Saturday, March 31, 2007

Honey, what took you so long?

When women have to visit a public bathroom there is often a whole line of women, so you just smile politely and take your place. Once it's your turn, you check for feet under the stall doors. Every stall is occupied, of course.

Finally, a door will open and you dash in, nearly knocking down the woman leaving the stall, and you get in only to find that the door won't latch.

It doesn't matter, the wait has been so long you are about to wet your pants!

The dispenser for the modern "seat covers" (invented by someone's Mom, no doubt) is handy, but empty. You would hang your purse on the door hook, if there was one, but there isn't - so you carefully, but quickly drape it around your neck (Mom would turn over in her grave if you put it on the FLOOR!), yank down your pants, and assume "The Stance."

In this position your aging, toneless thigh muscles begin to shake. You'd love to sit down, but you certainly hadn't taken time to wipe the seat or lay toilet paper on it, so you hold "The Stance." To take your mind off your trembling thighs, you reach for what you discover to be the empty toilet paper dispenser.

In your mind, you can hear your mother's voice saying, "Honey, if you had tried to clean the seat, you would have KNOWN there was no toilet paper!"

Your thighs shake more. You remember the tiny tissue that you blew your nose on yesterday - the one that's still in your purse. (Oh yeah, the purse around your neck, that you now have to hold up trying not to strangle yourself at the same time). It'll have to do. You crumple it in the puffiest way possible. It's still smaller than your thumbnail.

Then someone pushes your door open because the latch doesn't work. The door hits your purse, which is hanging around your neck in front of your chest, and you and your purse topple backward against the tank of the toilet.

"Occupied!" you scream, as you reach for the door, dropping your precious, tiny, crumpled tissue in a puddle on the floor, lose your footing altogether, and slide down directly onto the TOILET SEAT.

It is wet of course.

You bolt up, knowing all too well that it's too late. Your bare bottom has made contact with every imaginable germ and life form on the uncovered seat because YOU never laid down toilet paper - not that there was any, even if you had taken time to try. You know that your mother would be utterly appalled if she knew, because, you're certain her bare bottom never touched a public toilet seat because, frankly, dear, "You just don't KNOW what kind of diseases you could get."

By this time, the automatic sensor on the back of the toilet is so confused that it flushes, propelling a stream of water like a fire hose against the inside of the bowl that sprays a fine mist of water that covers your butt and runs down your legs and into your shoes. The flush somehow sucks everything down with such force that you grab onto the empty toilet paper dispenser for fear of being dragged in too.

At this point, you give up. You're soaked by the spewing water and the wet toilet seat. You're exhausted. You try to wipe with a gum wrapper you found in your pocket and then slink out inconspicuously to the sinks.

You can't figure out how to operate the faucets with the automatic sensors, so you wipe your hands with spit and a dry paper towel and walk past the line of women still waiting. You are no longer able to smile politely to them.

A kind soul at the very end of the line points out a piece of toilet paper trailing from your shoe. (Where was that when you NEEDED it?) You yank the paper from your shoe, plunk it in the woman's hand and tell her warmly, "Here, you just might need this."

As you exit, you spot your hubby, who has long since entered, used, and left the men's restroom. Annoyed, he asks, "What took you so long, and why is your purse hanging around your neck?"

This is dedicated to women everywhere who deal with public restrooms (rest??? you've GOT to be kidding!!).

It finally explains to the men what really does take us so long. It also answers their other commonly asked questions about why women go to the restroom in pairs It's so the other gal can hold the door, hang onto your purse and hand you Kleenex under the door!

Iranians crossed Iraqi border and tried to kidnap Americans

The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more. "For that level of detail, you're going to have to ask the [U.S.] military in Baghdad," says Army Lieut. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "We don't know anything about it."

A short Army press release issued on the day of the skirmish offered the following information: U.S. soldiers from the 5th Squadron 73rd Cavalry 82nd Airborne were accompanying Iraqi forces on a routine joint patrol along the border with Iran, about 75 miles east of Baghdad, when they spotted two Iranian soldiers retreating from Iraqi territory back into Iran. A moment later, U.S. and Iraqi forces came upon a third Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border, who stood his ground. As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army's statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on. Fearing abduction by the Iranians, U.S. troops moved to go anyway, and fighting broke out. Army officials say the Iranian troops fired first with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, and that U.S. troops fell further back into Iraqi territory, while four Iraqi army soldiers, one interpreter and one Iraqi border guard remained in the hands of the Iranians.

The official release says there were no casualties among the Americans, and makes no mention of any on the Iranian side. U.S. soldiers present at the firefight, however, tell TIME that American forces killed at least one Iranian soldier who had been aiming a rocket-propelled grenade at their convoy of Humvees.

The revelation comes amid rising tensions over the past week since Iran captured 15 British Navy personnel in waters between Iran and Iraq. Analysts have suggested that some Iranian officials have argued against speedily returning the Brits, preferring to use them as a bargaining chip in Tehran's efforts to free five of its own officials captured by the U.S. in Erbil earlier this year. News that an Iranian soldier had been killed in a clash with American forces would do little to ease those tensions.

In the months after the incident, U.S. forces have kept up joint patrols on the Iran-Iraq border, where their movements are closely monitored by Iranian outposts. Increasingly, however, U.S. troops stationed in Diyala Province are moving to help counter-insurgency efforts in the Baqubah area, leaving a thinner American presence at the border. On some days, says Lt. Col. Ronald Ward, the U.S. commander tasked with helping Iraqi units maintain border security in the area, no U.S. troops appear there at all.

A Deadly U.S.-Iran Firefight
by By Mark Kukis/Baqubah/Friday, Mar. 30, 2007

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Setting a deadline for withdrawal would guarantee defeat in Iraq

By Joe Lieberman

Two months ago, the Senate voted unanimously to confirm one of our most decorated generals, David Petraeus, to take command in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus promised a fundamental overhaul of U.S. strategy — with a new plan that would at last correct the many mistakes we have made in this long and difficult war.

Since taking command, Gen. Petraeus has been true to his word. The result? Sectarian violence is down in Baghdad. The radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has fled. The Mahdi Army, which terrorized Baghdad last year, appears to be splintering. And the Iraqi government — its spine stiffened thanks to our renewed support — is taking the critical steps for political reconciliation.

Amazingly, however, just at the moment things are at last beginning to look up in Iraq, a narrow majority in Congress has decided that it's time to force our military to retreat. Rather than supporting Gen. Petraeus, they are threatening to strip him of the troops he says he needs and sabotage his strategy.

This is outrageous.

The deadline for retreat that Congress wants to impose is both arbitrary and inflexible. American troops would be forced to begin withdrawing regardless of conditions in Iraq, regardless of the recommendations of our military commanders, and regardless of what impact a hasty retreat would have on America's security and credibility — in short, regardless of reality.

All of us want to bring our troops home as quickly as possible. But decisions in war should be made by our military commanders based on facts on the battlefield, not by politicians in Washington watching the polls.

There is, of course, no guarantee that Gen. Petraeus and his new strategy will succeed, but a deadline for withdrawal is a guarantee of defeat.

