by ·Comments Off on Democrats Have Broken Their Diet of Patriotic Rhetoric

Have you ever been on a diet and then realized you had accomplished your goal and felt liberated to just pig out? That is the dangerous transition from positive change to repeating history. Well, the Vietnam gang is pigging out at the trough of antimilitary sentiment. They had to bite the bullet during the Gulf War in 1990 and forego the atrocities munchies, the baby killer chips and the Imperialist bon bons, because they realized they could no longer fit into their compassion jeans.

But now that the patriotic rhetoric diet is over, all bets are off. The slim waist of patriotism, revealing a pro-defense profile, has suddenly expanded beyond a svelte understanding of who we are as a nation and what positive impact we have had on the world, inspite of what the French and the UN say. They serve the purpose of the anorexic’s mirror. No matter how thin you get you still think you are fat. No matter how much good you do in the world, you still think you are bad, because you are told you are bad . . . by people who pretend to like you, claim to be like you, but trash you every chance they get.

Now with that very tempting bowl of chocolate atrocity covered malt balls sitting on the table between patriotic carrot sticks and anti-terrorism celery, the choice is just too tempting to pass up. So the hips of political exploitation spread as the Democrats stuff their chubby cheeks with the food they have been craving, and denying themselves for years. The food they stuffed themselves with daily during the wonderful, anti-American, antiwar, anti-flag, anti-patriotic . . . well, just basically anti-anything healthy days of selfish abandon. So eager were they to stuff their faces with fascist fallacies, they did it when their fellow soldiers starved in the rice paddies and lingered in the hell holes of real wartime atrocities. Ask John McCain if he would rather have been stripped and photographed, or had his arms yanked out of their sockets. He and his fellow prisoners of war were on a starvation diet, imposed by the bulimic protesters who gorged themselves on communist apologetics while regurgitating their feast to the tune of cash registers racking up their bounty from the evil capitalist system.

So, have at it Dems, liberals, elitists, hypocrites and cowards. Stuff your fat, free, faces with the hand fed morsels of the propaganda machines and pour yourselves into the useful idiot suits designed to cover the fat of exploitation and hypocrisy. But don’t complain when you can’t fit into that designer garment of reelection and political power. That svelte body that was so attractive to those who ignored the lipo-sucked ideologies of a pre-911 attack is now a reflection of the real man within.

But if you, the voter, have the choice between the body that is stuffed into a girdle, lipo-sucked, nipped and tucked, or one that is naturally lean, strong and bodaciously carved . . .which would you choose . . .the real thing, or the phony?

by ·Comments Off on Remember. Clinton’s People Stole the W’s From the Keyboards too

Are we really supposed to believe that the Clinton Administration bent over backwards to make sure the new Bush Administration was informed about what the real threats of terror in the US were? This is the same group that challenged the election returns in Florida, while disallowing hundreds of absentee ballots to be counted. This is the group that refused to allow for a smooth transition to the new Administration, possibly losing precious weeks, days, and hours that could have been used to brief them about what they knew about terrorist groups. But then, this is also the group that was so well informed that several US installations, including the World Trade Center, were attacked. So much for their brilliant “intelligence.”

This is the same crew that left the new Administration with a vandalized White House complete with missing “w” keys on many of the keyboards. The intelligence that Clinton’s people gave Bush’s people is as jumbled as the phone lines that were maliciously mislabeled. The trash and graffiti left in the offices of the White House by Clinton is very symbolic of the mess he left our nation in, and is another indication that he was clueless about the dangers of terrorism in the world, shrugging off the first World Trade Towers attack . . . not even visiting the site in the aftermath. The symbolism of the missing “w” on the keyboard was a sophomoric prank to prick president-elect Bush, but what it illustrates is that the Clinton Administration was not used to asking questions like, “who, what, when, where and why?” They must have assumed no one else used that “w” key either.

I am relieved to see that Dick Clark’s seventeen and a half minutes of “fame” have evaporated into laughable infamy. With only thirty seconds to go on the clock, he gave away his agenda by apologizing to the family members who have now made a career out of politicizing their loved-one’s deaths. I guess now we will expect every policemen to go around apologizing to victims because they didn’t stop the robber, the raper, the mugger. And every fireman should start apologizing that they couldn’t save your home from burning. Anyone can be a hindsight quarterback and “claim” they called the shots before the game, blame the coach for not following his advice, and then “drama queen” their way into the varacity-challenged hearts of the mainstream media. But most people don’t have million dollar book deals at stake when they are doing it.

You can’t, on one hand, claim you were so important that but for you the world would stop turning, but then claim you had nothing to do with the failure of your mission which was to protect the country against terrorist attacks. And then, being a failure at your job, complain that no one listened to you and followed your advice on how to combat terrorism. He failed under Clinton, and wanted to take the “w’s” off the intelligence keyboards of the Bush White House, and then is shocked, appalled and apologetic when letters from the White House are typed with “w’s” missing.

The demand was so great by the gleeful Gottcha Chorus to have Dr. Rice testify in public that the constitutional separation of powers became irrelevant and ignored. The truth is more important than the Constitution, yet no one was clamouring to have President Clinton testify in public before the 911 Commission, the way they insisted that Dr. Rice did.

That will be the only way of knowing if they asked him the hard questions, like about his own personal PDB, (Presidential Daily Briefing), back in 1996 where the head of the FBI, George Tenet, warned President CLINTON about Osama’s plan to hijack planes and fly them into buildings in the US. Why wasn’t that memo shared with the Bush Administration? Why was it only shared in August of 2001 in the form of a historical document but only mentioned potential plane hijacking, not the possibilities of making them lethal weapons? They could ask him, for all of us to hear the answer we already know, if he met with George Tenet or Monica Lewinsky more.

