A Few Editorials from townhall.com

Some interesting pieces from townhall.com

Why aren't black voters rallying to Bush? by Star Parker

Sticks and Stones by David Limbaugh

Minimum Wage Realities by Bruce Bartlett

Comparing Bush to Hitler no longer confined to loonies by John Leo

Where's the Misery? by Rich Lowry

Jacoby: Romney's Profile in Courage

Another great article from Jeff Jacoby

ROMNEY'S PROFILE IN COURAGE
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Sunday, June 27, 2005

The establishment turned out in force for a same-sex wedding in Boston last week.

When longtime gay partners Mitchell Adams and Kevin Smith were married in one of the oldest churches in America on Tuesday afternoon, they were joined by a glittering array of VIPs. Among the guests at the 300-year-old King's Chapel were two former Republican governors of Massachusetts, Boston's mayor and commissioner of police, the president of the state Senate, a former attorney general, a bishop of the Episcopal Church, and pew after pew of influential doctors, lawyers, and Indian chiefs. The reception afterward was at the Somerset Club -- one of the wealthiest and most exclusive in New England.

Whatever else might be said about same-sex marriage, elites in Massachusetts are clearly comfortable with it. The public at large may not yet be ready to radically alter society's most basic institution -- even in the Bay State, a majority still says marriage should be defined as the union of a man and a woman. But the attendance at a gay wedding of so many movers and shakers from both sides of the aisle is a good indication of which way the cultural winds are blowing. Less and less is it politically risky to openly support same-sex marriage. Increasingly, it is becoming risky not to.

Which brings us to Mitt Romney.

The governor of Massachusetts was not among the gentry at the Adams-Smith wedding on Tuesday. He was in Washington, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee why the high court of his own state was wrong to throw out the timeless definition of marriage. His testimony was an occasion of genuine leadership. Few mainstream politicians have stepped up to make a principled case in support of that timeless definition, and so far none has done so as cogently as Romney.

He began by arguing that a long-established consensus should not be casually discarded. "Should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framers of our Constitution?" Romney asked. "Has America been wrong about marriage for 200-plus years? Were generations that spanned thousands of years and all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage? . . . Or is it more likely that four [judges] in Massachusetts have erred?"

The Goodridge case was brought by adult plaintiffs, and Romney noted that their complaint was framed as an issue of adult equality: If heterosexual couples have the right to marry, then homosexual couples should be entitled to marry as well.

"But marriage is not solely about adults," Romney went on. It is also about creating a safe and stable environment "for the nurturing and development of children." Societies need children and children need mothers and fathers -- *that* is why the state has such a strong interest in the nature of marriage. The familiar definition, Romney said, conveys a normative message, a message about society's ideal: "Children . . . have the right to have a mother and a father."

But if gender is irrelevant to marriage, it must be irrelevant to parenthood, too. To legalize same-sex marriage is to proclaim that whether boys and girls are raised with mothers and fathers is a matter of no concern. Already, Romney noted, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health has "asked whether we must re-write our state birth certificates to conform to our court's ruling. Must we remove 'father' and 'mother' and replace them with 'parent A' and 'parent B?' "

It won't end with rewritten birth certificates. Romney pointed out that boys and girls will now have to be taught that there is no particular reason why families should be headed by a man and a woman. To be sure, there have always been homes in which, by reason of death or family breakup, children have been raised without a father or a mother. But young people have never been instructed to accept fatherlessness or motherlessness as normal. After Goodridge, they will be.

"Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions," Romney said, "will lead to further far-reaching changes that would influence the development of our children." Teachers and textbooks "may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same-sex practice." The raising of children in a culture that treats heterosexual and homosexual unions as equivalent and interchangeable, he warned, will "significantly affect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures." To open that Pandora's box without knowing what will emerge is reckless, to say the least.

Romney began and ended his testimony with a strong repudiation of prejudice and intolerance. But as he must know, that won't protect him from being castigated as a bigot, a hater, a homophobe -- all the insults that rain down on those who insist that gays and lesbians can be treated with fairness and respect without abandoning something as fundamental as the meaning of marriage.

This wasn't an issue Romney had to take on. He could have played it safe -- accepted Goodridge as a matter beyond his control, decided it wasn't worth fighting over. His willingness to stick his neck out is both principled and brave. Agree or disagree with the stand he is taking, give the man credit for being a profile in courage.

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

TCM Remake Bashing? No Way!

Psh! I loved the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake...much better than the original in that the mood was much scarier/creepier, and leatherface was 100% scary in this one, when in the original, he was a bit silly and laughable in some scenes. Remember when he was running around chasing the very slow Sally? He looked like the cops in the old black and white movies, running around all fast, trying to look funny...others have mentioned this same thing, so I'm not alone, thank God.

I thought Marcus did a fantastic job...the dp did a PERFECT job with the remake- the settings were just awesome, the leatherface mask was spooky as hell, and the movie was all horror- no laughs...Oh well, not everyone loved it so much, I guess...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Here is the text from an MSNBC online story about movie remakes, titled "Heartbreakingly bad remakes"

“The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”
The 1974 original went on to become a slasher classic, thanks to low-budget ingenuity and director Tobe Hooper’s keen understanding of the elements that make horror work. Last year’s remake by commercial director Marcus Nispel was an excessive gorefest that could easily have been made by teenagers on drugs.

Clinton's Irresponsible Remarks on Iraq and Ed Koch and Michael 'Propaganda' Moore

Like others I have mentioned on the left- I think Hillary Clinton's comments are anti-American and downright dangerous to our troops. You cannot say things like this- bashing the job that has been done, when troops are in harm's way, and especially not on the day the hand over takes place. She is, again, showing her true colors- she doesn't care about this country, she simply cares about her own power and nothing else. Hillary has been a liar from the get-go, and she's said things that have hurt the country from the start as well- surprise, surprise, nothing has changed.

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:09 a.m. EDT
Hillary Blasts Bush as 'Incompetent'

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton slammed President Bush as "incompetent" on Monday, just hours after the Bush administration successfully handed over sovereignty in Iraq to Iraqi authorities.

"I think the administration has been both wrongheaded and incompetent and should not be rewarded," Clinton told reporters, after a speech at the Panetta Institute of Public Policy in Monterey Bay, California.

In other comments picked up by the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Mrs. Clinton complained:
• That the Bush administration failed to plan adequately for postwar Iraq.

• That the transfer of power in Iraq was a "positive step," but it was too soon to know whether it would defuse violence in Iraq.

• Mrs. Clinton also insisted that she wasn't thinking about a presidential run anytime soon, telling the Salinas Californian, "Oh please! I have a job right now that I'm very happy doing."

• She insisted that while Sen. Kerry is currently leading Bush in the polls, "I am not interested in being considered" as Kerry's running mate.

A poll taken by the Frank Luntz Research Group last month showed that Democrats still prefer Sen. Clinton as their party's presidential nominee, with her leading Sen. Kerry 47 to 44 percent. Another survey two weeks ago had them neck and neck.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also, Ed Koch on scumbag, Michael Moore.

Lisa Vidal

I was noticing earlier that the lady on the Lifetimes series, The Divison has the last name "Vidal," and she looks like Christina Vidal- the young girl who was on the Nick show Taina and the ABC series from this past season called 10-8: Officers On Duty.

Anyhow, I looked it up, and they're sister. Both are really pretty. The only show I ever watched from either of them was 10-8, which I loved...so I rarely see them.
Check out the sisters

Also- get this...imdb.com has a link for a news story saying that Britney Spears is engaged AGAIN, and that her publicist has confirmed as such. Her meltdown is going strong if you ask me. The knee injury which leads to the cancelled tour, the pics of her crying like a baby over some puppy (I think? Who the hell knows)...and now this NEW engagement, after she was married for more than 2 days just months ago. She's nuts like Jennifer Lopez. How lovely.

Antisemitism and The UN

Nice article on the UN and the subject of antisemitism. Like many have said before- you cannot attack Israel for not "obeying" UN resolutions- resolutions almost always put thru by antisemitic nations to begin with, when no one attacks the arab nations for defying the very charter that started the UN- to help Israel. You will remember- the nation of Jordan was once the british mandate of Palestine...the arab side rarely tells you this fact, because it would ruin their claim to the area that is today, Israel.

Also- I don't have much faith in the UN with this issue. The UN is constantly anti-Israel, some of the claims coming out of the body are so obscene, you'll never hear it reported- like claims from arabs that Israelis have gone around sucking blood from young palestinians for matzah, and injecting palestinian children with HIV infected blood. All insane claims, but they come up all the time at the anti-Jewish UN. I see little hope any of this will change. Annan is spineless if you ask me, and he's not going to suddenly grow a backbone and get with it.

I actually got a UN resolution petition that I signed and will send off tomorrow on the subject of antisemitism. I will list a number of UN attacks on jews sometime tomorrow in another post.

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

ANTISEMITISM AND THE UN
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Thursday, June 24, 2004

A seminar on antisemitism was held at the United Nations this week. Secretary-General Kofi Annan opened the program by rebuking "those who . . . continue to spread lies and vile stereotypes about Jews and Judaism." Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and Nobel peace laureate, delivered a moving keynote address. Three panels of witnesses -- academics, activists, religious leaders -- spoke about the menace of antisemitism and how to combat it. The event was presided over by Shashi Tharoor, the undersecretary-general for communications, who also delivered the closing remarks.

