Friday, July 29


Smart girl.


Bill Frist is breaking ranks with Bush on stem cell research because he's running for President. Who cares? Here's the real reason to be pissed at Frist: He's delaying the vote on the death tax, a big GOP priority.

Supposedly the vote is happening sometime in September, but until that time memorize the list of fourteen nations that don't tax dead people.



My buddy Paul and I are always playing voice mail tag. This week he's in San Francisco. I got a message from him yesterday telling me how happy he is, how great things are both personally and professionally, what a fun time he's having in SF, etc.

'This guy is really excited about something. Maybe he won the lottery,' I think to myself.

Two voice mails later I find out that he had breakfast with that socialist bastard, the mental [and physical] midget Robert Reich.

Savvy R.F.L. readers recall that Reich was Clinton's Secretary of Labor. In 2002 he ran for Governor of Massachusetts. He teaches. He lectures. He bores people. He fills people's minds with lies. Like this:

"The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face."

Now Bob is teaching at the University of California, Berkeley, that bastion of drug induced stupidity. For the past six months [or right about the time he got kicked out of Massachusetts] he's been frequenting a restaurant owned by one of Paul's friends.

Just the thought of having breakfast with Bob makes me salivate. Debating tax policy with Bob. ("No country has ever TAXED itself into prosperity, Bob.") Debating the war on terror with Bob. ("The terrorists want to kill YOU too, Bob.") Debating the Labor movement with Bob. ("If you made minimum wage, you'd resent paying those big membership dues, too, Bob.")

And that's all it would take. Unable to control his crazy Liberal emotions, Bob would throw the salt shaker at my head. Then, while frothing at the mouth and dropping the F-bomb, he'd flick his cold, uneaten eggs at me with his fork.


There are a bunch of reasons that Dick Cheney would be a great President, but I really only need one reason to hope that the Vice President succeeds Bush: Helen Thomas, the old hag vitriolic 'reporter,' claims she'll 'kill herself' if Cheney runs.

The journalistic embarrasment Thomas, the idiotic blob of worthless flesh pictured above, went on to say that 'all we need is one more liar,' and 'it would be a sad day for the country' if Cheney runs for the Presidency.

Funny. I don't recall Thomas having the same level of concern in the '90s, when those nice boys, Clinton and Gore, were in charge. What truthtellers those guys were.



Stephen Moore wrote an extraordinary piece in yesterday's WSJ about Virginia Governor Mark Warner, who is rapidly emerging as an alternative to Hillary Clinton in the '08 Presidential sweepstakes.

The comparisons of Warner to Bill Clinton begin almost immediately. Both Governors of small southern states. Both are self described 'centrists,' although both are big time tax and spend Liberals. Both reneged on promises not to raise taxes. Both men run circles around Republicans, Warner capitalizing on what Moore refers to as 'disarray,' to ram his tax hike through.

Virginia is now flush with cash as a result, which is Warner's big, and only, claim to fame thus far in 3 1/2 years in Richmond.

And this guy is the new, 'best hope' for the Democrats? Another Leftist who thinks the recipe for economic success is punishing achievement? Another Southern Governor with no record? No achivement? No accomplishments? I'll be damned if that doesn't sound just like Bill Clinton.

I look at Warner, who the WSJ refers to as the 'Virginia Ham,' and think there's no way the country is going to elect this guy President and then I remember with horror that Clinton was elected TWICE.

Thursday, July 28


It's going to be Frye versus Sanders.

As I blogged earlier in the week, I cast my absentee for Steve Francis, who ended up getting 22% of the vote. The turnout was anemic...only 24% of San Diegans voted. Frye got 42%, Sanders 27% and the others split the rest.

What irks me now, and seems always to be true of my Party, is that we split the vote. Frye was the only Democrat. If the GOP had just one candidate...

From what I hear, Frye least wanted to face Sanders. Apparently the polling tells the story of Sanders easily defeating Frye head to head. By sharp contrast those same polls show that Frye would have easily defeated Francis head to head. It's interesting how this info only became public after Tuesday's election rather than before. Had I known this I probably would have voted for Sanders just to defeat Frye.

I continue to be amazed by the fact that Frye got such a large percentage. She is a candidate of zero substance. All she says is a mangled hodge podge of touchy feely crap. Pure rhetoric. Plus, she's a member of the City Council that has gotten the city into an unprecedented financial morass. She's a big part of the problem we now face.

While she campaigns on leadership and experience it begs the obvious questions: Where was Donna Frye and that vaunted leadership these past three and a half years? What precisely is the experience that she believes is going to be valuable to San Diego over the next three years?

I'm voting for Jerry Sanders.

Wednesday, July 27


Our enemies want to blow us up with explosives packed with nails. NAILS. Imagine walking down the street or getting on a bus or the subway, going to work, minding your own business only to have your body torn to shreds by a myriad of nails. Imagine the human being responsible for detonating the explosive. Imagine the human being who built the bomb and inserted the nails inside.

Now imagine trying to reason with them. Imagine trying to understand them. Imagine dismissing the actions of crazy people like this, explaining away the killing, the slaughter of innocent people, by saying that America and her allies invite this type of terrorism by being arrogant. Or by supporting Israel. Or by being free. Or just by being the world's only remaining superpower.

The next time I hear one of my Liberal friends try to sell me this crap or the next stupid pundit I see on television blaming America...I'm going to thank God for the umpteenth time for continuing to keep us safe.


They told us to get 73,000 signatures so we got 73,000 signatures. Then they told us we had to get a 2/3 majority, instead of just 50.1%, so instead of getting a 2/3 majority we got 77%.

City attorney Mike Aguirre has yet to file the paperwork that will mark the official handing over of the cross to the Federal Government. What could he possibly be waiting for? Maybe for the zealots to try to overturn the will of the people next month in Superior Court.

Joshua Gross, a spokesman for San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial, thinks it is unlikely that a judge will differ with the election results.

"A judge is always going to be inclined to follow the will of the people, the will of the voters," Gross said. "The higher that number, the more inclined they'll be. That's just logical."

Is this guy serious? What in recent history would give him that impression? Judges and the courts ignore the will of the people with more and more regularity. Talk about wishful thinking!

And then there's this from attorney James McElroy, who represents the atheistic zealot Phil Paulson:

""It still doesn't mean a damn thing," he said. "Voters should have never voted on it. It's a waste of taxpayers' money."

McElroy insists the transfer violates the U.S. and state constitutions despite claims by Proposition A supporters it will survive court challenges.

"I think they've acknowledged this is the last chance to save the cross," McElroy said. "And when the court tells them this is not going to work, what else have they got?"

Interesting perspective. The way people vote 'doesn't mean a damn thing'?

Tuesday, July 26


Eureka! Could it be that Dubya is finally going to make the recess appointment and install John Bolton as the new UN Ambassador? Better late than never I suppose, Mr. President.

Psssst. Word up. It's happening this Friday.



Former San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy is the focus of an investigation into whether or not he was involved in "an unlawful quid pro quo relationship" the San Diego Firefighter's Union.

What can I say about this guy? I've met him on a number of occassions. He's a very nice man. His family is very nice. I have nothing against these people personally. But Dick Murphy is one of the most incompetent people ever to hold public office.

City Attorney Mike Aguirre, who would be a GREAT Mayor by the way, says there is evidence that Murphy ignored recommendations of the Pension Review Board in return for the endorsement of the Firefighters Union during his re-election campaign in '04.

Meanwhile, Murphy himself is set to draw three pensions. THREE! One from his days on the San Diego City Council. Another from his days as a judge. And the last from his five years as Mayor. Three pensions.

Meanwhile, he oversaw the illegal funding of illegal pensions for other city workers. In other words, while the city was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy, Murphy still funded pensions in clear violation of the San Diego City Charter.

Murphy deserves to go to jail.


I hate racism. To me people are all the same. Don't talk to me about skin color. Black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Muslim. I like you until you prove to me that you aren't a good person.

