The Facts On Thompson

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." ~ John Adams

Well, it seems that many Conservatives are salivating over the prospect that former Senator Fred Thompson (R) Tennessee, will be announcing his candidacy for President in the very near future. Some speculate it may be as early as the fourth of July.



My fear is that too many Conservatives are thinking Senator Thompson is another Reagan. I fear this may be wishful thinking. There is no guarantee, at least, not before thoroughly checking Thompson's voting record, that he is indeed another Reagan. Besides the fact that both Reagan and Thompson are actors, I am not so sure the similarities don't end there. Why? Because I know little about Thompson.

I remember I had the same reservations about Ronald Reagan when he ran for President. An actor? What does an actor know about running a country? This ain't a movie, Ronald.

There is one huge difference between the two actors. Thompson was a Senator before he was an actor.

So, this is what I did:

I went to a website called, "On the Issues" and I read there how Senator Fred Dalton Thompson voted on various issues when he was in the U.S. Senate. The website has determined Fred Thompson to be a "Moderate Populist Conservative" candidate.

What is that, you ask? It means, in a nutshell, that he has appeal to both Liberal and Conservatives, in different areas. Perhaps that is the kind of President America is looking for.

Check it out. See what you think. Do you agree with him? On how many issues?

So now, I'm impressed. He and I agree on so many issues, it's hard not to support him. I think I still prefer Rep. Duncan Hunter (R) California, but he is still not getting enough media attention. He needs recognition to expect to be taken seriously in the 2008 election.

Fred Thompson has the media attention and the popularity to win the nomination and the election. Add Duncan Hunter to the ticket as Vice President and we have what I consider a winning Conservative combination.

NOTE: Those of you who have been reading and appreciating Marshall Arts comments on this blog, as well as others, and are as impressed as I am with his intelligent, lucid, and well thought out opinions, will no doubt be happy to know (as I am) that Art has finally created his own blog. I have added it to my blogroll. Please be sure to visit and offer any comments you have. (Psst! Like Dan Trabue, he thrives on disagreement).

Paris Hilton

"A person is never happy except at the price of some ignorance." ~ Anatole France



OK. So Paris Hilton had to go back to jail after a sympathetic sheriff gave her a nice ankle bracelet and sent her home. Then the judge sent her back. That's bizarre. By all accounts, she cried and screamed and pleaded with her mother to help her when it became clear she wasn't going to dodge the bullet any longer.

When I heard this news, one thought came to my mind:

She is a product of her environment.

I've heard all the comments about her being a spoiled little rich girl who gets special treatment because she is rich. To me, that simplistic explanation smacks of class envy.

I won't excuse Paris for what she did. She broke the law. She got what she deserved. Actually, I'm not so sure she didn't get some special treatment in this case. To me, forty five days seems to be a very short and easy sentence for repeated charges of drunk driving, along with failure to appear in court to answer those charges.

Driving while intoxicated should be treated much more seriously than it is currently, anyway. People should be made aware of the potential deadly repercussions of driving while intoxicated. A long stretch in prison would most certainly make that point clearly for the average offender.

But Paris Hilton is not your average drunk driver.

I realize that many people would challenge that statement.

No sentence will be short and easy for Ms. Hilton, and many people would say that is how it should be. And I will agree. But I also don't believe she needs to spend any more time in jail than she has already. Let me explain:

First, Ms. Hilton is a child of remarkable privilege. We poor average Americans tend to scoff at the super rich in this country, preferring to think of ourselves as somehow better, or more relevant to the real America. We are the people who do the real work, while people like the Hiltons take in the profits. Much of this simplistic view of the classes is true, but this view is nevertheless, simplistic.

I used to be afflicted with class envy, too, until I had an epiphany.

When I was a teen, back when the earth was cooling, you might say, I was involved in a church youth group, and most of the group were children of privilege. I was the only one among this small group of teens that didn't have a "rich daddy".

One of my friends was the daughter of a president of a large chemical corporation. One was the son of a man who owned a large prestigious Real Estate firm. Another friends father was a vice president for Boeing Military Aircraft division. My father was one of several thousand employees who worked at Boeing. He had worked his way up from a tool and die man to methods engineer, a fancy term for efficiency expert. He was moderately successful, but only made $15,000 a year when he retired. He retired in 1979, and back then, 15,000 was respectable but in no way could he have been considered wealthy.

The time of which I speak, I had an eye opening conversation with some of my friends that I still remember to this day. I was trying to explain why I couldn't go on some weekend trip with "the gang" because I simply couldn't afford the expense. One of the girls just smiled and said, "Why don't you just withdraw some money from your savings account?"

I was astounded. She really didn't understand that there were people in the world who couldn't buy everything they wanted without eventually running out of money. It was at this time that I realized these people were not to be envied. Instead, they were to be pitied for their ignorance of real people and real life struggles and the real value of a dollar.

A few years later, I was amused rather than astounded as I spoke with a friends wife, who was a daughter of a wealthy neurosurgeon. My friend's father was wealthy, too, but he had watched his father eventually attain millionaire status through hard work and perseverance. He understood the value of a dollar, while his wife had grown up with maids and butlers to help fulfill her every need. Once again, the topic was the need for funds. In her innocence, her response was, "Whenever I need money, I just ask daddy for it!"

She was blissfully and seriously ignorant.

My point in these examples is that Paris Hilton should not be vilified or even disdained for her behavior. It is the only life she knows. As I stated, she is the product of her environment.

Second, we must remember that one who has never been in real trouble is completely out of ones element when incarcerated for even a short period of time. Granted, Paris has escaped consequences of her many indiscretions in the past, but she was nevertheless wholly unprepared for the consequences of her hedonistic behavior.

No doubt she expected her public stature and family wealth to get her out of this latest predicament. This time it didn't.

Once again, I can relate to this situation. Although I have occasionally done things for which I should have been arrested for in my wilder days, I managed to keep myself out of jail.

But one time I did spend about four hours in the county lock-up. It was a severely traumatic experience for me. I can say, from personal experience, those four hours were more than enough to convince me that I never wanted to be placed in that situation again. And I never have been since.

The real reason, I suspect, that Ms. Hilton pitched such a fit in court, is that she already had experienced the reality of imprisonment, however short, and was given a false sense that she would never have to endure it again. Thinking back on my personal experience in a similar situation, I'm not so sure that I wouldn't react in much the same way, although I like to think I'd display a little less emotion.

Over all, I think Paris Hilton will ultimately learn a great deal from this. I think her incarceration will give her new insights and understanding of the less fortunate in our society.

If she hasn't learned her lesson by now, she never will. Any more jail time than she already has would be superfluous.

A Tale Of Two Politicians

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." ~ Henry Kissinger

Today, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, received two and a half years in prison after he was convicted in March of lying and obstructing an investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

At almost the same time, William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana has been indicted on charges of bribery, more than two years after he was seen on videotape accepting bribes, and after authorities found $90,000.00 in cold hard marked cash hidden in his freezer.

Caveat: An indictment is not a finding of guilt. In this country, a suspect in a crime, even one as obvious and well documented as this one, is considered innocent until proven guilty.

It's sort of like, "Who are you gonna believe? Me? or your lyin' eyes?"

What do you want to bet that Jefferson, if convicted, gets less time than Libby, if any time at all?

