Obama: the Double-Negative Racist

Weren't we all taught in elementary school not to use double-negatives?

Me, I don't never use them if I don't have to.

Given that, I'm bugged by one particular clause in Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on race. It's this clause, regarding his relationship with his race-baiting America-hating pastor:

" I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

No dis-owning. A double negative. Intended to hide what, exactly?

According to webster, "disown" means to repudiate any connection or identification with.

So, the correct grammar translation - if you reduced the double-negative of "no dis-owning" would be to own. Would be to acknowledge a connection or identification with.

Which was obvious in the first place. Barack Obama has a 20 year relationship with the racist America-hating Rev. Wright.

He owns it. And he chooses not to disown it.

It's not illegal. Obama can associate with a racist all day long. It's still a free country, even if he doesn't particularly like it all that much.

He just can't have my vote for President of the United States of America.

And he shouldn't have yours.

BDS and the Big little Lie

Have you ever had an acquaintance who was a pathological liar? How did you distinguish them from the run-of-the-mill fibber?

One sign, I'm sure you will agree, is when you catch them in a little lie that is so insignificant that there was no reason for them to have had to lie about it.

I detected one of those senseless little lies in the Democrat talking points in the last couple of weeks, that makes me seriously concerned about how deeply Bush Derangement Syndrome (and it's corresponding hatred of all things Republican) is entrenched in the Dem leadership.

Some context:

The Big Lies have abounded for years now in the Democrat talking points. They are legion:

- Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections
- Bush lied, kids died
- the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal and unjustified
- Bush and Cheney mislead everyone about the presence of WMD's in Iraq
- Bush said the use of nuclear weapons by Iraq was "imminent"

All not true, but all repeated so often in the echo chamber of liberal leaders and the Mainstream Media and the left-wing bloggers that they just take them as given facts. You know the old maxim, "If you repeat a lie often enough,..."

As for the Little Lie that belies a pathology on the left: It has to do with their talking points on the train wreck that the Michigan and Florida primaries are causing in the Democratic Primary.

I first heard it a couple of weeks ago, when a Democratic Congresswoman from Florida was on Fox News Sunday. She started off her discussion by arguing that it was not the fault of the Democratic Party in Florida, that the "Republican-lead Legislature" had forced the Party to move it's primary date forward and thus lose all of it's delegates.

"Wait a minute", host Chris Wallace said. "Wasn't it a Democrat who put forward the legislation?"

"Well yes, but...."

"And did any Democrat vote No on the legislation?"

"Well no, but..." And she went on to continue to blame the Republican majority for the calamity.

Heard it again on Fox when Great Van Sustern was interviewing ex-President Bill Clinton. He repeated the same talking points, saying that the "Democratic Party was 100% innocent in this problems" and that the "Republican-lead legislature" had put them in this jam.

Okay, this is a silly and stupid lie. But, apparently one that the Dems think is important enough to keep repeating as their talking points. Listen for it on the networks this week as they continue to try to sort out a solution for Florida and Michigan.

It's the little and unnecessary lie that provides the clue as to degree of pathological their lying has become.

Obama's "Speech": the Duality

So, by now I've read and listened to and re-read again Barack Obama's milestone speech on race relations in America - given in the context of needing to answer for his close association with his pastor, a racist America-hater. (It reads much better than it was delivered.)

So, did I think it was a brilliantly written and totally unique speech addressing such a serious topic as the perfecting of the American Union? A speech that addressed racial divisions in America in a serious and at times uplifting manner in a way that no public figure has in nearly 40 years?

Or, did I think it was a too-clever dodge. A way of changing the topic and excusing his way out of hot water to keep his hard won lead in a high-stakes presidential campaign?

Both, actually.

I read the speech first, and was moved- not completely to tears, but just short. It is brilliantly crafted. The man can write. Who doesn't want to believe in us making progress together, in the face of past strife, toward a more perfect Union? It was, in places, quite inspiring. I give the Senator considerable credit for that.

On the negative side, the speech did not adequately explain the Senator's 20 year relationship with the Reverend. In fact, it uses very trite liberal techniques for excusing bad behavior:

Moral Relativism: Rev. Wright's years of bad racial incitement from the pulpit is no different than Geraldine Ferraro's one comment in an interview last week. Just the same. So, no problem. The only problem is that this is ridiculous on it's face.

Everyone Does It: While Reverend Wright "contains within him the contradictions ? the good and the bad ? of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. " but:

"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother ? a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

In other words, sure he's a ranting racist but you should really hear my cracker granny.

Nice move, jackass, throwing your grandmother under the train to save your own guilty skin. Absolutely no class in that move.

One important disconnect to me was Senator Obama's continuous use of the phrases "black community" and "white community". Here's the problem: I don't live in one of those communities. Yes, I'm white - but I don't live in the "white community". I live in a city. I work at a job. I go to a church. None of those do I describe as "unashamedly white", as Obama's church describes itself as "unashamedly black". I don't ever use racial terms like that. No one I associate with does either. But clearly Senator Obama, and his wife, and his associates immerse themselves in those racial terms. They are the exclusionists, not me, and this speech just solidified that observation to me.

The speech was well written, important, and may well convince some that this issue is over. But, for me the bottom line is this:

1. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church, built on his vision of "Black Liberation Theology", is a seething cauldron of racial hatred and animosity to America at large.
2. Barack Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years.
3. In all likelihood, Senator Obama chose to join this particular church for the exact same reason that all of us choose a church - because we are in general agreement with it's doctrine.

Obama has not adequately put this issue behind him, and his candidacy is in serious trouble. My prediction is that he will be soundly defeated in the next primary state, Pennsylvania. And then the Democrat party Superdelegates will have to decide whether to take him down or not. I wouldn't take bets at this point that he comes out of the process as the nominee.

Let's just MoveOn.org

Thank you Democrats, for re-introducing the phrase "let's just move on" back into the political lexicon. (/sacrcsm off)

For those of you younguns out there who don't remember the juicy scandal-filled Clinton years, this was a common phrase back in the 90's. In fact, so many Clinton surrogates who were trotted out to defend Slick Willie tried to change the subject by saying "There is nothing to see here. Let's just move on" that an actual left-wing attack group (MoveOn.org) was the spin-off result. (Yes, that's the same wonderful lefty group that brought us the "General Betraeus" ad in the New York Times last year.)

I swear, I about fell out of my chair this weekend when - right on cue - Democratic strategist Bob Beckel - called out on Fox News to defend Barack whose-middle-name-can-never-be-spoken Obama's close association with racist America-hater Jeremiah Wright", said:

"Can we just move on here and get back to discussing Iraq and health care?"

Sorry, we're not moving on for a while here. Barry X has some explaining to do.

It's the Membership, Stupid

Does Presidential candidate Barack Whose-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken Obama, and his pride-deficient wife Michelle, like America?

It's a reasonable question. Color me jingoistic, but I actually consider it a core qualification for running for the office of President of the United States of America that you actually like America. It may not be worded that literally in the Constitution - right there with being a natural born citizen and at least 35 years old - but, still...

It's a fair question, when you match up the Obama's actions and words with the radicalized America-hating rantings of B.H. Obama's close friend, advisor, and "mentor" Rev. Wright. (go see the "God Damn America" video, if it's still up).

The Rev. Wright has established his 35 year ministry in Obama's church in Chicago on, among other things, African nationalism, black victimization, white oppression, and "black liberation theology". That last one being a marxist, leftist, and highly-separationist worldview. Many of us following Obama for the past year are well aware of the nature of Obama's church. But seeing the string of video excerpts from his controversial sermons is still chilling.

Obama responded this weekend to the damaging videos by condemning the statements "on those videos" and by removing Rev. Wright from his campaign team. Obama categorically stated that none of the statements were made in his presence, while he was physically "in the pew". Obama is, of course, lying blatantly. It is inconceivable that none of this incendiary rhetoric was used in the sermons that Obama sat through in 20 years of membership at Trinity. He is not being truthful.