All in all, you might think, a typical UN program -- one of scores of gatherings the world body hosts each year on a wide array of human rights issues. The antisemitic hatred and violence seething in so much of the world are a grave international problem, so it stands to reason that the UN would make it the focus of regular and serious attention.

Except that it doesn't. Monday's conference on antisemitism was the first in UN history.

The United Nations was born nearly 60 years ago in the wake of the Nazi genocide against the Jews. It was the reaction, in part, of a world stricken by the horror of Auschwitz and Babi Yar. Awareness of the Holocaust informs the UN's seminal documents, above all the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet not once in its six decades -- not until this week -- had the UN ever convened a meeting to discuss the hatred or persecution of Jews. Not once has it adopted a resolution dealing specifically with antisemitism. Not once has it published a report on anti-Jewish racism or incitement.

"Even when judged against the hypocrisy with which the UN has frequently treated its own founding principles," wrote legal scholar Anne Bayefsky, a professor at Columbia University Law School, in an important article in Commentary earlier this year, "the international body's abiding hostility to the just claims of Israel and the Jewish people remains a special, and especially egregious, case."

Bayefsky's essay, along with an earlier piece in The Wall Street Journal, were devastating. From the UN's earliest years, she showed, antisemitism was the great evil it refused to notice. The first time a resolution dealing even partly with bigotry against Jews came up for a vote was 1959, a year "when some 2,000 anti-Jewish incidents . . . were reported in almost 40 countries." The original title of the resolution was "Manifestations of Antisemitism and Other Forms of Racial Prejudice and Religious Intolerance of a Similar Nature." But by the time it reached the General Assembly floor, the words "antisemitism" had been cut.

The lengths to which the UN will to go to avoid any condemnation of Jew-hatred would be comical if they weren't so contemptible. When it adopted an international convention against racial discrimination, it refused to include a reference to antisemitism. "The Soviet Union, its satellites, and its Arab allies," noted Bayefsky, "insisted that antisemitism was a question not of race but of religion." Yet when the UN later adopted a resolution on religious intolerance, the lead sponsor insisted that antisemitism should be omitted because that was a matter not of religion but of race.

The UN's 1975 resolution equating Zionism -- the national liberation movement of the Jewish people -- to racism was only the most notorious illustration of its anti-Jewish bias. The measure was repealed in 1991, but the UN continues to anathematize the world's only Jewish state.

The UN's 2001 Durban conference on racism and xenophobia, for example, turned into an antisemitic bacchanal -- an event so hateful, the US delegation walked out. At times, the venom has sunk to medieval lows. "In presentations to the UN Commission on Human Rights," Bayefsky wrote, Arab delegates have trafficked in blood libels, "accusing the Israelis of . . . needing to kill Arabs for the proper observance of Yom Kippur and of injecting Palestinian children with HIV-positive blood."

The professor's indictment got Kofi Annan's attention. Not only did he accept her challenge to convene a UN conference on antisemitism, he invited her to speak. She agreed, and delivered a speech last Monday the likes of which had not been heard at the UN since Daniel Patrick Moynihan blasted the Zionism resolution in 1975. She described the UN as "the leading global purveyor of antisemitism" -- a place where "the language of human rights is hijacked not only to discriminate but to demonize." It was a dramatic presentation, and it drew a standing ovation. (The speech can be read online at the Opinion Journal web site.)

So has the UN arrived at a turning point? Or was Monday's conference merely a fig leaf -- a PR response to some bad press?

That depends entirely on what the secretary-general does next. It is up to Annan to take on the antisemitism within the UN's ranks -- to insist that Israel's pariah status end -- to denounce Jew-hatred as a dangerous scourge. In short, to show moral leadership and courage.

Frankly, I doubt that Annan has it in him. But then, I doubted that Annan would pay any attention to Bayefsky's powerful writings in the first place. I turned out to be wrong about that. Here's hoping I'm wrong again.

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

DVD's, Super Gold, Books

I went to Best Buy tonight to pick up the Monk season 1 DVD set...I didn't see it anywhere, so I got the Joe Schmo show set instead. I liked that show a lot, and I wanted the set as it is, so I picked it up. I also got Reno 911, season 1 DVD set and that 12 disc set of 50 classic horror movies (listing of the movies on it here.)

I spent $91 on these 3 sets, and I still want to get Monk season 1 sometime. Just to share, a few other sets I want to get:

Quantum Leap season 1
Party Of Five season 1
Profiler seasons 1 and 2
The Young Ones (entire series)
The Dead Zone seasons 1 and 2
Dilbert (entire series)
Father Ted vols 1, 2, and 3 (entire series)
Law and Order (the first year)
Family Guy and Futurama DVD sets
Kingdom Hospital (which I think comes out this fall)
Homicide: Life on the Streets (whatever seasons they have available right now)

There are some other sets I want, but there are a few I can remember off the top of my head right now. I also want to get the movie Dead Man on Campus on DVD, because I love that movie, and I could watch it everyday. That movie, and the film- PCU, because it's hilarious and I could watch it all the time as well.

Anyhow...I went with my mom and aunts and uncles tonight to this sock hop thing that I guess is part of the Freedom/Thunder Festival in the city. It's been around forever, and it culminates with the 4th of July fireworks- well, I guess it first culminates with the Thunder on the Ohio hydroplane races and then there's the 4th of July fireworks stuff going on the next week or whatever. They have food booths set up all down Riverside Drive, pretty good- what I had...tho the steak and cheese was impossible to eat, the paper they put it in melted with the heat of the sandwich and started pouring out into the street and onto my hands (HOT!!!), and then my hands were totally greasy until I got back to the casino (the thing was right outside of it) into the bathrooms to wash my hands- only to run into some crazy guy who was mumbling nonsense and singing...with his pants down at the sink- that was rather frightening. Anyhow, it was Mike Harvey from Super Gold, the nationally syndicated oldies radio show, who hosted it. It wasn't all that boring- tho, of course, I just sat there and watched mostly old and some young people dancing like they were high on drugs...and Mike up there on stage, standing at this podium thing, giving tid bits of info. between songs, telling the history of various rock and roll music- and during the songs, sorta dancing and mouthing the words- since he has clearly heard all of these songs a million times more than anyone else on earth. Anyhow- he comes every year and does the same sock hop thing, and I have been a few times before...so it wasn't all too boring or anything. Plus, unlike most years, it was cool tonight and there was a nice breeze.

So, we came home, and I put in the Joe Schmo DVD, and watched the series finale with the audio commentary- not too interesting the points they made, no big revelations or insights really, but who couldn't love Matt Kennedy Gould, so it was pretty cool. I was going thru some of the horror dvd's to see some of the movies on there- most of them are in black and white, which is fine...I like horror movies, and I'm always willing to expand my horizons and watch some old classic stuf.

I just put in Reno 911 before I sat down here, but I will be taping some of the stuff on the DVR onto VHS, so I can get more room on the thing- after I get a few series I love on tape, I won't be recording so much stuff, and I can catch up with it all. Only so much space on the box, and I don't want to lose any of the shows I have recorded. So, it'll probably be a couple more episodes of Pelswick added to the Pelswick tape and maybe an episode of Trust or maybe tonight's episode of Monk that is on there...we'll see how tired I am. I'll probably fall asleep to Dr. Katz set to repeat the 6 hour tape like I did this morning (I didn't sleep until about 9 AM since I was off work and wasn't tired last night at all.)

Work tomorrow...starting a new book, and finishing Kenneth Timmerman's book on anti-semitism around the world (Preachers of Hate)...which is interesting, and I'm nearly finished with it, so...I was thinking maybe I would check out some classic novels from the library and read a couple of them- if I can manage to do so without getting bored by it or whatever. We'll see about that...

More Exposing of Moore

GREAT review/commentary on Michael Moore's new lie-fest. Too bad most of the reviews of the film are positive- never pointing out the too-numerous-to-list-in-one-review lies the film contains. Again- we should challenge those who claim there is no liberal media bias. Read the raving reviews on this piece of complete propaganda disguised as a documentary, and you'll see- the much talked about liberal bias not only exists, it's working overtime.
-----------------------------
Fahrenheit 9/11

Featuring Michael Moore, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Osama bin Laden

Directed by Michael Moore

MPAA rating -- R

1¼ (Review by Chuck O'Leary)

It's impossible not to be political when writing about a film as purposely incendiary as Michael Moore's anti-Bush diatribe Fahrenheit 9/11. Leftists, a word that defines the vast majority of journalists and film critics, are bound to love every partisan, Bush-bashing minute of it -- which explains the number of positive reviews it will receive. Those of us on the right, however, will likely clench our teeth and feel like demanding equal time to rebut many of Mr. Moore's absurd assertions and half-baked conspiracy theories. In fact, Fahrenheit 9/11 is so far to the loony left that I'm surprised Moore didn't blame 2003's space shuttle disaster on George W. Bush. After all, it did explode and crash over Texas. I smell a rat. In this respect, Moore's film will already be preaching to the Bush-hating choir, most of whom are far beyond reason anyway.