What is incredible to me is that there is a lot of hard evidence that Jefferson actually committed the crimes of which he has been charged, (in fact, he will be, if convicted, officially the most corrupt politician in modern history) but there is quite a lot of doubt that Libby did anything wrong. There wasn't even enough evidence to try him on the crime for which the Democrats wanted him to be convicted, the outing of a "covert" CIA agent.

And of course, unlike Republicans who get caught doing something unethical or downright illegal, he will stay in the House and fight, claiming complete innocence despite the mountain of evidence against him. Republicans, as we know, will resign immediately upon the mere suspicion of impropriety.

And Jefferson's behavior is likely what Speaker Pelosi was referring to when she said hers would be the most ethical Congress in history, no?

There will be more, much more, on this as time goes by.

Also, I have added another blog to my high quality but not so short blogroll. It is DUmmie Funnies, a blog devoted to taking comments directly from Democratic Underground and the daily Kos and making fun of them. It's pretty good comic relief, although not side splitting humor. That's probably because the DU regulars are more irrelevant and pathetic then they are funny.

But I have added the blog to my blogroll, nonetheless. Go there and see what you think.

A Message For The President

Usually, I precede my posts with a quotation. Today's post is a quotation. From Mark Levin's blog, in it's entirety:

The President Is Losing Me

I guess it's legacy time over at the White House. The president is imitating Arnold Schwarzenegger now. Does the president have any conservative domestic initiatives that he's actively pursuing? If so, I'd like to know what they are. Richard Nixon tried this when his ratings were low. It didn't work.

Mr. President, the Left hated you the day you walked into the Oval Office, if not before. Their hate for you is frozen in time. If you actually believe in what you are doing, then I and many others misjudged you. You expanded the federal role in education, and we held our nose because of the war. You signed McCain-Feingold in the dead of night, and we held our nose because of the war. You expanded Medicare by adding prescription drugs, and we held our nose because of the war. You increased farm subsidies, and we held our nose because of the war.

Today you disparage us for opposing a massive amnesty program that endangers our economy and national security. Today you even embrace the religion of global warming, a stunning shift from prior policy (your administration even went to the Supreme Court and argued correctly that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant).
What's a conservative to do?

I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't even attempt to add anything.

The War On Terrorism

"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." ~ Robert E. Lee

ER mentioned the GWOT in my last comment section. The letters "GWOT" is an acronym for the Global War on Terror. His comment inspired these thoughts. They are my thoughts. However rambling, they are nonetheless, my own.

Many people on the left say there is no such thing as a Global War on Terror. I would tend to agree.

The term, "Global war on terror" is a misnomer.

There is no war on terror. There is, however, a war on terrorism. The words, "terrorism" and "terror" are not synonymous. There is no global war on terror or terrorism, either. An alliance of a few countries fighting against terrorists is not global.

If anything, based on the number of countries that encourage, or at least tolerate terrorists in their midst, it would be considered a global war of terrorism.

ER also says the war in Iraq is not justified. He says we had a reason to invade Afghanistan but not Iraq. I believe he is wrong.

I think many Americans have forgotten why we went into Iraq in the first place. All of the anti-war rhetoric and political in-fighting since the war began has obscured the true reason for the war. Perhaps the continual accusations of illegality and calls for troop withdrawal are intentionally meant to make the average American forget.

In fact, they have been so successful at obscuring the facts that I myself, have forgotten how many times Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose at U.N. sanctions. Was it 11? 15? 18? I don't remember, but it was certainly more than once or twice. He was warned we would attack if he continued to refuse to comply with our demands. He didn't comply, and so we followed through with our promise.

How is that illegal or unjustified?

Saddam started this war. We didn't. If he had simply done the things we had asked, we wouldn't have found it necessary to enforce our demands.

Then, terrorists invaded Iraq, and began to attack our troops. They tried to make it look as though we were the ones who were to blame for global terrorism. Then they began killing their own people. The numbers of innocent deaths that the leftists constantly bring up in their efforts to "prove" America is wrong are innocent Iraqi's that are being killed by the terrorists.

Our troops kill terrorists, not innocent civilians. There is unintentional collateral damage, even atrocities on occasion, but that happens in all wars. Even the ones we are not involved in. It is a tragic fact, but our intention is not to kill innocents.

There has been terrorism for centuries. We didn't create them.

We are not the terrorists.

What reason did we have to invade Afghanistan? According to intelligence reports, Osama bin Laden was there, and being sheltered by the Taliban led government. But was that a better reason to invade Afghanistan than the reasons we had to invade Iraq?

We invaded a country and dismantled a government so we could find one man, who we failed to find. How is that more justified than removing a vicious dictator who willfully and repeatedly refused to capitulate to our demands that he prove to us that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

The leftists would insist that since we never found such weapons, they didn't exist, but intelligence reports said they did. Who were we to believe? The murderous, lying, dictator or our own intelligence gatherers?

Did we really have a choice? If any of us feel threatened by another individual, after repeated unsuccessful attempts to talk them into stopping that behavior, wouldn't we do something drastic to stop that behavior?

On a side note, why do the leftists protest the war on terrorism so vehemently when it was their own pet organization, the U.N, with whose sanctions Saddam repeatedly refused to comply?

That seems disingenuous to me. If the UN demanded that Saddam comply and he doesn't, it seems to me that the first people to cry for his deposal would be the Liberals. After all, they believe the UN is more important than the United States.

I hate war. I wish to God we had never gone into Iraq. I wish we had not even had to make a decision on whether or not to go to war. It has led to such division among Americans that I fear we may never be united again.

But regardless of our reasons for being there, and whether we are justified or not, we are there. We must finish. We must win. We at least should be united in that.

Perverting Memorial Day

"I think of a hero as someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his freedom." ~ Bob Dylan

I mentioned in a post well over a year ago, that I listen to NPR on weekends. I enjoy "A Prairie Home Companion" hosted by Liberal Garrison Keillor. The program has a variety of musical acts and comedy skits that I enjoy, since I like a variety of music from bluegrass to opera. And I like comedy.

It is a funny show, but it wasn't so funny when Keillor sang an Americanized version of an Eric Bogle song called "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda". The original song is an anti-war anthem, and Keillor sang his version, unashamedly, as a condemnation of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq.

I think singing that particular Americanized version of the song to commemorate Memorial day was in bad taste.

Now, I have mentioned several times that I am anti-war myself, but that I recognize sometimes, that war is the only option we have in certain circumstances. I believe the war in Iraq is a necessary evil, and that we need to win it, and win it convincingly.

There are some particular lines in the original song, about an Australian "swagman" who is drafted to fight in WW I, and loses his legs at Gallipoli, that Keillor didn't change.

The lines that condemn war.

Throughout his version, he simply changed the nationality of the narrator from Australian to American, and the band didn't play "Waltzing Matilda" but "The Star Spangled Banner".

But there are some significant differences between Keillor's version and reality. The narrator of song was drafted against his will into the army. Today's fighting men and women were not drafted. They volunteered.

In Bogle's original version, the narrator fights for his life, there being no indication that he fights for any cause other than a selfish one. In reality, our soldiers fight for freedom, often times sacrificing their own lives for the Iraqi people.

In both versions, the narrator laments that none of his countrymen seem to care about his personal sacrifice. In reality, there are millions of people across America who pray for and honor our soldiers for their tremendous sacrifice.