There is a better way. Gen. Petraeus says we should have a clear sense whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer. So let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then. Rather than imposing a deadline that ensures our failure, Congress should reserve judgment for now and give Gen. Petraeus and his troops a chance to succeed.

Sen. Joe Lieberman is an Independent Democrat from Connecticut.

Posted at 12:21 AM/ET, March 29, 2007 in Ethics - Editorial, Foreign Affairs - Middle East - Editorial, Iraq - Editorial, Military issues - Editorial, Politics, Government - Editorial, USA TODAY editorial

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Who is John Doe?

The John Doe Manifesto

By Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin
Posted March 28, 2007

Dear Muslim Terrorist Plotter/Planner/Funder/Enabler/Apologist,

You do not know me. But I am on the lookout for you. You are my enemy. And I am yours.

I am John Doe.

I am traveling on your plane. I am riding on your train. I am at your bus stop. I am on your street. I am in your subway car. I am on your lift.

I am your neighbor. I am your customer. I am your classmate. I am your boss.

I am John Doe.

I will never forget the example of the passengers of American Airlines Flight 93 who refused to sit back on 9/11 and let themselves be murdered in the name of Islam without a fight.

I will never forget the passengers and crew members who tackled al Qaeda shoe-bomber Richard Reid on American Airlines Flight 63 before he had a chance to blow up the plane over the Atlantic Ocean.

I will never forget the alertness of actor James Woods, who notified a stewardess that several Arab men sitting in his first-class cabin on an August 2001 flight were behaving strangely. The men turned out to be 9/11 hijackers on a test run.

I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”

I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”

I am John Doe.

I will protest your Jew-hating, America-bashing “scholars.”

I will petition against your hate-mongering mosque leaders.

I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities.

I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools.

I will combat your violent propaganda on the Internet.

I am John Doe.

I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy on your operatives, cut off your funding, and disrupt your murderous conspiracies.

I will oppose all attempts to undermine our borders and immigration laws.

I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.

I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.

I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderate clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about “profiling” or “Islamophobia.”

I will put my family’s safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.

I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.

I am John Doe.

Mysterious hexagon spotted above Saturn

"We've never seen anything like this on any other planet."

Sunday, March 25, 2007

The Impending Republican Disaster

by Dick McDonald
March 24, 2007

Have you ever wondered why the Democrats are so successfully demagoguing the economy? In spite of absolutely overpowering statistics to the contrary, 65% of the people bought the media lie that our economy was in trouble and installed Democrats in Congress. Democrats probably tipped the scales in 2006 promising to do something for the people. They promised “middle-class” tax cuts. To the uninformed, “tax cuts” are what Republicans do, not Democrats. So after they won, the Democrats forgot about their promise but not its effectiveness.

They have begun their mantra to drive home that the Republican’s “trickle down” made the rich richer and a $50 Million Christmas bonus to a Wall Street CEO proved it. Trickle down has created 932 billionaires according to the latest Forbes. The income disparity is beyond the pale and they are going to stick that unfair distribution of wealth on Republicans and “their” capitalism. I promise the people will respond to that issue as the Republicans are content to spend like drunken sailors and are in a defensive mode about the Bush tax cuts.

Republicans appear absolutely dumbfounded. Here they improved the lot of everybody by “trickle down” and the Democrats are honing in on that very successful economic theory as it created an income disparity of enormous proportions. Republicans are relying on their stats and the Democrats their emotions. The Democrats are going to win in 2008 barring any stupid move by the terrorists that will insure a Republican victory. They have the advantage; they have a bread and butter issue; a tried and true pocketbook winner that Americans usually vote for.

Republicans are whining about immigration, gay marriage, abortion, Christian morals, anti-war leftists and every issue under the sun that has no direct effect on the voter’s pocketbook. Republicans have no bread and butter issue so the 85% of the voters that feel Congress is incompetent will glom onto any party that promises them tax relief. At this point I say the Democrats and their promise to even out the playing field will destroy Republicans in 2008.

Academe and the media will beat the income disparity drum so hard that it will be deafening and predictably emotional. I suspect Republicans will retreat to their past trickle down victories and get their head handed to them. If you don’t believe me just reflect on the made-for-television dramas of Valerie Plame, Global Warming, Bush’s lies, Clark’s intelligence and the rotten economy and you begin to believe that the NYT and its girls can make Americans believe anything.

I have advanced the “rise up” theory of economics which postulates that the 15% presently collected by government in the form of payroll taxes be diverted to personal accounts of each taxpayer and invested in the stock market for their 40 to 50 year working life. As a part of that plan, the taxpayer would have no right to invade the funds and Congress would have no right to confiscate them as they would be the private property of the taxpayer accumulating until he retires.

The $360,000 a $60,000 a year truck driver would have withheld in 40 years if invested at zero (0%) return would still give him a $360,000 nest egg. However, in 40-year increments the S&P 500 has returned over 12% annually for the last 25 years and near 10% since 1871. At a 10% return per year that truck driver would have a nest egg of $4.8 Million. With a nest egg that large and with a continuing 10% return he would get a $40,000 monthly retirement check and still be able to will his kids the entire $4.8 Million nest egg. A $7.25 an hour minimum wage earner would have a nest egg of $1.2 Million and a $10,000 per month retirement check in 2006 dollars after 40 years.

This is a bread and butter issue the Republicans could adopt and finally win the approval of the people; you know the 85% who think they and the Democrats are doing a lousy job. It happens to be a very Republican issue. It cuts a trillion off the national budget and gives the people the biggest tax cut in history. That cut favoring the poor who must pay payroll taxes whereas the rich become rich through untaxed dividends and capital gains. In addition we would extinguish the existing unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities and eliminate the need for tens of thousands of public and private retirement and old-age medical plans that would be easily financed out of a retirees own income.

The knee jerk reaction is that this is a plan to “privatize” Social Security. It is not so shallow. It promises to make the poor rich. Those who can’t compete for the big bucks just have to be stable and industrious during their working life and the personal account will deliver their bonanza. To my way of thinking this is not only an economic imperative it is a social imperative as so much pain in the world is caused by unnecessary poverty. If everyone in the world was forced to save and invest 15% of their lifetime income in their own capitalist economy there could be peace on Earth someday soon.

Don’t let anyone tell you we can’t afford it. We owe only $2.2 Trillion to all foreigners and we have a $400 Trillion country. We are so filthy rich it is embarrassing. And the Democrats are going to shove this fact down our throats if we don’t counter their income disparity issue with one that makes the poor rich, reduces our budget, gives all a tax break and pays off our unfunded liabilities. Now there is a winning bread and butter issue. Remember they vote with their pocketbooks.

Adding rise up to the trickle down is the moral thing to do. It is a fair thing to do. It is also the American thing to do. Our negative savings rate that impedes our growth when changed to a forced 15% savings will explode our economy and the pool of capital we have to turn the world to democracy and free markets and hasten the day of Peace.

Dick McDonald maintains a blog at

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Christians Joining in Religious Bigotry

Christians have been complaining for years about the attacks coming our way and rightly so. There is no doubt that while our country has moved toward “tolerance” for every “group” or “individual minority” on the planet, Christians have been fair game for the politically correct. And the attacks have been coming fast and furious.