When I was a kid my parents taught me to treat everyone the way I wished to be treated myself. So, I generally am friendly to people I see on the street or on the elevator or the subway or at the baseball game. I say hi and smile to strangers more often than not.

I don't see people in terms of skin color or race. It's not important to me.

But there are a bunch of people in this world who cannot help but exist within a world of race. This is a world of their own design. A world of self loathing, of hatred, of envy and jealousy. A world of misery and sadness.

These are people who live to keep the issue of racism alive, stoking the fires of anger and resentment among different ethnic groups almost daily. Call me crazy if you wish, but, if one's agenda is to remind people constantly of something that happened sixty years ago rather than doing something positive and productive with their lives today, then I think that'a a big problem. People like that are on the wrong track.

Case in point: Yesterday in Monroe, GA, a group of civil rights activists re-enacted lynchings. Yes, they did. I'm serious. YES THEY DID. Why? Presumably to keep hatred alive. To deepen the division that already exists between black and white America. Why would people choose to spend their time that way? Because they want to remind everyone how bad things were for blacks THEN and so maybe they can get reparations NOW.

These people apparently have too much time on their hands. If they already have jobs, they should get another. Re-enacting lynchings. It's digusting anyway you slice it or analyze it. I say move on already.

Move on, dammit.

Monday, July 25


Those of you who read R.F.L. regularly know how much I dislike the New York Times. The once great, America's newspaper-of-record. The Gray Lady.

Today's Times is all about mediocrity. Bad editing. False reporting. Complete lies on the front page. Obvious Leftist slant with no apologies. Hate speech on the editorial page. Cheerleading for all things Democrat. The anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America, anti-GOP, anti-Constitution, anti-God, anti-church, anti-democracy, anti-woman, anti-child, anti-education, New York Times.

Yeah, the NYT sucks. Although, I loved the cover of yesterday's Sunday Magazine.


As I told you last week, I do not disagree with Congressman Tancredo. Illegal immigration is a big problem. I worry about al Qaeda operatives sneaking into the US via the Canadian and/or Mexican borders. They may very well already be here, for all we know.

Then Tancredo spoke last week, hypothetically of course, about what the United States should do, how we should retaliate against a nuclear strike on the American homeland. Tancredo spoke of hitting Muslim holy sites, including Mecca. And wouldn't you know it, the result was outrage the world over. Even here at home.

Tancredo writes in the Denver Post today:

"Many critics of my statements have characterized them as "offensive," and indeed they may have offended some. But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed.

Few can argue that our current approach to this war has deterred fundamentalists from killing Westerners - nor has it prompted "moderate" Muslims and leaders of Muslim countries to do what is necessary to crack down on the extremists in their midst who perpetuate these grisly crimes.

That being the case, perhaps the civilized world must intensify its approach."

I don't disagree with any of that. The piece is linked above. Read it and tell me what parts of it you find objectionable.


Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Law Professor, writes today in the LAT about Judge Roberts and his statement last week to Senator Durbin that if given a choice, as a Supreme Court justice, between making a ruling he considered to be immoral or recusing himself from the case, he would have to recuse himself.

Turley writes:

"It was the first unscripted answer in the most carefully scripted nomination in history. It was also the wrong answer. In taking office, a justice takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. A judge's personal religious views should have no role in the interpretation of the laws. (To his credit, Roberts did not say that his faith would control in such a case)."

Turley is disturbed by this honesty. And he surmises that Justice Scalia is going to be perturbed by this answer as well.

Is being a religious person so bad, so politically incorrect that it now qualifies as 'undermining White House strategy'?

Of course, we all know that any man or woman that holds deep religious convictions is automatically ineligible for any position of authority in America. These religious kooks cannot be trusted and it would be irresponsible to even entertain the idea of risking the overturning of Roe V. Wade. Nothing else in America is half as important as killing unborn babies.

MEANWHILE--more 'controversy.' Roberts refused to disclose whether or not he was a member of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization. The White House has said that Roberts doesn't remember being a member. Doesn't remember?

Is this White House just trying to screw up the Roberts nomination? They've even got Hillary Clinton on board, agreeing to vote to confirm the guy. What's the problem?


First Al Gore claimed he invented the internet. Ha, ha, ha. I know, I know. It's not really true, but it's as factual as the assertion that Karl Rove is a traitor, so let me enjoy it. Ha. Then he took credit for being the inspiration to the film 'Love Story.' Ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahaha. Ha, ha, ha, ha.

Now Gore wants us to believe that Johnny Carson, THE JOHNNY CARSON, used to coach him on telling jokes?

Ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahahahahaha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Aw, that's classic.

Here's a good one. Did you hear about the time Al hit up a bunch of Buddhist monks for campaign cash?

Ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahahahahaha. Killing me. Brutal.

Or the time, the former Vice President, while taking a walk with Tipper, got lost in the woods behind his house?

Ha, ha, haha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha ha, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Hahahahahahahahahaha. Ha. Stop it. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Ha, hahahahahahahahahaha. Ha, ha, ha. Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Priceless. [Wiping eyes]

Then I love this story: For a photo op, ha, ha, ha. A photo op, no less. Big Al is riding in a kayak. Down this river, a man made thing. The Secret Service had to actually stop the water flow so that Gore could have a nice, smooth ride and not risk tipping over. So Gore, the environmentalist, interupted the environment for a shameless photo opportunity, just to make himself look less wooden, less phony?

Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Aw. This shit just writes itself.

Al Gore. Recovering politician? Maybe. Still the world's worst liar? Definitely.


Tomorrow San Diego goes to the polls to vote for a new Mayor and to decide the fate of a war memorial/San Diego landmark.

I've blogged many times beofre about the mess that our city is in as a result of reckless spending and irresponsible leadership by former Mayor Dick Murphy. A new Mayor, most likely, will not be elected Tuesday with a clear majority. Rather, it appears that city council member Donna Frye and businessman Steve Francis will be the top two voter-getters, forcing a November run-off election.

Francis is my pick. A former Nevada congressman and current CEO of AMN Healthcare, he's a fresh face, a disciplined executive, a true outsider. That's what the city needs.

What the city does not need is a woman bought and paid for by the labor unions. Frye, speaks often from the stump about the need for transparency, yet she refuses to disclose much about her own campaign.

Proposition A, the effort to save the Mount Soledad War Memorial which once looked so promising, now appears sure to go down to defeat. Thanks to a ruling last week, "A" must now pass by a 2/3 majority instead of the standard 50.1% because the San Diego City Charter specifies that a 2/3 approval is needed for any change parks and recreation in the County.

Since 1954, Mount Soledad has been home to a cross that memorializes the sacrifice of the men and women of the American military. The cross has been under assault for as long as I can remember. We moved here in 1985 and atheists and other God haters were crusading then, trying to take it down.

I had great hopes that a victory on Prop A would be the end of this madness, but it now seems doomed to failure. An anemic rally this morning drew only 50 people.

The citizens of our city that care about the cross, that welcome it as a symbol of respect for fallen soliders, did everything that was asked of them. They gathered the mandatory 73,000 signatures. They did everything by the book, by the rules, expecting nothing more than taking the issue to the people, for it to be decided on at the ballot box.

Instead, three people have very likely been the ones to decide that fate of the cross. A judge, a lawyer and an atheist.

Minority rule is a very dangerous thing in the country. We cannot allow two men, attorney James McElroy, his client, atheist and veteran, Phil Paulson, and another Liberal judge to speak louder than 73,000 people.

Majorities rule, not minorities.

Friday, July 22


Fair minded liberal Bernie Goldberg appeared on CNBC's 'The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch' Wednesday night to promote his new book 'The 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (and Al Franken is #37).'

First, let me say that I have always respected Deutsch. He's a brilliant advertising guy. And he's intelligently read the tea leaves in terms of the inevitable implosion of the traditional advertising agency model, expanding his empire, branching out into media, film and fashion.

