the film. I told Gibson on television the movie was too violent. That's on the record. And when I attempted to ask the Times to supply evidence that Gibson had "deployed" me, Ombudsman Daniel Okrent refused to take my call.

The declining standards in journalism extend to television news as well. Recently, right-wing bomb thrower G. Gordon Liddy appeared on CNN and MSNBC and asserted that my radio program was a "failure." Westwood One, the company that syndicates the show, fired off a memo to those networks providing detailed information proving the opposite. Both CNN and MSNBC refused to correct the record.

I could give you dozens of other examples, but the point is that press accountability no longer exists in this country. Ten years ago most of the media policed itself, at least somewhat. Today that's rare.

What's changed is that many press outlets are now run by ideologues on a mission. The gloves of fairness are off. These editors have set the journalistic rules on fire, and there is no one to put out the flames. Thus, Americans who depend on information to make responsible decisions about their country are often hoodwinked.

One more example. A few years ago, The Washington Post ran an article that said I lied about my upbringing--that I was not raised in Levittown, New York as I stated. The article was intended to damage my credibility. That untruth was picked up by scores of media outlets, and was even exploited by a major publishing house.

Over Easter, I was rummaging through the attic at my mother's home. There I found the house deed from 1951. It was sent to my parents by the County Trust Company. The address on the deed is Levittown.

Hollywood- Comparing the U.S. to Communist China

More Hollywood idiots scripting films with such nonsense, it's laughable. Comparing the US to communist China- why? To shock, to create a stir, to do what idiots in Hollywood do...hate America.

Can you imagine what these Hollywood fools would say if we didn't clamp down and investigate...if we didn't put in place laws that make it harder for terrorists to work in this country? Can ANY of you name one person you know who has been affected by ANY changes in ANY laws in this country in regards to your civil rights? You cannot...and Hollywood, as always, is out of the loop and living in fantasy land.

Finally...I am tired of hearing of this Maggie Gyllenhaal chick. Anyone see that horrid movie, The Secretary? I saw parts of it, and it's completely absurd, and actually semi-psychotic. It's not art, it's not something that will make you think, it's soft porn about 2 sick individuals who meet each other at work. Plain and simple. So, please, don't give me any B.S. about a breakthrough performance. It;s utter nonsense.
------------------------
from tv guide online:

HBO's Strip Show Stirs Debate
by Bruce Fretts

"This movie is going to raise holy hell, and I may never work again," says director Sidney Lumet of HBO's Strip Search, a provocative drama about civil liberties in the post-9/11 era that airs April 27. The story cross-cuts between two degrading interrogations: In China, an American student (Maggie Gyllenhaal) gets grilled about her political activities, while in the U.S., an FBI agent (Glenn Close) gives a Saudi scholar (Bruno Lastra) the third degree. Now here's the kicker: Both sequences use the exact same script, implicitly equating the countries' treatment of suspects.

The filmmakers maintain they're simply taking dramatic license to tell a cautionary tale. "Am I saying we're a totalitarian country? No," says writer Tom Fontana. "Am I saying we could become one? Absolutely."

Such contentions have already stirred controversy among conservative watchdogs. "The premise is preposterous and insulting," says Media Research Center VP Brent Baker (who hasn't seen the film). "To put a moral equivalent between the United States and a Communist regime that has oppressed and murdered its citizens for 60 years is outrageous."

Whatever your opinion of Strip Search's politics, there's no arguing with its dramatic potency. Homicide vet Fontana knows his way around an interrogation room, and four-time Oscar nominee Lumet (Network) elicits astonishing work from his cast. The seemingly fearless Gyllenhaal delivers on the promise of her breakthrough role in Secretary with another emotionally (and physically) naked performance, and as her captor, Ken Leung proves electrifying. "He's one of the most original actors I've ever seen," raves Lumet.

The film's quality probably won't sway its ideological critics, but producers are prepared for the firestorm. "If I have to take the heat, I will — as long as people discuss it," says Fontana. "When you go this far out on a limb, you're not looking to be loved."

Small Ball: A Little League Story

I just watched a documentary on PBS (here at work) called Small Ball: A Little League Story...great stuff. It's about the Aptos all star team from, I believe, northern California...and their road to the little league world series in Pennsylvania.

