“America is the land of the free because of the brave.”
Mike Anderson, Gold Star Dad whose son was killed in Fallujah in December, 2004, C-SPAN, 9/16/07

A New Low
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates described MoveOn.org’s “General Betray Us” ad as “despicable.” Quite so, also a new low even for this group of crackpots. Please check out this brilliant graphic depiction of what it might have been like had MoveOn.org been around 65 years ago.

Speaking of new lows, though, in connection with this ad, I haven’t been so enraged watching an honorable, brilliant public servant oozing integrity and with more character in his or her baby toe nail than these pompous gasbags in Congress have in their whole stinky bodies, enduring insults and outright character assassination since Judge Janice Rogers Brown had to listen to Dick “Eddie Haskell” Durbin’s idiotic blathering. This prosecution of General Petraeus was worse, though because here we had this exceptional, brave soldier actually being called a liar BY A CLINTON! Are you kidding me?! What’s next—being called being called drunk by Britney Spears? (She really needs to watch “Animal House[tag].” Fat, drunk and stupid IS no way to go through life as it turns out.) Speaking of stinky gasbags, when Barack Hussein Obama interrogated General Petraeus he consumed 6 of the 7 alloted minutes with the “question” he was asking (actually a lecture over how General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have failed). At least he didn’t claim that he hadn’t seen the MoveOn.org ad the way John Edwards did. Let me get this straight: he doesn’t know if the Cuban health care system is government-run, and he hasn’t seen the ad that everyone in the country is talking about? That’s what he expects us to believe? Who does he think we are—one of his moronic juries?

In other Puggle news, Obama weighed in on the decision by a Louisiana appellate court to vacate the felony conviction of a black teenager, on of the defendants that Jesse Jackson and his band of race-baiting “activists,” who are on the scene—natch!—have dubbed the “Jena 6.” Please don’t get me wrong: I haven’t paid a lot of attention to this case, but I’ve seen enough of Jesse and friends over the years to know that it’s probably not about the hideous slough of racial hatred that is their America. Apparently it involves some foolishness about who gets to sit under what tree at a high school. Quick show of hands—who thinks that these kids have too much time on their hands? If they spent their time doing homework instead of wasting time with this sort of foolishness, they’d have less time to fight over something this pointless and idiotic. That’s what the grownups should be telling them instead of trying to stoke the “racial consciousness” that is their stock in trade. One of those stokers, Sen. Obama said “When nooses are being hung in high schools in the 21st Century, it’s a tragedy,” Obama said. “It shows that we still have a lot of work to do as a nation to heal our racial tensions.” Right, especially since you can’t even go to the gas station without risking being shot, right? Not only that, but here we go with another OJ trial. Oh the humanity!

He went on to say, “And the way to do that is to make history and prove that we are no longer the evil, racist country that will never completely shed the stain of slavery, but can move toward making it up to all the victims by electing me.” No, not really. I made that last part up, but you know he and his loudmouth wife aren’t going to give up pumping up the white guilt. It’s far too effective, especially with the Oprah audience that could be leaning toward voting for Hillary, even though the Oprah herself has endorsed He Who Walks on Water.

Did somebody Say “Rupert Pupkin?”
Speaking of the Oprah, remember that James Frey doofus who made up all that baloney about his battle with drug addiction and convinced the Oprah, along with a sizeable portion of her audience that it was true? I mean PULEEZE. Had this book come out today, we might believe that he could board an aircraft covered in vomit, but in 2005? I don’t think so. In any case, the Wall Street Journal reported on his new novel that’s coming out in a few days. What’s fascinating is that even though he is being forced to disgorge some of his ill-gotten gains to settle a class action lawsuit, his fraudulent book is still a best-seller. As the Clintons have taught us so well, the secret to success is being a good liar and being impossible to embarrass.

Mr. BS Lives Up (Down) to His Name
I know he’s Mr. Barbra Streisand, but can anyone be this stupid? “Happy 9/11?” Is that really the phrase that springs to mind on that solemn anniversary? I know that many are going to attribute this breathtaking statement to the Left’s cluelessness about the meaning of the events of 9/11, and I don’t disagree. They don’t understand that on that day, intelligent grownup observers realized that the enemy had been at war with us for decades. We just didn’t know it. And about half of these Hollywood pinheads subscribe to the so-called “9/11 truth” movement, which bears as much relation to truth as the Cuban media’s latest report on Fidel Castro’s robust good health. That’s true, but let’s not discount the effects of dope and just general stupidity when discussing these arrested development cases. Without their money to insulate them from reality, most of them would be wandering the streets, drooling and digging their meals out of dumpsters.

Check out the Cackle
I don’t Hillary wanted this question from Bill Maher.

