GOP Bane, John McCain

John McCain is a war hero. Let's go ahead and get that out of the way first. McCain is not a phony war hero like John Kerry who spent a few months in Viet Nam and received three Purple Hearts without ever needing to spend a single night in the hospital. John McCain truly suffered in his service to his country and could not be more of a war hero unless he was that guy who blinked in morse code while reading the statement demanded by his captors. Now that that has been said let's review how Senator John McCain has served his country recently.

McCain teamed with uber-liberal Russ Feingold to limit your right to free speech. This bill wasn't aimed at pornography or what the politically correct call "hate speech". No, the McCain Feingold legislation was specifically directed at political speech. By some this was dubbed the "incumbent protection act" and this law has limited the ability of groups of citizens to get their message out regarding candidates running for elections during the time period when most voters are paying the most attention.

Senator McCain promised this legislation would "get the money out of politics" and just the opposite has happened. This faulty legislation has created 527's which allowed one man, George Soros to spend 24 million dollars to defeat the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. Soros failed in this but he sure has gotten a lot of Americans stirred up and these organizations have kept people that way for the past 4 years.

Could Al Gore be a Bigger Nimrod?

Moronic megalomaniac Al Gore was in Oslo yesterday to accept his Nobel Peace Prize. Gore made a big show of arriving via public transportation. I haven't heard yet how exactly he got to Sweden. Gore's usual mode of transportation is a private plane. I did learn that while he was riding a bus from the airport his luggage was transported in a limousine.

Finally, finally some questions are being asked about the incredible amount of money Al gore has made pushing his junk science theory on global warming. At a Fortune Forum summit last month Gore collected 100,000 British pounds for a thirty minute speech. In addition to giving a speech that was a real snoozer Gore put off guests and journalists by acting like a diva. Gore is really raking it in giving essentially the same speech over and over again for fat fees.

While Gore was accepting his ridiculous award and making yet another rambling wooden speech, ice storms were taking aim at the Midwest region of the United States. Also, the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society has published a report that CO2 is not a pollutant and that the warming the earth has experienced in recent years is natural and cannot be affected by an actions we may or may not take.

The report cites the cause of global warming as most likely variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. Even more damaging to Gores insistence that CO2 levels are causing warming is the finding that earth's atmosphere is warming at the same rate as the surface. If Gore's "Greenhouse Effect" was truly occurring the atmosphere would be warming two to three times faster than the surface.

Consequently, reducing CO2 emissions would have no impact on global warming and would only be an incredible expense. An expense that Al Gore and others who are hawking "carbon offsets" will be collecting and taking to the bank.

Clinton News Network Rolls Over, Again!

During the Bill Clinton Presidency many of us on the Right referred to CNN as the Clinton News Network. This was due to CNN's habit of reporting glowingly of anything done by William Jefferson Clinton, his wife or any member of his administration. A kindness they never provided to the two men who proceeded him or the one who followed him.

What is CNN's motto? I think it has something to do with trust. Well you can certainly trust CNN to report only bad news as long as George W Bush is in the White House. I remember way back when, Bill Clinton was just taking office and Rush Limbaugh promised that the "Homeless Problem" that the media had been harping on since Ronald Reagan took office would disappear. Darned if it didn't only to resurface, though with less intensity once we had another Republican elected President.

During Al Gore's and John Kerry's run for office I got to see how hard the media would work to assist a Democrat into the Presidency. To this day Kerry still hasn't answered the many questions asked by the over 200 Viet Nam Veterans who became the Swiftboaters for Truth, or made good on his promise to have ALL of his military records released. He did accept a million dollar bet recently to disprove at least one of the charges the Swiftboaters alleged. I can't wait to see how that wager comes out. Kerry didn't have to worry about answering the questions during the 2004 election. The media, for the most part, investigated only the men bringing the charges not the validity of those claims. The facts supported the swiftboaters, Kerry did receive three Purple Hearts without ever spending one night in a hospital.


The recent CNN Democrat debate was carefully orchestrated to make sure Hillary didn't have a second disastrous performance. Although Wolf Blitzer claims he was not warned by the Clinton camp to "go easy" he did do just that. Blitzer gave Mrs Clinton all the time she needed to answer as she choose. Even when her answer contradicted prior statements Blitzer never asked a follow up question or challenged Mrs. Clinton in any way.

