Thursday, August 31, 2006


I cannot say it better than the Opinion Journal does today! Go on over there and be afraid, be VERY afraid!

During the 2004 presidential campaign, when people asked John Kerry to release his full military records (which he promised to do and still has not yet done) or when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth began to oppose his presidential ambitions, the immediate response was “Are you questioning my patriotism?”. Note, Senator Kerry failed to acknowledge the proven TRUTH of the Swifties’ charges – he couldn’t do that because the Swift Boat Veterans, contrary to the leftwingnuts’ claims were never discredited. And heaven knows they TRIED.

The same applies to many other of the left loon tinfoil hat wearing crowd. Max Cleland has been trotted out to oppose our president and because he was injured in Vietnam, we must never, ever question any word that comes out of this man’s mouth. Bullshit.

Last night, Paul Hackett was on The Factor, mouthing all manner of nonsense and, predictably, when someone questioned his position, he trotted out that old warhorse “Are you questioning my patriotism?”.

Here’s the thing, I DO question the patriotism of these Democratic leftist crybabies. I DO NOT believe that they have America’s best interests at heart, but rather their own. For the past three years, I have watched numerous left wing politicians (John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Jack Murtha, just to name a few) feeding their own ambitions and leftwing agendas at the cost of undermining the safety and security of America’s citizens. I’d lump John McCain into that crowd, but he has at least had SOME moments of sanity before whipsawing into another new position.

Has the quest for raw political power become so all-consuming that politicians will say anything, do anything, betray anything to achieve their selfish desires? Apparently so. Do I find that despicable? Absolutely.

The question is, what to do about it.

How about this? When next you are asked the question, “Are you questioning my patriotism?”, let’s not give the politically correct or polite answer but rather, tell the truth. The proper response is: “Yes, I am! Can you give me any solid, sober, sane answer that refutes my belief? And try not to mosey into hysteria while doing so!” The sputtering outrage that results should be mildly amusing.

You might even get an intelligent response, but unless you look REALLY good in blue, don’t hold your breath!

Wednesday, August 30, 2006


In today's column by David Limbaugh he reiterates - better than I can - the intense criticism being earned by former President James Earl Carter, Jr. around the world. It is a recommended read!

Monday, August 28, 2006


The antithesis of intelligence is displayed by director Rob Reiner in this quote attributed to him in the Associated Press:

“Mel Gibson's apology for making drunken anti-Semitic remarks isn't enough to redeem him, actor-producer Rob Reiner said. The actor also must acknowledge that "his work reflects anti-Semitism," particularly the 2004 hit movie "The Passion of the Christ," Reiner told Associated Press Radio.

"When he comes to the understanding that he has done that, and can come out and say, you know, `My views have been reflected in my work and I feel bad that I've done that,' then that will be the beginning of some reconciliation for him," Reiner said. “

Why do these people insist on thinking that playacting – something easily done by your average 2-year-old - qualifies them to THINK? It would be amusing if it weren’t so infuriating. The character that brought Reiner to fame, the Meathead, was every bit as ignorant as Reiner has proven himself to be over the years. The sad thing is that these people actually think that their half-assed, moronic opinions MATTER! Pathetic boobs!

In the spirit of the coming season, I think we should all send the ACLU a CHRISTMAS CARD!

Despite the fact that they are working so very hard to get rid of the CHRISTMAS part of this holiday, we should all send them a nice cheerful (preferably Christian) greeting to brighten up their dark, sad, anti-American little world. Maybe if they experience the JOY of Christmas, they’d quit trying to destroy it?Here's the address, just don't be rude or crude.

ACLU125 Broad Street18th FloorNew York, NY 10004

Rather than a Christmas card, send a letter sized envelope, preferably with a picture of a nativity scene on a 8-1/2x11 sheet of paper with “Merry Christmas” on it. A letter sized envelope COULD be a donation so they would have to open it. Enclose some discount coupons and mark on the outside “Donation enclosed” – the coupons ARE the donations.

Friday, August 25, 2006


In their excellent article The Cult of Soros at dated August 25, 2005, David Horowitz and Richard Poe opine that such is the case.

They point to the oft-repeated mantra of the Democrats that, “if there are terrorists in the world, George Bush has created them” which flies in the face of sober reality at the speed of sound. George Bush did NOT create the radical Islamic revolution in Iran. That was a Democratic (and terrible) President named James Earl Carter, Jr. George W. Bush wasn't even governor of Texas when the first World Trade Center bombing took place during the (gasp) administration of another Democrat: President William Jefferson Clinton.

But Soros claims that the War on Terror is “a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts -- Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia -- a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world….we can escape it only if we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor.”

As I said, historical FACT doesn’t support his conclusion (Gaza has been a problem for 20 years or more, Lebanon for at least that long, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan while CARTER was President and Somalia – yeah, right – that was President Bill Clinton’s baby!). But jingoistic pronouncements are the heart and soul of Democratic Party campaign rhetoric, replacing rational discussions of policy and possible solutions to problems. And if you attempt to require details or more fully fleshed arguments from a Democrat, the inevitable response is the claim that you are questioning their patriotism. You know what folks, I DO!

