Friday, May 4, 2007


Collect 'em, trade 'em, pass 'em around!

State of the democrat party: Pussified

The democrats running for president were interviewed at their press conference (‘debate?’) by a liberal news media guy, and totally chickened out – ran away from – being interviewed in a ‘debate’ on Fox News (said debate was endorsed by several key liberal support groups; still the democrats ran scared – and we bet George Soros nixed that one), yet the Republicans were not reluctant at all to be interviewed by a raving, frothing, liberal moonbat – the hysterical Chris Matthews – thus proving again that we republicans are the party of courage; the party of inclusion and unification; the party who faces the challenge from those who disagree. The democrats? They still remain the party of surrender and cowardice; the party of division; the party who run away from challenges by those with whom they disagree. --JZ

"Democrats run away from Fox like scared puppies."
--Byron York on Laura Ingraham's radio show, 4 May 2007

Quick Hit followed by this great column by Mike Reagan - Enjoy.

Profiles in cowardice
By Columnist Mike Reagan

If ever there was a revealing contrast between courage and wimpishness it is the behavior of the competing political parties in connection with the pre-primary debates now going on. Most revealing was the way the Democrat presidential hopefuls arranged to hold their debates and the way the 2008 Republican candidates chose where to hold their debates.

As revealed in their willingness to see the United States defeated in Iraq, the Democrats also showed the white flag of surrender when faced with a terrifying debate hosted by the evil Fox News. They ran for cover.

The Democrats refused to participate if Fox is to be in charge of the debate and the coverage of the session, with Fox reporters questioning the candidates and moderating the session. After all, the last thing the Democrats want is a fair and balanced presentation, which is what Fox offers. They demand a rigged game. [Nice. --JZ]

According to MSNBC, “The first debate, which was to be co-sponsored by Fox and the Nevada Democratic party, had been set for this August but was canceled. Fox then teamed with the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute for a Sept. 23 debate that is still scheduled, even though John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all said they won’t attend.” That more or less leaves Dennis Kucinich and a couple of other hopeless hopefuls to face the lions in the Fox’s den next September.

As my pal Ann Coulter put it, “The not-visibly-insane Democrats all claim they’ll get rough with the terrorists, but they can’t even face Brit Hume. “In case you missed this profile in Democrat machismo, the Democratic presidential candidates are refusing to participate in a debate hosted by Fox News Channel because the hosts are ‘biased.’ But they’ll face down Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!”

And over at the Hot Air blog, it was noted that that this is a win-win situation for everyone, [except for both remaining Centrist Democrats]: “the Dems get to show how tough they are against an enemy who’s more their speed and Fox gets to tout itself as the network that frightens the left.” The idea of facing Fox on live TV scares them silly and the Democrats, as is their usual practice, ran for cover. If they can’t dictate the rules of the game they won’t play. And Fox made it clear that they would make the rules, which is their right.

On the other hand, you have the Republicans who will be debating tonight at my father’s library in a contest run by MSNBC and moderated by none other than Chris Matthews. Think about it – the Democrats run away from a fair and balanced Fox-sponsored debate while the Republicans have no problem agreeing to a debate moderated by the Bush-hating, anti-GOP Matthews, whose idea of balance is to tilt everything towards the Democrat side, and run by NBC, the most liberal network. The GOP attitude: “Bring ‘em on,” contrasted with the Democrats’ cut-and-run strategy.

In this case, as in the case of the war in Iraq, the Republicans are standing up while the Democrats continue to display that large yellow streak that runs down their spines, even retreating in the face of what they regard as a deadly threat: an unbiased Fox network. They always insist on having the umpires in their back pockets. If they are fair and unbiased the Democrats won’t play in their ballpark. As Dracula is said to cringe before a crucifix, the Democrats tremble in the face of facts.

The Republicans, however, are not only willing to fight an unpopular war in Iraq against the insurgents , but are also willing to face the hostility of the home-grown insurgency that has captured the Democrat party, the mainstream media, and liberal Chris Matthews and NBC.

Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s newest book, “Twice Adopted.” E-mail comments to

Thursday, May 3, 2007


The media can't get enough of McGreevey

The former governor sucks - literally and figuratively - but the leftwingers celebrate his sins.

Jim McGreevey left office in shame. Yes, shame. He left his daughter and his wife, choosing instead to have sex with men. At the very least, a moral man would have abstained from sex and stayed to keep his family intact. But not slimey McGreevey.

Now, he will become an Episcopal priest. This is disgusting in a number of ways. First, it shows us yet again that the Episcopal church has nothing whatsoever to do with God's Word, the Bible. The Bible clearly and without hesitation calls homosexuality sin. As Bill Keller of likes to say, you choose when to pull your pants down and who to have sex with. Sex is a choice.

Second, it shows us that McGreevey is running from Catholicism because he just didn't like what the Bible teaches. The Catholic Church does not embrace homosexuality. Instead, it welcomes all sinners but holds true to Biblical teaching. McGreevey wanted no part of that.

McGreevey's wife has written a book, and in it she slams him bigtime. I'm glad she did. She was pretty civil about it, considering how selfish he's been. His life is all about having sex with men now, you see, and that kind of sexual-centered lifestyle is nothing but selfishness.

Imagine if, instead of going to a non-bible based church like the Episcopal church who EMBRACE SIN, he had said “I renounce the sin of homosexuality, and I am going to be working with a Christian based ministry that helps homosexuals out of their sinful lifestyle, and I will be trying to get my marriage back together for the sake of our children.” Can you imagine what the sin-celebrating leftwing media would have done to him?

