At the end of yesterday’s (5/28/06) show, we heard a soundbite in which Oprah explains the secret of her success, more of that pseudo-spiritual, incomprehensible crap about living in the same space as God or some such rubbish, and then I told you about watching her visit Auschwitz with Elie Wiesel. It was a very compelling show, but as usual, we come to find out even the Holocaust isn’t as significant as the Oprah herself. I described this billboard, but hearing about it doesn’t allow you to appreciate the absurdity of the image: the word “Auschwitz” and all that word conveys juxtaposed with a beaming headshot of the most important human being on earth. Look at that smiling face! Who knew Auschwitz could be so much fun! It’s bizarre and offensive, and it reminds us once again that no matter the issue, it’s always all about Oprah. And this Marcia Z. Nelson babe thinks she’s the new Billy Graham. Yeah right.

As I’ve said many times, this is a great country, so great that even a former newsreader like Oprah who couldn’t pass Econ 101 at gunpoint (withess that nauseating show in which she told all of us that we should feel guilty because some people make the minimum wage) can accumulate more money than God. Why? Because of the sacrifices of those brave, committed, selfless men and women past and present who defend freedom. On this Memorial Day, I want to say thanks again to the members of the military and their families. It’s a little ironic that Oprah would scold all of us for not valuing those who the really important jobs, since if we did pay people based on what they contribute to society, she’d be scrounging for bus fare, and every single member of the military would have 10 or 15 houses or however the heck many she has.

Only one thing was missing: She should have taken Anderson Cooper and John Travolta With her.

Trackback URL

Liberals bank on the fact that no one will take the time to actually listen to what they say, and ask “which is it?” For example, feminists demand that women be sent into combat, insisting that they are the equal of any man, while at the same time whine that they need federal sexual harrassment laws to protect them from the predatory males in the office, who tell off-color jokes around the water cooler. Oh the horror!

The latest evidence of leftist schizophrenia involves the news that 26.5 million veterans are at risk of identity theft because some bonehead employee in the Department of Veteran Affairs took the data home, where it was later stolen. This scary news inspired Illinois’ two U.S. senators, Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, to write to VA Secretary Jim Nicholson requesting that he work with major credit bureaus to make sure veterans have access to free credit reports so that they can keep an eye on their accounts. That sounds like a good idea, and I commend both Sen. Durbin and Sen. Obama for their newfound appreciation for the seriousness of identity theft. I say “newfound” because both of these concerned statesmen apparently were not persuaded that identity theft mattered as recently as last Thursday. That’s the day that Sen. John Ensign made a very persuasive presentation on the floor of the Senate about identity theft. Sen. Ensign described the colossal inconvenience, expense and all round hell some of his constituents had suffered after illegal aliens had stolen their identities. After seeing this presentation, Eddie Haskell and He Who Walks on Water voted in favor of rewarding identity theft. How else can you describe a vote granting illegal aliens the right to claim Social Security benefits, which is the vote they both cast?

What if an illegal alien steals the identity of one of these veterans that these two liberal pantloads care so much about? Will either of them be there to explain to him that he shouldn’t resent having to spend many hours and dollars straightening out a mess that they helped create by giving more incentives for criminal behavior? I don’t think so.

It’s disgusting to watch these weasels in action.

Others Blogging on this Issue:

A Blog for All - Gaping Security Breaches
Four Right Wing Wackos - Sheesh
Cato@Liberty - The Veterans Administration and Data Privacy
Outside the Beltway - Personal Data of 26.5 Million Veterans Stolen
The Belmont Club - Select * from tblVeterans
Florida Cracker
The Jawa Report - 25 Million + Veteran’s Data Stolen.

Trackback URL

A couple of interesting observations from this morning’s immigration debate in the Senate:

Sen.Robert Byrd (D-W Va) coming out unequivocably against amnesty, which prompted me to wonder if a guy who used to be in the Ku Klux Klan can come out against this ill-advised Senate bill, why can’t the gutless wonders in the GOP grow spines and overcome their pathological fear of being called racists?

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nevada) proposed a very wise amendment prohibiting illegals from collecting Social Security benefits, explaining that many of them engaged in Social Security fraud and identity theft to obtain the documents necessary to get jobs. What could make more common sense? I say if you come here to work illegally, part of your fine—aren’t the democrats always talking about how all these illegals in the country will have to pay onerous fines?—is that you forfeit any claim on the government coffers. If you can find the unscrupulous employer who claimed to be paying Social Security into your “account,” and sue him to get some of it back, more power to you, but no Social Security benefits. Sorry.

