by ·Comments Off on Feminists Finally Find Their Voice After Eight Years of Silence

I was beginning to worry that the usually vocal feminist movement, that suffered with acute laryngitis during the reigning years of the Clinton White House, may never again see a chauvinist they didn’t like. Thank goodness, Arnold has shaken them from their stupor and motivated them to protest his bad-boy past, expressing shock and outrage that a Hollywood star and body builder could possibly have had a checkered past, dabbling in dalliances with willing women.

OK, everyone, shhhhh… In all the screaming about his being a womanizer, do we hear the voice of one woman coming forward claiming he raped them, dropped his pants in front of them, had her “perform” sex acts on him in a taxpayer funded building, or groped her, against her will in that same office? Hmm . .. just as I suspected. Silence, except from some women dressed in pink. What?

It is quite honorable for these very concerned feminists to be outraged by the “potential” of sexual abuse even though no clear claims against Arnold have surfaced. But what point are these women in pink trying to make other than letting us know they are clueless that the color pink is so out, unless you are Capitol Barbie in Legally Blonde Two? They are basically saying that it is not sexual harassment they care about since they were totally silent during the years that Bill cut a swath of testosterone and boorishness through the psyche of the female voter too enraptured with his charm and charisma to know he was a loser, a womanizer, an unfaithful husband and philandering father.

It is selective persecution relegated to those who may have the potential, by the very nature of their profession, and party affiliation, to sexually harass women. It is the same philosophy the 9th Circuit just took in insuring that Arnold and California wait until March, well after the eighty day legal requirement for a recount election, for the election to take place. They said because there is the “possibility” that people may be disenfranchised, we can’t hold this election now. The feminists are saying, because there is the “possibility” that Arnold, by the very nature of the fact that he embodies conservative genes, lives in Hollywood, and is a babe magnet, that surely, he must have employed these elements to sexually harass, rape, pillage and maim women in his wake.

No proof, no accusations of women victims, just the assumption that he could do these same crimes that their hero Bill Clinton was guilty of. Its sort of like assuming that Trent Lott was a racist because a past Senate Majority Leader, Senator Robert Byrd was an unrepentant member of the KKK. It is like assuming that republicans are the party of the rich when the largest donation amounts go to the Democrat party which is comprised of almost every multimillionaire Hollywood star, media pundit, rock star, athlete, etc.

But let’s say Arnold is a womanizer and a misogynist sexist. So what? What he does in his private life is his own business… isn’t it? Why are we suddenly told we should care about a Republican’s private life, when the private life of a sitting president was none of our business. Why is it that when feminists and liberals think a Republican is less than pure they don’t mind protesting, but when a Democrat is caught red-handed, indicted, impeached and disbarred, then somehow, it is a conspiracy by the vast right wing?

If the Democrats continue to count on the collective stupidity of the American people to muscle their way into power, they are going to be unpleasantly surprised. Sure, there are still the sycophants who would vote for Saddam if he ran as a Democrat. Ironically, their opposition to Bush, our military in Iraq, and shame at American on the world stage makes you think they are supporting him. But that aside… if all the feminists in America have is duplicitous standards for sexual harassment, then they really have sold their souls for political power and influence. They have squandered their credibility and have become a laughing stock among real women who have always rejected their monolithic claim that they speak for all of us. Pink as a color… and a movement… is SO out.

by ·Comments Off on Feminists Finally Find Their Voice After Eight Years of Silence

I was beginning to worry that the usually vocal feminist movement, that suffered with acute laryngitis during the reigning years of the Clinton White House, may never again see a chauvinist they didn’t like. Thank goodness, Arnold has shaken them from their stupor and motivated them to protest his bad-boy past, expressing shock and outrage that a Hollywood star and body builder could possibly have had a checkered past, dabbling in dalliances with willing women.