We recorded a song parody not too long ago, called "Bats of the Moon," based on "Cats in the Cradle." The first verse has to do with McGreevey. Click HERE to listen.

"They made him a hero, they shouted hooray; had a wife but he threw her away."

Here are some bits from other sources - the links are there for the full articles if you wish to read more.

Ex-New Jersey governor's wife spills beans on marriage
Mercury News wire services

The wife of former Gov. James E. McGreevey describes him in her upcoming memoir as self-absorbed and controlling and says that, among other demands, he insisted she move out of the governor's mansion before his official resignation. The descriptions appear in Dina Matos McGreevey's book "Silent Partner: A Memoir of My Marriage," scheduled to hit bookstores May 1. A copy of the book was obtained by the New York Daily News.

Matos McGreevey wrote that her husband offered only an indifferent apology days after he appeared on national television in August 2004 and announced he would resign, saying: "I am a gay American." Before that appearance, she wrote that McGreevey told her to compose herself, saying, "You have to be Jackie Kennedy today," and repeatedly told her what to say and how to act in the aftermath of his admission.

Matos McGreevey also said her husband told her if she stayed at the governor's mansion until the last minute it would make her "look like white trash."

More HERE.

McGreevey's Wife: 'It Can Happen to Anyone'

The Estranged Wife of the Former N.J. Governor Talks With Others About Gay Spouses
May 3, 2007 —

So many people think they should be able to see the signs. But in a marriage where one spouse is gay [CHOOSES TO BE GAY --JZ] and the other is straight, the latter is often the last to know. Dina Matos McGreevey realized that when her estranged husband, Jim McGreevey, the former governor of New Jersey, announced he was gay in 2004. On "Good Morning America," she sat down with women and men, including three from the Straight Spouses support group, to talk about whether someone can really know if their spouse is gay.

Though she heard rumors about her husband's homosexuality before he came out, Matos McGreevey never paid attention to them.

"When you're married to someone, whether it's a politician or someone in a powerful position, there's always innuendo, there's always rumors, and if you're going to chase after those rumors you're not going to do anything else," she said. "And if you're in a relationship, you trust that person, whether it's a marriage, or you're living with someone, otherwise why be in the relationship?"

Still, Elaine Bennett didn't understand how Matos McGreevey had failed to connect her husband's waning desire for her with his homosexuality. Matos McGreevey explained that she didn't think her husband was truly homosexual.

"I know that people have a difficult time accepting the fact that I didn't know. But I think a lot of that, for many people, is that they don't want to believe that it can happen to them," she said. "And it can happen to anyone."

More HERE.


May 2, 2007
Study of N.B.A. Sees Racial Bias in Calling Fouls

An academic study of the National Basketball Association, whose playoffs continue tonight, suggests that a racial bias found in other parts of American society has existed on the basketball court as well. A coming paper by a University of Pennsylvania professor and a Cornell University graduate student says that, during the 13 seasons from 1991 through 2004, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players.

Justin Wolfers, an assistant professor of business and public policy at the Wharton School, and Joseph Price, a Cornell graduate student in economics, found a corresponding bias in which black officials called fouls more frequently against white players, though that tendency was not as strong. They went on to claim that the different rates at which fouls are called “is large enough that the probability of a team winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the refereeing crew assigned to the game.”

N.B.A. Commissioner David Stern said in a telephone interview that the league saw a draft copy of the paper last year, and was moved to do its own study this March using its own database of foul calls, which specifies which official called which foul.

“We think our cut at the data is more powerful, more robust, and demonstrates that there is no bias,” Mr. Stern said.

Three independent experts asked by The Times to examine the Wolfers-Price paper and materials released by the N.B.A. said they considered the Wolfers-Price argument far more sound. The N.B.A. denied a request for its underlying data, even with names of officials and players removed, because it feared that the league’s confidentiality agreement with referees could be violated if the identities were determined through box scores.

The paper by Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price has yet to undergo formal peer review before publication in an economic journal, but several prominent academic economists said it would contribute to the growing literature regarding subconscious racism in the workplace and elsewhere, such as in searches by the police.

The three experts who examined the Wolfers-Price paper and the N.B.A.’s materials were Ian Ayres of Yale Law School, the author of “Pervasive Prejudice?” and an expert in testing for how subtle racial bias, also known as implicit association, appears in interactions ranging from the setting of bail amounts to the tipping of taxi drivers; David Berri of California State University-Bakersfield, the author of “The Wages of Wins,” which analyzes sports issues using statistics; and Larry Katz of Harvard University, the senior editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics.

“I would be more surprised if it didn’t exist,” Mr. Ayres said of an implicit association bias in the N.B.A. “There’s a growing consensus that a large proportion of racialized decisions is not driven by any conscious race discrimination, but that it is often just driven by unconscious, or subconscious, attitudes. When you force people to make snap decisions, they often can’t keep themselves from subconsciously treating blacks different than whites, men different from women.”

Mr. Berri added: “It’s not about basketball — it’s about what happens in the world. This is just the nature of decision-making, and when you have an evaluation team that’s so different from those being evaluated. Given that your league is mostly African-American, maybe you should have more African-American referees — for the same reason that you don’t want mostly white police forces in primarily black neighborhoods.”

To investigate whether such bias has existed in sports, Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price examined data from publicly available box scores. They accounted for factors like the players’ positions, playing time and All-Star status; each group’s time on the court (black players played 83 percent of minutes, while 68 percent of officials were white); calls at home games and on the road; and other relevant data.