Now it turns out that everyone of the "Independent, undecided citizens" selected at random to ask a question of the candidates were democrat operatives. One is a seventeen-year-old who works for Harry Reid. This is not "Freedom of the Press" at it's best.

Shrillary's Not Great Debate

Surprisingly, Tim Russert asked some tough questions in the Democrat debate on Monday night. Hillary was not pleased and under pressure for the first time in her political career Mrs. Clinton made some serious mistakes. The following may not be in chronological order.

Until now Mrs. Clinton has not been asked about the New York Governor's unpopular plan to provide drivers licenses to illegal alien's even though she is one of the Senator's from that state. Russert asked her "Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?" Mrs. Clinton's initial response was to explain that what the Governor is trying to accomplish with this policy is "to fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform". Brilliant, except that the President supported immigration reform and it was the Senate who did not produce a solution that could pass and be sent to the President for signature.

What was truly remarkable is that two minutes after defending the policy when Chris Dodd said he found the policy "troublesome" Mrs Clinton butt in with "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize what Governor Spitzer is trying to do, and we have failed, we have failed." Dodd replied "No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it." Mrs. Clinton replied "No, I didn't, Chris", but she did, we all heard her. Russert pressed the point causing Mrs. Clinton to accuse him of playing "Gotcha" and to fall back on the party line of getting people to "come out of the shadows".

John Edwards pointed out that Hillary has accepted more in political donations from lobbyists, the drug companies, the insurance companies and the defense industry than any other Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. The point he was making is that Mrs. Clinton is not the person to change the way things currently work in Washington DC. Mrs. Clinton's reply was chilling her exact words were "I'm going to take $10 billion away from a lot of these industries". Then she threw two bogeymen under the bus, Halliburton and the HMO's. Luckily, for these lying Democrats, most Americans don't remember that Halliburton got "no bid contracts" during the Clinton Administration too, and our all knowing congress created the HMO's. Oh, and just for good measure, she threw in a reference to the Supreme Court handing the Presidency to George W. Bush, the left lunatic fringe loves to hear that fantasy repeated.

Mrs. Clinton was asked about the "mother of all tax increases" proposed by Charlie Rangle and waffled masterfully. Initially Mrs. Clinton claimed ignorance of the "details" of the plan but a few seconds later stated "I don't agree with all the details" So, does she know that details or not and if she doesn't know them how does she know that she disagrees with them.

Finally in a truly Clintonian example of duplicity, when Tim Russert asked if Mrs. Clinton would
allow the National Archives to release the documents regarding her communications with the president and the advice she gave to verify that she held an important role in that administration Mrs clinton did the following. First she tried to claim that documents were being released "as rapidly as the archives moves". Russert, that brute, pointed out that President Clinton has written a letter specifically asking that any communication between Mrs. Clinton and he not be made available to the public until 2012. When Russert asked again "Would you lift that ban?" the reply delivered with a huff and a sigh was "Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has, but certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits." Don't hold your breath.

Same old, same old Clinton triangulation, misdirection, and faked umbrage that these question dare be asked of them. The Clinton's have built a political house of cards and eventually it will fall. Perhaps Al Gore will join the fray and the media which has protected the Clinton's for so long will turn on them. If the media ever began to really report on all the Clinton shady dealings their political careers would be dead and buried in 30 days. I think I'll visit that "Draft Gore" web site. See you there.

Why Shun Shunning?

At a recent dinner party my husband recounted a long ago incident which he remembers as me behaving rudely. When he spotted a former boyfriend of mine was at a restaurant where we were waiting for a table we kept our distance. It was our hope to avoid having to speak to this individual. Our plan almost succeeded. When this person barged up to our table asking if I knew he had married and thrusting his wedding ring under my nose I was taken aback. My reply was a bit unkind. I said, "No I didn't know you had gotten married and I never noticed what short stubby fingers you have". Now my former boyfriend was the one taken aback and he withdrew his ring clad hand as if it had been bitten.