About the only ones that don't are the anti-war leftists, (Like Garrison Keillor) and Democrats. To them, that sacrifice is pointless and a waste.

Then there is the verse that asks, "The young people ask, What are they marching for? And I ask myself the same question." In my opinion there is no doubt that they march in pride of their heroic battle for the freedom of the world.

I find myself asking, particularly because this is the day in which we memorialize the heroes of American freedom, the question, "Why does the American left continually condemn what is obviously a just and unavoidable war?"

No Habla Inglais? Adios, Muchacha!

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all." ~ Theodore Roosevelt

No habla Inglais? Adios, muchacha! That's what we should say to the illegal aliens in this country. That, and whatever "get out" means in whatever language applies to the specific illegal alien.

Much has been said over the last couple of weeks about the new immigration bill to which President Bush, Ted Kennedy, John McClain, and others have supposedly agreed. The interesting thing is that this time, there are opposing groups in both parties. Perhaps this is the first and possibly only time the two parties have come to a bi-partisan consensus on something.

I am a Conservative registered Republican, but I completely disagree with President Bush on this one. I cannot understand why any intelligent man could actually think this ridiculous proposal would even begin to work to solve the immigration problem in America.

Personally, I call this an amnesty program. Others on both the left and right agree and disagree.

What a country!

And then, I had a thought:

Why don't we enforce the existing immigration laws?

Michael Chertoff, the head of our Homeland Security Department, says it is impossible to deport every illegal immigrant in America. For this reason, we should give them citizenship? And this is the Head of Homeland Security?

Ann Coulter had a good point. Using that kind of logic, rapist and murderers should receive amnesty.

Here is my solution to this seemingly tricky problem:

1. Finish building the fence. Legislation has already been passed and signed authorizing the United States to build a border fence to keep illegals out. To date, 2 miles have been built. Finish it.

2. Deport every illegal alien to their home countries. Yes, it is a daunting task, but it can be done. We have the resources. We need to use them.

3. Arrest the ones who are wanted for various crimes. Deny them bail, prosecute them, put them in jail, and throw away the key.

4. Keep them from coming back in. That would no doubt require hiring more border patrolmen. And supplying them with the necessary equipment to do their job. Like guns, security cameras, vehicles, and dogs.

5. Prosecute all companies that hire illegal aliens. Fine them. Arrest their executives. Whatever. But punish them.

See? Problem solved! And all in less than 15 minutes! Oh, I love it when things zip along!

How To Get Rich(er)

"Nevermind what I told you to do! Do what I tell you!" ~ W. C. Fields

Oh, this is irony. Slip-and-fall lawyer, John Edwards is demonstrating first hand how to beat poverty. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty

Here's a teaser:

"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show."

The report goes on to say Edwards made 9 speeches overall at American Universities at a total price of more than $285,000.

Let us remember that the University of California at Davis is a tax payer funded institution, so it is Californian tax dollars that are paying for Edwards to spout off in favor of using U.S. tax money to fund college educations. This equates to tax dollars that pay for a speaker who advocates raising taxes to pay for speakers who charge $55,000 a speech.

See? Irony!

And while I'm on the subject of John Edwards; I sometimes wonder about how his wife's doctors feel about treating her, knowing that if he can find anything even remotely negligent about her treatment, they will likely get sued. Treating the wife of a highly successful ambulance chasing lawyer has to be a frightening thought. I bet only the most confident doctors would even attempt the task.

All I can say is they better cure her. That is, if they want to continue practicing medicine.

The New Immigration Proposal

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." ~ Ernest Benn

Normally, I don't copy and paste news stories here, but I think this story speaks for itself:

"In a striking reach across party lines, the White House and key lawmakers agreed Thursday on a sweeping immigration plan to grant legal status to millions of people in the country unlawfully."

Sounds a lot like amnesty to me. Could it be?

"The compromise brought together an unlikely alliance of liberal Democrats such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and conservative Republicans such as Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona on an issue that carries heavy potential risks and rewards for all involved."

OK. I already have a problem with this. Anytime Kennedy is involved, I know there will be trouble.

"The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and - after paying fees and a $5,000 fine - ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries first."

Oh yeah, that'll work. Anyone else think illegals who are getting everything free right now will pony up five grand AND voluntarily go back home? Or come forward?

It goes on, but that last part has pretty much convinced me the whole plan is ridiculous, so I am not going to list the other provisions. It won't work. Even if some of the illegals do come forward with $5,000.00, it won't come close to solving the problem.

Why would anyone come forward with that kind of money to be legal when they already have everything they want for free? I know if I was enjoying a free ride with no expectation of responsibility in return, I wouldn't spend a cent to make things even more complicated for me.

Besides the fact that it won't work, the proposal deals somewhat with the number of illegals in the country but it does next to nothing to solve the most serious underlying problem with our open border policies.

This is a National security issue. As I said on a previous post, if friendly, hard working people can enter this country undetected, so can un-friendly murderous terrorists. There is no provision in the current proposal that will prevent terrorists from entering this country illegally for the purpose of committing terrorists acts against innocent Americans.

Build a wall. Deport the illegals. Keep them out. Enforce the border.

Well Done, Good And Faithful Servant

"I am a Christian." ~ Jerry Falwell

Reverend Jerry Falwell graduated to the Church Triumphant yesterday.



I liked Jerry Falwell. I used to watch him preach on TV from his Thomas Road Baptist Church pulpit. I often listened and appreciated him as he preached the truth of the Bible. Contrary to what you may read on Liberal web sites, and blogs, he didn't preach a message of hate or intolerance. He simply told the truth as he saw it, based on his interpretation of the Bible. He preached a message of love, repentance, and forgiveness.

He smiled as he spoke.

I remember one Television broadcast in which he played a videotape of himself bunging jumping. He looked as if he was having fun. It was also, to my mind, a moment which proved Falwell's humanity. In that one short video clip, he showed me humility and and a self deprecating sense of humor.

He made some controversial statements but they were only controversial because people generally don't like to hear the truth if it appears to condemn them.

I am not going to repeat them, or the hateful responses to them here. He deserves a better tribute than that.

He may have been mistaken at times, but the mistakes were not because of what he said, or in their intent, but in how he said it. Or more likely, in how his message was perceived.

Remember, Jesus Christ angered the unrepentant sinner, too. So did the apostle Paul, and every one of the early Christians. Those who were convicted of their sin by the early Christians often responded by putting them to death.

No doubt there are many these days who would have done the same to Falwell, if the law would have permitted.

Just peruse any Liberal web site or blog to read the celebration. They are figuratively dancing on his grave.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Reverend Falwell is in Heaven now, basking in the light of God's Glory, with God's words, "Well done, good and faithful servant." echoing forever in his ears.

The Real Imminent Threat To America

"I have to tell you that we are facing a situation, where if we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will actually have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all." ~ Tom Tancredo

Garsh, that last post was a horrible one! Obviously, I didn't do much research before writing it, but it just shows how my twisted little mind works at times. Sometimes I just sit down and start typing and whatever flows from the end of my now arthritic fingers spills out onto the monitor and into cyberspace.

How unforgiving the world wide web can be!