Like his overpraised Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 drifts in many directions, all of which come around to demonizing conservatives, Republicans and white males. So please bear with me a bit, as this review will likely contain as many shifts in direction as one of Moore's films.

Another film critic once defended Michael Moore by saying, "He's a good filmmaker." I felt like saying, "Yeah, and so was Leni Riefenstahl, but I don't see you going out of your way to defend her work." But I like the guy and didn't want to give him a coronary, so I didn't say it.

While Moore may have started out as a documentary filmmaker, he has since become a partisan propaganda filmmaker of the far left. He now exists solely to advance a radical left-wing agenda. He's also become unbearably sanctimonious and full of himself. To call Fahrenheit 9/11 a documentary would be insulting to the form. It's paranoid left-wing propaganda from beginning to end.

Moore's first two films Roger & Me (1989) and The Big One (1998) were very good because they tackled issues most liberals and conservatives abhor -- corporate greed, corporate downsizing and sending jobs overseas for cheap labor. In those film I was with him about 90 percent of the time.

However, with his next two highly manipulative films, Moore shows his true pinko, blame-America-first colors. His vastly overrated examination of guns and the culture of violence in America, Bowling for Columbine, was full of half-truths and outright lies, and has the audacity to place more blame for the reckless killing of a little girl on then-NRA president Charlton Heston than it does the idiot uncle who left the gun laying around so his nephew could take it to school and shoot a fellow first grader. And Moore conveniently ignores the problems of black on black crime and the inner-city drug and gang-related activity that leads to a high percentage of America's gun deaths each year. But in Moore's warped mind I guess it's all whitey's fault anyway. Just checkout the website www.bowlingfortruth.com to see what I mean.

It's also evident from the highly offensive title of his book, Stupid White Men, that Moore is filled with self-loathing and liberal guilt and uses that guilt to always blame everything wrong in the world on white, Christian, heterosexual males, while minorites can do no wrong or always have an excuse. But that's one of the principal rules of the politically correct left's insane doctrine, and Moore has become one of their crown princes.

Can you imagine the outcry if some conservative wrote a book entitled Stupid Black Men, Stupid Gay Men, Stupid Muslim Men or Stupid Feminists? Something tells me it wouldn't be a featured selection on Oprah's book of the month club. But seriously, just replace the word "white" with any other group and see how quickly hypocritical liberals would be up in arms. Talk about your double standards.

Not surprisingly, Fahrenheit 9/11 begins and ends by showing supposedly oppressed minorities who allegedly are being victimized by the white establishment -- headed, of course, by none other than President George W. Bush. Bring out the violins. Of course, in Moore's mind, Bush didn't legitmately win the 2000 election because he narrowly lost the popular vote to Al Gore while winning the electoral vote. Moore goes into one of his typical bleeding-heart conspiracy theroies about some blacks being removed from the Florida voting rolls, however, never mentions that Gore lost votes because some Floridians were too stupid to mark a ballot correctly. Moore falsely asserts that this is the first time something such as this occurred in American history, and never bothers to mention that there was a similar, much-disputed election in 1876 when Rutherford B. Hayes won by one electoral vote after losing the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden. Moore also conveniently never mentions how the Democrats stole the 1960 election from Richard Nixon by getting the Mafia to rig Illinois ballot boxes for John F. Kennedy. Isn't it ironic how liberals who question Bush's legitimacy always ignore the facts surrounding JFK's illegitimate win? Well, it temporarily kept that ever-hated, dastardly Republican Richard Nixon out of the White House, so I guess that makes it OK in the liberal book of thinking, right?

The most interesting part of Fahrenheit 9/11 deals with Saudi Arabia and how much the Bush family and America itself has benefited from Saudi investments. Of course, Osama bin Laden himself is a Saudi, and 15 of the 19 suicide hijackers on September 11, 2001 were Saudi nationals. So how come in the days immediately following 9/11 did the U.S. let 142 high-profile Saudis, including some members of the bin Laden family, leave the United States? Good question. I have to agree with the FBI agent Moore interviews who says "They should have at least been interviewed before being allowed to leave." With so-called friends like Saudi Arabia, who needs enemies. Moore scores the most points with this intriguing segment.

Between musical montages which exist solely to elicit easy laughs at Mr. Bush's expense, Moore shows footage of political partisans such as Richard Clarke, who blushed with embarrassment when caught contradicting himself during testimony before the 9/11 commission, and interviews far-left Democratic congressman "Baghdad" Jim McDermott, who visited Iraq in 2002 and reported back what a nice guy Saddam Hussein was. We never get any articulate defenses of the invasion of Iraq from such middle-of-the-roaders as Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, instead Moore heaps on the footage of Bush's many lapses in articulation -- the same stuff you see every night on Letterman and Leno. One minute Moore wants Bush to come across as some calculating, evil genius, the next minute he's a puppet, and the next he's supposed to be a stumbling, clueless dolt.

I knew it was only a matter of time before Moore got into criticizing the U.S. Patriot Act, which gives law enforcement expanded powers to surveillance terrorists. To be truly safe, our borders should be protected by the military and we should have much stricter immigration laws (absolute necessities that both political parties don't have the guts to do anything about), but I feel a lot safer with Attorney General John Ashcroft keeping close tabs on terror suspects than what his predecessor Janet Reno did. Or I should say didn't do. Typical of the PC obsessed Clinton administration, Reno was too afraid to investigate Arab Muslims for fear of being called racist -- the biggest fear of any liberal. In this day and age, crying racism is the last refuge of scoundrels. And, of course, Moore never shows us all the terrorists Ashcroft's FBI has caught in the last three years and all the terror plots thwarted. If we leave it to the civil liberties and civil rights wackos and Communistic groups like the ACLU, a lot more innocent Americans are going to end up dead. Mark my words.

Moore even has the gall to show happy Iraqi children playing in the streets as if we were about to invade some peace-loving utopia like Canada -- well at least Moore thinks Canada is a utopia according to Bowling for Columbine. And hey, it took a Canadian company to produce Bowling for Columbine and a Canadian company to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11. So why doesn't he move there? Something tells me the taxes are too high even for a wealthy liberal like Moore. Furthermore, the smarmy fat slob conveniently never documents the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime and tells of Hussein's torture chambers and mass graves. But he's more than eager to show the collateral damage caused by American bombings, and gladly makes American soldiers look bad, while lamenting enemy casulties. Moore says Saddam's weapons of mass destruction didn't exist, but conveniently never mentions how the Clinton administration was convinced WMDs existed, and how WMDs might have been smuggled across the border to Syria or Iran in all the months of haggling with the United Nations before the invasion. And what about all those UN resolutions Hussein so brazenly defied since the 1991 Gulf War? Moore just can't seem to find the time to mention this either.

Then Moore spews the left's continuing lie of no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al- Qaida. Not to say that other Middle Eastern nations aren't equally complicit, but how about al-Qaida terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who was given refuge by Hussein and continues to carry out attacks from the enemy stronghold of Fallujah? What about 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta's reported meeting with an Iraqi security agent in early 2001? Furthermore, what about Hussein sending money to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers? And how about Hussein's longtime mistress, who alleged during an interview on American television that the former Iraqi dictator gave money to Osama bin Laden in the mid-1990s? Moore never touches on these points because they'll interfere with his agenda.

As predictable as he is partisan, Moore rips Bush for spending 42 percent of his time at his Crawford, Texas ranch in his first eight months in office, even though Bush explains how it's just as easy to conduct business from Texas as it is from Washington D.C. In all his unending criticisms of George W. Bush's performance during his first months in office, Moore gives the Clinton-Gore administration a pass for letting terrorism grow and flourish in their eight full years in office. Moore never addresses how the CIA and military were virtually emasculated by appeasing wimps likes of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and how Clinton did nothing to confront al-Qaida after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993; how Clinton never even visited the site of the first World Trade Center bombing; how Clinton pulled out of Somalia to let al-Qaida flourish there; how Clinton did nothing after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000; how Clinton could have had bin Laden three different times, but let him go because of insufficient evidence; and how Clinton's missile strikes against al-Qaida in 1998 were the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. Yes, the Bush administration could have done more to combat terrorism in the eight months prior to 9/11, but Clinton-Gore deserve a lot more of the blame for doing virtually nothing in eight years.

One of the few things Moore does get right is the Bush administration's bad decision to end major combat in Iraq too soon and its overzealous declaration of victory, not foreseeing all the forthcoming problems during occupation. But while it's too early to call the invasion of Iraq a total victory, it's also premature to label it the complete failure Moore would have his audience believe. When you get right down to it, it will take at least a few more years to fully analyze the pros and cons of invading Iraq. One line of thinking is as follows: The U.S. government knows it's going to continue to have problems with these Islamic maniacs for years to come. Therefore, we overthrew Saddam Hussein to install a quasi-democracy friendly to the U.S. smack in the middle of the hornets' nest. But do you think we get an articulate defense of this theory in Moore's hatchet job? Keep dreaming.

