Terrorists: The New Comedians

Just in time for the election, Osama Bin Laden has decided to put out a new videotape. The difference between this one and previous tapes is that he now fully admits to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said.

He accused Bush of misleading the public after 9/11, just like the Democrats. Gee, I wonder who Osama wants elected?

"To the U.S. people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster," he said. "I tell you: security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security."

First of all, 9/11 was NOT a disaster. A disaster would be the combined forces of the many hurricanes that struck Florida, the earthquakes in Japan, tornadoes in the midwest.

Which brings me to another point about these terrorist video and audio threats. They make me laugh. When you have them say the "streets will run with blood" and there will be "countless dead", do these geniuses think they've scared us? First of all, they don't. Secondly, I live in California, home of many earthquakes, including another possibly MAJOR one in the near future. Hurricanes pound the east coast. Traffic accidents happen all the time. And these people, who are naive to think they know precisely what our daily lives are like, think a few "tough-guy" words can scare us? It's laughable.

"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have dignified souls, like those of the 19 blessed ones," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers. "We fought you because we are free… and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours."

You didn't attack Sweden because all your money is there, Osama. What stupidity. Let's see: Americans love freedom, so we have dignified souls, but the "19 blessed ones", who killed 3000 freedom-loving Americans, also have dignified souls? And OBL, just what is your nation? Afghanistan? Iraq? Iran? Is it Islam, the religion of "peace"?

High comedy.

The Man Who Should NOT Be President

One of the things I truly admire about President Bush is the fact that he stands by his principals, and has the courage of his convictions. He doesn't waver based on public opinion. If his decision is unpopular, so be it. It's his decision.

Let me give a ridiculous example. Millions of people loved the movie ARMAGEDDON. I didn't. Am I wrong for not liking it? No. It's my opinion that the movie sucked. Are those millions wrong? No. It's their opinion the movie was entertaining. Did I waver, and follow everyone else just because the number liking the film outweighed me? No.

And now we come to Kerry, who recently spoke to Tom Brokaw. Brokaw may have, at times, asked a few hardball questions... he just failed to do follow ups:

Brokaw: This week you've been very critical of the president because of the missing explosives in Iraq. The fact is, senator, we still don't know what happened to those explosives. How many for sure that were there. Who might have gotten away with them? Is it unfair to the president, just as you believe he's been unfair to you, to blame him for that?

Kerry: No. It's not unfair. Because what we do know, from the commanders on the ground, is that they went there, as they marched to Baghdad. We even read stories today that they broke locks off of the doors, took photographs of materials in there. There were materials. And they left.

Where the hell is he getting these "stories"? And they left? Left what? Who left? What the hell is he talking about?

Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...

Kerry: Not necessarily at all.

Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...

Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.

Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...

Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.

When you vote for the threat of force, you can't be surprised when force is actually used. And once again, Kerry can't take a stance ( he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone --- dammit, make up your mind!! ). And why des he still think every country on Earth is going to line up behind him? The entire world knew why we were going in. Daily fire from no-fly zones, a threat after 9/11, non-compliance with 17 UN resolutions.

A few months back he was asked if he thought the war in Iraq was a mistake. What was his answer? "It depends on what the outcome is." Genius. Now, this:

Brokaw: Let me ask you about social and domestic issues. Your colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy, says that he's proud to be a liberal. Are you proud to be a liberal?

Kerry: That depends on what the issue is, Tom.

No courage, no convictions.

Equal Opportunity Offender

I caught TEAM AMERICA the other day... very funny. The Lefty celebs are nicely skewered, but surprisingly, Sean Penn, who fired off a badly-written and ultimately stupid letter to Trey Parker and Matt Stone and him being offended by the movie, was barely in it long enough to even have any offense taken. So now, Penn tries to explain his letter:

He explains, "I just saw a guy who told people not to vote and I thought it was stupid."

If you're not informed, don't vote. Simple. Don't vote just because you can. Know what the hell you're doing first.

Simplicity. The enemy of the Left.

The Man Who Would Be Veep

Following like the lemming he is, John Edwards decided to weigh in on the whole "missing weapons" story, where some 377 tons of munitions has apparently gone missing. They were gone before our troops got there, so we couldn't secure them. And as far as looters go, 377 tons is not something they could just stick in their pockets. Add to this the fact that the actual number is more like three tons, and you've got something that should be taken for what it is: there WERE dangerous weapons in Iraq. Kerry and Edwards now seem surprised. And if they were stolen, where did they go? If the Dems are so ready to believe that, why can't they wrap their minds around the possibility that WMD could have been shipped to Syria before the war?

From MSNBC.Com:
Sen. John Edwards: We know that these explosives were there. We know that the Bush administration was notified they were there … they needed to be secured. We know that they weren't secured and we know that they're now missing. So, those are the facts and the facts are pretty powerful in this case.