OK, everyone, shhhhh . . . In all the screaming about his being a womanizer, do we hear the voice of one woman coming forward claiming he raped them, dropped his pants in front of them, had her “perform” sex acts on him in a taxpayer funded building, or groped her, against her will in that same office? Hmm . .. just as I suspected. Silence, except from some women dressed in pink. What?

It is quite honorable for these very concerned feminists to be outraged by the “potential” of sexual abuse even though no clear claims against Arnold have surfaced. But what point are these women in pink trying to make other than letting us know they are clueless that the color pink is so out, unless you are Capitol Barbie in Legally Blonde Two? They are basically saying that it is not sexual harassment they care about since they were totally silent during the years that Bill cut a swath of testosterone and boorishness through the psyche of the female voter too enraptured with his charm and charisma to know he was a loser, a womanizer, an unfaithful husband and philandering father.

It is selective persecution relegated to those who may have the potential, by the very nature of their profession, and party affiliation, to sexually harass women. It is the same philosophy the 9th Circuit just took in insuring that Arnold and California wait until March, well after the eighty day legal requirement for a recount election, for the election to take place. They said because there is the “possibility” that people may be disenfranchised, we can’t hold this election now. The feminists are saying, because there is the “possibility” that Arnold, by the very nature of the fact that he embodies conservative genes, lives in Hollywood, and is a babe magnet, that surely, he must have employed these elements to sexually harass, rape, pillage and maim women in his wake.

No proof, no accusations of women victims, just the assumption that he could do these same crimes that their hero Bill Clinton was guilty of. Its sort of like assuming that Trent Lott was a racist because a past Senate Majority Leader, Senator Robert Byrd was an unrepentant member of the KKK. It is like assuming that republicans are the party of the rich when the largest donation amounts go to the Democrat party which is comprised of almost every multimillionaire Hollywood star, media pundit, rock star, athlete, etc.
But let’s say Arnold is a womanizer and a misogynist sexist. So what? What he does in his private life is his own business . . . isn’t it? Why are we suddenly told we should care about a Republican’s private life, when the private life of a sitting president was none of our business. Why is it that when feminists and liberals think a Republican is less than pure they don’t mind protesting, but when a Democrat is caught red-handed, indicted, impeached and disbarred, then somehow, it is a conspiracy by the vast right wing?

If the Democrats continue to count on the collective stupidity of the American people to muscle their way into power, they are going to be unpleasantly surprised. Sure, there are still the sycophants who would vote for Saddam if he ran as a Democrat. Ironically, their opposition to Bush, our military in Iraq, and shame at American on the world stage makes you think they are supporting him. But that aside . . . if all the feminists in America have is duplicitous standards for sexual harassment, then they really have sold their souls for political power and influence. They have squandered their credibility and have become a laughing stock among real women who have always rejected their monolithic claim that they speak for all of us.

Pink as a color . . . and a movement . . . is SO out.

by ·Comments Off on Muslim Celebration of WTC

If anyone still has any doubts about the intentions of radical Muslims toward peace-loving people, read about their planned celebration of the attack on America, scheduled for Sept. 11, 2003.

If you go to their website at www.almuhajiroun.com, they will claim that it is not a celebration of the attack on America, yet they are honoring the 19 men who flew planes into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the fields of Pennsylvania. And they refer to them as the Magnificent 19.

Is it coincidental that these 19 men they are honoring also murdered over 3,000 innocent people? If this was an organization honoring, for example, the two beltway snipers, people would be appalled . . . but because it is a seemingly moderate Islamic organization, no one can condemn this event for fear of being called intolerant and bigoted. Call us what you want but this event is an abomination and disrespects the memories of the innocent people who lost their lives when these 19 nut-cases murdered them.

So what is the celebration about again?

by ·Comments Off on What do Gay High Schools And Internment Camps have in Common?

We have heard for years that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. But have we ever heard that one generation’s internment camp is another generation’s public high school? The New York School Board, in an effort to show that homosexual kids should be treated like everyone else has, curiously, rounded them all up in the Harvey Milk High School and will keep them there until graduation.