Another important matter Moore obviously doesn't examine is how leftists like himself and the leftist majority of the "mainstream" media have tied Bush's or any future U.S. president's hands in going full throttle with the war on terror. With all of America's high-tech weaponry, we should be able to level the entire Middle East without one of our soldiers getting hurt, but the bleeding-heart internationalists in the press will never allow it to happen, making a major issue over every foreign civilian who gets killed in the crossfire. What leftists like Moore can't or won't understand is that we're fighting a nihilistic enemy that only understands and respects force. It's also an enemy that will hide behind women and children and in mosques for propaganda purposes. Besides, did those Arab Muslims who perpetrated 9/11 care about our civilians on that horrific day? Had Moore and today's overwhelmingly liberal media existed in the 1940s, I'm afraid we never would have won World War II. Back then you had a better generation of Americans who knew the only way to win was to stay united and totally annihilate the enemy. Now we have a left-wing, bordering on seditious, media that's giving the same solace to our enemy as they did in Vietnam, a war we would have won had it not been for Marxist anti-war protesters, an enemy sympathizing media and spineless politicians. Can't these stubborn pinheads understand that it's not possible to fight a politically correct war and win?

Instead of showing us an interview with one American soldier who believes in his mission in Iraq, Moore loads his film with disillusioned soldiers, providing no balance whatsoever. And in the biggest outright lie I found, Moore scoffs at the coalition of nations currently in Iraq, naming only the smallest, most obscure countries without militaries while never mentioning that Britain, Italy, Poland, Australia, Japan and South Korea are part of the coalition. See how Moore lies by what he doesn't tell you?

But when you get right down to it, what can you expect. Moore is your typical peacenik who has delusions about everybody around the world one day holding hands and singing We Are the World. And overall, Fahrenheit 9/11 plays like an agonizing two-hour negative campaign ad for John Kerry. It's really sad that in the early stages of our battle for survival against the most vicious savages imaginable, a film has been made that demonizes George W. Bush more than the real demons who want to decapitate all us infidels -- liberal or conservative. What a shame the treacherous lengths some weasels will go to just so the Democrats can regain the White House.

Just imagine someone as far to the right as Moore is to the left, such as Ann Coulter, making a film as slanderous of Bill Clinton as Fahrenheit 9/11 is about George W. Bush? Do you think it would receive a single kind word in the "mainstream" press? Or even get distributed at all?

Michael Moore should be proud of himself. He's made a movie America-haters everywhere will love. If every dog has its day, Mr. Moore will one day get his.

The title of another Moore book asks the question, Dude, Where's My Country? Well, Mike, you go down to Key West, Florida, jump in the ocean and swim for about 90 miles to the south and you'll run right into it. It's called Cuba, and you'll love it.

Some on the Left Support Gore's New Lies

I just had to catch the end of Special Report on Fox News, because I knew they'd talk about Al Gore's lies today...in claiming that there is no link between Al Qeada and Hussein's Iraq, tho it's been shown that there are numerous direct links. Leftist Juan Williams of NPR never fails in his towing the party line, by claiming that he didn't interpret Gore's remarks as saying there was no link between the terrorist group and Hussein- luckily, Brit Hume stood up to him and made it clear that he was being dishonest by claiming to "interpret" Gore's comments differently, when, in fact- Gore said exactly what Williams was saying he wasn't.

Williams also claimed that there is no link between Hussein and Bin Laden, which isn't true- it's been shown to be the case by the FBI, the CIA, and others. There is, in fact, a direct link between the two men, throughout the years.

Just shows you that the pattern of deceit continues on the left...they will say anything to contradict the current administration, no matter how wrong it is, and no matter how harmful it may be to the United States.

Williams and others on the left can claim there were no links, but the evidence shows otherwise, and with such evidence, it becomes so very clear that the lefties are living in a world of imagination where facts have no bearing on reality.

Dishonest Moore Hates America

The never-honest, Micheal Moore, hates America, and this is proof. It's also proof that many people are downright stupid to believe such nonsense. And, a note to anyone who sees this tripe and doesn't want to live in the U.S. anymore, contact me, and I'll see about buying your one way plane ticket out.

Anyone who can spread such outright lies like this, in an attempt to sway the upcoming election, and at a time of war, hates America- no question about it. Hitler would have hired a man like Moore on the spot. How proud his parents must be.
------------------
'Fahrenheit' Smash Hit in NYC

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" broke all records yesterday in its premiere showing. Lincoln Plaza Cinemas manager Mohammed Alam told me last night that the film grossed a stunning $31,569 and all sixteen performances were sold out.

"From the beginning of the day until the end," Alam said, "I have never seen anything like it." Four shows for today are already sold out, and Alam expects a repeat performance.

Meantime, another bigger record was set downtown at the Village Cineplex 7, the only other theatre in the country playing "F9/11" before its national opening on Friday. The box office gross there was $48,000.

"It's a record," managing director Scott Rosenmann told me. "People have been crying and applauding at the end of shows. Some say they don't want to live in America anymore."

Rosenmann was keeping the theatre open all night last night, and even had tickets sold for the 2:30 a.m. show.

More Lies from Al Gore

Al Gore is once again proving, in my opinion, that he hates America. How so? In a time of war like this...you cannot spread lies in your speeches, claiming the President is lying, when, in fact, you're the one telling the whoppers. The former vice president claimed in a speech that President Bush lied to the nation by claiming there are any links between Al Qaeda and Iraq and Hussein himself. There are indeed links, a number of them- and Gore knows this. The 9/11 Commission recently said as much. The FBI has provided evidence of such links, and the media has reported the links as well. Gore recently claimed that Bush lied by telling the American people that there were links between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks- a claim Mr. Bush never made, and actually pointed out, many times, that he and his administration were not suggesting this at all- tho, there is evidence that exists that point to possible direct links between the plot and Hussein.

Yes, it is shameful for a former vice president to put his country in danger like this by spreading such lies, and in such a hateful way at that. He is feeding into the conspiracy theorists who want to claim Bush is a liar, tho have no evidence of such, and the extremely insane who want to claim that the U.S. government actually attacked America on Sept. 11. Difference of opinion is fine, but bald face lies are NOT, and they never will be, especially from a former vice president who knows his lies are putting Americans at home and abroad in danger.

In the end, I believe that Americans will easily connect Gore to Kerry- and it will hurt them both. Gore, once somewhat mild mannered, has turned into the new Howard Dean, with his creepy screaming and his claims that are totally unfounded and usually outright lies. The dems would do good to get Gore under control, because he's an embarassment to all reasonable Americans at best, and a danger to all Americans at worst.

Negative Ads, Positive Ads- the Difference Between the Left and Right

As I have noted before, the left is full of hate right now. On tonight's Newshour on PBS, they showed a number of different political ads. They had a guy from factcheck.org on who told if each ad was true or not...fact is, all the anti-bush ads were negative attack pieces full of distortions, and the pro-Bush ads were positive ads with no attacks in them, besides poking fun of John Kerry's status as a multi-millionaire who seems to want to be seen as a man of the people- something I personally think he has tried to do, tho the commentator didn't totally agree that he saw himself this way. It's sad to see such hatred, lies, distortion. It seems a staple of the left in 2004. I'd go further out there and say- it seems that many on the left seem to hate not only George Bush but America itself.

The Left's Denial of Clinton Sins

Why does Monica Lewinsky need a publicist?! That's juat absurd.

Why is Clinton changing his story of some events, and contradicting himself in his new memoir that is over 900 pages!!

Who in their right mind writes a 900 page memoir? Who is so in love with themselves? Who in their right mind takes $10-12 million in advance for such a book the highy liberal NY Times calls "sloppy, self-indulgent and often eye-crossingly dull"?

Why are some people so amazed by Clinton, as if he could do no wrong?

Why do some people say "when Clinton lied no one died," and claim that George Bush lied about anything, tho there's not one shred of evidence to suggest such a thing? Why is that these same people that say that have no answer when they realize Clinton had the same exact policy as Bush and said the same exact things about WMD- the same thing the UN said (Hussein never fully complied and didn't destroy all banned weapons)? Why can't they be honest...if they claim Bush lied and people died, why don't they say the same thing about Clinton?

Why are some people so clueless as to the reality that Clinton didn't "just like about sex," and that he lied to law enforcement, a grand jury, Congress, his aides, the American people- and it wasn't about sex, it was about a sexual harassment lawsuit with Paula Jones. You will remember, numerous women have come forward telling stories of Clinton sexually harassing them, groping them, even allegations of rape. A man who lied with a straight face to the American public in national tv time and time again- how can anyone with any sense trust that he didn't commit these various illegal acts with numerous women? He admits to having relations with Monica (don't ask him about it, or he'll explode like he did in a recent interview), so we have to assume that there's a good chance that Jones was telling the truth, as were the various other women. Why will some people not admit as much?

From everything I have seen the last week or so- it seems dems are ready to tow the party line, kneel down, and kiss the hand of the great Mr. Clinton...republicans and many independents seem to have some sense on the issue, and they realize that Clinton was neither a good president nor a good man.

Terrorists Prove Themselves to be Cowardly Thugs

I constantly wonder why terrorists are too pansy to show their faces. They act all bold with their statements of doom against all things that are "against islam," and against the west...yet, they never fail to completely hide their faces when they make videos with hostages, or go out in the street and march in their terrorist get-togethers. I wish these men that claim to be so strong and so unafraid of what will come of their actions would be honest with themselves- they're pathetic little men who have no lives, no futures, nothing. Tell it like it is- if you're gonna kill someone for "allah" or blow yourself up for the cause of islam, at least have the guts to show your faces- so we can see the men and women who will, one day, be burning in hell for their actions.

