Carter Comments From "The Peanut Gallery"

It looks like Plains, Georgia’s "Mouth of South" is at it again. I’m not sure what to make of Ex-President Jimmy Carter. He is either: senile, been imbibing too much of his brother’s "Billy Beer", anti-America, a cowardly appeaser, or is just plain genuinely stupid.

In a story here, Carter expresses his disdain for America’s detainment of the blood-thirsty, demon possessed terrorists who threaten our very freedom and way of life. In Jimmy’s mind, capturing terrorists and holding them in prison, preventing them from carrying out their violent mission, is just unfair. And causes the terrorists to want to strike out at us even more.

In Jimmy’s world-view, if we would just close down Gitmo, and let those terrorists go, then al Qaeda would quit picking on us leave us and other nations of Western Civilization alone. We just simply have to make sure that we aren’t behaving in a manner that will make the terrorists even angrier with us.

Jimmy wants us to take "the high road" by adopting an appeasement policy toward these terrorists. If we will just be patient and follow Jimmy’s advise, the terrorist will eventually learn the error of their ways and "come on board" with the rest of Western Civilization.

Here is some of Carter’s cowardly drivel from the article:

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

Carter said, however, that terrorist acts could not be justified, and that while Guantanamo "may be an aggravating factor ... it's not the basis of terrorism."

"What has happened at Guantanamo Bay ... does not represent the will of the American people," Carter said Saturday. "I'm embarrassed about it, I think its wrong. I think it does give terrorists an unwarranted excuse to use the despicable means to hurt innocent people."

"I'm very proud to be in a nation that stands so stalwart against terrorism with us," he said. "The people of my country have united our hearts and sympathy for the tragedy that you have suffered from terrorism."

It’s bad enough that Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Apparently, cowardly appeasement is what impresses the Nobel Peace Prize judges, (never mind the fact that appeasers are eventually murdered by the enemy that they cower down to). The case can be made that if it weren’t for Carter’s wrong-headed foreign policy in the Middle East, we wouldn’t be facing the extremist jihad that we are facing from these crazed demons in the first place.

For Jimmy Carter to have the audacity to extend his praise to Great Britain for standing with us in the war against terrorism is nauseating.

Who does he think he's fooling?

Does Jimmy really think that he can get away with putting on a "pep rally" to Britain in the war against terrorism with one side of his mouth, while he is busy criticizing Great Britain and America’s actions against terrorism on the other side of his mouth?

In the immortal words of good old Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon!"

Jimmy, why don't you do your fellow countrymen a favor. Retire already. Just content yourself with eating your boiled peanuts on your front porch and leave the task of saving America to those in power now. You had your shot at it. We are just trying to clean up the mess that you made.

Bush Has Selected, Let The Democrat Whining Begin

Here we go. The Democrats have now begun their whining. We knew it was forthcoming. There is no reason for any surprise on our part. Never mind the fact that Republicans never stood in the way of Supreme Court Justice nominees by Democrat Presidents before.

The Democrats don’t care. Here is a report announcing the beginning of the Democrat party’s "whine-fest"

While they certainly appreciate the stupid cooperation of Republicans in the past, they are in no way obligated to reciprocate. And of course they won’t. In fact, they are poised to strike.

They are ready to accuse President Bush’s Supreme Court appointee, John G. Roberts Jr. of all manner of sins because of his past association with conservatives.

What the average American citizen voter needs to take away from all of this is: "So what". Not only "so what" but, more importantly, since Democrats are such wimpy whiners, why would anyone in their right mind ever vote for them?

Would you vote for a party of sore losers?

I didn't think so.

Bush From A Stoned Perspective

What is it about Hollwood Actors that leads them to think that we should take what they say politically seriously?

In a story here, Hollywood movie producer, Oliver Stone has decided that we all need to benefit from the wisdom of his opinion regarding how President Bush is doing regarding the war in Iraq.

It seems, according to Oliver Stone, that President Bush is guilty of abusing his position of power by creating a war in Iraq, (an over-reaction to 9/11), that has done nothing more than cause a civil war where there once was none, and cause the American economy to plummet.

So, the pompous Oliver Stone wishes to lecture us about the abuse of power does he? Let's see, he is a Hollywood movie producer, the top of the heap in the Hollywood world. He makes the movies that Amercians will pay to see. Movies like, "Natural Born Killers".

If you haven't seen Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" you are missing a movie that is filled with senseless, bloody violence from start to finish. You are missing a movie whose main characters are bloodthisty murderers who murder indiscriminiatly, for the sheer hell of it.

Oliver Stone apparently has no problem, whatsoever, shoving mindless bloody violence down his movie goers throats. Murder and blood, for the hell of it, is captured on film by Mr. Stone and touted as "art".

However, murder, torture, and blood spilt at the hands of a brutal, satanic dictator and his sons against his innocent subjects is off-limits for a director such as Oliver Stone.

In the twisted mind of Mr. Stone, a couple who traverse the country leaving a trail of murdered bodies in puddles of blood is appropriate. [ref. "Natural Born Killers"]

What is inappropriate for Oliver Stone is a military who charges forth to defeat the reign of such a bloodthirsty dicatator like Sadam Hussein. The amount of innocent lives that happen to be saved by such military action is irrelevant.

Mr. Stone, if anyone has abused the scope of his power over Amercians it would be you. No decent American should ever have had to have been exposed to such filth as your film: "Natural Born Killers".

So, before you attempt to lecture us all on the "abuse of power", you should examine your influence over young Americans who watch your "works of art". Particularly our youth who just happen to be tomorrow's leaders and guardians of the American way of life.

The Return of Hanoi Jane. No Wait, Make That Vegetable Oil Jane!

After a rather lengthy hiatus from stabbing U.S. soldiers in the back, Jane Fonda has announced her return to the anti-war protest racket.

It would seem that Ms. Fonda is pining for at least one more taste of the "good ole’ days" when she was part of the hippie protest movement "making a difference".

The only problem is, time hasn’t been necessarily all that good to her, at least not in the mental department. Ms. Fonda has announced that she is going to take her anti-Iraq war protest across country in a "Magical Mystery Tour bus" fueled by, well, um…vegetable oil.

The last time Ms. Fonda got involved was back in 1972 when she felt it incumbent upon herself to visit the enemy, North Vietnam for a "Kodak moment" on top of a North Vietnamese Anti-Aircraft gun in order to encourage an end to the Vietnam War.

Of course this time, Jane won’t be visiting the Abu Muab al-Zarqawi and his band of bloodthirsty, demon-possessed terrorists in Iraq to pose for a picture shoot with them in protest of the U.S. military’s atrocities and presence there in Iraq. Jane is a little fond a having her head remain on her shoulders.

Whoops! The Bobbies Shot An Innocent Man. Oh, Really?

According to a story posted on Drudge, the man that the British police shot in a London subway on Friday was not a terrorist suspect after all.

In fact Jean Charles de Menezes was a Brazilian electrician living in London who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. His relatives are threatening to sue the British government for compensation.

That's nice. I just have few questions. Why was old Jean running from the police if he was indeed just an innocent electrician from Brazil? Why did he refuse to respond to police commands to halt? Why was he wearing a heavy coat in the heat of summer?

Even though Mr. de Menezes wasn't an actual terrorist, I'm behind the British police and their actions. We are in a war against terrorism. It has been firmly established that Islamic-Facists mean to murder innocent citizens of Western Civilization (9/11, Bali, 7/11, numerous beheadings etc.).

In the interest of saving innocent lives from the satanic, bloodthirsty acts of horror committed by these Islamic terrorists, we don't have the luxury of time sufficient enough to determine whether or not the person leading the police through a foot chase through a crowded public area is ignoring police warnings because he is just a non-conformist or a criminal or a terrorist.