I'm not a fan of sports at all really, but this is one of the best programs I have ever seen on PBS, and, yes, I found myself a bit teary eyed during the film. It's hard to sit her and not be on edge, waiting to see if these kids will win this game, or if they'll come back after being scored on and losing the lead. You can't help but root for the kids, even if you have no desire to watch an actual game itself.

Anyhow, you should check out this film if it's playing tonight on your PBS station (most stations should be carrying it, since it's coming off the main PBS network and not videotape or anything.)

http://www.pbs.org/smallball/

Media Bias Rampant During Bush Press Conference

Watch the press conference last night? Still the media isn't completely biased? Just a few examples of their stupidity:

1) Following President Bush's news conference on Tuesday night,
NBC News anchor Brian Williams pointed out to David Gregory how
Bush refused to "admit" any mistakes and complained that "I didn't
detect a straight-on answer there." Gregory agreed before he
insisted: "This President could be accused in some places today of
filibustering at times." Similarly, over on ABC, George
Stephanopoulos bemoaned how "the President was quite defiant
tonight, even at times defensive. No apologies, no acceptance of
personal responsibility." ABC's Peter Jennings acknowledged the
agenda of the White House press corps in repeatedly trying to get
Bush to admit mistakes and errors during his presidency and
Stephanopoulos admitted reporters "want to see some concession of
responsibility by the President."

2) At Tuesday night's presidential news conference, White House
corespondents for major national news outlets pounded away at
President Bush in an effort to get him to identify errors he's
made either before 9/11 or in going to war in Iraq, and urged him
to follow Dick Clarke's lead and apologize for the September 11
terrorist attacks. New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller
delivered the most obnoxious question of the evening, demanding in
an accusatory manner: "Do you feel any sense of personal
responsibility for September 11th?" Similarly, John Roberts of CBS
News recalled how Clarke offered "an unequivocal apology to the
American people for failing them prior to 9/11" and queried Bush:
"Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from
you, and would you be prepared to give them one?"

EVERYONE Got it Wrong Before 9/11

Since everyone and their brother (even these 9/11 idiot widows) are making the investigation completly partisan, and, in the end, completely useless...I thought I'd post Jacoby's new article related to this very issue. As you listen to John Kerry attack the president on dealing with terrorism and 9/11, note his very words on the very issue. Proving, again, that he flop-flips like no other person could even imagine.

No one knew...I don't think anyone could have known just what was being planned. I did, however, write an article on Sept 12, 2001 titled My Idea for "Complete" Air Safety that discussed the steps that should have been taken years before 2001...With my plan in place (an original idea I came up with- without any aviation knowledge whatsoever), the attacks on that terrible day could have been totally avoided. I noticed a few weeks after the attacks that a writer on CNET.com wrote about a very similar idea in air safety.

My point? Everyone screwed up...from the government to companies that could have been trying to get new air safety products on the market...but, this inquiry should point no fingers, it should look for answers. It's obvious that finger pointing is the only thing that will take place, and that's a shame. Even if that's the case, we need all the facts- about EVERYONE, and some of that is included in the story below...
--------------------------
EVERYONE GOT IT WRONG BEFORE 9/11
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Sunday, April 11, 2004

We'll get to last week's big Washington story -- Condoleezza's Rice's testimony before the Sept. 11 Commission -- in a moment. But first, a short quiz:

1. Identify the following list of topics:

"The World Bank's mission creep"
"Getting debt relief right"
"Russia's unformed foreign policy"
"Japan, the reluctant reformer"
"With a friend like Fox"
"Caspian energy at the crossroads."

No clue? Don't feel bad. You would have to be suffering from acute foreign-policy wonkishness to recognize the table of contents from the September/ October 2001 issue of Foreign Affairs, the flagship publication of the Council on Foreign Relations. Like the curious incident of the dog in the night-time -- in the famous Sherlock Holmes tale, the "curious incident" was that the dog didn't bark -- the significance of these headlines is not in what they say but in what they *don't* say: The nation's leading journal of international relations was paying no attention to the threat from Islamist terror even as Islamist terrorists were planning the deadliest attack ever committed by foreign enemies on US soil.

2. Which US senator admitted on Sept. 11, 2001, "We have always known this could happen. . . . I regret to say -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it -- but not really doing the hard work of responding.''

That was John Kerry on "Larry King Live," ruing his and his colleagues' pre-9/11 failure to give the threat from international terrorism the urgent attention and "hard work of responding" it should have had.