What really bothers me is that now Christians are joining in the attacks on religion. I’m talking about the Christian’s “intolerance” for the faith of Mitt Romney, Mormon presidential candidate. Who would have thought that Christians, fundamentalists who believe that God is almighty and Jesus is the center of our life, would be questioning someone’s faith who espouses that very philosophy?

Disclaimer, I am not a Mormon nor am I endorsing Mitt Romney. I am simply saying that when someone steps forward and proclaims his faith in Jesus Christ and “walks the walk” as well as “talks the talk,” he deserves our respect.

The mainstream media and the secularists are just loving it. They have us doing their job for them. They will bear any burden, pay any price, climb any mountain, etc. to prevent religious people from gaining power. Example, George Bush proclaimed his faith and they are still sulking and trying to destroy him. Why would we join in that game?

I am a Christian and a staunch conservative, a person’s faith matters greatly to me. I believe that we can’t separate our public and private life. We are what we are and character does matter. Having said that, I would prefer a conservative secularist to a liberal Christian.

I haven’t seen a poll, but I would venture to bet that if you asked folks if Hillary Clinton’s gender should be a factor in the presidential race the answer would be a resounding no. If you asked if Barack Obama’s race should be a factor you would probably get an outraged “no”.

Why is it okay then to accept the fact that one’s faith should be a disqualifier for public office? The answer is “because the mainstream media and secularists say so.” We have certainly seen no righteous indignation from the MSM regarding the attacks on faith as we would if it were race or gender. Uh, excuse me, it depends on which race and what gender.

Efforts to drive faith-based people out of the public arena have been going on for many years. Faith based arguments are never given the same respect in the MSM that secular progressive arguments receive. The motto seems to be “keep the faith, baby, but keep it to yourself.”

I believe the secular progressives and MSM are promoting this “so called” unrest between evangelical Christians and Mitt Romney. A Mormon is a convenient distraction and another easy target.

Many Christians are standing up eagerly and denouncing the assault against Romney’s faith but sadly there are those who are buying into it. I have spoken with some that have specifically said, “I would never vote for him. He’s a Mormon.”

Isn’t it strange that a candidate, who exemplifies all the traits of an honorable man and has been faithful to his wife and family as well as his faith, would be considered unworthy by some? His faith should not render him unworthy. While there may be many reasons that Romney may not get the vote of the evangelical Christians, I do hope his faith is not one of them.

In my opinion, being Governor of Massachusetts is a much more unflattering statistic. It scares me far more that he was elected in that liberal bastion to the highest office in the state. It also concerns me that he was once pro-choice and is now pro-life.

He claims that he has had a change of heart. He seems sincere and as he is a Christian, we should consider that a good thing.

Barack Obama, liberal Democrat candidate is a member of a “black separatist church.” The church doctrine claims allegiance to the black community, the black family, black work ethic, black leadership who embraces the black value system, etc. Where is the media on this? Sounds like a cult and that surely would be discussed on every news outlet if it were “white separatism”. There would be outrage and deservedly so. Question: If Obama is elected president, will he serve all the people are just the black community? Just asking.

Just goes to show that the media and progressives are not opposed to all people of faith in politics. Only those with conservative Christian philosophy. Let’s not join them.

The Conservative Voice March 22, 2007 02:26 PM EST

Joyce Krawiec is a freelance writer and political activist in Kernersville, N.C. Her articles have appeared in the Greensboro News and Record, Charlotte Observer, Kernersville News and various other publications.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Democrats Surrender to Islamic Terrorists

I said it before and I'll say it again, this is a blueprint for disaster. - Paul A. Morin National Commander, American Legion
Read more

Compassion and the Decline of America

By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, March 20, 2007

This past weekend, a friend of mine attended his 13-year-old son's baseball game. What he saw encapsulates a major reason many of us fear for the future of America and the West.

His son's team was winning 24-7 as the game entered the last inning. When he looked up at the scoreboard, he noticed that the score read 0-0. Naturally, he inquired as to what happened -- was the scoreboard perhaps broken? -- and was told that the winning team's coach asked the scoreboard keeper to change the score. He and some of the parents were concerned that the boys on the losing team felt humiliated.

In order to ensure that the boys losing by a lopsided score would not feel too bad, the score was changed.

As is happening throughout America, compassion trumped all other values.

Truth was the first value compassion trashed. In the name of compassion, the adults in charge decided to lie. The score was not 0-0; it was 24-7.

Wisdom was the second value compassion obliterated. It is unwise to the point of imbecilic to believe that the losing boys were in any way helped by changing the score. On the contrary, they learned lessons that will hamper their ability to mature.

They learned that someone will bail them out when they feel bad.

They learned that they do not have to deal with disappointment in life. Instead, someone in authority will take care of them. (This is how reliance on the state for personal problems -- the worldview of the Left -- is formed early in life.)

They learned that their feelings, not objective standards, are what society deems most important.

They learned that they are not responsible for their behavior. No matter how poorly they perform, there will be no consequences -- sort of like tenure for university professors.

They also learned to think in the feminine -- with an emphasis on feelings -- rather than to cultivate their innate masculine sense that winners win and losers learn to deal with it and move on to the next game.

At the same time, the boys on the winning team learned not to try their best. Why bother?

Building character was the third value trumped by compassion. People build character far more through handling defeat than through winning. The human being grows up only when forced to deal with disappointment. We remain children until the day we take full responsibility for our lives. Our increasingly feelings-based society has created a pandemic of immaturity in our society. And there are fewer and fewer maturity-creating institutions in our society. Indeed, the opposite is more often the case. Schools, for example, keep young people immature, none more so than college, which serves primarily to postpone adulthood.

The fourth value that compassion denied here was fairness. It is remarkable how often compassion-based liberals speak of "fairness" in formulating social policy given how unfair so many of their policies are. It was entirely unfair to the winning team to have their score expunged, all their work denied. But for the compassion-first crowd, the winning team is like "the rich" who earn "too much" and should therefore be penalized with a higher tax rate; the winning team scored "too many" runs to be allowed to keep them all.

Compassion in social policy almost always produces unfair results. Compassion for murderers allows them to keep their lives after taking the life of another. Compassion for minorities leads to affirmative action, which means that individuals who are not members of a designated minority will be treated unfairly. Compassion for immigrant children led to bilingual education, which subsequently prevented most of those children from advancing in American society.

Compassion as the primary determinant of behavior is effective in personal life. In making public policy, it is a morally and socially destructive guideline. In fact, it is so bad that thinking people must conclude that its primary purpose is to enable policy makers who are guided by compassion to feel good about themselves.

Thursday, March 22, 2007


Of the 1,600 cases registered since 1954, nearly 25 percent are classified as "type D", meaning that "despite good or very good data and credible witnesses, we are confronted with something we can't explain," Patenet said.
France opens secret UFO files covering 50 years

Monday, March 19, 2007

The Shadow Party

  • Nationwide network of non-profit activist groups, whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats

  • Consists of more than five-dozen unions, activist groups, and think tanks

  • Activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, and covert operations

  • Conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes
The so-called "Shadow Democratic Party," or "Shadow Party," is a nationwide network of more than five-dozen unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. Its activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation. The Shadow Party was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes -- all identified with the Democratic Party left.