America-Haters Need to Wake Up

Why are so many people in South Korea, a nation that depends on the US for their very protection. protesting like crazy, demanding their troops whithdrawl from Iraq? That nation could not make it without US military support, and that's a fact...and it should come into play here. I'm reading John Gibson's book, Hating America, which exposes the hate across the globe, mostly out of jealousy if you ask me, because everyone seems to want to be like the US, millions upon millions want to come here, yet they bash us nonstop. I don't care if anyone likes us, and I don't think anyone else should either. The arab world is backwards as hell, and they're insignificant when it comes to making friends with any of them...Europe is highly anti-american and anti-semitic, appeasing their own arab population, so they can go to hell as well if you ask me.

The fact is- we don't need anyone. The haters can keep hating, and eventually, government will wise up and stop the aid- we give billions to numerous America-hating countries. When the feds wise up, those funds will dry up, and these enemies will pay for their actions. Then, when their S.O.L., and only then- they will wake up to reality and stop bashing.

The South Koreans are demanding a withdrawl of their few thousand troops, because of the kidnapping of a south korean man, and the terrorists are threatening to behead him (shocking that these men of such high morals would behead anyone! gasp!!) if the South Korean troops don't withdrawl from Iraq. Too bad that's not gonna happen, and the man will surely be beheaded tomorrow. That's sad, yes, but we cannot negotiate with terrorists, because that only emboldens them and moves them to take even worse actions- not that there are many actions that are worse than beheading someone (I should change that, and say- saw a head off, since it's not the swift, quick, painless act that beheading suggests.) The protestors need to realize you cannot bow to the demands of animals...animals never keep their promises in the end. They might make a temporary truce, but wake up- it never lasts. Animals know no other way of life but violence, blood, and death.

The anti-americans across the globe need to wake up. We're in the middle of world war 3- yes, we are in the middle of a world war, a war that will decide the fate of all humanity, don't fool yourselves into thinking it's anything less. With that in mind, the decent people of the world need to unite, not bash and attack at every turn. I don't see the Europeans changing anytime soon- they're way too anti-american, and so many people in the area are anti-jewish, anti-semitic, pro-arab (and not pro-arab in a moderate arab way, but rather a violence to israelis kind of way.) I don't see the backwards arabs changing either- no arab nation has a true democracy, and most of them have the exact opposite, and they have media that flames the fire of anti-western thought, attacking all things that have fallen under the supposed influence of the west, and all things that aren't particularly muslim. No way these people are going to wake up to the truth anytime soon, which is a shame, because for hundreds of years they have been fairly backward, and they seem to be getting worse all the time.

In the final analysis, positive world opinion would be nice, but it's not at all necessary. We could withhold billions in aid to numerous countries that receive it on a steady basis, and we could remove troops and leave some of these nations vulnerable...but, a hard lesson like that won't be used by the US government, even if it should be. We need to take a tough stand, demanding that the world's people comply with peace, fairness, and other such values. I don't see a tough stand taking place, but we can hope that will soon change. To the America- haters...we don't need you. You're doing nothing but cutting your own throats, and I, personally, will show no sympathy during the proverbial blood bath that ensues.

Whatever You Did, Brother...It's okay with me- You're Black

I was watching taped Bill O'Reilly from last night just a min ago...and he had a segment where he talked to some guy from the NAACP (the racist group that claims to support civil rights for all) who was there to defend the actions of a black female judge (shocking, the NAACP sticks with all blacks, no matter if they're great or vile) who was seeing a convicted drug dealer in her court room- the guy was convicted of a drug charge that could gotten him 25 yrs in prison, but he got nothing- just some rehab...a slap in the wrist, as O'Reilly points out. Detectives are outside with an arrest warrant on new drug charges...but they can't arrest him inside the court. The judge sneaks the guy out the backdoor, so the cops can't arrest him. This guy is claiming that the acts of the judge were fine, and that her civil rights were being violated (a bogus claim the NAACP and other racist groups like it use ALL the time.) He really couldn't explain why it was okay, but it WAS okay.

O'Reilly, of course, pointed out that it's a racial issue- asking him if that was the case, of course the guy denied it, but we all know the truth- the herd mentality. The herd mentality is what keeps most blacks with the democratic party, tho history shows republicans have put thru the civil rights success stories of the 20th century...the same mentality has an obscene number of blacks supporting double murderer, OJ Simpson, JUST because he's black. This same mentality has blacks defending blacks who commit unlawful acts like this judge, JUST because she's black.

It's no wonder racism exists with people like this judge, and this guy supporting her who make EVERYTHING on earth into a racial issue. There are truly very few racial issues, but so many want to make EVERYTHING about race, which only keeps racism (black on white racism mainly) going. It'll never go away until the race profiteers and those who support fellow blacks, no matter what they really think, only because they are, just that, black.

Guess what? I'm white...Hitler was white. I don't support a thing he did. OJ is guilty, this judge needs to be disbarred, and this NAACP guy needs to get his head examined. Facts, people. Facts.

Larry Elder Exposes the Racist Claims about Reagan

Did Ronald Reagan 'torture' blacks?

"Ronald Reagan 'tortured' blacks."

One Sunday morning, as I drove to my local tennis court to play a match, I heard a black radio commentator give that assessment of the now late, great 40th president. Imagine my conflict. After all, here I am, about to selfishly work on my backhand, while having allowed Reagan to busy himself by "torturing" members of my race.

The Reagan-hated-blacks routine resurfaced during the week of his memorial services and tributes. This indictment includes the following charges: he cut social spending; he showed his latent racism by supporting Bob Jones University; he gave a states' rights speech in Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were killed; he "insulted" the lone black member of his Cabinet; he opposed race-based preferences; he again demonstrated racial insensitivity by pursuing a policy of "constructive engagement" with the apartheid regime of South Africa; he attempted to fire the black female chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

Did Reagan cut social spending?

Not according to the Congressional Research Service. Federal spending for social programs increased from $344.3 billion in 1981 to $412 billion in 1989, a 19.7 percent increase using 1982 dollars. As a percentage of Gross National Product, social spending during Reagan's two terms averaged 1.73 percent. By contrast, during the Carter years, social spending, as a percentage of GNP, averaged 1.65 percent.

Reagan showed his racism by supporting Bob Jones University.

The Reagan administration initially argued that, despite Bob Jones University's policy against interracial dating, the university still deserved its tax-exempt status. Reagan promptly reversed his position, and asked Congress to pass a bill prohibiting tax-exempt status for segregated schools.

Reagan signaled his racism by giving a campaign speech in Philadelphia, Miss.

Does it matter that when Reagan left Philadelphia, Miss., he traveled to New York to give a speech before the Urban League, a major civil rights organization? Some did, indeed, interpret Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, Miss., as a signal to anti-black Southerners. According to Lou Cannon, author of "Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio," the "states' rights speech" so bothered Nancy Reagan that she pushed for a shakeup in Reagan's campaign to avoid any other such missteps. Not exactly segregation then, segregation today, segregation tomorrow.

Reagan insulted a black member of his Cabinet.

At a meeting of black mayors, Reagan did, indeed, fail to recognize his own HUD secretary, mistakenly referring to him as "Mr. Mayor." Well, send in the bigot patrol.

Reagan opposed race-based preferences.

Yes, and so do most Republicans. And, for what it's worth, Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam opposes race-based preferences. Back in 1963, Whitney Young, former head of the Urban League, proposed a sort of Marshall Plan for blacks. But a member of his board objected to what he called "the heart of it -- the business of employing Negroes (because they are Negroes)."

Reagan supported the apartheid regime of South Africa.

Reagan pursued a policy of "constructive engagement." According to the Journal of Modern African Studies, Great Britain, "This policy held that quiet diplomacy, contact with oppositionist bodies, application of fair employment practices under the Sullivan Principles by American companies operating in South Africa, assistance programs to train Africans, and public statements endorsing reform would do more to undermine apartheid than would confrontational measures, including sanctions and disinvestment."

Reagan attempted to fire the black female head of the Civil Rights Commission.

Reagan did, indeed, attempt to fire Mary Frances Berry. And why not? She supports race-based preferences, set-asides and so-called "disparate impact laws," all of which Reagan opposed. Berry successfully sued to keep her job, and she remains head of the Civil Rights Commission today. (By the way, when President George W. Bush attempted to appoint a black man to the commission, Peter Kirsanow, Mary Frances Berry filed suit to prevent Kirsanow from joining the commission. She unsuccessfully argued that the current occupant on the board still had several years left in her term.)

So, how did blacks fare under Ronald Reagan?

From the end of 1982 to 1989, black unemployment dropped 9 percentage points (from 20.4 percent to 11.4 percent), while white unemployment dropped by only 4 percentage points. Black household income went up 84 percent from 1980 to 1990, versus a white household income increase of 68 percent. The number of black-owned businesses increased from 308,000 in 1982 to 424,000 in 1987, a 38 percent rise versus a 14 percent increase in the total number of firms in the United States. Receipts by black-owned firms more than doubled, from $9.6 billion to $19.8 billion.

If this is "torture," more, please -- and a side of fries.