Having said that, I can't fathom how a smart business guy can have such shit for brains when it comes to politics. Deutsch is a big time left wing nut. He had Bernie Kerik one his show about a year ago and was he completely flummoxed when Kerik made the point that George Bush [and the policies of the Bush Administration] was the primary reason that the US hadn't suffered another terrorist attack since 9/11.

Deutsch just looked at Kerik like he was from another planet and kept repeating 'REALLY? REALLLLLY? REAAALLLLLLLY?' He just couldn't wrap his mind around the concept.

So 'The Big Idea' isn't a forum for intelligent political discussion. It's a place for analysis of all things pop culture, gossip, etc. The other night Donny interviewed a former Manhattan hooker.

Anyway, Goldberg comes on, pushing his book. And rather than a discussion, a debate on the merits, Deutsch and four other guests, which included Linda Staci, Jeff Jarvis, among others.

Point by point, each guest took turns, insulting Goldberg, interupting him, calling him names. They all ganged up on him. It was 'Hate Television.' And it was quite instructive. This is the true side of Liberals. They cannot stand criticism. They cannot articulate their beliefs beyond being nasty and negative.

The audio clips of the show that I saw consisted of five things. [1] Deutsch asking Goldberg a question, [2] Goldberg attempting to respond, [3] Linda Staci interrupting Goldberg, [4] Goldberg, after allowing Staci to blab a good five to ten seconds, telling her to 'shut up,' and [5] Deutsch, and the other guests, exploding into mock outrage.

Here's what Bernie had to say about the whole affair:

"Deutsch disagreed with everything, and that is just fine," said Mr. Goldberg.

But then, unbeknownst to me, they brought on a panel of five, plus Donny, all of whom took the other side. And it's not like they just respectfully disagreed; there was name-calling, ganging up; it was unbelievable. And not one of them even read the book. They admitted it.

It was more than an ambush," he said. "It was the most cynical, dishonest thing I have ever been lassoed into. They misled me."

Reminds me of the scene in that old movie, 'The Karate Kid.' A group of friends, karate students, gang up on the new kid just because he's different.

Bullies. Cowards.



For a good laugh, check out Jeff Jarvis' thoughts on the above @ his blog,


No wonder the readership of the LAT is in the toilet. I cannot believe the tripe Jonathan Chait writes today about President Bush's 'creepy' obsession with exercise.

Chait would have us believe that Bush makes personel decisions based on whether or not that person works out; he cites a Supreme Court shotlist candidate Harvie Wilkinson and former advisor Larry Lindsey.

He asks 'Am I the only person who finds this [Bush's fondness of exercise] disturbing'?

Yeah. I'd bet that you are. Apparently you have too much time on your hands, Jon.

Then he actually makes a serious attempt to make the case that whenever there is a national crisis, Bush just always happens to be in exercise mode. The time '43' was cycling in Maryland while a small plane flew over White House airspace; a gunman fired a gun at the White House, Bush was working out in the First Family private residence; and how W., on the morning of 9/11, jogged with a reporter!

As if Bush's exercise regimen somehow cosmically relates and supernaturally inspires crazy people to do insane things? Maybe it was Bush's 'creepy obsession' with exercise that prompted Chait to write this ridiculous piece.

People who exercise and are healthy tend to excel in life, work, etc. It's a proven fact, although it's far from being a compulsory activity. Fat people have success too. Look at Kirstie Alley.

And then there's the last line of Chait's piece. Very insulting. 'It's nice for Bush that he can take an hour or two out of every day to run, bike or pump iron. Unfortunately, most of us have more demanding jobs than he does.'

Excuse me? 'More demanding jobs'? Mmm. Let's see. What's the more 'demanding' job? Being the Leader Of The Free World or writing opinion pieces for a newspaper nobody reads?

If I exercised more I'd have the brainpower to figure that out.

Thursday, July 21


"It makes me very angry to be sitting there with their president and have this happen," said Secretary of State Condi Rice. "They have no right to push and shove."

I'd imagine it would be wise never to irritate Condi.

In the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, local security officials 'manhandled' members of Condi's entourage and journalists accompanying the American delegation, including Mrs. Alan Greenspan, NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

"Diplomacy 101 says you don't rough your guests up," said Jim Wilkinson, a senior Rice advisor, who was shoved into a wall.


Can it really be that the US is that much safer than Britain? Maybe American security is more vigilant, more focused.

When I first heard about the blasts in London this morning, which were fortunately just detonators, rather than actual bombs, I thought about how passive Europeans generally are. It's in their nature to be that way. Reports of a bomber, running away [and getting away] from a train. No way that would happen in America. Any Muslim guy trying to get off an American bus or subway and there would be a mob of angry Americans chasing him down and kicking the Mohammed out of him.

Let's hope the clues left behind today by these new attacks will lead to arrests and also to London taking further precautions to protect itself.

In other news, it turns out that the mastermind/planner of the London attacks met with bin Laden...Haroon Rashid Aswad was arrested at a religious school in Pakistan wearing a suicide bomb belt and armed with $30K in cash.

Wednesday, July 20


Thomas Joscelyn writes in the Weekly Standard about the extensive relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Operation Desert Fox. December 1998. The US bombed Iraqi miltary and intelligence infrastructure targets as well as weapons manufacturing facilities. Immediately after the mission Hussein sent one of his most trusted operatives to Afghanistan to meet with Taliban officials and later bin Laden and his al Qaeda cronies.

"While we cannot be sure what transpired at this meeting, we can be sure that it was not some benign event. In fact, within days of the meeting bin Laden loudly declared his opposition to the U.S.-led missile strikes on Iraq and called on all Muslims to strike U.S. and British targets, including civilians, around the world. According to press accounts at the time, bin Laden explained, "The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders' decision to attack Iraq." He added that the citizens' support for their governments made it "the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill" them.

Bin Laden's words sounded alarm bells around the world. Countless media outlets scurried to uncover the details of the relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. Dozens of news outlets--foreign and domestic--reported on the growing relationship and its ominous implications. When assessing any news account the reader must take all of the information with a grain of salt. But the sheer weight of the evidence reported from so many different sources paints a disturbing picture."

Joscelyn details the massive amounts of press coverage on the al Qaeda/Iraqi connection, even the Leftist UK newspaper, The Guardian wrote extensively on the Hussein/bin Laden relationship. Other publications chimed in, as well. Dailies in Paris, London and across the Arab world spoke of bin Laden's 'Arab Afghans' being trained in Southern Iraq.

Now of course, the European media poo-poohs the notion that Iraq had any at to do with 9/11 specifically, or global terrorism in general.

This is required reading for all R.F.L. regulars.


Obstructionist and chief, NY Senator Chuckie Schumer 'doesn't like' Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

"I voted against Judge Roberts for the D.C. Court because he didn't answer questions fully and openly when he appeared before the committee. For instance, when I asked him a question that others have answered — to identify three Supreme Court cases of which he was critical, he refused."

Yeah, but the vital question is did Judge Roberts ever put one of his pubic hairs on a soda can?


Linda Greenhouse has written in today's NYT one of the dumbest, most inane articles that I've read in a long time.

About Judge Roberts, Greenhouse opines: "Justice O'Connor moved indisputably to the left during her 24 years on the court, not in every area of its docket but in some of the most important ones, like affirmative action and abortion. Justices Scalia and Thomas have, by contrast, scarcely changed at all. What accounts for the difference, and what might be the experience of Judge Roberts, who, now age 50, would be likely to serve for 25 years or more?

There is no conclusive answer. But observation suggests that the answer begins with how a justice feels when entering the building each morning (typically not by walking up marble steps but by driving into an underground garage). Is that justice entering a battleground, or coming home?"

How a justice 'feels'? What does that have to do with anything? If you're talking about what a justice 'thinks,' then that matters. What a member of the Supreme Court thinks is important.