A political consultancy called the Thunder Road Group (TRG), located on the 7th Floor of the historic Motion Picture Association of America headquarters at 888 Sixteenth Street NW in Washington, DC, serves as the unofficial headquarters of the Shadow Party. Three other Shadow Party groups also lease space in the same building, including America Coming Together (ACT), America Votes, and the Partnership for America's Families. The clustering of these groups in a building owned by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is significant. The MPAA has long enjoyed a close relationship with the Democratic Party; many high-ranking Democrats have transitioned comfortably from government jobs into glamorous posts in the MPAA's upper management.

As of August 2004, the husband-wife team of George Soros and Susan Soros had contributed $13,120,000 to Shadow Party groups and operations, second only to Soros' longtime friend and collaborator, insurance mogul Peter B. Lewis ($14,175,000). The third leading donor was Jane Fonda ($13,085,750), followed by Hollywood producer Stephen Bing in fourth place ($9,869,014). Other major funders of the Shadow Party include the Tides Foundation and the Open Society Institute.

No one knows who first coined the term "Shadow Party." In the November 5, 2002 Washington Post, writer Thomas B. Edsall wrote of "shadow organizations" springing up to circumvent McCain-Feingold's soft money ban. Journalist Lorraine Woellert first called the Democrat network a "shadow party" in a September 15, 2003 Business Week article titled, "The Evolution of Campaign Finance?" Other journalists quickly followed suit. Some journalists refer to the Shadow Party as "the 527s" or "the 527 groups." These terms derive from the fact that most of the non-profit groups within the Shadow Party are registered under Section 527 of the U.S. tax code. Section 527 groups face weaker regulation and looser disclosure requirements than other types of non-profit groups. Thus they are better suited for operating in the shadows, in areas of dubious legality. Section 527 groups are used for raising "soft money." For a thorough explanation of Section 527 groups and soft money, click here.

Wall Street billionaire George Soros is the Shadow Party's principal founder and mastermind. Clear hints of Soros' intentions began to appear as early as the 2000 election. It was then that Soros (shouldering about one-third of the cost) sponsored the so-called "Shadow Conventions." Organized by author, columnist, and socialite Arianna Huffington, the Shadow Conventions were media events designed to lure news crews from the real party conventions that year. Huffington held her "Shadow Conventions" at the same time and in the same cities as the Republican and Democratic Conventions, in Philadelphia and Los Angeles respectively, and featured leftwing critics of mainstream politics. The Shadow Conventions promoted Huffington's view that neither Democrats nor Republicans served the interests of the American people any longer. In Huffington's view, U.S. politics needed a third force to break the deadlock.

Among the issues highlighted at the Shadow Conventions were racism, class inequality, marijuana legalization and campaign finance reform. Most speakers and delegates pushed a hard-left line, accompanied by "Free Mumia" chants from the crowd and an incendiary tirade by Jesse Jackson. A former conservative, Huffington told reporters, "I have become radicalized."

The Shadow Conventions were purely symbolic affairs. They fielded no candidates for office. However, many of Soros' activities during the 2000 campaign went beyond symbolism. It was during the 2000 election that Soros first experimented with raising campaign funds through Section 527 groups. In preparation for the 2000 election, Soros assembled a team of wealthy Democrat donors to help him push two of his pet issues -- gun control and marijuana legalization. Their donations greatly exceeded the limits on political contributions stipulated by campaign finance laws. Soros therefore laundered their contributions through Section 527 groups -- dubbed "stealth PACs," by the media of that time.

One of Soros' stealth PACs was an anti-gun group called The Campaign for a Progressive Future (CPF). This group sought to neutralize the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA), by targeting for defeat any political candidate, at any level, who the NRA endorsed. Soros personally seeded CPF with $500,000. During the 2000 election, CPF funded political ads and direct-mail campaigns in support of state initiatives favoring background checks at gun shows.

Soros used other 527s to agitate in favor of pro-marijuana initiatives which appeared on the ballot in various states that year. Donors to Soros' stealth PACs during the 2000 election cycle included insurance mogul Peter B. Lewis and InfoSeek founder Steven Kirsch, both of whom would turn up as major contributors to Soros' Shadow Party during the 2004 election season.

During the 1990s, Soros had grown close to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Their ascension to power gave him easy entreé to Washington elites of a sort he had long coveted but never enjoyed. Soros became the Clintons' unofficial envoy to Russia and to other former Communist states. The assignment proved lucrative for him. Soros made a fortune in the so-called "Russiagate" phenomenon -- the orgy of backroom "privatization" deals and Russian junk bond issues which Clinton officials such as Strobe Talbot, Al Gore and Lawrence Summers helped foster in the former USSR.

More importantly, Soros discovered in Hillary Clinton an ideological soulmate. Mrs. Clinton shared his aversion to U.S. "hegemony." Like Soros, she sought to subordinate U.S. interests to global interests; U.S. sovereignty to global government; U.S. law to global courts; U.S. wealth to global taxation; and U.S. productivity to a scheme for global income redistribution. She also shared Soros' hostility to Israel. Soros and Mrs. Clinton formed a friendship based upon their mutual beliefs. When the Clintons left office, Soros dedicated himself to restoring Hillary to the White House.

Soros has long experience in effecting "regime change." He helped fund the 1989 "Velvet Revolution" that brought Vaclav Havel to power in the Czech Republic. By his own admission, he has helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country for "regime change," he begins by creating a shadow government -- a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party Soros has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries, prior to instigating a coup.

At the heart of the American Shadow Party is the Center for American Progress (CAP). It was launched on July 7, 2003 as the American Majority Institute. The name was changed to Center for American Progress on September 1, 2003. The official purpose of the Center was to provide the left with a new think tank of its own. Regarding the new think tank proposed by Soros and Halperin, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai of The New York Times Magazine on October 12, 2003, "We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party's values." Expanding on this theme, Mrs. Clinton later told The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss, "We've had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The Center is a welcome effort to fill that void."

Hillary Clinton tries to minimize the depth of her involvement with the Center for American Progress. But persistent press leaks confirm that she -- and not its official President, John Podesta -- has ultimate authority at CAP. "It's the official Hillary Clinton think tank," an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International. As Robert Dreyfuss notes in The Nation, "In looking at Podesta's center, there's no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It's not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile -- or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton."

Dreyfuss notes the abundance of Clintonites on the Center's staff, among them Clinton's national security speechwriter Robert Boorstin; Democratic Leadership Council staffer and former head of Clinton's National Economic Council Gene Sperling; former senior advisor to Clinton's Office of Management and Budget Matt Miller; and more. Dreyfuss writes: "[T]he Center's kickoff conference on national security in October [2003], co-organized with The American Prospect and the Century Foundation, looked like a Clinton reunion, featuring Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary; William Perry, his Defense Secretary; Sandy Berger, his National Security Adviser; Richard Holbrooke and Susan Rice, both Clinton-era Assistant Secretaries of State; Rodney Slater, his Transportation Secretary; and Carol Browner, his EPA administrator, who serves on the Center's board of directors." Hillary Clinton also attended the event, Dreyfuss reports.