Liberal Lunacy

The Museum of Left Wing Lunacy

And to comment on just two quotes from the nuts on the left-

(I) "will not let the white boys win in this election." -- Donna Brazile, Al Gore's Campaign Manager on the 2000 election

I wonder if she realizes that Al Gore is white. This woman has said so many outrageous things that I seriously think she might not actually know this.

"Yes, (Bush is a) racist. We all knew that but the world is only finding it out now. As Texas's governor, Bush led a penitentiary system that executed more people than all the other U.S. states together. And most of the people who died from (the) death penalty were Afro-Americans or Hispanics. (Bush) promoted a Conservative program, designed to eliminate everything Americans had accomplished so far in matters of race and equality." -- Danny Glover

Come on, Danny boy- you're just angry because YOU are a racist (you prove this with these comments) and you can't even find work in commercials anymore. So, you're a bitter racist black man with no career and no life...towing the party line, claiming racism when you and those who think like you are the true racists.

You can see from this, and from a million other sources if you do your research that, as Larry Elder said, blacks are more racist than whites in this country...you will NEVER see comments like this from whites who are actually taken serious (two of the men quoted on this page alone were presidential candidates!). In the left in America- these racists are established figures. Makes you wonder how so many are blind to the fact that democrats, in general, are no friends to blacks...Republicans- who, historically, have pushed harder than anyone for the minorities in this country, are the friendly ones- tho, this seems to get past way too many people. It's almost sad, but- a lot of people are stupid, and I feel no sympathy for them.

Flushing Kerry Out

Flushing Kerry out

It's time to flush John Kerry out on the issues and expose his liberalism for all to see. Then we'll find out how evenly divided this country really is.

What better time than following the remarkable week honoring Ronald Reagan and his conservative ideals to begin to demand policy specifics from Senator Kerry beyond merely being against everything President Bush stands for?

Interestingly, both the Washington Times and the Washington Post ran stories Monday bearing on Kerry's policy compass and his failure to thoroughly articulate it. The Times' Bill Sammon noted that the Bush campaign has adopted a strategy to force Democratic candidates either to "embrace or reject Senator John Kerry's liberalism."

This, Sammon observed, could be especially effective in the South, where Democrats are more conservative. Remember Kerry's January speech at Dartmouth dismissing the South?

"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South," said Kerry. "Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own."

Shouldn't Republicans be playing that clip over and over, not just in the South to show his contempt for that region, but in all places where conservatives reside -- since his dismissal of the South is mostly a slap at political conservatism?

And shouldn't Bush operatives also be reminding voters that Senator Kerry was named the most liberal senator of 2003 by the widely respected and nonpartisan Washington Journal?

Sure this has been discussed before, but Kerry has attempted to wave it away. He must not be allowed to. This was not a snapshot of one or a few votes that could be explained away with nuance. It was a picture of Kerry's comprehensive voting record for an entire year. And it is a portrait of extreme liberalism. Look at his competitors, including Senator Kennedy.

Kerry simply can't weasel out of this if pressed to the mat. And he should be, relentlessly. His only answer thus far has been to sidestep the charge and attempt to turn it around on Bush, questioning his conservatism.

Query: If Democrats are so sure the nation is evenly split along ideological fault lines, why won't Kerry own up to his liberalism and be happy to paint George Bush as a conservative? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. No need to answer.)

The Washington Post story "Doubts Linger as Kerry Advances, Supporters Want a Sharper Image," gives us more of the same. Even this liberal paper is reporting that Senator Kerry hasn't been truly candid about what he believes.

The Post says that Democrats are more motivated to defeat Bush than to elect Kerry -- as if that's a revelation. But "the chief reason" for that is: "The senator from Massachusetts, they say, has not crisply articulated what a Kerry presidency would stand for beyond undoing much of Bush's agenda."

Well, the Post should know that there might be a good reason for Kerry's reluctance to share. The more liberal presidential candidates who were open about their liberalism, like Mondale and Dukakis, were trounced in their elections.

So it's time for the GOP to flush Kerry out on both his policies and ideology, which ultimately are inseparable. And this doesn't mean going negative, unless it is negative to expose a liberal's liberalism. That's an interesting thought.

Kerry has been riding the coattails of the antiBush, antiwar Democratic sentiment since he received the baton from Howard Dean, and he's been hiding his true self ever since. George Bush, for the most part, is just the opposite. We know where he stands.

Republicans should highlight this contrast. Ronald Reagan was a man of big ideas, and so is George Bush. Big ideas are not vague ideas, but quite the opposite. Kerry, at this point, has offered no big ideas, and certainly no clear ones. He has been nebulous at best.

We're not just talking about Kerry's flip-flopping here, though Kerry's certainly distinguished himself as a virtuoso of that art. We're saying that Kerry has been closed, uncertain, reluctant, tentative and irresolute. Flip-flopping is just a part of that.

Kerry is either hiding the ball about his true beliefs and policies for fear the public will reject them (and him), or he is truly wishy-washy. Based on his behavior the past few months, it's probably a bit of both.

Either way, this country can ill-afford a vacillating, unsure leader, particularly during time of war, and even less so one who is not comfortable enough in his own skin to be honest about where he stands.

The Vonage Ad Girl

I see this ad for Vonage (the broadband phone company) all the time when I check hotmail. She's cute. Decided I wanted to share.

The Modest Giant

THE MODEST GIANT
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Ronald Reagan was the first president I was old enough to vote for, and the only one I have ever voted for with enthusiasm. He was the pre-eminent influence on my political coming of age -- so much so that to this day, "Reaganite" is the label that best sums up my political world view.

For those of us who so admired Reagan during his presidency -- and who remember the mockery and disdain to which he was so often subjected -- the tributes that have been pouring forth since Saturday help make the sorrow of his death, and of the awful sickness that preceded it, more bearable. History, as he always knew it would, has vindicated him. The man once dismissed as an "amiable dunce" and reviled as a warmonger is now acknowledged as a courageous visionary, an apostle of decency and liberty who left the world far better than he found it.

"The American sound," Reagan said in his second inaugural address, "is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair." Much the same could be said of Reagan himself. All week long, the accolades have emphasized the character and values that made him the man he was -- his optimism, his patriotism, his self-deprecating humor, his moral clarity, his rocklike belief that freedom is the birthright of every human being, his willingness to call evil by its name, his faith in God, his sheer guts.

But one trait has gone largely unmentioned: His remarkable humility.

In her moving and affectionate account of the 40th president's life, "When Character Was King," Peggy Noonan says that when she really wants to convey what Reagan was like, she tells the "bathroom story."

It occurred in 1981, shortly after the assassination attempt. Reagan was still in the hospital and one night, feeling unwell, he got out of bed to go to the bathroom. "He slapped water on his face, and water slopped out of the sink," Noonan relates. "He got some paper towels and got down on the floor to clean it up. An aide came in and said, 'Mr. President, what are you doing? We have people for that.' And Reagan said oh, no, he was just cleaning up his mess, he didn't want a nurse to have to do it."

That was Reagan: On his say-so armies would march and fighter jets scramble, but he hated to trouble a hospital orderly to mop up his spill. That humbleness, it seems to me, is a mark of Reagan's greatness, too -- and a key to understanding the outpouring of affection his death has unleashed.

Though he came from nothing -- poor family, alcoholic father, no status, nothing to boast about -- Reagan considered himself no less entitled to respect and a chance to prove himself than those who had much more. But if no man was his better, neither was he the better of any man. That instinctive sense of the equality of all Americans never left him -- not even when he was the one with fame and power.

I don't think I have ever heard a story about Reagan in which he came across as arrogant or supercilious. In a number of reminiscences this week, former staffers have described what it was like to work for the president. Several have recalled how, even when they were at the bottom of the pecking order, he never made them feel small or unworthy of notice. To the contrary: He noticed them, talked to them, made them feel special.

Reagan climbed as high as anyone in our age can climb. But it wasn't ego or a craving for honor and status that drove him, and he never lost his empathy for ordinary Americans -- or his connection with them, as we now know from his private correspondence.

He was a lifelong letter-writer -- perhaps the most prolific correspondent of any president since Jefferson. A collection of his letters was published last year ("Reagan: A Life in Letters"), and it is striking to see how many of them were written -- by hand, usually -- to angry or disappointed critics, many of them unimportant people he had never met. He is unfailingly polite and respectful; often he is touchingly earnest in his attempt to get them to see his side of an issue.

And why would the president of the United States devote so much time to answering mail from complete nobodies? In part because he never forgot his own modest roots. He was a genuinely humble man, one who didn't scorn others as "complete nobodies." For who knew better than he just how far a "nobody" from nowhere might someday go?

On June 3, 1984, Reagan visited Ballyporeen, the County Tipperary hamlet where his great-grandfather was born in 1828.

"Today I come back to you as a descendant of people who are buried here in paupers' graves," he said. "Perhaps this is God's way of reminding us that we must always treat every individual, no matter what his or her station in life, with dignity and respect. And who knows? Someday that person's child or grandchild might grow up to become the prime minister of Ireland -- or president of the United States."

In his first inaugural address, Reagan described George Washington as both "a monumental man" and "a man of humility." The two qualities merged in the nation's first president. They merged again in the 40th. May he rest in peace.