The MSM is predictably either ignoring the story entirely, as 2 of the 3 networks are doing, or try to shift our attention question by dually raising the moral equivalence argument and the guilt by association argument:

Moral equivalence being: why sure this looks bad, but what about John McCain getting endorsements from controversial pastors John Hagee and Rob Parsley?

gba being: why sure the Rev. Wright's statements are radical and undefendable, but we don't believe in guilt-by-association so you can't tie Obama to Wright.

The glaring flaw in these two arguments is the qualitative distinctiveness - and they must not teach distinctions in J-school - of the Obama / Wright relationship by virtue of Obama's 20-year membership in Wright's church. IT'S THE MEMBERSHIP, STUPID!

If you have ever joined a church, as I have - particularly an evangelical Protestant church, as I have - then you understand the particular nature of this association and why it is so important in this story. When you join a church you act in a willful, volitional, affirmative way to associate yourself with the teachings of that church - which is often significantly embodied personally in the Pastor. When you sit under a pastor's preaching - whose job it is to influence you deeply in thought and deed - your worldview is affected.

So, if you sit under a pastor's leadership, teaching, and preaching for twenty years you are announcing a strong influential association. And if you sit under the leadership, teaching, and preaching of a virulently racist America-hating anti-semite for 20 years, then you have some explaining to do.

So, when you review Michelle Obama's puzzling proclamation recently - that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of America - in light of her placing herself and her children under the influence of a radicalized America-hating firebreather and it makes perfect sense.

And, when you review Barack Hussein Obama's pointed refusal to wear a flag pin on his lapel or place his hand over his heart during the national anthem in the light of his 20-year association with his vulgar America-hating mentor it makes perfect sense.

So, here's what we know. We know that the spiritual leader of Barack and Michelle Obama's church is a radical, marxist, racist, vulgar, America-hater. We know that while Barack disavows a few particular statements that Rev. Wright made on the shock videos, he doesn't consider his church to be "particularly controversial". And we know that both Obamas seem to have a puzzling lack of pride in the country.

Barack Obama, you are entitled to attend any church - and associate yourself with any radical - you prefer. No question. It's a free country.

You are just not entitled to my vote for President of the United States of America.

Clinton's Consigliere Returns to the News

You know of course, that I was an avid conspiracy theorist in the Clinton years of the 90's. Loved 'em. Followed 'em. Ate 'em up.

One of my favorite players in the various Clinton scandals was an extemely shadowy character named Bruce Lindsey. A longtime Clinton friend and advisor. Always there with Bubba, but just out of sight of the cameras. His ever present card playing partner on Air Force One (Hearts, as I recall) and, I always believed, his "fixer" in the scandal department. Bill Clinton's consigliere - the role of adviser made popular in the Godfather movies.

I haven't thought of him since BC left office with his last day scandal of issuing a slew of pardons to unsavory characters. Many probably arranged by Lindsey for the appropriate payments. Just my opinion.

But, he's back. What possible Bill Clinton scandals are still to erupt? Well, two come to mind:

1. Mr. ex-President Clinton has been busy since he left office raking in donations from unsavory characters overseas. Certainly in an improper manner, I believe, for an ex-President. Very probably in an illegal manner, given that Hillary is using joint-checking-account money to fund her campaign. How much money from China and Dubai is Hillary allowed to spend in a presidential election cycle - that would be none. But is she? Hard to tell, because a lot of the money is funnelled through the Clinton Library Foundation - which refused to release it's donor list.

2. Recent requests for Presidential papers related to the pardon scandal have been rebuffed by - guess who - the Clinton Library Foundation, which has refused to releas 1000 of documents that have notes on them as to how the pardon decisions were made. Isn't that nice to have a gatekeeper to shield the ex-President from scrutiny.

Hmmm, the Clinton Library Foundation seems to have become the new scandal central for our intrepid and scandalous ex-President.

And who, if you even need to ask, is the current Director of the Clinton Library Foundation?

That would be the re-emergent fixer, Mr. Bruce Lindsey. Hmmm.

Democrats Unhinged on Waterboarding

The press reported today that President George W. Bush has vetoed Congressional legislation outlawing, among other things, the use of waterboarding by the CIA as an interrogation technique.

Democrats in Congress have argued that the CIA should be limited to the interrogation techniques that the military is limited to in the Army Field Manual, that "torture is a black mark against the United States" (Nancy Pelosi), and that our ability to lead the world depends on morality, not military might (Pelosi again).

President Bush argued in response that the CIA should have a separate and lawful intelligence program, given their different operational needs than the military, and that the use of these programs has saved lives. An argument, in fact echoed by former CIA director George Tenet in his excellent book about the events and aftermath of 9/11.

I have two main thoughts here:

1. Thank God for President Bush who, even in the face of years of withering and unrelenting assaults on his efforts to defend this nation, still stands firm in the committment to fight this war aggressively. He stands firmly on the wall, battling Islamist Jihadists with all the tools at his disposal.

2. This argument over waterboarding in particular highlights why the Democrat leadership is unsuited for leadership in wartime. They are, in my opinion, over their painting our nation as torturers for using this technique against exactly three high-value Al-Qaida terrorists leaders in the timeframe where it was likely that we would be facing another attack on American soil.

Folks, you need to get a grip here. If you are of the opinion that it was eggregious for the CIA to waterboard Khalid Sheik Muhammed in 2003, to get information about other planned Al-Qaida operations against America, you are unhinged.

Do you understand who Khalid Sheik Muhammed is? Really. There is no one on the planet more responsible for the atrocity that was 9/11 than KSM. Not even Osama bin Laden. OBL gave approval and funding for the operation, true. But KSM conceived it, planned it, and was responsible for the execution of 9/11. He and Ramzi Yousef planned how to use airliners to attack targets and kill Americans. He oversaw the selection and training of the attackers. He was the operational commander. And I'm going to feel sorry for the CIA making him uncomfortable in his interrogation?

KSM was captured in Pakistan by the CIA in March of 2003, by daring CIA field officers in an operation in a foreign country carrying great risk. They subjected KSM to interrogation, believing rightly that there were other operations in the planning stage that would kill thousands of Americans if not uncovered and stopped. They needed that information to stop it. We, as Americans, needed for them to get that information. Did they torture and maim KSM, as we understand the term torture? Did they cripple him or dismember him or burn him with irons or hang him and beating him (all techniques found in the Al-Qaida torture manual)?

No, they did not. They "waterboarded" him for a total of two minutes and 30 seconds. No permanent harm, no disfigurement. And KSM spilled his guts. And operations were uncovered and stopped. And thousands of lives were saved. As testified to by CIA officials like George Tenet.

Now, if you want to believe that that 2 1/2 minutes of discomfort that KSM was subjected to by the CIA was unallowable by a civilized nation, even one at war with barbarians who would plan 9/11 and who routinely behead infidels, then I would categorically state that you are in fact unhinged.

Had President Bush, as leader of this nation, failed to, in the wake of 9/11, use all of the tools at his disposal to interrogate captured Al-Qaida leadership and uncover and stop other planned operations against America that would have injured and killed thousands - I would have argued for his impeachment. The fact that he did what he did and ordered what he ordered earns him my gratitude.

But then again, I'm not an unhinged Democrat in the mold of Nancy Pelosi. May she never have the primary responsibility for the defense of this nation.

Times Square Bombing Shoud Give Democrats Pause

In the wake of the eggregious bombing of the military recruitment center in Times Square in New York this week, Democrats should pause and consider their complicity.

The Democrat leadership and their allies in the media and blogosphere, in their blind hatred of all things George W. Bush and their quest to regain the power of the presidency, have been effectively trashing the military for going on at least three years now.