The responses have been across the board ranging from glee to shock. The glee is not just emanating from the gay community that sees this as a step forward in gay rights . . .it is echoing across America from the lips of heterosexuals men who are sick of the gay agenda, lobby, whining, intimidation tactics and power plays. They are tired of the double standards surrounding society’s accepted behaviour of straight men verses the failings of all restraints on a group of people defined by their appetites. When it is reported that hundreds of gay men frequent parks, beaches, parking lots and restrooms to find total strangers to have sex with, most people respond the way they would if visiting a breeding farm for cows or horses. They assume this is what animals do, and avoid the farm during breeding season with their impressionable kids. They somehow instinctively know that this behaviour is totally random and uncontrollable, and have therefore decided that avoidance is the best way to deal with a lifestyle based on no boundaries, absolutes or restrictions.

Another response to the all-gay high school echoing from the halls of compassion and conservatism is shock on a number of levels. It is hard to believe that the government is sponsoring discrimination and segregation of a segment of our society, locking them in an institution, pretending to “protect” them from the evil heterosexual world. Where are the parents of these kids who are allowing them to be further stigmatized, stereotyped and potentially abused in a petri dish taken from the failed lab experiment of the Catholic Church? They can’t possibly believe that putting young, impressionable boys and girls with adults who have no governor on their sex drive, and who believe they are some how “helping” these kids get “in touch” with their sexuality . . the focus of the entire project being about sex . . . that nothing is going to happen.

It is as though society and the parents are turning their backs on kids who might be confused about what they are feeling sexually, but who certainly shouldn’t be the guinea pigs of some twisted plan to populate the world with more gays and lesbians . . . Most of which admittedly arrived at the decision that they were gay out of confused response to sexual abuse at a young age, by someone of the same sex. So the answer is to perpetrate that crime and perpetuate continued abuse and confusion? What if a kid decides mid-semester they are really straight? Will they be kicked out, or worse, would THEY be the target of derision and rejection?

Then you have the response from the kids who are being beaten up in schools because they are the wrong color, and beg to be sent to another school or be home schooled. And the foreign kids who are harassed and would love to be assigned to a school with only people who think, act, and look like them. And then there are the chubby kids who get their lunch money stolen, or the kids who don’t have the latest Gameboys or Nintendos and risk the wrath of their peers for being so out of touch? Should we segregate all these kids based on their shared malady and isolate them from society and let them believe that the world is made up only of like-minded people?

Most people would agree that if a private school were developed that catered specifically to a unique group of people, be they Jewish, Muslim, Black, or even gay, that should be allowed, because it would after all, be private. Except of course, if they are the Boy Scouts of America, and then there is a totally different standard used. But to allocate public funds for a school based on distinct characteristics returns us to a time before Brown vs. Board of Education and even Plessy v. Ferguson. It is reminiscent of Nazi Germany where people of a certain class, whether Jewish, handicapped . . . or gay, were targeted for removal from “polite” society . . . and eventually eliminated altogether. We are reminded of the Japanese internment camps that were established in WWII to make sure that an undesirable and potentially dangerous element of society was kept locked up so we knew where they were, what they were doing, and knew we would be safe from them . . .even if their personal intent was never to hurt anyone. Perception is what mattered . . .not reality.

So from the myriad of mixed messages streaking across the skies on the issue of a government sponsored all-gay high school . . . it is hard to determine what the gay community is saying. They are acquiescing to the point that they are different and should be segregated from society for a variety of reasons ranging from identification, and access to like-minded individuals, to a subliminal acknowledgment that gays are different, have different sexual proclivities and therefore are not easily understood or embraced by 99% of the nation who abide by a different set of standards and restrictions in their lives.

If gays are born this way .. as they always claim . . .then there is not much anyone can do about this decision except cluck, feel great compassion for the kids and the lies they will endure to try and believe they are hard-wired like a heterosexual. But, if it is genetic, why is one of the goals of the homosexual community to teach ALL kids, in regular public schools, about the glories of being gay? An agenda that is being forced on schools across the nation. Because, by their own admission, either you are or you aren’t born gay, and the statistics show that only about 1% of the population is gay, which bears that theory out, and begs the question how 1% of society became so incredibly powerful, if they are so downtrodden and abused.

