Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Look Who's Got OUR Back!

Glitter Text Generator

Morgan, HERE'S the Dem Congress At Work...


Teamwork. Share Victory. Share Defeat.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Wikipedia Has Worn Out Its Welcome

Wikipedia Has Worn Out Its Welcome
By James Derk

One of the most interesting things to arise out of the Internet age is Wikipedia, a self-edited reference manual for the masses that allows anyone, anywhere, to add content, enrich the effort and generally leave the Web better than they found it.

Well, if only that were true.

I was one of the original fans of Wikipedia, writing enthusiastically about it and even submitting some material and photographs. Today I won't go near it. What's changed?

The lure of the site, that anyone, anywhere can contribute to the discourse, is long gone. Wikipedia is now managed by a group of fanatical editors that nit-pick everything from a person's "worthiness" to be listed to arcane, subtle additions. There are numerous discussion boards on the site where the 1,000 unpaid editors debate endlessly instead of making substantial improvements to the site.

Most schools already have banned Wikipedia from being used as a scholarly research source because the information can be supplied by anyone and can be involved in "he said/she said" editing wars. Some pages are the subject of "WikiVandals" who like to add fake or destructive information. In some cases this information has remained on the site for months while Wiki's editors were engaged in "edit wars" about arcane people or information.

Just editing or adding pages has become a bit of an art, beyond the skill of most traditional computer users, as the site has moved away from its roots. I remember a while back uploading a photograph I took of an experimental, declassified aircraft to Wikipedia and receiving more than 100 thank you notes for doing so because the plane was seldom seen in print and enthusiasts hadn't seen one in a while and didn't know where it was being kept.

Despite the photo being clearly labeled as taken by me and offered in the public domain, the photo was removed less than a week later because some editor was unhappy with the license I offered for its use and wanted me to fill out and upload a legal document.

The site was founded with five pillars of behavior, including "be open, be welcoming and be civil." The site now is none of these things and should be left to the trolls, in my opinion.

Where should you find reliable information? I would start with good old Google. On nearly any topic under the sun you can down your own research courtesy of the world's most effective search engine. There you can find peer-reviewed or at least professionally edited publications for the information you seek. Google's search patterns (rewarding sites for being linked to) helps push reputable information to the top.

WEEKLY WEB WONDER: If you don't find what you like on Google by yourself, I would suggest ChaCha ( that offers you a human guide (an expert in online research) for your search. I think this service is phenomenal and the times I have tried it I was very impressed with the quality of assistance I received.

The House Is A Mess

New Congress At War Over Everything
By Patrick O'Connor

In a closed-door meeting before the last vote on the children’s health care bill, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer appealed for the support of about 30 wavering Republican lawmakers. What he got instead was a tongue-lashing, participants said.

The GOP lawmakers, all of whom had expressed interest in a bipartisan deal on the SCHIP legislation, were furious that the Democratic leader from Maryland had not reached out to them in a more serious way early on. They also criticized him and Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois for failing to stop his allies outside Congress from running attack ads in their districts, while they were discussing a bipartisan deal.

The result was a predictable one for this bitterly divided Congress. The House vote for a second SCHIP bill was a healthy majority, but not the two-thirds needed to override another veto vowed by President Bush. Only one Republican switched his vote — to oppose the measure.
Democrats accused Republicans of hurting kids. Republicans howled about a heavy-handed, uncompromising Democratic majority. And another chance at bipartisan consensus slipped away.

“They spent $1.5 million through their various shill outreach groups attacking me and a handful of my colleagues,” Rep. Ric Keller (R-Fla.) said before the Hoyer meeting, “but they did not spend five minutes to approach me to ask for my vote.”

This us-against-them mentality has been an ongoing storyline of the new Democratic­-controlled Congress. On the big items — Iraq, health care and spending — party leaders have shunned compromise.


Loathing Nancy

Iraqi Soldiers Give Money to California Fire Victims!

Iraqi Soldiers Give Money to California Fire Victims

While a donation of $1,000 may not address any significant part of the loss from California's ravaging wildfires, already estimated at more than $1 billion, the source of that gift has some people expressing awe.

A troop of Iraqi soldiers assembled the funds and forwarded them to California for inclusion in the relief efforts being offered the thousands of people displaced by the still-burning California fires.

"That is the kewlest cool thing I have read all month," wrote "no one you know" on the Minx forum.

The report comes from the U.S. military. Army Sgt. 1st Class Charlene Sipperly, of Bayfield, Colo., who works in the military's public affairs division, released a news statement about the concern the Iraqi soldiers expressed for the California victims.

"Members of the Iraqi Army in Besmaya collected a donation for the San Diego, Calif., fire victims …at the Besmaya Range Complex in a moving ceremony," she wrote.

"Iraqi Army Col. Abbass, the commander of the complex, presented a gift of $1,000 to U.S. Army Col. Darel Maxfield, Besmaya Range Complex officer in charge, Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq, to send to the fire victims in California," she wrote.

"The money was collected from Iraqi officers and enlisted soldiers in Besmaya. In a speech given during the presentation, Col. Abbass stated that he and the Iraqi soldiers were connected with the American people in many ways, and they will not forget the help that the American government has given the Iraqi people. Abbass was honored to participate by sending a simple fund of $1,000 to the American people in San Diego, to lower the suffering felt by the tragedy," the Army report said.

Said Richard S. Lowry, author of "Marines in the Garden of Eden," "Here is an example of Iraqi charity and gratitude which touched my soul. Imagine how incredibly generous these soldiers are. They have little to support their own families. It's not enough that they are fighting daily to bring peace to their country. They are actually reaching out to help unfortunate Americas."
Pat Sipperly, Charlotte's husband and a moviemaker in Bayfield, told WND that his wife went to Iraq earlier this year, after she re-join the reserves several years ago.

He said it's among the many "amazing" stories she's heard or seen in Iraq.

Added "MikeB" on the forums website, "One of the (Iraqi) Cols I work with was reminiscing about his favorite car that Saddam had given him for missions flown in Iran. He went on and on about how he loved this car. I think it was a Regal. He told story after story of the memories of that car. He then showed me a picture of it. All that was in the pic was a burned out hulk. The second photo shows the VIN number carefully framed, the soot rubbed off. I asked what happened to it … He looks at me and says … 'You guys bombed it.' Uncomfortable silence. He then says … 'Thank you for coming here'."

Made me cry," "Rightwingsparkle" said about the donation. And "eman" added, "We and the Iraqis are Blood Brothers now."