To develop the Shadow Party as a cohesive entity, Harold Ickes undertook the task of building a 21st-century version of the Left's traditional alliance of the "oppressed," the disgruntled, and the "disenfranchised." He formed a coalition of pro-abortion activists, leftwing minority groups and leftwing labor unions. By the time Ickes was done, he had created or helped to create six new groups, and had co-opted a seventh called Together, they constitute the administrative core of the Shadow Party. They are: America Coming Together; America Votes; the Center for American Progress; Joint Victory Campaign 2004; The Media Fund;; and the Thunder Road Group.

In a November 11, 2003 interview with Laura Blumenfeld of the Washington Post, George Soros described how he had jump-started the Shadow Party in the summer of 2002. The Wall Street billionaire told how he summoned a team of political strategists, activists and Democrat donors to his Southampton beach house in Long Island. According to The Washington Post, attendees included: Morton H. Halperin (Director of Soros' Open Society Institute); John Podesta (Democrat strategist and former Clinton chief of staff); Jeremy Rosner (Democrat strategist and pollster, ex-foreign policy speechwriter for Bill Clinton, and former special advisor to Secretary of State Madeline Albright on NATO; Robert Boorstin (Democrat strategist and pollster, ex-national security speechwriter for Clinton, and former advisor to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin); Carl Pope (ACT co-founder, Democrat strategist, environmentalist, and Sierra Club Executive Director); Steve Rosenthal (Labor leader, CEO of America Coming Together, former chief advisor on union matters to Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, former Deputy Political Director under DNC chairman Ron Brown, and AFL-CIO Political Director from 1996 - 2002); Peter Lewis (major Democrat donor and insurance entrepreneur, and founder and chairman of Progressive Corporation); Rob Glaser (major Democrat donor and Silicon Valley pioneer); Ellen Malcolm (co-founder and president of ACT and founder of Emily's List); Rob McKay (major Democrat donor, Taco Bell heir, and McKay Family Foundation President; Lewis and Dorothy Cullman (major Democrat donors, and founders of the Lewis and Dorothy Cullman Foundation in New York).

At the meeting, Soros laid out his plan to defeat President Bush. He began implementing his plan before the meeting had adjourned. Blumenfeld writes: "Standing on the back deck, the evening sun angling into their eyes, Soros took aside Steve Rosenthal, CEO of the liberal activist group America Coming Together (ACT), and Ellen Malcolm, its president. They were proposing to mobilize voters in 17 battleground states. Soros told them he would give ACT $10 million. … Before coffee the next morning, his friend Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corp., had pledged $10 million to ACT. Rob Glaser, founder and CEO of RealNetworks, promised $2 million. Rob McKay, President of the McKay Family Foundation, gave $1 million, and benefactors Lewis and Dorothy Cullman committed $500,000. Soros also promised up to $3 million to Podesta's new think tank, the Center for American Progress."

The Shadow Party had been born, and by late 2003 Soros issued an open call for "regime change" in the United States. "America under Bush is a danger to the world," Soros told Laura Blumenfeld in that same November 11, 2003 interview. Toppling Bush, said Soros, "is the central focus of my life… a matter of life and death. And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."

New groups are constantly being formed in the Shadow Party, while others vanish. To determine how many groups exist in the Shadow Party at any given time is difficult. Even more daunting is try to determine the purpose of each group. In some cases, groups seem to have no function other than to transfer funds from one 527 to another, perhaps in order to obscure the money trail. On December 10, 2003, for instance, a 527 group called the Sustainable World Corporation suddenly sprang into existence in Houston, Texas. Within days of its birth, it gave $3.1 million to the Joint Victory Campaign 2004, which in turn disbursed half of the payment to Harold Ickes' Media Fund.

As of 2004, an alphabetical list of Shadow Party groups included the following: Air America Radio; America Coming Together; America Votes; American Constitution Society; American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; American Federation of Teachers; Anshell Media; Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now; Association of Trial Lawyers of America; Band of Progressives; Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Campaign for a Progressive Future; Campaign for America's Future; Center for American Progress; Clean Water Action; Communication Workers of America; The Constitution Project; DASH PAC; Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund; Democracy for America; Democratic Governors Associations; Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; Dog Eat Dog Films; EMILY's List; Environment 2004; Gore/Lieberman Recount Committee; Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union; the Human Rights Campaign; INdTV; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Joint Victory Campaign 2004; Laborers International Union of North American; League of Conservation Voters; New Democrat Network; The Media Fund; Media Matters for America; Million Mom March; Moving America Forward;; Music for America; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People; NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Education Association; National Grassroots Alliance; National Jewish Democratic Council; National Treasury Employees Union; New American Optimists; New Democrat Network; Partnership for America's Families; People for the American Way; Phoenix Group; Planned Parenthood; Pro-Choice Vote; Service Employees International Union; Sheet Metal Workers International Association; Sierra Club; The Thunder Road Group; United Food & Commercial Workers Union; United Progressive Alliance; USAction; Vagina Votes; Voices for Working Families; Vote for Change; Young Voter Alliance; and 21st Century Democrats.


Saturday, March 17, 2007



MarketWatch - 2:26 PM ET Mar 18, 2007: Concerned pet owners should look for symptoms such as loss of appetite, fatigue and vomiting and immediately contact their veterinarian if they think their dog or cat has consumed the product, according to

The affected food could be substituted with dry food from the same brand or wet food sold under the following brands: Pedigree, Pro Plan, Mighty Dog cans, Cesar and Alpo for dogs; and Friskees, Fancy Feast, Pro Plan and Whiskas for cats, said.
Dog, cat food maker issues recall after kidney deaths

Menu Foods Income Fund
TSX: MEW.UN Stock Quote Stock Chart
Other Recent News
March 16, 2007

Menu Foods Income Fund Announces Precautionary Dog and Cat Food Recall

TORONTO, ONTARIO--(CCNMatthews - March 16, 2007) -

Attention Business/Financial Editors

Menu Foods Income Fund (the "Fund") (TSX:MEW.UN) today announced the precautionary recall of a portion of the dog and cat food it manufactured between December 3, 2006 and March 6, 2007. The recall is limited to "cuts and gravy" style pet food in cans and pouches manufactured at two of the Fund's United States facilities. These products are both manufactured and sold under private-label and are contract-manufactured for some national brands.

Over the past several days, the Fund has received feedback in the United States (none in Canada) raising concerns about pet food manufactured since early December, and its impact on the renal health of the pets consuming the products. Shortly after receipt of the first complaint, the Fund initiated a substantial battery of technical tests, conducted by both internal and external specialists, but has failed to identify any issues with the products in question. The Fund has, however, discovered that timing of the production associated with these complaints, coincides with the introduction of an ingredient from a new supplier. The Fund stopped using this ingredient shortly after this discovery and production since then has been undertaken using ingredients from another source.

At the same time, the Fund's largest customer, for which it manufactures on a contract basis, received a small number of consumer complaints and has initiated its own recall. Furthermore, for the time being, the customer has put future orders for cuts and gravy products on hold. This customer's cuts and gravy purchases in 2006 represented approximately 11% of the Fund's annual revenue.