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

Monk Is Back

The new season of Monk starts next Friday on USA Network. Probably my favorite show right now, one of the best tv shows ever in my opinion...they broke up the season into two blocks of, I believe 13 episodes. That way, they aired Monk for 13, then they picked up the new series, Touching Evil- also a very good show, and they're back now in the summer with 13 more eps of Monk. The preview for the season premiere looked pretty funny. Monk freaking out at some guy peeing in the subway, and him telling the bum- 'I rode the subway!" the bum asking, "change?" and Monk telling him- yes, I think I have. Nice. Tony Shaloub is a great actor by the way.

I was thinking that this would be the last episode of Touching Evil, but I totally forgot, it airs on Monday nights now, and it's just repeating tonight, which is good, because I didn't tape it Monday and I am recording it now, along with Trust episode 2 since I didn't do that earlier. I taped Good Eats onto the DVR and put it onto VHS- I think I'm going to make a tape full of nothing but episodes of Good Eats, and use it to fall asleep to.

I'm listening to this CD- Prairie Home Companion's A Few More Pretty Good Jokes. Pretty funny stuff. Pretty Good, actually. Haha, I'm a laugh riot.

I work tomorrow, tho I wish I didn't. Then again, I'll be alone all day, which will be a nice change, so I can sit back and read. I'm reading the book, First Light, right now...it's a book writen by Philip R. Craig and some other writer- they combined their two signature characters into one book. I'm on page 120, but nothing has really happened in the way of murder or mystery really...which is odd, but who knows what is going to happen soon. I like both characters tho. Brady Coyne and J.W. Jackson- especially Jackson, I guess because I read two other books with him in it already. Glad I discovered the Martha's Vineyard series.

The DVR came with tickets for your whole family to an Otters' game...the professional baseball team in town. Never been to any of their games, but maybe I'll use it and actually go. It was free, and it's a shame to let free things go to waste like that, I think.

Well, off again, I go...

Banner Time

I might change the look of the site a bit, or maybe the layout, or both...or maybe neither one. I was just messing around with paintshop pro, but I can't figure out any cool things to do for a banner, so I did this...boring, but oh well.

DVR

The DVR came today...so sweet. It has the dual tuner, and you can watch a 3rd program while recording two others. I set up a bunch of records already for tonight...plus, it has the series feature where it records a particular series you choose (Touching Evil on USA I picked for one of them) and it records it everytime it airs. The remote is bigger and not as user-friendly, and the software is much slower when turning the channels or going thru menus...and you can't go thru the channels without being in guide mode like you can with the regular cable box, but all-in-all it's pretty cool. So much easier to have this and be able to tape programs on different channels when I'm not home...that wasn't possible before, because I have the cable box, and you can't set a VCR timer but for the one channel you leave it on when you leave the house.

I ate a bit ago, and I sat down and noticed Trust episodes 1 and 2 air tonight on BBC America. I have them set up to record...very nice since there are only 6 episodes in total, and all I had on tape before was 4, 5, and 6. Now, after tonight, I'll just need to get episode 3 if they air it, and I will have the entire show.

I need to mess with moviemaker and see what I can do with it, just for the heck of it. I also need to work with paintshop pro some more because I have it now, and I want to figure out some things on it that I never figured out before.

Well, I guess I'm gonna get off of here and go into the other room and sit down for a bit. Fun stuff.

Now, The Homos Attack Reagan with Their Nonsense

The idiots with the gay agenda need to get real. More attacks on President Reagan. Men who have sex with other men, and then blame Reagan, claiming he is a murderer. This is the ultimate example of laying blame on others for your own immoral, indecent, dangerous behavior. This is sick, it's wrong, and it's a prime example of why the homosexual lobby needs to be defeated. They call AIDS an American 'epidemic' (it is nowhere near), they created the word homophobia, and claim that anyone who disagrees with them, anyone who doesn't embrace their agenda is, indeed, homophobic. They have come into America's schools and actually set up programs and departments based on WHO THEY CHOOSE TO HAVE SEX WITH. Think about that- most colleges actually have entire departments based around SEX ACTS. If it weren't true, it'd be downright hilarious.

Articles like this make it certain that Americans will not embrace their lifestyle, and we will not feel for their so called "plight."

The Attacks on Reagan Continue

Two parts of a cyber alert from the media research center in regards to Ronald Reagan.

How could Reagan have had any effect on AIDS in the homosexual community. Men who engage in VERY dangerous sex acts with one another...would Reagan go into the bathhouses and demand that men stop having anal sex with each other? This is a ridiculous attack that is always thrown out there by the pushers of the homosexual agenda...an agenda that has become so insane that they made up their own word- "homophobia" a 'phobia' that no doctor recognizes as even existing. Worse than that- the agenda has twisted the imaginary word into a new meaning...a word which now means anyone who rejects the immoral lifestyle or the behavior of those who live such a lifestyle. PHOBIA- key word here folks. I don't agree with homosexuality, I think it is digusting, I think it's wrong, it's harmful to all people, it's unnatural, etc. That doesn't make me SCARED of it. And being scared of something isn't even a "phobia." A phobia is a severe, irrational fear of something! Those who wish to push their lifestyles on all of us need to get off of this particular attack, because it's nonsense.

They always call AIDS an epidemic. BUT, it doesn't meet the criteria in the US to be anywhere near an epidemic. It might be an epidemic among gay men, but come on- that's a tiny minority of the population, one...and, two- these men engage in obscenely dangerous behaviors, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Yet, the gay lobby has made us all believe that this disease that affects so few Americans is an epidemic.

I find this funny because, again, they mention AIDS, which is, as I said before, a stupid attack, and it's just plain stupid to think him mentioning the word could have done anything to change the behavior of gay men. Oh, we'll stop having sex because Ronnie said so. I don't think that's a line you would have heard from a gay man in the 1980's!

Also- tax cuts for the rich? Wow. That's the same lie the dems are spreading about the Bush tax cuts. All the experts say the tax cuts are responsible for the economic recovery- the downfall started with Clinton, all you Bill lovers. Not that the president has much power over the economy, as I will continue to point out. The 90's weren't booming because of Clinton, they were booming because of the thing you're reading this on- the internet. Also, tax cuts have ALWAYS helped. Reagan's helped the economy, as did Bush's cuts. Cuts in welfare? Believe it or not, the federal government shouldn't be involved in welfare to begin with, and the Framers would be rolling in their graves if they knew the government was handing out billions to nearly any lazy drunk who can qualify...or the millions of families in the inner-city who have ten kids and stay on welfare forever. Welfare does NOT work, the inner cities should be a testament to that! People get to where they know they don't have a reason to work, a reason to contribute, because they become addicted to the free government handout.

So, Reagan gets attacked because he cut taxes, which history has shown HELPS, and he wanted to cut government spending on things the government was never supposed to be used for...the military buildup that gave us morale, that ended the Cold War, and now makes us the best military in the world IS called for in the Constitution. It's one of the very few things the fed is supposed to do.

Also, I have no idea what so-called civil rights problems Reagan had. Isn't he the one who signed the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday into law? You know why a lot of blacks didn't care for Reagan? In general, blacks seem to have a mentality that says- Republicans are evil, and we always vote democrat. It's that whole herd mentality that has gripped so many people in this country. History shows that Republicans are the ones who pushed thru civil rights in the 60s...and, Lincoln, the man who fought slavery, was THE FIRST republican. There's more history to add to this, but we all know the truth about minorities, civil rights, and republicans. So, I'm not seeing any supposed civil rights problems with Reagan.

The facts are there, but many of the reports coming out on the administration are just completely inaccurate...and the attacks from many on the left are totally uncalled for. They can disagree, but let's base such disagreement on the facts, not some made up tales meant to attack a patriot who just died.

No liberal media? I'll just sit back and laugh at such a claim.

A Note to Official Scumbag, Ted Rall

Proving, yet again, that the left is so full of hatred it's mind boggling, here's a little note from me to the soulless Ted Rall.

Ted Rall-

YOU will burn in hell when you die. You say that President Reagan will (if you believe in that sort of thing, you add), but it's you that will be suffering that fate. You are a scumbag of the highest order. You shamed yourself with your comments on Pat Tillman, and you're shaming yourself now. Not even the most extremist liberals agree with what you're doing, and your time will come. When you walk up, God's going to look at you and inform you that you will pay for your crimes. Then, YOU, my friend, will be the one turning a crispy brown.

Jennifer Lopez Scares Me

The mark of an insane woman-

Ojani Noa (22 February 1997 - 1998) (divorced)
Cris Judd (29 September 2001 - 26 January 2003) (divorced)
Marc Anthony (5 June 2004 - present)

Then we add Sean Combs...then that Judd guy who she marries right away, then Ben Affleck...and she's engaged to him, then she's with a new guy (Anthony) and right away she's married to him.

Even more disgusting- she was married to both guys about a year...she was JUST engaged to Affleck 5 months ago, and Anthony just divorced his wife 4 days ago! Again, this proves that most in Hollywood are so out of touch with reality, they don't even realize how insane they are.

Seriously- terrible actress in horrible movies, thinks she can sing but has no singing voice whatsoever, and she's a nutjob in the love department. HOW is this woman popular?

DVR's, Weird Science, etc.

