Saturday, August 07, 2004

Laura Ingraham's E-blast from 7/17/04

This commentary is Ms. Ingraham's constructive criticiam towards the RNC, as they gear up for their convention later this month in Gotham. I agree with her, in that the many views should be heard. Zell Miller (D-GA) will be there, why not Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum? He is one of the party's rising stars, and this would be an opportunity too good to pass up.

Here are the words of wisdom from Ms. Laura Ingraham.:

Let Them Be Heard

It has been about six weeks since we buried President Reagan, but it seems like Republicans are on the verge of forgetting what he taught us.

GOP has assembled a list of prime-time speakers who might be equally as comfortable speaking in Boston at the Democratic National Convention. These "non-icky" Republicans include "moderate" pro-abortion rights Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, "maverick" Sen. John McCain, Republican-in-Name-Only New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and "socially liberal" Rudy Giuliani.

"Some big names, but where are the conservative voices?" I asked Bush/Cheney Campaign Manager Ken Mehlman. "The President and Vice-President are the two most important speakers at the convention," he replied. He didn't get to the heart of the matter, which is why the most conservative speaker at the convention other than the candidates themselves is a Democrat--Zell Miller.

One gets the distinct feeling that social conservatives are being treated as a quaint off-shoot of the GOP, rather than as its heart and soul.

It's time to remember who made the modern GOP what it is today.

Before Ronald Reagan brought social conservatives into the GOP (many of those were "Reagan Democrats" who parted ways with the Democrats on issues like abortion, pornography, and welfare spending), it was a minority party that had been beaten consistently by the Democrats for almost half a century.

Social conservatives have been and remain the most loyal supporters of Pres. Bush and the rest of the GOP, even when the GOP's policies have not always been in their economic interest. (Can you say "illegal immigration"?) They make up the party's all-important base. With only about 6 percent of the votes up for grabs in this election, turnout will be more crucial than ever (for both parties).

Without the conservative vote, Pres. Bush would struggle to carry a single state -- much less win the 270 electoral votes he needs for the White House.

Today social conservatives are deeply concerned about the direction of the country on a host of cultural issues. They want more than to hear from the President a few times a year in a weekly radio address. They need to feel like their views are being respected, not like their votes are taken for granted. They resent the unbridled power of the judiciary. They feel like their bedrock values are under constant assault by a culture that devalues life and rewards depravity.

Under these circumstances, it is foolish beyond words for the GOP only to highlight speakers who openly and actively disagree with its members on key issues. Showing off your "big tent" philosophy is all well and good. But let's not forget that the tent was built by social conservatives who were willing to do the hard work to rescue the GOP from the country club.

A good late-addition to the Republican National Convention slate of speakers would be Sen. Rick Santorum. He's third-highest ranking Senate Republican, in his mid-40s he's the youngest member of the GOP leadership. He's articulate, passionate, gutsy, and smart. He won state-wide office in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania four times (in 1990, at the age of 32, he won a Congressional seat), then won his Senate seat in the great Republican Revolution of 1994.

Most recently he was the GOP's point man on the gay marriage issue. He didn't flinch when Senators Ted Kennedy and Frank Lautenberg called defenders of traditional marriage "bigoted" and "mean-spirited." He spoke eloquently about how this issue is being forced by imperialist judges, Santorum said, "in utter disregard of our traditions and beliefs."

Luring social conservatives away from the Democratic Party--among them southern Baptists, and northern Catholics--is one of the most important political shifts of the past generation. Republicans succeeded in making Democrats the minority party. Republicans should be proud of that accomplishment--proud enough to showcase prominent conservative thinkers on its convention roster.

By keeping the conservatives under wraps, the GOP is handing the media another club to use against the President. I can already hear Judy Woodfruff on CNN: "Up next, we'll hear from John McCain. Senator McCain has been sharply critical of the President on everything from gun rights to health care reform, not to mention the the GOP's deeply divisive and failed effort to amend the Constitution."

In the 1980s, political experts predicted that President Reagan would pay a steep political price for being pro-life, for even mentioning the "sanctity of life." Reagan ignored the high-priced consultants and stuck with what he knew to be true. He was reelected in a landslide. President Bush should ignore the same experts who are telling him to keep the conservatives locked in the basement. Let them be heard.
I believe that, if they follow Laura's advice, then the nation will see the Grand Ole Party for who they are- the party of the common man. (That will probably happen only after the Clinton Kool-Aid punch bowl runs dry. Think about it.)

Laura Ingraham's E-blast from 7/30/04

The lovely Ms. Ingraham wrote this during the Democratic National Convention in Boston. As usual, she nails it on the head. For the Democrats, it is basically a "It's Now or Never" scenario facing them like a deer in headlights. (I apologize for the Elvis reference. I doubt that he would support their "ideologies".)

Here is Ms. Ingraham's message.:

The Heat is On

(Boston, MA) From the hallways of the Fleet Center to the bar stools of Loch Ober, the Democrats here are giddy at the prospect that their long national nightmare--their time in the wilderness--is almost over. Boston is their spiritual home. They are doing their best to keep the primal anti-Bush outbursts to a minimum. They even managed to keep Howard Dean on a relatively short leash. (Remember, for Teresa Heinz Kerry, telling someone to "shove it" actually is good behavior!) The Dems have a token Southerner on the ticket - always a sign that they are serious about winning. They got prime-time speeches from their two favorite persons in the world, who gave us yet another chapter in the saga of Bill and Hill. Most of all, after waiting for almost four years, they finally have their chance to smash the hated George W. Bush and his crowd of Bible-thumping, tee totaling, gas-guzzling, gun-shooting, warmongering rednecks.

The Kerry campaign urged everyone who took to the podium to keep things positive, and anyone sufficiently prominent to speak in prime-time will carefully follow that script. But they can't muzzle everyone, and they can't script D-friendly events that occur outside of the convention. I had the misfortune of staying at the hotel where a group called "Take Back America" hosted a whoop-it-up Bush Bash honoring Michael Moore. A standing room-only crowd of Moore fanatics at the Royal Sonesta Hotel were entranced. He is their Elvis only his doesn't toss scarves into the audience, he tosses out verbal tongue lashings against all this familiar targets—the Bush Administration, Fox News, corporate "war profiteers" (Halliburton, GE), and flag-lapel wearing "mainstream" journalists who are "afraid to ask real questions." Of course he also sung the praises of his favorite subject-himself. For him, Bush is the "obvious villain," while countries that defy the Administration, like Canada, are wonderful. "Canada is just like the America," he said,"but better." This is the "blame America" rhetoric that doesn't usually make the evening news. This is the verbal bile that makes the Kerry-Edwards sunshine team very nervous.

But you don’t have to go to a Michael Moore speech to feel that the hatred -- raw, sheer, unmitigated hatred -- is palpable throughout the convention. You sense it in the bumper stickers that say "Re-Defeat Bush." You see it in the volcanic rage provoked by any reference to the current President. Most powerfully, you feel it in the raw, crackling energy that pervades the Fleet Center. Believe me, they're not this excited just because they want to raise taxes. This time it's personal.

In fact, it represents a sort of family feud. The divisions that roil American politics grow out of the fight that split FDR's New Deal Coalition. The last time the Democrats nominated a Massachusetts Senator for President - in 1960 - they were clearly the majority party, their ranks swelled by socially conservative Protestants and Catholics, many of whom had supported the party since the days of William Jennings Bryan. But the liberals chose to break up this coalition, to attack and ridicule the social conservatives on every possible occasion, to accuse them of racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other sins that liberals could imagine.

The social conservatives took the hint, and by 1980, the New Deal Coalition was at an end. The Democrats haven't put together a winning combination ever since. Oh, sure, they had - and have - the Clintons, but two people (no matter how talented) are no substitute for a majority of voters. And so even though President Clinton presided over eight years of prosperity and (a sort of) peace, he also saw his party lose the House, the Senate, and the White House. And despite all the editorials from the New York Times and the Washington Post, despite all the influence of Hollywood, despite near-uniform support from every single university in America, despite the flood of Bush-bashing tomes filling up the tables at your local bookstore, the Republicans still control our government. And so Democratic hatred grows.

Now we don't normally think of the Democrats as haters. After all, they don't hate the terrorists who bombed us on 9/11, and who threaten us around the world. They don’t hate the French. They don’t hate Fidel Castro. They don't hate pornographers, or doctors who abort unborn children, or murderers sentenced to die. They didn't even hate the Soviet Union - in fact, they were outraged when President Reagan dared to say that the USSR was "evil." Apparently, they've been saving all that hatred for George W. Bush and all those folks in the flyover states who keep pulling the Republican lever.