Pelosi, Reid, and company have been beating the drums of anti-war, and in doing so have repeatedly made the case that:

- our military are killers and occupiers. (Constantly trumpeting the worst case stories of Haditha, and inflating the number of war casualties)

- our military are torturers. (Abu Gahraib, Gitmo, waterboarding)

- our Commander-in-Chief is a rogue criminal who makes war unjustly

- the military recruiters are predators, preying on inner city youth who have no other financial options

In peddling these stories every day, they inspire people to hatred of the United States. Just read some of the leftwing forums. I do. They are chock full of vitriol and hate. Not just for President Bush (who they unaffectionately call "chimpy") and his administration, but for the military. They emphatically do not support the troops.

If you want a concrete example of the Left's complicity in anti-military activity, just look at the actions of the Berkley California city council last month. The council is one of the best examples of the left having control of the levers of power and using it to agitate against the military in the form of recruitment centers. The council voted to kick the U.S. military recruitment center out of town, sending a letter saying they were "uninvited and unwelcome". They also stripped them of parking spaces outside the center and designated them for use by anti-war loonies Code Pink - who they encouraged to do all they could to disrupt the activities of the military recruiters.

I have two things to say about that:

1. Democrat politicians are complicit in encouraging antipathy toward military recruiters, and are complicit in the bombing of the recruitment center in Times Square.

2. In my opinion, Berekely California should be stripped of all federal dollars, and left undefended by the military in the event of an attack. Screw them. Let Code Pink defend them.

How to Bungle a Nomination Process

This has, without doubt, been the most interesting presidential election cycle of my lifetime. Wow. Absolutely nothing is going as predicted by the pundits or pollsters. Bad for them. Good for us.

One of the most interesting aspects has been the seminar being put on by the Democratic Party on how to screw up a nomination process. It's a total mess on that side of the nominating aisle - not that I object to that.

Here are three Democrat peculiarities that have contributed to the train crash:

1. An emphasis on the Caucus.

Does anyone really understand the caucus process? Or know why it is used so much on the Democrat side? What I've observed so far is that the caucus system severely limits the number of people that can participate in the process. How many people are willing to show up for two hours at night and vote out in public in front of their neighbors? It's undemocratic for one, sacrificing the secret vote of the ballot booth.

Look at Wyoming, for example. The Republicans had their primary a long time ago and had a good simple vote. Now the Democrats are doing it with a caucus and, if Fox New's scroll is correct, have about 10,000 people total in the whole state participating. They're going to award 12 delegates to the convention based on the votes of 10,000 people in a whole state? That's screwed up.

Don't even get me started on Texas, where the Democrats had both a primary and a caucus and everyone could vote twice in one day. Do you think this gives anyone confidence in the process? No.

2. Proportional awarding of delegates:

The Dems do it. The Republicans don't - preferring a winner take all system. The result? The Republicans have a candidate, the Dems have a train wreck.

Proportional allocation of delegates sounds fair, but it doesn't aid the nominating process. First of all, I would want to have a process that's similar to the general election, where electoral college votes are awarded winner take all in most states. Also, winner-take-all makes for convincing wins by a large majority and give the winner an implied "mandate" that is more effective in uniting a group at the end of the process.

Un-Inevitable

A year ago most Democrats, by all accounts, thought that two things were inevitable:

1. Hillary Clinton will be the party nominee.
2. Any Democrat will win the White House because of how much the country hates George W. Bush.

It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary's inevitability has gone down the drain.

What is clear to me is that the inevitability of the second probability is gone as well.

Things are looking promising on the Republican side, making a win in November highly possible. What things? Well, here's two:

- the Repbulicans have settled on a candidate already, while the Democrats have months of fratricide ahead of them in their screwed up primary.

- the "surge" is indeed working. This both takes it off the front pages of the paper and shows leading Dems to have been wrong when they declared the war "lost".

I'm looking forward to the electoral battle in November. I think the Democrats are well on their way to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

Super Tuesday 2 - tidbits

You know, faithful readers, that I've wanted to post something every day during this totally fascinating election season of 2008. Alas, time does not permit. So, to catch up, here are some tidbits:

- I'm of a split mind what I want to have happen in tomorrow's Super Tuesday 2 elections in Texas and Ohio. Do I want Hillary to get the crushing defeat that she so soundly deserves, and for the Clintons to finally be driven off the public stage in humiliating defeat. Yes, I want that. Or, do I more want Hillary to make just enough of a showing to stay in the race so that the two of them can scratch each other's eye's out (politically metaphorically, of course) all the way through the convention? Do I wish for political chaos and damage in the Democratic primaries until August? The Rush Limbaugh strategy.

I want both. I think, though, that I have to come down on the side of wanting Hillary soundly defeated and out of our lives. The Clintons are so politically dangerous to America's future that I want the possibility of her being President off of the table. I'll sleep easier.

- Who is the most beatable in the general election for McCain? Hillary, with her decades of baggage? Or Barack who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken Obama? I say both are beatable. Finsh off Hillary now. Take out Obama in the general. It can happen.

- Speaking of B. Hussein Obama's middle name: I think most if not all of the pundits are missing the point about why it should cause Americans pause in voting for him.

It's not that he is currently a muslim - he's not, he's a member of Trinity United Church of Christ.

It's not, as Karl "the Architect", said on Fox News tonight irrelevant because B. Hussein Obama did not choose his middle name.

It's relevant precisely because the people who did choose his middle name are the people who most influenced and shaped his life and his worldview, and they are all "practicing" muslims. So, did Obama oppose the Iraq war in 2002 - when EVERYONE else supported it - because he really thought it was bad strategy, or because of the worldview that his overwhelmingly muslim family shaped him with? You can't say you know.

I'll just say it straight out. We are at war with Islamic Jihadists who mean to do great harm to America. I do not want a commander-in-chief, who will be called on to pull the trigger to defend us, who has sympathetic family connections to the group we are fighting. I don't. That's my preference, and I'm entitled to it.

I'll refer you to this website for a look at Barack Hussein Obama's family history. Chock full of muslim heritage. That obviously doesn't disqualify him from anything - except the one thing that he's seeking: commander-in-chief of our armed forces. My opinion.

- By the way, the same disqualification applies to Hillary, who's closest personal aide and live-in companion Huma Abedin is a Saudi Arabian nationalist with muslim parents from India and Pakistan. Under what national security clearance program did she get to be the closest aide to a presidential candidate? Is she an intelligence agent for Saudi Arabia? It's a reasonable question.

- It's not just Obama's muslim past that is troubling.

His formative collaboration with leftist activists during his "community organizer" days is.

His corrupt alliance with Rezko in Chicago, who apparently fraudently funneled money to Obama to buy his mansion, is.

His membership in a church that preaches black nationalism, and corresponding antipathy to "white culture" and America in general is. Now personally, I'm not into racial politics. But Obama's church is, to the extreme, and that's the point. (Go read their "12 precepts and convenants" about the "Black Value System") It has undoubtedly shaped his worldview, and that should be questioned.

His 100% allegiance to the pro-abortion industry - to the point of even opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act - is.

There are a lot of reasons to oppose Obama.

- So, Obama is beatable by a Republican candidate who will go after him. That candidate, unfortunately, is not John McCain. McCain will pull his punches just to be liked by the liberal media, and throw conservatives under the bus - as he did with Cunningham last week for mentioning he-who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken's middle name.

- During the early months of the primary, the political spin was that the Republican's were in disarray and didn't like any of their candidates while the Dems were in a lovefest with all three of their candidates. That most Democrats thought that "any of our three" would make fine candidates and easily beat any Republican in November.

Trust me, that lovefest with their candidates on the Dem side has taken a beating lately. I don't know if you read left-wing websites like democraticundergound.com, or listen to leftwing radio, but I do. And they are just as in disarray and not liking their candidates at the moment as the Republicans do. The palpable dislike of Hillary and Barack by the opposite supporters on DU is getting hardcore and vicious. Obamaniacs hate Hillary, and vice versa. The lovefest is over.

- I don't know about Ohio, but I think Mike Huckabee still has life left in him in Texas. My gut tells me he could post big numbers there. His strategy of denying McCain enough delegates to lock up a first-ballot win at the convention has life in it.