Oh well, at least it helped to point out a couple of inadequacies in our culture:

1. AOL is not the place to get one's news. Thanks go out to all my blogger friends who didn't point out the stupidity of my last post and a special thanks to the one who did. (I had already decided to write this post before you posted that last comment, Goat)

2. The glaring problem of illegal immigration and it's affect on our culture.


I can't help but wonder how the lawmakers in this country don't see the most painfully obvious problem with illegal immigration. The fact that anyone can enter this country illegally regardless of intent, if they know how. And what is becoming even more painfully obvious is that more and more are learning how.

I have been working in Northern Virginia for the last couple of months, and I have noticed the Hispanic population there is completely out of control. As I have mentioned before, I don't know what percentage of them are illegal, but I'm reasonably sure that a majority of them are. So few of them speak or understand even a minimum of English points to that fact. I even ran across one woman who not only didn't know a word of English, she couldn't even read Spanish!

I simply cannot believe that people like that are legal.

I don't know how much English is required to be able to become a naturalized citizen in this country, but I'll bet one has to learn at least enough to carry on a conversation in English.

In another recent stupid entry I posted, I said I think if illegals want to become legal, they should be required to learn conversational English. If not, they should be deported. And I still believe that it should be required as part of the naturalization process. But that process should only be extended to those who apply for citizenship legally.

I also stated, in that entry, that it would be next to impossible to deport all the illegal aliens, but upon further reflection, I think we are doing grave harm to our country if we don't at least make a serious concerted effort to round up every last one of them and deport them permanently, and also erect a better, more imposing, more impenetrable wall between the US and Mexico. And while we're at it, I believe we should do the same at the Canadian border.

As I said, I don't understand how the lawmakers in this country don't see the potential danger to this country's security, due to so many unchecked illegal immigrants. My God, they are practically overrunning our nation's capital! They are right under Congress' nose! I realize that President Bush, due to security concerns, doesn't get many opportunities to observe firsthand the prevalence of non-English speaking immigrants, but surely most of the Members of Congress and Senators no doubt come into direct contact with illegal immigrants daily as they live, shop, and worship in the DC area.

Yes, I agree it's true that most of them are law abiding, hard working, friendly people, who came into this country to obtain a higher quality of life for themselves and their families. And the way their families pull together to ensure that better life is inspiring. It is rare to come across a household of Latinos in the DC area, that doesn't consist of father, mother, children, uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents and friends all living and working together under the same roof. The cooperation that is required to sustain that kind of lifestyle is admirable, to say the least.

But let us not forget something: If friendly law abiding hard working Hispanics can enter this country illegally, so can law breaking, hate filled, potentially deadly terrorists. The recent Fort Dix plot underscored the need for improved border reinforcement and stricter immigration laws.

How many more Fort Dix six's are there out there even now?

We were lucky this time. It makes us wonder what could or would have happened if that Circuit City employee hadn't become suspicious and alerted authorities to what he discovered on that tape. Next time, there may not be an alert citizen to disrupt the plans of potential terrorists.

With our modern technology, we can spot a hamster concealed in leaves from deep space! Why can't we find 600,000 illegal aliens?


And another thing: Those who say illegal immigrants are only taking jobs that U.S. Citizens won't do are dead wrong. Many of the illegals are operating their own businesses. Lawn services, roofing, construction, remodeling, etc. The list goes on and on. There is no way they can do that without help from our own Government.

What's wrong with this picture? And what's wrong with a government that turns a blind eye to this danger that is threatening to destroy our great country from within? What's wrong with businesses in America that encourage illegal immigration by hiring them at under the table wages to increase their profit margin? Is the savings to their payroll worth the incredible risks?

Need we remind our lawmakers why illegal immigration is an issue of importance? How's this for a reminder?

I daresay this illegal immigration problem is a far more imminent threat to us than global climate change.

The Most Important Unimportant News Of The Day

"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved." ~ Confucius

I mentioned in an earlier post that I rarely listen to talk radio anymore since the only time I listen to radio of any stripe is when I'm driving, and my car is still not working, so I have been driving an '86 Toyota Pick up that has no radio.

But today, I was driving another car that has a radio and I heard some news that took me by surprise.

Why did it take me by surprise?

Because I hadn't heard it reported in the mainstream news media, and it is of such import, it would seem to me to be a major news development. I don't understand how the major news outlets could have missed the importance. The story didn't even merit as much as a passing mention on AOL news, which is the main source from whence I get the majority of my news. AOL news is the first thing I see every time I sign on to the Internet.

Unfortunately, AOL gets the majority of it's news from the AP and Reuters and UPI, all Liberally biased news outlets.

That may explains the absence of this particular story. Except I would normally assume that even Liberals would be concerned about this story:

It seems that six men were arrested and charged in New Jersey for plotting to launch an attack on soldiers stationed at Fort Dix. From what I understand they were planning to kill hundreds of soldiers.

All six men are Muslim. Perhaps that's just a coincidence? Here's another shocker:

Three of the six were illegal aliens.

Now. Here's what I don't understand. Why doesn't the media consider this story to be more important than...say... President Bush accidentally saying the Queen of England hadn't "visited America since 17...uh...1976"?

Oh yeah. That's a major news story. That ranks right up there with a one legged former model falling while dancing.

Upon further investigation, it seems I am wrong about major news outlets not reporting this story. I have to grudgingly admit that the New York Slimes reported this story, along with several other news outlets. It just didn't make it into AOL, for some reason. But as I mentioned, AOL is my major daily source of news, and I can't find the story there.

But I digress. Getting back to the story, an employee of the local Circuit City notified authorities after the suspects asked him to edit and transfer a video tape to DVD that depicted armed men taking target practice with live ammunition while shouting such innocuous phrases such as "Allah Akbar!" Needless to say, the employee got suspicious.

And probably a little bit spooked.

OK, that's the main points of the story. Now, here is what I heard listening to Conservative talk radio:

There is a terrorism expert in the Balkans claiming that a new "white Al-Qaeda" is operating here that has been trained and planted here from the Balkans and from Kosovo. They do not look like Arabs, but they're being trained to hate and plan and execute terrorist attacks. The Fort Dix Six were apprehended before they could get moving on it, but the Salt Lake City mall shooter who killed four was part of the group.

The Clinton White House ordered the quick evacuation of 20,000 Kosovar refugees that the United States pledged to take, shortcutting normal procedures and background checks. In the refugee village at Fort Dix, N.J., as many as 3,000 of the 20,000 ethnic Albanians that the United States took in are being housed.

A military website, Quartermaster.Army.mil, reports, "A 1996 book by First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton titled 'It Takes A Village' became part of a theme for designing the refugee-processing center. The First Lady’s book centered on rekindling a society that totally sustains and supports its families and individuals, especially its children. It was a 530th soldier who had read the First Lady’s book and recommended naming the processing center’s physical location the 'Village' rather than a 'camp' or a 'compound.'"

So, Hillary Clinton has to take some of the blame for these illegals being in this country in the first place? If they hadn't been caught, and their murderous plan come to fruition, would Hillary stand up and take responsibility like a man?

I digress again. Do you suppose this new information that would seem to point to some inadequacies in our current immigration and security procedures will motivate our nation's lawmakers to seal the gaps and renovate the system?

Don't hold your breath.

The Democrats are even now plotting to further undermine the Department of Homeland Security. In light of the latest news regarding yet more terrorists plots, one would think they would support tightening up our national security.

Well, as Fats Waller once said, "One never knows, do one?"