I could have been nicer and I usually recommend erring on the side of kindness but do not regret my remark. This man had been a fairly rotten boyfriend. He and I were on a ski trip long ago the trip where I first learned to ski. We had been dating for a while at this time and we agreed that he would ski with his friends while I took skiing lessons. The deal was that if I learned to ski well enough to brave the blue ski runs after three days of lessons he would ski with me the last afternoon of our trip. I worked really hard to learn to ski and I made great progress. Then when the time came for us to ski together it just was not enough fun for him and he abandoned me.

There were other instances none really worth mentioning but eventually I decided the relationship had run it's course. I wrote a letter explaining exactly why I did not want to continue the relationship. Since people in our ski club were sure to notice we had split he brought an attractive young lady to the very next meeting. I don't recall her name and we never saw her again after that short appearance, she was after all only a prop. He did accomplish his goal. I was mildly humiliated and he was able to give the appearance that he had been the one who chose to move on from our relationship.

There was a time when it was considered part of one's societal responsibility to shun persons who had behaved badly. Before people became completely non-judgemental and learned that there would be no consequences to their actions people behaved better. Fifty years ago would Woody Allen have dared to marry his adopted daughter? He would have been turned away from "polite society" and told to never darken their doors again. Instead he explains "The heart wants what it wants" and gets to do exactly as he pleases with minimal criticism. When a man marries a woman young enough to be his daughter, and in this case one who was raised as his daughter, he is following one of his organs but it isn't his heart.

So, if Woody Allen rushes up to your table in a restaurant to show you his wedding ring feel free to be as rude to him as you like. You have my permission.

How the Clinton's Led the Left to Sell Their Souls

The Devil made me do it has never really flown as a legitimate excuse for any one's actions but let's take a look at what the Clinton's have led their supporters to do.


Because of Bill Clinton feminists had to defend not just an adulterer, but a a serial womanizer, a sleazy groper and most likely an actual rapist. This couldn't have been easy for the "no means NO" crowd.

Veterans had to defend not just a draft dodger but one who escaped the draft by promising to join the ROTC and then weaseled out of that commitment in a letter where he admitted that he "loathes the military". Veterans had to defend this draft dodger while he was running against two true WWII war hero's, George Bush and Bob Dole. That had to feel wrong, wrong, wrong especially after Clinton's first action in office. The courageous "Don't ask don't tell" policy. That's was really impressive leadership.

Unions leaders had to let thousands of sweet, high paying jobs go by the wayside to save Anwar, a desolate frozen area that most closely resembles the surface of the moon. They had to let all those jobs and all the new union members the jobs could have generated go to save a place where no one lives and which no one would want to visit. Then the most bitter pill of all they saw the passage of NAFTA. That can't have been easy to swallow.

The trial lawyers probably had the least trouble. No one can put their principles aside like a trial lawyer. It's almost as if they have none. However even lawyers take umbrage at perjury and obstruction of justice. This was the only time the Supreme Court boycotted a state of the union address right? It was all of the Justices too, not just the non-liberal ones.


I may be wrong about this as the Left may have been soulless prior to the Clinton's arrival. They are, after all, Godless and generally joyless. Still, you can understand that some of them are apprehensive at the idea of another Clinton administration. As well they should be.

You May Not Know Jack, But You BETTER Know About George

George Soros that is. This guy has a finger in every left leaning pie in the world Many people know Soros is one of the biggest financiers of MoveOn.org but there is much more George supports and not everyone knows he is out there working behind the scenes to influence public policy.

There is an organization called the "Open Society Institute. In addition to supporting lots of liberal causes this organization has been very helpful to NASA's James Hansen. Any scientists who is skeptical of the "global warming consensus" is accused of being backed by big oil. James Hansen has been described as a "lone whistle blower" who was allegedly censored by the Bush administration. An accusation that is made laughable by the fact that NASA changed it's media policies to allow Hansen to continue his crusade. It was recently reported that Hansen received $720,000 to help him spread the alarm about "global warming". Who is politicizing science now? How would Hansen's credibility been affected if everyone knew who was backing him?

The Open Society Institute had a hand in another big news story in 2006. When all the "immigration rallies" began it was reported that this was a spontaneous grass roots movement. There was no mention of an organizer or instigator except for a Los Angeles Spanish-language radio station. That was not true. The truth is that the 17 million dollar Justice Fund, a underling of the OSI listed 19 projects for 2006 and one was "immigration rallies" another was funding illegal immigrants activists groups court cases. These immigrants and their supporters didn't "rise up" on their own. They were manipulated by one of Soro's well funded groups.