"Great story. It reminds me of the biblical one recalling the poor widow giving her two coins in the midst of the wealth," said. "AnonymousDrivel." The U.S. ( and to some degree, the coalition) continues to give much, but the Iraqis are giving much, too. Perhaps it's more symbolic than has been reported, but symbolism counts much more than any contribution this particular outfit can muster. Consider it another lane marker down the highway to freedom.

Thanks to The Merry Widow for bringing us this one! Yeah, they 'hate America', hate us 'imperialists'--and think we're all there just to steal their oil! Riiiiiiight! Bravo to some right-thinking people!

Iraq: The Folly of Deifying Democracy

Iraq: The Folly of Deifying Democracy
By Selwyn Duke

We hear lots of criticism of the Iraq venture from the left, right and center. There is everything from silly notions about presidential prevarication to how "it is only about oil" to one-world government conspiracy theories. Yet, while military action can rise from policy objectives, it's often ignored that policy objectives tend to rise from the time's prevailing philosophy. And the truth is that insofar as the war in Iraq has been misguided, the blame can be laid at the feet of the spirit our age.

I speak of a political correctness that would prescribe Western-world solutions to Third World problems.

Our problem in Iraq has not been winning the war, but winning the peace. Toppling Saddam Hussein was easy enough, but toppling the medieval attitudes of a fractious and often ferocious people is a different matter. And what do we prescribe as a remedy for this malaise? A dalliance with democracy.


Those left scratching their heads have not learned from history, only pep talks. While we often view democracy as the terminus of governmental evolution, the stable end of political pursuits, the truth is that civilizations have tended to transition not from tyranny to democracy, but democracy to tyranny (e.g., the ancient Romans).


This brings us to the crux of the matter: Even if we can successfully install democratic republics in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, what makes us think they can keep them?

Political correctness does. To average westerners, all groups are essentially the same, despite profound religious and cultural differences. Why, if a civilization – be it Moslem or Christian, Occidental or Oriental – suffers under the yoke of tyranny, it is only due to a twist of fate that has bestowed the wrong system of government upon it. Change that system and voila!, all live happily ever after. What eludes these Pollyannas is that politics doesn't emerge in a vacuum but is a reflection of a far deeper realm, the spiritual/moral.


President Bush has said that all people want freedom. That's nice. How idealistic. Technically, though, Bush is correct: All people do want freedom. What's overlooked is that wanting and being able to acquire are very different things.


101 Love Crimes and Legislative Positions

101 Love Crimes and Legislative Positions
By Lee Culpepper

Liberal politicians quiver in bliss -- stroking their delusional consciences. They pimp a provocative fantasy that liberals are born superiorly caring and compassionate. For liberals, lamenting social injustices indulges some perverse pleasures. While they wallow in their liberal love-fests for entitlement programs, their brand of kindness and charity merely exacerbates the inequalities they vow to amend.

In fact, liberals might love “victims” so much that the victims are literally incapacitated by love. Liberal entitlement programs are more like weapons of mass destruction. Whether motivated by good intensions or psychopathic satisfaction, liberals refuse to stop loving victims into oblivion.

Consequently, liberals are essentially getting away with heinous love crimes. Love crimes are a lot like hate crimes; they stem from stereotypes and bigoted opinions. “Vulnerabilities” like ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, and gender supposedly stimulate love (as opposed to hate) in offenders. Also analogous to hate crimes, love crimes can occur even when the offender bears no actual love (instead of hate) towards the victim.

Liberals commit love crimes whenever they single out victims for government handouts based on some belief or stereotype about that group's alleged “vulnerability.” Unfortunately, liberals are enigmas. We may never know all the prejudiced weaknesses that stimulate their love.

Nevertheless, in exchange for this acidic tenderness, devotedly victimized disciples happily surrender votes and every scrap of self-reliance. Once victims are unable to take care of themselves, it’s too late. Liberals have already ravaged them. The government will never take care of any “victimized group” as well as the significant majority of that group can take care of itself.

Furthermore, the charity of good citizens is a lot more reliable and effective than government handouts. Look at what happened to all those victims in New Orleans who waited on the government to take care of them during and after Katrina.

If Katrina is too narrow of an example, then consider the devastating consequences of the 1960’s “War on Poverty.” Liberals attacked crime with love -- awarding criminals “new” rights. As a result, violent crime and murder rates exploded. They ambushed children with sex education in public schools.

Their love ambush catapulted teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases through the roof. Liberals also waylaid the poor by supporting unwed pregnancies and making welfare a career instead of temporary help. As a result of allegedly good intensions, the liberals’ “War on Poverty” obliterated the structure of black families in America.

In all fairness, maybe liberals are just legally insane -- repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Despite the continued failure of their unwavering do-gooder policies, liberals refuse to recognize the errors within their detrimental beliefs.

1_love_crimes_and_ legislative_positions

Monday, October 29, 2007

The (Further) Insensitivity Of Olbermann

Did Olbermann Ridicule A Dead Green Bay Packer Legend?
By Tim Graham

Keith Olbermann’s voice-over work on the Sunday night NFL roundup on NBC can contain an occasional shock. This happened again on Sunday night, as Olbermann recounted the Oakland Raiders-Tennessee Titans contest: "Nine-three in the first half. We skipped the first half because it was really boring. LenDale White started finding some huge holes, 27 carries, 133 yards. It’s like falling off a roof."

To Green Bay Packer fans, this line was a jaw-dropper. Over the weekend, legendary Packers receiver (and long-time radio announcer) Max McGee was buried after falling off his roof in suburban Minneapolis and dying at the age of 75. How could Olbermann be this insensitive?

The Environmentalist Fires

The Environmentalist Fires
By John Berlau

Last week, CNN delayed for a few hours the scheduled Tuesday night broadcast debut of its much-hyped documentary series "Planet in Peril" due to live coverage of the tragic wildfires that have displaced more than 500,000 people in Southern California. But that didn't keep CNN "golden boy" reporter Anderson Cooper from using the tragedy to tout the program he starred in as much as he could.

Cooper constantly claimed during the week that the fires provided further confirmation of the documentary's prediction of an eco-catastrophe. Cooper said that higher temperature due to global warming may have been a factor. It was a "timely documentary," Cooper said last Tuesday on CNN's "Larry King Live", because "California certainly seems to be in peril."
But ironically, much of the reason California is in peril is due not to climate change, but to the very environmental policies championed by Cooper's documentary and our new Nobel laureate, Al Gore.


Our Depressogenic Media

Our Depressogenic Media
By James Lewis

Can the media make you sick? It is a real question. Do you read a news headline and get that sinking feeling in your stomach? Or have you learned to avoid those headlines completely? I know one woman who can burst into tears from reading the newspaper.