A well-placed shot to the head is the best policy. A shot to the leg, or even the chest will still provide the suspect with the opportunity to "go out in a blaze of glory for Allah".

Mr. de Menezes' death serves to send a two-fold message. Part one is a stern warning to the demon-possessed "homicide bomber", [I will not refer to them in the media's PC vernacular of "suicide bomber"], that he or she is a valid target for a "head shot". If they really want to die, the police will be more than willing to make that happen.

The second part of the message is to the criminals or attention-getters. This is not the time for you to show your ass to everyone else. We will not sacrifice the security of a free society for your selfish desires.

It is my hope that the British police will ignore the cowardly voices of the Neville Chamberlains amongst their midst, and instead press on with defending the public, which is under their charge to protect, from the homicide terrorist bombers that are threatening to murder Britain.

ACLU: The Enemy Within

I was thinking today about one the most vile, leftist institutions in our country today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I believe that they are misnamed. If they had any integrity about them at all they would rename themselves the Atheist Communist Litigation Union. This title more accurately captures the essence of what they stand for.

Like most liberals they have an agenda. And like liberals, instead of coming out clean and being forward in displaying their agenda out in the clear, they hide like cowards behind false, deceptive pretenses. This is of course, because they are aware of the fact that clear thinking Americans would never buy their dangerous communist/socialist anti-American, anti-Constitution drivel.

Instead, the ACLU want all Americans to believe that their sole mission is to care for and protect our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. They would also have us to believe that without their legal expertise, the civil rights that Americans enjoy, would be stripped of them by their government and at its earliest convenience. What a load of arrogant, lies.

Let’s take a look at elements of the current title that this group of lawyers are going by and examine whether or not any of them are a true and an honest representation of the services they claim to provide. Let’s start with the last element in their title, "Union".

The term union is a fitting one for this group of lawyers to use. When one hears the term "union", one usually thinks of labor unions like the AFL-CIO, or the Teamsters Union. The ACLU, like the corrupt labor unions of today, has gone beyond it's originally stated purpose and is no longer needed.

Labor unions were established as a remedy to the abuses that big industrial companies at the turn of the 19th century were committing against its employees without challenge. Thanks to these labor unions, child labor laws have been enacted and employees aren’t exploited as slave labor like they were before. Today, no one needs to "sell his or her soul to the company store". Employees today don’t have to live in company housing, or shop at company grocery stores.

While a lot of employees today complain about their income, (mostly workers in entry level/non college degree jobs), no one is really facing anything remotely similar to the horrible work conditions that employees faced back at the establishment of the labor unions.

The labor unions of today have become nothing more than fat, greedy institutions, which utilize their members’ non-voluntary contributions to turn the tables against the companies that provide employment. While they were originally established to protect the welfare of the workers from abuse at the hand of employers, today the worker himself is just a manipulated pawn that labor unions use to intimidate employers.

Because the labor unions of today have gone beyond their original intent, we don’t have justice in the employment arena. Instead, the upper hand has simply switched from employer to labor union. Labor unions have outlived their purpose.

Likewise, the ACLU is a union that claims to represent freedom of speech in this country. The only problem is the ACLU protects selected freedom of speech, not all types. For the ACLU, the freedom of speech for the perverted, criminal, pedophile organization: National American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is worth protecting, despite the fact that NAMBLA’s mission is to encourage the statutory rape of young boys by adult male pedophiles.

The ACLU routinely swoops in to ensure that the wishes of some overly sensitive, whiny little atheist is granted his or her wishes at the expense of the wishes of the majority of those around him or her.

Little whiny atheist is mortified that there is the phrase "One Nation Under God" in the pledge, the ACLU protect his or her freedom of speech and fights to have it summarily struck out of the pledge.

Little whiny atheist has his or her panties in a wad because, if you happened to study a particular city’s seal carefully enough, you'll discover that there is a Christian cross in it. Never fear, here comes that bastion of freedom of speech protectors the ACLU to save the day, and have that horrible detail, (no matter how small it may be in the overall design of the seal), removed.

Little whiny atheist just can’t get over the trauma of having to view a plague of the Ten Commandments posted on the wall of the city courthouse, the ACLU sees to it that that offensive plaque is removed.

What about the freedom of speech right of those who wish to openly express their religious faith, without fear of censure from the government?

Sorry, the ACLU doesn't care about their rights. Only perverts, atheists, communists, environmentalist whackos and "animals are people too" nuts need apply.

It should be clear to anyone paying attention to the ACLU's judicial history that they aren't really for the protection of every citizen's 1rst Amendment right, just the rights of select citizens, those that agree with the ACLU's vision for America.

What about the element "Civil Liberties" that is found in their title? Like the examples given above regarding protection of 1rst Amendment rights, the ACLU is only concerned with the civil liberty of those who agree with their agenda.

Finally, there's the last element in their title, "American". Unless, simply living in America is the only factor to be considered, this one element in their title is definitely false. They are no more for America's best interest than al Qaeda is.

ACLU's founder was one Roger Baldwin, an avowed communist. It was his desire to change the face of America and slowly but surely make America a communist nation. Of course, to do so, he had to ensure that his ACLU looked patriotic, hence the bogus name American Civil Liberties Union. Their communist agenda must be hidden from the public at all costs.

Slowly but surely, Baldwin's communist union of lawyers has been eroding away the values and freedoms of the America that the founding fathers sacrificed their very fortunes and property to design. The America that minutemen sacrificed their very lives to fight and die for against overwhelming odds. ACLU lawyers specialize in molesting and raping lady justice.

Sure, every once in a while they will make a show of defending some legitimate civil rights issue, (Brown v. Board of Education), to make it look like they aren't all that bad. They've even gone so far as to defend the KKK and Nazis, (to try and sell the image that they are for the civil liberties of all Americans no matter how controversial). These tactics work well in duping gullible, uninformed Americans into believing that the ACLU is an important organization that exists to ensure that their constitutional rights are protected.

The Constitution is the last document that Baldwin's ACLU is interested in protecting. It is the Constitution with it's precepts of freedom for American citizens, and a government that serves it's people, not the other way around, that threatens the ACLU vision for America. Their vision is a communist vision.

The ACLU is counting on all of the useful idiots that it can find for support. The Soviet Union may have fallen from power, but the communist threat is still alive and well today. It exists within the borders of our country in the form of the ACLU.

This union of anti-American lawyers hides behind patriotic disguises. This union of communist lawyers is able to plan this country's demise while enjoying the protection of the very Constitution they seek to overthrow.

They are the enemy within, that if allowed to go unchecked will surely not only "bite the hand the feeds them", but slit their benefactors throat, and assume politcal power.

Are you sure you want to live under the Atheist Communist Litigation Union's vision for a new America? I'm certain that I don't!

It Didn't Happen On Our Soil.

I just saw an exchange between Bill O'Reilly of the Fox News Channel and Toronto columnist Antonia Zerbisias. They were discussing the
irresponsibility of the media's aversion to call "a terrorist a terrorist." Instead, the media prefers the "a man set off a bomb on a train today" or "suicide bombers killed X amount of victims today..." In particular, O'Reilly brought up the often media echoed phrase: "One person's terrorist is another's "freedom fighter".

Ms. Zerbisias defended that offensive statement by pointing out that America backed up El Salvador's "El Contra" who committed acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. Her obvious smug insinuation was who does the U.S. think they are accusing anyone else in the world of being terrorists?

O'Reilly pointed out to her the blatant offensiveness of this statement,
particularly for the family members of the victims of 9/11, Bali, and more recently the London train bombings. What was Zerbisias' reply to this?

"It didn't happen on our soil."

That's right. Here we have yet another arrogant Canadian's snub of not only America's misfortune at the hands of a brutal terrorist attack, but extended to the rest of the world. I've heard this "not on our soil" mantra once before from the mouth of a Canadian diplomat.