Campbell Brown: But they could have disappeared before coalition forces got to that location.

Sen. Edwards: But the answer is … we knew about it. We knew we were supposed to do something about it. We didn't do it. But there's a chance they were gone before we got there? I mean, that's basically what they're saying. They had a responsibility to secure this material. It was important for securing Iraq. It was important for the safety of our troops. It was important to keep that material out of the hands of terrorists and what we know is they didn't do it. We know that.

So, since the answer is, "We knew about it", is Edwards now saying we didn't go into Iraq soon enough? Why is it so hard for this idiot to get it through his head that they may have been gone before we got there?

Brown: Over the weekend, you warned a crowd in Florida that President Bush is considering raising the retirement age on Social Security. The president never said that.

Sen. Edwards: What I said specifically was, according to an article in Fortune magazine that just came out, there are members of the Social Security Administration, part of the Bush Administration, who have actually been working on a plan that would include raising the retirement age to 76.

Brown: That article, though, did not name President Bush.

Sen. Edwards: But President Bush is also quoted in another story — I believe in the New York Times — as having said to a private gathering, that he wants to privatize Social Security. Now he says he doesn't want to privatize Social Security. When the President says something and there are news reports to verify that it's happened, it’s fair game. It's information the American people deserve to know and he can respond in whatever way he thinks is right — that's what campaigns are about.

Amazing. He ignores Brown's comment that the Forbes article did not mention Bush, and goes right into another article... this by the N.Y. Times, the same people who "broke" the missing munitions story. And Bush does want some privatize some Social Security.... for kids now, so they'll have something later.

Brown: Let me ask you about another statement you made, that some people say was a little bit over the top, in relation to the issue of stem-cell research. You said, “If we do the work we can do in this country, the work we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair, and walk again.” How can you say that?

Sen. Edwards: Well, what I was saying is, Chris Reeve represents hope for a lot of Americans.
If you listen to his own doctor, he said in the beginning he didn't talk about a cure for Chris Reeve's problem, but now he does. The point of all this is, there's a dramatic difference between my position and John Kerry's position, and George Bush's position on stem-cell research.

So, because Christopher ( not Chris, jackass ) Reeve's doctor now mentions a possible cure, that's all the reason in the world? Give me a break. He still won't own up to his "I am God" statement that not only will wheelchair-bound people walk again, but apparently they're also going to ressurect Reeve from the grave.

Delusions of grandeur.

Stern Warning

What exactly, please, is the appeal of Howard Stern? He's always been just not funny. The times I had seen him, when his radio program is shown on E!, he had a few morons tell women, who were, by all accounts, very attractive, that their hips were too big, they could use some implants, they could lose a few pounds. And the point of this is...? I have no sympathy for the women, since they're stupid enough to take what these idiots say to heart.

Now Stern tries to be the anti-establishment hero:

WASHINGTON - Foul-mouthed radio personality Howard Stern has another Powell to reckon with: Secretary of State Colin Powell. The nation's top diplomat came to the defense of his son, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell, after Stern said the younger Powell only got the job because of his family name.

Colin Powell labeled the accusation "just so much nonsense." "My son is an enormously qualified individual, and I think he has served — if I may so as a father and as a not so distant observer — with great distinction," Powell said Wednesday in an interview with CNBC.

Stern's raunchy radio show has brought repeated fines by the FCC (news - web sites) and the shock jock routinely rails against what he says is the Bush administration's desire to use the FCC to stifle free speech on radio and TV.

Stern made a surprise call to KGO-AM radio in San Francisco while Michael Powell was a studio guest Tuesday.

"How did you get your job?" Stern asked. "It is apparent to most of us in broadcasting that your father got you your job, and you kind of sit there and you're the judge, you're the arbiter, you're the one who tells us what we can and can't say on the air."

Stern added, "I really don't even think you're qualified to be the head of the commission."

And what evidence does Stern have that the Bush Administration is stifling free speech? None. He throws a few choice words about male and female anatomy, words that can't really be repeated, or phrases that describe certain sexual acts, then acts suprised and indignant when he gets fined.

It'll be interesting to see if people really want to shell out $12 a month to here more of the same when Stern goes to Sirius satellite radio in 2006.

I Still Have A Plan

Common sense rules my life. And I also follow the conservative/Republican viewpoint a vast majority of the time. Do I follow blindly? No. No one should. You need to think for yourself. That goes for the liberal/Democrat side as well.

But this was just priceless. A 16-year-old girl, Larina Corbell, who attends Valley Christian High School in Cerritos, is one of the very few endorsing Kerry at her school. Steve Lopez, in the L.A. Times California scetion, writes a little article on her and her poilitical views and aspirations, since she's been having dreams of living in the White House since she was 6 or 7.