And that's when I have to share with you what I think about the dumbing down of society. The words feel and think seem to be used the same way and the assumption seems to be that the two words are interchangeable. They are not. Feel means to 'examine or search by touch.' Think means to 'have a particular belief, idea or opinion.'

Intelligent people do not confuse the meanings or the usage of these two words. Don't worry, I'm not trying to assert that people who work at the New York Times are intelligent. They're not.

Nevertheless, it does disturb me that a great many people have become accustomed to using the two words and because they don't have much in the way of a brain...they feel a lot, instead of doing much thinking. And this is more a function of cause and affect [versus 'cause and effect'] of the press continually attempting to dumb down the dwindling masses who read their tripe.

Back to Greenhouse...she writes more...was this meant to be an op-ed or what?

""I always got a lump in my throat whenever I walked up those marble steps," Roberts said.

Carefully chosen as they undoubtedly were, these were the words of someone deeply anchored in the trajectory of modern constitutional law, not of someone who felt himself on the sidelines throwing brickbats, nor of someone who felt called to a mission to change the status quo.

There are others, potential nominees whom the president might have chosen, who probably also feel a lump in the throat when they think about the Supreme Court, but it is caused by anger rather than reverence. That is not to say that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, whom President Bush had offered as his models for a Supreme Court selection, do not respect the institution, but their stance is one of opposition to many currents of modern legal thought that the court's decisions reflect."

Read that last paragraph again.

"There are others, potential nominees whom the president might have chosen, who probably also feel a lump in the throat when they think about the Supreme Court, but it is caused by anger rather than reverence. That is not to say that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, whom President Bush had offered as his models for a Supreme Court selection, do not respect the institution, but their stance is one of opposition to many currents of modern legal thought that the court's decisions reflect."

So Scalia and Thomas, in all their Republican radical-ness, are in opposition to 'many currents of modern legal thought'? According to who? Linda Greenhouse? Bill Keller, the editor of the NYT? The Liberal nutjobs in DC? Howard Dean? What the hell is this woman talking about?

Scalia and Thomas are on the Supreme Court because the Presidents that nominated them respected their interpretation of the law AND because they were both confirmed by the United States Senate. They are NOT on the Court to be for or against 'currents of modern legal thought' as defined by the once great, but now terribly flawed New York Times.


The Liberal Zealots are/were prepared to launch attacks on anyone the President nominated. It doesn't matter the identity of the individual, their gender or their qualifications.

Here's a boilerplate letter via Little Green Footballs via Iowahawk for your edification.

"He or She Is The Wrong Man or Woman For The Court

Critical Urgent Community Action Bulletin
from the Progressive Action Network For American Progress
For Immediate Release

The Progressive Action Network For American Progress is extremely concerned by today’s news that President Bush has selected ___JOHN ROBERTS___ as his nominee for the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court. Unlike outgoing Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, the widely respected and admired moderate consensus sensible mainstream compromisist, ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a shocking record of extremely extreme legal positions that fill us with grave concerns about ___HIS___ fitness for this critically crucial office.

Make no mistake: no one should be fooled by the administration’s public relations efforts or ___JOHN ROBERTS___’s seemingly “moderate” appearance. ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has a record that suggests that ___HE___ would deny women the right to reproductive choice, stop important life-saving medical stem cell research by extending the Patriot Act to draft their unwanted fetuses, and turn these conscripted fetuses over to dangerous tax-supported ‘Creationist’ religious laboratories. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, and America needs to know whether ___JOHN ROBERTS___ supports the GOP’s secret plan of a Rush Limbaugh Jesus army of unwanted, unquestioning fetus zombies who will be trained to urinate on the Korans of Guantanamo detainees.

We should also point out that our opposition to ___JOHN ROBERTS___ has nothing to do with the nominee’s race and/or gender. We at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress have long been on record of standing up for the civil rights of ___WHITE MEN___, rights from which ___JOHN ROBERTS___ ironically, has benefitted. Sadly, rather than create programs and begin to work on the real problems that concern ___WHITE MEN___, the Bush administration has cynically forwarded an unqualified, token candidate like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ to mask its callous indifference to the ___WHITE MAN___ community.


In response to this shocking nomination, we here at the Progressive Action Network For American Progress are joining forces with other mainstream grassroots progressive activist organizations — organizations like Peace Power Community Now Network, Grant Proposers for Justice, NairBusters, Out of Our Wombs!,, ToothACHE, and Sitcom Producers for the American Way. Over the next few weeks we will be encouraging the Senate Judiciary Committee to take a close look at ___JOHN ROBERTS___ and ___HIS___ extremist views on the critical legal issues that face all of us. While we will be working hard to get out the word in Washington, ordinary progressive citizens like you can do your part as well. First, write your newspaper and/or Senator and let them know that you will not stand by idly while Bush and Company install a pseudo-“___WHITE MAN___” like ___JOHN ROBERTS___ on the nation’s highest court. Here’s a letter to get you started! ..."

It's amusing that Roberts' name was just included in this form letter. Keep in mind that some intern typed in Roberts' name last night around 9.02 PM Eastern Standard Time following Bush's introduction of Roberts. Amusing too is the use of the word 'progressive.' In truth, the word progressive doesn't come close to describing Democrats because the DNC is the party of the status quo, the party of nothing. Rather it is the Republican Party that is actually progressive in thought, word and deed.

And here's what you and I can do: We can continue to identify and recognize the blind hatred and ignorance of these types of radical Left wing groups and we can advance facts and truth about Judge Roberts, about the Bush Administration and about the Constitutional role of the Judiciary. Additionally, we can expose the lies of the radical Liberal Left, their obstructionist plans, their radical agenda and their unconstitutional tactics.

So roll up your sleeves and get to work.


California is in severe need of election reform. In the 2004 elections not a single seat in the Legislature changed hands. That means every incumbent won re-election and it was hardly a surprise given the built in protections that politicians provide for themselves.

Congressional boundaries are dictated by the politicians, who, few would dare to argue, are dedicated to their own political survival. Governor Schwarzenegger wants to change this reality.

Arnold is proposing that a special bi-partisan panel draw the districts in the interest of fairness and accountability.

But that's not all the Governor wants. Also on the ballot for the November 8 special election are measures designed to stiffen the rules for granting tenure to teachers as well as reducing problematic government overspending. All of these proposals would greatly benefit California and allow Arnold to keep the promises he made to Californians during the recall election in 2003.

As usual, the Establishment Democrats in Sacramento are screaming bloody murder. They are opposed to anything that would endanger their gravy train, even threatening-surprise, surprise-legal action to prevent true reform from even being presented to the electorate.

It's beyond time for Californians to demand change for the sake of our state. Our representative government is not well served when our represenatives are primarily focused on representing their own interests instead of the interests of citizens that they are were elected to represent.


Gerry Thomas, the inventor of the TV dinner died Monday in Paradise Valley, Arizona after a long battle with cancer.

Actually, as Thomas explained his contribution to American pop culture, he invented not the dinner, but 'the tray on how [the dinner] could be served, coined the name and developed some unique packaging," he said in a 1999 AP interview.

I always liked the beef enchilada dinner, with the zesty rice and the refried beans. If the supermarket didn't have that one, the salisbury steak or the lasagna could do in a pinch. Good stuff.

Thanks Gerry! You were the man.


While I was hoping for a woman or a minority nominee in terms of strategic gains for the Republican Party going forward, I respect the choice Bush made. Armed with the facts, the President chose Roberts based strictly on qualifications, from a list of five qualified candidates.

And qualified Roberts certainly is. The resume on this guy is impressive: Clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist; Special assistant to attorney general, Justice Department; Associate counsel to President Reagan, White House Counsel's Office; Principal Deputy solicitor general, Justice Department; US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit.

The Republicans have been referencing 'the Ruth Bader Ginsberg model,' as they call it, which is nothing but code for confirming the President's nominee whomever it may be.