Will there be sensitivity training in this high school extolling the virtues of the lifestyle of heterosexuals or will the training include the typical straight-bashing that takes place in the gay community? Will Dr. Laura be invited to speak to the graduating class or will they teach the kids how to boycott anyone who doesn’t embrace their lifestyle? Will they discuss the origins of the concept of marriage as being a Judeo-Christian covenant that God designed to be between a man and a woman? Or will they teach the kids the writings of Michelangelo Signorile in OUT magazine, (Dec./Jan. 1994) who said, “A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” Or two years later in the same magazine when he said, “It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.” This sounds like a distinct agenda by a tiny segment of society that wants to redefine the other 99% in their own image. And the US Government and the taxpayers are going to foot the bill to be told THEY are the ones who need to change and embrace alternative lifestyles as normal?

So heterosexual America is left with a variety of responses to this new revelation of double standards and duplicity on the part of the government. They can respond like the Nazis did in WWII and say, “good riddance,” or they can demand that these children be protected by the same constitution that protects the rest of innocent, impressionable youth in our nation, and insist that they not be used as pawns in a culture war.

by ·Comments Off on Pseudo men vs. Real Men . . . Robinson vs. Arnold

It is interesting how life is displayed as a series of contrasts. The Episcopal Church chooses to honor and celebrate a man who already honors and celebrates himself, his wants, desires and preferences, regardless of what God says. And in California, a man who doesn’t need the publicity, the fanfare or attention, is allowing himself to be filleted publicly, in order to help the state recover from a failed stint at socialism.

What could Arnold Schwarzenegger possibly gain by running for governor other than coals of indignation heaped on his head from a party bankrupt of ideas, common sense and intelligence?

If he wins, he can’t then move on to be president because Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution prevents it. And he could very well lose the race, costing him millions of dollars, and standing in the popularity polls, for the privilege of wanting to serve his fellow Californians.

So why is he making such a sacrificial move to put himself, his personal life, his financial status, on the line to help make a difference? Jesus said, “No greater love has a man than he will lay down his life for another man.” Robinson must have read it . . . “that he will lay down with another man.” Arnold got it right. Whether he is a Christian or not, of the two men in the news, Arnold is exhibiting the sacrificial characteristics of Christ.

Robinson breaks a sacred, God-ordained vow to his wife to roll in the hay with another guy and he is considered a hero for the cause of “self.” Now that took courage.

In order to justify his actions and deny that it requires any type of repentance or forgiveness, he has forced a 450 year old religion to now be made in his image. He has caused a split in the church that is being felt in every parish in the US and even reverberating around the world. He chose to further blaspheme Christ and His incredible sacrifice for mankind by equating his own selfish demands on the church with the resurrection of Jesus. He has single-handedly turned the Episcopal church into a nice little country club to attend on Sundays where you sing Kumbaya and feel affirmed about whatever it is you want to do in life. . . no matter who it hurts, embarrasses, defiles or destroys.

Oh, and it is irrelevant whether God shows up or not because according to Robinson and the very enlightened group of Bishops who joined in affirming and condoning any behavior, they are gods now and have no need for redemption because nothing they do is wrong or an abomination to God . . . . according to the new Gospel of Self-Actualization.

Arnold on the other hand has stepped up to the plate, amid accusations of sexual harassment, steroid use, and Nazi party affiliations to do what he thinks is best for the people of California . . . not himself. Gee guys, I thought what someone did in their private life didn’t matter in politics. It certainly doesn’t seem to matter in the church.