A medical doctor I know feels close to despair on an everyday basis, set off by media headlines --- most of which are dubious or plain false. Other people I know hate George W. Bush, not because of anything real, but because they have been constantly indoctrinated with media falsehoods, day after day after day.

The recent smear campaign against Rush Limbaugh provides an excellent example: Even though the facts were entirely clear, the mainstream media reports still suggested that Rush had insulted the US military. No knowledgeable person believed that, since Rush has his own mass media megaphone to counter the lie. Anyone could find out the truth simply by turning on the radio or reading the web. But the established media still peddled a plain lie.

Only the really indoctrinated fell for this particular piece of disinformation. But those are the people who cannot exercise normal skepticism when it comes to the news. They would never just fall for a used car sales pitch or a Nigerian email scam. But they are constantly victimized by the depressogenic media, which are about as objective on political issues as an email scammer. The liberal media harm their own gullible audiences most of all.


OLAMGADOL2: "I Protest Desmond Tutu!"

What I Did--and Will It Matter?

I spent several hours on Saturday outside Boston's Old South Church, protesting Desmond Tutu's pro-Palestinian conference. Tutu used the church's bully pulpit to issue diatribes against Israel, going so far as to tell the Jews that the God of the Hebrews now supports the Palestinians. During the speech, several thousands of anti-war protesters joined with pro-Palestinian groups to spew hatred toward Israel and America. It was very discouraging to watch.

I dashed off a letter to the Boston Globe yesterday, and was NOT surprised to see that the newspaper probably buried it in the obituaries. I will continue to resend it for the next several days. Below is the text of my letter. (Incidentally, I'm in the process of drafting a letter to His Holiness, Pope Benedict, protesting his "prince's" use of the altar to promote hate speech.)

Letter to the Editor (Boston Globe):

Dexter Van Zile’s Oct. 25 op-ed “Hate at the Altar” accurately portrays Desmond Tutu as an archbishop with an agenda. Tutu’s misguided and quixotic quest to wage battle against the windmills of an imagined apartheid has lowered him to unimaginable depths by deliberately altering Scripture to “prove” that the God of the Jews now champions the rights of the Palestinians.

Perhaps Tutu’s advanced age and frailty have caused him some memory loss concerning what the Hebrew Bible actually does say about God’s relationship with the Jewish people. For his benefit, I would like to jog his failing memory:

“Genesis 12:1-3. … And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” May I also remind Mr. Tutu that it is rather unlikely that the God of Hebrew Scripture would have saved the Israelites from the Egyptians only to dash them against the altar of Palestinian savagery, which includes a multitude of atrocities ranging from the killing of Israeli schoolchildren to the murder of Israeli Olympic athletes.

Tutu’s caustic warning to Jews from the bully pulpit of Old South chillingly echoes that of another priest, Charles Coughlin, who in the 1930s also used anti-Semitic sermons to advance his own agenda of “social justice”. The only difference is that Coughlin never attempted to cloak his anti-Semitism in the guise of “human rights”.

Great post, Olam! And how wonderful you actually spent your time going there in person to protest! Good for you! Your alikening him to Coughlin was very apt; well do I remember his screeds of days gone by. It seems they never really went anywhere...

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Do We Really Need To Scratch Our Heads Over THIS One?

Local Veterans Bristle At Ban On Flag-Folding Ceremony
By Greg Welter - Staff Writer

A complaint about a a flag-folding ceremony at the Riverside National Cemetery in Southern California has sidelined the tradition in all 125 national cemeteries, and enraged some Chico-area veterans.

Upon the request of survivors, Memorial Honor Guard details fold the American flag 13 times at military funerals, explaining as they go the significance of each fold. The folds once represented the original 13 colonies, but veterans groups developed secondary meanings.

The first represents life, the second eternal life, the third departed veterans, and so on. The National Cemetery Administration pulled the ceremony when it got a complaint about the 11th fold, said to represent the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies in the Hebrews' eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The National Cemetery Administration pulled the ceremony when it got a complaint about the 11th fold, said to represent the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies in the Hebrews' eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Chico veteran John Schultz said the 11th fold is meant to honor Jewish veterans of war, whom he mentions when he performs the flag folding ceremony several times a year at churches and service clubs.

Schultz and other area veterans are perhaps best known for demonstrating the tradition at Chico's annual 9/11 tribute. "I don't know exactly what's behind this, but I'm going to find out," Schultz said.

National cemetery officials released no details about the complaint that led to the ban.

Schultz has been performing the ceremony for years, usually as the "caller" who explains the folds, and said nothing will make him stop. He said the reference to Judaism never bothered him, adding that he was honored to fight beside several Jewish soldiers in World War II. Schultz was upset when he learned about the ban Friday, pacing the floor for several minutes, according to his wife.

"Every time we turn around, something else is going down," Schultz said. "Next they'll be asking us to take all the crosses and flags out of the cemeteries, too."

Schultz promised to alert veterans groups, and said they wouldn't take the affront casually. "I think some of the will come unglued," he said. He believes Elks Lodge members, about 1,000 strong in the north state, will be especially upset over the decision. "We're going to give them hell," Schultz vowed.

A call from the Enterprise-Record to the Anti-Defamation League headquarters in New York, seeking comment on the ban, was not immediately returned.

MORGAN ORLINS: Bush Derangement Syndrome

Bush Derangement Syndrome
By Morgan Orlins

There's a curious phenomenon that's taken root since the election of George W. Bush. It's quite appropriately called Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS. It resembles a mental illness due to the way it affects those afflicted and while it's origins are traceable, it's still a strange problem.

What caused the original hatred of George W. Bush? The aftermath of the 2000 election. In spite of the fact that the major networks suppressed the vote in Florida's heavily Republican panhandle by calling the state early for Gore, BUSH WON FLORIDA BY 350-800 VOTES, no matter how you look at it. Every major newspaper that did a recount came to the same conclusion.

I attended a rally for the newly inaugurated President Bush on Jacksonville's west side MONTHS before 9-11-2001 and was struck by the number of Dems along the route waving the most hateful and disrespectful signs I'd ever seen. I attempted to engage them in conversation to figure out what was going on, but was rebuffed every time with "HE STOLE THE ELECTION!" or some variation on that theme. A quick look into their eyes and at the spittle that shot when the motorcade passed told me that the truth didn't matter to them at all!

The new additions to Bush Derangement are the anti-war, peace, and slavery-before-war crowd. To be sure, they never liked him to begin with because they're partisan Democrats. Once Bush enforced UN sanctions on Saddam and the "Clinton Doctrine" of regime change in Iraq and resumed hostilities it literally drove the leftist peaceniks to insanity!