An Interesting Conversation

"How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ~ Benjamin Disraeli

Last night I met a lady who has an interesting job and interesting experiences to share as a result. Both her and her husband work for the United States State department, indirectly for Condoleeza Rice.

We had a short but interesting conversation.

Now, many of you are aware that I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Condy, so I couldn't resist the urge to ask how well she knew Secretary Rice. She said she has only met her in person once, but that she was a very sweet, friendly, down to earth, yet classy lady.

She went on to say that she and her husband have met often with President Bush and first lady Laura. She told me that President Bush and Laura are very good people with friendly, real personalities. She likes them. She also said she has numerous photos that she took herself of her own kids sitting on Laura's lap.

She also has met former President Bush and says he is also very nice and friendly.

Then she mentioned meeting Hillary Clinton.

She says, She "was not impressed" by Hillary. Hillary, according to my customer, is very rude, condescending, elitist, and interestingly enough, "always late". Apparently, punctuality is a very important trait to the lady.

By the way, she also mentioned, in the course of her job, she and her husband are often sent overseas to work in American embassies. She said they have spent time in Iraq since the war begun.

She says, people have no idea how well everything is going over there. The American presence there has been positively effective in many ways. She said (surprise!) that the news media rarely reports the positive news from Iraq, preferring to accent the negatives.

Gee. What a surprise! Who knew?

What Do You Dislike About America?

"I have to tell you that we are facing a situation, where if we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will actually have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all." ~ Tom Tancredo

You just have to hear MSNBC's David Gregory's analysis of the Republican debate Thursday night. Anyone that doesn't think MSNBC is Liberally biased after watching this clip must have tapioca for brains.

I haven't been able to find video replay of the debate, but Mark Levin had this to say:

"NBC can't decide whether its hosts should be blatant liberal partisans or journalists, and it shows. Chris Matthews is not a professional journalist. He's a political junkie with deep Democrat party roots. Many of his questions weren't intended to elicit a candidate's substantive views but to play gotcha and embarrass."

And then he said, "Moreover, Keith Olbermann prides himself on carrying water for George Soros, Media Matters, and the rest of the liberal unintelligensia. His commentaries, including the one delivered last night about 30 minutes before the start of the debate, bordered on the imbecilic. When he finished delivering it, he then immediately pretended to pull on his news analyst pants."

Finally he said, "If the debate had been managed properly — apart from too many interruptions with silly questions and stage-play by the questioners — an effort would have been made to draw contrasts between the Republican candidates and the Democrat candidates. After all, that's the bottom line. Instead, a cast of Bush-haters were more interested in trying to goad the candidates into attacking the lame-duck Republican administration."

I didn't get a chance to watch the debate. I was working. I wish I had now. I have heard some sound bites (bytes?) of some of the questions asked, and now I can't find any of them. The only question I remember being asked from the sound bites is my title question: "What do you dislike most about America?"

That sounds accusatory to me. And knowing that the question came from a Californian increases the odds that it was more an accusation than a legitimate question.

For the record, Mitt Romney had an excellent answer to that question.

Despite it being an obvious "gotcha" question meant to embarrass Romney, I would like to respond to it, myself.

What I dislike the most about America is the lack of border enforcement and the way our politicians look the other way regarding the problem.

But, I have an idea of a solution.

I don't believe we can round up all illegals and deport them. There are simply far too many of them, and we don't have the resources. But we can insist that those who want to stay learn conversational English. Those illegals who do can stay and apply for citizenship. Those who refuse should be deported.

Of course, those who have felony records should be deported regardless.

This idea would solve two problems. We will get rid of the illegals who don't really want to assimilate into America, and the ones who really do will learn how to communicate with the rest of us.

We should not be forced to learn other country's languages. This is our country, not theirs. If they want to live here as American citizens, they should be expected to assimilate themselves into our culture. We should not be forced to have to accommodate theirs. There is nothing wrong with celebrating ones heritage, but there is no reason we should have to celebrate their heritage along with them.

It's a simple solution that will not be simple to implement. Nevertheless, it is worth the effort, in my opinion.

Learn English or go home!

Not Wrong Yet

"Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing." ~ Abraham Lincoln

According to news reports, A top Bush administration official, Randall Tobias, has been named as one of the clients of the DC Madam, Deborah Palfrey.

-------------------------------Randall Tobias---------------------------

ABC News reported late Friday that Tobias said in a Thursday interview that he had used the Pamela Martin and Associates escort services for massages, but it reported that he said there had been "no sex."

Recently, I made some predictions regarding what may be found when the contents of the DC madam's "little black book" is made public. Now that a couple of names in her records have been leaked, it would seem to appear that maybe my predictions were wrong.

It would appear.

But let's not jump to conclusions here. For one thing, let's try to remember that ABC news is one of several news outlets that would like nothing better than to prove all Republicans corrupt. They are, after all, Liberally biased.

Let's also not forget that as of yet, only two names on the list have been revealed. There is no doubt that there are indeed Republicans listed in that book. But it by no means suggests that only Republicans are on it, or even that Democrat names don't outnumber Republican's.

I never suggested that there wouldn't be any Republicans listed. So the jury is still out concerning the accuracy of my predictions.

Here are some additional thoughts, however:

I want to get this one out of the way first: Mr. Tobias stated that no sex occurred during his visits to the Madam's escort service. If you believe that one, I have some land in Florida to sell you. Whether there was sex involved or not, he did the right thing in immediately resigning. On the other hand, not only should he not have patronized the escort service in the first place, he should have resigned before it became known he was a client. Now it simply appears as he only resigned to save the Bush administration embarrassment.

Which, of course, he did. That was stupid, in my opinion.

Now. It doesn't fit the Liberally biased media's agenda to reveal the names of Democrats on the list, so it isn't surprising in the least that no Democrat's names have as yet been revealed.

ABC will not reveal Democrats names. They will cover them up at all costs. But if, somehow, ABC accidentally leaks any Democrats names, You can bet the Democrats involved will not resign. Instead they will return triumphant to their posts to the thunderous applause of their constituency and colleagues.

The Democrats will exploit the Tobias story to bolster their ridiculous notion of a "culture of Corruption", indeed, the left wing blogs (although I don't visit or read them) are no doubt already celebrating yet another stunning victory.

So, my predictions have not been proven wrong. I stand by my original predictions.

They Were Heroes Once

"The real hero is always a hero by mistake; he dreams of being an honest coward like everybody else." ~ Umberto Eco

While channel surfing last night I happened across some Congressional hearing being chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman. I don't know the name of the committee, but it was about the fabrication of stories of heroism in Iraq, specifically, the friendly fire death of Former pro football player Pat Tillman and the capture and ultimate rescue of Jessica Lynch. As I've said before, I'm really not a news junkie, but I stopped and watched, and listened as former hero Jessica Lynch recounted her experience in Iraq.

Jessica says she is still confused about "why they chose to lie and make me a legend."

And so am I.

As I watched, the thought struck me that Ms Lynch was exactly right. Yes, the Armed services and the media lied about the circumstances of Jessica and Pat Tillman's heroism. Yes, Jessica was not the hero the media and the armed services hyped her to be. No, Pat Tillman didn't die as a result of enemy fire.

But I was also struck by the realization that for whatever reason, the powers that be decided that America needs these people to be heroes. They seem to believe that Pvt Lynch needed to bravely fight off her eventual capture, guns in both hands blazing, until she was at last overwhelmed.