3. President Clinton's final national security policy paper, submitted to Congress in December 2000, was 45,000 words long. Yet it never once mentioned which international menace?

Al Qaeda. The document referred to Osama bin Laden just four times, and its discussion of terrorism spoke not of wiping out the killers in their nests but of extraditing "fugitives" to make them "answer for their crimes."

Which brings us back to Rice's appearance last week.

If anything has been obvious since 9/11, it is that the government of the United States, like the foreign-policy establishment generally, was grossly derelict in its understanding and handling of Islamist terrorism. That was true during the first eight months of the Bush presidency and it was true during the preceding 8 years of the Clinton presidency. For all the atmospherics of the Sept. 11 Commission, for all the partisan skirmishing of its Democrats and Republicans, there was no important difference between the two administrations prior to that terrible day. Rice's efforts to prove otherwise were largely unconvincing. So, a week earlier, were Richard Clarke's.

The simple truth was put bluntly by Rice in her opening statement: "The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat gathered, and America's response across several administrations of both parties was insufficient." Democracies rarely face up to the worst dangers they face until disaster strikes. Until then, political leaders find it much easier to do nothing than to press for unpopular reforms and face the public's wrath.

Imagine the backlash the administration would have faced, for example, if it had reacted aggressively to the CIA briefing in August 2001 that warned of possibile terrorist hijackings -- the one ominously titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States." If the Transportation Department, on the strength of that warning alone, had ordered air travelers to arrive at least two hours before their flights, banned a long list of common household objects -- knives, knitting needles, scissors -- from airplanes, and authorized pilots to eject "Middle Eastern" ticketholders they deemed suspicious, the public would have reacted with fury. And the administration would have backed down.

Prior to 9/11, no president from Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush properly understood or reacted to the swelling danger of Islamist terrorism. None recognized that we were under attack by a ruthless enemy bent on global conquest and the destruction of Western liberty. Neither did leaders in Congress, nor elite opinionmakers in the media.

Far more important is what has happened *since* 9/11: The Bush administration went to war. It destroyed Al Qaeda's base in Afghanistan, toppled Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, turned Pakistan from a backer of terrorists into a terror-war ally, and intimidated Libya into ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Crucially, the administration has demolished the perception of America as -- in bin Laden's derisive term -- a "weak horse" that bolts at the first gunshot. And it did it all in the face of withering political fire at home and abroad.

How you regard that performance -- as invaluable wartime leadership by the president or as a fraud "made up in Texas" -- is likely to decide how you vote this November. For what matters now isn't who was wrong before 9/11. It is who has been right since.

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

Omarosa- The Liar of the Apprentice

I was reading tvguide.com and came across a story about this apprentice "bitch" that everyone hates. (http://www.tvguide.com/news/insider/040309a.asp)
---------------------
I dont watch stupidity tv (reality tv) like the apprentice.

First off- trump is a smug asshole...hes not a very good businessman- he was on the verge of bankruptcy in the 90's, his hotel business is near bankruptcy again, and he owes over $2 billion. THAT is, in no way, good business. The guy is a sham.

Second- why would I want to spend time watching idiot people try to get some shit job on TV? No thanks

Anyhow, that said...I can tell from her comments alone that this Omarosa lady is an idiot and a total bitch. Poor her, she claims her blackness was a factor when she was fired (yes, yes, blame it on race like many blacks in the limelight do)...then, she keeps saying she was the biggest target, because she was the strongest woman there and the smartest, blah blah, shut the fuck up, blah.

I don't like smug people who think they're "all that." Confidence is okay...but being confident AND humble is the best way to go about things. Never say your the best at ANYTHING if you ask me...it makes you look like an ass, because, chances are, you're not THE best, nor anywhere close to it...no matter what the topic is.

Secondly- she talks about being hit with something...then, she brings up her lawyers and makes a smug comment about them getting involved...then, she gets all smartass with the TV Guide interviewer.

I hate this woman already, and I have never watched the show in my life.

Now, she's claiming another woman on the show called her a "nigger." Yet, TV Guide reports (*) that after producers went thru the footage from the show, no such utterance of the word can be found...and, they (the producers) say it never happened. A liar AND a bitch, what a combo!