Since 1994 (that’s right folks, during PRESIDENT CLINTON’S administration), George Soros has been working behind the scenes to stage nothing less than a complete takeover of the Democratic Party for his own, left-wing ends. It is said by Horowitz and Poe and that he was the behind-the-scenes driving force behind McCain-Feingold, which if true, pretty much means that John McCain is a huge part of the problem and can NEVER EVER be a solution!

Soros used McCain-Feingold and his legendary wealth to BUY the loyalties of powerful and influential Democrats who now dare not repudiate him. Given the rather hysterical and well-financed leftwing coup d’etat recently waged by Soros’ minions and useful idiots against Senator Joseph Lieberman, this is easy to believe. Just as an example, Jane Hamsher (of the infamous blackface photograph of Senator Lieberman), is a huge admirer of Soros.

Anyone who has ever read a biography of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton knows that she was a fully credentialed leftist radical while in college. It is my belief that she has never modified her core philosophy but has modified her public personna to disguise her strong leftist leanings, just has she has continuously modified her appearance to fit what the American public would find acceptable. In the depths of what passes for her soul, however, I believe now and have always believed that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a dedicated leftwing activist who would cause irrevocable harm to our nation.

The only solution that I can see is for the blogsphere and rational and intelligent Republicans constantly illuminate and repudiate the craziness being spouted by George Soros and his various admirers on the loony left. When faced by the endless spouting of the various leftist slogans, the only thing Republicans and rational Democrats can do is to attempt to force a full exposition of what the slogan is supposed to mean, and then refute what is being babbled with facts stated in an unemotional and firm manner. This will, of course, lead to more hysteria and screeching of our affronts to their patriotism, but I have a lot of faith in the American people and I must believe that if the whack jobs continue their ranting long enough, and are refuted often enough and SANELY enough, the power of Soros can and will wane. Dear God, I certainly hope so!

Wednesday, August 23, 2006


State Senate OKs bypassing Electoral College
- Chronicle Sacramento
BureauWednesday, August 23, 2006

(08-23) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- The state Senate on Tuesday approved an Assembly bill that seeks to bypass the Electoral College system and institute a national popular vote to elect the president of the United States.

AB2948, which received a 23-14 vote in the Senate, calls for an interstate compact where states would commit all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of which candidate wins in each state. The compact would kick in when enough states join that the sum of their electoral votes would represent at least 270. If the largest states join in the agreement, only 11 would be needed.”

There is a reason why we have the electoral college in this country. It was designed to prevent the larger states from bullying the smaller, more agrarian states.

And I hate to break it to these self-important buffoons in Sacramento but they don’t have the right or authority to bypass the U.S. Constitution. And if they continue along their present path, the U.S. Supreme Court will need to remind them. And the Supreme Court will happily do so.

The only way the electoral college goes away is if a constitutional amendment is passed by the Congress and ratified by the necessary number of states. I don’t see that happening now – or ever. Nor should it.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006


Today in a California court, John Mark Karr waived extradition back to Boulder, Colorado where he faces charges in the 10-year-old murder of 6-year old JonBenet Ramsay.

Mr. Karr will not, apparently, travel to Boulder in the relative comfort in which he traveled to California from Thailand. A lot of people are outraged by the fact that he was brought back in Business Class and had wine with his (several) meals. But as someone else commented – it was STILL airline food. My feeling is that I don’t begrudge him that last comfortable journey since any future journeys are likely to be far more uncomfortable.

Looking at the first scenario, if Mr. Karr is convicted (and I consider this a big “if” based on the evidence on offer so far), he will be going to a Colorado prison where he will probably meet up with his own personal “Bubba”, if he lives long enough. Given the attitude of most convicts toward child murderers, his life won’t be very long. In any event, no prison on earth is noted for the excellence of its fare!

The second scenario, if Mr. Karr is NOT convicted, leads to him being prosecuted for making false police reports among other things. Nothing good will be derived from the second possibility, although presumably he will at least be alive and not subject to the tender mercies of “Bubba”! But then again, maybe not.

John Mark Karr’s affect and statements so far lead me to believe that he is very likely to be a scam artist angling for his 15 minutes of fame without regard to the pain and anguish being caused to his own family and the family of JonBenet Ramsay. Of course, he COULD be guilty. But right now I have my doubts.

Now it’s time for the justice system to do its thing. It’s also time for the various alphabet networks and print media to stop the 24/7 saturation coverage of what should have always been a local tragedy and allow the speculation and wild rumors to come to a halt. What is needed now is accuracy, serious research and investigation and mature behavior – none of which qualities are easily come by in today’s 24/7 news climate.

According to an AP article in the Washington Post today, there are two groups in Connecticut attempting to short circuit Senator Joseph Lieberman’s run for the Senate as an Independent. The level of hatred demonstrated in this continuing attack on a decent man and an effective Senator is utterly abhorrent and the current efforts to curtail his run for re-election need to be addressed.

One group, describing themselves as “peace activists” have asked Sharon Ferrucci, Democratic registrar of voters in New Haven, to remove Lieberman from the party, arguing that he cannot be a Democrat while running under another party’s banner. This request could force Senator Lieberman to defend his adherence to Democratic Party principles, which brings up an obvious question: Does the Democratic Party as now constituted HAVE any principles left? A further question resulting from this particular effort generates another question. Who ARE these so-called “peace activists” and WHERE do they actually live and vote? I think Ms. Ferrucci needs to have a definitive answer to THAT question before she even mildly considers dealing with this group’s demands.