Did they ask Clinton why he turned down Osama when the Sudanese offered to extradite him to the US for prosecution? Even though this was after his proven attacks on US properties, including the World Trade Towers, Clinton claimed we had no legal authority to have him brought to the US and claims he “pleaded with” the Saudis to take him. Did he mention, behind closed doors the fact that he assigned Al Gore the task of making our airports and flight systems safe, and even he suggested profiling, but when it was rejected by the agencies responsible for air safety, Clinton, and Gore, dropped the ball and never pursued that line of protection for the US against terrorist attacks?

Did they ask where he was for one whole hour when Sandy Berger was trying to reach him to get the authorization to kill Osama when they had him in their sites in Afghanistan? Can you imagine the head of the NSC not able, at any given minute of any given day, to reach the President of the US when our national security is at stake? If Osama had been taken out then, would 911 have happened? Did they ask him that question? Did they ask Clinton about his 45,000-word terrorist report to the new Bush Administration in Dec. 2000, that doesn’t even mention Al Queda, and Osama, only 4 times? If they treated him like Dr. Rice, insisting he testify to the world, we could hear him respond to the question of why his administration was solely responsible for erecting a wall between the FBI and CIA for sharing information on would-be terrorists, basically guaranteeing the type of attack we saw on September 11, 2001.

Since the Democrats claim to speak for the American people all the time, let me take a crack at it. The American people are not stupid. We lived through Clinton’s wag the dog years. We know of the multiple US targets that were hit by terrorists. We know that Gore in his desperation to continue failed policies, caused the transition of the government to be postponed, allowing the enemy to get a stronger foothold on our soil. Which begs the question, “If terrorism was such a key issue, why did they not insist that the reigns of power be handed over quickly to prevent the enemy from having an opportunity to regroup?” Everyone, except Madeline Albright, knows that Clinton was offered Osama three times and refused him. We know that every attack to try and “get” Osama just happened to coincide with an episode of the “Clinton Sex Scandal Show.”

We have seen the video from the drone showing Osama Bin Laden, in the open with some of his fellow terrorists . . . yet no action was taken to try and kill him. We have read all the letters written in 1998 by Clinton declaring there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, justifying his bombing there. For those who continue to claim that Bush arbitrarily chose Iraq to attack, even before the attacks on 9/11, forget that we have been in a “conflict” with them for over thirteen years and our soldiers were constantly being shot at by the Iraqis well before 9/11.

But there was no outcry when the US, without provocation, or national security threats, unilaterally attacked Serbia under the pretense of stopping the genocide against the Albanians. The Albanian liberation front, interestingly enough, was a pet project of Osama Ben Laden. Why was it imperative that we send our troops to fight a war on Osama’s behalf? Since when did he change from enemy to ally? There was not even an outcry when Reno and Clinton torched the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. Selective cries of outrage by liberals serves to seal their personification as revisionist hypocrites.

The CYA poster child, Dick Clarke, can blame Dr. Rice, who was in an 8 month transition from his 8 YEAR position as being the weak link in national security, and get away with it, with the Democrat PR machine (the mainstream media), slobbering over his every word. But it just shows the rest of us in middle America, that the truth is irrelevant, the 911 Commission is a sham, and Democrats can play politics with the tragedy of 911, get away with it, get paid for it, and claim the Republicans are the ones exploiting tragedy. We learn that what the Kennedy’s, Kerry’s, and liberal wing of the democrat party are all really saying is that fighting terrorism is not as important as embarrassing the US and Bush, apologizing for terrorist acts committed by others, capitalizing on the 911 tragedy, and exploiting a failed war that they started, never supported and denounced when their butts were home safely.

The Clinton Administration stole a lot more than the “w’s” off of some keyboards in the White House. They stole our ability to protect ourselves from attacks at home and abroad. If this Commission was really after the truth, they would realize what the vast majority of Americans already know, that if they insist on pointing a finger at a President who dropped the ball, allowed us to be vulnerable, and caused the deaths of over 3,000 people, it would have to be “W”illiam Jefferson Clinton. They started this . . . let the truth end it.

by ·Comments Off on Death Toll Figures Don’t Lie . . . But Liars Figure

It is amazing to hear the Democrats claiming that Bush is politicizing the war every time he tries to honor the brave men and women fighting it. They went apoplectic when he landed on the aircraft carrier, looking far braver than our last commander in chief, who loathed the military, ever dreamed of looking. And now they are fluttering about like small minded bureaucrats over the wording on another ship, suggesting that these men and women have returned without having accomplished their mission. The dems have no problem though, politicizing the war when it comes to their traditional antiwar tactic, which is the body bag count. They claim they “care” about the fact that more soldiers are dying but have a real hard time shutting up when the live ones are being hailed as heroes.

We all agree death is tragic, sad, something to be avoided and prevented if possible, but it does happen. In the case of soldiers who willingly signed to serve their country, they knew the ultimate cost, beyond separation from their families, tours of duty, marginal food, and low wages, could be their lives. They made the choice to join the military, carry a gun, drive a tank, fly a plane, command a ship to preserve peace, defend our liberties and prevent anyone or thing from threatening that here at home.

The 95 people who went to hear a band play in Rhode Island this year, did not sign up to give their lives for music and a good time. The 269 passengers aboard the Korean Airlines flight in 1983 did not buy tickets anticipating they would be shot out of the sky. The Branch Dividians never thought that Attorney General Janet Reno and Bill Clinton would gas them when they joined the cult. The residents of Southern California did not build their homes in a rural setting with the thoughts that one day they would die and their homes be destroyed. These are not consequences of innocent choices that any of these people anticipated. Soldiers are prepared to not only kill . . .but to die. It is not a surprise to them that someone is shooting back and occasionally they get hit or even killed.

As of October 29, 2003, there have been 231 combat related, US military deaths in Iraq, and 354 in all. Journalists have seen 17 of their members fall, and Coalition troops 53. During the actual war, we lost 138 members of the US military, overthrowing a bloody dictator, liberating a people who have been oppressed, murdered, raped and tortured for years. Their liberation came at a high price, because yes, even one American life is so valuable to us that we weigh the cost of that sacrifice. And it would be an insult to the choice these soldiers made, to lay down their lives for another, for the US to turn and run, the way the Doomacrat presidential wannabes suggest. If you applied their same standard of “concern” for the lives of other people in professions where their lives are on the line, we would have no policemen, firemen, electricians, truck drivers . . .etc.