So there you have it. The 2000 election, and the Iraq War, have caused a seething hatred--the likes of which many of us have never witnessed. To us rational Conservatives, it makes no sense whatsoever that a policy difference would cause such a deep and ugly hatred. Especially when you consider the fact that the President is such a decent and personable guy.

To those leftists afflicted with BDS, the personal and the political are the same thing. Now President Bush has done some things very well AND dropped the ball on a few other issues as far I'm concerned. On those issues where he has angered Conservatives we've let him hear about it, and he doesn't always listen. That's the nature of politics and it's what intellectually honest people do.

When my grandchildren ask me about President George W. Bush hopefully I'll be able to give them a somewhat balanced view. For those of you blinded by your hatred of the President, what will you tell your grandchildren? "Bush lied, kids died!"?

Is that the best you can do? G-d save this great Republic from that idiocy!

U.N.I.C.E.F. Funds Palestinian Suicide Bombers!

Tricked by U.N.I.C.E.F.
By Dave Kopel

Financing of Palestinian terrorism makes for one scary Halloween.

Americans mostly know UNICEF through the “trick or treat for UNICEF” campaigns. The “trick” is on the donors who think that UNICEF is all about helping poor children. UNICEF has been a major financier of Palestinian “summer camps” which encourage children to become suicide bombers. One such camp is named for Wafa Idris, a female suicide bomber.

During the late 1990s, UNICEF served as a propaganda organ of the Saddam Hussein regime. Relying solely on Iraqi government statistics, UNICEF and the Saddam government co-authored a report asserting that over a million children in Iraq died because of U.N. sanctions. A map on the first page of the report depicted Kuwait as a province of Iraq.UNICEF is the primary funder for the “Palestinian Youth Association for Leadership and Rights Activation” (PYALARA), which UNICEF calls “a major strategic partner in Palestine.”

Materials produced by the group are frequently used in schools operated by UNICEF. PYALARA publishes a 16-page newspaper for young people, The Youth Times (TYT). It is distributed at Palestinian universities, colleges, community centers, and in the many U.N.-operated schools in Palestinian areas.The organization claims that its mission is “expanding awareness of one’s roots and identity, environment and culture, as well as of other countries and the world at large.”

Yet PYALARA’s products follow the typical line of terrorist propaganda, in which nothing is the fault of the Palestinians, everything is the fault of the Jews, and there is never any effort to consider the merits of Israel’s position on anything.


Saturday, October 27, 2007

Thank God For These Men!

Thank You To Our Brave California Firefighters!

Your Sunday Steyn!

War, Like Life, Is Not A Movie

As far as I know, the movie "Deliverance" has been featured in political discourse just the once. Back in 1996, Pat Buchanan, hot from his triumph over Bob Dole in the New Hampshire primary, warned the country-club Republicans that he was coming to get them "like a character out of Deliverance." In the film, you'll recall, a quartet of suburban guys spend a nightmare weekend in the backwoods, in the course of which one of their number winds up getting sodomized by a mountain man. ("Squeal, piggy!")

At the time of Pat's remark, I remember thinking: What a great country! In how many other political cultures can a fellow identify himself with a stump-toothed inbred psycho hillbilly homosexual rapist as an applause line? I'd love to think he'd paid some demographic-positioning consultants to focus-group the thing, but it seems more likely it was an impromptu flourish by the candidate.

Now, however, Newsweek has attempted a more sustained political deployment of the movie. In a column headlined "War and Deliverance," their Middle East editor, Christopher Dickey, makes the picture the defining metaphor for "the Mesopotamian quagmire." The Atlanta suburbanites in the picture include Burt Reynolds as the obsessive wannabe back-to-nature survivalist and Jon Voight as "the perfectly ordinary man, the just-getting-by guy," but the one who, in the end, delivers his pals from the hell of their weekend in the country.

Unlike most of us, whose knowledge of the film relies on hazy memories from the 1970s and late-night TV screenings, Dickey knows the story in depth: His dad wrote the novel and the screenplay. And, as he sees it, the Burt Reynolds character with his "untested ersatz fortitude" is "Dick Cheney's closet fantasy of himself," and the Jon Voight character is "the rest of us, just scared and trying to get by." As for the river whose rapids they set out to negotiate, "that's the war in Iraq."


So Much For "Truther" Bumperstickers...

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketPhoto Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
myspace layouts, myspace codes, glitter graphics

Wish He'd Abdicate, Too...

Edwards Demands Video of Posh HQ Be Pulled

A University of North Carolina professor said Friday that John Edwards' campaign demanded that he pull a student reporter's television story that focused on the upscale location of the campaign's headquarters.

C.A. "Charlie" Tuggle, an associate professor at the school, said the Edwards campaign contacted the reporter, second-year master's degree student Carla Babb, asking for a video of her report to be removed from the Internet. When that failed, the campaign demanded in three calls to Tuggle that the TV story be killed, he said.

Tuggle said the campaign had complained that the reporter misrepresented the story she planned to do. He also said the Edwards campaign warned that relations with the school could be jeopardized.

The Edwards campaign had no comment on the professor's specific contentions. More generally, spokeswoman Colleen Murray said: "This is silly. We love all reporters, the problem is the feeling isn't always mutual."

The TV story is to air Monday on the program "Carolina Week" in Chapel Hill. It was first posted on YouTube for an MTV contest and drew only a couple of hundred hits during the first days on the site.

The Edwards campaign complained to Tuggle, he said, that the student had not disclosed the angle of the story and had asked for access to do a feature on a student who was interning for the campaign.

In the report, Babb interviews students, one on the campaign, one not. She asks whether it is appropriate for Edwards to base his operations in his affluent hometown of Chapel Hill, home of the university, as opposed to a location that would better reflect his campaign platform of fighting poverty.

After quoting the students, Babb concludes her report by saying, "It's ultimately up to the voters to decide if running a presidential campaign here was a smart move politically. But it's safe to say, in Chapel Hill, opinions are split. "


Friday, October 26, 2007

Happy Hilloween!

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Democrats Try To Screw the Troops--AGAIN!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Democrats Try To Screw the Troops--AGAIN!
The Washington Times

Once again Democrats are demonstrating how they plan to "support" the men and women putting their lives on the line to fight jihadists in Iraq, and once again they are doing it by jeopardizing funding for the war.

Currently, military operations are being funded through a stopgap appropriations bill that expires Nov. 16. President Bush has requested $93.4 billion in supplemental funding for 2007 and $141.7 billion for fiscal 2008, which includes funds for training and equipping Iraqi and Afghan security forces.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats who never miss a chance to appease the bloggers and the rest of their left-wing base are playing a very dangerous game of political chicken with the lives of American troops.