I wonder what Ms. Zerbisias' attitude will be when terrorist carnage eventually reaches "her soil". Do you think she will be so smug? Or will she be a blubbering mess when her family members and friends are found lying in a pool of their own blood after the Islamo-facists terrorists strike on her soil. I predict Canadian weeping "waterworks" will abound.

Once that happens, it will be America who will step in to rescue their sorry asses. And true to their French influence, they will spit in our face for it later.

Yo Homie I Be Graduatin'!

Well, my "surprise streak" has ended. I just finished reading an article that points out something from the left that I have come to expect. A school district in California, that blue state bastion of kooky hippy dippy liberal ideas, has decided that what black students need is to be taught reading, writing and arithmetic in "ebonics" to ensure that they receive a "well rounded education."

The San Bernardino School Board wants us to believe that they are worried about the plight of the black students in their district, who according to their statistics, don't do as well academically as other races. In fact, fewer finish high school. Also, there are too few blacks who pursue college degrees.

So how do the caring liberals of the San Bernardino School Board plan to reverse this trend? The answer is simple. Make school more interesting for black students. [I guess "Sally Has Two Mommies" and the demonstration of how to place a condom on a cucumber video aren't doing the trick]. The best way to do this is to ensure all subjects are taught in street vernacular of the average "gansta rapper"

Here are some quotes outlining the rational for this brilliant idea from the article:

Mary Texeira, a sociology professor at Cal State San Bernardino, commended the San Bernardino Board of Education for approving the policy in June."

Texeira suggested that including Ebonics in the program would be beneficial for students. Ebonics, a dialect of American English that is spoken by many blacks throughout the country, was recognized as a separate language in 1996 by the Oakland school board.

"Ebonics is a different language, it's not slang as many believe," Texeira said. "For many of these students Ebonics is their language, and it should be considered a foreign language. These students should be taught like other students who speak a foreign language."

Texeira said research has shown that students learn better when they fully comprehend the language they are being taught in.

"There are African Americans who do not agree with me. They say that (black students) are lazy and that they need to learn to talk," Texeira said.

Beginning in the 2005-06 school year, teachers will receive training on black culture and customs. District curriculum will now include information on the historical, cultural and social impact of blacks in society. Although the program is aimed at black students, other students can choose to participate.

Board member Danny Tillman, who pushed for the policy, said that full implementation of the program at all schools may take years, but the pilot program is a beginning.

"At every step we will see positive results," Tillman said.

Tillman hoped the new policy would increase the number of black students going to college and participating in advanced courses.

Teresa Parra, board vice president, said she worried the new program would have an adverse effect.

"I'm afraid that now that we have this the Hispanic community, our largest population, will say, 'We want something for us.' Next we'll have the Asian community and the Jewish community (asking for their own programs). When will it end?"

Parra said the district should focus on helping all students who are at risk.

"I've always thought that we should provide students support based on their needs and not on their race," Parra said.

Tillman disagreed with Parra, saying programs that help Latinos already exist in the district. He cited the district's English- as-a-second-language program.

Texeira urged people not be quick to judge the new program as socially exclusive. She said people need to be open to the program.

"Everybody has prejudices, but we must all learn to control that behavior," Texeira said. She said a child's self confidence is tied to his or her cultural identity.

She compared the low performance of black students to starvation. "How can you be angry when you feed a family of starving children?"

Did you catch the sociologist Texeira's veiled threat? If you happen to disagree with her point of view you are not controlling your prejudiced, bigoted, racist nature very well. [This is a clever liberal tactic which involves a pre-emptive "name calling" strike against anyone who dissents to their argument, before the dissenter has a chance to respond. The hope is that mere intimidation will produce concurrence with the liberal viewpoint, no matter how whacky or dangerous it actually is].

Texeira also tags the ludicrous assertion that a person's self esteem is somehow tied to their ethnic culture to the end of her threat. Ok, Professor. Which came first: the culture or self esteem?

What a load of socialist crap. A child's self esteem grows and matures in direct correlation with his or her achievements. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin, or the culture of their ancestors. [Can somebody tell me why it is that the liberals, who claim to revere Martin Luther King as a saint, don't subscribe to his professed dream of a "color-blind society?]

Board member Danny Tillman's insinuation that "Ebonics" is just as much a foreign language as the Spanish that Latinos speak is nothing but desperate sophistry on his part.

Bastardized English slang, is not a foreign language. If anything, it is a dialect of the American English language, but not an entirely different language. Apart from a few Latin cognates, Spanish has nothing in common with English. [Hence the need for Spanish classes in high school and college].

The average kid listening to rap music today doesn't need to attend any classes in order to understand the message in the songs that he or she is listening to. However, you expose that same kid to Latino pop music and it's guaranteed that he or she won't understand anything that the Latino singer is singing.

Teresa Parra, the school board's vice president, raises a good point. Where do you draw the line in all of this culture consideration? I would venture to say that by the time the school managed to give equal time for all the different cultures that the school's students came from, it would be one cacophony of noise and confusion (a miniature Tower of Babel), or the school itself would become a museum of multi-cultures existing under one roof. There certainly wouldn't be any time for teaching reading, math, science and the number one business language in the world, (let alone in the U.S.), English.

It is beyond my understanding to see why Mr. Tillman can even be hopeful that this new Ebonics policy "would increase the number of black students going to college and participating in advanced courses." Does Mr. Tillman really think that college courses, and even advanced courses are taught in Ebonics?

These liberal pinheads don't really care about the education and future of their black students. Teaching them in Ebonics instead of English will only prepare them for lives as rappers or membership in street gangs. Or maybe they could be hired on as teachers to keep the useless cycle of Ebonics Education going on and on and on.

All of this serves to illustrate something that I have noticed about the liberals and the Democrat Party. They don't really care about minorities. They have no intentions whatsoever in seeing minorities succeed in anything other than voting the democratic ticket so that they can continue to stand in line for handouts. The Democratic Party hasn't really changed. Oh sure, they no longer speak with a "dixiecratic" accent. But, make no mistake. They have traded their white hooded robes and their racist, bigoted rants for the sly, socialist rhetoric of professors like Ms. Texiera. In both cases, the democrat’s plans for the minority race in this country aren’t good.

African Americans should have never been slaves in the first place. There's no reason for them to continue to be manipulated by the Democrats, who have done nothing more than exchange the metal chains of slavery for the socialist chains of big government programs. As the liberals tighten those chains around the minorities in this country, they rob their victims of their very dignity and honor. Liberal socialist programs also succeed on keeping the minority down and dependant upon the measly little handout the government affords them.

Black students aren't performing poorly due to the absence of black cultural studies being taught to school teachers, nor is it because they don't have access to "Ebonics friendly” textbooks.

Black students, other minority students, and white students, who perform poorly academically, will have a much better chance, when the public school system purges itself of all of the liberal propaganda it has been pushing as well as the absurd sociological experiments of vacuous, flabby headed professors like Texeira and returning to teaching the basics.

McCain Lends A Helping Hand To Teenage Lust

Ok. I seem to be going through a "surprise streak". First it was the surprise of finding an American attempting to defend the honor of the French, now I’m surprised that I actually agree with Susan Estrich on something. You know her don’t you? She’s one of the liberal talking heads that appears on the Fox News Channel from time to time. She’s the one with the raspy voice that sounds like she may have smoked one too many cigarettes in her day.

I found an article she wrote, lampooning the decision of Senator John McCain to accept a cameo role in the R-rated movie "Wedding Crashers". Estrich reminds her readers that it was Senator McCain who launched an attack against Hollywood’s practice of cranking out R-rated filth and marketing it to teenagers. McCain’s campaign in 2000 against Hollywood did make some difference. Hollywood agreed to go back to following the guidelines established for the content of R-rated movies, although as Estrich points out that probably just made PG-13 movies raunchier.