I know, without seeing a second of this garbage, why you were ousted...you're an arrogant asshole, and face it- no one likes arrogant assholes.
-----------------------
*from tv guide newsletter:

IT DOESN'T ADD UP, FOLKS:
It appears Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth's concussion may have led to some short-term memory loss. On Thursday's Oprah Winfrey Show, the Apprentice's Queen of Mean claimed that she fingered Ereka Vetrini as the alleged N-bomb dropper only after her reality rival went on The View and defended herself against the accusation. Up until that point, Omarosa told Winfrey, "I never said who [did it]." Not true. In one of her first post-firing interviews, Omarosa told me point blank: "Ereka used the N-word with me on the show." We immediately contacted Ereka for a comment and she vehemently denied ever using the offensive term. When Apprentice producers also told us that a check of the show's tapes found no such exchange, TV Guide Online decided at that time not to include Omarosa's uncorroborated charges in our March 9 story. In related news...

The FCC: The Radio Nazis

Howard Stern's wildly popular radio show (wildly popular, as in- millions of Americans listen to it- thus, Americans WANT this sort of thing on their radio dial) has been dropped by Clear Channel owned stations, and the FCC (in nazi-like fashion) is proposing nearly $500, 000 in fines for 18 "violations" of what they consider to be indecent material. How the FCC can define indecent is beyond me. Fox's new series, The Swan, is digustingly indecent in my view- but the FCC deems material like it okay.

The FCC is out of control. You cannot defy the rights of speech of Americans to protect a small minority that is too stupid to just simply change the channel! I've said it numerous times, and I'll say it everyday until these tactics change.

Americans have voted with their radios- they want to listen to programs like the one Howard Stern does each morning. Those who don't can vote with their radios as well, by turning that little dial on the top to the right or the left.

As the Washington Dispatch reports, Stern is attacking the FCC and the Bush administration itself for not protecting what he believes (and I believe) to be his Constitutional rights. Stern mentions that Oprah talks about similar topics on her show everyday, yet no one throws a fit. It's true. If you look at the so-called indecent material on Stern's show...it's all very tame and most people wouldn't find it very offensive, if offensive at all.

The fans of Stern, who number in the millions, might have an effect on election day. Bush needs to get his act together and stop the FCC from destroying the rights of broadcasters like Stern. The US government cannot parent the nation's children...that's not the job of the fed., nor has it ever been their job. If you don't like what you see or hear, turn the channel...if you don't want your kids to see any of it, throw out the TV, or buy a tv with a V-Chip...or, here's an idea, supervise them like you should be doing!

I mentioned Oprah and what many would consider to be indecent material on her show- as Stern points out on his website, here is an example of material from one of Winfrey's shows:

The truth is- I have never in my life heard anything that digusting on Stern's show...but no one, and I mean NO ONE is filing anything against Oprah, and no one, besides Stern and his supporters, are saying a word about her show and such talk! Why the double standard?

I don't think we should limit either one of these two people...well, there should be SOME limits. I wouldn't approve of nudity during the afternoon on TV...but, I find what Oprah does worse than what Stern has ever done.

I urge everyone to contact the FCC and file a complaint against their tactics. Tell your congressman that you do not support these actions by the FCC, and you demand that the 1st Amendement be upheld and protected. We cannot sit by and let government agencies run wild and take away rights as they choose.

9/11 Widows Make Asses of Themselves on MSNBC

I was watching Hardball for a couple minutes last night...Hardball with the always partisan- hack of a journalist, Chris Matthews (I used to like this guy, but I'm now sick of him)...and Chris was allowing victims' widows of the Sept 11 attacks bash Bush and say some truly stupid things.

The women contradicted themselves, saying that Rice didn't give enough information about this and that, then they turned around and said- well, she did actually give this info. blah blah blah.

One woman said this, which was absurd:

Who on earth knew that planes would be used as missiles?! No one in their right mind would have guessed as much.

The nonsense continued (with a conspiracy theory that claims government officials were told not to fly on Sept 11- a claim I've never heard, but it's clearly nonsense.):

It seems this woman is implying that the administration knew of a pending attack and did nothing about it...

Then:

But, she takes what he said out of context in the Woodward interview...Rice explained this and made clear that people were taking it out of context. These bitter widows are doing what reporters are doing...using parts of what someone said to make him or her look bad. It's just not right.