Tomorrow should be exciting. I'm tuning in...

New Hampshire - Not a Knock Out Either Way

Okay, since I did so well with the Iowa Caucus predictions - Not! - I'll try again with New Hampshire:

Dems:

1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards
4. Richardson

Republicans:

1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Giuliani
4. Huckabee
5. Thompson

Although, I think there is a strong chance that Mitt Romney might take it over McCain tomorrow. McCain has a history with New Hampshire from the races against Bush that give him an advantage. The Republican base does not like McCain. However, Independents like him, are strong in NH, and can vote in the primaries. Normally, that helps McCain big time. But.....and this is the big variable.....Obama is generating so much excitement this week that the Independents might catch his fever and all rush over to vote in the Dem primary, leaving the base to pick Mitt. I'm hoping.

Either way, it won't be a knock out punch on either side of the aisle.

Hillary will be shaken, but not knocked out. She has a nationwide organization and money left.

Mitt will have two 2nd place finishes. He has deep pockets and no where else to go.

Giuliani is waiting for the big states to pile up the delegates.

None of them is leaving before Super Tuesday, February 5th.

Thompson, McCain, or Richardson may well be leaving after South Carolina, Nevada, or Michigan when they run out of money.

That's my take.

And yes, I'm still rooting for Mitt Romney.

And yes, as a long-time Clinton conspiracy afficianado, I am deeply enjoying Hillary Clinton's humiliating meltdown. After what she did to Billy Dale in the White House Travel Office, she deeply deserves it.

Predicting Iowa

In a feat of New Year's foolhardiness, I'll go ahead and publish my predictions for the impending Iowa Caucus elections. (Or, as talk radio likes to call it - the "Hawkeye Cauceye".)

My predictions are based on:

- closely following the election for a year
- studiously ignoring all polls
- knowing one person who lives in Iowa
- spending one fascinating road warrior day listening to left-wing radio for kicks on my rental car's XM radio. This one-day immersion into the realm of relentless Bush Derangement Syndrome gave me some otherwise unknowable (to me anyway) insight into the Dem side of the caucasing.

A drumroll please........my predictions for the Iowa Caucus results are:

Republicans:

1. Romney
2. Thompson
3. Huckabee

Democrats:

1. Edwards
2. Clinton
3. Obama

I know. No polling has it that way. But, who likes polls? If I got it right, I'm a genius. If I get it wrong, well.....disregard.

"...our nation's Symphony of Faith"

As I've said here before, Mitt Romney is my candidate in the Republican presidential primary. I like him. He's run a business, he's run an Olympics, and he's governed a state. He's got the right experience, and he's a winner.

He was my candidate before today's speech that he gave on the role of religion in America. The speech sealed the deal. It's brilliantly written, capably delivered, and should be a must read for every voter before election day.

Go here and read the speech. It's worth the read.

Go Mitt!

That Can't be Right!

Every once in a while, I hear a news story that is so jarring, so out-of-sync with my body of knowledge, that it stops me in my tracks and I think - that can't be right! It will be a story that I can't believe people would take at face value.

The story that stopped me this week - that made me say That Can't be Right! - was the story, all over the media, the a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) given recently by the intelligence community to President Bush concluded that Iran had no nuclear weapons program because they had frozen it in 2003. What?????

How in the world does that story jibe with all of the previous 12 months of reporting on Iran's nuclear ambitions? With the President of Iran's oft repeated stated goals of getting a nuclear weapon and his defense in the media of his right to have one? With the many stories of Iran racing to get thousands of centrifuges - used for processing weapons grade uranium - up and running quickly? With the stories of Iran developing and testing missiles that can deliver a weapon with ranges to hit Israel and the U.S. How in the world does this one story jibe with all of that, and why would people take this one story at face value and repudiate all of the previous story?

The answer is Bush hatred, which makes people delusional and suspends their powers of judgement.

The immediate reaction to the story was howls from the Bush-hater community that the President was lying to the nation in his rush to war with Iran. The NIE story fits their pre-existing paradigm, and they're running with it to bash Bush. The problem is that in bashing Bush with this story, they are putting our country in a bad light with the rest of the world - claiming that our President would lie for his own nefarious purposes to rush us into an unjustified war.

Stop. Pause. Give this story some thought.

What is a NIE, how certain are they, and how do they get put together. If you want some insight into those questions, read - as I just did - George Tenet's excellent book on his experiences running the CIA called "At the Center of the Storm".

You'll learn that NIE's are put together, as a sampling of all of the various intelligence agencies, at the request of the President or influential members of Congress. (In this case, it was President Bush who requested, got, and released this NIE). You'll learn that they are far from "certain". They are negotiated consensus postions where the advocates from the various agencies make their assessment of a situation. They are "judgements" that reflect various levels of "certainty" - and include key findings that will say "we judge with a high degree of certainty", etc. They are best guesses.

Bottom line: Iran may have "frozen" an official nuclear weapons in 2003 due to "international pressure" (gee, do you think us attacking their two neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan was the pressure they needed to freeze their nuclear weapons program? Thank you George Bush!), but they are currently hellbent on essential elements of such a program - enriching uranium and building missiles to deliver the weapons. And they are not doing that because George Bush is lying to us!

Get a grip, people. Think through these news stories, and don't just accept them at face value.

If you're looking at a shockingly outrageous news story, like this NIE report, and thinking THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT - you are probably right.

J.F.Kerry Falls in a Trap

The funniest story in the media this week, and only the latest of many that demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the Mainstream Media is in lockstep with the Democrat party, is this widely reported story:

"Kerry vows to disprove Swiftboat Claims"

A brief recap: When John F. Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts) decided to run for President in 2004 and highlighted his service in Vietnam as a reason to vote for him, a sizeable portion of the soldiers who had served in his unit - serving on the "Swiftboats" - took exception and ran ads stating their opinion that he was unfit for command. One of the many "big lies" constantly repeated by Democrats (such as Bush stole the elections, Bush "lied" us into Iraq, etc) is that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth - a 527 organization made possible by the Campaign Finance Reform laws - unfairly personally "smeared" candidate Kerry with unsubstantiated claims questioning his military service. In fact, this lie has been parroted so many times by Democrat activists that it has achieved verb status - as in "to Swiftboat" someone is to unfairly smear them with personal lies."

My own evaluation of the issue, after watching the ads and reading the book written by the SVT's, is that they were not unsubstantiated lies, but personal observations and testimony of soldiers who served with Kerry and in his unit. Their observations had credibility and weight. Almost to a man, and including all of the officers in Kerry's chain of command, they signed a letter saying that Kerry was lying about his service and was unfit for command.

The whole controversy of who was right, Kerry or the Swiftboaters, could be resolved by an examination of the Senator's military records. The problem, of course, is that the Senator never released his records. He has refused to this day to sign the Form 180 to release his records. George Bush signed his, but Kerry has not. So, in the absence of the records it is the SVT's word against the Senator's.

That brings us to the current news story. Principal Swiftboat financer, T. Boone Pickens, has been upset that the Democrat partisans have been able to effectively malign the veterans with the new verb "to Swiftboat", and made an offer at a Washington party of $1 million to anyone who can disprove any of the SVT's ad claims. John Kerry sent Pickens a letter offering to take up the challenge. The letter reads, in part:

I welcome the opportunity to prove that you are a man of your word and that the
so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" lied. While I am prepared to show they
lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one
million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false. I am prepared to
prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt.

The AP article reporting Senator Kerry's letter received widespread reporting in the MSM. Why is this funny? For two reasons:

1. This is not news! The Senator has not yet disproved the claims, only offered to. That's news? He's been saying that since the 2004 election cycle. When and if he actually disproves the claims, then it will be news. Apparently the major media can no longer discern real news from press releases.

2. He's fallen into the trap of the Swiftboaters. How is he going to disprove the claims? On what evidence?

Pickens responded to Sen. Kerry saying he would be glad to entertain his challenge, and that the appropriate evidence to dispute ad claims would be the Senator's military records. That's what the SVT's have been demanding since 2004, the release of Kerry's records.