Here we are five years later. Hollywood, being tired of the success they’ve had with making family friendly movies, has decided that we have all gone long enough without being exposed to the filth that they are more known for out there in the movieland. This summer, coming to a theater near you will be a movie that will guarantee to fulfill your desire to see endless amounts of topless females and endless amounts of gratuitous sex. Not only are they planning to make a big come back for "teenager in heat" movies, but, they have their once arch nemesis, Senator McCain participating in it. What an endorsement. It just goes to show you that you can't keep Hollywood smut down for long. Even U.S. senators like the sleeze.

Estrich ends her article wondering whether or not adherents from the political right will ignore McCain’s blatant hypocrisy in all of this or call him to task. I can’t speak for every other conservative out there, but as for me, I choose to call him out. Senator McCain, you are a hypocrite. It doesn’t really matter whether you did it to impress your kids. [Which begs the question, just what kind of values did you teach your children in the first place?]

I would suggest that McCain belongs in the looney Right category. But actually, McCain is more of a RINO than an actual conservative. Estrich thinks that according to the polls, McCain is a front-runner for the Republican nomination in 2008. He won’t get my vote. I appreciate your service record in the Vietnam Conflict Senator McCain, but I don’t appreciate the political dis-service you have done to this country. Let’s not forget the McCain-Feingold Act that you co-authored and its noble goal of eroding our citizen’s freedom of speech. You’ll never get my support or vote.

If I were Susan Estrich, I would be more worried that McCain is actually one her comrades. It’s probably just a matter of time before he makes it official and crosses over to the left. That’s ok by me. We need men like McCain on the battlefield, but we don’t need him in the conservative legislative field. The left can have him. Besides, the liberals could probably use an authentic war hero to replace that phony John Kerry.

In Defence Of The French? What Are You Nuts?!

I came across an article on the web today that was, at least for me, a complete surprise. Here is an American trying to defend the French. In his article, Lee Harris calls for us, to reconsider our view of the French and their contributions to modern society.

Here are some highlights from Harris' defense of the French:

The French are indispensable-it is impossible to imagine civilization without them. They had to exist in the past even if you do not believe there is a pressing need for them at present.

There is a whole way of understanding the world that is French and that is critically important in order to make a civilization work.

The French have a method of analyzing human conduct that makes them see truths that are invisible to other forms of the human intellect, especially our boisterously pragmatic American one.

We believe in the power of positive thinking-they believe in the power of intellectual lucidity, even at the price of an increased pessimism. For an American pessimism is a sin; for the French it is prudence.

On this question, I must admit that I am sympathetic to the French. I agree with them in their pessimism because, like them, I am convinced that this pessimism is justifiable based on the universal prevalence of the phenomenon spoken of in French-and only in French-as amour propre.

Harris goes on to explain that amour propre is not to be confused with amour de soi, which is love of the self. Enjoying people, possessions, food and drink for the sheer pleasure they bring to the self at the moment. This kind of love, Harris informs us, the French highly encourage since it is the key to joie de vivre, that is the joy of living.

For the French amour propre is the selfish use of people, possessions, food and drink for the sole purpose of elevating one's social status, one's reputation in the eyes of everyone around them. This type of love is to be avoided at all costs.

If a man drives a BMW because he genuinely enjoys the feel of a good car, it is amour de soi, and that is fine; but if he drives it because it gives him a certain status vis-à-vis others, then it's amour propre, and he is in deep merde. And the same may be said of anything in life-our looks, our intellect, our bowling skills, our mate-we can all fall into the trap of making these things important for the status they give us instead of the pleasure; and, as any fool can see, this is a fatal error.

Amour propre brings grief because it is based on a complete illusion-and one that, once seen through, cannot be unseen through.

To watch this illusion collapse before your very eyes, ask yourself what constitutes a person's status and you will instantly see that a person's status is nothing more substantial than the estimation of his character that exists exclusively in the fickle and feckless imagination of other people.

Which is precisely why, for Sartre, hell is other people. Because, when we are driven by amour propre, we are permitting others to control our sense of status-which means that a life devoted to the pursuit of status is ultimately the futile and soul-exhausting chasing after an illusion, as both Pascal and Proust could tell us, the first through his bleak pensées and the second through his epic study of snobbery-that stock exchange of amour propre.

And this is the unique contribution of the French to the spiritual life of the human race-to show us how amour propre is an ever present danger to all human beings, from the saint who wishes to rise above it, and then foolishly prides himself when he succeeds, to the sinner who cannot escape from its snares even in the depths of depravity, like the characters of Marquise de Sade-And what else is sadism, if you but think about it, but the ultimate expression of our superior rank in respect of the Other, and thus the final pathology of amour propre?

The French, in short, see amour propre behind every human action, and regard it as quite impossible for human beings to act without it.

All of this sounds pleasant and reasonable until you think about what Harris is saying on behalf of the French.

First of all, speaking from a boisterous, pragmatic American viewpoint, The French have it only half-right.

I believe that it is safe to say that any reasonable person would agree that amour propre is foolish. It is the root behind both snobbery and it's opposite personality flaw: a poor self worth complex. In fact, part of maturing into an adult is learning not to over emphasize the importance of what other people think about you. Essential to what it means to be an adult is to accept yourself for who you are, (flaws and all), and to take personal ownership of values and morals that are based upon what is right, and true, rather than what the latest fad would dictate.

But, as I stated above, the French are only half-right. They need to take another look at the amour de soi that they are so enamoured with.

Unchecked, amour de soi is nothing more than selfish hedonism. Decadence destroys lives and brings down entire civilizations, (the Roman Empire). Most adults know that the joie de vivre is found in living a meaningful life that balances the pursuit of pleasure with responsibility.
The joy of living is most certainly not found in the pursuit of a reckless orgy of debauchery and over-indulgences.

My second boisterous American point is in criticism of the ridiculous French notion that amour propre is the real motive behind every human act. Perhaps it is the foundation of every French person's act, but it doesn't follow that it extends beyond the French to other nations.

I can assure you that there are quite a few males all around the world who are going out this Saturday night to various bars and discotheques with one purpose in mind, to pick up women. In this case, it is definitely amour de soi at work here and not amour propre as the French intelligentsia is so sure is the real motivation.

They aren't out looking for women who will raise their status in the eyes of society. No. They are looking for women to gain pleasure from. Sexual pleasure. Status in society be damned, it's the hedonistic amour de soi that is the goal, plain and simple.

So much for the French's: "method of analyzing human conduct that makes them see truths that are invisible to other forms of the human intellect, especially our boisterously pragmatic American one."

This brings me to my third boisterous American point. Does Harris actually expect us to believe that up until the existence of the French intelligentsia, it never occurred to anyone that using people, things, food or drink for the sole purpose of impressing others was a vain and meaningless act? The Greeks never noticed it? The Romans never noticed it?

Mr. Harris, you want to defend the French do you? Well, let's take a look at just what the French have introduced to civilization:


- The guillotine (a more efficient way to carry out the barbarous act of beheading someone)

- Existentialism. The poisonous, pessimistic philosophy that promotes:

- The misguided view that life has no real meaning.

- Therefore, there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil.

- It's all simply a matter of perception. One person's perception of reality is as equally valid as another person's. ["Each to his/her own!" The lunatic's perception of reality is as valid as the sane person's.]

- Do whatever "feels good". After all, there is no obligation to consider what any other person thinks about your actions. To do so would be to commit the sin of amour propre.