Then, one of the widows tries to imply another conspiracy:

So, the white house allowed people to die, but didn't take action until the Pentago was hit? There was no "military response" after the Pentagon was hit anyhow...define "military response!" We didn't attack anyone, we didn't fire on anyone or anything...

Do I even need to say anymore of the stupidity coming from these women?

Matthews just sat there and kept attacking Bush and Rice...egging them on with their nonsense.

And some say the 9/11 hearings haven't become partisan. Hilarious.

after I posted this, I noticed more about these so-called "non-partisan widows"

these women should be ashamed of themselves...
------------------------------
Mrs. Breitweiser insists that she voted for Bush in 2000, but has
wildly declared that "three thousand people were murdered on
Bush's watch." Times arts editor Frank Rich also noted how she
tartly complained that a Showtime 9-11 docudrama failed to
display President Bush reading to school children "while people
like my husband were burning alive inside the World Trade Center
towers" because it would have been contrary to "Karl Rove's art
direction and grand vision." She's hardly "nonpolitical."
------------------------------

Now Bush is being attacked for reading to school children?! Her comments are the very definition of partisan!!

More Evidence that Richard Clarke is a Liar

More evidence that Richard Clarke is nothing but a liar, looking to sell a book...
----------------------------
Condi Debunks Myth of Clinton Millennium Plot Success

Breaking from NewsMax.com

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told the 9/11 Commission Thursday morning that it was an alert Customs agent - and not the Clinton administration "shaking the trees" for intelligence on al-Qaida - who deserves credit for foiling the December 1999 al-Qaida plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport.

"It's questionable to me ... that somehow shaking the trees was what broke up the Millennium [Plot]," Rice told the 9/11 probers, referring to claims by Clinton terrorism czar Richard Clarke that White House alerts had the nation's security apparatus on the lookout for trouble.

In fact, said Rice, Clarke himself admitted that the Clinton administration's warnings had nothing to do with the apprehension of Millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam.

"After September 11, Dick Clarke sent us the after action report that had been done after the Millennium Plot," Rice told the Commission. "And their assessment was that Ressam had been caught by chance."

What's more, at the time Clarke said the White House had gone to "battle stations" based on intelligence an attack was coming, the Customs Bureau received no warnings from Clinton officials about potential al-Qaida attacks.

"I've checked with Customs," said Rice. "And according to their records, they weren't actually on alert at that point."

Instead, said the top Bush official, a Washington State-based Customs agent and her partner deserved credit for saving LAX.

"It was because a very alert Customs agent named Diana Dean and her colleague sensed something about Ressam," Rice explained.

"They saw that something was wrong. They tried to apprehend him. He tried to run. They then apprehended him, [then] found that there was bomb-making material and a map of Los Angeles in his car.

"Dick Clarke would say you got a lucky break," Rice told the Commission. "I would say you had an alert Customs agent who got it right."

The Day Death was Conquered

Falwell Confidential

Date: April 7, 2004
From: Jerry Falwell

THE DAY DEATH WAS CONQUERED

Many years ago, the great theologian Oswald Chambers stated, "All heaven is
interested in the cross of Christ, all hell terribly afraid of it, while men
are the only beings who more or less ignore its meaning."

To some degree, that will always be the case. But this Easter, due in large
part to Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ," a number of Americans
are taking a more exhaustive look - many no doubt for the first time - at
the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and considering what that most
significant event in history means to them.

With that in mind, I would like to briefly examine the context of Jesus'
death and his glorious revivification.

In recent weeks, Mr. Gibson's film has spawned scores of editorials from a
host of perspectives on the death and resurrection of Jesus. I have read a
number of editorials that have suggested that He was executed or the subject
of a political assassination. But it is important to note that this is far
from actuality. In fact, in the Bible, a parallel was drawn between Jesus
and a sacrificial lamb, which is seen as the embodiment of innocence.

Indeed, Christ came to earth to voluntarily lay down His life, much in the
same way spotless lambs were utilized as sacrifices in Old Testament times.
This is the remarkable beauty that lies beneath the sheer horror of the
cross. During His brief life, Jesus was fully aware that there would be a
time when He would have to reject His heavenly power in order to readily lay
down His life and die one of the most ghastly forms of deaths.

Why did He do this?

The answer is simple. He did it for you. He did it for me.

By voluntarily laying down His life and three days later triumphing over the
grave, Jesus accomplished something unspeakably wonderful - He provided the
means for us to achieve eternal life with Him.