But they said they continued to find the same phenomenon: that players who were similar in all ways except skin color drew foul calls at a rate difference of up to 4 ½ percent depending on the racial composition of an N.B.A. game’s three-person referee crew. Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and a vocal critic of his league’s officiating, said in a telephone interview after reading the paper: “We’re all human. We all have our own prejudice. That’s the point of doing statistical analysis. It bears it out in this application, as in a thousand others.”

Asked if he had ever suspected any racial bias among officials before reading the study, Mr. Cuban said, “No comment.”

Two veteran players who are African-American, Mike James of the Minnesota Timberwolves and Alan Henderson of the Philadelphia 76ers, each said that they did not think black or white officials had treated them differently. “If that’s going on, then it’s something that needs to be dealt with,” James said. “But I’ve never seen it.”

Two African-American coaches, Doc Rivers of the Boston Celtics and Maurice Cheeks of the Philadelphia 76ers, declined to comment on the paper’s claims. Rod Thorn, the president of the New Jersey Nets and formerly the N.B.A.’s executive vice president for basketball operations, said: “I don’t believe it. I think officials get the vast majority of calls right. They don’t get them all right. The vast majority of our players are black.” Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price spend 41 pages accounting for such population disparities and more than a dozen other complicating factors.

For the 1991-92 through 2003-4 seasons, the authors analyzed every player’s box-score performance — minutes played, rebounds, shots made and missed, fouls and the like — in the context of the racial composition of the three-person crew refereeing that game. (The N.B.A. did not release its record of calls by specific officials to either Mr. Wolfers, Mr. Price or The Times, claiming it is kept for referee training purposes only.)

Mr. Wolfers said that he and Mr. Price classified each N.B.A. player and referee as either black or not black by assessing photographs and speaking with an anonymous former referee, and then using that information to predict how an official would view the player. About a dozen players could reasonably be placed in either category, but Mr. Wolfers said the classification of those players did not materially change the study’s findings.

During the 13-season period studied, black players played 83 percent of the minutes on the floor. With 68 percent of officials being white, three-person crews were either entirely white (30 percent of the time), had two white officials (47 percent), had two black officials (20 percent) or were entirely black (3 percent).

Mr. Stern said that the race of referees had never been considered when assembling crews for games. With their database of almost 600,000 foul calls, Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price used a common statistical technique called multivariable regression analysis, which can identify correlations between different variables. The economists accounted for a wide range of factors: that centers, who tend to draw more fouls, were disproportionately white; that veteran players and All-Stars tended to draw foul calls at different rates than rookies and non-stars; whether the players were at home or on the road, as officials can be influenced by crowd noise; particular coaches on the sidelines; the players’ assertiveness on the court, as defined by their established rates of assists, steals, turnovers and other statistics; and more subtle factors like how some substitute players enter games specifically to commit fouls.

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price examined whether otherwise similar black and white players had fouls-per-minute rates that varied with the racial makeup of the refereeing crew. “Across all of these specifications,” they write, “we find that black players receive around 0.12-0.20 more fouls per 48 minutes played (an increase of 2 ½-4 ½ percent) when the number of white referees officiating a game increases from zero to three.”

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price also report a statistically significant correlation with decreases in points, rebounds and assists, and a rise in turnovers, when players performed before primarily opposite-race officials. “Player-performance appears to deteriorate at every margin when officiated by a larger fraction of opposite-race referees,” they write. The paper later notes no change in free-throw percentage. “We emphasize this result because this is the one on-court behavior that we expect to be unaffected by referee behavior.”

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price claim that these changes are enough to affect game outcomes. Their results suggested that for each additional black starter a team had, relative to its opponent, a team’s chance of winning would decline from a theoretical 50 percent to 49 percent and so on, a concept mirrored by the game evidence: the team with the greater share of playing time by black players during those 13 years won 48.6 percent of games — a difference of about two victories in an 82-game season.

“Basically, it suggests that if you spray-painted one of your starters white, you’d win a few more games,” Mr. Wolfers said. The N.B.A.’s reciprocal study was conducted by the Segal Company, the actuarial consulting firm which designed the in-house data-collection system the league uses to identify patterns for referee-training purposes, to test for evidence of bias. The league’s study was less formal and detailed than an academic paper, included foul calls for only two and a half seasons (from November 2004 through January 2007), and did not consider differences among players by position, veteran status and the like. But it did have the clear advantage of specifying which of the three referees blew his whistle on each foul.

The N.B.A. study reported no significant differences in how often white and black referees collectively called fouls on white and black players. Mr. Stern said he was therefore convinced “that there’s no demonstration of any bias here — based upon more robust and more data that was available to us because we keep that data.” Added Joel Litvin, the league’s president for basketball operations, “I think the analysis that we did can stand on its own, so I don’t think our view of some of the things in Wolfers’s paper and some questions we have actually matter as much as the analysis we did.”

Mr. Litvin explained the N.B.A.’s refusal to release its underlying data for independent examination by saying: “Even our teams don’t know the data we collect as to a particular referee’s call tendencies on certain types of calls. There are good reasons for this. It’s proprietary. It’s personnel data at the end of the day.” The percentage of black officials in the N.B.A. has increased in the past several years, to 38 percent of 60 officials this season from 34 percent of 58 officials two years ago. Mr. Stern and Mr. Litvin said that the rise was coincidental because the league does not consider race in the hiring process.