Like any of this matters anyway. Does anyone believe that there will be anything other than a linty lemon drop and a couple of nickels in this ponzi scheme in a few years?

Trackback URL

I love the tamper-proof ID idea, and I think putting troops on the border is a good idea, but overall, I was disappointed, although not entirely surprised by what I heard last night from the President on immigration. Here are the things that are still bothering me:

About this guest worker thing, if we are going to allow people to stay here legally for a limited period of time, don’t we need to revisit the issue of birthright citizenship? Otherwise, how can it genuinely be a “guest worker” program? Won’t the presence of anchor babies allow demagoguing politicians to wail “how can force them to leave when their children are Americans? What about the children?!” I can just hear them carping now. What about that?

When the president and other supporters of this “comprehensive” immigration reform insist that their program isn’t amnesty because those who have broken our laws by entering the country must “go to the back of the line,” is that really true? Is it really the same thing to be permitted to continue to stay in the country, work, and basically go about your business as it is to wait overseas for decades as some have done? I don’t think so.

If the illegals who are going to be on the “path to citizenship” must learn English, can we dispense with ballots in any language other than English?

Speaking of voting, since it’s pretty clear that the democrats are more interested in guest voters than guest workers, can we insist that we bolster the integrity of our elections by requiring a tamper-proof government issued ID as a condition of voting? Why do I think the democrats won’t buy into that?

As I continue to think this issue through, and listen to the Congressional debates, I’m sure I’ll have more questions, but these are the ones that occurred to me immediately after watching the speech.

Trackback URL

Here I sit, waiting for President Bush to tell us his plans for immigration. As I told you yesterday on the air, I’m not expecting a lot of specifics tonight, but I hope we’re not going to hear about a bunch of stunts. Is the National-Guard-to-the-border thing a stunt? Perhaps. Shades of that idiotic $100-for-gas thing. PULEEZE!

I’m still a big proponent of what I like to call the friendship fence, and I think that would be a lot more effective than sending the National Guard to the border. According to Duncan Hunter (R-California), the 10-mile fence in San Diego has reduced illegals crossing there by 95% since 1992. It’s effective, and as Robert Frost said, good fences make good neighbors.

Let’s see what the president has to say. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this one.

Trackback URL

I’ve had issues with the WaPo’s Robin Givhan in the past, particularly when she wrote that snarky review of the John Roberts family wardrobe last summer. She said they looked like a “trio of Easter eggs” because they looked too traditional, too June, Wally and the Beave. I guess they should have worn flip flops. I thought her description of Dick Cheney’s pink tie as “weapon” was a little over the top. Last Friday, though, she nailed it when she talked about the unexpected early exit of Chris Daughtry from “American Idol.” (“We Get the Idols We Deserve,” Washington Post, 5/12/06, Page C02). I thought her description of the gray-headed goober, Taylor Hicks, was particularly on target. Could anyone imagine how embarrassing it would be to watch this doofus writhe around on the floor, or dance like that one guy—there’s usually more than one, sadly—who has too much to drink at the wedding and makes a horse’s hind end of himself on the dance floor. You just hope it isn’t your dad, or your husband. Elaine Benis, you are redeemed. No one could look as goofy as this guy, and no one could send your cringeometer higher. Ms. Givhan says “he cannot win and he will be discussed no further.” She also calls him “the paisley karaoke king who shall not be named.” Yes! What is with these people who like this guy? I can just hear them now. “I find him charming. He’s so down to earth. He seems like such a regular guy.” Yes, a regular guy, and not a particularly interesting, attractive or talented one at that. So thumbs down on this character.

Katherine McPhee seems like a nice girl, and I’m sure she could make a great living as a lounge act in Vegas, but she’s also not terribly interesting or exciting.

Eliot Yamin has a great voice, but he’s tough on the eyes. He looks like he should be someone’s accountant, not a pop star, but he is a better singer than Katherine, so he’d be my choice. Notice I say he WOULD be my choice, it I actually voted. Much like many of the room-temperature IQ types who respond to these idiotic MSM (mainstream media) polls about President Bush, I don’t vote, so Katherine and He Who Shall Not be Mentioned Again, shouldn’t worry much about me.