This is not popular speech these days. In fact, it is often considered
"hate speech" to suggest that Jesus provided the only way to heaven. In
this age of "inclusiveness" and "diversity," we are often urged to accept
bits and pieces of all religions and tenets in order to create a hybrid
system of beliefs designed to create an apparent utopian society. While
such a system may occasionally offer momentary periods of satisfaction, it
ultimately proffers nothing but confusion and uncertainty.

If we are to believe the Bible to be the Word of God, we must subsequently
believe that Jesus provided the only avenue to heaven through His death and
astonishing resurrection.

While appearing on Bill O'Reilly's "O'Reilly Factor" on the Fox News Channel
last year, Mr. O'Reilly told me that a few religious leaders had advised him
that there were alternative routes to heaven. He suggested that if we live
a good life and are contrite for our wrongdoings, we should be able to
squeak into heaven.

But with all due respect to Mr. O'Reilly, that view unequivocally counters
what Jesus asserted - that He is the only way to eternal life with God.

"I am the resurrection, and the life. He who believes in me, though he may
die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die,"
Jesus stated in John 11:25, 26 (NKJV).

THE FIRST EASTER

I often imagine that first Easter morning. While Mary and Mary Magdalene
were on their way to visit the tomb of Jesus an angel rolled back the great
stone that covered the entrance to it, creating an earthquake that
frightened all those who were there. After the earth stopped shaking, the
women could see that Jesus was not there. And they immediately ran to tell
the disciples what they had seen.

"The stone was rolled away from the door, not to permit Christ to come out,
but to enable the disciples to go in," Peter Marshall wrote. And indeed it
was rolled away so that we can all look in to see the empty tomb even today.

On March 28, 1869, C.H. Spurgeon, preaching at the Metropolitan Tabernacle,
Newington, drew a parallel between that stone and the figurative stone that
blocks many from seeing the truth of the resurrection: "In man's path of
happiness lies a huge rock, which completely blocks up the road."

I encourage all readers today to look past whatever rock blocks your view of
the resurrection. Christ died for all and salvation is readily available
for all who believe.

JOIN US TO CELEBRATE THE RISEN SAVIOR

Those who are within driving distance of Liberty University are invited to
join us this Sunday, April 11, for a special service in the 10,000-seat
Vines Center on the Liberty campus. Several thousand believers will be at
our "Easter Sonrise" service at 9:30 a.m. Spectacular music, led by Charles
Billingsley, and my message will be designed to magnify the risen Christ

Bug: The Review

I watched the movie, Bug (I mentioned it in the last entry), and I wrote a small review for it here.

Also...one of the movie previews on the DVD was for the film, The Pompatus of Love...so, I ordered it on DVD for $7.75 (total with shipping) on E-Bay. It looks good...who knows tho. Maybe I'll hate it. I doubt it.

It's 4:53 AM. I'm actually tired...I should go to bed.

Bug

I'm about to watch some movie I got on DVD from the library the other day called BUG. Never seen a thing about it, never heard of the name until I saw it on the rack...picked it up, looked semi-interesting, so I got it. It's free, and there wasn't a lot to choose from that I would like to see and haven't already seen.

I need some black ink for the printer...I ran out a while back, and never got any, and it's bugging me.

I was going to go out to eat today by myself, but I never did...pretty scary idea if you ask me. Who goes to eat by themselves? I mean, fast food or something, sure...I, personally, wouldn't even wanna do that- drive thru for me, but it's not as weird as going into a place, ordering a steak or something, and sitting there and eating alone.

I go to the movies alone a lot...people always tell me- I'd never do that. The lady at my group the other night said she wouldn't even do that, but that it's probably easier for guys the way she sees it...more acceptable and whatever.

Speaking of which, I never went to see the Ladykillers...not sure if I will at all now, since I waited so long (not that long, but long enough.)

Everyone should go check out Mariko Nakasone (who is apparently Japanese, but she doesn't look it?!) She's on the PBS show, Dragonfly TV- very, very cute...great personality as one of the hosts (she hosts with some guy.) If you search google for her name, you'll find a number of sites that mention her as well. By the way, the picture on the link above doesn't do her justice...but it's all I could find.

Well, I'm off to watch this movie, maybe...and do whatever else it is I'm going to do...

