Like many of you, I was sad to hear that William F. Buckley, Jr. passed away early yesterday at the age of 82. As we would have expected, he was at his desk when it happened, demonstrating his lifelong understanding that life is an all-you-can-eat banquet, and we need to get our money’s worth. Even the Screamer (Chris Matthews) had a tribute to him on his “Hardball” show yesterday, source of the clip referenced below. Lucky for us, he’ll never really be gone. He lives on as a prolific writer, both of fiction and non-fiction, his terrific magazine, National Review, and in his many television appearances. Isn’t it great that we can watch them whenever we want? You can watch him debate irrational, anti-American Noam Chomsky and supercilious leftist Gore Vidal. God, I love YouTube.

For anyone out there unfamiliar with Mr. Buckley’s brilliant analysis, here’s one of my favorite quotes from “Meet the Press,” circa 1965.

When I was in law school, remember talking to my pal/classmate Scott Rose about reading one of Mr. Buckley’s books. We both agreed that it was impossible to do so without a dictionary in reach (this was pre-Internet). Several years ago, one of my dearest friends gave me what became a favorite book, Mr. Buckley’s Let Us Talk of Many Things: The Collected Speeches with New Commentary by the Author. If you missed it, you need to check it out. As I said, fortunately, the work product of his amazing mind means that Mr. Buckley will live on, as will his guiding spirit.

Thank God for the life and work of William F. Buckley, Jr. May he rest in peace.

Trackback URL

One thing I love about Tivo is the way it gets to know your preferences and makes helpful “suggestions” about things you may want to watch. I don’t mean it taps you on the shoulder and says “Hey, there’s a great show on right now. Shall I record it?” It just records it, and let’s you decide. I have to confess that at first I wasn’t crazy about my Tivo thinking I wanted to watch the latest episode of “Tyra,” but there’s a learning curve for everyone, even a device. Now that it has gotten to know me, it’s much more insightful.

So this morning I discover that my Tivo has helpfully recorded last night’s Anderson Cooper 360, and so I got the pleasure of hearing AC lead off the show with the “controversy” surrounding the way that local radio host Bill Cunningham introduced McCain in Ohio yesterday, which he described as “a taste of the sleazy campaigning and swift boating to come.” MMM …let me see, swift boating, as in when you tell the truth about a liberal’s record or policy positions and it’s considered a vicious personal attack?

You’ve proabably seen the tape. If not, I’ll put it up here later today. It’s just as well that you have some time to gear up before viewing it. I warn you: this video is not for the faint of heart. Mr. Cunningham actually–are you ready for this?–called Barack Obama by his full name! I’m not kidding! He said it: Barack Hussein Obama. He also said–I’m sorry, but I hope you won’t find this too offensive–that Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine and friends with notorious political fixer and current underwear sharer, Tony Rezko. How dare this guy tell the truth about Barack Hussein Obama!

If you think I’m being sarcastic, you’re right, but my sarcastic demand for an apology is just that: sarcasm. Unfortunately, Sen. McCain felt the need to apologize for this guy’s remarks as well. Perhaps one of my friends who tells me that I need to support Sen. McCain can explain to me why referring to a candidate by his actual middle name and stating facts about him constitute words that require an apology or need to be taken back.

Trackback URL

Regular listeners to my radio shows know that one of my pet peeves is the apparent pride exhibited by the wet-behind-the-ears and the recently WBTE in their cluelessness about anything that happened before they born; as in, “Oh, I’ve never heard of that. I wasn’t born.” Regular listeners also know my standard reply to such radiant ignorance: “I wasn’t born in 1863, but I’ve heard of Gettysburg.” (“Gettysburg?” For you youngsters, or ignorant U.S. Americans of any age, you can google it.)

So today I see this story, explaining that 17 year-olds know almost nothing about history. Only 43% could identify the fifty-year period in which the Civil War occurred. In other words, young people are clueless about American history. Young people are also ga-ga over Barack Hussein Obama. He is their overwhelming choice by far, which given that news about history, makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