The left-wingers (DemocraticUnderground, Daily Kos, etc.) are pinging on this news this week. First that Kerry had won a big victory by accepting the challenge, and then that Pickens had reneged on the bet. Have they lost the ability to reason on the left? Kerry did not win the bet by accepting the bet - he still has to disprove the claims. Pickens did not renege by stating the acceptable evidence of proof - Kerry's military records. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of celebrating Kerry's win.

So, what is the Senator to do now? He's publicly said he's going to disprove the claims. The release of his records is what it will take. The release of his records is what he's been successfully avoiding until now. Thus, he's fallen into the trap. Either he releases the records, which will be damaging to him, or he won't and he will fail to disprove the claims.

Classic. And very funny.

My eternal thanks to the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, for speaking the truth about the dishonorable Senator and contributing to his defeat.

"Redacted" - and the Liberal value on being "Provacative"

Honestly, I've come to believe - from news stories and current events - that today's liberals or progressives or whatever they want to call themselves - have become deranged. (Derange - defined by Webster as "to disturb the operation of" or "to become insane". Either works for me.) They're lost. Misguided. Their moral and intellectual compass completely skewed. Let's look at three quick examples: First example: I was listening to a radio program regarding the re-emergence of disgraced University of Colarado professor Ward Churchill. Churchill, you may recall disgraced himself and his University after 9/11 by implying that the victims of the attack deserved it in a sense because they were all "little Eichman's" contributing to oppressing others. A truly off the charts insane comment, by a professor who is teaching your children. The University went through a long protracted effort to fire him, and really only succeeded by proving that the good professor had engaged in plagarisim as well. It's tough to fire a bad professor, but they did it - to their credit. So, why is the professor back in the news? Well, it seems like some students on campus - believing that Churchill had been done wrong, have invited him to continue teaching his class on campus as an invited guest. A guest speaker of sorts. The particular hapless skull-full-of-mush college student who was the spokesman interviewed that day on the radio to defend Churchill opined thusly: he believed that our First Amendment freedoms were gravely damaged by Churchill's firing and that the good professor was only doing the main job of University professor's - being "provocative" to make the students think. I have two main problems with the student's opinion: 1. The First Amendment is not under fire in this case. Students often totally misstate their "freedom of speech", which they apparently see as all-encompassing and a complete get-out-of-jail-free card to say anything they want with no consequences. For the record: the First Amendment only proscribes the Federal Government from censoring speech - mostly political speech. What part of "Congress shall make no law...." does the student not understand. The University of Colorado is not Congress, and is free to fire professors for incompetent performance, including making outlandish and eggregious statements as part of their duties. 2. The University's main job is not to be provactive, but to provide a quality education for which you the consumer are paying. It is absolutely their role to have competent professors in the classroom, and when a professor demonstrates his incompetence with raw gibberish like the "little Eichman's" claim it is their obligation to the consumer (the student) to remove him from his teaching duties. Period. Second example: The University of Delaware's Delaware's Office of Residence Life Diversity Facilitation Training contained, until caught by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a training document for University housing residents which reads in part: "A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities or acts of discrimination. " Really? All white people are racists? People of color cannot be? This is the quality of a University education in America now, after decades of dominance by liberals. Again, the token student trotted out to defend the document opined that the University was just doing it's job to be "provacative" and that our First Amendment rights were under fire if this training was revoked. Idiots. What do these idiot college students, under the tutelage of an overwhelming liberal faculty value? Facts? No. Balance? No. A competent education? No. They value being "provocative" over all else. And, to top it off, they think their freedom's are under fire if there are any consequences for outrageous incompetence. It's truly dispiriting. As a third example, let's look at the Hollywood movie released this week - amid a flurry of Hollywood anti-war screeds - called "Redacted", by Director Brian De Palma and financed by billionaire Mark Cuban. There are literally thousands of stories to be told about the Iraq War, and about the U.S. military troops that are fighting it. Positive stories about our troops and negative ones, and arguably more positive than negative by far. Which story you choose to focus on tells me more about you than about the troops. De Palma chose to tell the absolute worst story there is to tell about U.S. troops. It is a true story, the criminal action of one squad of soldiers who raped a young Iraqi girl and killed her family to cover it up. Awful. The worst of the worst. The army has dealt with those soldiers and they are behind bars where they deserve to be. Now, thanks to DePalma, that awful story is up on the big screen for the whole world to see and to judge our troops by. Not the best of our military, but the absolute worst. It will hurt our troops, who are still in harm's way in combat, this movie. Especially since not many in America will choose to see it and the producer's will have to recoup their investment with foreign DVD sales. This movie will hurt our country. So why did Brian De Palma make it? And why did Mark Cuban finance it? Because they are liberals, and they value being "provacative" over all else. Despicable. By making this movie, Mr. De Palma and Mr. Cuban tell us how they see our military - in the worst possible way. Just for the record, I would never in a million years pay money to see our military portrayed in the worst possible light, especially while we are still at war. Their movie will tank, and they won't understand why. Be ready for Mr. De Palma and Mr. Cuban to cry foul for their First Amendment rights if there is any backlash over their despicable product. Again, the First Amendment doesn't apply to poor box office. The U.S. Government is not preventing it's showing. Please, America. Show that you are not deranged. Lost. Morally askew. Do not under any circumstances reward Mr. De Palma and Mr. Cuban's assualt on our troops with your box office dollar. Only your contemp.

Memo to Hollywood: We're Still at War

One of my saddest current political observations is that there is a sizable portion of America, lead by the elite in the media and in Hollywood, who do not understand that we are in an war of civilizations against a jihadist Islam that is bent on our destruction.

I give you the latest slew of entertainment offerings as evidence.

Take first, for example, the slew of anti-war polemics streaming out of Hollywood: "Rendition" and "Lions for Lambs" in America and "Redacted" overseas. Hollywood biggies - like Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep - certain that all Americans are against Bush and "his war", are pouring out their best leftist Anti-American screeds. Never mind that making anti-war (and in the case of "Redacted", anti-troops) movies while we have troops still in the combat arena being shot at will EMBOLDEN OUR ENEMIES AND PUT OUR TROOPS IN MORE DANGER! Never mind that, they're being noble.

Strange then, that if America is so anti-war, that their movies are tanking at the box office. "Lions for Lambs" opened this week with an all-star cast and a massive marketing campaign and took in a very weak $6 million dollars. Maybe movies just don't make money anymore? - wondered one entertainment critic. Oh wait - Denzel's movie "American Gangster" (an anti-drug smuggling movie) opened the same weekend and took in $80 million. Maybe Americans are just not ready for a war movie yet - offered another Hollywood critic. Here's news, oh clueless one - the majority of Americans do not want to pay for two hours of big screen anti-Americanism while we STILL HAVE TROOPS IN COMBAT. Idiots.

It's okay, though, for the Hollywood moguls. They know that the majority of their profits anymore come from overseas sales and that these anti-American movies will sell well there. Perhaps sold to Al-Qaida movie chains, and advertised on Al-Jazeera. How despicable is this.

As a second example, I offer you the latest big video game offering for the Playstation 3. I saw it premiered this week on UFC's Ultimate Fighter. It's called "Assassin's Secret", and it's about a secret band of assassin's in the 12th century who are called out to kill the 9 men who are seeking to control the world and need killing. Special effects and amazing graphics and all. You get to be the "assassins" who hunt down and kill the men with red crosses on their chest. Cool.

The problem: if you know anything about 12th century history, or if you watch even a minute of the preview of "Assassins Secret", you'll understand that the "good guys" are Islamic assassins and that the bad guys are Christian Crusaders.

Are you kidding me? We're going to market a story line to a whole new generation of skulls-full-of-mush video gamers that sells the leftist relativism that the Crusaders were the ultimate evil in the world and the Islamic assassins are right in killing them? Really? When we have suicide-bombers tracking down "infidels" all over the middle east? Unbelievable.