But let’s look at the slight of hand the anti-freedom groups are working with the left hand while keeping us focused, daily on the military death toll in Iraq, in their right hand. Just last year, 2002, Washington, D.C. the Capital of the free the world, saw 262 people murdered. The total number of people murdered in the US was about 16,000. None of them signed up to die. So far this year, Philadelphia recorded its 198th slaying, anticipating at that rate the number to be as high as 337 by the end of the year. And even that number is better than the 1990 murder rate in that city which set a record at 500. Are DC and Philly more dangerous than Iraq? These two US cities have a combined murder rate higher than the current US military death toll in Iraq, a country of 24.5 million. More people died in France this past summer, from heat exhaustion, than soldiers died in “combat” in Iraq.

The anti-freedom group, in this postwar era in Iraq will tell you that 1500 civilian casualties, since March 2003, is totally unacceptable. They don’t seem to mind that 144,000 Iraqis died in 2002 . . . before the first US troop was even in the country. But, keeping it all in perspective, there were 2.6 million deaths in the US in the same year. And that is without a war, and after Sept. 11, 2001, when 3000 innocent people were murdered in one day. Iraq is one tenth the size of the United States, but the death rate for the US and Iraq in the same year was about the same . . . and has not increased by more than 1500 since March of 2003 . .. which is less than the pro-rata murder rate in the US in the same period of time.

If you look at the most recent statistic that shows the most dangerous professions in the US., the military does not even rank in the top ten.

So why aren’t the politicians, who are desperate to get elected, trying to get construction work, logging, fishing and farming to be curtailed because there are so many unfortunate and tragic deaths every year. Why isn’t there a move to shut down these professions, move these people away from these dangerous jobs in order to save their lives? Because it is not about the lives of the soldiers, it is about the lives of their political careers. They never seemed to mind that 35 brave men were murdered and bodies desecrated in Somalia. There was no move to “impeach” Clinton for his “bungling” of a military operation that lost American lives. He was not referred to as a liar or gang leader because he timed an attack on several sovereign nations to coincide with the focus on his many indiscretions and cover-ups.

There are more deaths resulting from delivering pizza, than there are military related deaths. Should we stop the sale of anything that has to be delivered because it is too dangerous, and because these lives are too precious? How many more deaths of pizza delivery personnel does it take for us to see the folly and selfishness of our consuming ways?

There are a couple of issues to remember as the left gleefully tallies up the death tolls in Iraq daily, hoping to make a point. Some point. Any point to embarrass the country and our Commander in Chief, play politics with the lives of these brave men and women, and hope that the death rate goes up to prove their point that we should abandon our mission of liberating an oppressed people from a regime that put no value on human life. Point one, the US was attacked and war was declared on us, and the president has, as a part of his oath, to protect and defend the constitution, and the major purpose of the government is to defend and protect our freedoms . . .at home . . and abroad.

Two . . . the “war” in Iraq is over. We are now in the rebuilding process, working to help them establish and interim government so the transition from oppression to liberation can be a smooth one. After the attack on the US, crime did not suddenly disappear in the aftermath of the attack on the US and the destruction of the Trade Towers. As we were struggling to dig out of the disaster, find and save lives, and help preserve peace and stability to the city . . . crimes continued to occur. Murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, all continued even though 100% of the city’s efforts needed to be focused on rebuilding, not policing the city. How can we have different standards for a country that is much larger than New York, had infrastructure failings before, and that suffered less concentrated structural damage, collectively, than New York and Washington?

The next time one of the presidential nay-sayers bemoans the fact that brave men and women have willingly given their lives to ensure freedom for people they don’t even know . . .ask them what the murder rate in their state is so far this year, and did they give as much energy to mourning these victims, as they have to desecrating the memories of our military heroes who chose their profession willingly, sacrificially, and bravely.

by ·Comments Off on What do the Democrat Party and Abusive Husbands Have in Common?

The Democrat party is sort of like the abusive husband who blames his wife for getting her face in the way of his fist. He is somehow the victim and deserving of sympathetic responses, while she is the one who suffers in silence because either no one will believe her, it is her word against his, or she fears that worse will happen if she accuses him of being the yellow bellied, chicken-livered, scum bag psychopath that he is.

When Terry McAuliffe can sit straight faced and claim that the Republicans are going to go negative in the presidential race, when all we have heard for a year are the rantings of nine people lacking any positive idea of what they would do if President, then we must look at what he is trying to hide. He claims that the Republicans are so desperate for power, that they will question the patriotism of a great war hero like John Kerry as he engages in preemptive abuse. Terry stands over a pool of bloody water where the remains of countless Republican bodies lie at the bottom of slash and burn political campaigns claiming he and his party are the victims. The drums of special interest accusations beat in rhythm to the sound of the cash register logging in the millions of dollars from special interest Democrats like George Soros, the environmentalists, the abortionists, the trial lawyers, the Hollywood elite, and the corporate giants who always butter their bread on both sides. He claims the religious right will use their churches and synagogues to support their candidate but is appalled when it is pointed out that inner city churches have been promoting, supporting and fielding Democrat candidates for years. If not for the church, Mary Lou Landrieu would not be the Senator for Louisiana and Terry knows this. But if the wife points out this little inconsistency, she gets whacked again with the same old label of right-wing religious fanatic.

The claims of a stolen election are never met with the question, well, if you think it was stolen, why didn’t you guys just run Al Gore again, avoid this divisive primary, and let the electorate finally decide who they really want to be their Commander in Chief? Could it be that they know Al Gore, their biggest and best excuse for questioning the legitimacy of Bush, really did not win as many popular votes as he did, and Bush was cheated out of the correct tally of military absentee ballots? Could it be that they know a rematch would totally destroy the myth of a stolen election, therefore they can’t afford to go down that lane?

