"Life moves pretty fast. You don't stop and look around once in awhile, you could miss it." - Ferris Bueller

Wednesday, March 31, 2004
 
On Al Franken:

Al “Cheap Shot” Franken is taking to the airwaves today on America’s newest and least listened to liberal radio network Air America. If you weren’t aware of this, don’t be surprised. Most of the radio listening audience in America won’t be able to pick Al’s show out of the dial.

I could go into why this venture will fail, but I will defer to Jay Severin. He’s got the numbers and supporting data. Unlike Al, I quote my source when I use one. Al “Cheap Shot” Franken hasn’t had an original thought in years.

For those of you who don’t know Al, I’ll provide you a quick biography. He’s a washed up comedian turned political satirist. His most memorable role stems from Saturday Night Live where he made a career portraying Stuart Smalley – a graduate of several twelve step programs. The more I learn about Al, the more I think art was imitating life. He starred in a movie Stuart Saves His Family, obviously based on the SNL character. If you didn’t see the movie, you’re not alone. I believe the total audience for that film barely crept into the double digits.

He’s since written a book which I will not link to. Had it not had the Maha Rushie’s name on the cover, it would’ve sold 15 copies. He now takes shots at politicians and has used his 15 minutes of fame to get his distorted mug on the air whenever possible.

Now he has taken it upon himself to “take back” the airwaves from the radical right. Air America is bought and paid for by liberals who think that if they just start talking, everyone will stop listening to Rush, Sean, Hugh, and the rest of the right leaning talk shows out there and finally come to their senses.

I again refer you to my treatise on rights. Everyone has a right to speak. No one has the right to be heard.

I will make a bold prediction here. America will great Al & Company with a yawn. Sure, there will be an initial spike in interest, just to see what sewage they spew forth. The media will listen, but radio is a very tough business. Media attention does not a successful radio show make. Al’s demographic (long haired, dope smoking, maggot infested, FM types) doesn’t listen to talk radio anyway. Eventually bills will have to be paid. In the end, market forces will rule the day, and Al will be reduced to trying to cheap shot campaign protestors in order to get the attention he so greatly craves..

So, good luck, Al. You’re going to need it. Actually, you’re going to need more than that. You’re going to need listeners and market share. Market forces are very stubborn things, and no matter how loud you scream, you’re going to find out one very stark reality.

You’re not good enough. You sure as hell aren’t smart enough, and doggone it, people just won’t give a rat’s ass what you’re talking about.

Here endeth the lesson.

Tuesday, March 30, 2004
 
On Condi Rice:

Dick “Tiny” Clarke may perhaps want to consider revising his testimony. It looks like Dr. Rice will be permitted to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission – under oath.

Tiny is a bitter, vengeful, and misguided man. He has already taken his best shot at W and Dr. Rice. He thought the W Administration would just sit back and take his pummeling. He thought wrong.

Dr. Condoleeza Rice is a very sharp woman. She’s very articulate and persuasive, as demonstrated in her excellent handling of a bumbling, partisan Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes. She’s very good with a verbal stiletto blade, and my bet is she’ll fillet Tiny in a way that he won’t even know it until he’s bleeding to death all over the front page of the Washington Post.

W just turned Dr. Rice loose. If I were Tiny, I’d be very afraid.

Go get ‘em Condi!

Monday, March 29, 2004
 
On Richard Clarke (again):

If any of you are still at a loss as to why Dick Clarke (hereafter referred to as “Tiny”) was not named to a higher post than the one to which he had need look no further than his comical appearance on Meet The Press. You can find a copy of the transcript here.

Tiny is in a increasingly deeper hole and he just keeps on digging. His testimony before the 9/11 Commission has been shredded by so many people I can’t take time here to name them all. Every time he comes up with an accusation, the White House fires back with briefing transcripts and other material created by Tiny that refutes the accusation he just got finished making.