And that hatred - which gives this convention so much of its energy - means that for the next few months, John Kerry will be living in a pressure-cooker such as few American politicians have ever experienced. Since they ran off the social conservatives, the Democrats have lost too many elections. More and more, they talk as though they were prisoners trapped in a hostile land - a place where elections are stolen, where multinational corporations create wars, where Hollywood stars live in fear of Baptist ministers. The Democrats increasingly welcome nutty filmmakers like Michael Moore. and America-bashing celebrities like Susan Sarandon. They are ashamed of our history, of our prosperity, of our flag-waving patriotism, and of our insistence on remaining free and sovereign despite pressure from the EU and the UN. In short, the Democrats are simply no longer recognizable as the party that gave us FDR, and Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy. Instead, they increasingly resemble an angry seminar of conspiracy-minded grad students.

That is the party that John Kerry is supposed to take to victory. If the Democrats lose again - if they have to watch those stupid, ill-bred Republicans celebrating on election night - they will turn on Kerry (and each other) with merciless rage. So the Democrats better enjoy this week. Because if Kerry doesn’t get the bounce he needs from this convention--and early polls are showing he’s not-- it could be the last happy week for the Democrats for a long, long time.
Things could get uglier than "Lurch's" un-botoxed face if he and the Dems lose big! They would become more unhinged than Howard Dean and Algore combined! Let the entertainment begin!

If you have not done so yet, I recommend her book, Shut Up and Sing. If you have not heard yet, she is THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FEMALE RADIO SHOW HOST!!! Take that, "Airhead" America!

Ann Coulter On Max Cleland's DROPPED GRENADE Injury

Source: Ann Coulter "Cleland Drops A Political Grenade" February 11, 2004

Cleland Drops A Political Grenade

FORMER Sen. Max Cleland is the Democrats' designated hysteric about George Bush's National Guard service. A triple amputee and Vietnam veteran, Cleland is making the rounds on talk TV, basking in the affection of liberals who have suddenly become jock-sniffers for war veterans, and working himself into a lather about President Bush's military service. Citing such renowned military experts as Molly Ivins, Cleland indignantly demands further investigation into Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard.

Bush's National Guard service is the most thoroughly investigated event since the Kennedy assassination. But the Democrats will accept only two possible conclusions to their baseless accusations: (1) Bush was "AWOL," or (2) the matter needs further investigation.

Thirty years ago, Bush was granted an honorable discharge from the National Guard –– which would seem to put the matter to rest. But liberals want proof that Bush actually deserved his honorable discharge. (Since when did the party of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd get so obsessed with honor?)

On "Hardball" Monday night, Cleland demanded to see Bush's pay stubs for the disputed period of time, May 1972 to May 1973. "If he was getting paid for his weekend warrior work," Cleland said, "he should have some pay stubs to show it."

The next day, the White House produced the pay stubs. This confirmed what has been confirmed 1 million times before: After taking the summer off, Bush reported for duty nine times between Nov. 29, 1972, and May 24, 1973 -- more than enough times to fulfill his Guard duties. (And nine times more than Bill Clinton, Barney Frank or Chuck Schumer did during the same period.)

All this has been reported -- with documentation -- many times by many news organizations. George magazine had Bush's National Guard records 3 1/2 years ago.

All available evidence keeps confirming Bush's honorable service with the Guard, which leads liberals to conclude ... further investigation is needed! No evidence will ever be enough evidence. That Bush skipped out on his National Guard service is one of liberals' many nondisprovable beliefs, like global warming.

Cleland also expressed outrage that Bush left the National Guard nine months early in 1973 to go to Harvard Business School. On "Hardball," Cleland testily remarked: "I just know a whole lot of veterans who would have loved to have worked things out with the military and adjusted their tour of duty." (Cleland already knows one -- Al Gore!)

When Bush left the National Guard in 1973 to go to business school, the war was over. It might as well have been 1986. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had already lost the war, and President Nixon had ended it with the Paris peace accords in January. If Bush had demanded active combat, there was no war to send him to.

To put this in perspective, by 1973, John Kerry had already accused American soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam, thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress. Bill Clinton had just finished three years of law school and was about to embark upon a political career -- which would include campaign events with Max Cleland.

Moreover, if we're going to start delving into exactly who did what back then, maybe Max Cleland should stop allowing Democrats to portray him as a war hero who lost his limbs taking enemy fire on the battlefields of Vietnam.

Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman –- or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.

There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in how Cleland is presented to the American people. Terry McAuliffe goes around saying, "Max Cleland, a triple amputee who left three limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam," was thrown out of office because Republicans "had the audacity to call Max Cleland unpatriotic." Mr. Cleland, a word of advice: When a slimy weasel like Terry McAuliffe is vouching for your combat record, it's time to sound "retreat" on that subject.

Needless to say, no one ever challenged Cleland's "patriotism." His performance in the Senate was the issue, which should not have come as a bolt out of the blue inasmuch as he was running for re-election to the Senate. Sen. Cleland had refused to vote for the Homeland Security bill unless it was chock-full of pro-union perks that would have jeopardized national security. ("OH MY GOD! A HIJACKED PLANE IS HEADED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE!" "Sorry, I'm on my break. Please call back in two hours.")

The good people of Georgia -- who do not need lectures on admiring military service –- gave Cleland one pass for being a Vietnam veteran. He didn't get a lifetime pass.

Indeed, if Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. senator in the first place. Maybe he'd be the best pharmacist in Atlanta, but not a U.S. senator. He got into office on the basis of serving in Vietnam and was thrown out for his performance as a senator.

Cleland wore the uniform, he was in Vietnam, and he has shown courage by going on to lead a productive life. But he didn't "give his limbs for his country," or leave them "on the battlefield." There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight. That could have happened in the Texas National Guard -- which Cleland denigrates while demanding his own sanctification.

Source: Ann Coulter "File Under: 'Omission Accomplished'" February 18, 2004

File Under: 'Omission Accomplished'

LIBERALS are hopping mad about last week's column. Amid angry insinuations that I "lied" about Sen. Max Cleland, I was attacked on the Senate floor by Sen. Jack Reed, Molly Ivins called my column "error-ridden," and Al Hunt called it a "lie." Joe Klein said I was the reason liberals were being hysterical about George Bush's National Guard service.

I would have left it at one column, but apparently Democrats want to go another round. With their Clintonesque formulations, my detractors make it a little difficult to know what "lie" I'm supposed to be contesting, but they are clearly implying -- without stating -- that Cleland lost his limbs in combat.

It is simply a fact that Max Cleland was not injured by enemy fire in Vietnam. He was not in combat, he was not -- as Al Hunt claimed -- on a reconnaissance mission, and he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh, as many others have implied. He picked up an American grenade on a routine noncombat mission and the grenade exploded.

In Cleland's own words: "I didn't see any heroism in all that. It wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an act of fate." That is why Cleland didn't win a Purple Heart, which is given to those wounded in combat. Liberals are not angry because I "lied"; they're angry because I told the truth.

I wouldn't press the point except that Democrats have deliberately "sexed up" the circumstances of Cleland's accident in the service of slandering the people of Georgia, the National Guard and George Bush. Cleland has questioned Bush's fitness for office because he served in the National Guard but did not go to Vietnam.

And yet the poignant truth of Cleland's own accident demonstrates the commitment and bravery of all members of the military who come into contact with ordnance. Cleland's injury was of the routine variety that occurs whenever young men and weapons are put in close proximity -- including in the National Guard.

But it is a vastly more glorious story to claim that Cleland was injured by enemy fire rather than in a freak accident. So after Saxby Chambliss beat Cleland in the 2002 Georgia Senate race, liberals set to work developing a carefully crafted myth about Cleland's accident. Among many other examples, last November, Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon: "(D)uring the siege of Khe Sanh, Cleland lost both his legs and his right hand to a Viet Cong grenade."

Sadly for them, dozens and dozens of newspapers have already printed the truth. Liberals simply can't grasp the problem Lexis-Nexis poses to their incessant lying. They ought to stick to their specialty -- hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte.

One of the most detailed accounts of Cleland's life was written by Jill Zuckman in a lengthy piece for The Boston Globe Sunday magazine on Aug. 3, 1997:

Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.

Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future.

Interestingly, all news accounts told the exact same story for 30 years -- including that Cleland had stopped to have beer with friends when the accident occurred (a fact that particularly irked Al Hunt).