But who does the left tout as their hero, their savior, their spokesman for liberation and freedom . . . the gay guy who thinks women are irrelevant, God is a joke, and the church is his own little playground to make and form and distort the way he chooses. With churches like that . . . maybe they should be separated from the state so that real men . . . and women, can step into positions of leadership and show by contrast . . . it is not about them . . . it is about serving others.

by ·Comments Off on Defining “Despicable” . . . the New Word De Jour

If you look up “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,” which 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. A super secret spy, so well hidden that everyone now knows her name, what she looks like, and where she lives. And how did we discover that? Well, the very same “journalists” who are aghast that her identity would be compromised could not wait to post her photo and name detailing the harm caused this here-to-fore mystery woman because someone leaked that she might be a spy at the CIA. If they are so concerned about protecting her identity, why do they keep covering the story?

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.

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 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 clueing 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 Everyone has a Price . . . Hillary’s is Just Higher than Most

It is an ironic coincidence that the maven of home entertaining and the maven of political spin and power grabs both have their banner headlines on the same day. The other irony is that while one is being indicted for greed, the other is being rewarded. Why else would Hillary Clinton open old wounds, embarrass her daughter, and further tarnish the legacy of the man she created?

She knew going into her 8 million dollar book deal that there would be no deal unless she came clean about the Monica scandal that she blamed on the vast right wing conspiracy. A conspiracy, by the way, that has yet to be proved. But like all good politicians, she decided that with proper spin, and a well-conditioned field of sycophants to gush over her pain and suffering, resurrecting the “Victim Hillary” cut out, she would be able to have her cake and eat it too.

But even 8 million dollars can’t pay for a communal lobotomy in the hopes that everyone forgets all the other times that HIllary DID know about her husband’s sexual addiction. She admits that she knew of the 12 year affair with Gennifer Flowers. She certainly knew of Paula Jones and the occasion where he used his position of power to sexually harass her. She was aware of the rape accusations by Juanita Brodderick, and the fondling episode with Kathleen Wiley. Was she upset about Monica because it was hard to believe he was once again, sexually harassing a woman at the work place, the same age as her own daughter? No, that never seemed to bother her before. It wasn’t even about Bill lying, since she already knew his penchant for spinning a tale and distorting the truth . . . again. Even the country knew about that, and she herself has been known to inhale that vice occassionally.

So what was her claim for being outraged when she learned he really was lying about the affair with Monica, and that  it really wasn’t the vast right wing conspiracy that forced her husband to defile the office of president? My theory is that they had previously worked through every one of these indiscretions and foibles privately and had, as a unified political machine, decided how they would handle the press and hand fed them the little tidbits they would gobble up hungrily, and then leave, not demanding more.

They perfected the staging of the strong but wronged wife, next to the little boy who couldn’t keep his pants up but loved his mommy. Feminists far and wide forgave the heretofore, unforgivable, because, for them, Hillary personified all they stood for and they knew if she had a leash on her untrained White House pet, then they took comfort in the fact that all their social issues would get the support they craved. Bill could do that lower lip bitey thing and every normally intelligent woman would melt and know that if only she were his better half, he would never stray. And men who shared his weakness laughed all the way into the bed of their new mistresses justifying their acts as presidential-like. Hillary and Bill played the saps of America like a fine violin.

So, the reason Hillary gulped, and got angry was not that Bill had one more tawdry affair with one more victim of his ego. She was ticked that he hadn’t told her so they could work their spin out together to protect their image and poltical careers.  She obviously doesn’t care now about his image because she has pointed the spot light squarely back on him and reminded us all of what a complete jerk he is. She doesn’t seem to care that her daughter is dragged into this again and reminded of what power hungry parents she has. This was about the money pure and simple.

Hillary put a price on her integrity, honor, and political ambitions for a few million dollars. So for $28 you can wade through almost 600 pages of a virtual socialist policy paper, decrying the benefits of the individual, promoting all things big, expensive and government sponsored, or you can move on with your life and know that nothing has changed with the Clinton’s. They still crave raw power, they still maintain a set of double standards for themselves and the rest of the country, and they still think we are a bunch of stupid Americans who will continue to fall for their staged act.