Cong. Jan Schakowsky in Another Proud Moment for Citizens of Illinois
Shouldn’t this airhead be visiting her old man in the can instead of going on Bill Maher’s show and making a horse’s hind end of herself?
Also on Maher’s latest show, Drew Carey had some great lines, albeit he also said some rather boneheaded things. As for the former:
“I’ve hardly ever meet a democrat Marine,” and (sarcastically) “I can’t wait for the government to take over health care.”

I Still Watch C-SPAN So You Don’t Have to File
You’ll note the quote at the beginning of this post.I did watch much of the C-SPAN coverage of the Hate America rally, and the counter-protest by patriots. If there’s anything worth posting, I’ll put the video up tomorrow.

Coming Up This Week: Emmy’s Tonight, Hillary’s Health Care Plan Tomorrow. Wait a second—haven’t we been there before?

I’ll be watching it all, so check back soon, and have a great week!

Trackback URL

This is really getting confusing. First, radical feminists have their ample underwear in a bundle over the FDA’s refusal to approve the morning-after pill, called “Plan B.” Leaving aside the obvious irony of a group of women whose experience with male-female relationships has to be strictly theoretical being so worried about the consequences of those pairings, if their physical appearance is any guide, now I find out that Plan B means something else. In fact, it means exactly the opposite according to the Chicago Sun-Times’ Leslie Baldacci. She writes “Single women call it Plan B—as in “baby,” with the emphasis on a plan.” That’s how she opens her sickening and discouraging story “Just Mom: Established, older women are tackling parenthood on their own,” Chicago Sun-Times, 12/6/05. How can I describe a story accompanied by photos of an adorable 2-year-old girl as sickening and discouraging? What’s the problem with her 41-year-old single mom deciding to have herself artificially inseminated to create this child? She can afford it, so what’s the harm? That seems to be the attitude that Ms. Baldacci has and it comes through loud and clear in statements like this one: “The social taboo against out-of-wedlock birth and single motherhood seems not to apply to this elite segment of unwed mothers. In their case, economics trumps old-fashioned morality. Their devotion to and financial responsibilities for their children defuse most criticism.”

Really, Leslie? That’s funny, but I didn’t realize that any amount of money could take the place of a father’s guidance, love and attention.

Consider the results of the following interesting studies:

“After taking into account race, socioeconomic status, sex, age, and ability, high school students from single-parent households were 1.7 times more likely to drop out than were their corresponding counterparts living with both biological parents.”
McNeal, Ralph B. Jr.”Extracurricular Activities and High School Dropouts.” Sociology of Education 68(1995): 62-81.

“In a study using a national probability sample of 1,636 young men and women, it was found that older boys and girls from female headed households are more likely to commit criminal acts than their peers who lived with two parents.”
Heimer, Karen.”Gender, Interaction, and Delinquency: Testing a Theory of Differential Social Control.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (1996): 39-61.

“A white teenage girl from an advantaged background is five times more likely to become a teen mother if she grows up in a single-mother household than if she grows up in a household with both biological parents.”
Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. “Facing the Challenges of Fragmented Families.” The Philanthropy Roundtable 9.1 (1995): 21.

In addition, check out these statistics on child abuse:
The rate of abuse is 14 times higher if the child is living with a biological mother who lives alone.

The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with a biological father who lives alone.

The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with biological parents who are not married but are cohabiting.

The rate of abuse is 33 times higher if the child is living with a mother who is cohabiting with another man.

Source: Robert Whelan, Broken Homes & Battered Children: A study of the relationship between child abuse and family type, Family Education Trust, London, 1993.

These stats come from a British study, but if I’m not mistaken, about a month ago, Ms. Baldacci’s own paper reported on a recent American study that had similar results. Somehow none of this information made it into her nauseating article romanticizing a lifestyle that should be discouraged. What’s that old saying they have in MSM newsrooms? Oh yeah: “This story is too good to check.”

I’m also stunned to learn that the idea that it’s wrong to deliberately bring a child into the world planning to deprive him of a father is “old-fashioned.” As far as their devotion, just how devoted can a woman with a high-powered career be to anything else? Most devoted parents I know acknowledge that it’s not a one-person job. Ms. Baldacci doesn’t mention how much time a week these children spend in day care, but I guess that doesn’t matter either.

One of these women who pre-meditated her children’s fatherless condition says something very revealing. “We’re not teenagers who got knocked up in the back of a car. It was not something impulsive,” said Ellen Goldsmith of Wilmette. “We’re women who, due to careers, or being picky about the kind of men we want just decided to do this. We do it with money in the bank, a job and a plan for how we’re going to take care of these children. We’re more mainstream. That has given us legitimacy.” [emphasis mine]

Excuse me, but as a mom you must have said to your kids“If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge?” So just because a lot of people do something selfish and destructive, that doesn’t make it legitimate, right, desirable or something to be celebrated. That’s not the really interesting part of the comment, though. The phrase I’ve emphasized about these women being “picky” about the kind of men they want is what caused my antenna to go up. That sums up the whole problem. These women are so self-absorbed and conceited that they considered themselves too good for any man on the planet. They couldn’t understand why, given their amazing academic and professional achievements, the men they found desirable weren’t breaking down their doors to go out with them, and eventually marry them. So, the hell with what’s best for the poor, innocent child. Who needs a man? I’m not going to settle! I want it all, and I deserve it!