Back when Bill Clinton nominated Ginsberg, the former head of the ACLU, to the court the Senate confirmed her by a 96-3 vote. The reasoning, on the Republican side of the aisle, was that Clinton as President had the constitutional authority to name a person of his choice. By the same standard, the reasoning would go, President Bush should get similar treatment rather than the filibusters that we've seen over the past four years.

Undoubtedly the filibustering is coming. Democrats don't care about getting along with Bush, even though he hosted over half the Democrats in the Senate, gathering their opinions on prospective nominees. The President even sucked up to Bob Byrd, looking for middle ground and support!

The reaction, from what I've seen and heard, is mixed. But it's early.

Leahy promised 'a lengthy process.' Schumer decried Roberts' 'lack of a record,' because there's nothing for the Democrats to obsess over. This morning Harry Reid, had nothing to say specifically about Roberts but he was despondent over the fact that the phony Karl Rove/Valerie Plame/CIA controversy had been banished to the trash pile. The bonehead Barbara Boxer expressed concern over 'environmental rights and women's rights, specifically a woman's right to choose.'

Funny, I didn't know the environment had 'rights.'

I'm afraid, my friends, it is going to get very, very ugly. I wouldn't be surprised if, during confirmation hearings, the Democrats produce some dog-earred documents claiming that Roberts' great, great, great 6th cousin fourteen times removed, owned land on which someone claimed-83 years ago-they once saw slaves.

Just get ready.

Tuesday, July 19


I'm hearing Bush's choice is Federal Appeals Court Judge John G. Roberts Jr. If that's true, get ready for a brutal confirmation battle because of Robert's view on Roe V. Wade.

From the mouth of Roberts: 'No support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution' for legal reasoning' on abortion.


The highest compliment a creative person can pay to another creative person is, 'wish I'd thought of that.'

If you find yourself in Manhattan today or tomorrow, go to Times Square. You'll be hard pressed to miss the new Calvin Klein billboard, uh, living space, uh, fragrance ad, three floors high which is currently playing home to 40 actors.


Dubya's Supreme Court nominee will be announced in prime time tonight.


Couldn't Madonna find some servants to feed the farm animals? I mean, come on, Madge! That's so beneath you.


I'm a guy so I just have this natural instinct to admire women's breasts, which, as I understand it, are in plentiful supply in the new film 'Wedding Crashers.' John McCain is in the film, which is a big reason why I might not pay to see it.

The Senator, who I refer to as 'Jackass John,' was on Leno's love seat last night and talked about how in DC, he 'works with boobs everyday.'

Funny line, courtesy of one of Leno's writers.


Yeah, I laughed too. The very notion that anything Al Gore says or does could be construed as 'non-partisan' is just completely silly and pathetic. Of course, equally pathetic is the high probability that every word and deed for the rest of his life will be predicated on the myth that he got more votes in Florida.

Now Al's got a new cable television network, 'Current,' dresses in all black, hangs out in Beverly Hills and apparently still thinks he's really cool.

Current, which launches August 1, aims to be in 50 million homes within five years.

"Aimed at an 18-34-year-old audience, Current has loftier goals in mind than party politics: Gore said it will engage young people in the "dialogue of democracy" by providing stories that interest them, and will involve them in the channel's content.

Using Web parlance, Gore said he wants Current to be the 'channel of choice' for young adults.

"We want to be the television home page for the Internet generation," he said."

Does anyone really believe that a cable channel 'aimed' at the 18-34 year old demo, a notoriously liberal group, will be 'non-partisan'? C'mon Al, you're killing me. The goal is to 'aim' Liberal propaganda at the kids, brainwash them and get them out to vote. [another daunting challenge]

The real proof as to whether or not Current is a partisan enterprise will come during election season. With Gore at the helm, it's not hard to imagine Current being the last place on television to get 'fair and balanced' programming.


There could be no better example of Liberal bias or no better poster child for the haughty, yet unintelligent, uninformed journalist than Helen Thomas, an old, crabby, washed up White House reporter. Thomas is well known for her hatred of Bush and Republicans. She used to get into President Reagan's face with regularity. I always loved how he cleverly dismissed her and he ridiculous assertions.

Anyway, yesterday she blasted W.H. press secretary Scott McClellan with this absurd line of commenting/questioning on the Rove non story:

"Q (HELEN THOMAS): What is his problem? Two years, and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he's got to do is call him in.

MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn't know all the facts. I don't know all the facts.


MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because --

Q (HELEN THOMAS): Why doesn't he ask him?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll tell you why, because there's an investigation that is continuing at this point, and the appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation. There is a special prosecutor that has been appointed. And it's important that we let all the facts come out. And then at that point, we'll be glad to talk about it, but we shouldn't be getting into --

Q (HELEN THOMAS): You talked about it to reporters.

MR. McCLELLAN: We shouldn't be getting into prejudging the outcome.

Go ahead..."

Think about what Thomas is advocating. The President calls in Rove and has a private meeting in the Oval. IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INVESTIGATION, no less?

Thomas and her mindless clones would love noting more for Bush and Rove to get together in a room. That way the press could advance the notion of collusion between the Leader Of The Free World and one of his top advisors impeding an investigation.

Thomas' laughable postulations reminded me of something my sweet grandmother jokingly used to tell me. When she got older, that age where they become rather annoying, childlike and say strange, even stupid, things, that we were to take her out and 'shoot her.'

As I said, she was joking...


New Orleans US Court of Appeals Judge Edith Clement is rumored to be Bush's choice to replace O'Connor.

From what I understand Clement tends to side with the pro choice people. We shall see.

Also, talk about 'advise and consent...'

The President has invited half of the Senate Democrats to the White House to get their thoughts and opinions on who the nominee should [or should not] be. Ben Nelson and Bob Byrd were gushing about how great Bush is all of a sudden. That worries me...

Speaking of Byrd. The racist fossil from W. Virginia is rumored to be Bush's 'go to' guy on the nomination. Apparently the White House is banking that if they can get Byrd's blessing on Bush's nominee they can avoid a messy filibuster fight.

Thanks to Drudge for the above photo of 'da Judge.

Monday, July 18


Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo is not a Bush favorite and for some good reasons. He's a bit of an extremist if can call wanting to protect the borders, actually killing [rather than coddling] our enemies and the correct retaliation for a nuclear attack in the United States.

The retaliation comment came today, where Tancredo proposed bombing mecca and other Muslim Holy sites should the US suffer a nuclear attack at the hands of Islamic radicals.

I can't really say that I completely disagree. This is a case of a person with good intentions, a guy who has his heart in the right place. But Tancredo's just being too honest. Which, when you think about it, is pretty sad.

We, as a global society, are largely ill at ease with honesty because it is such a rare occurrence. When was the last time someone was completely honest with you? Has it been awhile?

"Mohammad Noorzai, coordinator of the Colorado Muslim Council and a native of Afghanistan, said Tancredo's remarks were radical and unrepresentative but that people in Tancredo's position need to watch their words when it comes to sacred religious sites and texts."

Okay, fine. That's exactly what we've been doing since 9/11/01 is it not? Have we made the War On Terror a 'war on Islam'? No we have not and that's by design. I think we have bent over backward not to make the War a referendum on the religion of Islam, the self described 'religion of peace.'

But what about Muslims? What do they 'need' to do?

For starters, Muslims should not be surprised or offended when they are racially profiled. Rather they should encourage the practice. People that are doing nothing wrong have nothing to fear.

Muslims need to watch their words when it comes to criticizing other sacred religions. I, for one, am tired of always having to be sensitive to Islam when Muslims never show any sensitivity to my religion.

I welcome a Muslim's right to worship as he or she chooses. They, in turn, criticize me and call me an infidel.

Where's the fairness in that? The balance? What's good for them is not good for me. In the PC world in which we live, all that anyone seems to care about is what's good for the Muslim. I'm sick of it.