- There is no such thing as love. Romance is just sheer fantasy. Compassion is a pipe dream. Humans are incapable of anything but selfish self-promotion at all times. [So much for Paris being the "City of Love"]

-Therefore, the moral decay of Western Culture and it's eventual demise is inevitable. [After all, when everything is "relative" there can be no such thing as justice, or freedom just anarchy]

All of this French existentialism ultimately leads to the view of nihilism. That is, the worship of death and the establishment of a "culture of death". In fact, it was the French existentialist philosopher, Albert Camus who glorified suicide in his writings as a decision of honor, (ref. "The Myth of Sisyphus")

It is jerks like Jean Paul Sartre who end up characterizing the typical Frenchman. Sartre found "hell as other people" simply because he was himself a sniveling, self-absorbed nerd, (ref. "Nausea"). Sartre was nothing more than an atheist and communist wandering around the fertile, filthy streets of Paris.

His sniveling whining is, unfortunately, echoed in the academic halls of universities around the world. He is the inspiration behind the atheist who wishes to force his views down the throats of everyone else via lawsuits funded by the ACLU. He or she is the one who expects "the many" to bow to his or her desires for the "good of society." His or Her Majesty didn't receive enough attention as a child, therefore society itself must pay.

Yeah, me as well as a lot of other Americans, are now reconsidering our views about the French Mr. Harris. Thanks for reminding us just how depraved the ideas of those cowards, the French, really are. They are not "indispensable" to Western civilization at all. In fact, I suspect we would have gotten along better without them!

Just Because I Give A Shout Out To Jihad, Doesn't Mean I Mean It.

Once again, stupid people need to be reminded that crying out: "Fire!" in a movie theater is not protected under the 1rst Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.

Point in case, this story in which stars an Arabic rapper. Here are some of the highlights:

"HOUSTON -- When Bassam Khalaf raps, he's the Arabic Assassin. His unreleased CD, "Terror Alert," includes rhymes about flying a plane into a building and descriptions of himself as a "crazy, suicidal Arabic ... equipped with bombs."

Until last week, Khalaf also worked as a baggage screener at George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

"I've been screening your bags for the past six months, and you don't even know it," said Khalaf, who also said Thursday that he is not really a terrorist and that his rhymes are exaggerations meant to gain publicity."

So, why the retort: "I’ve been searching your bags for the past six months, and you don’t even know it" Mr. Innocent?

An Internet search of Khalaf's name brings up Web sites that feature his obscene, violent and misogynistic raps that threaten to fly a plane into a building on Sept. 11, 2005.

Khalaf, who was born in Houston and is of Palestinian descent, said working as a baggage screener was the best paying job he's ever had. He said he hoped to use any extra money he earned to produce his CD.

This is rich. Here we have an Islamist with an outspoken anti-American vendetta via rap music, benefiting from his employment in an airport, so that he can produce more rap CDs that declare his plans to fly an airplane into…an airport.

"I kept my music and my job separate. I told a couple of people who I thought was cool with me at work that I rapped, but I never sat there and told them lyrics or anything," said Khalaf. "I guess somebody probably told them that I had a Web site."

Khalaf said his terrorist-themed rhymes are more about marketing. He called his songs art and pointed to other rappers who have rhymed about terrorism. He specifically cites Eminem's song, "My Dad's Gone Crazy," which discusses blowing everything on the map up except Afghanistan and says: "There's no tower too high, no plane that I can't learn how to fly."

"Controversy sells," Khalaf said. "It brings a lot of attention. Everybody wants to label all Arabics terrorists just because a couple of people messed up. Well, I'm going to play along with that character. I'm going to let you think I'm one."

Excuse me Mr. Khalaf, did you say: "just because a couple of people messed up?" Are you saying that you have your turban all in a wad because you are shocked that the rest of the world didn’t interpret the barbarian atrocity of 9/11 as simply an anomaly caused by a bunch of Arabs who simply "messed up?"

Do you even further have the nerve to demand that we ignore the "pro-terrorist" message in your rap music lyrics even though we are at war with goons who think and act exactly in concert with the message of your songs?

Mr. Khalaf, crying "bomb!" in these post 9/11 days and times, upon boarding an aircraft, is an incredibly stupid act.

If you insist upon proclaiming such stupid crap in your songs, you deserve whatever beatings you get.

Most of us adults here in America don’t consider Emenim and his filth acceptable. However, we are more willing to tolerate his filth than we are your crap.

So, you are going to let us "think you are one",(a terrorist)? Well, what a coincidence. We do.

If I were you, I would take your demonic poison somewhere else. It doesn’t belong here. And neither do you!

Aaaaaow! Shame On Us!!!!!!

Here’s some highlights from yet another story from the cowardly, appeasement-minded, liberal, anti-U.S. left:

"UNITED States interrogators at Guantanamo Bay subjected a suspected terrorist to abusive and degrading treatment, forcing him to wear a bra, dance with another man and behave like a dog, military investigators said yesterday.

One suspect was Mohamed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who tried to enter the US in August 2001, but was turned away at Orlando airport.

Mohamed Atta, the ringleader of the 11 September hijackers, was in the airport at the same time.

The committee heard that interrogators told him his mother and sisters were prostitutes, forced him to wear a bra, forced him to wear a thong on his head, told him he was homosexual and said that other prisoners knew it."

This is what the appeasers are wetting their pants over? This is torture? This is what the outrage is all about?

Give me a break. Notice how this journalist uses the term "suspected terrorist". This coward appeaser deems it necessary to use the adjective "suspected". As if, the U.S. military is rounding up just anyone of Islamist affiliation and humiliating them for kicks.

At least the journalist got one word right, terrorist. Most people, (other than terrorists themselves, appeasement cowards from the left, the liberal left's whore: the media, Bush haters, anti-U.S., anti- U.S. military protesters), recognize the obvious fact that terrorists are monsters.

They specialize in spilling innocent blood, not merely calling the innocent names, or humiliating them. They specialize in kidnapping innocent people and sawing their heads off, (while they chant praises to the their demon god amidst the backdrop of their victim’s horrible, painful screams), as opposed to merely putting panties on their victim's head and calling them names.

Unless you are a coward, or an anti-American, why would you be concerned about the feelings of any of these terrorists? Why would you be concerned for their dignity? How could this scum of humanity possibly possess any dignity in need of safeguarding to begin with?

Have You Ever Wondered What A Demon Possessed Stooge Would Say?

A while back, a Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, was brutally murdered in broad daylight by an Islamist thug. In fact this bloodthirsty pig-dog shot his victim 15 times, stabbed him and then slit his throat. All in public. All in daylight. And, all in the name of Allah.

According to a story posted here, Mohammed Bouyeri has finally had his day in court. Here are some of the quotes from Bouyeri from the story:

"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion"

"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do exactly the same, exactly the same"

[to the mother of his victim]:

"I have to admit I do not feel for you, I do not feel your pain, I cannot -- I don't know what it is like to lose a child"

"I cannot feel for you ... because I believe you are an infidel"

"I acted out of conviction -- not because I hated your son."

"I cannot accuse your son of hypocrisy because he was not a hypocrite. He said things out of conviction"

Ever wondered what a demon possessed man would say if he was interviewed? Well, there you have it.

The story goes on to relay this evil moron’s opinion about the appropriate punishment for him:

"Bouyeri told the prosecutor that he concurred with the charges against him and the demand for a life sentence -- a sentence which holds no possibility of parole in the Netherlands."

Of course he agrees with a life in prison sentence.

I say, how about a "forfeiture of life" sentence? Why don’t we send this demon possessed thug to the pits of Hell as soon as possible?

Life in prison?

Slitting his throat would be too generous!

An Open Letter To The Cowards Who Attacked London

Somebody posted an open letter to the terrorists who were responsible for the recent carnage in London. The author of the letter opens up the letter by proclaiming that he or she and their fiancee are Malaysians living in London. The fact that the author of this letter is from Malaysia is telling. Malaysia is a country that is mostly Muslim.