Band of Brothers on The History Channel

BAND OF BROTHERS ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL

Band of Brothers, the hit HBO series is coming to the History Channel. It all begins Sunday, April 11 at 9PM/8C on the History Channel.

Be sure to enter the Band of Brothers Sweepstakes...you can win some great prizes for yourself and 4 of your friends. (includingthe Band of Brothers DVD, a bomber jacket, and more...)

Also, be sure to check out the Band of Brothers WWII trivia.

The ACLU Sues...and Sues...and Sues...

the ACLU is suing to stop the no-fly list...funny, we should let ANYONE, no matter how big a risk they are, on airliners- and well let them fly those planes into buildings.

these people are INSANE.

thank god the ACLU-lovers are in the minority. if they had their way, wed be living in a country where christianity was outright banned, if you said anything religious outside of your house, youd be stoned to death...youd be able to marry whoever, or whatever you want (man-woman, man-man, man-car...hey, i want my "civil rights," dude!)...blacks, hispanics, asians would automatically get 5 million points on their SAT's, just because of their skin color (we gotta help minorities succeed with aff. action...i mean, the ACLU and others dont believe theyre smart enough on their own!)...wed be executed if we sang a christmas song...the KKK and Nazis would be let into the public schools to teach their messages of hate...NAMBLA would be a thriving organization, and sex with children would be okay (hey, its an adults right to have sex with children if you ask the ACLU!)...ahh, what a great country this would be.

if you belong to the ACLU...if you support the ACLU- please, ask yourself- when did my brain stop working, and when did i become an idiot?

MoveOn: Kerry's Enemy Within

story taken from washingtondispatch.com

MoveOn.org: John Kerry’s Enemy Within
---------------------------------------------------------
TWD editorial by CK Rairden
April 5, 2004

In theory, Richard Clarke should have helped democratic presidential candidate John Kerry while he stumbled down the slopes in Idaho while on an ill-timed vacation. Clarke’s dramatic appearance on 60 Minutes, and then his testimony at the 9/11 commission attempted to portray President Bush as completely inept before, during and after the attacks against America on 9/11. The elite media touted Clarke as a wonderful non-partisan whistleblower, a genuine American hero. Richard Clarke basked in the limelight eating up his 15 minutes of fame.

But there was one problem, a majority of the American voter viewed Clarke as nothing more than a political opportunist with a book to sell. And that caused another Kerry stumble, this time in the polls.

In a recent LA Times poll, nearly 60 percent of respondents agreed that Clarke's new book was politically motivated and designed to influence the election. To make matters worse more polling data emerged after Clarke’s appearances and none of it was good for Kerry. The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that had Kerry with a 12-point lead in February now has President Bush leading his democratic challenger by 4 points. The Bush ad campaign has given the president a 16-point positive swing in barely over a month.

Enter MoveOn.org.

The liberal activist group (often referred to as a "527" after the section of the tax code that governs them) fired up the money machine and made an ad buy in some of the battleground states using Richard Clarke’s own words from his 60-Minutes infomercial hawking his book from three weeks ago. For those of you that aren’t in those states, the ad runs like this.

Narrator: George Bush shamelessly exploited 9/11 in his campaign commercials.

Now, Richard Clarke, his former counterterrorism chief, said:

Richard Clarke‘s own voice:

I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored terrorism for months when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11.

Narrator: George Bush. A failure of leadership.

Using Richard Clarke as a tool for MoveOn.org was not only a poor choice for attacking President Bush, but also portrayed Clarke as nothing more than a partisan hack. The Clarke voice combined with MoveOn.org’s name reeks of a partisan hatchet job on the president. It furthers the idea in many voters’ minds that the 9/11 commission is deteriorating into nothing more than a political witch-hunt, and instead of finding answers is looking to assign blame.

Clarke recognized this immediately and according to the AP “instructed his attorney to ask the MoveOn.org Voter Fund to stop broadcasting the ad.” Clarke went on to say that the ad was created without his knowledge or permission. "I just don't want to be used,” Clarke told The Associated Press. “I don't want to be part of what looks like a political TV ad. I'm trying hard to make this not a partisan thing.” While the believability of that Clarke statement is suspect, in reality Clarke didn’t have to; MoveOn.org just did that for him.