The claims that President Bush lied about WMDs are met with angry glances and quick denials when asked if Clinton is as culpable because he relied on the same intelligence, and bombed not only Iraq, but Afghanistan and the Sudan as well. He even said on several occasions that we had proof, years ago that there were WMDs in Iraq. Democrats don’t seem to understand how silly they look when questioning Bush’s claim that our national security is at stake since the attack of 9/11, when they never questioned Clinton’s excuse for bombing Serbia. So why did Clinton’s America risk it’s global reputation by invading a sovereign nation without assistance from the French and Germans, congressional authority, or the permission of the United Nations? Wasn’t the argument that we had a moral obligation? Isn’t it interesting how liberals see a moral obligation to drop bombs on innocent people in the Balkans as a justification for such action, but fail to connect the dots when our national security really is threatened? And why, again, did we bomb the Chinese embassy, other than to destroy the evidence that the secrets for money exchange did indeed take place. Ice down your knuckles before the police get there and stick to your story that she slipped down some stairs.

The newest accusation by the Democrats, that is the most pathetic and laughable, reminds you of the guy who has just been caught red-handed cheating on his wife with, then smacks her around for getting upset. They are now all referring to John Kerry as a war hero, even though he threw his medals away and protested a war they all despised, while other brave men were still over there getting shot at . . .and dying. By the way Terry . . .it is going to be difficult to see John Kerry and his chest full of medals debate President Bush when he bragged about throwing them over a fence in protest. Did he lie about doing that? Did he lie about being against the war on that fateful day, then crawled back under the fence later that night to retrieve them? Who is making a desperate political ploy to appeal to a certain segment of our society? If it is a political stunt to land on an aircraft carrier or risk your life flying behind enemy lines on Thanksgiving, then it must be the same to rely on the claim of war hero when you openly protested against the war, and returned your medals to the government you now opposed, then, created a voting record to confirm this disdain for the military and national defense.

You guys really think people in the military are that stupid? When asked about Bill Clintons loathing of the military and draft dodging escapades, McAuliffe slaps the facts around for exposing his hypocrisy and dalliances. He refuses to acknowledge that Clinton was a draft dodging coward, while daring Bush to say anything about Kerry’s record. Oh, suddenly war records matter to the Democrats? As I recall, the Democrats set the ground rules in ’92 about questions concerning Clinton’s military record saying they were mean spirited, divisive, and hurtful to a nation just trying to . . . move on. Isn’t it odd that the Democrats are always so desperate to move on when their hypocrisies and indiscretions are showing, yet, they have no problem dragging up past records of their opponents all the way to conception? Heh Terry, move on. If we are supposed to have forgiven Clinton for being a real schmuck, then, why can’t you extend the same compassion to others? The charges against Bush as being AWOL and deserter are as inflated and suspicious as your $18 million profit in Global Crossing from a $100,000 investment. Ask anyone in the military what a TDY, and Honorable Discharge are, and I am sure they will be glad to enlighten you, John Kerry, and the new mouth of the DNC, Michael Moore.

But we already know that John Kerry will put the makeup of patriotic rhetoric over the black eye of defense spending cuts, base closings, and support for bills that attack our national security and continue to put the nation at risk. Makeup, like Botox, does not hide the fact that our intelligence community has been weakened and compromised during the Clinton Administration, aided by their liberal accomplices in Congress. For them now to claim they support the military, the soldier, the fighting man and woman just because once upon a time they wore the same uniform, while their actions belie this, again, is a pure exercise in situational ethics and values clarification.

Democrats claim THEIR country was stolen as though they own it and the people in it. These wives, who are treated as objects and possessions of a twisted party, need to expose the abusive husbands as hypocritical little weenies who say one thing and do another, hoping no one notices the bruised eyes, the swollen lip, and broken arm. And maybe, the abused victims will stop allowing the Democrats to continue lying to them, using them as a scapegoat for their pathetic posturing, and demand that the truth be told and the abuse stop.

Well, like the abusive husband who claimed his wife deserved to be hit, they are that wrong. But the women aren’t taking it any more and they are fighting back. They know they are not that bad, that evil, that horrible, just because they want to be taxed less. They are not to blame for his rage, just because they want to be protected in their own homes, offices, and skyscrapers from would-be terrorists. They are not failures because they support the overthrow of tyrants who slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent people. And frankly, they are sick of being characterized as such . . .especially by a party that stood by and allowed Clinton to abuse the nation with his lies, spins, sexual appetite, bombing and hypocrisy. Americans are not stupid . . .and don’t like being sucker punched. The quiet Americans refuse to be the victims any longer and will fight back. So John Kerry . . . in your own words . . . Bring it On!!

by ·Comments Off on Justin Timberlake . . . From Mouseketeer to Molester

I wish I could have been fly on the wall during the producer’s conversation about the Super Bowl halftime porn show. The wardrobe artists were accused of not making a strong enough outfit for Janet Jackson, the producers claimed it wasn’t done like that in rehearsal, the NFL heads said they had promises from the MTV crowd that the show would be acceptable to all ages, and the audience was sucker-punched. That would be like saying you were shocked to discover that Hustler had a couple of raunchy photos in it. Hello, the halftime show was produced by MTV, not Nickelodeon.

Everyone is floundering in a giant stew of mea culpa but this still doesn’t answer the question on everyone’s mind. What was the point? Did Justin feel he had to do something to show his ex-girl friend, Britney Spears, who sucked face with Madonna on national TV, that he was just as hip? He wanted to make sure his 15 minutes of fame lasted 30 seconds longer than hers after that ridiculous display of in-your-face excess.

Was the point that the actions had to match the words to the song which said, I am going to have you naked by the end of this song? What in the world are they singing a song about having sex and getting naked at the Super Bowl which is supposed to be about football? Hello, this isn’t the SEX Bowl, or the Super Boob.