You have heard, I'm sure, about some of the court cases that seem to favor terrorists. Have you ever wondered who brings these suits? The Open Society Institute spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape U.S. policy". Some court cases they backed and won include the Supreme Court's decision to abolish military commissions judging terrorists at Guantanamo. They financially supported the radicals who pressured the TSA to eliminate their "Secure Flight" program, which matched passenger lists against lists of terrorists names. The lawyers who persuaded the Texas judge to block tracking terrorists cell phones were funded by OSI too. Soros' OSI partners with a group called the Tides Foundation which is a cause Terri Kerry supports and which is know for very quietly transferring funds from wealthy donors to left wing "fringe groups" like eco-terrorism.

Another "below the radar" political organization called "Democracy Alliance" enjoys great largess from Soros. The policy of Democracy Alliance seems to be that the party whose name is closest to the word Democracy gets full control of the government. This group was formed in 2005 and until this week I had never heard of them, had you? This is another group throwing vast sums of money and misinformation around to further their far left agenda.

That brings us to America Coming Together or ACT which is not dedicated to the sexual fulfillment of all Americans, but would be less worrisome if it were. Remember all the news about "disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff"? Well ACT was fined $775,000 by the Federal Election Commission, the third largest fine in FEC history and there was hardly a ripple in the main stream news about it. In 2004 ACT raised $137 million in 17 states, most of which the FEC says were illegal contributions. Why isn't this BIG NEWS?

Wake up America! You need to know who these people are and what they are doing behind the scenes to manipulate you.

ENVIRO-COMMUNISM or Is Green the New Red?

With the fall of the Soviet Union Communism lost most of it's luster. American Liberals finally had to give up the dream. Without the USSR Communism was never going to catch on and overcome Capitalism. Too bad for the Left but those folks, if anything, are resourceful. They saw early that taking up the cause to "Save the Planet" could open another front in the fight against Capitalism.

From the Nixon administration's creation of the EPA on there has been a never ending battle between capitalism and so called environmentalists (which I shall here in refer to as Enviro-Mentals). Whenever and where ever someone wanted to build homes, factories or any commercial enterprise they would have to run a gauntlet of inspections, regulations and frequently litigation. Hundred year-old family farms were left to dry up and blow away while the water was reserved to save a tiny fish, the snail darter. Logging interests had to be shut down to save the spotted owl who we were told could only live in certain trees. This was disproved when a family of these owls took up residence in a K-Mart sign.

The Enviro-Mentals have successfully prevented the construction of an oil refinery in this country for over thirty years. They opposed the Alaskan Pipeline but were unable to prevent it. Their dire warnings of the destruction the pipeline would cause never came true. Just the opposite occurred. Caribou populations expanded as they found some previously unavailable warmth generated by the pipeline. The Enviro-Mentals have successfully prevented us from tapping the huge oil reserves in Anwar while other Liberals and some reasonable folks denounce our dependence on foreign oil.

The new Crisis du jour from the Enviro-Mentals is "Global Warming" Ah, if not for Global Warming we might have heard the last of Al Gore, but no such luck. Again, those who so loudly decry the horror of an increase in the temperature of the northern hemisphere of less than two degrees in one hundred years vehemently oppose the one source of energy which causes no carbon emissions, nuclear power.

Most Americans may be unaware that Canada uses nuclear power for a lot of their energy needs. France produces 76% of it's electricity from 56 nuclear power plants. There hasn't been a nuclear incident for decades and we can certainly make safe use of a power source that has been mastered by the French. Does Global Warming guru Al Gore call for a switch to nuclear power? Absolutely not. Instead he calls for all of us to live our lives greener. Gore himself can't do so, his mission is too important, but he expects you to lessen the way you live your life.

Some scientists disagree with the "global warming consensus". Al Gore calls them "Deniers" comparing them to people who claim one of history's darkest events never happened. Anyone who fails to buy the "global warming lie" hook line and sinker is attacked. During the Clinton Administration any government scientist who doubted global warming was fired any others were advised they would be blacklisted from receiving any government grants.