A few days ago I found out that the cable company now had DVR's. It's $10 more than what it is now for the box...and it's the kind that can record two things at a time, and I think it's got 50 hours of recording. I archive everything to VHS, so that's big enough. More than big enough actually. I need to call them tomorrow, because they said it would be a week out, and they send someone out to install it, because it's so "sensitive." Pretty dumb, since it's just a cable box with a hard drive. The lady said they also give 45 min classes and if you take it you can bring a box home with you. No thanks, I think I'll just wait a week.

I think I'm going to start taping Good Eats on Food Network. I taped two shows today and want to get more- better than buying the DVD's.

They have a new Joe Schmo starting June 15. Tuesday, same day it was on first season. We'll see if it compares to the first one. No way it could be better with the cast they had and Matt was the best guy for the show from what I can see. I'll be taping it like first season, so either way.

I have to call the insurance company about my window, see what I need to do about that, and see if there's a deductible with vandalism/theft. I'm not sure if there is or not. I'm not paying for it either way, so oh well.

I have to work at 7:30 in the morning again...I never cleaned up the glass in the parking lot. It was dark, and I didn't have a way over there today. I will try to push what I can out of the way tomorrow morning. It's nearly 3 AM, and I am tired, but I'm still not in bed. I was going thru yet another tape full of Hey Arnold episodes. I probably have 60 or 70 different stories (most episodes have two stories)...out of 100 plus a couple specials.

I also started taping Weird Science, the USA Network series from the mid 90's based on the movie. It airs on WAM!, the kids network. I think Encore/Starz runs it, but who knows. That show and some series called Riding High I started taping. I was going to tape the show Seriously Weird- from Australia, but I might not. It depends on if it's actually any good. I also have nearly all the episodes (15 I think?) of the Showtime series Chris Cross from the mid 90's as well.

I need a haircut. I guess I will be off now to lie down...need to sleep a bit.

Bubba Ho-Tep (Movie Review)

Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

Bubba Ho-tep is an odd film. It's definitely quirky, it's too long- tho in truth, it's probably about an hour and 20 minutes- it just seems odd, because much of what happens in the first 40 mins of the movie is pointless and could be cut...well, save a few parts, but cut 95% of the rest.

It's a film about a rest home in Texas. An aging Elvis lies in his bed, wondering what that sore is on his "pecker," and thinks of how his life went wrong. See, Elvis didn't really die- the real Elvis traded places with an impersonator to get away from the fame and the drugs and stuff that lead to his downfall...he went away and lived the life of an impersonator himself, but fell on stage at some point, ended up in a coma, and finally ended up in this home where he lives now, not able to move very well, needing help from nurses who talk down to him like he's a child.

Some critics have said that the film has important messages on how we treat our elderly, but this film was too ridiculous to get any real, serious message from it.

Cult film icon, Bruce Campbell plays Elvis, and he does a decent imitation of the king. He does a wondeful overall job with the character. Ossie Davis plays the black JFK- turns out JFK didn't really die, but was hidden by the CIA and dyed black, and now he's in the same rest home with Elvis. At least that's what black JFK claims happened.

The film starts out with Elvis in his bed, seeing people moving quickly in and out of his room (nurses and janitors and such)...he then starts thinking to himself (with voiceover) about how he wonder what this sore is on his pecker...then he goes into this vulgar thought about how to get rid of it, and it just goes downhill from there. This whole scene is just unfunny and it turns you off to the film right away- it's much too vulgar and gross to be of any value. Some other scenes early in the movie go on way too long and they don't add any substance to the plot at all. It felt like the story was going to finally get started, but then more nonsense...then, maybe the plot is gonna get going now, but no- more pointless stuff happening.

When we finally get the plot going, it ends...and it's not a great ending to say the least.
The plot itself deals with the deaths of many of the rest home occupants...and a mummy that is roaming the halls sucking the souls from unsuspecting elders who are asleep. He sucks the souls from the butt, as Ossie Davis' character explains, and that's pretty funny. I thought, overall, this would be a funny adventure movie with Elvis and JFK battling the mummy, but this part of the plot didn't last very long, and the stuff in between and before all of it was too long, and way too boring to make this is an enjoyable film.

JFK has the best line in the film when he asks Elvis if he wants a ding dong...and Elvis looks down at him like he's insane. No, a chocolate ding dong, JFK explains. There are a few other funny plot points, but they are, overall, few and far inbetween.

I was hoping for much more with this movie. It sounds like a reallu funny premise on paper, but it doesn't work with the film's slow pacing and the fact that this short story (the film is based on a short story) wasn't really large enough for a full length film like this. Cut out half of the film, make it a short film, and it might work. Either that or get a better writer in to fix the filler in between the adventure stuff- or better yet, make the film more about the two guys battling the mummy...then, we might have a great film. As it is, it isn't awful, but it's not a gem either.

Bubba Ho-Tep 5/10

The Real Democrat in the Presidential Race

THE REAL DEMOCRAT IN THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Thursday, June 3, 2004

For which presidential candidate will James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and Lawrence Eagleburger -- the foreign-policy barons of the first Bush administration -- vote in November? For the one who shares their Kissingerian approach to foreign affairs, in which order and stability are more important goals than democracy and human rights? Or for George
W. Bush?

It is an irony of the 2004 presidential campaign that the candidate who most nearly resembles Harry Truman and JFK in believing that America should "pay any price, bear any burden" to promote liberty and democracy in the world is the Republican incumbent, President Bush. Democratic standard-bearer John Kerry, by contrast, articulates a foreign policy that uncannily resembles that of George Bush the Elder. Like Bush I, Kerry has little patience for the idealistic "vision thing." He downplays the idea that the United States should be in the business of advancing freedom around the globe. Considerably more important, he suggests, is keeping the lid on trouble spots.

In a recent interview, the Washington Post reported this week, Kerry made it clear that "as president he would play down the promotion of democracy as a leading goal in dealing with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, and Russia. . . . He demurred when questioned about a number of important countries that suppress human rights and freedoms. He said securing all nuclear materials in Russia, integrating China in the world economy, achieving greater controls over Pakistan's nuclear weapons, or winning greater cooperation on terrorist financing in Saudi Arabia trumped human rights concerns in those nations."

Asked about Pakistan's autocratic military ruler, General Pervez Musharaff, Kerry replied:

"Is he a strongman to a degree? Did he promise elections that have not occurred and all the rest? Yeah. I don't see that as the first thing that is going to happen in our priority of making America safer. It is a long-term goal. . . . But it is not the first thing that has to happen."

Similarly, Kerry told reporters in April that the United States should not get hung up on trying to democratize Iraq.

"I have always said from Day 1 that the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not there's a full democracy," Kerry said. He offered a perfunctory nod to liberal governance -- "You hope that you can continue the process of democratization" -- but emphasized that "with respect to getting our troops out, the measure is the stability of Iraq." And in case the intended contrast with Bush, who speaks often about the importance of bringing democracy to the Middle East, wasn't clear, Kerry's foreign policy adviser, Rand Beers, underscored it. "We have been concerned for some time," he told the Los Angeles Times, "that Bush's position about having some kind of democratic state was too heroic."

This is how members of the so-called "realist" school of statecraft talk. Theirs is a cautious, managerial worldview, one that values what it sees as concrete interests much more highly than broad democratic ideals or moral causes. Such an attitude has its virtues; it can temper idealism with prudence, and keep policymakers from embarking on hopeless crusades.

But "realism" all too often results in a callous stance unworthy of the United States. It is what kept the first President Bush from publicly protesting when China's communist government massacred pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square 15 years ago this week. It is what led him to send 400,000 troops to rescue Kuwait (and protect Saudi Arabia) from Saddam Hussein -- and then order those troops to sit on their hands while Saddam brutally crushed a popular uprising against his murderous regime.

The problem with Kerry-Bush I realpolitik is that the stability it champions is often beneficial only in the short term, and sometimes not even then. American backing for Middle Eastern dictatorships helped turn the region into an incubator of terrorism. The supposedly "realistic" decision to bolster Saudi Arabia's royal family by leaving thousands of US troops within its borders after the Gulf War inflamed an Islamist fanatic named Osama bin Laden. Iraq under Saddam was certainly stable. It was also a threat to its neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, and a savage violator of human rights.

Truman, JFK, and Ronald Reagan understood that an explicit policy of advancing democracy in the world advances America's interests as well. Bush II came to understand this only after 9/11, when he saw the horror that abandoning the Middle East to its unfree and undemocratic "stability" could lead to. Since then it has become the central pillar of his foreign policy, and a key strategy in the war on terrorism.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," Bush said in an important address to the National Endowment for Democracy last November, "because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export."

A free and democratic Middle East will do more to make America secure in the long run than Kerry's focus on stability will. Whether Bush can make good on his vow to transform the region is very much an open question. It is an enormous undertaking, and Bush may fail. But his eye is on the right prize. His opponent's -- like his father's -- isn't.

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

Julian Bond the Racist

The NAACP's Julian Bond says conservatives are from the Taliban wing of the party...before he said that, he complained that republicans used the race card in the 60's (actually republicans put forth civil rights laws!). Very funny that this nutjob says this, then goes on to use the race card in this disgusting way, trying to say that republicans and conservatives in general hate black people and don't want anyone but whites to have rights. This guy is a scumbag...and it's just one more example of the outrageous rhetoric we keep seeing from the left.