Tiny went on Meet the Press yesterday and continued to dig his hole. He defended his shredded testimony and then went on to challenge W’s people to declassify and produce memoranda, emails, and other communications between him and Dr. Condoleeza Rice. Dr. Rice is W’s very capable National Security Advisor. Here’s what Tiny said:

MR. RUSSERT: Is there any inconsistency between your sworn testimony before the September 11 Commission last week and two years ago before the congressional committee?

MR. CLARKE: No, there isn't. And I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there. Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony.

MR. RUSSERT: You would request this morning that it all be declassified?

MR. CLARKE: And I want more declassified. I want Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission declassified, and I want the thing that the 9-11 Commission talked about in its staff report this week declassified, because there's been an issue about whether or not a strategy or a plan or something useful was given to Dr. Rice in early January. And she says it wasn't. So we now have the staff report of the 9-11 Commission, and it says, "On January 25th, Clarke forwarded his December strategy paper to the new national security adviser, and it proposed covert action to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, significantly increasing CIA funding, retaliating for the USS Cole, arming the Predator aircraft, going after terrorist fund raising."
Now, Dr. Rice has characterized this as not a plan, not a strategy, not a series of decisions which could be made right away, but warmed-over Clinton material. Let's declassify that memo I sent on January 25th and let's declassify the national security directive that Dr. Rice's committee approved nine months later on September 4th, and let's see if there's any difference between those two, because there isn't. And what we'll see when we declassify what they were given on January 25th and what they finally agreed to on September 4th, is that they're basically the same thing and they wasted months when we could have had some action.

MR. RUSSERT: But to be clear, Mr. Clarke, you would urge Congress, the intelligence committees, to declassify your sworn testimony before the congressional inquiry two years ago as well as your testimony before the September 11th Commission?

MR. CLARKE: Yes, and those documents I just referred to and Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11 Commission because the victims' families have no idea what Dr. Rice has said. There weren't in those closed hearings where she testified before the 9-11 Commission. They want to know. So let's take her testimony before the 9-11 Commission and make it part of the package of what gets declassified along with the national security decision directive of September 4 and along with my memo of January 25.

In fact, Tim, let's go further. The White House is selectively now finding my e-mails, which I would have assumed were covered by some privacy regulations, and selectively leaking them to the press. Let's take all of my e-mails and all of the memos that I've sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20 to September 11 and let's declassify all of it.

MR. RUSSERT: As well as her responses?

MR. CLARKE: As well as her responses.

Tiny knows full well this will never happen. Conversations and communications between the National Security Advisor and the head of Counterterrorism are privilidged, private, and above all classified at no doubt a very high level. Sure, they’ll be declassified and no doubt published – in about 50 years when my grandchildren are doing their doctoral dissertations.

There is a reason for the classification of these conversations and communications. It’s the way government works, especially in times of war and conflict. I personally don’t want White House memoranda on the front page of the Washington Post.

Tiny goes on to complain about the way he’s being attacked by the White House and the Republican National Committee. Why he expected to publish incendiary lies without consequence. There is a very real possibility his testimony will be declassified and compared with statements and memoranda he made while employed at the White House. And, if there exists conflict between what he did at the White House and his sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Tiny has a problem.

Perjury.

And if Tiny doesn’t think that’s a problem, maybe he should ask Bubba Clinton.

Here endeth the lesson.

PS. Memo to Leslie Stalh of CBS’s 60 Minutes – I don’t know where you learned to lie straight faced, but you need to go back. Your explanation of your failure to mention that Tiny’s book is being published by a publisher owned by CBS/Viacom was laughable. Despite the fact that, when your interview with Tiny was taped he had not yet selected a publisher does not get you off the hook for failing to mention this fact prior to the interview airing. “Oversight” does not cover it. Sorry Leslie.

Memo to Ed Bradley of CBS’s 60 Minutes:

Your treatment of National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice was, at best, unprofessional for a journalist of your stature. It was painfully obvious that you disagree with Dr. Rice’s political persuasion. In this country you are free to harbor such feelings, misguided as they are. However, you owe it to your audience, and really to the American people to leave that bias at the door – or at the very least, temper it somewhat. Your questioning of Dr. Rice was childishly arrogant. Tell me something, Ed – are you ever going to ask Bubba Clinton if he will apologize to the families of the September 11th victims and heroes for failing to act against Binny Laden and Al-Qeda when he had the chance?