Another effort being mounted against Senator Lieberman at least has the virtue of being spearheaded by an actual resident of Connecticut. Beyond that, I see no real merit in the accusation by John Orman, a Democrat who gave up a challenge to Lieberman last year, who argued in complaints filed with the state on Monday that the Senator should be kept off the November 7 ballot because he has created a “fake political party” in order to continue his run. This would be as opposed to a “real” political party consisting of nutbars and venom-spewing sore losers like you, Mr. Orman?

Clearly, the Democratic Party in Connecticut is in disarray and they appear to be somewhat flummoxed that Senator Lieberman isn’t going quietly away as they would prefer.

Clue to the dingaling morons of the Connecticut Democratic Party and all their “peace activist” friends: Senator Joseph Lieberman, although I agree with very little about him, is a genuine patriot and a man of morals and conviction. So whine, whimper and bloviate all you want, he is almost certainly going to continue as Senator from Connecticut. The big question is, how much of an education about YOURSELVES are you giving this fine man and how is that going to affect his future voting inclinations?

The law of unintended consequences is no doubt going to be biting your sorry butts soon enough – and again! Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of losers!

Monday, August 21, 2006


Yes indeed, folks, you read that correctly. I think we, as Americans, need to stop relying mindlessly on the poobahs of the Federal government and start relying on our own, rather formidable, selves for security. Over the weekend, according to the Daily Mail (UK): Passengers "stormed off the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320 minutes before it was due to leave the Costa del Sol at 3am. Others waiting for Flight ZB 613 in the departure lounge refused to board it."

The article further states: "The trouble in Malaga flared last Wednesday as two British citizens in their 20s waited in the departure lounge to board the pre-dawn flight and were heard talking what passengers took to be Arabic. Worries spread after a female passenger said she had heard something that alarmed her. Passengers noticed that, despite the heat, the pair were wearing leather jackets and thick jumpers and were regularly checking their watches."

Now I am sure that there will be a mighty chorus about how that is profiling and profiling is wrong. To which I now proclaim: "Hogwash!"

Every terrorist attack in the last decade (the Oklahoma City bombing was on April 19, 1995) has been performed by Muslim men in a certain age range, so I feel quite confident in stating that we ought to be keeping a close eye on people who fit that description! And if our government won’t assure our safety on air transportation by doing so, then it’s up to us to do for ourselves.

The Daily Mail article makes a point that these two young men were British citizens. So? I believe that all those who have been arrested in Britain over the past two weeks were also British citizens and THEY were planning some pretty unspeakable activities vis-à-vis international air transportation. So what’s the point being made? Other than to attempt to label these justifiably uneasy airline passengers as paranoid?

In today’s world, a little paranoia can be a good thing. I am a 64 year old white woman and I KNOW without a doubt that I will be searched or otherwise inconvenienced when next I fly. The fact that it is a waste of governmental resources is almost beside the point – since our government loves to waste taxpayer money – no matter which political party is in power. I’d just like a little bit more attention paid to people who are more likely than I to create problems. But if my government isn’t going to protect me, I do not intend to behave like an over-the-hill lamb going to my slaughter! My responsibility to myself and to my fellow passengers on any flight is to keep my eyes wide open and my attention firmly focused on all other passengers boarding my flight. And in the event that I do see someone behaving in a suspicious manner, I have no intention of keeping my mouth shut.

That is only simple common sense. And if some politically correct jackass wants to give it another label, that is not MY problem – it’s theirs. And congratulations to those uneasy passengers in Malaga over the weekend. While I’ll grant you the threat was not real, at least all of you took responsibility for your own safety. That’s what grown-ups do!

Friday, August 18, 2006


This week the entire JonBenet Ramsay murder case has again become a big network feeding frenzy with the apparent confession of a 41-year old American man who is being held for extradition back to Boulder, CO from Thailand – a place where it is said that children are routinely bought and sold for temporary or permanent sexual purposes. Remind me never to visit there.

The networks are busily engaged in over-covering what really should always have been a purely local tragedy, but for the ravenous appetite of the 24-hour news cycle and, of course, the availability of those tapes of the 6 year old victim performing on stage in entirely too adult routines, replayed ad nauseam 10 years ago, and once again this week.

At the outset, I think it only fair to state that I do not now, nor have I ever, approved of baby beauty contests. I have had friends who were eager to put their little ones on the pageant circuit and in EVERY case, it was less about how beautiful or talented were the children and more about how avaricious for attention were the parents. I observed the depradations on the soul visited on children by stage parents when I was competing as an ice skater (My mother, bless her, couldn't have cared less if I won - she was only happy that I was learning not to trip over my own feet.)

I believe that beauty pageants for children are obscenities and everything that follows must, necessarily, be colored by that opinion. While I do not subscribe to the “she asked for it” school of thought when it comes to crimes against women, when parents display these very young, frequently only marginally talented children as objects of desire, they are profaning the innocence of youth in a world full of sick bastards who love to violate innocence! Why would ANY parent willingly, even eagerly, subject their child to the possible attentions of such perverts? For any reason whatsoever? I confess, I just don’t get it.