Look, I was fed that crap in history class when I was growing up. That the Crusades were an unprovoked evil stain on the history of Christianity. No mention of the 400 years of volent Muslim expansion into Europe preceeding it. No mention of western civilization enduring 400 years of 9/11's before the took up arms and fought back. Like we are fighting back now.

So, I'm going to call bullshit on this game. It's harmful leftist indoctrination posing as a game. We should reject it, like movie-goers are rejecting the stream of leftist anti-American war bilge at the cineplex.

And, by the way, if this is the quality of propaganda that the Hollywood screenwriters are turning out - they can just stay on strike. It's alright with me.

Primary Season

This week, for the second time this year, I was within 10 miles of all of the Republican presidential candidates all at once. (Republican debate on MSNBC, Dearborn Michigan) Would someone ask them to stop stalking me?

I watched the debate from my hotel room on the road. Not the best debate so far this season, but good enough. The debates and the campaign are doing what they need to do for me, clarify my vote.

While I like the 2nd tier candidates of Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee I don't vote 2nd tier or 3rd party anymore. It does not help with the serious business of selecting our party's candidate who can compete well in the general election.

There are 4 serious candidates: McCain, Guiliani, Romney, and Thompson. Here's my take on them:

Thompson: I wanted to see him in a debate before I made a judgement about him. I'm not impressed. He's attractive to me only in the sense that he would stand a good chance of continuing to carry a lot of the Southern states. But that's not enough. The final straw: Ann Coulter's reminder in her recent column that Fred was one of the sellout Republicans in the Senate who voted No in Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. Unforgiveable. Fred is off the table for me.

McCain: Strong on the war and taxes, but wrong on just about everything else. His support of the immigration bill this year, and McCain-Feingold's rape of the Constitution on campaign finance reform eliminate him. He's totally untrustworthy on key conservative principles.

Guiliani: I won't cast my vote in a primary for a pro-abortion candidate if I have a choice not to. Just won't. It's a determinative issue on judgement. If you can't stand up on the right side of the major moral issue of our generation, you can't have my vote.

Romney: I like him. I like his business experience - including running the Salt Lake City Olympics. I like his executive experience as a govenor. I like his values. Theologically, I'm not a fan of the LDS church, but I'm not electing him to be my pastor. I can live with him as President.

It's Mitt Romney for me. Let's vote already.

Five Years Left?

I'm entering serious tin-foil hat territory with this post, but I'm charging on in.

I've been interested in end-times studies for a long time. Prophecies. Book of Revelations. Armegeddon and all that. The end of humankind.

I've done considerable studying on the topic over the years. Collecting bits and pieces in my mind.

I remember one pivotal day on this topic clearly. I was a Freshman at a Big Ten university in the late 70's, enjoying a sunny day at lunchtime out on the Quad. A gentleman interrupted my meal by setting up an easel and starting an impromptu talk. He was drawing maps and interactions of nations as they would be in the end times according to the Book of Revelations. How Gog and Magog (Russia and China?) would join up and march 100 million strong across the Middle East and into Israel for the big battle. The problem to me was that in 1978 these nations didn't line up very well with the prophecy. Russia and China for example, while both Communist nations, were pretty much enemies who often clashed along their common border. So, I noted his talk with interest and filed it away in my mind - taking it out to remember over the years as borders and alliances have changed.

There are preconditions in all these prophecies for every thing to be lined up right. The Anti-Christ has to be walking the earth. The Temple has to be rebuild in Israel. Things like that.

So - here's the tin-foil hat part - it's 2007 and it looks to me like it's all starting to line up.

- The Middle East is a tinderbox like it's never been in a long time with our War in Iraq and with Islamic Jihadists on the march. Iran's President is openly talking about acquiring nuclear weapons and attacking Israel to bring on the Second Coming.

- The Anti-Christ may in fact be already here. I read a very convincing scholarly work a couple of years ago pointing to the likely candidate. The most well known man in the world. A man who could step up on the international stage as a peace leader. A man who has the red dragon in his coat of arms. The Beast out of the Sea, who was born on an island. I'm talking, of course, about the leading candidate: Charles, Prince of Wales. (See "The Antichrist and a Cup of Tea", by Timothy Cohen)

- The prophecy of St. Malachy was a vision listing 112 Popes, ending in the end of the Holy Roman Church with the last Pope - Peter II. Pope John Paul II was number 110, Benedict number 111. There's only one left. If the next Pope chooses the name Peter look out.

- News story this week indicated that a scholar in Israel has pinpointed the location of the Temple in Israel. Plans are in existence to rebuild it.

- News story this week, August 17 indicated that "Russia, China hold joint war games". Uh oh.

Finally, I was looking at articles again this week that deal with the Mayan Calendar. You know, those primitive guys who built the amazing temples that look an awful lot like precise stellar mapping calendars? Well, they made a "Long Count" calender. It has an endpoint - December 21, 2012. I guess I may not need that 30 year mortgage after all.

Relax, all of this is just wild speculation. A collection of disjointed stories that have occupied my attention for 30 years or so.

But that Russia/China joint war games story did send a chill up my spine this week.

News Bites

I haven't posted for a while now. So, to catch up, here are some quick takes on the news:

1. It was exciting to watch the Space Shuttle Endeavor take off for a mission. It's too bad that space flight has reached the ho-hum state for so long and that we barely notice an event like yesterday, even as masterful a technological event as that was. We'd rather read about a psycho astronaut in a vengeful love triange than to focus on the amazing science of a space launch. But, for what it's worth, I enjoyed it.

2. For a short time, I'll cut Barry Bonds some slack. His home run this week which surpassed Hank Aaron's record was a significant achievement. You have to wish that he would get some time in the sun to celebrate that milestone. But....and unfortunately there is definitely a but, you know it's a tainted record. It's not hard to predict that he will be tried in some tribunal for steroid usage and that the record will be taken off the books. But it was quite a slam, and I'll give him props for a day. He might be all bulked up, but he still had to hit the pitch off a major league pitcher.

3. The surge in Iraq. All of the articles that I'm reading on the conservative sites indicate that there are positive signs that the change in strategy is working. That we might achieve some sense of victory after the blood and treasure paid. Apparently, victory is a problem for Democrat office holders who are heavily invested in Bush's humiliation by defeat. If you hate Bush so much that you dread a victory because it might let George Bush off the hook, you are seriously misguided and should be ashamed of yourself.

4. The presidential debates are burning themselves out already, and it's still way way way too early for average Americans to tune in yet. Does anyone hate all of the candidates yet?

5. At least we're getting the candidates on record, for later use when we tune in. I'm convinced that most of Barack Obama's voters, who are swooning at his every appearance, have very little idea what his positions are. I'm paying attention though, and it's no surprise to me that every position he does stake out on a substantive issue are opposite of mine. When the Supreme Court ruled that partial birth abortion could be curtailed, Obama railed against that decision as an injustice. I couldn't disagree more. When a Federal judge last week struck down a city ordinance in Hazelton PA punishing illegal immigration as unconstitutional, Obama opined that it was a victory for all Americans. Wrong again. It was not a victory for the legal citizens of Hazelton PA. Obama is a classical far left liberal, whose every policy position would be bad for America. That's my take. I'm not swooning.

6. The bridge collapse in Minneapolis does not have me as worried as I thought. Yes, bridges need repair. But I think that they do a pretty good job staying on that, for as massive a project as it is.

The first thought that ocurred to me when I first saw the story, and when I learned that there were workers already repairing the bridge was: Did the repair activity cause the collapse? Did they cut the wrong cable, remove the wrong bolt, have the wrong plan, or put too much heavy equipment on the bridge? Is anyone else asking this? I imagine the investigators are, and they will learn something from it. I'm not too worried that it will happen again.

7. Kudos to George Bush last week for pushing the Congressional reform of the FISA statute to allow wiretapping foreign nationals without a warrant. The Democrat position on this is ludicrous. Are you really wanting to fight a war with court warrants? Do you even acknowledge that we are at war?