Congress has two primary options for funding the war for the next few months. One option is to permit the Defense Department to borrow against its fiscal 2008 budget base. The second option is to include enough emergency funding in the defense spending bill or another fiscal 2008 appropriations measure to permit operations in Iraq to continue for several more months. But neither option is workable.

First, H.R. 3222, the Defense Department appropriations bill for fiscal 2008, has not been enacted, meaning the president has no appropriations bill to borrow from. Second, antiwar Democrats like Rep. David Obey, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. John Murtha, who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, have said they will not consider supplemental funding for the war until next year.

If Congress fails to pass a supplemental appropriations bill funding the war in the next 20 days, it would appear to be legally impossible to continue military operations in Iraq for any extended amount of time — including the successful troop surge. Similarly, it would jeopardize continued funding for production of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, which is an integral part of the military's efforts to protect American and coalition troops from roadside bombs.

But just when it seemed like Democrats were willing to see American fighting men and women killed and maimed in order to prove their political bona fides to George Soros and the Daily Kos, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin let the cat out of the bag: The Democrats don't really want to pick this fight, at least not until next year. Mr. Levin said Wednesday that Democrats would be willing to approve funding sufficient to continue the war until June, setting the stage for a political battle next spring.

But they will only agree to do this if Mr. Bush announces a date for withdrawing the troops from Iraq — and that sounds like the senator wants the president to announce a surrender date. This is what Democrats mean when they say they "support the troops."

Contrast, Indeed...

For This Group, We Need A Code RED...

Code Pinkos Turn Red
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

Wednesday was yet another eventful day in the hallowed halls of Congress. Screaming,
"War Criminal!" at our own Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Code Pink followers exchanged their lovely, subdued pink costumes for the more easily identifiable blood-red.

Painting their hands and our walls bright red is, in my mind, a more honest portrayal of the Marxist group's intentions in America, and provides a little more revelation for those who get all their news from the mainstream media complex and the Daily Show.

Are the Democrats beginning to wake up in light of this revelatory "coming-out" of the Pinkos? Perhaps so. It took only a moment for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) to make a show of some sane authority, command "Out," and have the demonstrators evicted and arrested.

It is truly an encouraging sign that the hard leftists of today are beginning to encounter American resistance to their plans, not only in Washington, but even in the hotbed of the revolution, California.


DU Doesn't Like Laura's Quote About Freedom:

FROM DU: d'Rats Don't Like Laura's Quote About Freedom:

“Around our country, President Bush and I meet with your families. We meet with families who make such a huge sacrifice in service to our country. In military hospitals, we meet with soldiers who've been wounded in combat.

From our troops and your families, the President and I hear the same request: that we honor the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform by seeing your mission through. They ask the American people to stand with our troops. I'm here to tell you that the American people stand with our troops. And no matter what you might read in the newspaper, people do appreciate the gift of freedom,’’ the first lady told the troops.

DU Chimes In--What They Think Of Our First Lady

--Yep, even if you have to kill those ingrates to give them the gift, right, Pickles? Spoken like a true sociopath.

--WTF? Once again insinuating that opposition to the war means we're INGRATES for their service. Burn in hell, you bitter old boozehound.

--Is that why the retarded monkey, and the retarded monkey's wife, is working on taking away Americans' freedom? Because they appreciate it so much? Get a different speech writer, joker... that one sux.

--Beware of Greeks ( or oil-hungry foreigners) bearing gifts... as went Troy, so goes Iraq.

--Laura, why don't you just go get some botox and STFU!

--Hey Pickles, why not do something constructive, like running over your current beau with a car. otherwise, keep your joker-like mouth shut.

--Laura lives in the same bubble as her bubble headed husband.

--First, LIAR! And second, she is just arrogant and condescending as her other half. They deserve each other but we and the World don't deserve too be harassed by them.

--Wouldn't it be nice if we and the Iraqis actually had some?

KKK's 1st Targets Were Republicans

KKK's 1st Targets Were Republicans
By Bob Unruh

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racist, he said.

"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

"Contributing to the evidences was the 1871 appearance before Congress of leading South Carolina Democrat E.W. Seibels who testified that 'they [the Ku Klux Klan] belong to the reform part – [that is, to] our party, the Democratic Party,'" Barton writes.

"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included."


The Water's Being Thrown Back In WHOSE Face?

Tony and Carol from San Diego: Tell the Liberals We're Not Victims
By Rush Limbaugh

RUSH: This is Tony in San Diego. Tony, thanks for the phone call. He's calling from Qualcomm Stadium. Nice to have you, sir. Welcome.

CALLER: Hey, Rush, nice to hear you. I'm so mad right now I don't know where to start. Everybody down there is taking care of each other. All this stuff about bringing National Guard in and everything, they took 800 Guardsmen off of the border where they should have stayed to come down here to Qualcomm and all it is is a big tailgate party. Everyone's helping each other, there's --

RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait a minute. Tony, I want to make sure I heard this. Did you say they took 800 guards off the border, National Guardsmen or border guards or whatever, and brought 'em to Qualcomm?

CALLER: If you guys would listen to the -- not you, Rush, I'm sorry, I'm just so angry. I've been up all night evacuating horses up in Harmony Grove, and it's not just Qualcomm Stadium. We got 10,000 there. We got 10,000 at the Del Mar race track. Vista High School, everyone is taking people, and there's no rioting, there's no fighting, everyone is helping each other.

They brought the national -- you go see some of these pictures down at Qualcomm, they got National Guard guys walking around, no guns, no nothing, shorts on, rolled-up sleeves because everyone is taking care of each other. This is absolutely stupid. I don't know where our political officials are getting this stuff.


RUSH: I wonder how people, say, who went through Hurricane Katrina if they're watching this on television, or any other natural disaster like this, watching what's happening out in California, and they see scenes from Qualcomm Stadium and other places, I wonder what they think.

In going back to what Carol was talking about, your red and blue, conservative versus liberal, what you have in San Diego, and I'm sure most of the other parts of Southern California where this all is happening, what you have are people who have not surrendered the control of their lives to the government. You have people who are fiercely independent. You have people who have not allowed themselves to become dependent on government, politicians or what have you, for anything.

These are self-reliant, rugged individual people who are banding together to help one another out, and doing so in the midst of the best mood that you could possibly imagine, in light of the devastation that is all around 'em, and their local government works. The state government, aside from this lieutenant governor who's in the bag for Clinton and Gore, aside from Garamendi, the state government is working.