On the day of the New Hampshire primary, I attended a corporate meeting (don’t ask) led by a 20-something “facilitator,” who in typical facilitator fashion, started things off by suggesting that we each stand, introduce ourselves and tell the assembled group something interesting about ourselves. He went first. The interesting thing he told us about himself is that he is a “huge supporter of Barack Obama,” and so was pulling for him in the primary that day. I smiled when he said that because it reminded me of something that always makes wives smile, which is dumb things their husbands do, and that we can use to keep them humble. No, I don’t mean not putting away the butter, or not being able to make the bed any better than a 5 year-old like Barack Obama, or even being stinky like him, all things we learned from his loud-mouthed wife, Michelle Obama, over the course of the last year. No, I mean the fact that the Husband–and he actually admits this fact–voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Of course he did! He was barely old enough to vote at the time, and being young, he was very susceptible to Jimmuh’s silly rhetoric about hope and change and ending business as usual in Washington–is any of this BS sounding familiar? It is to those over 40, but to the youngsters, not so much, which goes a long way to explain a lot. I’ve seen that movie before–the Carter administration, that is–but if I hadn’t I would probably be just as naive and foolish as the young Obama supporters today. As for the supposedly mature adults supporting him, it’s tough for those of us for whom the cult of the personality has never had great appeal to understand it, but it is what it is.
Time to watch the big dem debate. More to come.

Trackback URL

Here’s some of what I’ve seen this morning on the Sunday talking head shows:

Another liberal media pinhead, this time E.J. Dionne, refers to Barack Hussein Obama as a law professor
Ralph Nader is running for President again
Chris Matthews reveals his choice for “Best Picture”

More about today’s political news in a later post, but that last item is particularly relevant, if you can ever use the word “relevant” to apply to anything that the Screamer says, because tonight is, of course, Oscar night. Once again, this year the Husband and I haven’t seen most of the movies nominated for Oscars, and who can blame us? Be honest: how often do you shell out over $20 to listen to a bunch of jabbering teens or hearing-challenged seniors wailing “What did he say?” or find yourself wondering if a bomb going off in the row behind you could be any louder than that guy unwrapping his Twizzlers, only to leave thinking “Man, that movie SUCKED!” and thwacking yourself in the forehead for such being a chump when today there’s just no excuse for that. Just as in this age of the iPod, satellite radio and so many other better alternatives, traditional, over-the-air terrestrial radio is becoming the equivalent of Cook County (Stroger) Hospital in that only those who have no other choice go there, so it is with how we watch movies. Just this weekend, the Wall Street Journal’s Joe Morgenstern described attending a movie and seeing a mother with her two children pull out her iPhone and start watching her own show while the kids watched the movie on the screen. Precisely. We have choices now.

I should have done that iPhone thing Friday night, when we watched what we had heard was a terrific film, and which was Chris Matthews’ choice for Best Picture, “Michael Clayton,”starring George Clooney. Fortunately, we watched it at home, so we saved about $17 and the irritation of going to see it at the “theater,” or as Jay Leno once described it, the concrete bunker in the mall parking lot. Yes, this movie was stultifying and confusing, but the worst part was the inescapable feeling that I’d seen this movie before, and not just one time, but over and over and over. I have, and so have you, even if you didn’t see it, which I definitely recommend. “Michael Clayton” is what I would call a crypto-sequel; that is, it is a stealth sequel, something that purports to be an original, but is in fact completely recycled pap. You know, like a Barack Obama speech.
In the case of “Michael Clayton,” if you’ve seen “The Constant Gardener,” “Silkwood,” or “Erin Brockovich,” you’ve pretty much seen this one because you’ve seen the story of the evil greedy corporate capitalists and the lies and deception they get away with until some crusading hero stumbles on the truth and works to expose it, risking his or her life in the process. As Homer Simpson would say “BORING!” What is it about liberals that makes them never tire of these hackneyed cliches, whether it’s film plots or political speeches? “Michael Clayton” is to innovative, creative filmaking as Barack Obama’s policy positions are to innovative, fresh public policy ideas.
Is it just me, or do you find it hilarious that smug, limousine libs berate mouth-breathing, dim wittted conservatives because they claim we don’t respect “science,” yet they are the ones who embrace the junkiest of junk science when it lines the pockets of their trial lawyer buddies (see Erin Brockovich, the Dow breast implant cases, for example)?
And can someone tell me what happened with “American Gangster?” That was a good movie, not great, but at least I didn’t have trouble staying awake, and what does it get? A sentimental nomination for Ruby Dee, who will probably win, because the Academy is sort of like the Republican party; that is, when it’s your turn, it’s your turn, especially if you’re over 70.
We also saw “Juno,” which we enjoyed, but didn’t really analyze. I was a tad troubled by the casual attitude toward sex exhibited by the otherwise charming heroine, but that was a minor distraction. I wanted some entertainment, anything to get the bad “Michael Clayton” taste out of my mouth. We will no doubt see “No Country for Old Men.” We are fans of the Coen Brothers, plus it’s supposed to be great. Hold on–yes, I think we’ll wait until it’s available on PPV.
We will watch the Oscar show, but I think I’ll draw the line at printing out the ballots so we can vote. Given our ignorance about most of the nominated movies, it would be worse than trying to figure out who to vote for in those judicial races.