Mr. Wolfers and Mr. Price are scheduled to present their paper at the annual meetings of the Society of Labor Economists on Friday and the American Law and Economics Association on Sunday. They will then submit it to the National Bureau of Economic Research and for formal peer review before consideration by an economic journal.

Both men cautioned that the racial discrimination they claim to have found should be interpreted in the context of bias found in other parts of American society. “There’s bias on the basketball court,” Mr. Wolfers said, “but less than when you’re trying to hail a cab at midnight.”

Pat Borzi contributed reporting from Minneapolis and John Eligon from East Rutherford, N.J.

Wednesday, May 2, 2007


Collect 'em, trade 'em, pass 'em around!


These instigators you see on television with the bandanas over their faces? These are hispano-terrorists. They seek to cause mayhem. They are not interested in fighting any kind of political battle for the downtrodden. They are CRIMINALS. They are MEChA racists. They are La Raza bigots. They are swine.

And the vast majority of these urban hispano-terrorists, and the majority of the protesters as a whole, who interrupt the productivity of Americans (and more specifically interrupt the daily lives of hard working Americans) are NOT EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. Our police should not even have to deal with these pieces of human debris, at all.

Get out. You bring nothing but hate. We don't need you. --JZ

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

• National Day Of Prayer

Here's a nice idea for Thursday, May 3rd, from the America Family Association. --JZ

May 1, 2007
Meet At City Hall on National Day of Prayer, 2007

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord..." Psalms 33:12

On May 3, I invite you to participate in Meet At City Hall from 12:20 pm to 12:40 pm during the National Day Of Prayer. At thousands of city halls across the country, individuals will gather to pray for a moral rebirth in our country. The National Day of Prayer is an annual event established by an act of Congress which encourages Americans to pray for our nation, its people and its leaders.

Your participation in Meet At City Hall is very simple. Simply show up at your local city hall at 12:20 pm on May 3. There will be others present. Spend the 20 minutes in prayer.

If you want to help promote Meet At City Hall, we suggest you invite members of your Sunday School class or church to join together and organize, as you desire. You can invite some public officials, local pastors, church choirs, etc. to participate. The amount of organization and promotion is entirely up to you. Let us unashamedly take our Light from underneath the basket and set it on a table.

Click HERE for the National Day of Prayer website.

The history of the National Day of Prayer

In 1988, A bill was introduced to Congress which fixed the annual NDP at the first Thursday in May. The Senate bill, S 1378, was introduced by Stron Thurmond (R-SC); a matching House version was initiated by Tony Hall, (D-OH). It received broad bipartisan sponsorship and support, and became Public Law 100-307. It was signed into law by President Reagan on May 5 the same year.

He commented: "On our National Day of Prayer, then, we join together as people of many faiths to petition God to show us His mercy and His love, to heal our weariness and uphold our hope, that we might live ever mindful of His justice and thankful for His blessing."

So, here then is a another thing we can thank the late, great President Ronald Reagan for. --JZ


The Good Doctor rips into a pro-baby killer columnist who was moaning about the recent Supreme Court decision that is - let's be honest - only common sense. We recommend Dr. Laura's blog - click HERE. --JZ

Making Judgments About The Supreme Court’s
Latest Decision About Abortion

May 1, 2007 on 12:00 am

I just about lost it reading Linda P. Campbell’s syndicated column (SOURCE) about the Supreme Court’s abortion decision not being simple or neat. Let me take some of her points one by one, as she explains her abhorrence of any controls over any abortion, in addition to the barbaric sucking out of a baby’s brain after the head emerges from the birth canal (partial birth abortion).

First, she says “And of course, a woman who’s about to undergo an abortion ought to understand the details, risks and implications just as much as she should before a tummy tuck, hip replacement, or appendectomy.

All those procedures require an office visit and an explanation of the process, and then a new appointment for the procedure. Call any Planned Parenthood you like - or walk in, and you can get an abortion right then and there, as long as it isn’t too busy. Planned Parenthood, NOW (the National Organization of “I don’t know what kind of ” Women) and other “feminist” organizations have always been against the waiting period, a sonogram to show the baby’s level of development, or a discussion about the benefits of giving life and finding a suitable two-parent, married mom and dad family for adoption.

Second, she says, “I can’t imagine the circumstances that would cause a woman to choose abortion. But I can appreciate that each one who does has reasons that only she can reconcile with her conscience.

I have been on radio taking calls from slightly more than 50% women for 32 years. I know why women have abortions, because they’ve called. It is rarely because of severe anomalies or life-threatening circumstances. It is generally because of “circumstances,” usually meaning the one-night stand, casual boyfriend, fiancé, or sometimes husband doesn’t want a child or else dumps them.

Ms. Campbell continues: “It’s all too tempting to make judgments about which motives we consider justified and which we don’t. But then we risk wandering into scary territory. How far do we want to let lawmakers and zealots reach into our most personal and private decisions when they haven’t a clue about what’s best for us?

What?? We should make no judgments about motivations to kill another human being? Self-defense in an armed robbery deserves the same respect as the intentional murder of innocents by a suicide-bombing? A woman who keeps having casual sex and uses abortion as birth control can’t be judged differently from a pregnant woman with a serious heart problem who might die if the pregnancy goes to term?

I, for one, am sick and tired with the “nothing should be judged” nonsense. Of course we judge - that’s how we make decisions and choices every day. To judge is to discern good from evil, right from wrong, and selfish from selfless. Without that, we are just lower animals.