"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)

"(Cleland) didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)

"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)

The story started to change only last year when the Democrats began citing Cleland's lost Senate seat as proof that Republicans hate war heroes. Indeed, until the myth of Republicans attacking Cleland for his lack of "patriotism" became central to the Democrats' narrative against George Bush, Cleland spoke only honorably and humbly about his accident. "How did I become a war hero?" he said to The Boston Globe reporter in 1997. "Simple. The grenade went off."

Cleland even admitted that, but for his accident, he would have "probably been some frustrated history teacher, teaching American government at some junior college." (OK, I got that wrong: I said he'd probably be a pharmacist.)

Cleland's true heroism came after the war, when he went on to build a productive life for himself. That is a story of inspiration and courage. He shouldn't let the Democrats tarnish an admirable life by "sexing up" his record in order to better attack George Bush.

The sorry tale of George Soros

Joyce Notes: Commediane Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder carve up George Soros, Socialist billionaire and one-man Democrat party bank account.

Source: Jewish World Review "The sorry tale of George Soros" by Jackie Mason & Raoul Felder December 2, 2003

The sorry tale of George Soros

The jester and the advocate don't take kindly to self-hating Jews | There was this movie with Peter Sellers in which he played a character who was — with all this political correctness floating around, we don't know the appropriate phrase du Jour — perhaps it is — "mentally challenged", but who everybody thought was a great genius. At a press conference he was asked what he thought of China. He paused, bowed his head and slowly said, "China is full of Chinese." The reporters nodded their heads in awe and murmured, "Full of Chinese. Hmm.", remarking to each other how brilliant he was. Money also does this to people.

If you have a lot of money, people will never say you are crazy. Only poor people are crazy. You would be "eccentric." When a rich person shows up at a party with the most ridiculous clothes, everybody then thinks they themselves are not in style.

All of this makes us think of George Soros, who apparently believes his money makes him a player on the world's stage — someone to whom other people should listen and respect. Worse yet, these "other" people are beguiled into actually believing this nonsense. The thinking goes something like this. "All my life I have directed all my energies into making as much money as possible. Now, this man makes more in one day than I make in twenty years. Therefore, he must be a genius." But, if a baseball player hit 500 home runs, would that make him anything other than a home run hitter? If a tap dancer knocks your socks off and sounds like a combination of Fred Astaire and Bojangles would you say he is anything more than a great tap dancer? Would you go to him to have your tonsils taken out or for advice as to which mutual fund to buy?

George Soros came under our microscope some time back when he and some other billionaires took out advertisements in the newspapers opposing the abolition, or even the lowering of, the Federal Estate Tax. We, on the other hand, believed that President Regan was on the right track when he expressed the thought that the estate tax was the unfairest of the panoply of taxes that we pay. When you make the money, you are taxed up to fifty per cent. Then if the government is lucky enough to have you die, they tax your estate, which is whatever you have left after a lifetime of paying income tax, once again up to fifty per cent. If a small businessman or farmer worked hard his entire life, paid his taxes in the hope of passing something to his children, perhaps even to keep the business or farm running when he is gone, at his death the government will swoop down to grab a substantial portion.

Millionaires have legions of lawyers and armies of accountants who devise ways to avoid these taxes, unlike the rest of us ordinary people. Mr. Soros and his colleagues who urge that estate taxes be maintained should first reveal what they have done to minimize their estate taxes. Our guess is that they have spent more on tax lawyers and accountants than most of the rest of us could possibly leave as our entire estate. Soros reminds us of the guy who passes the board and gets into a private club or cooperative apartment house, and then tries to make it difficult for the next guy. One thing we do know for sure, in the advertisement that Soros and friends ran in the press, basically urging that everyone should be liable for paying taxes, mention was made of an organization that was formed by them to support their aims. The office of this organization was in Boston or Philadelphia (coming from New York the geographic lines are blurred). We called and told them, to their eager delight, that we wanted to make a contribution. But we wanted to make sure it was tax deductible. We were assured it was. We were reminded of the old Southern preacher who said, "Don't do like I do. Do like I say do".

There is also the moral problem that we have with the way enormously rich people make their money. Other than wealth created by virtue of an invention, such as Edison and electricity, the acquisition of wealth is not a guiltless process, nor certainly is it a profitless and without harm transfer of monies. Notwithstanding Soros' professed interest in helping people via his charities, there is the fact that speculation in foreign currencies a la Soros, can beget economic havoc in countries. In 1992, Soros earned one billion dollars in a one day by betting that the British pound would fall. Although Soros denies it, there are some that accuse him of causing the 1997 Asian economic crisis by his betting against the Thai baht. When these sorts of things occur it ultimately filters down to the humblest of a country's citizens. It is said that when a butterfly flutters its wings on a plain in Africa, it begets a hurricane in Louisiana. Soros is no butterfly!

If these were our only thoughts about Soros we would happily consign him to our private hell peopled by hypocrites, windbags, parasites and blowhards such as some used car salesmen, critics, lawyers, landlords, theatrical agents and real estate brokers, and simply forget all about him. No, we believe he is a more destructive person — a self-hating Jew whose money gives him a podium to spout his nonsense.

We live in a world awash with anti-Semitism, from bombings of synagogues in Istanbul to the bombing of a Jewish school in a Paris suburb to the French ambassador making scatological remarks about Israel at a London dinner party, to a German politician and Army leader spewing hatred.

A recent study demonstrated that Europeans believe that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. Near sixty percent of people surveyed from fifteen E.U. countries said that they consider Israel a threat. Only fifty-three per cent said that they consider Iran and North Korea to be a threat.

Self-hating Jew Soros openly says that he is not supportive of Israel. His reference to his Jewishness and perhaps to the fact that he does not donate to Jewish organizations: "It did not express itself in a sense of tribal loyalty that would have led [Soros] to support Israel." Somebody should interrupt him from counting his money long enough to explain to him that Israel is a nation not a "tribe."

Another gem from Soros. "There are some people in the Bush administration who have the same mentality as Arafat or Sharon." Thank goodness for those who do think like Sharon! But to equate our administration's leaders with a thug and murderer is beyond the pale. He ought to dwell on the fact that if he were a citizen of any one of the dictatorships that now threaten Israel and he equated one of its leadership with a common criminal he probably would soon find himself headless.

The world, with all its technological improvement has not changed in its psyche. Anti-Semitism still walks much of the land, a seething venom under a facade of racial acceptance and equality. Three things are certain: death, taxes and anti-Semitism.

The ovens, grown cold over the last sixty years are there, waiting only for a spark to be fired up. The only thing in this regard that is different now from then, is that now there is a State that Jews can turn to, that righteous countries can morally and practically support, a State that even if it were abandoned by the whole world could defend itself and be a haven for all Jews.

If the unhappy day ever comes when Israel is deserted by the rest of the world, Mr. Soros should understand that all the conversion in the world, as his mother did, or all the passing as a non-Jew, as he did to survive World War II, will not help. The ovens did not distinguish between rich or poor. Nor should all of Soros' money give him a "pass" when it comes to public repudiation. If you put a pile of cash upon a donkey's back underneath it, he is still a donkey.

Time for a Little Perspective

Source: "Time for a Little Perspective" by Mike Gallagher May 5, 2004

Time for a Little Perspective

I think it's time for a little perspective over the furor and hysteria regarding the alleged mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers in Iraq.

As you hear the howls of anger and condemnation, I want you to try something: pretend that the ultimate fate that these Iraqi prisoners received was brutal death, not being forced to pose for photographs. All of a sudden, the outrage starts to make sense. In other words, the reaction would be fitting for a massacre or mass killing.

But the fate of THESE Iraqi prisoners, alleged bad guys who have been part of the murderous bunch of insurgents responsible for killing Americans and other members of the coalition fighting the war on terror? They were embarrassed. A handful of solders humiliated them. They lost their dignity. I suppose they had their self-esteem compromised.

Funny, I don't remember a lot of war critics being too worried about the self-esteem issues or humiliation that the families of American contractors felt when their loved ones were ambushed, slaughtered and hung over a bridge like pigs. Come to think of it, in some circles there is considerable more anger and protestation over what a few soldiers did to Iraqi prisoners with a Polaroid than there's been over the killing of American soldiers and civilians in Iraq. And that's despicable.

I watched in amazement as a Democrat from New Mexico, U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman, was angrily railing against this incident on NBC's "Today Show" this morning. His equally enraged interviewer, Matt Lauer, asked him who was to blame for this "scandal." Bingaman began to say, "The President." After saying, "The Pr..." he stopped himself and said, "the highest levels of our government." He went on to blast Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for lapses in policy and judgment.