They don't need the feds. There's not this massive call for the feds. You've got Garamendi saying, "Well, if Bush comes out, we'll be polite, but we've got the National Guard in I-rack." It's Iraq. These people call it I-rack. I want to rack them.


So Who's Afraid of an Iranian Bomb?

So Who's Afraid of an Iranian Bomb?

At first glance, it would seem a straightforward thing to stop a relatively weak but volatile Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. It would also seem to be something a concerned world community would be actively working to do.

After all, the Sunni Arab states surrounding Iran don’t want a Shiite nuclear power on their borders.

Europe, which isn’t all that far from Tehran and lacks a missile-defense shield, certainly doesn’t want to be in range of Iran’s missiles.

Israel can’t tolerate an Iranian theocracy both promising to wipe it off the map and then brazenly obtaining the means to do so.

The Russians and the Chinese, both already concerned about India, Pakistan and North Korea, don’t need another rival Asian nuclear power on their borders.

And the United States, already worried about Iranian threats to Israel and involved in daily military battles in Iraq with pro-Iranian agents and terrorists armed with Iranian-imported weapons, doesn’t want a nuclear Iran expanding its Persian Gulf influence.

But in truth, most players don’t care enough to stop Iran from getting the bomb, or apparently don’t think it’s worth the effort and cost. Some may even see some advantages to a nuclear Iran.


MUST READ: Ambushed By Our Own

Ambushed By Our Own
By Michael J. O'Shea

Snipers aim for a soldier's heart; congressional leaders aim for the heart of why he serves: Honor, Country, Duty to both. But to congressional leaders, there's no honor in Iraq. There can't be: it's immoral. Illegal. And it's not even their country's war: it's Bush's.

Telling parents their child died for George Bush is telling Christa McAuliffe's folks she died for Ronald Reagan.

JFK committed the US to space, but it wasn't his race -- it was America's. Astronauts knew the risks, the myriad of things that could go wrong, yet signed on, boosted by their countrymen as much as by rockets. There's no such lift for soldiers today; they're stranded, ignored unless exploited, gains unseen, achievements unheard. The Tomb of the Unknowns isn't only in Arlington.

It's one thing for leaders to oppose a mission, another to undermine it; one thing to make course corrections, another to sabotage the ship, one thing to overhaul an engine, another to wreck it in flight. The time to abort a mission is before it's launched. Once launched, it's all hands on deck. But for congressional leaders, it's every man for himself.

It's not rifles or smart bombs or Humvees or night vision that separate American troops from others: it's Honor.

Walter Reed can give soldiers news limbs, but where do they get honor lost? There was honor in firemen's fight to save those in Twin Towers, honor in Flight 93's Todd Beamer struggling to save those on the ground in D.C., honor at D-Day, honor in Desert Storm: but to congressional leaders there is no honor in Iraq: only pity.

And potshots at America's new ally.

Every problem in Iraq is being attacked in Iraq by Iraqis and Americans together, yet congressional leaders snipe.


Wednesday, October 24, 2007

CNN Blames Fires On Global Warming

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

CNN Blames Fires On Global Warming
By Paul Detrick

CNN exploited a national tragedy on October 23 by finding a way to blame global warming for wildfires.

During the October 23 “Anderson Cooper 360: In the Line of Fire,” Cooper reported from Southern California saying, “People are wondering if these fires are a result of global warming in some way.”

Although Cooper admitted that, “no one really knows for sure,” the broadcast still took the time to predict the future with CNN’s Tom Foreman who warned of a possible “century of fires, just like what we're seeing now” as a result of global warming.

"Climatologists say, while we can't blame on fire on climate change, we can say that these factors are combining in that area [Southern California] to set up what could be a century of fires just like what we're seeing now," said Foreman.

Foreman cautioned viewers that, “greater periods of rain” that fuel “increased vegetation growth” over the next century may provide a “potential link between these fires and global warming.”

He then pointed to a map showing “plant growth is expected to double or even triple as a result of greater periods of rain, driven by climate change.”

Earlier in the broadcast Cooper also plugged CNN’s documentary:

“At the top of the next hour, as I said, the big picture. These fires are really a piece of it. Fire, drought, global warming, climate change, deforestation, it is all connected, tonight, 9:00 p.m. Eastern…‘Planet in Peril’ starts in just 30 minutes.”

But was there a source refuting the claims that global warming was to blame for the fires in California? Nope. Not one.

Alan Zarembo’s story in the Washington Spokesman-Review that was attributed to the Los Angeles Times asked a similar question to Cooper’s broadcast, “Are the massive fires burning across Southern California a product of global warming?”

But, Zarembo came up with a much different answer:

“Scientists said it would be difficult to make that case, given the combustible mix of drought and wind that has plagued the region for centuries or more,” said the reporter.

“Southern California is already perfect for wildfire, and the small changes from global warming are unlikely to make it much worse at this time.”

A climate scientist at the University of California, Merced, told Zarembo that these wildfires are the result of two “staples of the region's climatic history,” meaning “strong Santa Ana winds” and “a drought that turned much of the hillsides to bone-dry kindling.”

"Neither can be attributed to climate change," said the UC Merced professor.

The Media Research Center’s Brent Baker wrote on October 23 that "NBC Nightly News” also made the case linking global warming to the California fires.


According to notes from CNN's Monday news meeting network president Jon Klein tells employees to use the California fire tragedy to "push" their "Planet in Peril" special, but warns reporters not to "irresponsibly link" the fires to "Global Warming."

What I Learned About Liberalism From Barry Manilow

What I Learned About Liberalism From Barry Manilow
By Andrew Tallman

Barry Manilow recently gave a seminar on liberalism. Oh, not intentionally, of course. But sometimes unintentional seminars are the most instructive of all.

It all started when the singer suddenly cancelled his September 18th appearance on the television show “The View.” This statement was posted on Manilow’s Web site on the 17th:

I wanted to let you know that I will no longer be on “The View” tomorrow as scheduled. I had made a request that I be interviewed by Joy, Barbara or Whoopi, but not Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request so I bowed out. It’s really too bad because I’ve always been a big supporter of the show, but I cannot compromise my beliefs. The good news is that I will be on a whole slew of other shows promoting the new album so I hope you can catch me on those.

Although he had appeared twice in the past year without conditions, the fuss between Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Rosie O’Donnell back in May changed all of that. As a close friend of Rosie’s and a large Democratic contributor, Manilow didn’t relish the idea of putting himself anywhere near the token conservative. As he told TMZ, “I strongly disagree with her views. I think she’s dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her.” When “The View” refused his “simple” request, he declined to appear.

Or did he?