Abortions out of shame, embarrassment, or inconvenience are a horrible, despicable disaster. An Abortion to save the life of the mother is self-defense.

There. I dared to judge.

Monday, April 30, 2007



Finally, the US Supreme Court has ruled that a 19 year old scumbag (probably a leftwinger too - most violent criminals are democrats - ask me why, please ask me why!) has no right to sue law enforcement for chasing him and 'causing' him to lose control of his car.

Back on March 19, 2001, Victor Harris rolled his car down an embankment and became a quadriplegic. Aww, if only the criminal had just pulled over! He sued and the US Supreme Court said, "too bad douchebag. You get NOTHING."

By 8 to 1, the justices found in favor of the Coweta County deputy sheriff, Timothy Scott, and against the driver, Victor Harris, who was 19 when his car hurtled down an embankment and overturned, leaving him a quadriplegic, on the night of March 29, 2001.

The court found, contrary to Mr. Harris’s contention, that the deputy’s decision to ram the car was reasonable under the circumstances. The facts in the case — supported by a videotape of the chase, which reached speeds of 90 miles an hour on rain-slicked roads — were so damning against Mr. Harris that there was no need for a jury to consider them, the justices ruled, again contrary to Mr. Harris’s argument. --New York Times

This is justice. We are THRILLED. Chalk one up for the good guys this time.


Collect 'em, trade 'em, pass 'em around!

Los Angeles schools encourage illegal immigration

In Los Angeles, there will be a special curriculum tomorrow, teaching students how to write a petition and contact their legislators to affect change in immigration laws.

We can’t ask 'WTF?' loud enough!

Why is public school teaching this kind of two-bit illegal immigrant activism? Because public schools are funded on per-student attendance and more students means more money. Also, the illegal immigration proponets are building a campaign called “when black and brown work together we are stronger.”

Smart, because right now, the black community is pissed off about how many of their low wage jobs are being taken by illegal immigrants at even lower pay. What a mess! And the public schools are working to make it WORSE.


Collect 'em, trade 'em, pass 'em around!

Bay Area bridge bites Rosie in the ass

What was it Rosie said? Oh yeah - she said mockingly that the World Trade Center building collapse was the "first time fire has melted steel." Her intent was to proclaim that steel is not melted by fire. Sure it is. More importantly though, steel is weakened by fire, and that's what led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.

But now, after this happened in the bay area, our girl Rosie has been very quiet.

Very, very quiet indeed.

Just like all leftwing moonbats, she will not be admitting how stupid she was.

Friday, April 27, 2007


Alec Baldwin's appearance on The View

Is this just spin? Perhaps. But what I see is a strikingly honest analysis of a bitter ongoing divorce, and a string of horrors that led to his meltdown. The website and person in particular that Baldwin speaks of as being a tabloid trough feeder is Harvey Levin of who first published the nasty tape.

We think that whoever* provided the tape of the call to the public did at least as nasty a deed as the message itself. Give both Parts 1 and 2 a watch. I'd enjoy knowing what you think AFTER you watch the video clips. --JZ

*It is said to be Kim Basinger, the ex wife, and logically it almost has to be.

For Part 2, simply click HERE.


Frist: Fred Thompson Will Run and Win
Friday, April 27, 2007 8:19 a.m. EDT
This article was written by Paul Bond.

The question of whether Fred Thomspson will run for president has been settled: He’ll run, and he’ll win. That is if one is to believe the prognostic powers of Thompson’s friend Bill Frist, the former U.S. Senate majority leader.

Frist gave his prediction Tuesday at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles, where he shared a stage with Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, former Congressman Harold Ford Jr., former head of the Republican National Committee Kenneth Mehlman, The Huffington Post co-founder Arianna Huffington and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report Mortimer Zuckerman.

"I have a relationship with all these people — a bad one,” quipped Ailes, just before pressing each on their presidential prediction. Mehlman said Rudy Giuliani will be the next president while Huffington predicted Barack Obama. Zuckerman said the next president will be Michael Bloomberg, the Republican New York mayor who, like Thompson, hasn’t declared himself a candidate.

Only Ford demurred, telling Ailes that, as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council he’d rather not show favoritism to one Democratic candidate over others. Huffington also noted that former Vice President Al Gore has been losing weight, a sure sign (maybe) that he’s thinking of throwing his hat into the ring.

Not so fast, joked Ailes. Gore is losing weight "because he thinks Greenland is gonna break off and he’ll have to run” from it. Ailes, known for his good-natured barbs at these sorts of events, prodded the sold-out audience to read Huffington’s blog,, daily, even though it contains "a reasonable amount of nonsense.” When the inevitable topic of the Iraq war came up, Huffington proclaimed, "The American Army is broken.” Ailes likened fighting terrorists in Iraq to dancing with a bear: You don’t stop until the bear says it’s time to stop.

The Milken event ran Sunday-Wednesday. Other participants included Sen. John Kerry, his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, tennis star Andre Agassi, actors Michael J. Fox and Kirk Douglas and Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp., parent company of Fox News Channel, the New York Post and dozens of other media assets worldwide.

Murdoch defended George W. Bush and criticized the media for endlessly bashing the president while downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorism. "I’m a supporter of President Bush, but I do believe he’s a bad — or inadequate — communicator,” Murdoch said. While Bush is personally persuasive, strong and articulate, "he seems to freeze whenever a television camera appears.”

© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.