Whether or not the author is a Muslim is not known. However, the fact that he or she comes from a Muslim country adds more damning sting to his or criticism of the terrorist's actions:


I recount yesterday not because it is some self-therapy session. Nor is it to demonstrate any callousness on our part. If there had been something that any of us could do to help the emergency services, we would have done so.

Rather, I recount the day because we understand that your aim is to strike fear and to disrupt and eradicate our freedom and liberties. Well, no matter how many you kill or maim, I am afraid you are not going to succeed. I am, in all probability, actually wasting my time.

I don’t think you have either the emotional quotient or the mental capacity to understand this. If you had, you would realise that Madrid was a failure, just like Sept 11. Yes, the death toll and the emotional pain these incidents cause are great.

But we, the citizens of this world, the peace-loving people of every creed, colour, faith, age and background do not buy your morally and ideological bankrupt notion of courage. You are cowards.

That’s why you dare not show your face. That’s why you target innocent people whose names are John, Jane, Antonio, Yithzak, Wong, Kim, Thabo, Mohammed, Kumar etc. You know that were you to attempt to reason and rationalise your so-called struggle, you would show the complete lack of intelligence, logic, persuasiveness or righteousness on your part.

Therefore, you are only prepared to communicate through the language of fear. Just like the school playground bully.

Well, we understand fear. We fear living in a society where there are no freedoms or liberties. We fear hate. We fear irrationality. We fear that in physically protecting ourselves, we ourselves will strangle our souls.

For all of these reasons, we do not fear you because while you can take lives, you cannot take away the basis of our civilisation. That of freedom of religion, belief, expression, of liberty, of democracy and of the desire to better and improve ourselves through work, charity, and our personal faith.

If you were courageous, you would be building schools, hospitals, homes, roads, water pipes, power stations, mosques, churches, temples, synagogues and doing unto your neighbour as you would wish they do unto you. Because you cannot, or will not, you show your lack of comprehension of what is the true nature of diligence, sacrifice, righteousness and courage.

The citizens of London (and we come from every part of the world and are believers of every faith under the sun) today and in the days to come will mourn our loss. We will grief for a season. But even during this season, we will continue to live our lives as we did before.

And many others will continue to migrate to this city to better their lives, to fulfil their dreams, and to achieve their ambitions. But as for you, you can continue to run from safe house to safe house, from foxhole to foxhole, cave to cave, country to country.

You can continue to plot to maim and kill and at the same time demean your own human nature and destroy your soul. We pity you. We pray for God to have mercy on you and be gracious to you. And we forgive you because we do not want to be consumed by hate like you.

And on the day of reckoning, we do not want the account of our lives to be measured by the amount of hate we have for God’s creations and the number of eyes blinded, ears deafened, arms and legs maimed and amputated, and lives murdered.


Wow! I don’t think it could possibly be stated any better than that. It’s a real shame that this message, in its entirety, is such a waste of time.
After all, it is aimed at a bunch of bloodthirsty, demon possessed, dupes of Satan.

Anyone who spends more time slobbering and huffing with pure hatred in every breath, isn’t capable of understanding the message that has been brilliantly stated here. No, they are too busy planning their next unholy jihad for Satan…uh, I mean Allah.

Hey Hoser, 9/11 Is Your Problem, Eh?

I was watching Fox News this afternoon. They were covering a story about our northern neighbor Canada’s, practice of providing a safe haven for known terrorists. In fact, there are large areas of the Canadian-U.S. border that are completely unguarded.

Great, that sure is good to know! I mean, I can sleep good tonight knowing that there are gaping holes in our country’s borders, particularly when it comes to our neighbor Canada.

As if this news wasn’t bad enough, I had the pleasure of hearing a Canadian diplomat explain that 9/11 happened to the U.S. and not Canada.

New York was hit, not Winnipeg. Furthermore, it is of paramount importance for Canada to demonstrate to the terrorists, and to the world for that matter, that they are "nice people", [implication: Unlike the U.S.?].

That’s right. You heard it right. Apparently, this diplomat believes that al Qaeda will see Canada as the great, wonderful, peaceful, "gentle people" that they are, and spare them from the annihilation that the "holy jihad" from Allah demands. What are these Canadians? Alpacas?

What else should we expect from a country that has a maple leaf as their national symbol, embroidered on their flag?

Never mind a fierce lion, or a noble eagle. No, a maple leaf does the trick for Canadians. After all, they’re not fierce. They’re not brave. No, Canada is nice. Yeah right, nice and sticky!

Canada has every right to refuse to help protect the United States of America’s borders, even though the U.S. shouldered the burden of protecting Canada from the Red Threat during the Cold War [think NORAD].

But, equivocally, the U.S. has every right to ignore Canada’s cries of help when the demon possessed, blood thirsty, Islamic jihad scourges "syrupy, sweet land" leaving a trail of easily spilled blood. After all, crocodiles love the weak and tend to take them out first.

Of course, on the other hand, what real assistance could Canada offer us after all?

It's The Constitution, Stupid

Unlike the democrats, President Bush won’t use a litmus test to determine who his selection is to fill vacant Supreme Court Justice positions. And, unlike the democrats, Bush’s priority will be to ensure that his nominee will respect the Constitution and it’s intent rather than ignore the Constitution and legislate from the bench.

Here is Bush’s position quoted from an AP story:

Bush has said there would be no litmus test for his nominee on issues such as abortion or gay rights.

"I'll pick people who, one, can do the job, people who are honest, people who are bright and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from," the president said earlier this week.

Good for him! This is yet another reason that I am so glad that we have Bush for president. He understands what is at stake here. While democrats and republicans, (conservative and liberals), are jockeying for their side’s position to fill the vacancy in the form of a justice who echoes their viewpoints, their ideology – Bush has seen past all of that nonsense.

The whole purpose of having checks and balances built into our form of government, is to ensure no one person (i.e. dictator) or that no one ideological group (oligarchy) overpowers another and forces its viewpoints upon everyone else.

Obviously, two of the three branches of government are politically motivated. Both Congress and the President have political party ties, as well they should. They are elected officials. Supreme Court Justices, however, are not elected officials.

The Supreme Court, being the third branch of the government, has an a-partisan role to fulfill. By "a-partisan" I mean to suggest that political party affiliation should have no meaning or application to a Supreme Court Justice’s role. The Supreme Court’s role is to ensure that the Constitution is being followed.

The Supreme Court ensures that the Constitution is the litmus test that approves or denies the validity of the output from the other two branches of government: the Executive Branch, and the Legislative Branch.

This citizen definitely falls into the conservative camp of politics. As such, I am obviously interested in seeing conservative concerns triumph in the characterization of the American landscape. I also want conservative ideology to inform the way America conducts its business and lives. But, I will be the first to tell you that I’m glad that all views must pass the Constitution litmus test. If any conservative viewpoint conflicts with our Constitution then it has got to go!

The Constitution is the ultimate authority that defines American government. Period. Not the Republican Party. Not the Democrat Party. Not the liberal agenda. Not the conservative agenda. Not the Moral Majority. Not the Christian Right. Not the ACLU. Not Moveon.org.

To the extent that these viewpoints, or any other for that matter, agree with the Constitution’s dictations, fine. Any point(s) where these viewpoints digress from the Constitution’s view, they must be abandoned in favor of the Constitution.

Bush apparently has confidence in the Constitution. Liberals have demonstrated that they don’t. Hence the actions of their activist justices. Let’s not forget Roe Vs. Wade, and more recently Kelo Vs. New London.

God Bless the UK

We can't thank the British enough for their support as allies in this "War On Terrorism". They have fought bravely, side by side with America against the barbarians who wish to impose their extremist, demonic viewpoints upon the rest of the world. Americans, like myself, certainly grieve at the news of England's tradgedy today at the hands of Islamist cowards.