It's obvious that Democrats are ready to pounce upon the Bush administration over anything unpleasant that comes out of this brutal, ugly war on terror.

They're going to try and score political points over something like this, hoping to turn the voters against our President and this just and noble war.

Frankly, trying to turn a war into political opportunities while Americans are fighting and dying for our country seems a lot more offensive than humiliating a few Iraqis with some inappropriate photographs that led to their "humiliation."

Besides, if I had a choice between being shot to death, burned, my corpse being dragged through the streets and hung over a bridge, or having to pose naked in front of a few soldiers, I couldn't get my clothes off fast enough.

(Mike Gallagher's radio show is nationally syndicated by the Salem Radio Network - he's currently working on his first book, "Surrounded by Idiots -- Fighting Liberal Lunacy in America" to be published by William Morrow, a Harper Collins imprint).

Joyce Notes: Radio talker Mike Gallagher wrote this great article about the Democrat's uproar over the current controversy of the U.S. Department of Defense taking some pictures of alive Iraqi insurgents in humilating positions. Gallagher wrote: It's obvious that Democrats are ready to pounce upon the Bush administration over anything unpleasant that comes out of this brutal, ugly war on terror... They're going to try and score political points over something like this, hoping to turn the voters against our President and this just and noble war...Frankly, trying to turn a war into political opportunities while Americans are fighting and dying for our country seems a lot more offensive than humiliating a few Iraqis with some inappropriate photographs that led to their "humiliation."...Besides, if I had a choice between being shot to death, burned, my corpse being dragged through the streets and hung over a bridge, or having to pose naked in front of a few soldiers, I couldn't get my clothes off fast enough. Besides Gallagher's article you might want to check out and even donate something to Citizens United at so that they can get YOUR message through in radio and television commericals this year.

Rudy Giuliani Says Kerry Taking Cues From Michael Moore


Rudy Giuliani Says Kerry Taking Cues From Michael Moore

( - Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has criticized Sen. John Kerry for saying that if he (Kerry) were president, he would not have continued reading to school children when America was under attack. In his "Fahrenheit 911" film, Michael Moore showed President Bush continuing to read to Florida schoolchildren for seven minutes, after learning that the World Trade Center had been attacked. On Thursday, Giuliani accused Kerry of taking his cue from Michael Moore: "John Kerry must be frustrated in his campaign if he is armchair-quarterbacking based on cues from Michael Moore," the New York Post quoted the former mayor as saying. On the campaign trail Thursday, Kerry commented, "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to...and I would have attended to it," Kerry said. Said Giuliani, "John Kerry is an indecisive candidate [with] an inconsistent position on the War on Terror, who voted against funding for our troops and who cannot give a clear answer on his position concerning the decision to remove Saddam Hussein."

Joyce Notes: Mayor Giuliani hit the nail on the head. Lurch you're caught red-handed following Hollywood liberal and socialist extremeist Michael Moore. It's obvious that you are a big fan of his and are a follower of his from your latest rhetoric. What I would like to see is Lurch a.k.a. Kerry holding a public press conference embracing his endorsements from his loyal extremists Moore and billionaire socialist George Soros (is he even American??). That would be the day.

9 Things You Should Never Say in an Interview

Source: MSN Careers with "9 Things You Should Never Say in an Interview" by Jennifer Rae Atkins

9 Things You Should Never Say in an Interview

Avoid the following interview pitfalls as part of a strategy that sells your strengths and assets.

1. "What does your company do?"
Ask questions that show you're well informed and eager to work at the company, not those to which you should already know the answers, or that can be easily gleaned from the company's website or annual report.

2. "My salary requirements are very flexible."
Compensation is often the touchiest subject in an interview. Certainly you want to know what a company will pay, and interviewers want to know what you're willing to take. It's a negotiation, not a game. When push comes to shove, you should be willing at least to give a range, even if you have to be broad and say, for example, "I'm looking for something between $30,000 and $60,000."

But don't pretend to be flexible when you aren't. If you're worried that your salary requirements are too high for the job, you may need to do some serious thinking about how low you're willing to go. Don't sell yourself short, but ask yourself how much you honestly think you're worth. Do research about what similar jobs pay and what salaries are like in the region. If a company comes back with too low an offer, you can always try and negotiate up.

3. "It would be hella cool to get jiggy with this job."
Maybe that is how all of your friends talk (and it's become a habit with you), but it's not the way you should speak during a job interview. Using slang is a serious turnoff for interviewers. You may be articulate, intelligent, and confident, but like, you sure won't sound that way.

4. "Bill Gates himself offered me a $100,000 bonus."
Don't lie! You'll be found out, and you'll regret it. Someday when you least expect it, someone somewhere will discover that you didn't really increase sales by 999 percent in six months. Interviewers know you'll probably exaggerate a little to sell yourself; but don't cross the line between exaggeration and out-and-out lying.

5. "In five years, I see myself on a boat in the Caribbean."
When interviewers ask you about long-term goals, they want an answer that relates to the company. Telling them that you really want to be living on a farm (unless you're applying for an agricultural job) isn't going to convince them that you're an ambitious professional in your chosen field.

Even if you don't plan to stick around long, say something that reflects a commitment to the position and the company. This may seem to contradict the previous exhortation about lying, but try to think of it as a rhetorical question. You might still be at the same company in five years, right?

6. "Sorry, I don't know how to do that."
Rather than admitting that you don't have a specific skill, stress that you're a fast learner and are excited about the possibility of acquiring new skills. Most companies would rather hire an enthusiastic, smart person who needs to be trained than someone who already has the required skills but isn't as eager to learn.

7. "You see, I just went through a painful divorce. . . ."
Even if an interviewer starts getting personal, don't follow suit. You may think you're being open and honest, but you're really just coming across as unprofessional, unfocused, and disrespectful. Keep it businesslike and polite.

8. "What can your company do for me?"
Interviewers hate arrogance and selfishness. They want to know why they should hire you. Stress the contributions you can make. Tell them about how your efforts helped previous employers. Don't start asking about raises, bonuses, and promotions right away.

Remember, you're the one being interviewed, and while you should use the opportunity to get your questions answered, you shouldn't make it seem as if you'll be doing them a favor if they hire you.

9. "I left my last job because my boss was a real jerk."
Bad-mouthing your previous employer is possibly the dumbest thing you can do during an interview. Even if your last company was a chaotic hellhole, your boss was a monster, your coworkers were Martians, and you got paid in tin cans, say that you left to look for more responsibility, you wanted greater opportunity for advancement, or you were just ready for a change.

More Relationship Stuff

Here is the link:

Bill's comments: Are you with the right one? Answer these four questions HONESTLY, and you should know for sure. Back to you, Dr. Phil!

Meant For Each Other? Four Questions To Ask Yourself
By Laura Snyder

Lust is so easy to recognize. But real, honest-to-goodness love? Well, that's a little trickier. Fortunately, we've got four clues that can help you recognize whether your honey is just a good time, or something even better.

Are you in there?

It's easy to lose yourself in lust. But for real love to take place, you still have to be yourself, living your own life, with your own separate interests and dreams. Are you able to be yourself around your sweetie (or do you find yourself biting your tongue to keep from saying something you know will be met with disapproval)? It takes trust to be able to reveal your not-so-good side. Have you got it?

Are you fighting fair?

It's not whether or not you fight - because you will - it's how you do it. Do you both address the issues that irk you or do you ignore them? Do either of you resort to down-and-dirty fighting tactics (getting defensive, name-calling, etc)? Are you keeping a record of who "wins" and "loses"? Or do you use these "discussions" as an opportunity to get what's bothering you out in the open and come to a mutually satisfying solution?

Are you on the same page?

It's not enough that you both love the same movies and music. Do you have a general idea of your potential partner's values, goals, and what's important to them? Don't fret if there are differences in your ideals. Just determine whether they're non-issues (he's a dog person, you're a cat person), complimentary (he's a morning person...but he makes you coffee), or something that might cause friction down the road (like differences in the desire to have kids), so you know what to expect.

Are you cared for?

Real lovers play for the same team. Is your mate there for you when you need them, cheering you on when you face challenges, picking you up when you fall, and just generally making you feel nurtured?