The only solution the Enviro-Mentals will accept is to throw even more draconian hurdles in front of American business interests. The estimated cost to our economy for reducing carbon emissions per Al Gore's baby, the Kyoto Treaty was 77 to 338 Billion in 1992 dollars. I assure you the price hasn't decreased in the past 15 years. A hefty price tag has never been a deterrent to those on the left who seek bigger and bigger government. No problem, they'll just "tax the rich".

All to keep the planet at it's current temperature. The benefits of some additional warming are never discussed. There is significant scientific evidence to support theories that the earth has been warmer than current temperatures in the past. Directly prior to the Renaissance for example. A warming trend resulted in longer growing seasons and world wide benefits to mankind. Now record heat is big news and record cold is ignored. Here's an idea, if we have to ignore something let's make it Al Gore.

I Love Liberals

I love liberals, don't you? Only a liberal can pick a fight and then if you respond in any manner other than total capitulation they accuse you of attacking them and suddenly take the high road. Recently I had two email encounters that seemed to go that way. The first was quite a shock as seemingly out of the blue a business acquaintance sent me a brief tirade about President Bush and Vice-Pres Chaney. When I replied with some defense I got a haughty reply about how neither of us will likely convince the other so we should drop it. HE started it but WE should drop it. No problem there I deleted him form my address book. He was a flaky attorney from Dade County. He won't be missed.

This does explain how so many liberals can support Hillary Clinton. I find it totally unreasonable for anyone to attack then cry foul, hardly good sportsmanship or even adult behavior. Apparently many disagree and that makes it reasonable, for them and for Hillary to have it both ways. When Hillary accuses some imaginary "Vast Right wing Conspiracy" for making up lies about her husband canoodling with an intern that is a perfectly legitimate claim. When it turns out that her husband was doing exactly what he was accused of he is the only liar in the scenario no apology is offered. When asked by Tim Russert if she owes an apology for that accusation Mrs. Clinton reverts to innocent victim replying only "I wish that none of us had to go through that very difficult time. Never taking any responsibility for causing the "very difficult time".

When Hillary and others accuse the President of every evil imaginable including knowingly allowing September 11th to happen that is their Constitutional Right. If anyone dares to reasonably point out that these statements might damage our country and hurt our chances of winning the war in Iraq they scream foul! "How dare you" they cry! "How dare you impugn my patriotism". It's amazing to me. You can watch it time and time again, first outrageous behavior and then when that behavior is commented upon immediate highhanded victim hood. This passive aggressive ploy has silenced Americans nationwide. Millions of conservative and moderate Americans just pipe down to avoid the theatrics the left employs if you dare speak up.

One good example occurred at a women's bible class of all places. A very outspoken woman thought it appropriate to say in a bible class how she "hates" being in any group that thinks President Bush is so great. This was not in response to anything said in class, politics had not been mentioned. This woman just wanted us all to know that if we had anything positive to say about the President, that would be offensive to her. I think I would have been happier living in the 1950's when folks were more likely to be offended by negative statements about the President.

Here we are, in a country where you would hesitate to say in public "I think President Bush is doing the best job possible under very difficult circumstances". Hows that for muzzeling the opposition. Millions of people are afraid to voice and support for our President. Supporting the President openly has been deemed "rude" but defaming him venomously is perfectly allowed.

It's a crazy time! And, not in a good way.

Second Clinton Fundrasing Scandal - THIS WEEK

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that a small home in Daly City, CA was one of the biggest Democrat donors. There was a connection between the occupants of that house, the Paw family and a New York businessman named Norman Hsu. Hsu, is a "Hillraiser", the title given to someone who has committed to raising $100,000 for Hilliary Clinton.

Today we learn that Mr. Hsu is a wanted man. There has been a warrant for his arrest in California since 1992. Many Democrats who have enjoyed Mr Hsu's financial support are returning the funds or giving them to charity. So far, only Minnesota Rep. Michael Honda is returning the donations from the Paws and another contributor Hsu lined up.

In an unrelated additional scandal another "fundraiser", Abdul Rehman Jinnah, is thought to have fled the country after an indictment on charges of conspiracy and making illegal campaign contributions. This gentleman, a Pakistani immigrant, disappeared in May after being indicted and is thought to have returned to Pakistan.