That's right. I said cowards! I am confident that England will not "cave in" like Spain did. In spite of this feeble attempt by al Qaeda, once again, against Western Civilization, a clear message will be sent to the actual "Great Satan": al Qaeda (and other Islamist terrorists who support that demon, Osama Bin Laden) regarding their stupidity. Western civilization will not cower and submit to Arabic cowardly acts of treachery!

Even though I am an American, I say: England, roll up your sleeves and show the Islamist bully who is really the toughest. Long live Britannia!

Clay

Ex-KKK Senators, the Supreme Court and Senator Harry Reid

In a story published in the Reno Gazette-Journal, Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid thinks it would be an excellent idea for Bush to fill Supreme Court Justice vacant positions with senators, not judges.

Here is what Reid says about the origin of his idea:

"I had lunch at the Supreme Court 10 days ago and at my table were (associate justices) Sandra Day O’Connor, (Antonin) Scalia and (Stephen) Breyer," Reid said. "They said what they would like to see is the president pick someone who has not been a judge. And what I have said to anyone who will listen is what I think he should do is pick one of the senators."

Ok, I’m not sure why justice Scalia would agree with such a foolhardy statement, but Reid’s rush to fill the void with a Senator is just brilliant, after all as he states:

"I think it is a great idea," Reid said about the possibility of appointing a senator to the Supreme Court. "Some outstanding people have come from the Senate. The last was an ex-Ku Klux Klansman who turned out to be one of the greatest civil-rights jurists of all time."

Yes, Senator Reid, an ex-Klansman senator who previously sat on the Supreme Court brilliantly proves the point that senators are better than actual judges to have on the highest court in the land.

The ex-Klansman senator that Reid is referring to is Hugo Black from Alabama who was appointed by FDR back in 1937, (as if I needed any other reason to dislike FDR). [Thanks a lot FDR. Not only did you manage to introduce socialist poison into our form of government (via your "New Deal"), but, you apparently also introduced the idiotic idea of appointing senators instead of qualified judges to the Supreme Court, and you chose an ex-KKK goon for your choice senator to boot!]

By the way, Senator Reid, I have a question for you. Since you think ex-Klansmen senators make excellent civil rights advocates, does that mean then, that we should look for a senator who is a reformed Islamic terrorist to provide us with a great Israel advocate?

Senator Reid, sir, with all respect to your position of office in this country and all that… do you really think we are all this stupid? Here’s a clue for you. When my house in on fire, I’m not thinking that the police are the best to handle the job, (and this is even if they are all ex-arsonists!). Firemen put out fires not policemen. Besides, ex-arsonists might be tempted to backslide if they are exposed to the illuminating, flickering view of my burning house in the night, or anyone else’s for that matter.

I believe the real reason behind Reid's idiotic "senator solution" is revealed through his hypocrisy:

"Reid, D-Nev., also said he and Bush have talked privately to ensure that the appointment of the successor for Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor does not reach the level of partisan squabbling that has epitomized the debate over recent judicial nominations."

You heard it right. Senator Reid wants us to believe that in order to tone down "the level of partisan squabbling that has epitomized the debate over recent judicial nominations", Bush should appoint a senator for the Supreme Court vacancy. And of course, it should be a senator that, he and his party approve of.

This is a continuation of the "sore losers" – Democrat Party’s - mantra that the minority should suddenly have a say in the selection of Supreme Court Justice appointees. Never mind the fact that it wasn’t their policy when they were in the majority position. Never mind the fact that Clinton appointed justices Ginsberg and Breyer without even consulting with the republicans.

If any party is guilty of partisan squabbling over Presidential Supreme Court appointments it would be the democrats themselves. Does anyone remember the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas nominations?

If I were President Bush, I would ignore the advice of this pompous jerk, and press on with whom he wishes to appoint. I suspect that this is precisely what "W" will do. I just hope that his fellow party, the republican senators, will back him up and not stab him in the back, and then cower in the corner behind the democrats.

Unfortunately, the republicans tend to have a history of trying to appease the democrats only to be ignored by the democrats when they happen to be in power.

If the republicans do this again while they are in the position of power, they will find themselves in the minority after the next elections for control of Congress. Their reward from the democrats that they appeased, will be political life "under the democrat thumb". And they will lose the support of voters like me.

An Open Letter To Republican Congressmen

Sirs and Madams,

As a registered republican voter I have something to say to you all. I have been silent for far too long. Once again, the voters have given you majority control of Congress. Once again, you are now in a position to steer the course of our great country. Once again, you are able to repair the damage done by decades of domination by the Democrat Party and its love affair with hippies and socialism. Please don’t waste this great opportunity that "we the people" have given you.

Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor’s announcement of her retirement opens up the opportunity for President Bush to appoint a replacement. One thing is clear, the liberals will be prepared to fight against any of Bush’s nominations. In fact, based upon the established trend, we can expect the democrats to practice the "politics of personal destruction" against any Bush nominee.

Whomever Bush nominates is definitely going to face some really hard personal times. They can expect that the "tolerant" left will do everything in their power to trash their reputations in the public arena. Also, it is a given that the "impartial" media will do their part to assist. Of course, you do remember Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas don’t you? The least that any Bush nominee should be able to count on from you all is your full support. After all, you are now the majority and have the full power to vindicate their mistreatment at the hands of the hypocritical democrats by ensuring their appointment to office.

Just in case you all aren’t aware, let me submit for your consideration the following fact. Your voters are well aware of the pass that you have extended to the Democratic Party in allowing them to exercise filibusters during "banker’s hours" only. Just in case, you think that your constituents are all ignorant, let me inform you that all that we do, in fact, know that filibusters are suppose to be "round the clock" affairs. Filibusters are not suppose to be the "shows" with the easy, convenient, hours that you have allowed the Democrats to get away with - while trying to dupe your constituents into believing your complaints over democratic opposition.

As republicans, you claim to represent the conservative viewpoint. You claim to be against big government. Well, it is time to put your money where your mouth is. You now, once again, have the majority voice thanks to your voters. So, it is very important that you demonstrate your worthiness of our trust by ensuring that only those candidates for Supreme Court Justice, who will respect the Constitution, as it is, are appointed. This country has suffered enough under activist, liberal judges who see the Constitution as a "living document", a document that is flexible enough to squeeze their socialist agenda out of it – a document that can eventually be replaced with a new document, a socialist manifesto.

I am watching your actions very carefully. I’m fairly certain that I am not the only one. It’s time for you all to exercise the mandate that you’ve been given. If you don’t, then, don’t expect continued support from voters like me. If you won’t stand up to the liberals, the democrats, then it is time for me to look elsewhere for my political support. I have believed in you, please honor my vote and don’t let me down.

Clay

I'm Not A Journalist but I Played One in A Movie Once.

According to a report found here, another Hollywood idiot has it in for George W. Bush. Today’s village idiot in the spotlight is Robert Redford. Redford, in his infinite wisdom, is calling on all journalists to start investigating President Bush. Why? Because, when Mr. Redford thinks of the Bush Administration, why it reminds him of the Nixon Administration prior to the Watergate scandal.

Huh?

Here’s some of Redford’s brilliant reasoning recorded in the report:

And Redford wasn't surprised when the identity of the mysterious 'Deep Throat' character who sparked the Watergate scandal was recently revealed to be former deputy FBI chief Mark Felt.

But the shock revelation has reminded the actor of the power of the media and the similarities between Bush's secret cover-ups and the Watergate affair.

He says, "There are deep similarities going on but where is the press? where is the press?"

"There is stone-walling, not telling the truth, getting people under wiretaps. The US public continues to be told things that are not true and what worries me is that we have these brave young American guys risking their lives everyday."

Well that certainly clears things up. Now that you put it that way, Mr. Redford, why it’s as clear as mud. [Psst. Mr. Redford don’t forget about the secret extra-terrestrial project cover up out there in Roswell, New Mexico that Bush is an accomplice to. And, what about Bush’s illuminati connections?]