But in order to keep that two million dollar advance, and push the sales up to the 8 million mark, she had to give them something salacious, although not very newsworthy, other than once again, we are catching Hillary with her veracity down. When she says in the book that Bill told her the morning the world would discover the truth, that he had lied . . . she already knew about the stained dress and DNA results, and the other substantial evidence that the entire world knew about. So, if she is so desperate for 8 million dollars, to lie about the only interesting part in the book . . . why should anyone believe the rest of it, or waste their time plodding through it? We all know how the story ends. She got her husband in the White House, knew about his indiscretions, maneuvered her way in the US Senate and has her eyes on the White House is 2008. And that 8 million will help fund that run . . . at any cost.

It reminds me of the joke where a man asked a woman if she would sleep with him for 8 million dollars. She said sure. He then asked if she would sleep with him for $20 and she slaps his face saying, “What do you think I am, a prostitute?” He replies, “We already determined that, now we are just negotiating the price.”

by ·Comments Off on What are the Whiney Nine Complaining About Now?

While I wait for the Democrat National Committee to praise the President’s success in achieving the fastest growth in the GDP in two decades, 8.2%, I ponder what the candidates, who want to replace him, stand for. At first it was all about the economy… “President Bush has destroyed the economy, yadda yadda yadda.” They like to ignore the fact that it went south even before the election of 2000… now they ignore that it has rebounded with such amazing vigor that it even shocks the experts. The sagging economy was so important to their campaign, but when it improves they don’t celebrate. So, it wasn’t really about the economy stupid, it was about pinning a bad economy on the same man they refuse to give credit to when it rebounds.

Then we look at all the rhetoric surrounding the war on terror, the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and see this whining chorus of weenies complain that a country has been liberated from a dictator, that the infrastructure has not only been restored but improved, and the war casualties are less than the murder rate in most metropolitan cities in America. But they carp on, illustrating their lack of understanding of the term, “leader.”

Their newest whine, a fine bouquet of jealousy mixed with angst and a touch of paranoia, is their odd reaction to the one ad allowing President Bush to try and counter the months of free TV they have had to bash him, the country, the war on terror, the economy, the color blue, the sound of one hand clapping… whatever. This ad is basically a rerun of a few sound bites from President Bush’s speeches and these guys claim he is attacking them personally as being unpatriotic. No guys, the President isn’t saying that, and he didn’t need to cut a commercial that tells the American people something that we already knew.

“AH HA!!!” They scream in unison… it WAS calling us unpatriotic. No guys, you still don’t get it. He is saying what he has always said before any of you started drooling over his job. He said it the same day 3000 fellow Americans were slaughtered by terrorists, and he hasn’t stopped saying it. All he is doing is setting his standard in the sand at the tribal council displaying a resolve that cannot be voted off the island, because it is the island.

It is very odd though, that they claim he is politicizing the war with this ad, when they had no hesitation about using every shot of President Bush on the Abe Lincoln, or the other ship with the sign that said “Mission Accomplished,” calling it grandstanding. No, showing a sign of the Commander in Chief, thanking the troops for sacrificing their lives for freedom, and calling it grandstanding… is grandstanding. They can’t have it both ways. They can’t prohibit the use of any footage to promote the president’s position, while using that same footage to destroy and undermine it.

And the claim by some in the pack is that President Bush has done nothing about homeland security after fighting with Congress to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Remember the Democrats’ main concern was to protect the unions over the rest of the nation? But to their claim that he has not protected the homeland, I say, “prove it.”

Since September 11, 2001, we have not been attacked again, and several of the would-be attackers have been arrested… all to the screams from the same bunch that say the president has given too much power to the Attorney General to protect our homeland security. So. .. ok, I am blonde, but could you help me unpack this one? He is not doing enough for homeland security, therefore we are more protected… but he is doing too much because identified terrorist are being detained, arrested, and denied the right to harm us… Help me here.