The Democrats, and their media supporters, are intentionally distorting the content of the reform. Claiming that George Bush wants to wiretap you and me. Nonsense. The intelligence agents need to be able to monitor foreign actors - potential terrorists - as it happens and not miss a beat. That beat that they miss waiting for a warrant could be the go order for a terrorist cell in the U.S. If so, that's on your heads Democrats.

Left-Wing on Fire!

I had a rare treat this week - I had a rental car on my business trip that had XM Radio in it!

That means that I got to listen to radio stations that I don't otherwise get to hear. And for a news junkie that means talk radio. So, guess where I tuned - Air America!

Oh yeah, I listen to crazy leftwing media any chance I get. That might surprise you, but it shouldn't. Conservatives are newsjunkies and balanced ones at that. We give the other side a hearing. Liberals, on the other hand, who often claim to be so informed and intelligent avoid conservative media like the plague. It's easier for them to avoid conservative sources because there are so few outside of talk radio. Conservatives are inundated with liberal thought from every mainstream source, and are not afraid of it.

I can name for you the liberal talk radio hosts that I've listened to when I had the chance to. Lionel and Rhandi Rhoades on Air America. Ed Schultz and Alan Colmes on Talk Left on Sirius. Anyone on NPR. Granted, I never agree with them and often heckle them as I'm driving. But at least I give them a listen.

If you're a liberal, name for me the last conservative talk radio show that you sought out to listen to? Yeah, that's what I thought you narrow-minded conformists. :)

So, what are they talking about on leftwing radio lately? Well apparently they really hate this guy Bush.

IMPEACH! Impeach now, before lunch. Why haven't we IMPEACHED Bush yet? He's a criminal. The worst of the worst and EVERYONE knows it. IMPEACH. How should we impeach? When can we impeach? Should we wait to impeach until right before the election to win the most seats? Can we impeach Cheney at the same time? What's wrong with the Democrats in the House that they haven't IMPEACHED Bush yet? How could he have commuted Libby - IMPEACH!

It was pretty entertaining for as long as I had it.

Oh, and apparently they are worked up this week over Republican Senator David Vitter of Lousiana, who's name popped up on the phone call list of the D.C madam. HYPOCRITE! Which, as I've mentioned before seems to be one of the worst offenses on the liberal radar screen - conservative hypocrisy. There is no liberal hypocrisy after all, because they have no standards from which they could fall short of. Everything's okay. Go for it. If that's your motto, how could you be a hypocrite? You can't. Me personally, I prefer the guys who hold up standards for our culture even if they ocassionally fall short of them.

Do I care that David Vitter of Louisiana apparently visited call girls in New Orleans? Is that the biggest problem they have in New Orleans, where liberal Democrats rule? Corruption? deeply entrenched systemic poverty,? Any of that ring a bell? And we have to chase Vitter out of office because he went to a hooker?

I wish I had Air America more often. I could use the entertainment.

McCain Flames Out

John McCain is toast as a presidential candidate. Ive know that for a long time. The only ones who don't know that yet are McCain himself and the mainstream media who love him and are scratching-their-hair puzzled as to why the rest of America doesn't love him as much as they do.

We're at the point in this never-ending primary season where second tier candidates start falling away because of lack of funds to continue. Jim Gilmore, for example, announced this week that he was dropping out on the Republican side. About time. I never saw a point to his candidacy in the first place. What no one in the press foresaw, however, is that a front-runner like McCain could crash into that "no funds" territory so rapidly and be on the verge of withdrawal. If you haven't paid attention lately, McCain just fired all of his money men and does not apparently even have enough funs to hire a bus to campaign on.

It's easy to diagnose if you're part of the Republican base, as I am. We don't like McCain. Haven't for a long time. Yes, he's solid on the War and we're thankful for that. However, McCain regularly jumps in on the wrong side of issues and aligns himself with the most wrong-headed of liberals. How many bills in the Senate have to be labelled "McCain-some blowhard liberal Senator" for the base to turn on him? Too many, that's how many. Starting with "McCain-Feingold" - that abomination of a bill called campaign finance reform which shredded the Constitution to protect political incumbents - McCain began alienating Rebulicans that he needs to win an election.

Bottom line: his co-sponsorship with Ted Kennedy of the massively ill-conceived secret immigration reform deal (McCain-Kennedy) cooked up in the back rooms of the Senate was the final straw. No recovery. It's over.

McCain, and his petulant allies in the press, are snippy about this arguing that McCain acts on "principle not polls". Bull. That petulant response betrays a liberal bias both in the press and in McCain's candidacy. Who says that the McCain position on immigration is more principled than his opponents in the Republican base? Liberals, that's who. That's crap. And it's whiny crap from a candidate who is done and doesn't yet know it.

Torture Porn

In case you are not a 16 to 22 year old male and have missed it, there is a whole new genre of movies coming out of Hollywood in the last few years. The genre is affectionately referred to by it's young fans as "torture porn".

Think about that for a minute. Torture porn. Is that a positive sign for the culture of a civilization? That it has invented and embraced "torture porn" as a form of matinee entertainment to go with your overpriced bucket of popcorn.

It's not actual porn, mind you. Available only in adult stores or theaters. No, it's only called porn for it's allure to it's young afficianados. It's quite available at the local multiplex for anyone over 17 who slaps down money at the box-office. Gee, do I go see "Die Hard" or torture porn?

Torture porn hit it's stride with several now-franchise movies including "Saw" - which has a deviant imprisoning strangers and having them harm each other to save themselves - and "Hostel" in which hapless teens touring Europe are kidnapped and strapped down for killers who pay for their own murder vacation. Such fun. Want gummy worms at the concession stand for that? "Saw" is on it's third incarnation, and "Hostel II" came out this summer.

Now we are treated to billboards along the highway touting the July 13th release of "Captivity", where blonde sex symbol Elisha Cuthbert is kidnapped and tortured by some psycho for your date night fun in the dark. From the ratings section of "Rotten Tomatoes" review site, this rating: "MPAA RATING - R, for strong violence, torture, pervasive terror, grisly images, language and some sexual material." Fortunately, only 7% of the reviewers - some self admitted fans of the genre, gave "Captivity" a positive review. But don't get optimistic - some gave it a bad review because it wasn't creative enough for them or didn't have enough terror and gore. It bored them. One reviewer panned it because the character development was so bad that he eventually "didn't care if she lived or died". Really?

Look, I don't care what movies you go see or don't go see if you're an adult. But can't you see that we are way down the slippery slope of a degrading culture if torture porn is getting greenlighted by the money moguls in Hollywood?

It's an especially jarring phenomenon, considering the onslaught of real life stories in the news of violence happening to young women. Just watch the news regularly and pay attention to the stories. A young woman, recently graduated from high school and full of promise, walks out of a Target store and into the hands of her killers - body to be found days later. A young girl in England, missing for a year, found imprisioned under a stairwell.

Doesn't it bother those of you buying tickets for this crap that the same week that "Captivity" opens the dead body of a 12 year old girl snatched out of her family's yard at a fireworks celebration on the 4th of July is found in Seattle? It bothers me. There's enough real life kidnapping, and torture, and murder being visited on women. You have to go see it for entertainment in a theater? Just asking.

What a depraved people we've become.

So Close to Power....

Tonight, I'm less than 10 miles from the next President of the United States. I know that for sure.

How do I know that? Well, I'm in a hotel on the road tonight on a business trip to Manchester, NH. Coincidentally, the location of tonight's Republican Debate, sponsored by CNN.

Surely, the next President of the United States was there. I just don't know which one of the 10 candidates it is.

Rudy, John, Mitt, Duncan, Tom, Tommy, Jim, Ron, Sam, and Mike. All of them 10 miles away.

How cool is that?

They did well tonight. And, need I say that I would vote for any of those 10 over any of the Democrats that were on the same stage 10 miles away two nights ago? Any of them.