As to Mr. Karr’s confession, right now I’m not buying it. Contradictions abound and inconsistencies can be spotted by even the most gormless observer. Added to that the fact that he is visibly reveling in all the attention, and I find myself having serious doubts about the veracity of his purported confession and even of his involvement in any manner.

Finally, a word to the media. From the very beginning of this story, there have been a multitude of assiduously-reported errors brayed forth into the public purview. And this is a case where no less an authority than John Ramsay himself should be clearly heard: Don’t rush to judgment! Let the legal system do its job. Don’t convict without a trial. Innocent until proven guilty! DID ANY OF YOU INCREDIBLE BOZOS EVER HEAR OF A FACT-CHECKER? THE OHIO SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE SAM SHEPPARD CASE?

One would assume, at first glance, that this post is Columbus, Ohio specific, but one would be wrong. While the grocery store chain alluded to in this post is located in Columbus, Ohio, I am also certain that there are grocery chains elsewhere that offer some, if not all, of the following benefits to those who shop there regularly.

The Giant Eagle Supermarket chain, which is located in Ohio and Pennsylvania, offers something called “Fuel Perks” which gives you 10¢ off per gallon at their GetGo Gas Stations for every $50 you spend in their food store. In addition, and here’s where it becomes really interesting, they offer gift cards, the value of which also contributes to the $50 spending qualification. Hence, I can go to the Giant Eagle, spend $50 in groceries AND buy a $300 MasterCard gift card to use for miscellaneous shopping (an alternative to carrying cash if nothing else), and you have just earned 70¢ off per gallon of gas at GetGo. The gift cards offer includes the Amex gift card, MasterCard and Visa. Other gift cards include Best Buy, Sears, Barnes & Noble, and a wealth of others. In addition, Giant Eagle doubles coupons up to 99¢ AND they have the very best produce department I’ve ever encountered outside of California.

My friend Pam pointed out the infinite possibilities of this gift card offering to me and while I know that only readers in Ohio and Pennsylvania can benefit from Giant Eagle’s program (yes, you have to have one of those little plastic savings cards in your wallet or on your keyring as well), I am sure they are not the only grocery chain offering some sort of incentive along these lines to their customers in other states. And if not, why not? If your local stores aren't doing so, ask them why? If you don't ask, you don't get!

My recommendation for the weekend? Get on the “net” and start checking these things out. If you’re grocery shopping anyway, why not shop where you can save money on gas at the same time?

Thursday, August 17, 2006


Within the modern Democratic Party, there are many utterly incompetent foreign policy thinkers. But standing head and shoulders below the worst of the worst within the modern Democratic Party – one man stands alone, the worst American president during the 20th century: James Earl Carter, Jr.! And when you consider President Carter’s competition (Harding and Clinton come to mind.), that’s some feat.

In an interview published on 8/15/06 in DerSpiegel Online, President Carter opined that administrations prior to George W. Bush had a “commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis.” Yes, folks, he really did say that! Apparently his short term memory doesn’t include 9/11/01!

Further on in the interview, Mr. Carter chatters mindlessly about the Lebanon/Israel/Hezbollah situation. He states: “. . .the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.” [emphasis mine] HUH?

President Carter, I realize you are far from the brightest bulb in the chandelier but perhaps you have noticed over the years that there have been never-ending, violent and utterly unprovoked attacks on the Nation of Israel since the date of its founding in 1948 and it may have come to your notice that Hezbollah and Iran have both LOUDLY (and recently) proclaimed their intention to drive the Israelis from their land and into the sea. They aren’t keeping this any big secret. Even you, President Carter, mired as you are in a sea of hopeless confusion, should have heard some inkling.

Mr. Carter believes that President George W. Bush poses a threat to American values and expresses some sympathy for the ailing Fidel Castro! Mr. Carter is also most approving of the peace proposals set forth by the President of Lebanon and claims that they are “quite reasonable”. James Earl Carter, Jr. is, in my opinion, a doddering nincompoop. But here is the truly incredible part of the interview. And I am quoting:
"The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality."
Mr. Carter is NOT, as you might suspect, speaking of Hezbollah, or the Islamofascist scum - no, he's talking about US, the Christians who are the overwhelming majority of American citizens. It is simply incredible. Mr. Carter, this nation is very fortunate that you are NOT the president of the United States in these perilous and dangerous times and that a man with REAL values, REAL courage and a steadfast determination to protect the United States of America occupies that office.

Mr. Carter's ineffectual lack of action at the time that the Iranian students (one of whom is now PRESIDENT OF IRAN) took American Embassy personnel hostage for 444 days, is a direct precurser to our present peril. His completely incompetent conduct of American foreign policy during his failed four year presidency sowed the seeds for our present War on Terror. Mr. Carter, your reputation will improve in direct proportion to the time we do NOT need to hear your ill-founded and puerile opinions. Please do not believe that your completely undeserved Nobel prize qualifies you for anything except being recognized as being anti-American. But respected as a great thinker. It isn't going to happen, sir, not now and not ever! History will judge you, Mr. Carter, and it will not be kind. Trust me on that.