What message was this display of degradation and molestation supposed to send to the viewing public? What impact does a dance with girls dressed as whores, and a white boy insinuating S&M on an African-American girl have on young kids today? Are girls supposed to now fear that society sanctions such behaviour by young men who get paid big money to ravage women in public? Doesn’t that seem so ancient Rome and totally uncivilized, where the nubiles were brought in, chained to large wagons, then stripped to the waste to show the wares and sold to the highest bidder? Come to think of it, there has been a history of that in our not-to-distant past. To see young kids, under the direction of knowing adults, acting out this type of degradation for the amusement of millions gives one pause. Just what are we teaching kids? Are young men now to think that girls like that kind of treatment and could care less if the red lace underwear breaks away with the outer garment, as long as they get what they want, when they want it? Hello feminists, you have been pitched a soft ball here . . . I don’t see anyone taking a swing at it. You can’t still be sitting on the same apathetic, myopic bench of double standards where you sat out the Clinton years.

I am curious to know how cute little kids like Justin, Britney and Christina, go from singing M-I-C-K-E-Y-M-O-U-S-E to molesting women, performing lesbian acts and dancing with snakes unless they had been told that it would catapult their careers beyond the mouse ears. But catapult to what?

Christina has graduated to a highly paid porn star with a good voice, but even the guys are shocked by her performances and sleaziness. Not someone you want to take home to meet mom. And Britney was already on that sultry slide to skin and sex before she let Madonna perform a tonsillectomy on her with her tongue. Was there a sense of competition between the three that now Justin had to prove himself as a Class A pervert, or have all these performers just totally lost touch with reality?

Are there no adults in their lives who really do believe that they should nurture character qualities like integrity, virtue, humility and gentleness? Were they just surrounded by greedy adults who, having lost their own innocence, saw big bucks in selling the innocence of these kids and others like them, knowing their performing days were numbered? Did no one think to tell these kids that not everyone in the world lives by the same rules the entertainment industry does, and this does not make the rest of the world weird, or right wing, or intolerant, or judgmental. It just means the rest of the world is responsible, thoughtful and incensed when they are dissed the way they were Sunday night.

In the past, it used to be that the young kids would shock the adults to prove they were independent and capable of free expression. But that has been changed so drastically, and so fast, that now it is the adults moving the children into roles that defile their innocence, stunt their growth, destroy their lives. Child porn is a multi-billion dollar industry run by adults who exploit and abuse children. The entertainment industry is run by adults who sign children younger and younger and age them quicker and quicker so they have a longer shelf life before they become disposable commodities in their early twenties . . .used up before their time. Young girls are exploited and lied to by adults in the abortion industry that accomplishes the goal of destroying two lives with every abortion. The adults in education, the library associations, and academia all see our young boys and girls as pimps and prostitutes and desire only that they control their sexually transmitted diseases not their sexual appetites. They applaud and condone destructive consequences of these dangerous lifestyle choices, while jeering and condemning kids who choose abstinence as means of insuring safe sex.

The critics of the critics of this new immorality have become so jaded and encased in a cocoon of apathy and cynicism that they really don’t see what all the commotion is about. Heh, if you’ve seen one boob, you’ve seen them all, begs the question then why is pornography still, annually, after all these boob-filled years, a multi-billion dollar industry? Why does MTV keep selling sex if the market is saturated? But for a woman who is molested against her will, it is still a traumatic and devastating event that can scar her for a lifetime. To promote such molestation, abuse and dehumanization sends a subtle message to would-be victims, and would-be attackers. Brace yourself Kate, because he is somehow validated in his actions toward you, by MTV, the NFL, CBS, Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, etc.

Out of curiosity, where are the compassionate liberals, the feminists, the human rights activists, the civil rights activists who love the rhetorical jabs but do nothing to stem this tide of debauchery that is aimed at our kids? And, sorry, but more money from the Federal Government will NOT solve this problem. It is one that can only be solved by instilling a new respect for human life back into our country. A respect for decency and integrity.

Instead of trashing groups like, the Boy Scouts, for example, for wanting to remain virtuous and decide who they want to be intimate with, and in what way, we should be honoring children who have decided, as their CHOICE, to live a certain lifestyle and protect their innocence.

There is an age when all little Mouseketeers grow up, become responsible for their actions and suffer the consequences. But in the case of little kids who never had a childhood, who have always been handled by adults and have never been taught right from wrong, then it is hard to hold them accountable for the incredibly stupid and self-destructive things adults have been telling them to do for their careers. But hopefully, we can ALL learn from their mistakes.

by ·Comments Off on Heh Dems . . . If It’s OK to Compare Bush to Hitler, How About Wesley Clark the Baby Killer?

Where in the world are the Democrats finding these compassionate, empathetic, rocket scientists who would be president? It was entertaining enough seeing Dean twist in the wind as he tried to convince middle America that the Bush tax cut was really bad for them. Now you have Clark giving all women the power of God to decide when life begins when he says, “Life begins with the mother’s decision.” With the mothe’s decision to what? To have sex? She can’t decide when life begins because it is a done deal when sperm meets egg. If it began when a woman merely decides, well you would have as many decisions about the beginning of life as you have women. Most would probably prefer to skip the 9 month process and decide that life begins when a child is plucked from under a cabbage leaf. . . or when the stork drops them by the front door. Certainly not when she is screaming in pain and hating the sound of the word, “push!”

And let’s say a woman does decide when life begins, displacing the God of the universe who has the ultimate hand in all life and death . . . what does that have to do with deciding when it ends?

By His standard, I can say it begins at conception, therefore should be protected, while someone else says it begins at conception and should be destroyed.

But let’s look at his next statement which should send chills down the spine of most thinking, feeling people, especially big hearted liberals. Clark says, “Until the moment of birth, the government has no right to influence a mother’s decision on whether to have an abortion.” But according to polls, over 93% of the American people reject his cavalier and chilling statement and have overwhelmingly rejected the barbaric practice of “partial birth abortion,” which is what he is advocating here, and more.