Trackback URL

This morning, while on the treadmill at 5:00 am, I heard the “alarming” lead story. Apparently that glorified comic book, USA Today, was trumpeting the supposed “surveillance” of “millions” of American phone conversations. “Gee,” I thought, “what a coincidence.” I mean what were the chances. The president nominates Michael Hayden, head of and articulate defender of the NSA terrorist surveillance program, and we have another front page scoop about something the NSA is doing. So many questions. Why wasn’t Dana Priest writing this story? Doesn’t she want another Pulitzer for treason? Naturally, I had no question about one thing, and that is that, once again, the 5th column MSM (mainstream) media is attempting to obstruct any efforts by the government to stop terrorists from realizing their murderous ambitions. I pictured Chuck Schumer and other members of the September 10 party tsk-tsking, saying how “concerned” they are, and saying that since Michael Hayden must be confirmed, he’s got some ‘splaining to do. I was away all day and unable to post, but sure enough my vision came true today. It doesn’t matter that I didn’t get this posted. I’m sure that when you heard about the story, you pictured the same thing. As is always the case, the MSM mischaracterized what the NSA is doing. It would have been so uninteresting to just say that they were collecting phone numbers. Why do that when you can write a headline that will make it appear that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are listening to and transcribing every single phone conversation in America? This story is more evidence that the MSM and the September 10 party are working together in the hope of producing more democrat victories. I don’t know why they are working so hard. I thought the November elections were a mere formality, and that Nancy Pelosi has already ordered one of that big brass desk name deals.
When she becomes speaker my first question will be “will Democrats ever let us try to win the war?”

Trackback URL

On last Sunday’s show we talked about how badly Steven Colbert had bombed at last Saturday night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner. When I say he bombed, I’m talking Hiroshima by any objective observer with a perceptible sense of humor, a description which does not include the seething vessels of rage on the looney Left, who thought he was fabulous, “speaking truth to power.” PULEEZE! They thought it was hilarious, but then it doesn’t take much to win the adoration of this crowd. Just say “Bush lied. People died” for the 50,000th time. Come to think of it, Colbert’s routine was pretty much that. Jokes about no WMD in Iraq? That’s so cutting edge, or it would be if I had a time machine and could transport myself to 2003.
The reason I’m writing about this guy today is because last Sunday, fresh from his …ahem …triumph at the WH Correspondents’ Dinner, he appeared on “60 Minutes.” Leaving aside the irony of CBS doing a story on a “fake” news show, one thing really stood out. Consider please the following quote from the transcript:

“Colbert has been going for laughs since he was a child, growing up near Charleston, S.C., in a large very family. He is the youngest of 11 kids.
Despite coming from Charleston, Colbert does not have a trace of a southern accent.

“At a very young age, I decided I was not gonna have a southern accent. Because people, when I was a kid watching TV, if you wanted to use a shorthand that someone was stupid, you gave the character a southern accent. And that’s not true. Southern people are not stupid. But I didn’t wanna seem stupid. I wanted to seem smart. And so I thought, ‘Well, you can’t tell where newsmen are from,’” Colbert explains.”

I am struck by how it’s not surprising that someone who fears being considered stupid is a liberal, and how he would go out of his way to remake himself to fit in with the image considered desirable by elites. Haven’t I been telling you for almost 4 years on the radio that liberalism is a syndrome that afflicts those with low self-esteem? Remember: never doubt me.

Trackback URL

The abusive childhood thing apparently worked for Zacarias Moussaoui. Nine of the 12 jurors agreed on two factors mitigating against imposition of the death penalty: that his father had physically and emotionally abused his family and that his unstable childhood and screwed up family had led him to leave home early.

One thing that didn’t work: the many rants and outbursts, probably designed to make everyone think that he’s crazy. The jury wasn’t buying that one, which makes sense. Think about it. Despite the insane ravings coming out of the pieholes of Al Gore, Howard Dean and Charlie Sheen, they’re all still walking around loose. Come to think of it, much of what they say isn’t that different from Moussaoui and his fellow terrorists have been saying.

I am very disappointed in this verdict, but I say that with the knowledge that only the jury knows what went into their decision. They were in the courtroom. They heard the evidence. Still, I hate to think that the abuse excuse kept one of the 9/11 terrorists from getting to paradise and meeting with those 72 virgins, all of whom are 80 year-old Roman Catholic nuns if there is any justice.

Trackback URL