On the principal that it's never too early to start grilling politicians, I asked Larina to explain why she prefers Kerry to Bush. She and her family describe themselves as devout Christians, and, as her mom puts it, "God is first in our lives."

Okay, so why do you prefer Kerry?

"One of the things that scares me about Bush," Larina says, "is the idea that he is, quote-unquote, ordained by God to do good things…. He's a human; we're all imperfect."

Okay, so why do you prefer Kerry?

She has problems with the war in Iraq and Bush foreign policy in general, and although she respects the president's religious beliefs and his right to express them, faith-based politics make her nervous.

Once again: why your preference for Kerry?

Not only will Kerry be stronger on foreign relations, she argued, but she likes his take on abortion rights. "I personally don't agree with abortion," Larina said. "I think life begins at conception … and I know I would never have or consider an abortion." But she doesn't think a president should "dictate to the country whether it's right or wrong" based on his religious beliefs.

How will Kerry be stronger? And what is his take? This is the same guy who voted against the ban on partial-birth abortions. And there's a difference between dictating and stating your beliefs.

Larina answered without saying anything.

That's politics.

I Didn't Want To Do It...

I've been trying not to say anything about idiot celebs mouthing off their opinion on President Bush and Iraq, but now comes the philosopher of our time, Mr. Marshall Mathers III, aka Eminem.

His new "song" called "Mosh" contains these lyrics:

Let the President answer on higher anarchy/Strap him with an AK-47, let him go fight his own war/Let him impress daddy that way," Eminem raps, adding, "No more blood for oil."

He also says, in an upcoming Rolling Stone:

"[President Bush]'s got our troops over there dying for no reason," says Eminem. "He jumped the gun, and he f---ed up so bad he doesn't know what to do right now." The rapper says he has registered to vote for the first time but didn't go as far as endorsing a candidate. "Whatever my decision is, I would like to see Bush out of office," Eminem says. "I don't wanna see my little brother get drafted--he just turned eighteen. People think their votes don't count, but people need to get out and vote."

I've always thought Eminem was clever. Not talented, just clever. Here, he's spoon-feeding the leftist lines: No blood for oil, Bush out of office, the draft, etc. It would be more interesting if he had something new to say, but this statement actually says a lot about the rapper.

None of his material is fresh anymore.

Losing Hearts And Minds

Not long ago I watched PLATOON again. I remember really liking the film when it first came out, and although I bought the special edition DVD a few years back, I hadn't sat down to watch it. I watched it a few months ago, then traded it in. It just wasn't as good.

What may have influenced my decision was hearing Oliver Stone rant about how Bush was a bad president and how Kerry would be better. That, along with finding a website dedicated to debunking JFK consipracy theories, have tarnished my view of Oliver (and the movie JFK), in a basic sense. He's still a wonderful filmmaker, with WALL STREET and TALK RADIO among his best. And of course, I'm looking forward to ALEXANDAR. C'mon, Colin, Angelina, Val, and Hannibal Lector? Why not?

But it's getting harder, on a daily basis, to want to see films with celebrities who give us their Bush-bashing opinions, seemingly out of thin air. I know people didn't ask to hear Linda Rondstat spout off about Bush and Michael Moore at her concert, so they became angry. I don't mind political views, but when they repeat the same vitriol that the left has been spewing, the same falsehoods and baseless accusations, it becomes less tolerable.

Now Stone has spoken out again (from a PLAYBOY interview):

On the rumors that Warner Bros. is delaying Stone's "Alexander" because of homosexual love scenes:

"Alexander lived in a more honest time," Stone tells Playboy. "We go into his bisexuality. It may offend some people, but sexuality in those days was a different thing. Pre-Christian morality. Young boys were with boys when they wanted to be."

"Pre-Christian morality?" How about common f*ckin' decency?

On who will win the presidential election:

"I worry that the Republicans will do anything to win. For a long time I've worried that Bush will start another war before the election to get people fearful. Voters are nervous about changing leadership in the middle of a war. He bills himself as Mr. Security, which of course he's not. He's Mr. Insecurity. Every decision he has made has led to a worse military conclusion and a less secure nation. He has generated enormous hatred and hatred begets violence."

Is FEAR the reason I am voting for Bush? No. Bush has moral clarity. He's done good, and will continue to do good. "He's Mr. Insecurity." Clever, Oliver. I guess that's why you're a writer. But Oliver's last line is telling: Since Bush has generated hatred, that hatred will lead to violence. Does Stone not realize that the violence will come FROM HIS OWN LEFTIE FRIENDS?!?!?!

On Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" influencing the election:

"It's hard to know, but I think a movie can make a huge difference. 'JFK' helped Clinton win. It came out right before the election. 'Salvador' and 'Platoon' may have had an impact on Reagan's downturn in popularity."

JFK helped Clinton win? A movie about paranoid conspiracy theories? So what does that say about Clinton? And by the way, JFK came out in December of 1991, almost a year before the elections. By then, it had been nominated for 8 Oscars and won 2, rightfully for cinematography and editing. But I highly doubt it helped, or even made ANY impact whatsoever, on Clinton's election. And what kind of arrogance does it show when you believe your films had impact on a President's popularity? Stone and Michael Moore should do a film together. That way I can guarantee I won't see it.

On Bush's style:

"In the 1950's, he would have been considered distasteful. He's worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That's not what the president is supposed to be. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it."

Oh, I'm so sorry, Mr. Stone. I'm afraid my interests lie in 3 distinct flavors: Xbox games, movies, and things PC-related. But I'm not sorry I have no interest in quantum physics, Shakespeare, Bob Dylan, architecture, or, God forbid, sports. Those things don't interest me. When those things interact with my family and friends, THEN I'll be interested. But I guess I'm just an idiot for not having intellectual curiosity. I am absolutely Goddammed proud of that fact. And how exactly is Bush distasteful and vulgar.

On Kerry's run for the White House:

"There's a fundamental decency about him. I think he'd make a good president. He's a public servant in the Brahmin sense of the word. The guy knows his A's, B's and C's."

Kerry may be decent, but his wife is the most indecent and dispicable woman on the planet. And his "public servant in the Brahmin sense of the word" is a contradiction unto itself. Let me explain: In India, a Brahmin is "a member of the highest or priestly caste among the Hindus," according to the Oxford English Dictionary. So how could the elitist Kerry EVER hope to be a public servant? He has a personal chef for his peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, for Christ's sake! By the way, here are Kerry's ABC's: Another plan, a Better plan, a Comprehensive plan.

On those tributes to Ronald Reagan after his death:

"It was theater. It was television. Parades with people in baseball caps and shorts and ugly T-shirts. A hollowness. It's what Reagan was all about. He was a scary man. I used to have nightmares about him, literally. Smile, head of hair. He was a stage prop, an actor. That's what Americans want. They want the shell. Look at Arnold."

Wow. The sheer hatred for Reagan. If the American people really want a stage prop, they'll elect Kerry.

Screw it. I'm trading in J.F.K.

No Moore, No Less

Michael Moore has decided to give a $5000 scholarship to students at San Marcos university, where he was scheduled to speak, if they "stand up to the administration" at the school.

What arrogance. They weren't going to pay his $37,500 speaking fee, so he got mad. Then the genius students decided to raise the money for him to speak. What are these kids doing spending over $35 grand to hear some moron say Bush has to go? And hey, Mike, what about the rest of the $32,500 that you have left? Why don't you try investing in your hometown of Flint, Michigan?

I doubt he has the courage.

Robert Davi For Vice President!

Robert Davi, who played the villain Franz Sanchez in the bond film Licence To Kill, speaks out about being a conservative actor in Hollywood, and how he feels about the current election:

As for Kerry, nobody’s questioning his love for America. But he was the one who put Vietnam in the public eye. I have enormous respect for anyone who served in Vietnam. My hat’s off to all the veterans. I can’t talk because my draft number was 308 and I was sweating over the draft the same as everyone else back then. But the way I see it, if I’m in battle with someone and come home with the troops still there and I behave as he did, it’s not right. From what I understand, those weren’t his medals that he threw away. They were surrogate medals. He kept his medals and threw away his ribbons. What’s the difference? It goes right to the character of the man trying to have it both ways. If you’re really saying something, then throw the whole thing away. What he did coming back, put a big question in my mind about Kerry.

You can’t equate what Bush did or didn’t do 30 years ago with what’s happening now. Bush didn’t put Kerry’s service on the table. Bush didn’t go around bragging about his National Guard service. It’s irrelevant. Instead of 30 years ago, we need to discuss today. I’d like Kerry to say where he is today. I’d like him to discuss his Senate record. I don’t want him to answer me by attacking Bush.

That last line is priceless.

The full article is here.

Up Is Down, Black Is White

The Rock The Vote campaign, the mostly liberal organization trying to get kids to vote "Kerry", sent out over half a million e-mails that stated:

YOU HAVE BEEN DRAFTED. You are hereby ordered for induction into the Armed Forces of the United States, and to report to a polling place near you on November 2, 2004 at 7:00 a.m.

Due to rumors about reinstating the draft, many people, ages 18-29, actually BELIEVE this letter. A National Annenberg Election Survey showed that 51% of people in that age group believe Bush wants to bring back a conscripted armed forces. Even though President Bush said at the debate last Friday, "We're not going to have a draft so long as I'm the President."