This whole Karl Rove thing is nothing more than a clever summer ploy by the Democrats to change the subject, to turn the focus of the country away from important things, from things that matter.

Like Social Security reform. Judicial nominees. The War On Terror. The threat of terror at home. The possibility that 20 suitcase nukes have been smuggled into the US via Mexico.

Undoubtedly there are more things I should list here, I just can't think of anything else.

So now part-time standup comedian Matt Cooper is saying [and writing in the new issue of TIME] that Rove told him the name of Joe Wilson's wife! Lemme see. Does Cooper, a biased reporter who works for a biased publication [both with Left leaning agenda's to push] have any reason to contridict Rove's grand jury testimony?

Um, yeah. They want to make Rove and Bush look bad and they want to see magazines. And they want to do their part[s] to continue to fan the flames of this non-story along with the rest of the press.

Keep in mind that this story was dead in the water last Thursday after Rove's testimony leaked. The accepted word was that Novak leaked Plame's name, not Rove. But now, suddenly RoveGate is back in full swing, thanks to increased heat and Cooper's appearance with Russert on M.T.P.

Fishy, fishy, fishy.


San Diego city government is awash in scandal, corruption, ineptitude and stupidity. And it looks like the citizens are about to vote for more of the same.

The mayor resigned because he ran the city into a financial hole. There is a pension scandal that is about to put the city into bankruptcy. San Diego's credit rating is junk status. Two city council members today were convicted of extortion, fraud and conspiracy charges.

And it looks more and more likely that the city's next mayor could very well be bought and paid for by labor unions and the environmental radicals, if the polls are true and if in next week's special election, Donna Frye [above] can muster 50% of the vote.

God help us.

Frye, a Democrat, illegally ran for mayor in '04 as a write in candidate. Trouble was, the deadline for filing had passed and she didn't participate in the primary election. No big deal. Here in San Diego the rules rarely apply or are only partially enforced. Had the majority of Frye's voters been smart enough to cast their ballots correctly, she would be mayor today.

Remember, on the ballot, should you choose to vote for a write in candidate, you actually have to WRITE IN the name of your candidate AND fill in a bubble next to that person's name. A large number of Frye voters did one thing but not both things on their ballots and therefore those ballots were uncounted on the basis of California state law.

This is just beginning to sound all too familiar. A Democrat running for elected office refuses to follow the rules and the voter base of said candidate is too unintelligent to vote properly. Only this is California, not Florida and this is a municipal election, rather than a federal one.

Look, if you're not intelligent enough to follow simple voting instructions don't bitch and moan when your vote goes uncounted. And don't complain when your candidate loses, either.

I'm supporting a guy named Steve Francis for mayor. He's a business man, he's an outsider, he's a fresh face. We need a big hose at city hall to wash away the junk, the dirt, to wipe everything clean. We have to take out the trash and start fresh and I think Francis, a CEO type manager educated and experienced in corporate discipline, is just what San Diego needs.

Other good candidates that deserve honorable mentions and kudos for commiting themselves to the betterment of our city: Myke Shelby, owner, proprietor of San Diego Harley-Davidson; Jerry Sanders, former SD Police Chief; Pat Shea; and Richard Rider.

Friday, July 15


Bob Novak, NOT Karl Rove, outed Valerie Plame. Now, will Joe Wilson kindly just shut his ass up?

Ah, the humiation. Joe, you've been found out. You were exposed as a liar TWO YEARS AGO and now again this week. Aren't you embarrassed? Please go away. No one, except Charles Schumer, believes a word you say. Your wife even knows that you are lying. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence proved that you lied. Now, Robert Novak proves that you lied about the entire Rove affair. You have egg on your face. You might have even gotten some it in your lovely, coiffed long hair, that must take you hours to style.

Please accept your embarrassment better than most Democrats and just dissappear. Don't make like Gore and bitch and whine about being cheated. Please don't make like Kerry and traverse the country in search of affirmation and future campaign cash. Just understand that Americans, the forgiving people that we are, have little to no patience with disgraced, dishonest, partisan hacks.


I'm sorry to sound insenstive. Thank you Bill Rehnquist for your years of public service. Thank you for administering sound, conservative decisions from the bench. Thank you for being a rare voice of reason in an extraordinarily strange time amongst extraordinarily bizzare Supreme Court decisions. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

We know that you rarely now physically make it to the office. Instead, your minions do your bidding. Better stated, day in and day out, they do your job for you. You are certainly a man of great intellect, however, at present you are in complete non possession of the certain physical attributes you once took for granted.

Thank you for your contributions to our Republic. Now, retire already. Do not delay your annoucement. You should have stepped down two weeks ago. It is beyond time for you to go. Let the President, a man you admire and respect, have his place in history by nominating your replacement. Now.

Thursday, July 14


The always brilliant Claudia Rosett has more intriguing thoughts on the Iraq/al Qaeda collaborative.

She writes,

"If anything, Mr. Bush in recent times has not stressed Saddam's ties to al Qaeda nearly enough. More than ever, as we now discuss the bombings in London, or, to name a few others, Madrid, Casablanca, Bali, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, or the many bombings in Israel--as well as the attacks on the World Trade Center in both 1993 and 2001--it is important to understand that terrorist connections can be real, and lethal, and portend yet more murder, even when they are shadowy, shifting and complex. And it is vital to send the message to regimes in such places as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran that in matters of terrorist ties, the Free World is not interested in epistemological debates over what constitutes a connection. We are not engaged in a court case, or a classroom debate. We are fighting a war.

But in the debates over Iraq, that part of the communication has become far too muddied. Documents found in Iraq are doubted; confessions by detainees are received as universally suspect; reports of meetings between officials of the former Iraqi regime and al Qaeda operatives are discounted as having been nothing more than empty formalities, with such characters shuttling between places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan, perhaps to share tea and cookies. Any conclusions or even inferences about contacts between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda are subjected these days to the kind of metaphysical test in which existence itself becomes a highly dubious philosophical problem, mired in the difficulty of ever really being certain about anything at all.

Certainty is then imposed in the form of assurances that there was no connection. This notion that there was no Saddam-al Qaeda connection is invoked as an argument against the decision to go to war in Iraq, and enjoined as part of the case that we were safer with Saddam in power, and that, even now, the U.S. and its allies should simply cut and run."


Bastards like this are carrying bombs onto buses in Great Britain. Suicide bombers explode themselves next to groups of children. It's coming to America next.

Do you think the average Democrat is smart enough to grasp this concept? I don't think they are. Do you think the Democrats in Congress care about the very real possibility that we, as a country, will be faced with suicide bombers in our cities in the very near future? Do you think that Democrats will take responsibility for impeding the process of national security, by blocking progress in protecting American ports, in seeking to make Bush's job more difficult in every possible manner, in every facet, every policy proposal he has put forth in four years as President...

While the Left laughs their sick laugh about Bush's intelligence, comparing him to Alfred E. Neuman and how he didn't really win the Presidency in 2000. While the Democrats are so obsessed with power that they won the Washington State Governor's race by cheating, while the Democrats in the Senate are working night and day to demonize an as yet to be announced Supreme Court nominee, while the Left engages in unconstitutional filibustering other Bush nominees, the Left wants us to release all the detainees [some of them undoubtedly future suicide bombers] currently being held @ Gitmo. The Left lives in a complete dreamworld, completely unaware that danger, REAL danger threatens the liberty of each and every American citizen...Their liberty, their rights to have abortion on demand, to consistently engage in acts of intolerance, to spread lies and innuendo about anyone with which they disagree, all is threatened by an enemy that scarcely acknowledge.


Connection With A Capital C

The next time someone asks you or expresses disdain for the Iraqi war because 'Saddam Had Nothing To Do With 9/11,' refer them immediately to the above article by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard.