What do you suppose inspired such an outburst of lunacy from Mr. Redford?

Here’s one possible clue. In 1976, Redford starred in the film "All The President’s Men". He and his co-star, Dustin Hoffman played the roles of Washington Post journalists, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who along with a source, they named Deep Throat, brought the Watergate scandal out into the public’s attention, leading eventually to President Nixon’s investigation and impeachment.

You see, this is the problem with Hollywood actors. They put themselves heart and soul into a role to deliver the best performance that they can. They make their living playing at being people that they aren’t. A lot of these actors are really, really good at what they do. Robert Redford is one of them. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, they forget to pull themselves out of the role that they’ve poured themselves into and return to reality. Robert Redford appears to be one of them.

This is how I would try to explain the idiotic things that these Hollywood idiots say and do. Another factor that tends to contribute to this behavior is that many of them have an extremely exaggerated view of their importance to society.

Here’s a quote by Redford from the article that exemplifies really well the point I am trying to make:

"When Deep Throat was revealed, the press came to me and wanted to know what I thought. I said, 'Well, it's interesting that his name came out but is that the point?'

"My contribution was to come at a time when journalism was at its high point and the role I played was to save a testimony to the freedom of speech. The media have changed, we see the ethics have changed. The press is more, I am sorry to say, celebrity oriented."

Mr. Redford, you’re just an actor, an entertainer. Your opinion doesn’t necessarily carry the weight that you think it does, just because you’ve played certain movie roles. However, if you’re going to concoct a conspiracy theory at least try to flesh it out a little more. You know, connect the dots better. Add more details. You might study the urban legend genre. Snopes.com carries a lot of stories that sound almost believable enough to be true.

Happy Independence Day America

229 years ago, some very courageous and determined men sent a very dangerous message to their King. They declared their independence from him and his rule over them.

It took a lot of guts to sign their name to such a document. It wasn’t a light-hearted decision. Once that document's message reached the King, there was no turning back. But, these men were made of strong stuff. They knew that they were pretty much signing their death warrant. In fact, many of them lost fortunes, property, even their lives to back up their signature on that document.

We can be very thankful today that these men didn’t back down. A lot of serious sacrifices were made just to ensure that America could be an independent and free nation. Many brave men left their farms, their businesses and their families to face the most powerful military force in the world at that time. But, they believed in freedom enough to stand up to the King’s army and fight for their independence. America was born out of much blood, bravery and personal sacrifice.

Today, while the nation takes the day off from work to barbecue with family and friends, or watch a fireworks show, it is my hope that we all will pause to seriously reflect upon just how wonderful the gift of freedom that our founding fathers gave to us really is. I also hope we will solemnly, respectfully, remember that the first Americans gave us this nation at a high cost to them and to their families.

We owe it them to never take their sacrifice lightly. We owe it to them to fight any idea, any nation, any enemy that would threaten this great nation that they passed on to us. We are free today because others paid the ultimate price for that freedom. Let us never forget where we came from.

We can be proud that our nation was founded by honorable, God-fearing men, (no matter what the revisionist historians try to dupe us into believing). We can be proud that America has inspired other nations of the world to shake off their chains of tyranny and adopt democratic governments. We can be proud to be Americans despite the jealous rants from anti-American European snobs and arrogant intellectuals.

It is with great pride and thanksgiving that I’m raising my mug up to toast this great country. Care to join me?

We've Come A Long Way Baby!

Too far to lose our right to choose whether our unborn children live or die at our convenience!

The retirement of Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor has caused a panic among the feminist group the National Organization for Women (NOW). According to an AP story, they’re declaring a "state of emergency". O’Connor’s retirement leaves a vacuum in the Supreme Court that could pose a threat to all of the hard work that has been dedicated to keeping the Roe Vs Wade ruling the law of the land.

For NOW this is what is at stake [pun intended]:

"NOW president Kim Gandy told about 800 NOW members Friday that women need to send a message that they won't tolerate "extremist" judges who set back women's rights."

" ‘This is our time. This is our challenge,’ Gandy said as the crowd replied by clapping and chanting, ‘Hell no, we won't go’ and ‘We won't go back.’ "

" ‘Twenty-four years ago, as president of the National Organization for Women, I testified for Sandra Day O'Connor before the Senate Judiciary Committee,’ Smeal said. ‘I knew then that O'Connor, although a conservative voice, would be one who would not permit the elimination of women's fundamental rights, including the right to privacy.’ "

"Gandy said the group fears ‘a nominee along the lines of some of the extremist judges that have been put on the appellate court by George Bush.’ "

Speaking of extremist judges, we have extremist judges to thank for legislating the execution order of millions of unborn babies in this country into the law of the land. A woman’s right to choose abortion was never a law passed by Congress, (which is how the Constitution dictates laws are to be passed), no, it became a law only when activist liberal judges on the Supreme Court of the land abused the people’s trust in them, usurped Congress’s role, and declared a women’s right to abortion the law.

This is all the more reason for President Bush to ensure that we fill the void that O’Connor leaves with a justice who will respect the Constitution and work to uphold its meaning and intent and not to try to change it. I for one, have had enough of extreme activist judges who have no respect for our Constitution.

Hey! We've Got Press Passes. So, Let Us Go.

According to a report by Matt Drudge, it seems that Time magazine’s reporter, Matthew Cooper, and New Times reporter Judith Miller feel that, when it comes to taking their punishment from a court of law, the fact that they are members of the press earns them more options to choose from, than the average law breaker would receive.

Mr. Cooper feels that since he’s not a violent man, or a criminal, a journalist like him should not have to be exposed to the possible harmful, and violent conditions that exist in the normal prison reserved for those who commit the offense of contempt of court. Mr. Cooper is suggesting home confinement. If that’s not possible, well then, at least send him to a more suitable, "club med" type of prison such as, the federal prison of his choosing. Ms. Miller is asking for the same special considerations.

As the Church Lady from Saturday Night Live would say, "Isn’t that special?".

So, Mr. Cooper, and Ms. Miller fear for their comfort and safety if they are incarcerated in the same prison as everyone else who is found guilty of contempt of court do they? Let’s see, they weren’t too terribly concerned about the health and safety of the CIA agent whose cover they blew were they?

This is either an example of arrogance or cowardice on their part. First off, despite their delusional estimations of self-importance, they aren’t any better than other court offender. Second, they ought to feel lucky that they are getting off with such a light punishment. Exposing the cover of a CIA agent, not only threatens his life and the lives of his family, but it also compromises a portion of the CIA’s mission that this agent was involved in.

Sabotaging the mission of a governmental agency that is involved in the highly dangerous, clandestine, business of obtaining the intelligence we need to successfully thwart the terrorists who threaten the freedom and existence of this country (let alone other free nations in the world) amounts to treason. If anything, these two should be made an example of by the court. Allowing them to walk off with a mere "slap on the wrist" for their treasonous actions sets a dangerous precedent.

It is one thing to express dissent against the government, a governmental agency, or its military actions. That’s ok. That definitely falls within our constitutional right of freedom of speech. However, putting one’s opinion and agenda, or concern for ratings above National Security is not a right. National Security is the solemn responsibility of every American citizen. Whether or not, Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller agrees with the validity of the CIA and its actions is irrelevant.

If we allow arrogant, selfish reporters like these two clowns to get away with treason under the guise of, "don’t question my patriotism, I’m doing my patriotic duty in exposing the evil of the government through my constitutional right of dissent" claptrap, they will systematically sabotage our government’s war effort. And then, thanks to the efforts of anti-American people like Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks who want to murder each and every one of us, will bring their terrorist bloodbath to our cities, and local towns.

Then, national security will finally become more of a priority to the lazy and the left in this country.Only thing is, it will be a little too little, and a little too late!