Typical is Nick Young, a 19-year-old USC student. Nick told the L.A. Times he received the e-mail but still remains unclear on the issue. "That's why I haven't regeisterd to vote," he said, "because they (Bush & Kerry) say the same thing, but it's not believable to me."

Why? Too much Fahrenheit 9/11 in your diet? Despite the fact that he seems to be a one-issue voter, why would he still think there might be a draft when not only did Bush AND Kerry say no, but the House Of Representatives voted 402-2 against reinstating the draft?

His mindset is the same as the other lefties that say there's a secret plan to bring back the draft. Oooh, such intrigue. Apparently they've used their decoder rings on Bush's statement and came to the conclusion that Bush is (shock!) lying. Just like Raquel Chavez, another 19-year-old USC student:

But she thinks Bush could reinstate the draft, despite his comments to the contrary. "Sure," she said, "people lie."

It scares me to think how college students are taught these days. Not only do they believe what is spoon-fed to them from Rock The Vote and their teachers, but they don't seem to have the capacity to do any actual research on their own. Hey kids, try doing a little research from the place you received your e-mail!

And Jay Strell, spokesman for Rock The Vote, said that an e-mail about a hypothetical draft is "not gossip."

Can't argue with that logic.

Rudy In '08

Rudy Giuliani is someone who I respect and admire. Watching him on September 11, 2001, reminded me of a parent calming a child during a thunderstorm. Calm, reasurring, letting us know that no matter how bad it got, things will get better.

Giuliani had one of the best speeches at the Republican Convention, and here again, he speaks with perfect clarity. John Kerry's ridiculous statements to the New York Times about terrorism being a "nuisance" are addressed:

The National Review

It's required reading.

He Will Always Be A Super Man

My heartfelt condolences go out to Christoper Reeve's family over the loss of their Superman.

The tagline for the movie was "You will belive a man can fly." It wasn't the character. It wasn't the wires. It was the man under the cape, the wonderful Christopher Reeve. He was able, with the greatest of ease, to move from the nebbish Clark Kent, to the heroic Superman, sometimes faster than a speeding bullet. He will be greatly missed.

A moment from Superman sums up Mr. Reeve better than my words can:

Lois: Any more at home like you?

Clark: Uh, not really, no...

People Are Just Stupid

Like Matt Stone said the other day, if you let a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 or Stone and Trey Parker's own Team America influence how you vote, you shouldn't vote in the first place. Now, more whiners who feel they've been embarrased and ridiculed for the past 11 years, from a movie that came out in 1993.

From the Associated Press:
SANTA FE, N.M. - Three former high school classmates of “Dazed and Confused” director Richard Linklater have filed a lawsuit claiming they have suffered embarrassment and ridicule because of characters based on them in the movie.

The men — Bobby Wooderson, Andy Slater and Richard “Pink” Floyd — say Linklater did not get their permission before creating three characters in the 1993 cult classic sharing their surnames and likenesses.

“We had fun in high school, but there is nothing true about that movie. Yet, I am having to deal with it all the time,” said Floyd, who works at a car dealership in Huntsville, Texas, where the men went to high school.

Please. Mr. "Pink" Floyd works as a car dealer. And he feels he's been emarrased and ridiculed? And where have these guys been for 11 years? Are the going to say they didn't mind it at first, but it got out of hand?

Dudes, just put the joints down and walk away.

We Agree To Disagree

John Edwards, talking with Chris Wallace today, tried to explain what the hell he and Kerry have been talking about.

WALLACE: Let's look at the map of the Kerry-Edwards budget plan. The highly respected and independent Concord Coalition came out with an analysis this week. Let's take a look at it. Your repeal of tax cuts for the rich and reform of the estate tax would bring in an extra $286 billion over 10 years. But your health- care plan would cost $476 billion. More education funding would cost $155 billion. Adding 40,000 troops would mean another $60 billion. The total increase, according to the independent Concord Coalition, in deficit: $1.27 trillion over 10 years. Senator, the numbers don't add up.

EDWARDS: Well, I would respectfully disagree with that. And I have to say first, we have enormous respect for the Concord Coalition. They do a lot of important and good work about fiscal responsibility. But there are some things left out, first of all, and the way they calculate some of those things we would certainly disagree with. But, in terms of the things that are left out, I mean, we would also close down some corporate welfare and some corporate loopholes, and John McCain has said that would save $300 billion. On top of that, we would also reduce some bureaucratic spending in Washington and some overlap between some bureaucratic agencies in Washington, which would also save many billions of dollars.

Respectfully disagree? Here is the opening statement from the Concord Coalition, founded in 1992, from its own website:

The Concord Coalition is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization advocating fiscal responsibility while ensuring Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are secure for all generations.