Bill's Final Words: As a former friend and radio personality used to say, "If you really like somebody, you should tell them!" I agree whole-heartedly. Don't hesitate to say it, because you will never know if you don't. Even the shyest individual will muster up some courage to say something, provided there is no outside interference.

re: Telemarketers

I found this the other day while surfing. This would apply to those who are not on the DO NOT CALL lists.

Here is the link:

20 ways to monkey with telemarketersCompiled by •

Telemarketers are the ones we love to hate. Not only are their calls unsolicited and annoying, but they seem to come just as you are sitting down to eat or hopping into the shower.
What do you do? Hang up on the caller or politely decline to listen? Get mad?
Some people have made an art of playing with the telemarketers and getting a few chuckles along the way. We asked you to send in your clever responses to telemarketers' calls. Here are the best of the pranks.
Speak to the little lady of the houseWe have a 5-year-old daughter who loves to talk. If I answer the phone and discover a telemarketer on the other end, I just quietly hand the phone to our daughter ... and let the fun begin!
Give them the man of the houseWhen they ask for the man of the house, I ask them to hold; then I put my 2-year-old son on the phone.
Have I got a deal for youInterrupt the telemarketer's sales pitch and ask them if they would like to buy something from you (could be anything that you're selling). That will usually get them to end the call.

"I do." Ask the telemarketer to marry you. Seriously, this will probably shock them and they won't know what to say.
You have reached my voicemailSay: "Hello." (Wait on them to start talking.) "I'm sorry we can't come to the phone right now. Please leave a message. Beep."
Funny you called "You know, I was just thinking about (doing, buying) just that very same thing. So, I said to myself, 'Self, why don't you just (do, buy) it and get over it.' To my amazement, self replied with a loud, 'GO FOR IT!'" (Keep talking to take control of the conversation, never letting the telemarketer speak so he or she can't actually try to sell you anything.) "Well, me and myself will discuss it more and we'll get back to you."
From a country song"I'd love to, but my wife just left me, she cut the tires on my truck, I had to bury my dog, and I only have half a Bud Light bottle left. I'm not worried about the rest, but if you start selling beer, give me a call."
Have you planned for the future?When I see "out of area" on the caller ID, I answer the phone with the name of a made-up insurance company. Then I try to sell the person life insurance. I'll ask questions like, "What if something happened to you?" or "Are you sure your final needs can be met?" Usually, they end up hanging up on me.
Reply in gibberishAnswer the phone in a pretend foreign language.
She's not … hereI have told people that the person they were asking for was hideously mangled in a train wreck. If they ask for my wife, I sometimes say that she recently left me, then tell the caller she sounds cute and ask her out.
And you are?I'd love to hear more about why you are calling me, but I'm in the middle of dinner right now. Why don't you give me your home number so I can call and irritate you in the middle of your meal?
Keep talkingRather than find creative ways in which to hang up on telemarketers, I decided many years ago that I could provide a public service by keeping them on the phone for as long as possible. The longer they spend with me, the less time they have to call other people. Often, they'll hang up on me before I can hang up on them!
What did I win?Sometimes I'll act as if the sales call is one to inform me that I've won a prize. I'll exclaim, "I've never won anything in my life!" Then I'll ask for details on when and how my prize will be sent to me. And no matter how many times it's explained to me, I will never quite understand that I've won nothing and instead am being asked to buy something.
I'm already connectedIf I'm being offered a loan or mortgage refinance, I'll ask if it can "fly under the radar," because I have a large loan at a very high interest rate from "family" who would become very upset if I obtained loans elsewhere. I'll suggest that we meet somewhere discreet to discuss details.
Ever hear of women's lib?My wife is especially perturbed when they ask for the "Man of the House." So she then starts talking in hushed tones and saying, "Oh, no sir. The Master isn't here. He keeps me locked down here in the basement when he goes out, so I can't check for him now."
Phone flirtingI am big on the phone flirting. Use your best Joey voice from "Friends": "How you doin?" or, "You sound really attractive. Do you call here often?"
How long do you have?Say: "Sorry to interrupt you. I really want to talk to you, but can you hold on for a few minutes? I just need to finish up the call from the last telemarketer. He called me about an hour ago."
What's it worth?"Now before I listen to your pitch, there are a few things we need to cover. My minimum rate for listening is $35 an hour. Of course, I can offer you upgrades that give you additional benefits, as well as a greater chance that I may buy what you are selling. The deluxe package is $55 per hour and offers a 2 percent chance of purchase, and the super-deluxe package is $75 per hour, and offers a 3 percent chance of purchase. Now before we get to that, I will need you to send in an application as well as a minimal application fee of $55. You will also need to include with your payment a $35 payment for a credit report. Once your credit has been approved, I will be able to accept your non-refundable good-faith security deposit, which I require, of $100. After closing, and you have paid my standard closing costs of $250, we will then be able to proceed with your sales pitch. Can I sign you up?"
Call the cult "Sorry I can't talk, I am about to cut off my tongue to achieve ultimate power."
It's good enough for CubaI always get them to scream, "Show me the money!" like in "Jerry Maguire."
Thank you to all the readers who sent in replies. Let's keep them coming. If you have a funny reply to telemarketers, send them to

-- Posted: Nov. 13, 2003

I apologize if it is difficult to comprehend. I just did a copy and paste for this.

Friday, August 06, 2004

John Podhoretz's Book: 'Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane'

Source: "'Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane'" by Phil Brennan
February 23, 2004

It appears that Joan Walsh of thought she was a pretty smart cookie, parading her Scholastic Aptitude Test score of 1200 as proof. Like many of her media colleagues she considered President Bush’s intellectual level far below her own.

It came as something of a shock for her to learn that the 17-year-old Bush’s SAT score was the same as hers – 1200 – and scored at a time when that was a very hard level to reach.

In his new book, "Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane," widely acclaimed New York Post columnist John Podhoretz uses this story to hammer away at the common liberal misconception that this man who learned to fly a complicated and dangerous piece of machinery – the F-102 fighter – was rated as a superior pilot, got an MBA, ran a Major League Baseball team and made millions for his partners, and won two terms as governor of Texas is really quite stupid.

Podhoretz demolishes this Bush-is-a-moron myth, which he calls "Crazy Liberal Idea #1," and goes on to dismember seven other Crazy Liberal Ideas, doing so with a razor-sharp wit and driving his points home with the obvious relish that comes from skewering a very skewerable left.

George W. Bush, he writes, came into office believing he was put on Earth to do two things: to lead the United States into the third millenium with all its terrifying challenges and wondrous opportunities, and to drive liberals insane.

Bush, he adds, "is succeeding brilliantly at both."

His claim that Bush is one of the nation’s greatest presidents is bound to drive liberals mad, but he lays out a stunning profusion of the president’s accomplishments as proof of his contention.

In just three years, Bush has led the nation into two wars, ousted two of the world's most barbaric regimes, redirected U.S. foreign policy to confront the threat of rogue states possessing weapons of mass destruction, daringly embarked on a campaign to introduce democracy into the Middle East, and reconstructed both the military and the executive branch of government.

Moreover, as Podhoretz notes, he shoved two huge tax cuts down the throats of a Congress that traditionally has preferred to spend the people’s money rather than permit then to spend it themselves, and in the process revived an economy that began to slump at the end of the Clinton administration.

The List Goes On

Bush has run circles around the Democrats, co-opting many of their pet programs in such fields as education and health care. He has been deft in dealing with hot-button issues, seeking new ways to handle those that previously have defied all efforts of compromise between right and left.

"Taken together, all of Bush’s presidential qualities mark him as a genuine leader and a transformative figure on the American and world stages," Podhoretz insists. "Love him or hate him, respect him or revile him, George W. Bush has made extraordinary use of the powers of the presidency and has changed the United States, its government and the world in ways that have made an indelible mark on the new century."

We are indeed, he writes, "living in Bush Country."

Having dealt with Bush’s extraordinary record, Podhoretz now begins to enjoy himself chopping away at those eight crazy liberal ideas.

The first, that Bush is a moron, seems rooted in the president’s tendency to mangle the mother tongue. He believes that the "chattering classes" look down on Bush because he does not "accord with the reigning cultural affect. ..."

An Age of Cleverness

"We pride ourselves on self-aware displays of cleverness, constant references to popular culture and the latest trends and a hunger for sharing the trivia we know with others," he writes.

Bush, it seems, is simply not au fait with the things that really matter, such as the latest trends in culinary consumption, cinema and up-to-date slang. He recalls with satisfaction Bush's rejoinder to Chris Matthews when it was suggested that he claimed an abiding interest in the life of Winston Churchill simply to impress Churchill fan Matthews:

"Do you think that I’d take time out of my life to research what the hell you like?" he asked.