They seem to believe America needed Pat Tillman to be shot by enemy soldiers while vainly fighting to save his comrades.

Why do we need to invent stories of heroism to sell the war to everyday non combatant Americans? Are there no "actual" heroes available?


I think Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, and those thousands of others are heroes. They are heroes just for enlisting. They are heroes for just going to Iraq. They are heroes by virtue of just being there, fighting so that we here in the states don't have to face terrorism in our own back yards.

Why do the armed services and/or the media have to invent stories to create larger than life super heroes out of men and women who are just doing their jobs? Do they really believe it necessary to sell the war at home? Do they believe it necessary to create legends instead of simply reporting the facts? There are plenty of real heroic acts in this war to report without embellishment. Many of them even more dramatic than the ones they report.

Isn't the images of terrorists sawing off the heads of innocent civilians and the results of suicide bombers enough to convince the public that terrorists need to be stopped? Who do they think is going to stop them if not soldiers?

Propaganda is a tactic employed by every government in every age since the world began. It is a profoundly effective way to influence troops and public opinion, either for purposes of motivating or for demoralizing.

So what?

Everyone who enlisted in this time of war is a hero to me. Not only the ones in actual life risking combat situations, but everyone who dons a uniform of the United States Armed services. Whether they are shooting at the enemy or simply requisitioning office supplies and filing papers for the everyday operations on bases here at home.

All are heroes.

They are the reason I can sit here in relative comfort and type these words without fear of being taken in the night and imprisoned and tortured and summarily executed for expressing my convictions. I have the freedom to agree or disagree with my government, or the news media, or anyone else because of the commitment of these brave men and women who consider it not only a right, but a privilege to serve.

Why invent heroes? Why?

And, as long as we're asking questions, why are we bothering to investigate these stories in the first place? What is being accomplished by downplaying the role of our soldiers in battle?

It seems to me that the Democrats conducting these hearings are attempting to discredit the current administration. It is a red herring. It is a blatant attempt to distract Americans from the real reason we are fighting this war. The real reason Tillman and Lynch were over there in the first place. They want to focus on the propaganda instead of why we make use of the propaganda:

To inspire and motivate our own people, and to demoralize our enemies.

And what they are succeeding in doing is precisely the opposite.

Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman and thousands of others are heroes. It matters not how they earned their accolades, only that they have earned them.

Ambassador Bill

"And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil." ~ William Shakespeare

Hillary Clinton has announced what role her husband will play in her Presidential administration.

No, it won't be interviewing candidates for positions as interns (literally) under him.

According to the Liberally biased AP, She wants to make him "a roaming ambassador to the world, using his skills to repair the nation's tattered image abroad".

Personally, I think this is a great idea! No, seriously. There is no doubt that Bill has great charisma, and is loved by dictators, despots, Socialists, and terrorist leaders around the world.

That's a good thing, isn't it?

Here's another possible good thing that can come out of Hilary's plans for her husband:

If Bill gets killed by the terrorists while he is trying to negotiate appeasement terms with them, the Democrats will finally see why we are fighting them.

After all, he is the Democrats hero, isn't he?

The Victimization Of Cho

“There is something rotten in the state of Denmark!” ~ William Shakespeare

One prediction I forgot to include on Tuesday when I offered my predictions on the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre is now too late to make because it is becoming evident that the process has already started.

The media will attempt to create victimhood status for Seung-hui Cho.

I realize it doesn't look like that's what they are doing yet, but give them time. They realize that any characterization of the shooter as a victim of social injustice at this time is too soon, and the public will not buy it. But let the shock wear off a little. Right now they are preparing us for the big announcement.

Already they are attempting to desensitize us to the fact that he murdered 32 innocent people by focusing instead on his insane pronouncements that rich people and Christianity are at fault for making him kill.

They will latch onto these statements and present them as inescapable fact to create a sense of guilt in rich people and Christians, and any other group of people they want to blame.

They will blame Christianity and man's inhumanity to man to excuse the murderous acts of any crazy person who commits murder.

It is never the perpetrator's fault. It is always society's.

I want to also point out that already, the Democrats are talking about legislation to prevent this type of thing from happening again, just as I predicted.

The only reason they haven't already introduced a bill making it illegal to shoot college students on college campuses, is because they haven't agreed among each other what the exact wording of the bill should be. They can't just say, "It shall be illegal to shoot college students on college campuses". That would be too simple and too transparent. They have to make sure it doesn't sound redundant.

After all, as I pointed out on Tuesday, murder is already illegal.

It is both amusing and frightening just how predictable these Liberals have become.

Tax Day!

Click to enlarge.

Multiple posting today. Scroll down for my thoughts on todays news.

More Predictions

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." ~ Isaac Asimov



The tragic events at Virginia Tech University yesterday has started me thinking again, (see previous post) and so, I have a couple more predictions to share.

Prediction number 1:

I will not go so far as to say at this point that I believe the shooter was a Muslim, but my prediction is, if it becomes known that the shooter was a Muslim, we won't hear it from the Mainstream media. We won't hear it on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or read it in the New York Slimes, Washington ComPost, the L.A. Slimes, The Cleveland Claim Dealer, etc.

The media simply doesn't want to blame Muslims for anything. If the media is forced to acknowledge the shooter is a Muslim, they will find a way to blame his onslaught on Conservatism, or Christianity, or both.

However, you may hear it from FOX News.

Prediction number 2:

OK. This one is a no-brainer. The gun control left will renew their incessant call for outlawing guns. The right will renew their insistence that "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". And the right will be ...well...right. Left wingers will cite other countries that don't have high gun related death rates because of strict gun control laws, and Conservatives will point out true statistics that refute that myth.

Prediction number 3:

There will be copycat shootings in other schools within the next few weeks. Probably not Colleges. Most likely high schools.

Prediction number 4:

In short order, The Democratically controlled United States Congress will introduce legislation that will make it illegal to shoot students on College campuses. This is something that I have always referred to as "Typical Government Overkill".

Remember the case of Matthew Shepard, the gay young man who was beaten to death by a couple of gay bashing thugs in Wyoming? Congress reacted to his death by passing a law that effectively made it illegal to kill gays because they are gay.

The dragging death of James Byrd in Texas by a couple of white racists prompted Congress to pass a law making it illegal to kill people because of their color.

The preceding examples are labeled "hate Crime legislation" to distinguish them from just plain murder, which as we all know, is already illegal.

I might point out here, that the Democrats know that shooting college students on college campuses is already illegal, but this will prove to the gullible that Democrats are at least doing something to prevent violence.

Actually, to be fair, I shouldn't lay this unnecessary legislation on the Democrats doorstep alone. Many Republicans introduce equally redundant laws.

Oh well, I suppose that's what we pay them for, isn't it?

I Think

"I think, therefore, I am" ~ René Descartes

Imagine my surprise when I discovered I have been awarded a "Thinking blogger" award, from not one, but two of my fellow bloggers!
The Thinking Blogger Award

Ken, from "The Conservative Truth/ The Liberal Lie" , left the message for me in the comments section of my last post, as did Mary, from "Freedom Eden".

Actually, I'm not completely sure if I got the award because I make people think or because I think, myself. I will define it in my own way, thank you, and assume it means I think.

Who'da thunk?

The reason this comes as such a surprise to me is because there are some bloggers that apparently believe that I don't think at all.