Friday, August 11, 2006


Awakened this morning thoroughly disgusted with the leftwing moonbat crowd and their enablers and was resolved to really let 'em have it. Decided to start my morning with The Anchoress and realized she had already said it better than I could.
So I highly recommend a trip to visit The Anchoress who is always interesting, generally right on target and always a worthwhile read.

Thursday, August 10, 2006


“So who’s going to tell Joe that he could very easily lose come November? Who’s going to tell him that Ned might actually be good for the Democratic Party?”
Susan Estrich, 8/09/06 on BlueStreak

Well, gee, Susan – since the apparent reason Joe Lieberman lost the primary is because of his stance on the War on Terror, I would say that after this morning’s events, Senator Lieberman is in pretty good shape.

And let’s see, Susan, since I can count and you apparently cannot – Senator Lieberman received 48% of the primary vote among Democrats. Care to hazard a guess, Susan, as to how many thoroughly furious Republicans there are in Connecticut who fully intend to vote for Senator Lieberman also?

No, Susan, just as you did when you ran Michael Dukakis’ campaign for president (And how is it that you are considered an “expert” on politics after THAT debacle?), you are completely misreading the intent and will of the American people. We don’t like defeatist cowards – which means that lately, we don’t much like Democrats. And I very much suspect that the voters of Connecticut are rightly going to be angered (if they are not already there) by out-of-state moonbats telling them how to vote!

My prediction? Senator Joseph Lieberman will return to the Senate as an Independent with an overwhelming majority of Connecticut voters sending him there. And in the process of this particular re-election campaign, he will have learned one valuable lesson – never trust the modern Democratic Party.

If you live in the Eastern Daylight Savings time zone, you awakened this morning to the news that, thanks to joint efforts by the U.K. intelligence forces in the lead with our intelligence forces as backup, another Al Qaeda plot has apparently been “disrupted”, although officials refuse to characterize the situation as “thwarted” at this time. The arrest of 21 Muslim men has been announced. An additional 30-50 suspects are being sought. From the early reports, their intent was to bring liquid explosive and electrical devices onto planes flying internationally on American, United and Continental Airlines and detonate the devices in midair over heavily populated tourist areas, principally in New York, Washington, D.C. and California.

We are indeed fortunate that the New York Times didn’t learn about this round-up of terror suspects in time to warn our enemies. We are even more fortunate that we are blessed with a President of steadfast courage and determination and his counterpart in the U.K., Prime Minister Tony Blair who has consistently risked his political career (and his actual life) over the years since 9/11 as our partner in the War on Terror.

We should be thanking God for our continued safety since 9/11 and for these two fine leaders who have helped to keep us that way. We should also be thanking ourselves and every other voter who saw through the barrage of Bush Derangement Syndrome prattling and kept George W. Bush in the presidency.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006


Senator Joseph Lieberman
To the surprise of absolutely nobody, Ned Lamont won the Democratic primary in Connecticut. Senator Joseph Lieberman has already filed as an Independent to run for re-election to his seat. Since the Senator’s percentage of loss was only 4% (hardly a mandate although Daily Kos is characterizing it as such). And in typical moonbat fashion, Kos has the next steps all scoped out:

“Here’s what we all need to do the next few days:
1. Push Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.
2. Let people know what a sore loser Lieberman is.
3. Get all Democrats — including Bill Clinton — to publicly back Ned Lamont.
4. Get the Democratic interest groups who backed Lieberman to switch allegiances in the general.

The DSCC and the DCCC will have to deal with the fact that this race will continue to suck oxygen from great pickup opportunities. And I won’t apologize for that, because as a proud Democrat, I will help in whatever way I can the Democratic nominee from the Great State of Connecticut.

The Republicans rejoiced at Lieberman’s decision to stay in. They couldn’t be happier. And let’s not talk about the lobbyists! They’re besides themselves!

Joe Lieberman is not an independent Democrat. He needs to be stripped of his committee assignments and have those handed to real Democrats. And then we need to buckle down and finish the job we started.”

And what job would that be, Kos? The utter destruction of the Democratic Party – party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy? Neither of them would see what was done to Senator Lieberman as a triumph. Rather, they would term it an utter disgrace! As to calling Senator Joseph Lieberman as not being a “real Democrat”, this is only true in the sense that the Senator is moral, sane and an American patriot. I seldom agree with Senator Lieberman’s votes or positions, but the hysterical hatred (and no small amount of anti-Semitism) being lobbed at him by the left wing moonbat crowd is un-American and an absolute disgrace.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney

As expected, she lost the run-off. Also as expected, she’s claiming she has been victimized. Her charges are ludicrous, her sanity is questionable and her absence from the national scene will be a relief to all, including her constituents.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Coming Into Play in Connecticut Today

Unintended Consequence #1: Senator Joseph Lieberman surprises everyone and wins the primary. This is a major slap in the face (again) to the Kos Kids who haven’t won ONE out of the 19 they’ve tried to influence so far, this one being #20. This would also constitute an ENORMOUS boost in the confidence of incumbents around the country.