Podhoretz also reminds us that Democrats automatically label Republican presidents as dunces – Ike and Reagan especially were seen by the chatterers as less than bright.

He is unrelenting in demolishing those Crazy Liberal Ideas. He shows how asinine is idea #2 – that Bush is a puppet – and demonstrates convincingly that Bush is his own man.

What really controls W, in Podhoretz’s view, is a determination to put America back on the road to the shining city on the hill paved by Ronald Reagan. The author devotes a chapter to showing how W has worked to bring back Reaganism and explains that the two presidents have much in common.

The primary project of the Bush presidency is the completion of the political reconstruction of national politics, government and policy begun by Ronald Reagan in 1981. And this, he writes, is "doubtless what his partisan enemies fear most about him."

Crazy Liberal Idea #3: "Bush is a fanatic."

Podhoretz notes that W’s foes say he "is a reactionary both politically and theologically and that he is effecting a religious takeover of the United States and imposing his doctrinal fanaticism on the rest of the world."

Man of Faith

Nonsense, says Podhoretz. Bush is "an elected politician who happens to be religious," and as a man of faith he is informed by a powerful sense of right and wrong and good and evil." That, of course, is what upsets his paganistic critics, who believe there are no such categories as right and wrong or good and evil; everything is relative.

Crazy Liberal Idea #4: Bush is another Hitler, but not as talented.

The real insult here is that if Bush is Hitler, the United States is Nazi Germany. And that idea, he writes, is born from Europe’s "blind and unreasoning, ugly and unjust, foul and fetid hatred of America" and picked up by the Europhile chattering classes.

Podhoretz deals with other such provably idiotic charges as Crazy Liberal Idea # 5: Bush isn’t protecting the American people, #6: Bush wants to bankrupt the government, #7: Bush is a cowboy and #8: Bush is a liar.

As we head into the election, Podhoretz has shown us exactly how to deal with all the Crazy Liberal Ideas that constitute the Democratic Party’s real platform. All Democrats have in their political arsenal is a hodgepodge of crazy ideas, distortions and lies – and Podhoretz shows us how to disarm them easily.

Source: "The Democratic Party Platform: Hate Bush" by Phil Brennan February 24, 2004

Joyce Notes: Not surprising. The rabid Democrats are "scraping the bottom of the barrel" and in their desperation for more power they will viciously smear. It's obvious that the Democrat party is stuck in the world of pre-September 11th. They have no policy to propose other then the same old outdated stuff so they only flat-out oppose everything without offering any substitute. The Democrat's basicly whine and stamp their foot "NO!! It's my way [??] or no way!"

The Democratic Party Platform: Hate Bush

What is motivating the Democrats is not the economy or the war in Iraq but nothing other than sheer and irrational hatred of President Bush says John Podhoretz, author of "Bush Country – How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane."

In an exclusive interview with, Podhoretz tackled what he believes will be the Democrat’s strategy in their all out effort to defeat the President in November.

He cited the non-issue of the President's now well-documented service in the National Guard as one example.

"I think that the issue is part of the way in which the crazy liberal assaults on Bush which have been bubbling around in the swamps of anti-Bush madness, and ended up ultimately in the mouth of Michael Moore. It's a prime example of how the insane Bush hatred has made it from the fever swamps of the left into the mainstream."

The idea that that everything is wrong about somebody who served in the National Guard and got an honorable discharge is born out of nothing less than hatred, Podhoretz charged. "It's distasteful that even something as non-controversial as his service in the Guard should become the object of smears, of conspiracy theorizing and soto voce accusations of document destruction and dishonesty and string pulling."

Even more outrageous, he added are claims that Bush committed crimes that are punishable by death. "Michael Moore said that he was a deserter – that’s a crime punishable by death in the time of war, and Al Gore basically accused him of treason, which is also a crime punishable by death.

"There you have what is unbalanced, unhinged hatred of Bush bubbling up and becoming part of the general discussion."

Tragically, he says, the political strategy driving the issue has been partly successful for the last few weeks. "It's clearly thrown the White House on the defensive. As a political tactic you could say that it's the first successful one that Terry McAuliffe has ever been involved with.

"Lets us presume for the sake of argument that he did not serve in the National guard heroically. The standard now is that in the liberal political culture that once presumed that it was morally superior to have evaded service in Vietnam because the war was unjust, now expects a level of service in Vietnam that must only have been heroic in order to be legitimate.

"Which is like saying O.K., Bush was discharged honorably but what happened in Alabama? Why isn’t he in Alabama? And there’s John Kerry – look what he did. They have put themselves in a position of judging the degree and quality of Bush’s service, which is disgusting."

While accepting Kerry's commendable record of service in Vietnam, however, Podhoretz said he feels justified in judging his conduct after the war which involved "libeling and defaming hundreds of thousands of American fighting men by accusing them of committing non-existent war crimes and atrocities. Whatever George Bush has done in his life, he has never gone around talking about his countrymen in such a repugnant way."

Podhoretz commented on John Edwards' recent revival of the old canard that "Children are going to bed hungry" at a time when liberals are going around shrieking that there is an epidemic of obesity among America’s children.

"What you're dealing with here is a partisan effort to portray America in the era of George W. Bush as a desperately bad place that requires leadership change to save it. It’s up to the voters to determine when they hear nonsense like that if it is nonsense.

"I find it hard to believe that in a country where the economy is growing by more than 4 percent annually, where the unemployment rate is below 6 percent when in recessions it was at 7 and 10 percent – that this economy resembles the economy in the great depression. I don’t think the voters are that stupid.

"If you take the economic realities of the U.S. – that we have a median income of $47,000 a year - what you need to do to combat those facts is to create the rhetorical conditions for making the claim that this is a bad situation.

"So what you try to do if you're Edwards or Kerry is highlight economic uncertainties – so there's some manufacturing jobs lost – so some jobs are being outsourced. You try to convince people that the manufacturing job loss is a catastrophe and that the outsourcing is only the beginning of the destruction of the job base here in America."

Podhoretz cited the current economic facts the Democrats have to counter.

"There are 136 million people employed, which is more than have ever been employed in the history of the United States. There are 281 million people in the U.S. according to the last census. We have millions of illegal aliens working because Americans won’t do the jobs that illegal aliens are happy to take. So the actual number of employed is probably well over 140 million."

In an economy that grew in the third quarter by the fastest rate in 20 years, the Democrats have somehow to convince people that all this is bad, If they succeed, they will also have succeeded in convincing me that the American people are stupid. But the American people are not stupid."

Even the Democratic primary voters proved they aren't stupid, he said. "They had this moment where had to make a choice whether not they were going to march themselves down the road into total destruction by picking Howard Dean as their nominee, and they woke up and said 'no, we're not.'"

Another hurdle the Democrats face is the conviction of the American people that George Bush is a strong leader. "What they need to do is anything that could make him seem as if he isn't.

"They are going to hammer him on the fiction that he hasn’t told the truth, which is why they are desperate for these reports about 9/11 and the intelligence failure to come out so they could pore through them looking for sentences where they can say see he looks like he’s strong but actually he was worse than weak.

The campaign, he predicts is going to get "very very ugly because of the Bush hatred I wrote about in the book. There's going to be pressure from the Bush haters – malicious materials, rumors and stuff like that that is going to float to the surface and it’s going to be used against him."

Podhoretz concluded by warning his fellow conservatives who are unhappy with some of the Presidents policies and speaking out against him that they are doing the Democrat's dirty work for them.

Recommended Weblog Site

I just came across this weblog. I highly recommend it to all. It is called CLEAR and PRESENT DANGER


Vietnam Vets Speak Out on John Kerry

Source: "Vietnam Vets Speak Out on John Kerry"
July 5, 2004

Joyce Notes: Some important character testimonials from Lurch's a.k.a. Kerry's military "brothers" from the National Press Club. A hint--Swift Boat is not happy with the stiff deadbeat senator from Massachesetts.

Vietnam Vets Speak Out on John Kerry

Although John Kerry accumulated a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts in a relatively brief 4-month tour in Vietnam as a Swift Boat skipper, many of those who served on the combat patrol vessels in that era have come out swinging against the Democratic presidential candidate.
Last May about 25 of the vets -- organized into a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- went to the order on Kerry at a special press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

"We resent very deeply the false war crimes charges he made coming back from Vietnam in 1971 and repeated in the book "Tour of Duty." We think those cast an aspersion on all those living and dead, from our unit and other units in Vietnam. We think that he knew he was lying when he made the charges, and we think that they're unsupportable. We intend to bring the truth about that to the American people.