I won't mention any names, but one in particular comes to mind who's initials are E.R. He repeatedly accuses me of getting all my blog entry ideas from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc. I assume this means he doesn't believe I have the capacity to think for myself. He often infers that I listen too much to Conservative talk radio.

Nothing could be further from the truth. While I enjoy listening to Conservative talk radio, unfortunately I rarely do anymore, due to the fact that I only listen to radio when I'm driving, and the old pick-up truck I've been driving doesn't have one.

Interesting enough, I recently responded to one of his typical accusations over at ELAshley's place, in which I charged that he is less likely to do any original thinking than I. I referred to the fact that his posts usually are copied and pasted from some overtly Liberal website somewhere, with very little actual commentary from him. I rarely do that.

ELAshley, by the way, is one of my choices for my bestowal of the thinking blogger award.

So, while I'm on that subject, I am expected to list The Official Participation Rules. They are as follows:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think

2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme

3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.

Here are my official choices for Thinking Blogger Award recipients:

1. Lone Ranger

2. Serial Extremist

3. The Flesh is Grass

4. Chicago Con

5. Trucker Philosophy

I would have liked to add Marshall Art to the list, but as far as I know, he doesn't have a blog. Yet.

Just to prove that I do indeed think, here is a thought upon which I often reflect, and it involves the quote I placed at the beginning of this post:

If, in the course of a discussion, Descartes were to state, "I think not", would he then cease to exist?

Ultra-Sensitivity And Over-Reacction

"There will be a time when loud-mouthed, incompetent people seem to be getting the best of you. When that happens, you only have to be patient and wait for them to self destruct. It never fails." ~ Richard Rybolt

Forgive me. I know I have an opinion about this whole Don Imus' insensitive remark thing, but I can't seem to get my mind wrapped around how I feel. I know I feel something but I can't seem to articulate what I want to say.

The way I usually handle this kind of dilemma is to just start typing and whatever comes out is closest to what I want to say, but is rarely everything I have to say.

The issue is so petty and so unimportant, I don't know why it causes me to be unable to sleep thinking about it.

The remark, which referred to the Rutgers University women's basketball team as "nappy headed ho's", was absolutely insensitive, and on that, I believe we all agree.

I think the issue is not so much in what was said, but in the intent behind it.

Did Imus use the term as an intentional insult, or was he simply using a common colloquialism used routinely by blacks in an non-derogatory way? It can be argued that he was echoing the same kind of euphemisms that blacks use in their own everyday conversation, in an unconscious attempt to relate to his black audience members.

I don't think so. Don Imus is, in my opinion, an elitist, condescending, egotist who cares about one person and one person only. Himself. He believes himself intellectually above the masses. He is an angry, hateful man.

I don't doubt for an instant that he was forced by his radio network to issue an apology or face serious repercussions.

Everything and everyone is fair game to Don Imus. So, in that respect, he probably shouldn't be faulted for singling out one particular race. He is, after all, an equal opportunity offender.

Does he really have that much disrespect for black people? Absolutely. However, he has that much disrespect for all people regardless of race, color, or creed. Does that excuse his inappropriate remark?

Not on your life.

He did apologize, by the way, and his apology sounded quite a bit more sincere than others, such as Dick Durbin's and Cynthia McKinney's "If I have offended anyone" apologies.

Curiously, they still have their jobs.

On the other hand, I also believe the civil rights leaders who claim to be offended aren't really offended at all, but would never miss an opportunity to use any so-called offensive remark to generate more publicity and inflame as much public outrage as they can. Their entire motive is to further widen the gap between whites and minorities in this country, and Imus played right into their hands.

Rev. Al Sharpton, who has himself used similar offensive terms in referring to white people and has yet to offer an apology, had Imus on his radio show ostensibly, so Imus could apologize, and ended up pretending further offense when Imus inadvertently referred to Sharpton and his black Congresswoman telephone guest as "you people".

Obviously, Imus wasn't referring to all black people when he said that, but Sharpton was quick to object strenuously at the intentionally mis-perceived phrase.

Howard Stern, an equally egotistic radio shock jock, who has himself experienced some conflict with Don Imus in the past, nevertheless rallied to his foe's side, saying, something like, He shouldn't have apologized. He should have said it's just a joke, F--- You.

Now, Imus has been fired by MSNBC, and speculation abounds about whether CBS radio will fire him as well. If he is fired, it won't hurt him. In fact, it may turn out to be advantageous to him. Satellite radio will hire him and probably at a much higher pay rate.

Another thing I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around is this seeming ultra sensitivity to just about everything these days. It seems to me that too many people are much too thin skinned, and object to the most petty of offenses. If I am called a "cracker" or a "peckerwood" by a black person, I don't feel the least bit offended, but maybe that's because I really don't understand what it is about those words that I am to be offended. I know they are supposed to be insults directed at whites mainly because of our color, but I don't know what the terms mean.

Lewis Farrakhan has referred to whites in general as "white devils". I find that slightly offensive, but certainly not enough to rise up in outrage and demand his immediate execution. He never apologized for that, as far as I know. Jesse Jackson used the term "Hymie town" in referring to New York City's large population of Jews. He never apologized. Sharpton himself has ignited race riots with his racist pronouncements. Riots in which lives were lost. I don't remember an apology for that.

I find the loss of life resulting from irresponsible and unmotivated racist remarks highly and outrageously offensive. My outrage is not, however, predicated on what color I am.

It's not only over sensitivity to racist remarks that has me troubled. There are also all kinds of other examples of ultra sensitivity and the resulting over-reaction. I am thinking specifically of situations involving the relatively new problem of deadly road rage.

This is over-sensitivity related, too.

Yesterday, a truck driver in Maryland deliberately rammed a car off the road, killing the two occupants of the vehicle. Reports from eyewitnesses say the drivers of both vehicles involved had been driving recklessly, shouting, and flipping each other off just prior to the incident. Needless to say, the driver of the pick up sped away and authorities are still searching for him.

Last night, another incident occurred in Virginia on I-95 which also may have been a case of road rage. It may not either, but in any case, a car was exceeding the speed limit by about 15 miles per hour and slammed into the side of a semi-trailer truck, forcing the truck off the road, where it overturned, killing the driver and blocking all lanes of traffic.

That angered me personally, because I was caught in the traffic jam myself. I felt no need to react violently. But then, I have learned to be patient in my declining years.

Hey! Here's a thought!

Perhaps the appropriate punishment for people who have difficulty with being able to be patient would be some practical education. They should be forced to learn patience the same way I learned how to be patient.

They should be forced to stand in the longest, slowest moving check out line at Walmart, and not complain.

What If They Held A Debate And No One Came?

"Curiouser and curiouser', Cried Alice (She was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)" ~ Lewis Carrol

While the hot topic in the news is yet another of Don Imus' ignorant statements, (Imus has always been a jerk, and if anyone thinks he doesn't really think that way, seek professional help) there comes a rather curious story regarding the refusal of at least three major Democratic Presidential candidates to participate in a debate because....I guess...it was to be broadcast on FOX News.

Now this, I have to admit, I don't get. What are Hillary, Obama, and Edwards afraid of? Do they think that somehow, FOX will make them say something they don't want the public to know? Or is it that because FOX news is fair and balanced they fear they won't be allowed to get away with untruths that the other networks would allow? And how would FOX news be able to do that if they just allowed the candidates to speak without offering comment?

