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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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

*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


“Today I weep for my country. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. … Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. After war has ended the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America’s image around the globe.”
Senator Robert Byrd, March, 2003

I dare Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia, to greet PFC Jessica Lynch with these exact words on her return from Germany, where she is recuperating after having been captured while “injuring” America’s image, as he says.

We will see if he is a man of convictions, or just another politician spouting his party’s line, hoping it will hurt our Commander in Chief, George, W. Bush.

Will he show the same courage this young 19 year old girl has and say what he REALLY thinks of America, our military, and the Commander in Chief?

Don’t hold your breath. But even if he doesn’t . . . we can read above, what he has already said, so obviously believe. And it is up to West Virginians to remember these words the next time he is up for election.

Oh, and someone should remind him that the people he says mistrust us . . . are not our friends.