Prior to the indictment Jinnah directed $30,000 to Mrs Clinton's campaign and $50, 000 to Barbara Boxer. It is alleged that he organized fake fundraisers where he would collect contributions from friends and family members and reimburse them. His flight makes one think the allegations are probably true.

Please No Forwards on Politics

Today, as a second foreign Clinton contributor has reportedly fled the country to avoid indictment on charges of conspiracy and making illegal campaign contributions, I received a reply to my email about yesterday's Clinton campaign scandal. That reply from a family member was "Please no forwards on politics". That one line sums up the way we went through eight years of Bill Clinton and how some plan to get through Hillary's campaign and heaven forbid another Clinton administration. Normally rational people will close their eyes to any and nearly all Clinton misdeeds with their fingers in their ears chanting "la, la, la, la, la".

The same people who have openly expressed their desire to personally harm our President chide me for daring to bring some shady dealings to their attention. People who never hesitate to tell you how much they absolutely hate President Bush act as though you are behaving boorishly if you mention that Ms. Clinton has not one but two new fund raising scandals to explain. People who will believe our President capable of any evil up to and including knowing about the September 11th attacks in advance but allowing thy to occur in some mad grab for power go all huffy on you for questioning the character of a proved liar, swindler and generally despicable person.

My reply, which will go unspoken to that family member is "I'll respect your wishes but cannot respect your attitude".

Here Comes Another One Just Like the Other One

What is it with the Chinese and the Clinton's? Bill Clinton took tons of illegal donations from Chinese and Hillary appears to be doing the same.

There is a six member family, the Paws, who live in a 1280 square foot residence that sits in Daly City, CA under one of the flight paths for San Francisco International airport. Although Mr and Mrs Paw and their four grown children are of modest means they are some of the Democrat Party's biggest contributors. Since 2005 the Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democrats $45,000 of that going to Ms Clinton.

The Paws are Chinese and all got their Social Security numbers in 1982. They did not seem to be politically active until this recent generous support of all things Democrat. Five of the six Paws are registered to vote as Non-partisans and according to county election officials vote only "sporadically". There was no record of any political donations made by the Paws until they gave $3,600 to John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election . The Paws first donation to Ms Clinton was the maximum allowed (at the time) $4,000 to her Senate campaign in December of 2004. Odd that a member of a middle class family in Daly City, California would contribute to a New York Senate race. Another donation of $17,500 went to Ms Clinton in March 2005.

There is something else fishy about the Paw family donations. Another benefactor for the Democrats and specifically Ms Clinton is New York businessman Norman Hsu and his donations have been made on the same dates and in the amounts as the Paws donations. Oh, one other odd detail, Mr Hsu previously listed the Paw residence as his home address.

I'm sure there is a simple explanation for his but doubt it will ever be given or even asked for by our "main stream media" who always gives Democrats and especially the Clinton's a pass.

LEARNING TO READ

I really wish I could remember learning to read. For an unknown, to me at least, period of time I had "read" Green Eggs and Ham to my Dad every night. I had memorized the book from his prior reading to me and could recite every line on each page so I must of had some idea of the relationship between the words on the pages and the words coming out of my mouth. Although I think I associated the words I remembered with the pictures on the pages.

I have lots of memories from the first grade but do not recall the exact moment when I learned how to read. Kindergarten was optional at the time and no one had ever heard of pre-school. The first grade was my first experience with formal education. I clearly remember standing with the class and reciting the alphabet. There was also a version we did that went "A, apple, B, Ball etc. In that version X was a bit sticky as none of us had ever seen or heard of a xylophone. I later remember sitting in a circle on the floor of the classroom reading aloud when my turn came. I don't recall the reading matter but think I was in the "best readers" circle. Imagine the hue and cry if in today's first grade classroom the teacher tried to designate a small group as "the best" anything and allowed them to read from more advanced texts.

Still, I am sorry I cannot recall that moment of enlightenment when I realized that the letters made words and the words contained meanings. It must have been like discovering an amazing decoder ring that could unlock the mysteries of the universe. Or maybe it was just a quick "Ahhh" moment.