"We take these complaints very seriously and, while we are still looking for a specific cause, we are acting to err on the side of caution" said Paul K. Henderson, President and CEO, Menu Foods. "We will do whatever is necessary to ensure that our products maintain the very highest quality standards."

While the number of complaints has been relatively small, Menu is taking this proactive step out of an abundance of caution, because the health and well-being of pets is paramount to the Fund.

In addition to changing suppliers, for production after March 6, the Fund has increased testing of all raw materials and finished goods. It is also working closely with regulatory authorities and its customers to learn more and will take whatever additional actions are appropriate. The Fund estimates that based on currently available information, this recall could cost between $30 million and $40 million, which will be financed from a combination of internally generated cash flow and bank credit facilities. Furthermore, the Fund is aggressively producing product, utilizing a different supplier for the ingredient in question, to replenish customers as quickly as possible.
In order to determine whether cat and dog food in their possession is subject to recall, consumers should refer to the list of brand names ("listed products") at This will be available by 6 a.m. Saturday March 17, 2007.
Products not identified on the website can continue to be used.

Menu is the leading North American private-label/contract manufacturer of wet pet food products sold by supermarket retailers, mass merchandisers, pet specialty retailers and other retail and wholesale outlets. In 2006, the Fund produced more than one billion containers.

Menu Foods Income Fund
Media and Investor Relations
Sarah Tuite
(416) 848-1703


Menu Foods Income Fund

Thursday, March 15, 2007


March 15, 2007
Global Warming Swindle
By Thomas Sowell

Britain's Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It has apparently not been broadcast by any of the networks in the United States. But, fortunately, it is available on the Internet.

Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global warming hysteria is.

These include scientists from MIT and top-tier universities in a number of countries. Some of these are scientists whose names were paraded on some of the global warming publications that are being promoted in the media -- but who state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them.

One scientist threatened to sue unless his name was removed.

While the public has been led to believe that "all" the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats -- and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were "consulted," but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

There is no question that the globe is warming but it has warmed and cooled before, and is not as warm today as it was some centuries ago, before there were any automobiles and before there was as much burning of fossil fuels as today.

None of the dire things predicted today happened then.

The British documentary goes into some of the many factors that have caused the earth to warm and cool for centuries, including changes in activities on the sun, 93 million miles away and wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Kyoto treaty.

According to these climate scientists, human activities have very little effect on the climate, compared to many other factors, from volcanoes to clouds.

These climate scientists likewise debunk the mathematical models that have been used to hype global warming hysteria, even though hard evidence stretching back over centuries contradicts these models.

What is even scarier than seeing how easily the public, the media, and the politicians have been manipulated and stampeded, is discovering how much effort has been put into silencing scientists who dare to say that the emperor has no clothes.

Academics who jump on the global warming bandwagon are far more likely to get big research grants than those who express doubts -- and research is the lifeblood of an academic career at leading universities.

Environmental movements around the world are committed to global warming hysteria and nowhere more so than on college and university campuses, where they can harass those who say otherwise. One of the scientists interviewed on the British documentary reported getting death threats.

In politics, even conservative Republicans seem to have taken the view that, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em. So have big corporations, which have joined the stampede.

This only enables the green crusaders to declare at every opportunity that "everybody" believes the global warming scenario, except for a scattered few "deniers" who are likened to Holocaust deniers.

The difference is that we have the hardest and most painful evidence that there was a Holocaust. But, for the global warming scenario that is causing such hysteria, we have only a movie made by a politician and mathematical models whose results change drastically when you change a few of the arbitrarily selected variables.

No one denies that temperatures are about a degree warmer than they were a century ago.

What the climate scientists in the British documentary deny is that you can mindlessly extrapolate that, or that we are headed for a climate catastrophe if we don't take drastic steps that could cause an economic catastrophe.

"Global warming" is just the latest in a long line of hysterical crusades to which we seem to be increasingly susceptible.

Copyright 2007 Creators Syndicate

Page Printed from: Real Clear Politics on March 15, 2007 - 06:57:26 PM CST

UPDATE (3/16/07):

The Great Global Warming Swindle from

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Global Warming Petition Project

Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

Shocking video proves ignorance (not love) makes the world go 'round:

Here's what someone said about the protest outside of President Bush's hotel in Merida, Mexico recently:

> These people should be on their knees thanking God
> that many of their compatriots (3,000 a week cross
> the border) are here in the US working and sending
> money to Mejico, so they don't die of starvation!
> Instead, this is their welcoming gesture to a the
> leader of a country that has given them FREE medical
> care, free schooling to their children, cheap
> housing, day worker programs, etc.....
> Ughh!

In the video you'll hear someone shout:

"They've killed a lot of people crossing the border..."

Then why are so many people in the U.S. complaining that our immigration laws are not enforced (as they are in Mexico!!!)???

And you'll hear someone else yell:

"Bush: Without Latinos your country is nothing..."

Oh yeah? Then why don't you all just stay home if you hate us here so much??? Just watch the whole country collapse and then waltz in and take it over.

Watch this!

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

The legacy of Ernie Pyle

I was born in 1945 and I grew up hearing about Ernie Pyle from my parents...they even had a book or two he had wriiten. Like so many others of their generation, they held him in their hearts and in their highest esteem.
With the entry of the U.S. into World War II, Pyle became a war correspondent, applying his intimate style to the war. Instead of the movements of armies or the activities of generals, Ernie Pyle generally wrote from the perspective of the common soldier, an approach that won him not only further popularity but also the Pulitzer Prize in 1944. His wartime writings are preserved in three books, Brave Men, Here is Your War, and Ernie Pyle in England.

In that year, he wrote a column urging that soldiers in combat get "fight pay" just as airmen were paid "flight pay". Congress passed a law giving soldiers 50 percent extra pay for combat service. The legislation was called "the Ernie Pyle bill."

He reported from the United States, Europe, Africa, and the Pacific. On April 18, 1945 Pyle died on Ie Shima, an island off Okinawa Honto, as the result of machine gun fire from an enemy sniper position.
WE are blessed, in this time of our life and death struggle with the Islamic agenda--to suppress opposing views, institute punitive sharia (Islamic law), and prey on other communities for converts, all for the purpose of global domination--to have a war correspondent of our own who, despite his modesty, does rise to the level set by Mr. Pyle in WWII.
Ernie Pyle. His was a name I hardly knew just two years ago, except in some vague way I knew he had been a writer, at war. That changed when people compared my work to his, and sent a couple of Ernie’s books to me.

Michael Yon

Sunday, March 11, 2007

You'll be surprised...VERY surprised!

Ranked by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal.

The Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal recently released their 13th annual Index of Economic Freedom, which identifies the variables that comprise economic freedom and analyzes the interaction of freedom with wealth. The Index measures 157 countries across 10 specific factors of economic freedom.

10. Canada

Canada’s economy is 78.7% free. A strong rule of law ensures property rights, a low level of corruption, and transparent application of the country’s admittedly thorough commercial code. However, as in many European democracies, government spending is high because Canada maintains elaborate social programs and a welfare state.

9. Switzerland

Switzerland’s economy is 79.1% free. Commercial operations are protected by the regulatory environment and aided by a flexible labor market. The national financial sector leads the world and is both protective of privacy and open to foreign institutions. But as in many other European social democracies, personal income taxes are high.