Thompson remains our pick for President in '08 without hesitation. --JZ


By Oliver North April 27, 2007

If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is right, nearly 60 percent of Americans agree with him that the war in Iraq is already lost. And if he is correct in saying that losing the war will increase Democrat majorities in future elections, then it may be fair to conclude that Americans now love losers. I'm not buying any of it -- and neither are the troops who are fighting this war.

In the days since Reid announced "this war is lost," I have heard from dozens of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines that I have covered in eight trips to Iraq and two to Afghanistan for FOX News. Some of those who correspond with me are there now, others are home. Some are preparing to deploy again. None of them agree with Reid's assessment.

One e-mail from Ramadi, Iraq observed: "Good thing this guy Reid wasn't around in 1940 when Winston Churchill promised the people of Great Britain nothing but 'blood, toil, tears and sweat.'" Another, a Guardsman who recently returned from Mesopotamia with a Purple Heart, noted that Reid has become "Al Qaeda's most powerful ally." A Marine corporal I last saw along the banks of the Tigris River -- now a Mississippi State University student -- asked me, "Do those people who think we've lost this war have any idea what things will be like if we really do lose?" It's an important question that none of the potentates on the Potomac who just voted to withdraw U.S. troops appear willing to address.

According to military folklore, Napoleon kept a corporal at his side to ensure that the orders issued in battle were understandable by the troops who had to carry them out. Whether true or not, it's time for Reid and Nancy Pelosi to find such a corporal who will ask them such questions, for if the Democrats continue their current course, we may well lose this war -- and they will have embraced defeat and all that comes with it.

What would losing the war in Iraq mean? It's a picture so dark and depressing that it makes the collapse in Vietnam, 32 years ago next week, look like a Sunday school picnic. The fall of Saigon was horrific for the people of Vietnam and their neighbors in Cambodia and Laos. More than 5 million became refugees and by the most conservative estimates at least a million others perished.

For most Americans, the consequences were minimal. The vast majority of the 2.8 million of us who had fought and bled there mourned the loss of 58,253 of our comrades, swallowed the bitterness of defeat and got on with our lives. Our nation spent a few hundred million tax dollars on refugee relief and resettlement, and tried to forget what people in Reid's party called "the long nightmare of Vietnam."

But classified U.S. intelligence assessments, military contingency plans and staff studies evaluating the consequences of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, coupled with the lack of funding for political reform measures, as contained in the legislation just passed by Reid's party, paint a far more dismal picture than anything that happened after Vietnam.

-- Within months, an immediate upsurge in vicious sectarian violence fomented by Iranian intervention on behalf of Shiite militias and Wahabbi-supported, Al Qaeda-affiliated terror groups. As U.S. forces retreat to a half-dozen staging areas for retrograde through Kuwait and Jordan, American casualties will dramatically increase as suicide bombers seek "martyrdom" in their victory.

-- Inside of 18 months, the fragile democratically elected government in Baghdad will collapse, precipitating a real sectarian civil war and the creation of Taliban-like "regional governments" that will impose brutal, misogynistic rule throughout the country. The ensuing flood of refuges into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran will overwhelm relief organizations, creating a humanitarian disaster making what's happening in Darfur pale by comparison.

-- The Kurds in northern Iraq are likely to declare an autonomous region that could well result in Turkish, Iranian and even Syrian military intervention.

-- In the course of withdrawing U.S. combat brigades and support units, billions of dollars in American military equipment and ordnance will have to be destroyed or left behind. More than $40 billion in reconstruction projects for schools, health-care facilities, sanitation, clean water, electrical distribution and agricultural development will be abandoned. Plans to exploit the new West Qurna oil field in southeastern Iraq will be forsaken.

-- The governments of Kuwait, Jordan, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, intimidated by Iranian boldness in acquiring nuclear weapons, will likely insist on the withdrawal of American military bases from their territories. Such a move will jeopardize U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf and logistics, intelligence collection and command and control facilities supporting operations in Afghanistan.

-- As Iraq becomes a battleground for the centuries-long Sunni-Shia conflict, radical Islamic terror organizations will use the territories they control to prepare and launch increasingly deadly terror attacks around the globe against U.S. citizens, businesses and interests.

Reid and his cohorts in Congress who believe "this war is lost" have acted to ensure that it will be. No one asked them: "If we lost, who won?" The answer should be obvious.

Reid has really hurt the democrats - he is going to end up having helped the Republicans in 2008; Mark my words. You heard it here first. --JZ

Thursday, April 26, 2007


• Liberals have committed to this tactic


Jimmy Z, Lost Angeles

It's come down to this. Even the San Francisco Chronicle has ceased calling the bill in Washington a "troop funding bill;" now it's the Troop Exit Bill. Check it out HERE.

So that's it. This is what the democrats are going to hang 2008's run for the White House on - we tried to get the troops out of the war. This is all they can muster, this is what they wanted to do if they got control of Congress.

This is their best effort, this is what appeases their moonbat base. The anti-war kook fringe funds them through Soros and his ilk, so they really had no choice. This is their big stand.

Never mind that they are NOT the commander in chief. The Constitution does not see it that way; we do not see it that way, and anyone who knows the least tiny bit about the Constitution does not see it that way.

But Harry Reid (who ought to resign) and Nancy Pelosi (who tried to begin her own private foreign policy and was slammed by right and left alike!) are struggling against the Constitution to bring our troops home. They are much like a vile leftwing moonbat we know elsewhere online who once said that we ought to fight the terrorists here, on our own soil, not over there on their soil.