As mothers and fathers sit in premature wards praying that their child born in the 7th and 8th months, and sometimes earlier, survive their short term gestation, they realize that a man who would be president does not see their child as a whole person . . . as a fellow citizen, but just a choice a woman has to destroy and kill. Move to the next floor ‘ the room full of pink and blue bassinets contain the cause for mature adults to make fools of themselves and realize that just moments before this jubilant encounter, these children could have all been legally slaughtered under a President Clark. And the democrats dare compare Bush to Hitler. Hello?

Is a fully viable child really the “property” of a woman who can decide up until the moment of birth if that child should live or die? Is that unborn child not even 3/5 of a person without any rights or privileges of full citizenship just seconds out of the womb? Well Mr. Clark (sorry, but it is hard to refer to you with the time honored title of General with such a genocidal view of life and disregard for and understanding of who and what women are), why stop there? Why not give her up to a month to decide if motherhood is for her? Remember your tiny, sick, constituency actually saw Angela Yates, the mother who killed her five kids, as a victim and tried to justify their deaths.

Liberals need to start being as honest in public as they are in private about their passion for abortion. It has nothing to do with the woman as evidenced by their lack of concern for woman who have suffered the emotional, physical, psychological and even mortal consequences of abortion. Like their heroine and founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, who was a racist and eugenicist of the first order, liberal elitists really believe that abortion does rid our society of the “unwanted,” the “unwelcome,” and the “unlovable.” They are the population control freaks who selfishly think their doodoo is odorless, and extra people on earth impede their ability to flourish. They are the meat merchants whose currency is human flesh receiving billions of dollars in blood money to exploit women who are desperate for an answer beyond the extermination of their child. They are the irresponsible man who parades his pro-abortion credentials as he ships his “woman” off to the butcher to destroy the evidence that he is a coward, while she alone suffers the consequences of his lack of self control. They are the smug, silent racists who by their pompous support of a liberal cause can hide their desire to promote abortion to minority women and couch it in terms of choice, power, and self-determination when they are really promoting genocidal tactics that they hope will result in less of the race they secretly disdain. They are the smug whites who graciously promote a way for poor black and hispanic women to annihilate their race while claiming they are doing it for the women.

Everyone has wondered for years the type of person that could grow and develop without a spirit, a soul, and conscience and see their fellow human being as merely a stumbling block to greater power and control. We have seen dictators in the past slaughter millions of people because they did not see them as “whole people.” They were lacking either in philosophical and religious purity, or were handicapped by imperfections, whether physical, emotional, or cultural. But decisions were made by people like Wesley Clark that they were disposable, irrelevant and of no consequence to those who would decide they should be exterminated. It was irrelevant to them that they were precious to someone else and not the burden these perverted leaders perceived them to be.

A man who is so desperate to become president that he authorizes, sanctions and approves of the murder of full term babies is a reminder of the season we have just passed through, when King Herod had babies who were new born and up to two years old, killed because of the prophecy that a new King had been born. And just as he was unable to satisfy that thirst for power by destroying the Christ Child, and as women really do not decide when life begins, only God does . . . so Wesley Clark will not prevail in his quest for power because there are not enough evil, sick people in this country to elect a man who would kill healthy, viable, precious little babies who are full term.

Inspite of what liberals, and www.moveon.orgthink, it is not Bush who resembles Hitler in this race.

by ·Comments Off on President Bush Protects Women and Children While Others Pretend to

The Democrats have convinced some Americans that they care more about women and children than Republicans while they use the Constitution to justify the degradation and debasing of them. They promote the killing of unborn babies while refusing to allow women to know the dangers such a life threatening operation can have on them. They don’t think little girls who become pregnant, should have to tell their parents before getting an operation that has killed, maimed and caused infertility in the past. They think that the Internet in public schools and libraries should be unfiltered to allow every type of pornographic image to assault the eyes of the viewers. They turn a blind eye to sex trafficking in other countries where children as young as six are being sold as sex slaves. So if you have liberals complain that President Bush is stepping to the plate in an effort to protect people from the devastation of pornography . . . ask them if they would mind if their own daughter, wife, niece or mother was a victim of pornography, and debased in the way nameless women are in these magazines and movies. Then remind them, that these women are someone’s daughters, or nieces, or mothers, and they deserve better than to be treated worse than animals.

Protection From Pornography Week, 2003
By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

Pornography can have debilitating effects on communities, marriages, families, and children. During Protection From Pornography Week, we commit to take steps to confront the dangers of pornography.

The effects of pornography are particularly pernicious with respect to children. The recent enactment of the PROTECT Act of 2003 strengthens child pornography laws, establishes the Federal Government’s role in the AMBER Alert System, increases punishment for Federal crimes against children, and authorizes judges to require extended supervision of sex offenders who are released from prison.

We have committed significant resources to the Department of Justice to intensify investigative and prosecutorial efforts to combat obscenity, child pornography, and child sexual exploi-ta-tion on the Internet. We are vigorously prosecuting and severely punishing those who would harm our children. Last July, the Department of Homeland Security launched Operation Predator, an initiative to help identify child predators, rescue children depicted in child pornography, and prosecute those responsible for making and distributing child pornography.

Last year, I signed legislation creating the Dot Kids domain, a child-friendly zone on the Internet. The sites on this domain are monitored for content and safety, offering parents assurances that their children are learning in a healthy environment. Working together with law enforcement officials, parents, and other caregivers, we are making progress in protecting our children from pornography.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 26 through November 1, 2003, as Protection From Pornography Week. I call upon public officials, law enforcement officers, parents, and all the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs and activities.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-fourth day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-eighth.

GEORGE W. BUSH

 

by ·Comments Off on Liberal Response to the Saga of the Ambassador and His Super Spy Wife

If you look up the word “despicable” in the dictionary you will find that it means, “deserving of contempt or scorn; vile, to despise.”

This is the new favorite word the Democrats have stolen from Daffy Duck to describe how they feel about a situation they don’t have all the facts on, but are hoping it ends in the impeachment, imprisonment, banishment, and exile of President Bush.