I didn’t think so.

Go pound sand, Ed.


Friday, March 26, 2004
 
A few light hearted thoughts for Friday:

First, go to Google and enter the following search phrase: “French Military Victories” and click on the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button. It leads to a very interesting cultural and military history of the French.

Second, and finally, Lurch got the kiss of death yesterday. He showed up in DC at a democratic unity event with the following in-duh-viduals:

Jimmy “Ask me about my failures in North Korea, Haiti, and Iran” Carter
Bill “Lend me your interns” Clinton
Howard “I have a Scream!” Dean
Albert Arnold “Algore” Gore
And last, but not least, The Reverend “You can call me Al” Sharpton

According to MSNBC, Clinton stole the show. They rave about it, but tell me honestly, how hard is it to steal the show from Lurch? All you need is a pulse. Evidently the night netted $11 Million for Lurch’s cash starved campaign.

W’s answer? He was in Boston raising a few million all by himself.

While Lurch might have made out pretty well financially (it was either do a fundraiser or marry another rich widow), he may also have accidently on purpose given his campaign the first of many kisses of death.

You’ll remember the fates of the last few major candidates to be endorsed by Algore and Clinton and Company. A vast majority of them went down to resounding defeat. The Democratic All-Stars may give Lurch a badly needed infusion of cash, but it could and most likely will end up killing his campaign in the end.

Here endeth the lesson.


Thursday, March 25, 2004
 
On The Pledge:

Dammit. Again.

I’m not much of a theologian, nor do I pretend to be anything close to a lawyer or legal scholar. That said, I’ve about had it with Michael Newdow and his assault on the Pledge of Allegiance. This guy is both a doctor and a lawyer, and if I was a patient or client, I’d fire the guy based solely on his ignorance.

I will not bore you with a history of the Pledge. I’ll simply point you to James Pierson’s piece in the Weekly Standard. For those of you who enjoy historical details it will be a nice read.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Newdow bases his entire argument against the constitutionality of the above quoted sentence entirely on the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. For the record, here is the clause:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Now people from the ACLU, People for the American Way, and I’m sorry to say many constitutional scholars interpret that clause to prohibit governmental affiliation with religion in any way, shape, manner, or form. In doing this, they commit an error which has become accepted as law because of the passage of time and legal precedent.

The Founders of this great nation included the Establishment Clause as a part of the First Amendment in order to avoid what they had seen happen in England. This clause exists to prohibit the state from establishing a state sponsored religion – not to avoid association with religion or acknowledging the existence of any higher power. It really is that simple.

Newdow is an avowed Atheist. I am not. I personally think those who deny the existence of a power higher than themselves are misguided. Never the less, they have the right to believe as they will.

What they do not have the right to do is force their belief system on the overwhelming majority of Americans who do believe in a higher power. Call it God, call it whatever you want.

I will remind you of my recent treatise on rights. Mr. Newdow obviously didn’t read it, so I’ll give a brief refresher here:

You do not have the right to go through life un-offended and un-exposed to beliefs, acts, and concepts that offend you. Neither do your children. If you want to teach Atheism to your children, you go right ahead. Just don’t expect me to enable you to force my children to take your tripe by default. Secular Humanism is as much a religion as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

This nation, despite what you may have heard or believe, was founded on Judeo- Christian beliefs and values. While you may not agree with them, and they may offend you, you do not have the right to change this nation to fit your beliefs. Hopefully the Supremes will see that fact and rule accordingly.

So, Mr. Newdow, I hope you’re seriously offended every time you take out some cash and see the phrase “In God We Trust” stamped on it. If it offends you that much, you can always right a check.

You know, the late Red Skelton once said a very profound thing. He stated his own definition of The Pledge, phrase by phrase. If I can find it published, I’ll post it here for you to read one day. But one thing I’ll never forget was his ending statement. He said that in his lifetime, two stars had been added to the flag, and two words had been added to the Pledge. Wouldn’t it be a shame if any of them were removed?