DO WOMEN HAVE FEET?

It is amazing how much time and money women spend on their feet. Shoes are a passion with most women and the prices for designer footwear are off the charts. A pedicure, once a luxury, is now a monthly necessity for almost all women. Why do we put so much effort into the most overlooked feature of our bodies? Sure your girlfriends notice your shoes but men don't. Most men are barely aware that women have feet. By the way, if you meet a man who takes notice of your shoes, kick those shoes off and run for your life!

CARTER SUPPORTS HAMAS

Former President Carters latest outrage clarifies his inclination to support thugs and terrorists.

Carter says the U.S. should stop favoring Fatah over Hamas. In a speech to a group of Irish "human rights activists" Carter said that "the Bush administration's refusal to accept Hamas' election was criminal". Funny, Carter thought his own refusal to accept the 1979 election results in Zimbabwe during his presidency was just peachy keen. Thanks to Carter and others on the Left who ignored the elected leader Abel Muzorewa and continued to support Robert Mugabe he was able to steal the 1980 election and seize power. How has Mugabe worked out for Zimbabwe? Well in the past 27 years thousands have been tortured and murdered, there has been genocide and mass starvation the world's highest level of inflation and lowest life expect ency. Carter leter claimed he had done the right thing but that Mugabe had become corrupted by power.

Since the last Palestinian election there has been a Fatah-Hamas power-sharing government. Last week Hamas fighters seized control of the Gaza Strip by force, driving Fatah out of the area. President Abbas then dissolved the government and set up a Fatah-led administration to govern the west bank. The Bush administration and the European Union (how often do these two entities agree?) decided to provide aid that has been withheld since the election to the interim Fatah government.

Despite the fact that there was a full out civil war going on in the region Cater claimed the decision to give aid to the new Fatah government only was an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples". Carter cares not a whit that the Hamas leadership refuses to renounce violence and continues to call for the destruction of Israel.

On Monday of this week as hundreds of terrified civilians tried to flee the Gaza Strip for sanctuary in Israel, disguised Hamas gunmen blended in with the crowd and then threw hand grenades at Israeli soldiers. They killed one Palestinian and injured 15 others at Erez. That is the tactics of the group Carter wants us to treat like an ally.

Are We Ready NOW To Admit Israel Is NOT The Problem?

For the past week the so called "Palestinians" have been busy killing each other in the Gaza Strip. This is the stretch of land formerly occupied by Israeli forces that was handed over as a step in the "road map to peace". Well, thanks to Ha mas and Fatah we have veered sharply off the "road map to peace". Sympathy for the innocent aside I have no problem with these two groups of people killing each other especially if it precludes them from blowing up children and their grandmothers having pizza in Israel.

Hamas got a foot in the door in the recent election and are moving to take full control by force. If you have doubts about the need for us to finish the job in Iraq just look at Hamas in the Gaza Strip to see what Iraq will turn into if we leave prematurely.

Democrats Work Toward American Defeat

Please compare the following statements made by Democrat Harry Reid.............

WP reports that Senator Harry Reid provoked by an article in USA Today took some cheap shots at General David Petraeus. Petraeus, was unanimously approved by the Senate to take command in Iraq four months ago. Still after approving Gen. Petraeus Reid now claims that the General "isn't in touch with what's going on in Baghdad." Reid also indicated that he thinks Petraeus has not been sufficiently open in his testimony to Congress. Noting that Petraeus, who is now on his third tour of duty in Iraq, oversaw the training of Iraqi troops during his second stint there, Reid said: "He told us it was going great; as we've looked back, it didn't go so well.

The quote in USA Today was that the general sees "astonishing signs of normalcy" in the Iraqi capital. "I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks -- big ones, markets that are very vibrant," Petraeus told the newspaper.
Reid went on to say "I was a little disappointed, to say the least, today reading the USA Today newspaper, where he's saying things are going fine." Seeing signs of normalcy is hardly saying "things are going fine." I sincerely doubt that you could find any instance of General Petraeus saying "things are going fine," in a war zone.

Reid had a conversation Tuesday with liberal bloggers, according to The Politico, in which he disparaged both Petraeus and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whom the administration recently did not nominate for a second two-year term. Reid called Pace "incompetent," and then questioned the integrity of Petraeus by saying he is "waiting to see if General Petraeus can be a little more candid with this."