If Reid and Pelosi got their way, that's what would happen. The bottom line, my friends, is that this President might be imperfect, and this President may not be handling the border like we would have it done, but this President is stronger than many others, because he stands up for what he believes in and he tells Reid and Pelosi to take a hike.

The bill will be vetoed, and the truth will be out there for all to see: democrats in congress sought to undermine our war effort, pulled the rug out from underneath our military, and tried to do an end around on our country's Constitution. And in 2008, we will be reminding Americans of this.

Only the Soros/Moore moonbat crowd will appreciate it.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007


Stone or no stone for Cho?
Jimmy Z, Lost Angeles

It is astounding that we've 'educated' (indoctrinated) our children with such a misguided sense of compassion, they cannot set up a memorial to the innocent without including the mass murderer. Using this logic, shall we include the islamo fascist terrorists in the 9-11 memorial in New York City? Shall we put up a plaque honoring the deaths of the two rotten apples that shot up Columbine? Maybe we should honor some of the living killers too. Maybe a nice puff piece on Charles Manson - after all, he's been not murdering for a long time now. Or Mark Chapman - he's getting along well these days. He killed John Lennon, but what the hell. He should be honored for sticking it out and getting his life back - what do you say?

No, there ought not be a stone out there for Cho within the memorial for the 32 innocent people he killed. We wish we were a student there. They'd have to cuff us and take us away before we'd cease removing whatever stupid stone these misguided morons place in his name. One student cited her sense of morality as she replaced the stone. Good God Almighty, what have we done to America's children?

Dig it yourself HERE.

Plus: Already, a judge calls a mistrial because of Virginia Tech massacre

A judge has called a mistrial because of Cho shooting up Virginia Tech - a lawyer defending a man accused of pulling a gun on two golfers said that his client couldn't get a fair trial now because he's Korean American. The judge FELL FOR IT.

So why don't we let all the Korean American murderers and gang bangers and rapists and burglers and armed felons of every kind off with a pass because, after all, no one can get a fair trial now that Cho killed a bunch of innocent people.

We are not so much blaming the lawyer - that's his job to come up with any cockamamie way to get his client off - but the judge should be smarter than that. Wait, we suppose if it were a liberal judge, this kind of moonbat behavior is to be expected.

Digest it HERE.


Here is another reason why we admire her so much: Ann Coulter on gun laws
Photo courtesy

Nuts in the crosshairs
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, April 25, 2007

For cranky right-wingers who think politicians don't listen to them, this week I give you elected Democrats running like scared schoolgirls from the media's demand that they enact new gun control laws in response to the Virginia Tech shooting.

Instead, Democrats are promoting a mental health exception to the right to bear arms. We've banned mass murder and that hasn't seemed to work. So now we're going to ban mass murderers. Yes, that will do the trick!

This is a feel-good measure that is both wildly under-inclusive (the vast majority of nutcases receive no formal court adjudication of their nuttiness) and wildly over-inclusive (the vast majority of nuts don't kill people). The worst thing most nuts do is irritate everybody else by driving their electric cars on the highway.

As lovely as it would be, we cannot identify mass murderers before they have broken any law, and mass murder is often the first serious crime they commit. No one can be locked up permanently for being potentially dangerous.

Even stalking laws can put away a person known to be dangerous for only a few years -- at best -- which is generally not worth spending a day sitting in court, facing your stalker, and then waiting a month for the court order.

So on one hand, the mental health exception is a feel-good measure that would be largely pointless. But on the other hand, it's no skin off my back. Liberals go to therapy. Conservatives go to church. And I think we'd all sleep better knowing that David Brock could not buy a gun.

In fact, I think we should expand the mental illness exception to cover First Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights.

I note that before mass murder, the only harassment the Virginia Tech killer was guilty of involved speech: creepy e-mails, creepy short stories, creepy phone calls. Stalkers, too, engage in frightening speech -- but that is protected. Revealing a stalking victim's address is "speech" but is little different from being the one to pull the trigger.

This small measure would have taken Dan "What's the Frequency, Kenneth" Rather off the airwaves years ago, preventing him from presenting doctored National Guard documents to the American people to try to throw a presidential election. A mental illness bar would deal a quick blow to Air America and both its remaining listeners. It would also free up about 90 percent of the Internet.

And it would end the public lunacy of Jim Wallis, the Democrats' Christian. Wallis' first remark on the massacre at Virginia Tech last week was to hail the remarkable "diversity" of the victims. True, Cho murdered 32 people in cold blood. But at least he achieved diversity!

Anyone who thinks a single-minded fixation on diversity must be the ultimate goal of every human endeavor, including mass murder, is not the sort of person who should be able to buy a gun or to publish his daft ruminations in public forums.

But just to get this straight: Democrats are saying we should be able to jail "strange" or "angry" people, but we can't deplane imams who demand extra-length seatbelts after boarding?

Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed the public expressions of shame and contrition from the Korean-American community after the Virginia Tech shooting? Of course, no one blames this exemplary community for the actions of one nut. The Koreans are manifestly law-abiding and decent -- nipping at the heels of Italians as the greatest Americans and tied for second with the Cubans.

Indeed, I believe this marks the first time a Korean has killed anyone in the United States, not involving an automobile. Nonetheless, Korean congregations, community groups and the family members themselves are issuing statements of sorrow. Not "pleas for tolerance." But sorrow. Remorse. Remember those? They were big back in the day.