Barbara Walters discussed the event on her radio show with Bill Geddie, her co-executive producer. According to them, Manilow didn’t cancel “The View.” They cancelled him. Geddie explained it this way: “He said, ‘I’ll do Barbara and Whoopi or I’ll do Whoopi and Sherri or some combination, but I won’t sit with Elisabeth,’ and I said ‘Well, then you won’t be on the show. It’s that simple. And that was the end of it. He’s not going to call the shots. You’re not going to tell me how to produce the show.”

So what did Barry Manilow teach me about liberals through all of this?


Hillzilla!--Oh, the HUMANITY!

Myspace Layouts

Scott Beauchamp PROVEN To Be A Liar

That Took Forever: Beauchamp Story Collapses
By Michael Goldfarb


When we started looking into Beauchamp's stories back in July, we believed that the New Republic had simply been taken in by a huckster--that despite being over-eager to publish a story that cast our troops in a negative light, TNR's editors had done so good faith, believing the stories to be true. So we emailed Frank Foer, who agreed to provide us with some of the corroborating details in order to demonstrate his author's credibility.

Foer told us that the incident with the disfigured woman had taken place at FOB Falcon and that the "Saddam-era dumping ground" was located a few miles south of Baghdad International Airport. With that information, we asked our milblogger friends to help us confirm the details of the story. It quickly became clear that no one at Falcon had ever seen this woman, that no "Saddam-era dumping ground" had ever been discovered, and that the Bradley Fighting Vehicle was not capable of dissecting stray dogs with the precision described by Beauchamp.

Nevertheless, the editors at TNR insisted in their first official statement that they had "much to corroborate" the soldiers account. Beauchamp himself stepped forward to attack his critics and affirm the accuracy of his reports. Still, not a single person could corroborate the existence of the mystery woman at Falcon. When confronted with this fact, Beauchamp confessed that the incident had not taken place as he'd described, a mere 48 hours after lashing out at those who questioned his account.

And yet, the New Republic still determinedly stood by the rest of his story, declaring that its own "investigation" had found the claims about killing dogs and desecrating children's remains to be accurate. Once again, TNR produced not a single on the record statement to back up these claims.

It is now clear that somewhere along the way, TNR stopped acting in good faith and started doing damage control. They cited a Bradley expert who purportedly confirmed that the vehicle could be operated as Beauchamp described. But when Bob Owens tracked down said expert, BAE spokesmen Doug Coffey, he denied making any such statement, saying that TNR had mischaracterized his comments and that the editors had never shown him Beauchamp's stories. He added that having read the stories, they were indeed "suspicious," and that he did not believe the Bradley could be operated as described. TNR never acknowledged Coffey’s later statements or its apparent misrepresentation of his earlier statement.

And then came our report that Scott Beauchamp was no longer standing by his stories. The editors at TNR responded to this report by insinuating that THE WEEKLY STANDARD was not a credible source. They also accused the Army of "stonewalling" and preventing them from speaking with their author. That was on August 10. Bob Owens subsequently reported that TNR spoke to Beauchamp on September 7--the transcript now posted on Drudge--but TNR never returned to the subject, despite their claims of a "commitment to the truth" in that August 10 statement.

The documents posted by Drudge reveal that the New Republic’s editors have known for several weeks that the central anecdote of the story was untrue, that the other anecdotes were deeply suspect, and that the author was no longer standing by his work. And yet they remained publicly silent even though they had long ago promised to be open and forthcoming on the matter. Worse still, they asked Beauchamp to cancel pending interviews with the Washington Post and Newsweek, lest their complicity in Beauchamp's slanders come to light.

Foer attacked his magazine's critics as "reckless" and "ideologically motivated," at one point even demanding an apology from the bloggers who did so much to advance this story and find out the truth of the matter. He now has more than a little 'splaining to do.

Treason? Democrats Use the Term Loosely

Treason? Democrats Use the Term Loosely
By Bob Martin Contributing Writer

Success in Iraq is in the world's best interest, the Middle East's collective interest and our national interest. Converting Iraq into a stable state that is not a threat to its neighbors and does not oppress its own people cannot be a bad thing. The confluence of interests suggests it should be easy to formulate a policy that would draw bipartisan support.

The Democrats are convinced failure in Iraq is in their immediate political interest, and they have invested in failure from the beginning.

They criticize every aspect of the war and the effort to establish a stable government. They demand President Bush "change course," but they never propose an alternative plan that could conceivably lead to success. "Withdrawal," preferably immediate withdrawal, is their only "plan."

When asked what would happen in Iraq and the greater Middle East if we withdraw before the job is completed, they simply do not respond. Iran declares it will fill the political vacuum when the U.S. withdraws.

When asked about this prospect, the Democrats do not respond. The Democrats know that a precipitous withdrawal will forever seal our Iraq policy as an abject failure, and that is most important to them. Their immediate political advantage trumps all other concerns.

Despite their obvious pursuit of party interest at the expense of national interest, the Democrats sanctimoniously claim no one has the right to question their patriotism.
Questioning patriotism

Alternatively, they consider themselves free to question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. From the beginning, they accused President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld of treason, claiming they deliberately lied about prewar intelligence. They continue to demand President Bush's impeachment.

They now accuse a distinguished U.S. Army General of treason. Days before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker?s testimony, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, and Rahm Emanuel began attacks on their character. Reid, Durbin, and Emanuel accused General Petraeus of deliberately manipulating the data in order to mislead the public. This was before he testified!

An anonymous Democratic senator said in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, "No one wants to call (Petraeus) a liar on national TV.

The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." Sure enough, not only called Petraeus a liar in the New York Times, they also accused him of treason. This is the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

The evidence suggests "the surge" has improved the military situation and the political situation at the local level in some parts of Iraq.

A national reconciliation continues to escape politicians in Baghdad, however. This progress has panicked the Democrats. Their invested position is the surge would not and could not work; therefore, if the evidence suggests otherwise, their only recourse is to discredit the messenger. They make every effort to destroy General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker's reputation.
They have done the same thing to other members of the Bush administration.

It may be true that failure in Iraq is in the Democrats' immediate political interest. The Democrats' tactics to assure that failure are not in their long-term political interest.

They have gone too far and shown themselves to be without honor.

All-consuming political ambition is a very ugly thing.

Media Myths About the Jena 6

Media Myths About the Jena 6
By Craig Franklin

By now, almost everyone in America has heard of Jena, La., because they've all heard the story of the "Jena 6." White students hanging nooses barely punished, a schoolyard fight, excessive punishment for the six black attackers, racist local officials, public outrage and protests – the outside media made sure everyone knew the basics.