Even billionaire, George Soros, knows how pitiful the Democrat field for president is because he is illegally pumping in millions of dollars of soft money the Democrats lobbied against, to make sure that Bush is defeated. So much for the level playing field, special interest groups and big money NOT controlling the political outcome of elections. But even with all that money and lies it will buy, you still need a semi-coherent candidate who believes in something other than the sound of his own whiney rhetoric.

The candidates should take a minute and analyze why they think the RNC ad is calling them unpatriotic. Maybe they should heed that still small voice… because it isn’t in the words or the text of the ad… only in the imaginations of men who are desperate for power, have no ideas, have shown nothing but disdain for this nation, the president, the military and anyone who supports freedom. I might be too late in sending this message to the candidates, because some have already acted, but to the rest… don’t give up your day jobs. No, second thought… do… we need to replace this negative, pessimistic anti-thought process with new leadership, new ideas, and the courage to move forward, out of a state of perpetual whining. Note: I wrote this just one day before the release of the Democrats newest Beaujolais, or should I call it, Bushfillet… This newest whine has a distinct taste of bitter grapes and conspiratorial complexities that can only reside in a fine Democrat Whine.

They are so ticked that President Bush was able to sneak in and out of Iraq to thank the troops for their dedication to freedom that they have sharpened their claws anew. They are mad that they didn’t have a chance to spin it before he left instead of having to wait to do it when he returned. It was dangerous, it was foolhardy, it was reckless and inconsiderate of those around him. No… what Bill Clinton did repeatedly in the Oval Office was all these things. What President Bush did was brave, selfless and calculated to serve only one purpose… give thanks where thanks was due regardless of the carping consequences. This whine is thin, has no legs and strains the political pallet. (And, no Hillary, he didn’t do this to try and upstage you because frankly, no one even knew you were going).

by ·Comments Off on Hollywood Idols Replaced by Real Heroes and Heroines

I was having a hard time deciding whether to comment on Tim Robbins temper tantrum at the National Press Club on April, 15, or change my shelf paper. Neither are really necessary, both are tedious, and no real impact is made on life as we know it, if neither is done.

Tim, who is actually a very good actor, tried to stretch his thespian abilities by donning the demeanor of righteous martyr for all oppressed victims. He sounded more like he was trying out for a modern version of a Greek tragedy. It was almost as though his mother had written the speech and forced him to “deliver” it, because when it came to the softball questions, handed to him with talking points attached, he seemed unsure of himself, almost as though he forgot the impassioned speech he had just, moments before, delivered.

It was such a huge relief too, to find that after his speech, warning the world that, “A chill wind is blowing in this nation . . . being sent through the White House and its allies . . . [that] if you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications,” that he wasn’t carted away in handcuffs. For a guy who claims there is no tolerance for opposing views and free speech any more, he sure got a lot of play time. I heard him mentioned on every channel I turned to on the radio and TV. Even C-SPAN carried his entire speech, and the objects of his derision, Fox News, et al, responded in kind.

But a question I would have asked Mr. Robbins, or his mommy, waiting in the wings, would be . . . Where was he when Clinton was bombing the Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Serbia, without any UN resolutions or Hollywood’s approval? Where was his opposition to the torching and murder of innocent people in Waco, Texas? What did he think about Janet Reno’s Commandos, breaking into a private home in Florida, to return a terrified little boy to a dictator 90 miles away? Has he ever spoken out against THAT dictator, OR Saddam Hussein, as vehemently as he condemns his own president? Does Ruby Ridge ring a bell? Where has he been when abortion protesters have been jailed for praying peacefully in front of abortion clinics in the hopes of saving the lives of unborn children and their mothers? Where is he when school children are told they can’t pray in school, bring their Bibles, gather around flag poles, or wear T-shirts that declare their faith? Where was he when the Boy Scouts were castigated for upholding their constitutional rights to freedom of association? Where has he been when Christians are portrayed as idiots, perverts, and psychopaths in Hollywood while decadence and debauchery are elevated to art forms?