Here endeth the lesson.

Wednesday, March 24, 2004
 
On Richard Clarke:

Richard Clarke is a very angry and bitter man. He has worked in and around the White House during the past two administrations as a expert in counter terrorism. I have no reason to doubt his credentials as an expert in the field. That being said, I have serious doubts as to the veracity of his allegations against the W Administration and the overall war on terrorism.

The media will trumpet his counter terrorism credentials all day long and into the night. They will tell you how this exposes W and his inner circle as obsessed with Iraq as opposed to terrorism. They will use this as proof that America needs Lurch in the White House to save us from all that is W.

What they will not tell you is the reason behind the anger and bitterness that engulfs Clarke. He thought he should’ve been in line for a higher post at the White House. Condi Rice thought otherwise. He was passed over for the job he wanted and demoted to a post having something to do with cyber-security. Instead of staying at that post, he resigned by sending a praising letter to W – praising him specifically for his leadership in the global war on terror.

I don’t have time to watch this guy’s testimony on CSPAN – I wish I did, but I really need to get back to work.

What I will do is give you a quick recap of the difference between the Clinton and Bush approaches to terrorism.

1993 – WTC Bombing. US response? None.
1996 – Khobar Towers Bombing – US Response? None
1998 – East African Embassy Bombings – US Response? None
2000 – Attack on the USS Cole – US response? None.

Those, my friends are just the highlights. We knew who did it, we had a pretty good idea of where they were. What we did not do was retaliate. The enemy thus became emboldened and took it upon themselves to attack us literally where we live.

Contrast that with the US stance post September 11, 2001. They hit us, we hit back – with the lethal use of overwhelming military force. The result? You’ll notice Binny Laden and his boys have been pretty quiet with respect to the US. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Here endeth the lesson.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004
 
On Sheik Ahmed Yassin’s assumption of room temperature (parts of him anyway):

Yes, I’m late in posting on this issue. Sue me. I took yesterday off. First, a little background.

Sheik Ahmed Yassin is/was the spiritual leader and founder of the Palestinian terrorist organization popularly known as Hamas. This group is directly responsible for the murders of scores of Israeli citizens over the past few decades. He did his best to push Israel into the sea – even to the point of disputing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish nation.

Yesterday, Israeli forces liquidated him as he left a mosque in Gaza City.

Today there are denouncements coming from every corner of the globe, inclusive of the White House and Great Britain. Israel, as you might know by now, cares little what the world says about what it should do with respect to terrorists in its own back yard. Yassin was a terrorist. His actions were directly responsible for the deaths of Israeli citizens. Why anyone should be shocked when he dies in a violent manner is beyond me.

Oh, and by the way, Yassir Arafat declared three days of mourning. Guess it takes a terrorist to mourn one.

I, on the other hand, have very little to say about this man, or parts of him anyway, assuming room temperature. My comments are directed at those who pulled the trigger or pressed the button resulting in Yassin’s death.

Good shooting, boys.

Here endeth the lesson.

Monday, March 15, 2004
 
On Surrender:

Spain today surrendered to Al-Queda in the war on terror.

For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past week or so, several bombs ripped through commuter trains in Madrid killing some 200 people and injuring another 1500.

Elections were held yesterday which swept the conservative governing party from power and replaced it with a socialist majority which promptly declared its intention to withdraw its 1500 or so troops from Iraq.

This action would be akin to the United States pulling out all forces in the Gulf region after the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Spain has, in effect, raised the white flag made popular by France in an attempt to tell Al-Queda a very important message:

Please don’t hurt us anymore.


Sr. Spaniard – I have news for you. The French are wrong. Surrendering won’t make you safer. The Rodney King School of International Relations is doomed to failure. We can’t all just get along. I remind you of the Jimmy Malone School:

If he pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue – That’s the Chicago way.

The only thing Al-Queda understands is the lethal use of overwhelming military force. Note the emphasis on the term lethal. You can’t negotiate with these sorry excuses for a waste of flesh and breathable air. They want to kill you. The only way to deal with them is to kill them. Period.