Unintended Consequence #2: Lieberman loses the primary and runs for office as an independent, at which time he soundly defeats whatever nonentity being offered by the Republicans AND Ned Lamont. This is a net loss for the Democrats, a major slap in the face to the NetRoots crowd (Note - either way, they LOSE).

Unintended Consequence #3: The other incumbents running for re-election see the Connecticut results. As a result, they re-tool and re-energize their re-election campaigns while they still have AMPLE time to do so. And they all win re-election. Another defeat for the loony left.

Unintended Consequence #4: The leftwing NetRoots folks are now fully and irrevocably revealed for the racist, anti-Semitic moonbats they are! And they can’t blame President Bush - they did it to themselves.

Meanwhile, Ned Lamont, a man I consider to be lacking in both class and character is sailing along apparently secure in the blithe ignorance that can only be affected by the deeply insulated, super-rich. Bear in mind, I’m not just basing my opinion of Lamont on the Huffington “blackface” photoshop incident but rather on Lamont’s appearance with George Stephanopoulos this past Sunday. George called Lamont a liar to his face (when Lamont claimed he didn’t know anything about the NetRoots campaign nor did he have any control over them) and Lamont couldn’t refute him because Steph used Lamont’s own words to prove Steph’s point. Lanny Davis has condemned Lamont’s supporters for their activities.

As my friend Marty says, when George and Lanny are the voices of reason in the Democratic Party - that Party is in big time trouble.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES can really bite you in the bum big time!

Monday, August 07, 2006

MAINSTREAM MEDIA – Biased or Intellectually Lazy?

I don’t think anyone can claim with a straight face that the mainstream media is unbiased, but there are actually some moonbats who think the media is biased toward the RIGHT! I spent some time observing the media over the weekend, involuntarily, and some more time pondering the puzzle that resulted.

As I constantly complain, my cable company won’t remove CNN from behind my on-screen solitaire game. So unless I want to use the “mute” button (which on my bedroom TV is somewhat difficult), I listen to their coverage.

I have labeled Larry King CNN’s “sycophant-in-chief” because no matter who is on his program, but especially when his guest is an attractive woman, he is wholly uncritical and never challenges anything that is said, no matter how outrageously false it may be. As anyone who knows me can attest, I have grown to dislike O’Reilly, but give the man credit, at least he does challenge an outrageous liar on the air.

Recently however, I have occasionally been somewhat startled to hear a hint of balanced coverage from CNN in their Middle East coverage. Anderson Cooper, with a habit of being entirely too subjective at the best of times, has actually backed off from that from time to time. And many of the “embedded” reporters have been similarly almost even-handed.

The New York Times is quickly getting to the point where they will be printing more retractions than news stories. This used to be a great newspaper and when I was in college (The Ohio State University, School of Journalism, Class of ’63 – yeah, I’m THAT old) it was held up as an example of what a newspaper should be. Wonder if they still do that? I hope not. It IS still an example – of how far the “paper of record” has fallen from its once lofty standards. My view is that the NYT is a hopeless case, absent a thorough change in management.

Reuters has been caught using “photo-shopped” photographs and has had to apologize. Where were their fact checkers? Where were the editors who are supposed to keep this from happening? Was this laziness? Left-wing bias? Probably both. Reuters has never struck me as the soul of unbiased journalism. It is, after all, a European news service and neither the U.S. nor Israel is all that popular with the European nations. Both nations are entirely too energetic and dynamic to suit those desiccated fossils!

Fox News Channel has consistently been the least biased of the news channels. But there are times when even they display a remarkable lack of balance. And Alan Colmes would be beyond annoying even if he WERE a conservative. I’m always surprised the liberals are willing to claim him!

I do know that the media in general has nearly always downplayed the incessant attacks on Israel, not just recently but for many, many years. Was this caused by fatigue or was it anti-Semitic? Who knows? I don’t feel comfortable assigning motive to other human beings, but I know that the appearance of cheerleading for our enemies or Israel’s enemies is nearly unending. The disconnect seems to be total. Those who are most at risk (East and West Coast and Washington, D.C.) seem to be of the opinion that if we just understand these jidhadist scum, they’ll stop trying to kill us. Is that driven by fear? Denial? Anti-Semitism? All of the foregoing? Probably so.

Friday, August 04, 2006


Hillary Rodham Clinton's hypocrisy is nearly breathtaking in its scope. For this woman, of all people, to take the Secretary of Defense to task in the way that she did yesterday was despicable, considering that HER husband is the one whoeviscerated our military and our intelligence gathering capabilities with Jamie Gorelick's "wall". And if she talks to the Secretary of Defense like this now - heavenforefendd what she would sound like if we were unlucky enough to somehow end up with another Clinton presidency! The mind sweats in abject terror!

Aside from all other considerations, she was just plain RUDE to a man who is (a) her elder, (b) considerably more experienced in government affairs than she can ever claim to be and (c) was there voluntarily. She spoke to the Secretary of Defense in the hectoring tone of an overly critical mother chiding a recalcitrant child. If she was trying to appear 'presidential' the attempt was a failure.


Watched a bit of Larry King Live last night involuntarily. My digital cable has a very relaxing onscreen solitaire game but they play CNN in the background. Most annoying, that!