Idiocy and Arrogance on Immigration (R)

It's bad enough that the open borders crowd on the left want to surrender on the question of illegal immigration by waving a wand an declaring them all legal. They have a self-interest objective of increasing their voter base. Deplorable, but inderstandable.

What's not understandable is why Republican leaders in the White House and Congress are eager to join in the surrender and therby ensure living in an electoral wasteland for generations.

More recently, what's not forgivable is the idiocy and arrogance with which President Bush, his spokesmen, and Senators are defensively attacking critics of the misguided comprehensive immigration reform bill that they are trying to quickly stuff down the throats of America. Some examples:

1. Let's start with the President himself, who attacked conservative critics of the bill in a recent speech before law enforcement trainees:

"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like," the president said. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.

Excuse me? We "don't want to do what's right for America"? How dare you make that statement. Unforgivable. After six years of support for this President's policies even as he's grown unpopular, he backhands us in this desperate calumny. President Bush - you lost me right there in that one ill-advised insult. You go the distance of this last 18 months without me. As a matter of fact, it's on. I'm all out to defeat this bill. This achievement that you hope will be your legacy will not be if I have anything to do with it.

Peggy Noonan was exactly right in her excellent column this week where she observes that the White House has broken with conservatives, not the other way around.

How about this gem from the President's speech:

He described his proposal—which has been agreed to by a bipartisan group of Senators—as one that "makes it more likely we can enforce our border—and at the same time uphold the great immigrant tradition of the United States of America."

Excuse me? "Make it more likely that we can enforce our border...."? I don't want to hear more likely. What have you been doing for six years now? ENORCE THE BORDER ALREADY! It's your job. Unfortunately, there are at least 12 million indictments of the government's ability to enforce the border, and this ridiculous bill will not - as advertised - make it any more likely that this government will perform any more competently.

The President rightly notes that people are "skeptical" that government can fix the problems, then notes:

"And my answer to the skeptics is: give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect. Give us a chance to fix this problem. Don't try to kill this bill before it gets moving,"

Give you a chance? Are you kidding me? Again, what have you been doing for the last six years of your administration, while the citizens of this country have been under invasion from illegal aliens? Give you a chance? What desperate nonsense and a complete and abject failure of leadership. CLOSE THE BORDER ALREADY, MR. PRESIDENT!

President Bush has lately been given in speeches to observe that the "immigration system is broken". Broken? Like a toy? Like several remote controls laying around my living room? Broken? Mr. President, it's not broken. It's incompetent, and the fault is yours. The Executive Branch, charged with enforcing laws drafted by our Congress with enforcing the immigration rules, works for you. LEAD THEM TO ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS! It's infantile to walk around whining about how the system is "broken".

Okay, enough with the President's eggregious conduct. How about his press spokesman's? I'm a fan of Tony Snow, but he has fallen into the same pattern of idiocy in trying to sell this misguided sellout of our nation's sovereignty. From a recent talk show pitch:

"You have to understand that this bill does three things: 1. secure the border, 2. restore the rule of law, and ....."

Okay, stop there. There are too many things wrong with this statement already.

"You have to understand..." Exuses me? You think I don't understand? Can you be any more condescending in trying to win me over? Can you even concede that we might completely understand your arguments and reject them on the merits. It's the recourse of the merit-less to accuse their audience of not understanding.

"1) Secure the border" Please, don't make me laugh. As I said, there are at minimum 12 million "undocumented" indictments of your ability to secure the border. If you were even serious about securing the border, you might have started with actually building the 750 miles of fence that the Congress authorized LAST YEAR, instead of the 2 miles actually built. No one believes that any new bill negotiated in secret in the Senate with Ted Kennedy will secure the border. How can you say that with a straight face?

"2) Restore the rule of Law...." Excuse me? Who allowed the rule of law to collapse? YOU DID. The Bush administration, and the Clinton administration before it, neglected the basic duty of government to secure it's border so eggregiously that we've undergone an unprecedented illegal invasion. The dereliction of the President is so extensive that it's mind-boggling. Yet, you have the unmitigated gall to talk down to us about restoring the rule of law? Unbelievable.

To all federal government officials, let me be clear: you have a three decade record of being completely incapable of drafting effective immigration legislation or executing the laws enacted. Evidence 12 million times over, offered as proof. Yet you want to draft another worthless law, and declare the "rule of law" restored. Ridiculous. You can only restore your credibility when you SECURE THE BORDER. NOW. Enforce the laws already written, or resign.

Finally, let me not leave the Senate Republicans unexamined. Let's look at the arrogance of Senator John McCain, a major architect of this travesty of a bill. In speeches this week, he's levelling this charge:

"If you defeat this bill, if we do nothing, then you will have a silent
amnesty".

Who asked you to "do nothing"? Did I ask you to do nothing? Is that the only two possibilities that those of you in the cloistered community in the Senate can envision: pass this abomination of surrender or do nothing?

Here's what I want from you, Senator. ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS! Secure the border. Enforce legal-only immigration. Stop the invasion. It's your duty. Every day you fail at it. Any new legislation is just fantasy and folly, if you can't enforce the law that your body already passed before you. Secure the border, first and foremost, or resign.

As a matter of fact, just resign.

Pelosi's Priorities

It seems that our new Speaker of the House, Madame Pelosi, has priorities for Memorial Day travel that do not include honoring our fallen troops. Rather, she's off to kiss up to Europeans on the topic of her real priority - Global Warming.

Nice. Real nice.

Thanks, everyone for voting to give us leaders with screwed up priorities. Thanks.

Back-Room Amnesty

An open letter to President Bush and the Congress of the United States regarding the proposed "comprehensive immigration reform" bill, crafted in secret in a back-room collaboration of U.S. Senators and immigration proponents:

Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me

Fool me 12 million times, and I will openly mock and ridicule your pretense of seriousness and your ability to draft and enforce the laws of our country.

Simple as that.

All you need to know is the damning number of 12 million. That's the minimum number of people in this country illegally - in violation of the laws passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by President's of the United States. 12 million people that the written law did not stop, and that the Exectutive Branch has neither the capacity or will to punish.

12 million scoffers at the laws of our country.

Failure to secure our borders and keep out even one person who you, Mr. Congressman and Mr. Senator and Mr. President, have said in the laws that you passed and signed should not be in the country, is a failure of your office.

Failure 12 million times is a dereliction of duty so massive that it boggles the mind and demands accountability. Not reform. Accountability.

You have no authority any more to pass laws on this matter. 12 million have scoffed at these unenforcable laws. The lawful citizens of this country now scoff at you too.

No amnesty bill will restore the authority of Congress on this matter. No reform. Only border enforcement. Once you have sealed the border, as is your duty, you can propose how to deal with the 12 million who have as their first act on our soil violated the law. Not until then.

Seal the border or resign!

A Great Man Passes

I see on Yahoo news today - next to a news button listing Lindsay Lohan as the "hottest woman" - that Jerry Falwell died today at age 73. One of those news stories was consequential, the other not so much.

Sadly, Jerry Falwell was most well known as the hated man of the liberal left, caricatured relentlessy in the media as a right-wing religious crazy.

In truth, I think the final judgement was that he was first and foremost a great evangelist in every good sense of that word. A faithful champion for decades for the cause of Christ. Influential in politics only secondarily. He had a life's work to be proud of.

Good work, Rev. Falwell. I'm sad at your passing.

A Great Man Passes

I see on Yahoo news today - next to a news button listing Lindsay Lohan as the "hottest woman" - that Jerry Falwell died today at age 73. One of those news stories was consequential, the other not so much.

Sadly, Jerry Falwell was most well known as the hated man of the liberal left, caricatured relentlessy in the media as a right-wing religious crazy.

In truth, I think the final judgement was that he was first and foremost a great evangelist in every good sense of that word. A faithful champion for decades for the cause of Christ. Influential in politics only secondarily. He had a life's work to be proud of.

Good work, Rev. Falwell. I'm sad at your passing.