8. Luxembourg

Luxembourg’s economy is 79.3% free. The average tariff rate is low (though non-tariff barriers include EU subsidies), and business regulation is efficient. The financial sector is regarded as a global financial hub that maintains depositor secrecy. However, total government spending is more than two-fifths of GDP.

7. Ireland

Ireland’s economy is 81.3% free. Entrepreneurship is made easy by the light regulatory hand of government. Inflation is low, but Ireland’s monetary score suffers somewhat from distortionary EU agricultural subsidies. Property rights are well protected by an efficient, independent judiciary.

6. United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s economy is 81.6% free. The average tariff rate is low, although the government does implement distortionary European Union agricultural tariffs. Support for private enterprise is a world model, and the financial sector is modern and a historic world hub. The judiciary should be the envy of the world.

5. New Zealand

New Zealand’s economy is 81.6% free. A globally competitive financial system based on market principles attracts many foreign banks, helped by low inflation and low tariff rates. A strong rule of law protects property rights, and New Zealand is the world’s second most corruption-free country.

4. United States

The economy of the United States is 82% free. The average tariff rate is low, although there are several non-tariff barriers. Financial markets are open to foreign competition and are the world’s most dynamic and modern. Corruption is low and the labor market is highly flexible.

3. Australia

Australia’s economy is 82.7% free. Its low inflation and low tariff rates buttress a globally competitive financial system. A strong rule of law protects property rights and tolerates virtually no corruption. Businesses enjoy considerable flexibility in licensing, regulation and employment practices.

2. Singapore

Singapore’s economy is 85.7% free. Virtually all commercial operations are performed with transparency and speed, and private enterprise has boomed. Inflation is low, and foreign investment is welcomed and given equal treatment. There are no tariffs. Singapore’s legal system is highly protective of private property.

1. Hong Kong

Hong Kong’s economy is 89.3% free. Income and corporate tax rates are extremely low. Business regulation is simple, and the labor market is highly flexible. Inflation is low, although the government distorts the prices of several staples. Investment in Hong Kong is wide open.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Fox News or Comedy Central? Your choice.

Mar. 10, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Meltdown over Fox

Network co-sponsors state Democratic debate -- oh my!

Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and beganseeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?

"How could you possibly live in the freest nation in the history of the world and only see oppression?"

"How could you possibly live in the freest nation in the history of the world and only see oppression? How could you live in the least imperialist power in human history and see us as the ultimate in imperialism? How can you live in the least bigoted nation in human history ... and see racism lurking in every dark shadow?" asks conservative comedian and commentator Evan Sayet.

"The modern liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success."

The comedian attributed the trend to a "rejection of all fact, reason, evidence, logic, truth, morality, and decency."
Liberals Have the Mentality of Kindergarteners, Comedian Says

Listen to or download the actual speech (which is a serious presentation of the major flaw in the Modern Liberal movement) at The Heritage Foundation here:
Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals "Think"

Friday, March 09, 2007

Charisma is Fool's Gold


Clinton 'did less for black people than other presidents'
Thu Mar 08 2007 17:40:20 ET

Tonight on ABC News Nightline, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan sits down with Martin Bashir to discuss his health, '08 presidential politics, Iranian President Ahmadinejad's views on Israel, and why he says he is not the same man he used to be.

Bashir: Hillary Clinton was, her husband, Bill Clinton, was described as a black president. What does that make her?
Farrakhan: Really, not much. Although black people looked at Bill Clinton as a black president, he did less for black people than other presidents. We lost the safety net, under his administration, for welfare mothers. We lost a lot. But his charisma, no one can take that away from Mr. Clinton. His ability to use language in many ways has attracted the hearts of black people. And the more the establishment beat up on him with his inappropriate behavior, the more black people understood his weakness, and forgave him, and came around him. I loved Hillary, excuse me for saying Hillary, loved Mrs. Clinton, for her standing by her man, even though she was hurt, and maybe even slightly embittered. She showed the strength of a woman who could forgive her husband and keep going to present to America a family image: a mother, a father, and a daughter.
Well, according to the online dictionary:
cha·ris·ma (k-rzm) KEY

pl. cha·ris·ma·ta (-m-t) KEY

A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm. Personal magnetism or charm: a television news program famed for the charisma of its anchors.

Christianity An extraordinary power, such as the ability to perform miracles, granted by the Holy Spirit.
Please, please, please tell me that you are NOT going to vote for the next President of the United States based on "charisma" alone...

(I say "alone" because I know that you cannot discount it entirely; you are enslaved by it.)

I know this personally because I have women friends who are hysterically against George W. Bush because he is not eloquent, but who are swooning over Barack Obama because he is (big smile plus charisma equals great President...or so they sincerely, but stupidly, believe.)

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Bob Brinker says Hillary Clinton is "all mixed up!"

At approximately 2:10 PM (PT) I was driving home and listening to esteemed financial advisor Bob Brinker when he said something that knocked me for a loop. He said that he was surprised at the almost non-existant coverage of Hillary's statement regarding China and that she was "all mixed up."
WASHINGTON - Many voters, pundits and pollsters think Iraq will be the decisive issue in the 2008 election, but increasingly Democratic presidential contender Sen. Hillary Clinton is focusing on another country: China.

Clinton is making America’s dependence on Chinese investors a central theme of her 2008 message. She took to the CNBC airwaves Thursday to declare that America was undergoing “a slow erosion of our own economic sovereignty.”

Clinton sounds the China alarm as ’08 issue
He went on to explain just WHY she has gotten it all wrong and, if you are thinking of voting for her or know anyone who is, you owe it to yourself, your friends and your family's future to listen to this (it's only $4.95 for a whole thirty days of Mr. Brinker's radio shows):

Download the Show! Introducing MoneyTalk On Demand To Go, a downloadable version of the celebrated Bob Brinker program. Now, you will be able to listen at your convenience on your portable media device whether it's in your car, on the treadmill or just relaxing in your own living room. You won't have to stay online to listen any more!
Wonder just how qualified he is?
Bob Brinker has more than twenty five years of investment management experience. He is the host of the weekend financial talk program MoneyTalk. The program is nationally broadcast live from 4pm to 7pm Eastern time on Saturdays and Sundays. If you would like to call the program, dial (800) 934-2221. Bob answers investment questions from around the country and discusses current issues on the radio program. If you would like to listen to the program, consult your local listings for broadcast times.

In addition to hosting Moneytalk, Bob Brinker publishes Marketimer, his monthly investment newsletter. Marketimer covers stock market timing, federal reserve policy, specific mutual fund recommendations, and model portfolios for various objectives. Model Portfolio I is designed for investors with aggressive growth investment objectives. Model Portfolio II is designed for investors with long-term growth objectives. Model Portfolio III is designed as a balanced portfolio for current investment income along with capital preservation and modest growth.

Friday, March 02, 2007

Obama's Mama

Anyone remember the discussions about reparations for slavery?
During his 2004 senate race against Obama, Republican Alan Keyes endorsed the idea. "And for a generation, two generations you exempt them from taxation,” Keyes said in August 2004. Obama's responded, "The legacy of slavery is immeasurable, but the best strategies for moving forward would be vigorously enforcing our anti-discrimination laws in education and job training."