We believe, based on our experience with him, that he is totally unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief."

– John O'Neill, spokesman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command."

– Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

"During Lt.(jg) Kerry's tour, he was under my command for two or three specific operations, before his rapid exit. Trust, loyalty and judgment are the key, operative words. His turncoat performance in 1971 in his grubby shirt and his medal-tossing escapade, coupled with his slanderous lines in the recent book portraying us that served, including all POWs and MIAs, as murderous war criminals, I believe, will have a lasting effect on all military veterans and their families.

Kerry would be described as devious, self-absorbing, manipulative, disdain for authority, disruptive, but the most common phrase that you'd hear is 'requires constant supervision.'"

– Captain Charles Plumly, USN (retired)

"Thirty-five years ago, many of us fell silent when we came back to the stain of sewage that Mr. Kerry had thrown on us, and all of our colleagues who served over there. I don't intend to be silent today or ever again. Our young men and women who are serving deserve no less."

– Andrew Horne

"In my specific, personal experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Senator Kerry. If I had, it would have been my obligation to report them in writing to a higher authority, and I would certainly have done that. If Senator Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities or, as he described them, 'war crimes,' he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind. That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors with no regard for the truth makes him totally unqualified to serve as Commander-in-Chief."

– Jeffrey Wainscott

"I signed that letter because I, too felt a deep sense of betrayal that someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer in the United States Navy would abandon his group here (points to group photo) to join this group here (points to VVAW protest photo), and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing.

It is a fact that in the entire Vietnam War we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home... and at home, John Kerry was the Field General."

– Robert Elder

"My daughters and my wife have read portions of the book 'Tour of Duty.' They wanted to know if I took part in the atrocities described. I do not believe the things that are described happened.

Let me give you an example. In Brinkley's book, on pages 170 to 171, about something called the 'Bo De massacre' on November 24th of 1968... In Kerry's description of the engagement, first he claimed there were 17 servicemen that were wounded. Three of us were wounded. I was the first..."

– Joseph Ponder

"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound -- he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom.

Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good old USA after 4 months and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his former shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people -- fishermen, in a lot of cases -- might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties."

– Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)

"Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations... of numerous criminal acts in violation of the law of war were cited by Kerry, disparaging those who had fought with honor in that conflict. Had war crimes been committed by US forces in Vietnam? Yes, but such acts were few and far between. Yet Lt. Kerry have numerous speeches and testimony before Congress inappropriately leading his audiences to believe that what was only an anomaly in the conduct of America's fighting men was an epidemic. Furthermore, he suggested that they were being encouraged to violated the law of war by those within the chain of command.

Very specific orders, on file at the Vietnam archives at Texas Tech University, were issued by my father [Admiral Elmo Zumwalt] and others in his chain of command instructing subordinates to act responsibly in preserving the life and property of Vietnamese civilians."

– Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, USMC (retired)

"We look at Vietnam... after all these years it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry's legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry's using his Swift boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions."

– Barnard Wolff

"In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage.

When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family -- my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors -- he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities."

– David Wallace

"I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry.

In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it."

– Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

"During the Vietnam War I was Task Force Commander at An Thoi, and my tour of duty was 13 months, from the end of Tet to the beginning of the Vietnamization of the Navy units.

Now when I went there right after Tet, I was restricted in my movements. I couldn't go much of anyplace because the Vietcong controlled most of the area. When I left, I could go anywhere I wanted, just about. Commerce was booming, the buses were running, trucks were going, the waterways were filled with sampans with goods going to market, but yet in Kerry's biography he says that our operations were a complete failure. He also mentions a formal conference with me, to try to get more air cover and so on. That conference never happened..."

– Captain Adrian Lonsdale, USCG (retired)

"I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done.

This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight."

– William Shumadine

"In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness. "

– Richard O'Meara

"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"

– Steven Gardner

"I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I'm here today to express the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities.

All I can say is when I leave here today, I'm going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it's not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best."

– Robert Brant

"I never saw, heard of, or participated in any Swift boat crews killing cattle, poisoning crops, or raping and killing civilians as charged by John Kerry, both in his book and in public statements. Since we both operated at the same time, in the same general area, and on the same missions under the same commanders, it is hard to believe his claims of atrocities and poor planning of Sea Lord missions.

I signed this letter because I feel that he used Swift boat sailors to proclaim his antiwar statements after the war, and now he uses the same Swift boat sailors to support his claims of being a war hero. He cannot have it both ways, and we are here to ask for full disclosure of the proof of his claims."

– James Steffes

A Shallow Thought

I was on my way into work this morning, and I noticed that the vehicle in front of me had two bumper stickers on it. One said, "MEAN PEOPLE SUCK", and the other said something like, . (I hope that is not a real link.)

Talk about a contradiction. Sorry folks, I was NOT behind the Kerry/Edwards Campaign bus.

Can Anyone Help Me?

Do they still make honey butter flavored popcorn? I really like it, and it is Ashley's favorite. The problem I have had is that I can not find it on the shelf. Suggestions, anyone? Thanks in advance!


Gone by morning

Source: The Washington Times Inside The Beltway By John McCaslin
August 6, 2004

Gone by morning
A most ear-opening interview this week with John Kerry's former commanding officer in Vietnam, who told the Kevin McCullough Show in New York that he had asked Mr. Kerry to leave his unit in Vietnam after the issuance of his third Purple Heart.

Former Navy Lt. Thomas Wright said he frequently was forced to confront Mr. Kerry over willful disobedience to orders while aboard Swift Boat patrols.

He told radio host Kevin McCullough that on frequent occasions Mr. Kerry would randomly fire at "things he thought were moving" along the shoreline. The lieutenant stated that protocol was to fire only when the unit was receiving hostile fire. He explained that part of the patrol's goal was to develop contacts with noncombatants living along the rivers.

He said when confronted about his defiance, Mr. Kerry would either claim he didn't hear the orders or insist that he thought "he saw something" moving.

The former commanding officer's boldest claim was that after Mr. Kerry received his third Purple Heart, he and two other ranking officers flat-out asked the now Democratic presidential candidate to leave his unit because his behavior put the group in greater vulnerability and danger.

Mr. Kerry, he said, replied that he would not leave, "but was out of there by morning."

Joyce Notes: Sounds like Lurch a.k.a. Kerry is a cronic flip-flopper going back to his days as a calculating cowboy stiff with a trigger-finger out on the seas of Vietnam. He's by far NO WAR HERO. Lurch is a disgrace during and especially after his four months in the Navy. I repeat: Lurch is by far NO WAR HERO and should not in the least be confused with Arizona Senator John McCain who delayed an earlier release from his captors so that he can return home with other Americans held hostage with him. Lurch is a wimpy stiff with money bags, as well as bags under his eyes when his Botox treatments wear off, that served the minimum to avoid the draft. If this wasn't a political year and if Lurch wasn't running for office, retroactive charges should be filed against him for Dereliction of Duty.

Barbara and Jenna's Journal

Keep up with First Daughters Barbara and Jenna Bush's appearances on the campaign trail this year through their own blog at

Thursday, August 05, 2004

Kerry: Reagan Was Too Tough on Terrorists

Source: "Kerry: Reagan Was Too Tough on Terrorists"
June 8, 2004

Kerry: Reagan Was Too Tough on Terrorists

Beyond trying to torpedo Ronald Reagan's efforts to free Central America from the Soviet threat, Sen. John Kerry objected when Reagan tried to punish terrorists who killed Americans, arguing that a 1986 retaliatory bombing raid against Col. Moammar Gadhafi was too harsh.

After Reagan ordered air strikes on Ghadafi's presidential compound as punishment for Lybia's involvement in a Berlin disco bombing that had killed a U.S. soldier, Kerry wrote to the White House complaining that the response was "disproportional."

"While I stated that my initial inclination was to support the President," Kerry began, "I pointed out that two essential tests had to be met in determining whether or not the U.S. action was appropriate. First, the United States had to have irrefutable evidence directly linking the [Gadhafi] regime to a terrorist act and, second, our response should be proportional to that act."

Kerry's revealing words, first uncovered in February by radio host Sean Hannity for his recent book, "Deliver Us from Evil," painted Reagan as an out-of-control cowboy whose reckless strategy was bound to fail.