If the Koreans can do it, why can't the Muslims? What explains the lack of a Muslim guilt impulse -- so normal, as seen in the case of the saddened Koreans -- after dozens of terrorist attacks on Americans?

How about a Muslim exception to the Second Amendment? That would have prevented the Virginia snipers from killing 10 people within three weeks in 2002. But most important: It would help us achieve "diversity" in our gun law prohibitions.

We also note that the creepy notes, stalking, and online harassment by mass murderer Cho fits the M.O. of a lot of nasty online leftwing moonbats. For them, it's never been about politics, but about harassment, stalking and intimidation through all kinds of threats over the internet. This is blatant cowardice - of course, Cho himself was the ultimate coward as well. So we wonder, will the next Cho be another liberal, perhaps a leftwing moonbat we know? Could be... could be... --JZ

Tuesday, April 24, 2007


Reid Must Resign
Mark Levin photo courtesy
by Mark Levin, in his
National Review Online Blog

Attacking Alberto Gonzales is like clubbing a baby seal. He's weak. He was always weak. He was weak when he served as White House counsel. He was weak when he was confirmed by the Senate for attorney general. And he was weak during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. Now, before there was Gonzales, there was John Ashcroft. He was always strong. He was strong when he served in the Senate. He was strong when he was confirmed by the Senate for attorney general. And he was strong when he testified before the 9/11 Commission. They said he had to go because he was strong.

Everyone knows what's going on here. The Democrats, who started this, want Gonzales's head on a stake as another supposed example of administration corruption. They want the public to believe that the firing of these eight U.S. attorneys is the equivalent of Watergate. These are the same Democrats who defended Janet Reno to the end despite real malfeasance, including the Elian Gonzales disaster, the WACO massacre, and the deadly expansion of the legal wall between the CIA and FBI. In comparison, Gonzales is Oliver Wendell Holmes. But Republicans have had enough of him. They see him as incapable of defending himself, let alone advancing a conservative agenda. And they hope to replace him with someone more to their liking, which will never happen given this Senate. In the big scheme, none of this matters, and the public could care less. The president’s ratings aren’t affected by this. This is an inside-the-beltway manufactured scandal.

(By the way, I say this as someone who has never been impressed with Gonzales, Harriet Miers, and so many of the people the president holds close.)

Far more relevant, consequential and disturbing is the behavior of the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who by word and action is actively undermining our fighting men and women in Iraq. His legislative efforts to starve our armed forces in the middle of a war are as contemptible as anything I’ve witnessed in my 25 years in Washington. And yesterday he made a statement that was so disgraceful and brazen that it could have been uttered by Tokyo Rose during World War II or Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War. The difference, of course, is that Reid is the highest ranking Democrat in the United States Senate.

For those who are so pre-occupied with Gonzales that they may not have heard it, this is what Reid said yesterday: "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."

So, Reid announces to our brave volunteers that their country is sending them to a lost war. And he announces to our enemy that victory is within their reach — just keep up the killing a little longer. During my radio show last night, I received a call from a Gold Star father. He was outraged by Reid’s comment. He has called before and has become a good friend. But I’ve never heard him as angry and frustrated as he was last night.

Rather than join the chorus demanding Gonzales's resignation, let me be the first to demand Reid's resignation. And let's see how many pundits, conservative and otherwise, will join me.

* * *

Also, this audio: Dick Cheney fires back and Harry Reid, and all Reid can do is call Cheney an "attack dog." Typical liberal ad hom politics - Cheney was so civil, yet so pointed, when he dismantled Reid, all Reid could do is whine about it. Licking his wounds, Reid cowers in fear and shame.

Want to hear why Reid is whining and cowering?
Click HERE for the audio.

• Should have told them to piss up a rope

Use of Wiccan Symbol on Veterans’
Headstones Is Approved


WASHINGTON, April 23 — To settle a lawsuit, the Department of Veterans Affairs has agreed to add the Wiccan pentacle to a list of approved religious symbols that it will engrave on veterans’ headstones. The settlement, which was reached on Friday, was announced on Monday by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the plaintiffs in the case.

Though it has many forms, Wicca is a type of pre-Christian belief that reveres nature and its cycles. Its symbol is the pentacle, a five-pointed star, inside a circle.

Until now, the Veterans Affairs department had approved 38 symbols to indicate the faith of deceased service members on memorials. It normally takes a few months for a petition by a faith group to win the department’s approval, but the effort on behalf of the Wiccan symbol took about 10 years and a lawsuit, said Richard B. Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United.

The group attributed the delay to religious discrimination. Many Americans do not consider Wicca a religion, or hold the mistaken belief that Wiccans are devil worshipers.

“The Wiccan families we represented were in no way asking for special treatment,” the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said at a news conference Monday. “They wanted precisely the same treatment that dozens of other religions already had received from the department, an acknowledgment that their spiritual beliefs were on par with those of everyone else.”

A Veterans Affairs spokesman, Matt Burns, confirmed that the “V.A. will be adding the pentacle to its list of approved emblems of belief that will be engraved on government-provided markers.”

“The government acted to settle in the interest of the families concerned,” Mr. Burns added, “and to spare taxpayers the expense of further litigation.” There are 1,800 Wiccans in the armed forces, according to a Pentagon survey cited in the suit, and Wiccans have their faith mentioned in official handbooks for military chaplains and noted on their dog tags.

At least 11 families will be immediately affected by the V.A.’s decision, said the Rev. Selena Fox, senior minister of Circle Sanctuary, a Wiccan church in Wisconsin.