If you think for a moment that caving to terror will make you safer and stop the carnage that was visited upon your country, you are a bigger fool than you appear to be.

Here endeth the lesson.

 
On Being Who You Really Are:

Who says you can’t combine Fried Chicken and Politics in the same blog?

Kentucky Fried Chicken is trying to widen its appeal to the more politically correct and health conscious market. Over the past few years they have shortened their name from Kentucky Fried Chicken to the acronym “KFC” – obviously trying to avoid any association with the unhealthy and politically incorrect term “fried”. Why they did this is anyone’s guess, but at least they didn’t go completely around the bend.

Until recently.

Now KFC is again attempting to remake itself again. Gone is any reference to the Commonwealth of Kentucky or any semblance of frying as a part of the preparation of chicken. Now, KFC is to be defined as “Kitchen Fresh Chicken”. Is it still the Colonel’s original recipe? Most likely. Is it still fried? Probably. Will it still do a number on your cholestoral? Yep.

Never the less, if it doesn’t say “fried” on the advertisement, it must be better for you. Make no mistake about it, I’m as big a fan of KFC as the next red blooded American. I just wish they’d be who they really are. A bunch of chicken fryers. I’m ok with that.

Now where does this analogy apply to politicians? Simple. For the most part, each race, especially the national ones, will be run by two people seeking to represent a geographic region of America. Most races will consist of a Democrat and a Republican running against each other.

Experience and history teaches me that the Republican will proudly state his party affiliation in advertisements, bumper stickers, and yard signs. The Democrat, however, will not. If you can find a democrat who actually admits party affiliation in advertising, let me know. I’d love to be proven wrong.

Why do they do they hide who they really are? Most likely they know that democrat, for the most part, is still (justifiably) tied to the term liberal. Michael Dukakis went down to a landslide defeat in 1988 because Bush 41 portrayed him (rightly) as a liberal. The only reason Clinton managed to slide into the Oval is because he portrayed himself as a *New* Democrat. Lurch won’t be able to do that.

Signs of Lurch’s desperation are now showing. On Friday, he challenged W to monthly debates in the time remaining before Election Day in November. Why? Because he knows W has $150+ million sitting in the bank just waiting to be spent on justifiable attack ads aimed at poor old Lurch. Lurch, on the other hand, is financially tied – unless he illegally taps Wife #2 for ketchup money.

W will decline Lurch’s challenge. There is no reason why W would submit to a process that would degenerate into a vulgar media grilling brawl designed to get Lurch free advertising on a complicit liberal mainstream media. Nice try, Lurch. Republicans learned their lesson with Dole v. Clinton. Get ready for a long, expensive, and grueling campaign in which every detail of your life is fair game.

Here endeth the lesson.


Thursday, March 11, 2004
 
On John Kerry (Part 4 of the continuing series):

Lurch is making this way to easy. Yesterday he was working a rope line and let slip some damning comments into what was supposed to be a closed microphone. In response to a supporter telling him to “keep smiling” (sorry Mr. Liberal, Lurch’s features are frozen by botox) Lurch stated the following:

"Let me tell you, we've just begun to fight," Lurch said. "We're going to keep pounding. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen. It's scary."

Lurch cries foul every time someone brings into question his public record. The quote above doesn’t surprise me – it’s a look at the true inner workings of Lurch. I’m only surprised by the fact that “By the way, did you know I served in Vietnam?” wasn’t tacked on to his statement.

For the record, Lurch, the most crooked, lying group to walk the halls of the White House was tossed in January of 2001. The number of people from that sorry excuse for an administration who were impeached, indicted, and convicted is too long to put here.

It is very simple to take a look at Lurch’s record and see the change between Senator Lurch and Candidate Lurch. Let’s start with taxes.

Lurch has taken a page from the Clinton campaign handbook and promised a middle class tax cut. All those of you who received your Clinton middle class tax cut raise your hand. Anyone with their hand raised suffers from false memory syndrome. Said tax cut never materialized. Lurch has voted 350 times to raise one tax or another. That’s a fact. Facts are stubborn things.