The Coalition determined the numbers don't add up. Edwards, having no way out, finds one by saying "there are some things left out." In other words, stuff Kerry and Edwards forgot to mention.

I do belive Kerry and Edwards have a plan. It's just that when they try to describe it, it nullifies their previous statements.

It's called bullsh*t.

Down Under But Not Over

The Austrailian Prime Minister, conservative and U.S. ally John Howard, was re-elected to a fouth term. Although I searched, I did not see one mention on MSNBC's web site. Oh, Fox News had it. Drudge (through My Way news) had it. But MSNBC didn't. Hmmm. Neither did their local affiliate, NBC4.TV. This is as of 10:30pm. Will it change in the morning? Maybe. But it just shows that the liberal media can't dump on Bush.

Just think if Howard had lost. Front page headlines everywhere.

Score one more for our team.

Don't Take Route 66

Here are the facts:

A two-time felon convicted of beating, stabbing and ultimately beheading a dog he had named for his girlfriend was sentenced Friday to 25 years in life in prison under the state's "Three Strikes" law. Had he not had two previous criminal strikes, James Andrew Abernathy, 43, of La Habra would have faced no more than six years in prison for the Jan. 27, 2002, attack on the German shepherd mix Marie. However, should a state proposition be passed reducing terms for three-strike defendants, Abernathy could be out of prison far sooner than that, according to his attorney and the prosecutor.

Abernathy, a large man who claimed to have been insane at the time of the crime, was convicted in June of beating his dog with a golf club, trying to pierce her heart with a wooden stake and ultimately using garden shears to take off the head. It was found wrapped in a towel in a closet.

Now, to begin with, it's quite obvious this moron, if released, would kill at the drop of a hat. And his sister knows his history. Says Deputy DA Heather Brown:

"His sister wrote a letter begging us, basically, to lock him up, and talked about how she knows his history, believes he's violent, talked about what he used to do when he was younger, skinning animals, leaving them in the refrigerator for his mother to find, how he forced her to play Russian roulette after drinking a bottle of Jack Daniel's, (how she) found pet boa constrictors' heads chopped off in the toilet. I mean, he's a sick man and he needs to be locked up."

But the case for his release, according to his attorney, is this:

Defense attorney William Morrissey said his client, when properly medicated, is not a threat.
"In the two years I've known him, he's been on anti-psychotic medication and he's probably one of the calmest, more rational, pleasant people I've ever dealt with in the system," Morrissey said. "There's no doubt that he has a mental history going back to when he found his mentally ill mother dead, and he began experiencing severe psychiatric problems after that. "He went into the military at age 16. He was released from the military as a paranoid-schizophrenic. He has gone untreated for years and years and years. I have no doubt that he is a very sick person, but he has done well on anti-psychotic medication."

Wow. "Calm", "rational", "pleasant." Stabbing a dog named after his girlfriend, then beheading it. The B.S. continues:

Morrissey had tried to get Abernathy's sentence postponed until after the election, in light of Proposition 66, which if passed, would require that the third strike be a serious or violent felony. He said animal cruelty does not qualify for that designation. "Hopefully, in a month, this won't be a three-strikes case," Morrissey said. "I think if he can stay on his medication, that he can achieve something in his life."

"Animal cruelty" does not qualify? Give me a break. And the only thing this guy is going to achieve in life is killing a human being.

Vote NO on Prop. 66.

No more reason needed.

You Can't Handle The Truth.... No, Really, You Can't

John Edwards, in keeping with his absenteeism in the Senate, made a stop on Live With Regis & Kelly this morning. Kelly Ripa told him Tom Cruise should play him in a movie. And Edwards reponded that someone thought the same way, albeit in a liberal-tinged movie from 1992:

Edwards responded that someone recently said they had a mental image of him in the movie, "A Few Good Men," starring Tom Cruise and Jack Nicholson, "me as Tom Cruise and Dick Cheney as the Nicholson character." "Can you see it now, Cheney: 'You need me on that wall, you want me on that wall' … and me saying, 'You can't handle the truth!'"

Apparently Edwards forgot it was Jack Nicholson that said "You can't handle the truth." And of course, with Nicholson playing a right-wing military guy, he's automatically evil.

Humble does not seem to be a trait Edwards is familiar with.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Reason!

Okay. One more time, for the cheap seats.

Clinton said, in 1998, "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

The intelligence on Iraq's WMD program was supported by CIA, MI6, and Russian intelligence. The bottom line is, after 12 years, 17 resolutions, and 9/11, it was no longer wise to wait until Saddam became a threat.

So now we hear, at a particular time (only 20-some days till the election), that Iraq had no WMD. Since 1991. If that's true, why didn't anyone speak up when Clinton bombed? If he had none, why didn't Saddam say that, and why did it take 17 resolutions to solve this? What did he have to hide?