As Hayes writes, 'there could hardly be a clearer case,' and offers a myriad of examples about an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, identified below as 'detainee' who is currently being held at Guantanamo Bay.

1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.

But there's no no al Qaeda/Iraq connection. No evidence whatsoever, right? That's what the average American and European voter thinks, due to the constant, unrelenting and incredibly false reporting by the global media, which, I might add has done Iraq, America and the free world an enormous disservice by minimizing the brutality of the Hussein regime.

This Just In: Democrats Are Un-American

Jonah Goldberg never fails to crack me up. How can you not be funny with a first name like Jonah? Impossible.

This isn't funny, in fact, it's scary and pathetic.

"According to the Pew Center, the less you like to fly the American flag, the more likely it is you are Democrat. The more you think hard work and personal initiative aren’t the ticket to the good life, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. The more you believe the United Nations is a better steward of international relations, while America is a negative actor on the world stage, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. The more you believe that the government is there to help, the more likely it is you are Democrat. The less seriously you take religion, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. Flip all of these values around and the more likely it is you are a Republican — or that you vote that way."

The Democrats, long thought to be Americans, are neither deep thinkers nor Americans anymore, as Jonah asserts. Rather they are Europeans masquerading as angry Americans.

Cowardly Behavior

Joe Wilson is such a lying coward, so unable to stand on his own two feet, he needs Chuck Schumer to stand at his side today at a press event? Oooooh. Big man.

And for what? To call for the revocation of Karl Rove's security clearance? WILL THE MADNESS NEVER STOP? Rove did nothing wrong. He did not out Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, Plume, whatever the hell her name is. Rove only pointed Cooper in the general direction of the CIA in the determination of how Wilson got the Niger consulting gig.

Joe Wilson is a liar. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence exposed him as such. Wilson lied in his book. HIS OWN BOOK! Are you kidding me? This is the guy, Joe Wilson, to which the Loony Left has NOW attached itself? How appropriate! Lies, and the lying liars that tell them.

Wilson has been attempting, with great assistance from the MSM, to assert that he is a 'non-partisan' simply telling the 'truth' about faulty intelligence and the Bush Administration's 'rush to war' in Iraq. That's not the truth. As it turns out Wilson is nothing less than a partisan hack, who holds great hatred in his heart for Republicans, even was a paid advisor to the pathetic Kerry Campaign.

And speaking of partisan hacks! Chuck Schumer. So here's the 'non-partisan' Wilson suddenly appearing with the hyper-partisan Schumer [who is apparentlly taking a well deserved break from the Manhattan summer party circuit, AND war room planning meetings on judicial filibustering and obstructionism] as if the two just bumped into each other in the men's room. No, there's no coordination here. Just two non-partisan American's speaking out against Karl Rove, the most evil man in America.

Wednesday, July 13

Who Knew Death Could Be So Entertaining?

I've been a fan of the amazing HBO show 'Six Feet Under' for years. It is incredibly, beautifully dark, depressing, morbid and grotesque, while somehow at the same time managing to be blissfully happy and hopeful.

That's part of what draws me-these conflicting emotions, constantly juxtaposed, can exist together in turbulent harmony.

'S.F.U.' has a distinct political point of view-decidedly, overwhelmingly Liberal. Why, in the most recent episode, one of the lesser characters, drunk from dismay after the death of a friend sobs 'What kind of world do we live in where George f---ing Bush was re-elected?'

Pretty subtle. Almost a subtle as everyone, every character, wearing black in every scene.

Great show. Great writing. Great performances. Great music. Great opening credit sequence. Bad politics.

A Few Thoughts On The NYT

From today's NYT: As you read please keep in mind that Joe Wilson is an acknowledged liar.

"Far be it for us to denounce leaks. Newspapers have relied on countless government officials to divulge vital information that their bosses want to be kept secret. There is even value in the sanctioned leak, such as when the White House, say, lets out information that it wants known but does not want to announce.

But it is something else entirely when officials peddle disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary. And Karl Rove seems to have been playing that unsavory game with the C.I.A. officer Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joseph Wilson IV, a career diplomat who ran afoul of President Bush's efforts to justify the invasion of Iraq. An e-mail note provided by Time magazine to the federal prosecutor investigating the case shows that Mr. Rove's aim in talking about Ms. Wilson to Matthew Cooper, a Time reporter, was to discredit Mr. Wilson, perhaps to punish him.

Mr. Wilson had published an Op-Ed article in The Times about being assigned to investigate allegations that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium from Niger - a claim that was popular among the White House and Pentagon officials eager to make the case for war with Iraq. Mr. Wilson said the allegation was unsupported by evidence, and it was later withdrawn, to Mr. Bush's embarrassment.

Before that happened, Mr. Rove gave Mr. Cooper a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Mr. Rove said the origins of Mr. Wilson's mission were "flawed and suspect" because, according to Mr. Rove, Mr. Wilson had been sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife, who works for the Central Intelligence Agency. To understand why Mr. Rove thought that was a black mark, remember that the White House considers dissenters enemies and that the C.I.A. had cast doubt on the administration's apocalyptic vision of Iraq's weapons programs.

Mr. Cooper's e-mail note does not say that Mr. Rove mentioned the name of Mr. Wilson's wife, which later appeared in a column by Robert Novak. White House supporters are emphasizing that fact in an effort to argue that Mr. Rove did not illegally unmask a covert officer. We don't need to judge that here. But there remains the issue of whether the White House used Mr. Wilson's wife for political reasons, and it's obvious that Mr. Rove did.

The White House has painted itself into a corner. More than a year ago, Mr. Bush vowed to fire the leaker. Then Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, repeatedly assured everyone that the leaker was not Mr. Rove, on whom the president is so dependent intellectually that he calls Mr. Rove "the architect."

Until this week, the administration had deflected attention onto journalists by producing documents that officials had been compelled to sign to supposedly waive any promise of confidentiality. Our colleague Judith Miller, unjustly jailed for protecting the identity of confidential sources, was right to view these so-called waivers as meaningless.

Mr. Rove could clear all this up quickly. All he has to do is call a press conference and tell everyone what conversations he had and with whom. While we like government officials who are willing to whisper vital information, we like even more government officials who tell the truth in public."

A Phony Scandal

Let's remember that the entire Karl Rove 'affair,' about which the press is currently obsessing, began with a phone call to Rove from Time's Matt Cooper. The purpose of Cooper's call was to talk about welfare reform. Welfare reform. Somehow it then swerved into a discussion (remember this was 2003) about enriched uranium in Africa and Joe Wilson.

Rove urged Cooper to look into the fact that Wilson's wife, at that time a well known senior CIA official and NOT Vice President Cheney, was responsible for Wilson's job as a CIA consultant. Rove DID NOT 'out' Wilson's wife because he didn't know her name. All he knew of her was what he heard from other journalists who did know her identity.

Here's the entire WSJ op-ed from this morning for your edification:

"Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.

On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.

"While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.

The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.
Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.

If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.

As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth."

The press is far from being grateful. Instead the Left is seizing on this non story out of unbridled avarice for Bush and a burning desire to discredit the War On Terror.

They are sticking their necks out too, too far, I predict. Won't it be fun to see the press, and by affiliation, the Democrats with egg on their faces?

-$100 Billion

Trimming $100 Billion off the federal deficit because of tax revenue is indeed great news, no matter how you slice it.

I love the snide reporting on the above link from the NYT: 'For the first time since President Bush took office...'

You can always count on the Left to be ungracious, with bad news and good.

Also today from NYT: 'Expect Bush to possibly be disloyal to his closest aides.'


Where in the past five years has the President ever been disloyal to one of his closest advisors? That's not the way he operates, it's not in his character. Even casual observers of the man can see that.

Ridiculous reporting. Absurd opinion page. Unreasonable assertions. Inaccurate claims. Naive thinking. The NYT is the bible of the mentally challenged Left.