Next let’s go to military, intelligence, and foreign policy. If you follow Lurch’s voting record over the past 20 years you’d come up with the following:

There would be no B-1, B-2, F-117, M1-A1, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, F-14, F-15, or F/A 18. To many those are merely acronyms and numbers. To the soldiers, sailors, and airmen, they are the predominant front line weapons systems on today’s battlefield. Intelligence budgets would be a shadow of what they are today – Lurch couldn’t even get Ted ‘Dude, where’s my scotch?’ Kennedy to co-sponsor that bill. The US Military would be at the beck and call of the UN. Kuwait would be the 19th province of Iraq and Saddam would most likely control the lion’s share of the world’s oil reserves.

That’s not a smear campaign, Lurch. That’s just a cursory review of facts.

A smear campaign might consist of the following statement:

In Lurch’s America, the rich would be taxed to poverty, the poor would be subsidized just enough to keep them from being infected with the initiative to better their lives, and the military would go to war in school buses and hybrid Toyotas, but only at the direction of the United Nations (ie – France, Syria, the Sudan, and other well meaning nations of the world).

On second thought, that really isn’t a smear statement. Sounds more like facts again to me. And if I were you, Lurch, I ‘d get used to it.

Here endeth the lesson.


 
On Martha:

This story reads like something out of Law & Order. Guilty on all four counts.

And great was the fall thereof.

For all her business acumen, financial skill, and marketing expertise, this former billionairesse lost it all by trying to avoid a loss of

$51,000.

Now I realize that to most of you, and me really, 51 large is quite a chunk of change. Most of us don’t have that kind of cash lying around. If we were to lose that kind of cash, some of us would be financially devastated. But in order to understand the true magnitude of Martha’s stupidity, we need to understand the world in which she lives. I will facilitate this with one example:

Martha spends more than that on hairstylists – annually. If I’m wrong in this example, its not by much.

The prosecution had her dead to rights, and she knew it. They twice offered her a plea deal that would avoid prison time all together. She chose to take her chances with the jury and now that could cost her 20 years of her life.

Of all the rights that are protected in today’s society, Martha proves there is one right that can never be taken away – the right to be stupid.

Here endeth the lesson.

Wednesday, March 03, 2004
 
On Super Tuesday:

Yawn.

Well, it looks like Lurch has all but sown up the democratic nomination for president. I doubt that even a Howie style meltdown could keep him from heading up the ticket against W come November. Even Hillary woke up this morning and decided to endorse Lurch. A Lurch-Hillary ticket is not beyond the realm of imagination.

According to exit poll data, the number one priority of democrats voting in the primary election across the country was to unseat W from his seat in the oval. Seems to me their rallying cry is ABB – “Anybody But Bush”.

That, my dear liberal readers, will not be enough. Let’s set aside the fact that Lurch has about as much rallying charisma as a rock. Also leave aside the fact his greatest accomplishment in life has been marrying rich – twice. I’ll even let you skip over the fact that in his two decades in the Senate, not one major piece of legislation bears his name or co-authorship.

You see, we (as in the Republicans) tried the ABC (Anybody But Clinton) approach in 1996. We nominated Bob Dole, who along with Jack Kemp, lost to Wilhelm von der Schliekmeister. Dole was a war hero while Lurch was still in liberal indoctrination camps. That being said, being anti-Clinton was not enough to beat the Clinton machine.

Lurch offers nothing more than anti-W sentiment. That along with a promise to raise taxes, turn foreign policy over to French bureaucrats, and generally return to a more spineless nation will do little to win over the hearts and minds of a nation at war.

The one thing I won’t let go is a very glaring fact that Lurch will do everything in his power to gloss over. He was recently named the Senate’s most liberal member. He’s even further left than Teddy ‘Dude, where’s my Scotch’ Kennedy and Hillary ‘VP Wannabe’ Clinton.

Who says you can’t learn something new every day.

Here endeth the lesson.



Powered by Blogger

Mormon Temple