It has always seemed to me that Democrats continued to harp that Saddam was a threat, that he needed to be deposed and taken care of, but no one took any action. Clinton bombing a supposed aspirin factory and a camel? Fine, but do a follow-up. He didn't. But since Bush had all of his top advisors saying the same thing, and he took real action, it is now convenient for the Dems to say this was was all about lies, oil, Halliburton, etc., now that things are not going well.

Actually, there's tons of good. We just don't see it. Schools back up, internet access, women free to vote, the list goes on. Edwards tipped his hand the other night during the debate, when he said the American public only needs to turn on their TV to see how badly Iraq is going. Since the media is mostly liberal, it fits into Edwards "vision." Good news does badly in ratings. Show more deaths, more bad news. Good news is depressing.

Ann Coulter said something to the effect of, even if you believe all the liberal and Democratic lines: no WMD, no threat, no Al-Qaida ties, we still liberated 25 million people. Stopped a mini-Stalin. Gave people a freedom they have not known for decades. But none of that matters. It only matters that over 1000 troops are dead, never mind that 750 of those are combat-related, and the rest are accidents or sickness. It only matters that the war is costing $200 billion. Never mind that is almost half of that, and the rest is for rebuiling and for Afghanistan.. Kerry wanted that money for health care and schools. Never mind that he had also wanted more resources to get Bin Laden.

The Dems are following the Michael Moore logic, which is "truthful, but not factual." And example: I'm Native American, and I know people in the entertainment industry. That's the truth. The Facts: I am about a quarter Quechan Indian, and there are a few customers where I work that are actors.

To paraphrase Ron Silver, with that logic, I could make Michael Moore look like an anorexic right-winger.

Words Of Wisdom From South Park

Matt Stone, half of the duo (with Trey Parker) who created South Park and the new marionette-acted Team America: World Police, had this to say about their film, along with Fahrenheit 9/11:

"If anyone walks out of this movie, or a Michael Moore movie, thinking about voting a certain way, then they're f**king stupid and shouldn't be voting. If this movie makes you think that much, then you're too weak-kneed to vote."

Amen, brother.

Flashback: Bill Clinton On The Late Show, 9-11-2002

These are excerpts from the transcript of when former President Bill Clinton chatted with David Letterman, on the one-year anniversary of the September 11th attacks.

BC: Then they called me back as the second plane was hitting and I just blurted out Bin Laden did this. I just knew.

DL: Now when you say that you knew that it was Bin Laden, you knew this as more than a hunch? You had intelligence to suggest this?

BC: No, I didn't have any intelligence to suggest this. Of course, I had been out of office for nine months so I hadn't really seen any intelligence or eight months I guess. But I knew that it would require a sophisticated operation and I didn't think anybody but Bin Laden and perhaps the Iranians could do it and I didn't think the Iranians would do it because they have a country and targets and he lived in caves in Afghanistan.

DL: And when you were president, what did this man represent to you in your administration then? What did you know about him? And you actually planned - there were two attempts maybe or strategies to go looking for the guy?

BC: Oh yes. Well, we thought he was responsible for the African embassy bombings. And we had only once really good intelligence about where he was at a meeting of his lieutenants at one of his training camps and we took the camp out but unfortunately he had left a couple of hours apparently before the missiles arrived. I thought he was a very serious threat always and we tried very hard to get him.... We spent time working on this everyday. I must have talked, the last three years I was president several times a week we talked about Bin Laden in our security meetings.

DL: Are we going into Iraq? Do you want to go into Iraq? Should we go into Iraq? I'd like to go in. I'd like to get the guy, I don't like the way the guy looks.

BC: Short answer is he is a threat. He is a murderer and a thug. When he's felt his existence threatened twice he used chemical weapons. He has chemical and biological stocks and he kicked the inspectors out and America and Britain were almost alone in fighting it when I was in.... But if he's got these stocks of chemical and biological weapons and if he knows he's toast, don't you think he'll use what he can and give away what he can't to people who'll be using them on us for years to come so he can have the last laugh.

Amazing. Talking almost daily about getting Bin Laden? So explain how he attacked us if he was under such scrutiny.

So Clinton says Saddam is a threat, and has WMD. Plus he mentions the possibility of Saddam giving away weapons to other countries. The Bush administration has said the exact same thing, so why is Bush a liar and Clinton isn't? We know for a fact Clinton lied. Show me proof Bush made this WMD stuff up, and we'll talk. Then you'll have to show me proof Britain, Russia, Australia, Kerry, Dean, Clark, Michael Moore, Edwards, Hillary, Kennedy, and every other leftist moron lied.

I won't hold my breath.