This celebration of social pathology concludes with the story of Lana, a Cook County public defender, who had a “surprise pregnancy when she was 38.” She says “I come to work and see all these ugly things that happen to people. Then I come home to my daughter, and it’s unconditional love. It’s so rewarding.”

That’s funny. That’s how I feel about my dogs, and frankly I think we’d all be better off if these selfish narcissists would have gone to a shelter and adopted a dog or cat. Believe it or not, Ms. Baldacci and friends, some of us think deliberately consigning a child to a fatherless childhood is also an ugly thing. I realize that Ms. Baldacci is just another one of those mush-headed, emotionally driven people who has seen way too many episodes of the Oprah show. I’m sure that she has good intentions and would be horrified to learn that she is an advocate for a selfish lifestyle that hurts kids, but that’s no excuse.

Trackback URL

On last week’s show (December 11, 2005), we discussed Bill Clinton’s condemnation of the Bush administration at the U.N.’s 11th Annual Climate Change Conference in Montreal. Our environmentally-sensitive former president pronounced President Bush “dead wrong” for opposing the job-killing, pointless Kyoto Protocol. Missing in much of the breathless commentary about the former Prevaricator-in-Chief’s support for this foolish treaty, including Wolf Blitzer’s noting that he received a standing ovation from the enraptured audience, was what seems to be an important fact; that is, Clinton himself never presented this treaty to the Senate for ratification. If he thought it was such a great idea, why not? Maybe it was that 95-0 vote in the Senate, basically sending the message, “are you sure you want to send that up here, Bill? Just in case you’re wondering what might happen, here’s a clue.” That’s why it’s great to be a liberal democrat. Say whatever you want. Do the opposite thing. Never be challenged.

Also missing from much of the coverage was another important fact: even the countries who signed this stupid thing are violating it. As the Wall Street Journal noted last week “[T[hen there is the performance of Kyoto’s signatories in meeting their own targets. Kyoto requires developed nations to bring their total greenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by 2012. Yet in 2003, emissions were above the 1990 baseline by more than 10% in Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland and Canada, and more than 40% in Spain.” Check out the whole column here http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110007665

Finally, I wonder why we didn’t hear more about the comments from Patrick Moore, who said “I think this whole Kyoto process is a waste of time and money.” Is he some right-wing, neocon, war-mongering, earth-hating disciple of Karl Rove? The illegitmate son of Chimpy McHitler himself? No, actually he’s a founding member of Greenpeace, who left the group because he concluded it turned into a radical leftwing interest group. You can read more of his comments here. http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/Archive/200512/NAT20051208a.html

Gee, I didn’t see anything about this in the news reports that were virtually canonizing Clinton. What do you suppose would happen if a founding member of the NRA joined up with Sarah Brady? Do you think the MSM would give that any coverage. I think we all know the answer.

Speaking of our MSM friends, don’t you just know they are going to love Greenpeace’s latest propaganda piece, featuring the cute polar bears? The left loves its mascots!
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200512\CUL20051213a.html

Trackback URL

John Lennon’s Legacy

Some of you may recall that last Sunday, before my show, WLS ran an ABC News special on the death of John Lennon. I was doing show prep, so I didn’t hear any of it, but I during one of the breaks in that show, I did ask producer Brian whether the special included the story of John Lennon walking around Los Angeles sporting a feminine hygiene product on his forehead. I was being facetious, of course, since I knew that the tone of the ABC special, like nearly everything else I’ve seen or read about John Lennon in the MSM would be reverent at a minimum. Most have been more along the lines of canonizing the former heroin addict and Marxist, which is ironic when you think about it. Drug use, socialism—geez, this guy was the Barack Obama of his day!

You can read about the incident I asked Brian about here
http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=12202

It’s amazing to me that anyone considers this guy anything other than a talented songwriter/entertainer. A deep thinker? A multimillionaire who runs around singing that idiotic “Imagine” song, which contains the line “imagine no possessions,” and even does a video singing it from his palacial estate may be a lot of things, but a deep thinker he’s not. Let’s be honest. But for the fame and fortune he achieved with Paul McCartney, he’d be just another mush-headed clueless hippie, babbling about “peace” without any understanding of the type of genuine sacrifice peace and freedom requires.

Trackback URL