Unfortunately (for my night's rest), just before I turned off the television before going to bed, I heard Queen Noor proclaim that after all, the State of Israel had "driven the Palestinians from their homes". Seldom does anything strike me this way, but I actually stood in my living room with my mouth hanging open in shock for a few seconds. Naturally, Mr. King, the syncophant-in-chief at CNN, neither questioned nor corrected this erroneous statement.

Queen Noor was born in this country in 1951 when the "free" educational system was still reasonably effective, and while I do understand that she is the widow of an ARAB king, didn't little Lisa Halaby study HISTORY when she was in school in the United States? Her father was a diplomat and served in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. She DID graduate from Princeton, did she not? She should know that, contrary to her assertion last night, Israel did NOT drive the "Palestinians" from their homes. In fact, when the State of Israel was founded, the Jews (who know a thing or six about being driven from their homes) explicitly INCLUDED the indigenous Arab population in full citizenship.

Rather than being driven from their homes, those now known as the Palestinians (there really is no such nationality) left their homes in order to provide a clear path for their other Arab brothers to drive the Israelis "into the sea", at which point the intent was to return and reap the benefits of all the improvements the Israelis had done to the land which, under Arab stewardship, had been an arid wasteland.

Furthermore, refuting Muslim assertions that the land was theirs in the first place, considering that Islam was created some 900 years AFTER the birth of Christ, in my view both the Jews and the Christians have a far better claim to the land.

Thursday, August 03, 2006


If Ned Lamont had any character or class, he would withdraw from the race in protest of the tactics employed by the NetRoots/Kos Kids crazies (including the Jane Hamsher "blackface" incident) in their opposition to Senator Joseph Lieberman.

By remaining in the race, Ned Lamont is giving tacit approval to some of the most offensive, un-American and despicable campaign behavior I have observed in 64 years!
Shame on those who are perpetrating this disgrace and even MORE shame on you to Ned Lamont for not showing his disgust and withdrawing from the race. Is your ambition more important to you than your moral values? Apparently we are about to find out.

Rare snowfall across South Africa
Wed Aug 2, 2:00 PM ET

Snow fell on South Africa's biggest city Johannesburg for the first time in 25 years as icy temperatures gripped vast swathes of the country, the weather office said.
"It (the snow) is by no means freakish but I would certainly classify it as rare," said Kevin Rae, assistant manager of forecasting at the South African Weather Service in Pretoria.
Forecasters said snow was reported in the southern Johannesburg township of Soweto and the posh northern suburb of Sandton, as well as the nearby towns of Carletonville and Westonaria.

Global warming my Aunt Fanny!

Back in the day - when I was growing up - Democrats and Republicans did NOT hate each other. It just wasn’t an issue. And Senators did not march in lockstep with their parties, nor were they expected to.

Senator Frank Lausche of Ohio was a prime example of this (Okay nobody here has heard of him - but I’m OLD and I have!) because he did something that is apparently unheard of by MOST politicians these days - he voted the needs of his constituents (novel concept) and his own conscience! He used to get razzed about this and I remember that the Cleveland newspapers used to publish cartoons about “Frank’s Fence” but it was gentle ribbing, not the character assassination and ugliness being directed at Senator Lieberman.

I swear, if I had the funds, I would take a few months off, go to Connecticut and actively campaign for the Senator Lieberman just out of simple outrage at the treatment he is receiving at the hands of HIS OWN PARTY. It is an absolute disgrace. Does the nutbar left even begin to understand what a heinous thing it is doing? What an un-American behavior they are displaying? The cartoon of a United States Senator, photoshopped to show him in blackface is offensive on so many levels, I cannot even begin to list how many ways in which it is wrong.

So far as I can see, these are the following tenets of the wild-eyed, radical Democratic left:

· Racism is okay if the member of a minority being insulted is a Republican.
· It is okay for Arabs to target and kill innocent women and children.
· It is okay for Arabs to hide behind innocent women and children.
· It is NOT okay for Israel to defend itself when innocent civilians are being killed by Arabs.
· It is perfectly acceptable for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, while sober, to make anti-Semitic remarks to a campaign worker. Or racist remarks at a campaign appearance.
· It is NOT acceptable for actor Mel Gibson, while rip-roaring drunk, to make similar remarks to a California Highway Patrol officer.
· It is perfectly acceptable to denigrate the President of the United State or Republicans by likening them to Adolf Hitler.
· It is not at all acceptable to call John “Francois” Kerry a pathological liar – despite all the proof supporting that contention.
· It is perfectly acceptable and not worthy of criticism for the President of Iran to call for the complete DESTRUCTION of a sovereign state (Israel).

What is consistently amazing to me is that the leftists honestly do not see (or if they do see, they don’t care) how utterly dishonest and contemptible their point of view has become. They do not seem to recognize that offensive behavior has become an almost daily fact of life and that THEY are the primary malefactors, not the Right. They do not recognize the simple truth that were the jihadists to triumph, they would die right alongside the rest of us!