When YOU Become President, Then We'll Talk

Every day. Every damn day we hear some ridiculous crap about how bad this administration is and how John Kerry, the man who has no solid position on anything except for the fact he was in Vietnam, would be a better president. No indication on how, just... "better".

So this is what it's coming to:

Parents expressing outrage after a teacher is kicked out of her public school for hanging a picture of President Bush next to pictures of other presidents in her classroom.

Shiba Pillai-Diaz, Teacher: "It happened on a small bulletin board near the American flag and also with a poster of the Declaration of Independence."

This is Crossroads South Middle School in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey. On Thursday, there was a back-to-school night for parents of students. Veteran English teacher Shiba Pillai-Diaz says she was shocked when three parents confronted her. The three, insisting the teacher either add John Kerry's photo to the montage of presidents or remove the Bush photo. When Pillai-Diaz refused, she says the school's vice-principal threatened her job which is an act that has parents here fuming.

Pillai-Diaz ultimately removed the entire bulletin board and says School Principal Jim Warfel told her she disrupted the school with her "inflammatory politics".

Putting a photo of John Kerry next to other presidents? First of all, he's not president, and will probably not be, if people realize that he's full of it. Secondly, Bush IS the president. And third, how can a picture of the current president next to former presidents be "inflammatory politics?" How about explaining to the kids what Clinton's definition of "is" is?

Shut Up And Sing!

Bruce babbles, and the Dixie Chunks whine:

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 1 - Bruce Springsteen began stumping the swing states here tonight to support Senator John Kerry. "We're here tonight to fight for a government that is open, rational, forward-looking and humane, and we plan to rock the joint while doing so," he said at the beginning of the concert he was headlining at the Wachovia Center.

"These are people who are the best experts at connecting with the American public, people who have had an emotional connection with millions of people for years,'' said Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn PAC. "Politics is a part of that, and I think it just extends what they do, their art.''

"It does take some courage in this climate to stand up and do what they're doing,'' he continued. "A lot of them have been galvanized by the kind of extremist repressive response that they've seen. They're not going to be silenced.''

Ms. Maines said by telephone this week, "We definitely want a regime change, and now that we're getting down to the wire I'm even less afraid to speak out... Free speech is not free: we paid dearly. But we're more determined and stronger now. And from this point on, what fans we have will be our true fans.''

So, according to Bruce, we have a government that is closed, irrational, backward-thinking, and inhumane. Now, if he could explain that, without resorting to the the same crap we hear from Democrats, maybe I'll listen. Or, perhaps not.

And apparently an expert in audience connections, Eli Pariser thinks these "artists", including John Mellencamp, James Taylor, and Bonnie Raitt, are the ones who connect with their audiences best. But it's interesting that only now has politics entered their concerts.

In regards to the "extremist repressive response", what the hell is he talking about? All we hear from these clowns is how they're being "silenced" and how they can't speak their mind. Their problem is that they won't shut the freak up.

Natalie Maines said "We paid dearly." Yeah. Sales went down when she opened her big white-trash country mouth. Sure, she's being repressed. How can you even bother to listen to these idiots and take them seriously?

People didn't like what they said or did, and shut them out. Why do "celebrities" complain about people not seeing their movies or TV shows, not buying their music, or not going to their concerts when they say something the people don't like, and call it a violation of their "free speech?"

They do connect with the people. The lemmings, the uninformed masses, and the people who read the NY Times.

It's Not A Remake, It's A Re-Imagining

Hugh Hewitt's blog brought up a point about something John Fitzgerald Kerr-edy said during the debate last night. Kerry said:

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

I knew this sounded familiar, yet suspicious, and then remembered Adlai Stevenson showing photos of missiles in Cuba to the United Nations in the movie Thirteen Days ( and here props must be given to Steven Culp, who is not only great as Bobby Kennedy, but is also a customer where I work ).

Kerry, for that moment, became like Michael Moore... truthful, but not factual. As Hewitt states:

First, Kennedy sent Dean Acheson, not Dean Rusk to see DeGaulle. Acheson was a former Secretary of State, Rusk the then sitting Secretary of State.

Second, that's not what DeGualle said to Acheson. One source, almost certainly Acheson, reported DeGualle's comment to have been "A great government such as yours does not act without evidence." And DeGualle, no matter what he said, sat through the briefing in which the evidence was displayed for him.

Finally, and most important, the Cuban Missile Crisis, from start to finish, was all about preemptive action, and had nothing to do with passing "global tests." Kennedy never sought the approval of any ally much less the United nations. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Steveson, made a presentation to the U.N. on October 25, 1962, three days after the blockade had been imposed.

Isn't truth a beautiful thing?

A Top Ten List That Matters

The GOP has put up the top ten Kerry flip-flops. Enjoy.