"It is obvious that our response was not proportional to the disco bombing and even violated the Administration's own guidelines to hit clearly defined terrorist targets, thereby minimizing the risk to innocent civilians," he complained.

Kerry said it was a "mistake" for Reagan to have targeted the "head of state of another country - no matter how repugnant we find the leader."

"We are not going to solve the problem of terrorism with this kind of retaliation," he warned. "There are numerous other actions we can take, in concert with our allies, to bring significant pressure to bear on countries supporting or harboring terrorists."

Here's the full text of Kerry's letter blasting Reagan as it appears in Hannity's book "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism":

"While I stated that my initial inclination was to support the President, I pointed out that two essential tests had to be met in determining whether or not the U.S. action was appropriate. First, the United States had to have irrefutable evidence directly linking the Qaddafi regime to a terrorist act and, second, our response should be proportional to that act. The evidence was irrefutable that the Qaddafi regime was behind the Berlin disco bombing which claimed the lives of two innocent victims and injured 200 others.

"However, as to the second test, it is obvious that our response was not proportional to the disco bombing and even violated the Administration's own guidelines to hit clearly defined terrorist targets, thereby minimizing the risk to innocent civilians. I believe it was a mistake for us to select as targets areas of heavy civilian concentration, as well as to include the family and home of the head of state of another country - no matter how repugnant we find the leader.

"The fact that the bombing resulted in the deaths of at least 17 civilians certainly undermined the Administration's own justification for the raid. Beyond this point, however, is the fact that we are not going to solve the problem of terrorism with this kind of retaliation. There are numerous other actions we can take, in concert with our allies, to bring significant pressure to bear on countries supporting or harboring terrorists."

Joyce Notes: THE END OF KERRY. Evidently Democrat candidate Lurch the stiff, wants the United States to coddle terrorists instead of put them out of business like President George W. Bush and his 1980s predessor former President Ronald Reagan do. Lurch would ultimately kiss up to them and make the United States vulnerable to blackmail by weaking our defense. If this doesn't spell trouble to you, then you should be living in the Europe where they follow weak defense and are always crumbling under terrorist blackmail. Not a good position to be in, but that's where Kerry wants to take the United States.

Kerry's French connection

Source: The Washington Times Inside Politics By Greg Pierce January 29, 2004

French connection
Former French Environment Minister Brice Lalonde said yesterday that he supports his first cousin Sen. John Kerry in the bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

"My cousin's a nice guy, I'd like him to win," Mr. Lalonde told Agence France-Presse. "We saw each other six months ago and even then I was hoping he would be in the running and take the top job."

Mr. Lalonde, who served in France's Socialist Party government from 1988 to 1991 and was the founder of one of France's green parties, Generation Ecologie, on Tuesday revealed that he and Mr. Kerry were related.

"Our two mums were sisters, from a family that during [World War II] spread out and dispersed to the five continents," he told Europe 1 radio.

Joyce Notes: Senator John F'n Kerry, the "French-looking" foul-mouthed Lurch, apparently isn't called "French-looking" for nothing. With a first cousin from France belonging to the French Socialist Party endorsing him proves that Ketchupman is running for high office in the wrong country. With your rhetoric, France is where you belong John.

"Kerry's record" & "Kerry's fault"

Source: The Washington Times Inside Politics By Greg Pierce
February 10, 2004

Kerry's record
The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial, notes that likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry recently disparaged President Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War, likening it to draft-dodging.

"The far more intriguing story here is why Mr. Kerry is playing this Vietnam-service card. This is the same John Kerry who declared in 1992 that Bill Clinton's draft-avoidance record should be out of political bounds. His precise words, defending Mr. Clinton against an attack from fellow Democrat Bob Kerrey at the time, were that 'We do not need to divide America over who served and how.' Why does he now want to assail Mr. Bush for service that was far more extensive than Mr. Clinton's?" the newspaper asked

"The transparent answer is that the Senator is trying to use his Vietnam biography as a political shield against his national-security voting record....

"We rather doubt this gambit will work, and it shouldn't. A candidate's service history is one window on his character, but far more important is his judgment on the major security issues of his time. In Mr. Kerry's case, he has taken the dovish side of nearly every foreign-policy debate since he entered public life.

"After fighting in Vietnam, he returned to lead the protests against that war and urge the U.S. withdrawal that turned Indochina over to Communist rule for a generation. He was in favor of the nuclear freeze movement in the 1980s that would have frozen the Cold War in place with a Soviet advantage. He denounced the invasion of Grenada in 1983, though he now cites it as an example of a use of force he favors. He also opposed U.S. support for anti-Communist movements in Central America in the 1980s that helped bring democracy to Nicaragua and elsewhere.

"These policy instincts have held even after the Soviet collapse vindicated the Ronald Reagan strategy that Mr. Kerry opposed. The senator voted against the first Gulf War, arguing that Saddam Hussein could be contained without force. But in 2002, he voted to give this President Bush the power to disarm Saddam, only to oppose a year later the $87 billion to finish the job. We'd argue that these votes say more about the policies and judgment of a future President Kerry than does his Navy career."

Joyce Notes: Kerry is such a double-talking, wishy-washy, go where the wind blows, spineless, hypocrite as evidenced in his frequent flip-flopping or unpopular positions (or gambles) he took on the above on our national security. This guy can't even be trusted to hang a picture straight or tell you what the day of the week is.

Source: The Washington Times Inside The Beltway By John McCaslin February 10, 2004

Kerry's fault
A former aide to President Clinton is suggesting that John Kerry and the anti-Vietnam War organization he once led were the real reasons Republicans broke into Watergate in 1972.

Bob Weiner, the 1971-72 Youth Voter Registration director for the Young Democrats office at the Watergate headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and a White House staffer for six years, told this columnist yesterday that he has re-examined Watergate hearing volumes held by the Library of Congress.

He points out that Watergate burglar James McCord testified that the DNC office was broken into because its staff was "working closely with violence groups." Upon further questioning, he repeatedly named the Kerry-led Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which he accused of being "a violence-oriented group."

Joyce Notes: Since finding out that Kerry led Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), a "voilence-oriented group" he now looks more like Louis Farakkahn, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson more then the Massachusetts Governor and former presidental candidate that he was Lieutenant Governor to, Michael Dukakis.

"Playing dodge ball" Inside Politics - The Washington Times July 23, 2004

Source: The Washington Times - Inside Politics by Greg Pierce July 23, 2004

Playing dodge ball
"John Kerry ditched adviser Sandy Berger over the 'Socks Docs' probe, but is stonewalling questions about another national security adviser whose credibility is taking much flak — Bush-basher Joe Wilson," the New York Post's Deborah Orin writes.

"Wilson, a former U.S. diplomat, probably did more damage to Bush's credibility than any other Kerry ally by setting the stage for a year of charges that 'Bush lied' over whether Saddam Hussein was angling to get yellowcake uranium from the African nation of Niger. But a bipartisan Senate intelligence panel report painted Wilson as seriously truth-challenged — and even Wilson's own wife no longer backs up his story, according to a panel member," Miss Orin said.

"Wilson claimed his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with getting him sent on a CIA mission to Niger, but she pleaded amnesia and told the panel's staff: 'I honestly do not recall if I suggested it to my boss.' "

"Lott's Line" Inside Politics - The Washington Times July 30, 2004

Source: The Washington Times - Inside Politics by Greg Pierce July 30, 2004

Lott's line
"U.S. Sen. Trent Lott fired up Neshoba County fair-goers Wednesday when he branded Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry 'a French-speaking socialist from Boston, Massachusetts, who's more liberal than Ted Kennedy,' " the Clarion-Ledger of Jackson, Miss., reports."

It was a line the Mississippi Republican said he'd worked on for a while, and it ignited loud applause from hundreds of Mississippians gathered at Founders' Square [in Philadelphia, Miss.], hub of the 115th annual fair," reporter Andy Kanengiser writes.

"Near cabins with signs like 'Trapp Troop' and 'King's Kastle,' and with Bush-Cheney stickers popping up everywhere, Lott ripped Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. "

As some in the crowd at 'Mississippi's Giant House Party' snacked on ice cream sandwiches, Lott said America is waging a war on terrorism and 'you don't want to change horses in the middle of the stream.' "

Lott referred to the Kerry-Edwards ticket as 'waffle and grits.' He called it history's 'most liberal ticket for president of the United States.' "


Hi, again. I am proud to announce an addition to the Phillips Philes. I am adding my friend Joyce as a contributor. I hope that you enjoy her outlook on daily life.

Please welcome Joyce along, everybody!