The envelop please. Your performance was lacking not only in sincerity, but in consistency. Your self-righteous diatribe against everyone and everything that doesn’t continue to worship at the alter of the liberal elite, and Hollywood in particular, conveys a more transparent reason for your speech. You guys are no longer on the unchallenged pedestal of public approval. You have been replaced by real men and women who believe in something greater than themselves. People who will actually give their lives so others might have freedom . . . yes Tim . . . even freedom to make public fools of themselves. The new heroes are people who will challenge political status quo to do what is right morally, while potentially hurting their political careers, or risk being described as heading a “regime.”

And this new position of irrelevance that you and several other actors now occupy, was not caused by the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” which you claim, “fill the airwaves everyday with warnings, veiled in unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent.” Which is, ironically, what you were doing to Dale Petroskey, by saying he belonged “with the cowards and ideologues in a hall of infamy and shame,” after Petroskey canceled a scheduled Cooperstown salute to your baseball movie “Bull Durham.” What caused this fall from the iconocentric dynasty, was when you and your Hollywood buddies started moonlighting in political adventurism and America has responded by saying . . . “Don’t give up your day job.” We love the fantasy of seeing you as just another multimillionaire, beautiful person we can all hope to emulate. That doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to say what you think . . . and Tim . . . you know that. We just don’t HAVE to listen. It’s sort of like American Idol . . . where everyone is a critic and no feelings are spared in slicing and dicing those who really think the world wants to hear them warble “Blowing in the Wind.”

And as for Cooperstown, gee, it looks like their instincts were right. You have only proven their point that you and your “mom” are lose cannons without an ounce of discretion and dignity and will throw globally televised tantrums to try and prove that you really are relevant. “I am, I am . . . listen to me . . .I am really important and have something really, really important to say.”

In fairness to your claim that you are being silenced, I can totally understand that type of discrimination and arbitrary silencing so I ask you as a fellow victim . . . will you give me a part in your next movie? No? Well, aren’t you silencing me? Isn’t that a chilled wind of oppression blowing in my direction because you would be denying me the right to perform for the world? Just because I think I am worthy, good, talented and have something meaningful to share with society as an actress, real professionals know that I don’t.

So next time your “mom” makes you give a big boy speech that makes you sound like a whiny little boy, you need to suggest that maybe you both go change some shelf paper, take a few deep breaths and . . .get over it, because you are the only ones putting an expiration date on your professional shelf life . . . not the millions who choose to switch channels.

by ·Comments Off on

Remember the children’s story of Henny Penny? She was the industrious little hen who understood that in order for everyone in the barnyard to eat, they all had to help make some bread.

She approaches each animal in turn, to solicit their help in planting the wheat, crushing, harvesting and thrashing the wheat. She asks for their help, and at each turn she is rebuffed. She continues the baking process, asking each to help her mix the dough, shape the loaves, even place the loaves in the oven, and at every turn, they refuse to help her.

But, the minute the bread is baked, they all suddenly become interested in the project and say they would all help her eat the bread. But Henny Penny, in her wise, articulate way, tells the French, the Russians and the Germans, and the UN, to kiss her feathery butt.

She chooses to share the bread with her British and Australian friends and every other nation that supported Henny Penny in her effort to spend the currency of her international goodwill, and the blood of her fellow citizens, to bake the bread of freedom, to be shared with those who understand the price . . . of a “peace” of bread.

Nina May
Chairman of the Renaissance Foundation
nina@ninamay.com

*We have learned that the it is really the Little Red Hen who does the bread thing, but she needs a name, right? So, why not . . . Henny Penny?

This would be a good exercise for Kofi Anan and other UN ambassadors to do between recess and nap time. They can have their little friends from their play group, France, Germany and Russia, play it with them.

Click on the link below: Book Ideas for The Little Red Hen by Lucinda Queen

http://www.ri.net/schools/Central_Falls/ch/heazak/hen/hen.html