Compare to statements made by Harry Reid at the time of his last visit to Iraq, March of 2005. "I came away with the feeling that we cannot leave Iraq." He was one of seven Senate Democrats and Republicans that took a week-long trip to the Middle East and several countries near the region. He said, "I came away with the feeling we cannot leave Iraq. If we do, the terrorists will have won." Reid must have forgotten all about that as he actually said "Now I believe myself............that this war is lost" on April 19, 2007.

Harry Reid is a corrupt Democrat. It is well known that you cannot do business in the state of Nevada unless you grease the palms of one or more of the members of the Harry Reid family. However, for the majority leader in the Senate to undermine our war efforts in this way is much more egregious than his ethically questionable and highly profitable land dealings.

Who is more likely to be "out of touch" with the way things are going in Baghdad, the general running our operations there or a fat cat senator sitting in Washington D.C. trying to think up more ways to thwart the President and enrich himself? There is only one accurate description of Harry Reid's behavior and the word is treasonous.

"Bush Lied" Not!

Multiple Democrats have repeatedly tried to assert that President Bush "Lied us into the war in Iraq". Nothing could be further from the truth, but the truth is a small obstical to the left and their obedient minions in the media. Long ago it was alleged that Vice President Cheney pressured analysts in our intelligence organizations to find that Saddam hissain had WMD's. That fallicy was disproved by the 9.11 Report. So the left just waited a week or two and began again to make their "Bush Lied, Kids Died" claims.

Now that allegation is disproved by none other than Al Gore. A video taped speech from 1992 has surfaced. In it Al Gore, then running for Vice President, criticises the first President Bush for not confronting Saddam Hussein. Gore makes all the same arguments for attacking Iraq that were made by President Clinton when he made removal of Saddam Hussein the policy of the United states of America. Clinton never followed through on that policy with the exception of a few high altitude bombings.

If one had the time and the inclination you could put together an impressive collection of leading Democrats calling for action against Iraq and explaining how very dangerous Hussein is to us and the world. It is convenient for those Democrats to pretend that they never made those statements and that no one ever considered action against Iraq until Bush 43 came along. The Media willingly complies by reporting the Democrats current criticism and never mentioning the conflicting statements these same people made just a few years ago.

Unfortunately for the Media and the Left, some of us do have more than short time memories and there is always YouTube to fill in the blanks for those who have forgotten.

Who Really Hates the U.S.?

Our wonderful "main stream media" has been telling us since President Bush took office that our country is hated, truly hated throughout the world. Can we be sure this is true? This is the same MSM who told us that AID's was becoming an epidemic among heterosexuals, which was untrue. The same MSM warned us that the Avian Flu would be killing ten percent of America by now which hasn't happened. The same MSM who are telling us we have changed the climate of the earth, but can't prove it.

I admit that there will always be some anti-American factions out there and the MSM will dutifully report every protest they put on, but how widespread is this feeling? When they report on these protests take notice of the camera angle. If you are seeing an aerial shot of thousands in the streets then there are thousands in the streets. If the cameras are on the ground and the shots are rather narrow you might be looking at a small number of people filmed to look like a lot of people. This ploy was used at a Cindy Sheehan event a year ago. The picture was cropped to prevent readers from seeing that there were more reporters present than protesters.

Lets look at the way the rest of the world has been voting lately. According to the MSM America is hated because the world absolutely despises George W Bush whom we have had the bad taste to elect, twice. In Germany the candidate who presented herself as an ally of the United States was elected and the anti Bush candidate lost. In Australia, our second best ally in Iraq, Prime Minister Howard was re-elected. If you were asked which European country hates us the most you would probably say France. They just had an election in France. One candidate, an attractive woman was clearly anti-American and decidedly anti-Bush. She called her opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy "the Bush candidate" in hopes of using hatred of Bush to win the election. Sarkozy won with 53 percent of the votes!

Apparently it is the MSM that hated America and president Bush, not a majority of Europeans.

Happy Birthday to Me?

Happy Birthday to me,

I am not yet fifty,

fifty is the new thirty

you can take it from me.