Trackback URL

This Obama guy is the second coming of James Earl Carter.

Here’s the video.

Trackback URL

Hey kids, let’s play a game. Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal ran an article about a charismatic, messianic political figure, a leader “who had come to embody all the contradictions of a movement whose time had past.” Here’s the headline. Can you fill in the blank, the name of this “self-described ‘man of action’”?

“__________________ Embodies Contradictions of a Movement”

If you guessed Barack Hussein Obama, I say great guess. The words describe He Who Walks on Water perfectly, but the story isn’t about that empty suit. It’s about the soon-to-be empty fatigues of the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. As I said, though, if you guessed BHO, it’s understandable. Like El Comandante, Mr. “Fresh Ideas” marches in lockstep intellectually with that modern thinker, Karl Marx, which is why the headline about contradictions is so on point. Consider the following three examples:

Social Security
On May 13, 2007, Mr. Not Ready for Prime Time appeared on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” Here’s the exchange they had on the critical issue of Social Security.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve also said that with Social Security,
everything should be on the table.
OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?
OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising payroll taxes?
OBAMA: Everything should be on the table. I think we should
approach it the same way Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in
1983. They came together. I don’t want to lay out my preferences
beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It
is not as difficult a problem as we’re going to have with Medicaid and
Medicare.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Partial privatization?
OBAMA: Privatization is not something that I would consider, and
the reason is this: Social Security, I think, is — that’s the floor.
That’s the baseline. Social Security is that safety net that can’t be
frayed, and we shouldn’t put at risk.

Wait a second–I thought that “everything was on the table.” Apparently “everything” doesn’t include ideas that fall outside the same tired, threadbare “solutions” that FDR saddled us with in the 1930’s. Those chickens are coming home to roost, so it would seem that this would be the time to “turn the page” on them, wouldn’t it? Perish the thought! Obama’s devotion to left-wing orthodoxy won’t permit that.

The 2nd Amendment
This guy can’t blow his nose without sending out a press release or making a speech about it. He obviously realizes how impossible it would be for the rest of us to get through life without the benefit of his brilliant thoughts. The Northern Illinois shooting last week was no exception. While campaigning in Wisconsin, he dropped a few pearls of wisdom about the 2nd amendment.

“The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.
“I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to commonsense regulation” like background checks, he said during a news conference. …
At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, which is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court next month.
“The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can’t initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn’t born out by our Constitution,” Obama said.”

Say what? OK, I’m clearly not smart enough to understand this brilliant man’s exigesis of the Constitution. (An aside: kudos to this reporter for noting that Obama was an INSTRUCTOR, not a “constitutional law professor” as Obama and his loud-mouthed old lady are constantly saying, but the headline writer has clearly drunk the Obama Kool-aid.) Maybe if I break it down: There’s an individual right to bear arms, but it’s ok for DC (and Chicago, or any other city) to tell its citizens that they can’t even have them in their homes? To paraphrase Joe Pesci’s character said in “Goodfellas,” maybe I’m a little, ah, let me say, confused, but I’m sorry. I don’t get it.

Free Market Capitalism
Here’s a little snippet from the man-god’s victory speech on Tuesday, February 19, after he won the Wisconsin primary.

“If you are ready for change, if you’re really ready, then we can start restoring some balance to our economy. I believe in the free market. I know Texans believe in entrepreneurship. We are an independent and a self-reliant people. We don’t believe in government doing what we can do for ourselves.
But when we’ve got CEOs making more in 10 minutes than ordinary workers are making in a year…(APPLAUSE)
… and it’s the CEOs who are getting a tax break and workers are left with nothing, then something is wrong, and something has to change.”

And he’s just the guy to change it, right? The deus ex machina to descend from the heavens and correct the “injustices” of the free market he claims to believe in. “We don’t believe in government doing what we can do for ourselves,” so since we can’t stick a gun in the CEO’s ribs and force him to give us some of the fruits of his labor, we’ve got to rely on our benevolent government to do it for us, right, Barack? Or should I say Fidel?
Here’s a thought: On Sunday, Cuba will select a new leader. Since they are looking for a charismatic, brilliant, larger-than-life figure who, despite the many contradictions between his words and his deeds, can motivate people to do nearly anything, they should consider Barack Hussein Obama. Just ask Halle Berry and George Clooney. This idea is a win-win. Obama gets to not only be the president, he gets to be the Maximum Leader, in a position to really make some Change You Can Believe In. And if you don’t believe in it, Fidel’s already got the dirt-floored, rat-infested cells available for you to occupy while you get your mind right. Hillary gets what she and Bill figured was her birthright, the democrat nomination. I’ll bet the Clintons would even be willing to arrange a special escort to Barack and Michelle, Elian Gonzales.