Add to that, Clarke’s request to pull the ad was denied by the activist group.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform laws keep MoveOn.org from coordinating directly with John Kerry's campaign for president. So in theory, the only ads they can run are negative spots against the president. And negative ads do work, when they are done in the right way. But it’s now apparent that the leaders of the activist group aren’t getting that done. Their ads to date paint a dark story of America as a downtrodden country. They’re not really negative as much as they are depressing. That ad strategy is a flawed one.

Depressing ads won’t work.

The Bush campaign is off a banner month of March where despite Clarke’s allegations the campaign team stayed on message with an aggressive ad campaign in the battleground states where they defined John Kerry as an indecisive tax raising New England liberal. The ads were effective and the label has stuck. The Bush team, even when going negative kept the spots lively and at times humorous. The result has been tremendous for Mr. Bush, with many “swing states” polls moving quickly toward the president. The USA Today noted this in a column by Richard Benedetto, “Before the ads began running, 60% rated Kerry favorably and 26% unfavorably. Now, 53% view him favorably and 36% unfavorably. In "battleground" states where the ads have run - states where polls and historic trends indicate the race will be close - Kerry has gone from a 28-point lead to a six-point deficit.” That’s a 34-point swing in one month.

A closer look reveals that with that swing, Bush leads Kerry in the Electoral College at this time 287-251 according to a combination of state polls and 2000 results. And that’s putting Florida in the Kerry column. There is a lesson in these numbers for Kerry. He must begin to run his own aggressive ad campaign and mount some sort of offense. Kerry’s manta of “Bring it On” combined with the highly partisan “Move On” is tired and will cost him swing votes. He cannot allow MoveOn.org and other satellite 527’s to be the only ads in these critical swing states running dark, depressing ads. All that will do is rally the partisans to Bush’s defense and increase the likelihood that they will turn out in November. Kerry’s month-long virtual vacation from the campaign was a mistake. Though indirectly--it has put the 527’s in charge of his campaign ads by proxy. And they are no match for the Bush team. While it’s obvious MoveOn.org desperately wants Mr. Bush out of the White House, in reality they are hurting Kerry by helping to rally the Bush voter base.

MoveOn.org has become Kerry’s enemy within.

"Radio Daze" - Bill O'Reilly

Radio Daze
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Apr 01, 2004

We are living in desperate times and the radio industry in America proves it. Now we have an "all liberal" network. Just what we need. It isn't enough that conservative bloviators sling radio propaganda all day long; it's apparently imperative that we have constant left-wing bleating as well, even though National Public Radio is heard on more than 700 stations. Here's what we can expect on the left side of the dial.
"Lou in Seattle, you're on the air."
"Bush is a liar."
"Good call, Lou."
"Halliburton owns Cheney and Laura Bush has hair extensions."
"What about Rumsfeld?"
"He has hair extensions too and lies about them."

Can't get enough of that, can you? Let's turn the dial to the right.

"Lorraine in Orlando, what's on your mind?"
"Ditto."
"Ditto what, Lorraine?"
"Kerry is a communist. He has botox."
"And the government probably paid for it, right Lorraine?"
"No doubt. And Hillary dated bin-Laden at Yale..."

But it's not all politics on the radio, there's other talk as well.

"Moon Man, how's it hangin' bro? You're the best except for Howard Stern."
"Yo, dude, I am your freedom of speech guy."
"Excellent, Moon. What up with Janet Jackson?"
"I had sex with her, dude, that's a fact ..."

How about some music, didn't we used to have music on the radio? Let's dial up some rap:

"My glock is nice
I shot her twice
The ho no mo'
I got ta go ..."

Number one with a bullet on Felony 97 FM.

If you think I'm exaggerating, you're wrong. These days radio will put you in a daze. The bilge is unbelievable. Let's go to NPR for some relief.

"Time for 'All Things Considered' except for competing in the marketplace without public funding. Here's a report from our NPR correspondent in the Middle East."
"There was sadness over a mentally-challenged Palestinian boy wired up as a suicide bomber but by no means is this PLO policy, say reliable Hamas sources who spoke to NPR on the condition that we make them look sympathetic ..."

Well, maybe NPR isn't the answer. As I mentioned, some believe that network provides plenty of liberal commentary. It sure sounds that way. Maybe it's the soothing tone they use in explaining that anyone opposing gay marriage is a cousin of George Wallace. Perhaps it's the way they frame the debate:

"Joining us now from Washington is the senior senator