Ironically, the word “despicable,” is right after the word “desperation,” in the dictionary, and is defined as, “the condition of being desperate; recklessness arising from despair.” That pretty much sums up, in a nutshell, what we have here concerning the Ambassador and the Super Spy Wife case.

Just a thought here . . . If they are so concerned about protecting her identity, why do they keep covering the story? But that aside, are we really hearing ourselves on this one? It must be a slow news year if the only definition we can find for the word “despicable” is the fact that everyone within range of a microphone is continuing to perpetrate a crime on this woman that they claim the White House condoned by “leaking” that she was a CIA agent. No, that’s not really despicable.

What is REALLY despicable is forgetting that the “enemy” of the United States is not Bush, as Howard Dean insists, but terrorists who have as their goal our total destruction. Despicable is ignoring the horrors committed by a monster like Saddam and insinuating that our President needs a “regime change”, as John Kerry suggested, claiming he is killing our young women and men for oil. Despicable is not realizing that we, as a nation, and Bush as a President, are trying to liberate a country that has uncovered tens of thousands of bodies in mass graves, had torture and rape rooms and had its citizens force-fed into plastic shredding machines . . .alive.

Despicable is claiming the President used his position of authority to grandstand by landing on an aircraft carrier to thank the troops for putting their lives on the line for a cause greater than themselves. Despicable is claiming the Republicans are using the Iraq war for political gain when every single one of the Presidential Wannabes of the Doomacrat party take every opportunity to slam the war, trash the great strides and efforts of the military, and insist that it was a HUGE mistake to go into Iraq, and that we went in under false pretenses.

Despicable is Ted Kennedy calling the President dishonest and a fraud when he couldn’t even find a few minutes to make a phone call to help save a drowning girl. Despicable is the Clinton White House abusing the use of dozens of FBI files and not serving time in jail like Chuck Colson did for misusing one. Despicable is the IRS harassing every single woman who leveled sexual harassment or rape charges against Bill Clinton. Despicable is a greedy woman who claims she is for the poor, making millions of dollars while First Lady, then stealing the people’s furniture from the White House.

Despicable is a president who sells national security secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions, then “accidentally” bombs their embassy in Serbia to cover it up. Despicable is claiming that is how every other president does things too. Despicable is holding up judicial nominations with a phony filibuster, while trashing the reputations of some of the finest men and women in the country, because they aren’t Stepford Judges for the Left.

Despicable is gluing the W key on all the keyboards in the White House, switching and renaming phone lines, and costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix the juvenile antics of a spoiled group of elite brats who never learned to count . . .and recount . . and recount again.

Despicable is an entire party who jumped on the stinking ship of Bill Clinton claiming he was the greatest president we have ever had even though he lied under oath, sexually assaulted women in the oval office, had one “service him” while on the phone to an international leader, and was eventually impeached by a congress that was called despicable for relying on the letter of the law not the whim of an agenda.

Just for fun, let’s trade places and put Bush in Clinton’s place and I dare you to find ONE Democrat who would have voted AGAINST impeachment for Bush. They would have been climbing all over each other to cast the first vote claiming the people have a right to know, to not be lied to, that justice must be served . . . on and on and on. And guess what, they would be right, and the Republicans would have joined the vote and not only would he have been impeached, he would have been convicted. Remember, it was Newt and Bob Livingston who left voluntarily and didn’t drag their party through the mud like the Clintons did.

Despicable is a party of elite socialists who think they know better, are better, and lead better than the rest of the nation and resent the heck out of the fact that they can’t stretch the already vulcanized constitution to somehow put them in total and complete control over every aspect of our lives . . . forever.

This despicable gottcha game is nothing more than pure desperation by a party that has no ideas, no hope, no vision for the country other than to tax and spend and tell you how to lead your life and scream intolerance and bigotry if you disagree.

So . . . the next time you hear one of them say the word despicable, just imagine a picture of Daffy Duck, have a good laugh, and remember this entire episode of hysterics and campaign drama on election day, and keep electing REAL leaders for the country . . . who are neither despicable . . . nor desperate.

by ·Comments Off on Please Help Us Find an Answer . . .

We are having a hard time getting an answer from the DNC (Democrat National Committee), and maybe you could help.

We have been calling for days asking a simple question. How many millions of dollars did Terry McAuliffe (the Chairman of the DNC) make from a $100,000 investment into Global Crossing, just months before they went under?

I have heard everything from $5 mil. to $18 mil., but they don’t seem to know the answer. It can’t be that hard for a member of their research team to walk down the hall, stick their head in his door and say, “Heh Terry, how much did you cheat the investors out of on your inside deal with Global Crossing?” How big can the building be? He has to be somewhat accessible.

Maybe they could stop him on his way to the press conferences where he blames President Bush for accounting practices pushed through congress by Democrats while claiming that the current corporate crisis is the fault of Bush and Cheney. They could even whisper in his ear, after they get the answer we are looking for, that people are still a little curious about Hillary’s windfall from cattle futures, and the fact that they came to the White House with no assets and little money and left multimillionaires.

He should mention in his press conferences that the decade of the 90’s makes the decade of the 80’s divinely altruistic instead of the political spin of a party defining it as the decade of greed. He could try telling the truth about the Clinton administration redefining greed by opening the door for corporate deception, in the name of stimulating the economy, to give the appearance of achieving economic growth and stability, when just the opposite was happening under his watch.

And I guess we shouldn’t hold our breath for the media to ask the tough questions of Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin and his ties to Enron… or remind Terry McAuliffe of Clinton’s midnight pardon of Marc Rich who cheated taxpayers and investors out of millions and fled the country to avoid prosecution. This huge, greased smeared, black pot looks a little odd pointing to a tiny tea kettle claiming its sins are more scarlet.

But if you don’t know the answer, could you do us a favor and try and call the DNC for us and see if they will answer our question about McAuliffe’s investment returns, since we are sure he will want to give it back to the poor defrauded investors? They just won’t return our calls.