Trackback URL

After endorsing him for president, now the Liberal Death Star has decided that a story, citing unnamed sources and hinted-at, but unstated, allegations of an improper relationship between John McCain and some lobbyist babe back in 1999 is front page news. Here’s the best part: apparently they have been sitting on this story since December of last year. They deny that they were inspired to publish it because another lefty rag, the New Republic, is about to release it any minute, but some are saying that that is in fact the reason; that is, they could be criticized by Republicans for publishing it, or by the left for not publishing it, showing up late to the party after the NR beat them to the punch. I think people are missing the real story, which is that all liberals loved John McCain until he became the presumptive Republican nominee. Now, not so much. I actually heard the mentally-challenged Joy Behar (on “The View” this morning) disputing the suggestion the New York Times is a liberally-biased tabloid by saying “if they’re biased, why didn’t they release the story in December?” Umm, gee, I don’t know, because then a real conservative might have gotten the nomination? Grow up, Joy. Is it just me, or didn’t EVERYONE know that the whole master plan from our MSM friends was get McCain nominated? It’s a win-win: if he wins the nomination, and dispirited conservatives stay home, He Who Walks on Water, or Hillarita win. If McCain wins the presidency, they get a “moderate” (liberal) who loves to make nice with democrats.

Makes you wonder when we’ll see a front-page New York Times story exploring the purchase of the Obamas’ South Side mansion, a purchase that would have been impossible without the assistance of notorious fixer, Tony Rezko, who now apparently is reduced to sharing underwear with his fellow inmates. You’d think the least that Barack Hussein and Michelle Obama could do to pay him back for all he’s done for them is run over to Wal-Mart and buy him some new boxers (or is it briefs?).

I thought the writers’ strike was over. Must we constantly feel like we’re watching the same reruns of the same predictable, boring shows?

Trackback URL

Regular readers of these pages, and listeners to my erstwhile radio programs both on WLS and the rightalk radio network, know my that for several years I have had it up to here (and my hand is a foot over my head), with the obnoxious babblermouth Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama and her ability to escape responsibility for her many idiotic remarks, most of them racist, all of them offensive to intelligent people everywhere. Whether it’s claiming that her husband has a target on his back “as a black man,” or vowing “to utilize all of [her] present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost,” I marvel at her statements, and as I noted in this post, at the willingness for the MSM to overlook her remarks. Now this ungrateful affirmative action baby has outdone herself by stating that now that He Who Walks on Water is running for president and doing well, she is proud of her country for the first time. Here’s the video.

Is anyone surprised by this sort of statement from a limousine liberal like this woman? Liberals are never proud of America. They are ashamed of our military prowess, which they view as an instrument of our imperialistic ambitions, although they might concede that it’s ok when our troops take a break from terrorizing women and children and murdering civilians to deliver relief supplies, end “ethnic cleansing” of minorities in foreign countries, or otherwise act in a way that has nothing to do with our own national security. They lament the fact that we are the only remaining super-power, a fear that has its roots in the belief that America is a force for evil not good in the world. And of course they aren’t proud of our history. The fact that we sacrificed 600,000 people in a war to end slavery? So what. The over 400,000 killed to defeat Hitler and his friends? Why should anyone be proud of that? I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that our ending the murderous tyranny that was the Soviet Union wouldn’t make liberals proud. Their mouths water and their hearts palpitate at the thought of having the control over their fellow citizens that those Soviet apparatchiks had. The man-god himself expressed belief the moral equivalency between the United States and the Soviet Union. Let me say it again: a communist is just a socialist who really means it.

As frightening as it would be to have an empty suit use his Seinfeld campaign (as in “about nothing”) to get to the Oval Office, where he and his brigade of crypto-socialists can scheme on how to give ACLU-approved lawyers to guys like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and 0.7% of U.S. gross national product to the U.N. (no, I’m not making that up, and here’s a real surprise–Durbin is also a co-sponsor of Obama’s boneheaded Global Poverty Act), part of me fears having to listen to this lippy broad for 4 years even more.

I guess Michelle was so busy race-baiting out on the campaign trail that she didn’t see this story about U.S. Marines saving the life of a two-year old Iraqi girl by bringing her to the U.S. for heart surgery. Things like that are inspiring, heart-warming, and very typical of Americans and have been since the founding of this magnificent country, and they make most of us very, very proud.