Will Reparations Stance Hurt Obama Campaign?
And then the fact that Obama and his Kenyan father never were a part of that terrible time in our history:
Michael Medved - Monday Feb 12, 2007: The emergence of Senator Barack Obama as a leading presidential contender should help to put an end to demands for reparations to African-Americans for the long-ago crime of slavery.

Obama Candidacy Could Kill Reparations Drive
But now there is A new twist to an intriguing family history
WASHINGTON // Many people know that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's father was from Kenya and his mother from Kansas. But an intriguing sliver of his family history has received almost no attention until now: It appears that forebears of his white mother owned slaves, according to genealogical research and census records.
And then there is his middle name...

What was Hillary Clinton trying to hide and why?

WELLESLEY, Mass. — The senior thesis of Hillary D. Rodham, Wellesley College class of 1969, has been speculated about, spun, analyzed, debated, criticized and defended. But rarely has it been read, because for the eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency it was locked away.

As forbidden fruit, the writings of a 21-year-old college senior, examining the tactics of radical community organizer Saul D. Alinsky, have gained mythic status among her critics — a “Rosetta Stone,” in the words of one, that would allow readers to decode the thinking of the former first lady and 2008 presidential candidate.
Clinton White House asked Wellesley College to close off access

Thursday, March 01, 2007

UFO science key to halting climate change

OTTAWA (AFP) - A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change, a local paper said Wednesday.
Think he's crazy? This will change your mind:

UFOs - A Challenge to Mainstream Science
by Patricia B. Corbett

Summary: An excellent, award-winning overview of the UFO phenomenon, the evidence, and mainstream science. Examines why scientists do not look at the physical evidence; describes what the existing evidence is; and guides the reader to many books, reports and databases that contain evidence of UFO reality. In addition, lists many of the world leaders, scientists, astronauts, military personnel and other credible people who have witnessed UFOs themselves, adding convincing personal testimony to the available data.
Contrary to popular accounts in the media, and to many scholarly articles on UFOs, the phenomenon is quite frequently reported by scientists, military personnel, police officers, commercial and private airplane pilots. Also contrary to popular belief, UFO reports are not limited to rural areas or confined to the United States. The phenomenon has been reported in about 150 nations and over major metropolitan areas in the U.S, the U.K, the former U.S.S.R., Germany, France, Spain, all the Scandinavian countries, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, throughout Africa and Central and South America, and at both the North and South Poles. UFOs have also been reported quite frequently over civilian and military nuclear facilities; at military bases in the U.S. and worldwide; above and beneath the surface of the Earth's oceans; and outside the Earth's atmosphere.
...there is scarcely a place on Earth that UFOs have not been witnessed and reported by reliable people. The best available evidence for scientists to ponder comes from every corner of the world. Scientists should be particularly impressed by the evidence presented by the following professionals:
  • Astronomers
  • Astronauts and Cosmonauts
  • Aeronautical engineers
  • Air traffic controllers
  • Airline, military and private pilots
  • Civil defense and ground corps observers
  • Government officials
  • Military personnel other than pilots
  • Police officers
  • Professors of engineering, physics, space science
  • Professional photographers (still, motion picture and video)
  • Radar operators
The reports made by numerous credible, trained men and women have provided a wealth of "hard data" that scientists can analyze with known instrumentation and procedures. In addition, scientists can review studies of such data that have already been completed by reputable scientists.

There are many...valuable scientific books and papers that have been published over the past 50 years, all of which provide evidence that UFOs are not misidentified natural phenomena or man-made objects, the products of the minds of highly imaginative or delusional people, or the malicious hoaxes of merry pranksters around the globe.
In addition to the substantial body of evidence available for scientists to review, there are many astronauts, cosmonauts, scientists and prominent government and military officials from many nations around the world who accept the reality of UFOs. This information has come from either direct public statements or from classified documents that have been released to the public. These individuals include such U.S. military, intelligence and political figures as:
  • General Nathan D. Twining, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1957-1960);
  • J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI;
  • General Walter Bedell Smith, Director of the CIA (1950-1953);
  • General Douglas MacArthur;
  • Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, Chief of project Blue Book;
  • Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, first Director of the CIA (1947-1950);
  • General Curtis LeMay, Air Force Chief of Staff;
  • Major General E.B. LeBaily, U.S. Air Force Director of Information;
  • General George S. Brown, U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff;
  • Lt. Col. Lawrence J. Coyne, U.S. Army Reserve helicopter pilot;
  • Victor Marchetti, CIA official;
  • President Harry S. Truman;
  • President Gerald Ford;
  • President Jimmy Carter;
  • President Ronald Reagan;
  • Senator Barry M. Goldwater;
  • Representative John W. McCormack, Speaker of the House;
  • Representative Jerry L. Pettis;
  • Representative Steven H. Schiff
If military, intelligence and political figures do not impress scientists when it comes to UFOs, perhaps American astronauts will. Among the astronauts who have either witnessed UFOs themselves, or are aware of UFO reality, are Gordon Cooper, Donald "Deke" Slayton, Edgar Mitchell, Al Worden, Eugene Cernan, and Story Musgrave. They are joined by the Soviet cosmonauts Yevegni Khrunov, Vladimir Kovalyonok, and Major General Pavel Popovich.
Scientists who are aware of UFO reality include Dr. Clyde W. Tombaugh, the American astronomer who discovered Pluto; Dr. Frank B. Salisbury, professor of plant physiology at Utah State University; Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Chairman of the Dept. of Astronomy at Northwestern University and scientific consultant for Air Force UFO investigations from 1948 through 1969; Dr. Leo J. Sprinkle, professor of psychology at the University of Wyoming; Dr. James E. McDonald, Senior Physicist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona; Dr. Robert M.L. Baker, Jr., President of West Coast University; Stanton T. Friedman, nuclear physicist and UFO researcher; Dr. Margaret Mead, world-renowned anthropologist; Dr. Richard Haines, psychologist for the Ames NASA Research Center; Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Science and Astrophysics at Stanford University; Dr. Jacques Vallee, astrophysicist, computer scientist and UFO author; and Dr. John E. Mack, Professor of Psychiatry at The Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Medical School.
In addition to these eminent figures, equally impressive military, intelligence and political figures have come forward with information and evidence about UFO reality in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Zimbabwe and many other nations.
Scientists can also avail themselves of the hard data about UFOs that are contained in a wide range of databases that are available to researchers. Among them are:
  • UFOCAT--a computer catalog of raw UFO reports of sightings from around the world, started in the 1970s by Dr. David Saunders. There are over 50,000 reports from five continents. UFOCAT is maintained by the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS).

  • GROUND TRACES--a catalog of UFO cases where plants and soil were affected is maintained by CUFOS.

  • PILOT CASES--NASA scientist Richard Haines has a computerized catalog of UFO sightings by military, commercial, private and test pilots that has more than 3600 cases going back to the early 1980s.
These are just a few of the databases that are available to scientists who want to investigate the evidence that has been collected concerning UFOs.
UFOs - A Challenge to Mainstream Science