Monday, July 11

Hollywood, East

As an aspiring filmmaker and screenwriter, I found this piece in yesterday's LAT especially fascinating.

A new state of the art, 280,000 square foot facility in NYC, the Brooklyn Navy Yard, now has the largest soundstage outside Los Angeles.

The bottom line is that doing business in California is cost prohibative. Arnold's doing a great job, but more needs to be done and that's tough when Leftists control the State Legislature and the city governments of L.A. and San Francisco.

The "Made In NY" incentive program gives those productions that do 75% of their shooting in New York qualify for free marketing on buses and transit shelters as well as tax credits of 10% and a rebate tax of 5%.

My script, which is now in it's second draft, aims to use Manhattan quite prominently. It might actually make financial sense to shoot it there, now, too.

Juvenile Democrats

I've written many times about the propensity of Democrats and Liberals to level personal attacks against Republicans and conservatives.

Whenever the Left disagrees with someone they can't debate ideas. They can't compare and contrast and explain why Democratic policies are better than Republican ideas on merit alone.

Instead Democrats invariably resort to calling attention to their looks, patterns of speech, mannerisms, mocking one's heritage, etc., of their political enemies.

Over the weekend in Aspen Hillary compared President Bush to Mad Magazine's mascot Alfred E. Neuman.

This is supposedly the 'smartest woman in America'?

Oh, but wait. Maybe she is pretty smart, after all. Following her childish remarks about Bush, she then went on to endorse virtually every Bush policy on fighting terrorism and the Iraqi war, then resorting to tired and inaccurate rhetoric on taxes and arming the troops.

Friday, July 8

Doling Out The Cash & Forgiving Debts

Lots of cash for two good causes. I hope Europe kicks in more to Africa than America. After all, Africa is a mess thanks to the lot of Europe.

Obviously the London bombings were on everyone's mind, with calls for greater security and cooperation, raiway and subway safety, and increased UN involvement on anti-terror measures.

And what's this? Putin 'warning against putting restrictions on democracy'?

"We would be giving a great gift to the terrorists themselves because they are aiming exactly for that," Putin told reporters. "They want to use the instruments of democratic society to destroy democracy."

What is he talking about? The leader of Russia, the Russia that still doesn't have free and fair elections, the Russia that still does not have a free and independent press. What is he talking about?

On the debt cancellation front, Blair got a victory by forgiving the debt of the world's poorest 18 nations.


Christopher Hitchens can really get on my nerves with his hyper-intellectual arrogance, but his column today in the Mirror is [as they say in Britain] 'spot on.'

A sample:

"The preachers of this faith have taken care to warn us that they love death more than we love life. Their wager is that this makes them unstoppable. Well, we shall have to see. They certainly cannot prove their point unless we assist them in doing so."

Delusional Democrats

To catch a glimpse into the Liberal mind of delusion and stupidity one must look no further than Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe.

Jackson is a true enemy of America and the poster boy for the stereotypical stupid, uniformed black Democrat.

Note the section where he almost gets it right, the part about Mark Kimmitt advising Americans to 'change the channel,' rather than see American soldiers killing Iraqi civilians.

"Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt was asked about the images of American soldiers killing innocent civilians on Arab television, Kimmitt said: ''My solution is quite simple: Change the channel. Change the channel to a legitimate, authoritative, honest news station. The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda. And that is lies."

There are many things wrong with the way Jackson frames this quote.

First, he's clearly insinuating that American soliders have willingly killed civilians in Iraq. That is totally false and Jackson knows it.

Second, Kimmitt is right when he urges Americans to carefully distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate sources of news. Not a single American should waste his or her time watching propaganda from the Arab world.

No American solider has purposefully killed an Iraqi civilian. That Jackson even alleges this is pure treachery, plain and simple. Let him provide his evidence that proves his assertions or the Globe should terminate him without delay and he should be charged with treason.

I'm loving this national unity, aren't you?

Category 5?

Have you seen the size of the massive Hurricane Dennis that is barrelling toward the Gulf Coast?

Finally Getting It

I'm glad someone at the NYT is finally getting the fact that the biggest problem within the Muslim community is the lack of guidance shown by Clerics and Mullahs in condemning the radicals like bin Laden and al Qaeda.

As Tom Friedman points out today, the only fatwah handed down was for 'Satanic Verses' author Salman Rushdie, who was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran, what, ten years ago? Apparently Rushdie, who dared to criticize the prophet Mohammed, is perceived to be a bigger problem than the murderous thugs who perpetrated 9/11, the bombings in Spain and now in Britain.

Friedman goes on:

"It is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst. If it does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it is going to infect Muslim-Western relations everywhere. Only the Muslim world can root out that death cult."

Thursday, July 7

Two Unexploded Bombs In UK

ABC News is reporting that there have been two unexploded bombs found in London-good news as well as a big break in the case.

More later...

Africa's Friend

Thanks to 'Liberty Just In Case' for the head's up on this great piece from Nick Kristof of the NYT.

"Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt.

But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).

So as the G-8 summit meeting convenes this week, focusing on Africa, it's worth acknowledging that Mr. Bush, and conservatives generally, have in many ways been great for the developing world. At their best, they bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts."

Blaming Bush

Many of the links on the right margin of this page are to left leaning sites. I link these sites because I read them and I hope you will too, that way you can compare the ideas and opinions from both places and believe what you want.

So I just clicked over to the Huffington Post where Jann Wenner, publisher of Rolling Stone and US magazines, writes the following:

"Amid all the optimism surrounding Blair, Bono & Geldolf doing Live 8 and G 8, and the award of that most wonderful and pacific of international institutions and global brotherhood-the Olympics-what a grim thing to have happened.

Violence rarely gets us anywhere; the PLO, the IRA, the SLA, among others have achieved so little with their terrorism. If the London bombings are the work of an Al Qaeda offshoot, then you have to fairly say, in the same way we condemn other's terror, this is in part the result of Bush's War on Iraq."

There it is. Today's killings in London are 'in part the result of Bush's War on Iraq.'

Wait how can that be?

First, if you place blame at the feet of Bush shouldn't you also place blame at the feet of Tony Blair? You guys on the Left have been calling him Bush's lapdog and now you seek to marginalize Blair even further?

Second, you have been claiming for the better part of three years that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and Iraq had no relation to al Qaeda.

Since al Qaeda has already taken responsibility for the London attacks this morning-there's no 'If' about it, Jann. Open your eyes. The War On Terror for the foreseeable future IS Iraq.

Those of us on the Right understand this reality, as do the terrorists.

Now about that 'violence rarely gets us anywhere' comment from Wenner.

[Taking a deep breath]

Think of the inherent stupidity of that statement. What about The Civil War? WWI? WWII? Korea? The first Gulf War? Jann Wenner would not be living in freedom, publishing his magazines, making his millions, contributing to Liberal political candidates and writing absurd comments like he did today on HuffPost were it not for war.

Bush's Reaction

Compare Howard Dean's empty, meaningless rhetoric with the heartfelt and sincere words spoken by President Bush immediately after the London attacks:

"I spent some time recently with the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and had an opportunity to express our heartfelt condolences to the people of London, people who lost lives. I appreciate Prime Minister Blair's steadfast determination and his strength. He's on his way now to London here from the G8 to speak directly to the people of London. He'll carry a message of solidarity with him.

This morning I have been in contact with our Homeland Security folks. I instructed them to be in touch with local and state officials about the facts of what took place here and in London, and to be extra vigilant, as our folks start heading to work.

The contrast between what we've seen on the TV screens here, what's taken place in London and what's taking place here is incredibly vivid to me. On the one hand, we have people here who are working to alleviate poverty, to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS, working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill -- those who have got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks.

The war on terror goes on. I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve. And that is we will not yield to these people, will not yield to the terrorists. We will find them, we will bring them to justice, and at the same time, we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.

Thank you very much."
Copyright 2004-2013, All Rights Reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without prior written permission. 0