Every single day of 44 year-old Michelle Obama’s adult life, the United States has been the last great hope of every freedom-loving human being on the planet, a bulwark against brutality, standing for human rights and human dignity. If her comments weren’t so laughable and ridiculous, they would be disgraceful, but the thought of dignifying her comparison of her husband’s political ambitions with the genuine reasons we all have to be proud of our nation isn’t worth taking seriously, and neither is she.

Trackback URL

If you can, please join me Mark Johnson’s show, streaming live at www.ilgopnet.com, to discuss Super Tuesday.

Be there or be square!

Trackback URL

The other day I was talking to my beautiful intelligent sister about the Oprah. I don’t remember why. My sister is smart, and well-educated, and she even understands a lot of the lingo that you hear on the Oprah show, things like “The universe is telling you to concentrate on your education right now.” The next time I talk to her I’ve got to get her to explain that to me. I’ve never heard the universe telling me anything. Am I just deaf? Does the universe have me on its no-call list? The idea of the whole universe trying to talk to me is a tad overwhelming. Maybe I should start with just the galaxy, or even a couple of random planets. It’s all really confusing. My sister is under no illusions about the Oprah, but she does like some of the same books the O does.

I’ve made so secret about my thoughts about the Oprah. I have long said that you don’t need to look for any more proof that America is an extraordinary country than the fact that a woman who could clearly not pass Econ 101 at gunpoint could become one of the richest people on the planet.

Anyone who saw her show in April, 2007, where she offered some union babe a platform to disingenuously whine about the minimum wage, or her shilling for socialism with her featured guest the Round Mound Whose Lies Astound, Michael Moore, knows what I’m talking about. She is so far over her well-coiffed head when she discusses public policy, whether it is talking about issues or endorsing some empty suit like Barack Hussein Obama, then telling how offended she is that anyone would suggest she was doing so because of race, that she needs scuba gear.

Sure, when she sticks to shows like “Jeans That Disguise the Fact That Your Butt Could Be a Parking Space for an Aircraft Carrier,” “Could Your Cats Be The Reason You Can’t Get a Date?”, or “Oprah’s Organization Expert Visits Our Latest House of Squalor,” she’s reasonably harmless. Still, she’s got some ‘splainin’ to do for foisting Dr. Phil on us.

Speaking of which, it was 10 years ago when Oprah discovered Dr. Phil during that defamation lawsuit that the Texas cattlemen filed against her and some vegan wackjob for saying that our beef supply was contaminated with mad cow disease, a malady that some of her audience members seem to suffer from. Oprah said she couldn’t touch a burger after hearing that, although seeing her lately, I think she may have gotten over that fear, Anyway, the Oprah won that case, and we heard a lot about that litigation, and, sadly we haven’t heard the end of that bald buffoon Dr. Phil since. We heard significantly less about the litigation that she settled in 2000. It involved her unauthorized use of 11 photos taken by two freelance photographers, Paul Natkin and Steve Green, who worked at the television show from 1986 through 1992, in her exercise book. They settled the case. Full disclosure here: Paul Natkin is a friend of mine.

He took this photo for my first book, The Personal Trainer’s Handbook, for free, by the way. It’s nice to know that no everyone is obsessed with material things, isn’t it?

During the litigation, Oprah asserted that she owned Paul’s work because he was an employee, a pretty stunning claim since neither Oprah nor her company Harpo ever issued a single W-2 form to either photographer in the 6 years they worked on the show. This defense was obviously patently absurd, and the fact that she could authorize her representatives to make it was ridiculous. Why would a woman with more money than God prefer a litigation fight with two hard-working photographers with modest incomes to just paying them for their work in the first place? It’s hard to escape the conclusion that she was operating with a sense of entitlement, as in, “The rules don’t apply to me. I’m Oprah! Most people would be honored if I chose to use their work, whether I have a legal right to it or not.It’s a privilege to have me steal from you, white boy!”

I’ll never forget when I was talking on the air about some demented woman who wrote a book claiming that Oprah is—are you ready for this?–the new Billy Graham, and the author, who lives in a nearby town called in to defend this claim. Needless to say, given my feelings about her behavior in this litigation, I was less than persuaded. For one thing, I have a tough time picturing Billy Graham lapsing into some weird dialect and saying “Girl, my va-jay-jay is painin’” or something similar. More important, though, I don’t see Billy Graham stealing someone’s work and then claiming a right to do so.

I don’t deny that some people may have benefitted from some of the information doled out on the Oprah show (see above list of useful topics for her to stick to), or from being exposed to some of the books she has recommended. The question is whether the good outweighs the bad, and every time I see Dr. Phil or Barack Hussein Obama, I’m not sure she comes out on the positive side of that calculation.

Trackback URL