Wednesday, August 02, 2006


At the time of the 2000 election debacle, “venting” to O’Reilly via e-mail was the only legal outlet for my fury at what was happening. Bitch-slapping Al Gore and his entire team would not have been ladylike and having a screaming hissy-fit in front of the local election boards in West Palm Beach or Miami-Dade would probably not have accomplished anything positive (although I still think I would have enjoyed it). I think I actually HAD e-mail at home on dial-up, but certainly I had never heard of a blog.

I watched him nightly and was completely charmed by his puckish wit, his obvious intelligence and, naturally, his stated concurrence in my strongly held opinions.

Six years later, I seldom watch him and I have been analyzing how and why my attitudes toward him have changed so drastically.

1. Mr. “O” has become unbelievably pompous and his head has swelled to the point that I think it is going to explode.

2. O’Reilly’s rudeness to his guests, even those with whom one would think he basically agrees, is most annoying. Does he think we are interested in a monologue for 1 hour nightly? He isn’t THAT erudite!

3. He isn’t the only one of his kind out there any more and the others that are out there are more enjoyable and less arrogant.

4. I find his references to “the folks” to be both annoying and condescending. Tip to O’Reilly: Quite a large number of “the folks” are better educated and more intelligent than you are. And what you call “bloviating” is nothing more than correspondence from loyal viewers who are offering you their opinion – opinions which could easily be more germane and well-reasoned than your own.

5. Increasingly, he tips over into being just as “fair and balanced” as the rest of the mainstream media – in other words, not at all!

6. While I can understand in some ways his reluctant enjoyment of such liberal humbugs as Al Sharpton, he treats Sharpton with a great deal of undeserved tolerance, while reserving or eliminating the same respect and tolerance for a Michelle Malkin or a Laura Ingraham. His treatment of Ann Coulter has been downright nasty at times. Apparently Ms. Coulter poses a threat to his perceived preeminence as a “fair and balanced” pundit while Ms. Coulter’s intelligence clearly outstrips that of Mr. O’Reilly.

7. His preparation seems sloppy. I have tried very diligently to watch all the segments with Ann Coulter, and it has been obvious to me that he is interviewing Ms. Coulter based on the reading of – perhaps – one chapter or only part of a chapter in her latest book. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

So, Mr. O’Reilly, for this viewer at least, your fifteen minutes of fame has expired, primarily at your own hand.

You’re just another cynical television hack these days!

(N.Y.) Post Wire Services

August 2, 2006 -- Charles Rangel, the dean of New York's congressional delegation, said yesterday he'd resign his seat if Democrats don't take control of the House in November. The Harlem Democrat, who would be in line for the chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee if his party hold the majority, told The Washington Post he'd leave office after 35 years if the Dems don't win.

If ever there was a great reason to vote Republican, this is IT! How much do you want to bet that he won’t do it when it comes down to actually resigning?

This might be a rather simplistic question, but I’m going to ask it anyway. Why DO we give a rat’s eardrum what the U.N., the French, Kofi Annan or – for that matter – John “Francois” Kerry think about what is happening right now in the War on Terror?

Here are the facts as I see them. From my perspective, it is THIS COUNTRY that is primarily under attack (along with Britain and Israel). Therefore, logical thinking would dictate that it is OUR DECISION how we defend our country and our allies (and how they defend themselves).

The last time I looked, none of the European nations who have the brass cojones to criticize OUR country’s defense of its security and interests, has been able to defend themselves within recent memory. Actually, France would probably be speaking German today, were it not for us unsophisticated cowboy Americans.

When the European/U.N.-loving Bill Clinton (with his shrill, leftist harridan of a spouse) held office, numerous attacks on our country went unanswered, which is what led, on a most direct line, to the 2001 attacks on our nation. William Jefferson Clinton was far too busy stoking his pathological need to be loved by toadying up to those he perceived as his betters and getting blow jobs from portly interns young enough to be his daughter to care about national security. The only time he really DID care was when he was facing impeachment and then how did he react? He blew up something USEFUL – an aspirin factory in the Sudan!

Anyone with a functional brain cell knows that Hezbollah is bravely cowering behind civilian women and children in Lebanon and staging photographs of so-called victims (The same “aid worker and child” in 8 disparate locations – how STUPID do they think we are? Do they think all Americans are as gullible as Jimmy Carter? And why does ANYONE listen to the ramblings of the WORST foreign policy president of the 20th century?)

Israel is currently kicking butt and taking names and it is to OUR BENEFIT as well as their own. Iran is more likely to attack them first and Syria is not exactly afflicted with the warm fuzzies vis-à-vis Israel. I find it fascinating that the so-called intelligentsia condemn and abhor genocide everywhere in the world BUT apparently it is okay for the Islamic jihad to obliterate Israel and all its people, an intent the Islamists have expressed publicly and openly for more than 60 years! Accidentally killing Muslim babies is an horrific crime. DELIBERATELY killing Israeli babies is perfectly acceptable behavior. And if you believe either of those preceding two sentences, I strongly suggest you absent yourself from this country in perpetuity and go live on a rock or in a cave somewhere with Osama and his ilk!

What I do not understand is how is it possible that anyone who appears to be in a position of public responsibility can ignore the simple history and facts of this matter. I can only conclude that these cowardly liberals are too imbued with self-regard and abject fear of harm to their precious (?) hides to face reality. And that is pathetic. And dangerous to thee and me!