For your convenience, their number is 202-863-8000. It would be ashamed if we all forgot the hypocrisy charges leveled against the Republicans when they began holding Bill Clinton accountable to his vows to the country, and his wife, when he was using the oval office for his personal message parlor.

So now, the door swings the other way, with the hands of the Democrats in money deals up to their elbows and they have the cajones to sling the accusation of “permissiveness” at the Republicans.

So, a little justice, accountability and equal treatment would be a refreshing change for them . . . especially before an election when America is watching . . . and expects it from their leaders.

P.S. If the DNC research team happens to answer you . . .can you e-mail the response back to us?

Thank you,
Nina May

by ·Comments Off on What Goes Around Comes Around In Life . . . and Politics

I hope everyone is not surprised by the ruling of the 9th Circuit to ignore the rule of law and promote Judicial Activism as an Olympic Sport.

We have been seeing the team roster include a bevy of liberal judges from around the country.  No wonder the democrats want to keep a stronghold on the nomination process to insure that their agenda is met whether legally, or through the overreaching strong-arm of the court. Very clever, but how does the old saying go?

What goes around comes around.

If the courts are invested with unfettered, unconstitutional control to basically make and interpret laws apart from the whole cloth of the constitution, then the precedent will be set, no matter who is sitting on the bench.

Would the mouthpiece for the ACLU have claimed the decision of the 9th Circuit a “masterpiece” if it was comprised of three ultraconservatives as opposed to three ultraliberals? No, they would be screaming that judicial activism is destroying the country. They would have been particularly peeved if the New Jersey Candidate for Senate in 2002 had been a Republican who dropped out less than the legal time limit for replacing his name on the ballot, naming a “shoe-in” as his replacement.

And, if Gore had been leading Bush in Florida, they would have thrown themselves in the road to prevent a re-count, no matter how many election-challenged voters were being “disenfranchised.” Everyone tends to forget that regardless of what the Supreme Court said in declaring the Florida’s actions to allow a recount of just a few districts as unconstitutional, the recount went ahead anyway under the watchful eye of unbiased observers . . . members of the media.

Ok, that is an oxymoron, but not one of them can deny that in that final vote count, that Bush still won. Even if he had won by one vote . . . he would still have won.

Do you think the Republicans would have gotten the traction with accusations of “voter disenfranchisement” had Gore been the front runner, inspite of the fact that thousands of military ballots were discounted, discarded and basically denied? They would have done what they did in Missouri when John Ashcroft was cheated out of a seat won by a dead man, or what they did in New Jersey when the machine forced Torricelli out, clearly in violation of the election laws. Nothing.

How many other races around the country were squeekers in favor of the Democrats but no cry of disenfranchisement was ever heard from Republicans?

Ask Jim Bradshaw how he felt losing a Texas congressional seat by less than 127 votes, when 120,000 votes were cast. He took it like a man of honor and went on with his life instead of resorting to name calling and empty accusations of stolen elections that the Dems drag out when they lose by far more than that. It makes you really wonder if they know something we don’t . . . that they know these things can be rigged and Republicans are just too naive and trusting.

The question everyone should ask Al Gore is, in which recount in Florida did he get the majority of votes? Not one. So how is it that Bush is not the legitimate president? He is as legitimate as John Kennedy was in 1960 or John Quincy Adams was in 1824. That is the electoral process no matter how many judges the Democrats have in their hip pocket, or how many sour grape tears of vengeance they keep boring the country with.

So what are we to learn from the actions of the 9th Circuit? That the courts all agree that California Democrats are too stupid to punch a voter card? That any race prior to this ruling should be considered null and void because obviously a large percentage of the electorate were disenfranchised and unequally represented at the polls? Oh, wait that can’t happen, because the assumption is that only Democrat voters would have gotten it wrong.

If it was an equal opportunity disenfranchisement, and an equal number of Republicans punching ballots were as stupid as the Democrats, then the statistical range of error would be equally dispersed. So, is the assumption, from this point on, that any time a Republican wins, that the election is invalid because the mentally-challenged Democrats didn’t really know how to vote? Are these guys that desperate for power?

I was born and bred a Democrat and really didn’t know any better. It wasn’t until someone, in all seriousness, told me in college, that the difference between the two parties is that the Democrats are the party of the poor, ignorant and downtrodden, and the Republicans are the party of the rich and powerful. I responded in the same mood of seriousness . . . “What idiot would actually choose to be a Democrat then?”, and immediately switched parties.

Interestingly, 30 years later, that still seems to be the general impression of the two parties except for one very important distinction. The elitists in the Democrat party count on their members being sheep, following blindly what their leaders tell them to do because they too believe it is the party of the poor, ignorant, and downtrodden who are easily led.

The Republicans on the other hand have to work for every vote, in every election and can never take a vote for granted, because they attract individuals who think for themselves and reject the herd mentality. And, while Democrats see themselves as the party of the disenfranchised, they really represent status quo and the establishment. The Republicans on the other hand, are considered and treated as the redheaded step children of politics, but everyone is being told they are the establishment.

But this begs an even bigger question. If the Republicans are so rich and powerful, why do the Democrats control the media, the universities, the entertainment industries, the public schools the unions AND the courtrooms? It seems that the only power the Republicans have over the Democrats is in the voting booth.

And that is where the rubber hits the road. With the vast majority of all power and influence resting with a handful of self-proclaimed spokesmen for the Democrat party, both houses of congress and the White House are controlled by the Republicans because what we are witnessing is a silent revolution taking place that is pitting those with real power . . .the voter, against those with feigned power who use intimidation deception, and hypocrisy as their standards of leadership.

So, the more the powerful elite play games like they have in California, New Jersey, Missouri, and yes even Florida with their red herring voter disenfranchisement claim, the more the “little people” . . . the smart ones who are sick of being lied to, manipulated and told they are irrelevant and marginalized will vote to separate them from their power and force judges to judge . . . not legislate.