There's just one problem: The media got most of the basics wrong. In fact, I have never before witnessed such a disgrace in professional journalism. Myths replaced facts, and journalists abdicated their solemn duty to investigate every claim because they were seduced by a powerfully appealing but false narrative of racial injustice.

I should know. I live in Jena. My wife has taught at Jena High School for many years. And most important, I am probably the only reporter who has covered these events from the very beginning.

The reason the Jena cases have been propelled into the world spotlight is two-fold: First, because local officials did not speak publicly early on about the true events of the past year, the media simply formed their stories based on one-side's statements – the Jena 6. Second, the media were downright lazy in their efforts to find the truth. Often, they simply reported what they'd read on blogs, which expressed only one side of the issue.

The real story of Jena and the Jena 6 is quite different from what the national media presented. It's time to set the record straight.


Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Morgan Orlins At RPOF's Presidency IV Weekend

Morgan Orlins At RPOF's Presidency IV

Nanette and I just returned from a fun-filled weekend in Orlando at Presidency IV. The Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) puts this on prior to the primary election to give us a good look at the Republican Presidential candidates. It was like Disney World and Six Flags for political junkies! We got to meet with a few of the candidates, some of the Fox News people, and Nanette and the ladies made cat calls to Sean Hannity during Hannity and Colmes before the debate. He ate it up. I made a promise to some friends to give my impressions of what we saw during the weekend, so here goes.

Immediately upon entering the gorgeous Rosen Shingle Creek Resort I had a contented and almost giddy feeling and I couldn't understand why. Then my brilliant wife Nanette turned to me and said, "honey, there are over 3000 well dressed Republicans here and I don't see ONE dang tatoo or facial piercing in the whole crowd!" By God that was it! We were among 3000 or so hard working, smart, well-dressed, patriotic Americans and it was a WONDERFUL feeling. The crowd was also a PERFECT microcosm of American life. At least 10% of the crowd was black (mainly out for Rudy) and a very healthy number of Jews, Orientals and Indians. Good Americans one and all. The ONLY way to improve the scene would have been an ice cold beer concession. Fred Thompson came to the rescue there.

Saturday started off with a Governor's luncheon hosted by RPOF Chairman Jim Greer and Governor Charlie Crist. Jim is a great guy who does a HARD and sometimes thankless job trying to keep liberal and Conservative Republicans together and motivated. My hat's off to him. Charlie Crist is as smooth as politicians come and a RINO (Republican In Name Only) through and through. For you political novices that means that he's just as comfortable among Democrats and reads the polls before he takes positions on issues. This is the opposite of principled leadership, and I don't really care for it. Believe me, he WILL show his face on the national scene sometime soon. Oy vay and God help us!

After the luncheon the Fred Thompson desk in the lobby told Nanette and I that Fred had just arrived and was down by the pool. We intercepted him in the lobby area along with his Secret Service guys and shook his hand as he attempted to scoot on through. Nanette held the camera and wanted to get a picture of the three of us and I told Fred, "Senator Thompson, my dad's a big fan of your's up in Chattanooga , TN and he thinks that you might be worth voting for." To which he replied, "well heck, all I gotta do is take a picture with you and you'll vote for me? Give that fella over there the camera and let's get us a picture!" As we stood there he spied the cigar in my top pocket and said, "that's a mighty tasty looking cigar you got there." So of course I gave it to him over his lame protestations. Nanette asked him if he would support the FairTax and he said that he had "his people" looking at it right now. Fred's definitely a real person.

At 4PM we attended the Presidential Candidates rally. The RPOF limited the rally to the top 4 contenders by instituting a $100,000 buy in price tag. Each candidate was supposed to limit their speech to 15-20 minutes and Fred was the only one who obeyed that rule.

Rudy Giulianni was the BIG winner at the Candidates rally. Not only do you know that he has the courage of his convictions, but he has done his homework! Rudy worked that stage and the crowd like a talented Pentacostal preacher for over 30 minutes on a wide range of issues. He's well prepared. Rudy's hospitality suite was well stocked and had a wide variety of people at the bar and watching the football games on the bigscreen.

John McCain had the second best presentation and is clearly at ease in front of a crowd. That's as nice as I can be to Senator McCain since he spent the entire first term of the Bush Presidency undermining the President and the Conservative agenda from the confines of the Senate. You name the issue, and he stuck it to us for more than five years along with his RINO buddies Lindsay Graham, Mel Martinez, and curiously enough, TED KENNEDY! Needless to say, I hope John McCain's not our nominee. He's no conservative.

Mitt Romney is the picture you would draw of an ideal President. He's got the looks, he's got an incredible resume, and the guy is brilliant. I'd rather have Rudy or Fred. Mitt's just not MEAN enough to go up against Hillary and the "gangsters" she employs to attack her opponents. Being "above it all" just will NOT work against the Clinton smear machine and Rudy and Fred know best how to handle the leftist goon squads. Too bad, Mitt's as talented as public servants come.

Fred's Thompson's presentation at the Candidates Rally was the weakest of the four. The story out of his camp is that he was the only one who obeyed the time limit rule and didn't want to keep us too late. That may be the truth, but one thing's for sure, he was well-prepared for Sunday's debate! Fred seems to be a true conservative and his biggest problem was the unrealistsic hype surrounding him prior to his candidacy. He's starting to hit his stride in a big way. At the post-debate reception Fred cracked jokes about being "lazy" and having to take a nap before showing up. He has a great sense of humor. His wife Jerry looks like a hot 18 year old from a distance, but up close she looks like an adult. :-) Mrs. Thompson worked the crowd with poise, dignity and smarts. Nanette and I were both very impressed.

Mike Huckabee also impressed us tremendously. He's a true conservative and former Governor of Arkansas from-of all places-Hope. No kidding, he's from Hope, Arkansas, just like Monica's boyfriend. You can't make this stuff up! Mike has done his homework and is a free market conservative with some OUTSTANDING ideas for health care reform and foreign policy. He's as sharp as a tack under intense questioning and would EAT HILLARY'S LUNCH in a debate! His only weakness thus far seems to be an inability to break into the top tier of candidates and a fondness for labor unions. These problems are not insignificant.

In summary I think we'll have to get behind either Rudy or Fred. Both of them can beat the Hillary and Richardson ticket and we will need every single vote. My father thinks Rudy will pick Condi Rice in an attempt to take 20-25% of the black vote, which will ensure a landslide. I think it's far more likely that Rudy or Fred will pick Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney as a running mate. Huckabee would be a strong running mate too and help sew up the south for Rudy.

It was a good weekend to be a Republican! Let me know your thoughts on this election.