I have tried to come up with some perspective on this but I really have no idea what the motivation is to refuse FOX to broadcast this debate unless it is some childish attitude along the lines of "I don't like them so I won't go to their stupid party" kind of thing.

The debate will be co-sponsored by FOX News and the Congressional Black Caucus. On the surface it would seem the Democrats are cutting off their nose to spite their face, (after all, black voters are a big part of the Democrats base) but that wouldn't be true, either, according to the Liberally biased AP:

"Democrats have been under pressure from liberal activists to avoid Fox-hosted debates. Last month, the Nevada Democratic Party canceled a debate that Fox was to co-sponsor in August.

The institute, a nonprofit group whose directors include members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Fox News announced an agreement nearly two weeks ago to air Republican and Democratic presidential debates. But activists, including civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, immediately criticized the alliance and many called on Democrats to pull out."

Jesse Jackson criticizing other blacks? Who'd a thunk?

So the question remains: What do the Democrat Presidential candidates fear?

And does America really want a President that is afraid of something so innocuous as a news network?

Happy Easter!

"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay." ~ Matthew 28:1-6

Photo courtesy of Poison Pero

Happy Easter. For more of my thoughts about this day, see my other blog, "Gods way, My way"

Arrogance Knows No Bounds

"To excite opposition and inflame malevolence is the unhappy privilege of courage made arrogant by consciousness of strength." ~ Samuel Johnson

Arrogance knows no bounds. President Bush has appointed Republican fundraiser Sam Fox as U.S. ambassador to Belgium over the objections of the Democratic party, and especially, John Kerry.

According to the Liberally biased AP, "Democrats had denounced Fox for his donation to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential campaign. The group's TV ads, which claimed that Sen. John Kerry exaggerated his military record in Vietnam, were viewed as a major factor in the Massachusetts Democrat's election loss."

"Fox, a 77-year-old St. Louis businessman, gave $50,000 to the Swift Boat group. He is national chairman of the Jewish Republican Coalition and was dubbed a "ranger" by Bush's 2004 campaign for raising at least $200,000. He is founder and chairman of the Clayton, Mo.-based Harbour Group, which specializes in the takeover of manufacturing companies.

Fox has donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates and causes since the 1990s."


They even said what the President did may be illegal. I don't believe it is. He used the same strategy to appoint John Bolton ambassador to the UN.

Oh, horror of horrors! Fox actually donated to a group that supported one candidate over another! For shame! for shame!

One would think that Fox is a Republican or something. Farbeit from a Democrat President to ever appoint a Democrat fundraiser to an important office.

Really, the thing that astounds me over this thing is the arrogance of both the Democrats and the President.

First, While I think it was brilliant of the President to make use of the recess appointment strategy, I also think it was an intentional slap in the face of the Democrats. I don't think it was necessary to appoint Fox, in particular. I think there are probably many less controversial and better qualified prospects. I think it was a move calculated to anger the Democrats.

If a Democratic President did the same thing, I am quite sure I would be as outraged as the Democrats are now.

But I'm not outraged now. I am, after all, a Republican.

On the other hand, how dare the Democrats object to this appointment just because he donated money to Bush's Presidential campaign! The reason they don't want him to be ambassador is because they are still angry that Kerry got caught being a phony, and Fox was one of many who helped catch him.

Go ahead, Democrats! Take your ball and go home! Geeez.

The real arrogance comes from John Kerry. He still insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that he is a genuine war hero. The Swift Boat Veterans brought forth overwhelming eye witness testimony (which is admissible in any court in the land, with the possible exception of California's 6th district court.) that John Kerry is a phony, but still the Democrats still insist he is a hero.

A hero that undermines the troops and the war effort? That isn't a hero as far as I'm concerned.

Then there's the arrogance of Nancy Pelosi. Despite the administration telling her explicitly not to go to Syria, she went anyway. And what did she do while over there comporting with one of the worlds worst terrorists and dictators? From another AP article, "After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said."

This, according to a Washington Compost editorial, is a misrepresentation.

Misrepresentation? Let's call it what it is:

A lie.

That's arrogance, too.

Arrogance is not necessarily a bad thing. It often helps sports teams get motivated to win. It helps businessmen convince their bosses that they have what it takes to be promoted. It can be healthy.

But not in this case. President Bush showed arrogance, absolutely.

But, in comparison to the Democrats, his is minimal.

A Fungus Amung Us

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." ~ Sun-tzu

Well, a Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat again is making news today.

According to the AP, a news organization that seems to take a great deal of delight in any story, (or even non-story) that makes the Republicans and George W. Bush specifically, look bad, Michael Dowd, a "top Democratic strategist", is disappointed in Bush's leadership.

Dowd, (no relation to Maureen or even Elwood P?) labeled by the fawning AP as "a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal" has come out with the statement that his faith in President Bush was "misplaced".

So, he never really switched parties in the first place. He just thought Bush was more Democrat than Republican. Or did he?

According to the Liberally biased AP, "He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides."

Who is he kidding?

Let's take these allegations one at a time.

President Bush failed to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war?

Bush has never ceased to call for a shared sense of sacrifice. From the very beginning of this conflict in Iraq, he has constantly referred to the struggle as a long road that we must travel to assure freedom throughout the world, and that it would take tremendous sacrifices for all Americans.

I guess the the Defeatocrats and the RINO appeasers in Congress who have constantly opposed and undermined his efforts don't consider themselves part of that America.

He failed to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq?

If President Bush has failed to build consensus, it hasn't been his fault. One need only to look at the Democrats in both Houses of Congress to see who has failed in that particular endeavor.

If anything, Bush has tried too hard to reach consensus with the Democrats, with his concessionary attitude toward those who would seek surrender in the war on Terror. You know, like Murtha and Kerry et al.

He ignores the will of the people? What people? Democrats? "Jihad" Jane Fonda? "Peace through surrender" Cindy Sheehan?

Most Americans want us to win in Iraq. It's true many Americans have changed their minds about how this war should be fought, but winning the war is still the ultimate goal of most of us. And that is precisely what he is trying to do, in spite of whining bleeding heart liberal sob sisters like Joe Biden and Chucky Shumer.

He didn't hold those responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib accountable?

On what planet? Was Lindy not convicted? Was her boyfriend's sentence commuted? If so, I didn't hear about it. Hasn't everyone involved in that scandal been punished?

What more does Mr. Dowd want?

Mr. Bush approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides"?

Well, most people would consider that "my way or the highway" mentality a desirable quality of strong leadership.

That said, really the only reason his circle of aides could be shrinking is the number of baseless allegations of scandal ensuing from the left side of the aisle, aimed at discrediting the integrity of Bush's aides. Rather than distract America from the truly important issues, they simply resign. It isn't because they no longer believe in Bush or his mission.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would say that Mr. Dowd is a Democrat plant, placed in Bush's inner circle to discredit him, thereby destroying the administration from within. But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I don't think that way.

I do think, however, that Mr. Dowd is a fair weather opportunist who jumps from one side to the other depending on which party appears to have the political advantage over the other.

They call those kind of people "mugwumps". They are the ones who sit with their mugs on one side of the fence, and their wumps on the other.

If Bush has made any mistake it was in the hiring of this guy. Obviously, he failed to properly screen those who work on his campaigns.