THE POLITICALLY DEAD LIST

The ABC News Nightline program tonight is entirely a political tool of the left. There can be no question of that...airing and reading the names of those that have been killed in combat in Iraq is not a stunt, not for ratings, but political for several reasons as outlined below:

1. They include ONLY those killed by hostile fire - apparently, those that died in accidents and training exersizes aren't worthy of inclusion.

2. They include ONLY those in Iraq - they must think those that died in Afghanistan (like Pat Tillman) don't deserve to be included either.

3. It's being held within 24-hours of the date that President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72). Tonight's airdate carries no other military significance whatsoever - it's not Memorial Day, Veteran's Day or anything else.

4. As far as we know, ABC has no plans to do the same on those significant holidays - and don't plan to include regular and similar recognition to those that my give their lives in future dates (like they did when Nightline began airing updates on the Iran Hostages).

5. ABC has yet to air or offer similar "honors" to those Americans who have been killed as a result of terrorist activity - including September 11th and since then.

So, it's fairly straightforward. Well, as I mentioned yesterday, turnabout is fair play. Below, you'll find the list of those Representatives and Senators who voted against the 87-billion dollar Supplemental Appropriations Bill to provide for the reconstruction and equipping of Iraq and Afghanistan troops. Call them the "political dead" depending on how many of them who are up for re-election do in November. Notice how fair I am by not listing party affiliation and/or whether or not they are up for re-election...

Representatives voting against 87-billion dollar funding package for the troops in Afgahnistan and Iraq. Name, followed by state abbreviation, and district...regional Representatives in bold:

Neil Abercrombie (HI) 1st
Brian Baird (WA) 3rd
Tammy Baldwin (WI) 2nd
Frank Balance (NC) 1st
Xavier Becerra (CA) 31st
Chris Bell (TX) 25th
Marion Berry (AK) 1st
Earl Blumenaue (OR) 3rd
Leonard Boswell (IA) 3rd
Rick Boucher (VA) 9th
Robert Brady (PA) 1st
Corrine Brown (FL) 3rd
Sherrod Brown (OH)13th
Michael Capuano(MA) 8th
Julia Carson (IN) 7th
James Clyburn (SC) 6th
John Conyers (MI)14th
Jerry Costello (IL) 12th
Joseph Crowley (NY) 7th
Elijah Cummings(MD) 7th
Artur Davis (AL) 7th
Danny Davis (IL) 7th
Peter DeFazio (OR) 4th
Diana DeGette (CO) 1st
William Delahunt (MA)10th
Rosa DeLauro (CT) 3rd
Peter Deutsch (FL) 20th
John Dingell (MI) 15th
Lloyd Doggett (TX) 10th
Mike Doyle (PA) 14th
John Duncan, Jr. (TN) 10th
Anna Eshoo (CA) 14th
Lane Evans (IL) 17th
Sam Farr (CA) 17th
Chaka Fattah (PA) 2nd
Bob Filner (CA) 51st
Barney Frank (MA) 4th
Raul Grijalva (AZ) 7th
Luis Gutierrez (IL) 4th
Jane Harman (CA) 36th
Alcee Hastings (FL) 23rd
MauriceHinchey (NY) 22nd
Joseph Hoeffel (PA) 13th
Rush Holt (NJ) 12th
Mike Honda (CA) 15th
Jay Inslee (WA) 1st
Jesse Jackson,Jr (IL) 13th
Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX) 18th
William Jefferson (LA) 2nd
E. B. Johnson (TX) 30th
Paul Kanjorski (PA) 11th
Marcy Kaptur (OH) 9th
Dale Kildee (MI) 5th
Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI) 15th
Gerald Kleczka (WI) 4th
Dennis Kucinich (OH) 10th
John Larson (CT) 1st
Steven LaTourette (OH) 14th
Barbara Lee (CA) 9th
John Lewis (GA) 5th
Zoe Lofgren (CA) 16th
Denise Majette (GA) 4th
Ed Markey (MA) 7th
Robert Matsui (CA) 5th
Karen McCarthy (MO) 5th
Betty McCollum (MN) 4th
Jim McDermott (WA) 7th
James McGovern (MA) 3rd
Marty Meehan (MA) 5th
Kendrick Meek (FL) 17th
Gregory Meeks (NY) 6th
Bob Menendez (NJ) 13th
Michael Michaud (ME) 2nd
Juanita Millender-McDonald (CA) 37th
George Miller (CA) 7th
Jim Moran (VA) 8th
Jerrold Nadler (NY) 8th
Grace Napolitano (CA) 38th
James Oberstar (MN) 8th
David Obey (WI) 7th
John Olver (MA) 1st
Butch Otter (ID) 1st
Ed Pastor (AZ) 4th
Ron Paul (TX) 14th
Donald Payne (NJ) 10th
Nancy Pelosi (CA) 4th
Thomas Petri (WI) 6th
Nick Rahall (WV) 3rd
Charles Rangel (NY) 15th
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA) 34th
Bobby Rush (IL) 1st
Tim Ryan (OH) 17th
Linda T. Sanchez (CA) 39th
Bernie Sanders (VT) At Large
Jan Schakowsky (IL) 9th
Adam Schiff (CA) 29th
Bobby Scott (VA) 3rd
Jose Serrano (NY) 16th
Brad Sherman (CA) 27th
Louise Slaughter (NY) 28th
Adam Smith (WA) 9th
Hilda Solis (CA) 32nd
Pete Stark (CA) 13th
Ted Strickland (OH) 6th
Bart Stupak (MI) 1st
Tom Tancredo (CO) 6th
Bennie Thompson (MS) 2nd
Mike Thompson (CA) 1st
John Tierney (MA) 6th
Edolphus Towns (NY) 10th
Mark Udall (CO) 2nd
Tom Udall (NM) 3rd
Chris Van Hollen (MD) 8th
Nydia Velázquez (NY) 12th
Maxine Waters (CA) 25th
Diane Watson (CA) 33rd
Mel Watt (NC) 12th
Henry Waxman (CA) 30th
Anthony Weiner (NY) 9th
Robert Wexler (FL) 19th
Lynn Woolsey (CA) 6th
David Wu (OR) 1st
Albert Wynn (MD) 4th

---- NOT VOTING 7 ---

Lois Capps (CA) 23rd
William Clay, Jr. (MO) 1st
Stephanie Jones (OH) 11th
Jim Marshall (GA) 3rd
Buck McKeon (CA) 25th
Adam Putnam (FL) 12th
Mark Souder (IN) 3rd

Senators voting against 87-billion dollar funding package for the troops in Afgahnistan and Iraq. Name, followed by state abbreviation...regional Senators in bold:

Barbara Boxer (CA)
Robert Byrd (WV)
John Edwards (NC)
Bob Graham (FL)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Ernest Hollings (SC)
Jim Jeffords (VT)
Ted Kennedy (MA)
John Kerry (MA)
Frank Lautenberg (NJ)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Paul Sarbanes (MD)

IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE CYNICAL AND OPTIMISTIC?

ABC News has said that on Friday's Nightline, Ted Koppel is slated to read the names of more than 500 U.S. servicemen killed in the Iraq since the war began March 19, 2003. Executive producer Leroy Sievers acknowledged that the roll call of the dead is a take-off of an anti-war Vietnam project undertaken by Life magazine in 1969, in which the names and faces of 217 of the 242 soldiers killed in one week of that war were assembled.

But Sievers told the New York Times that ABC's venture has "no intended political statement." As for the program airing right at the May 1 anniversary of the President's declaration of the end of major hostilities -- a declaration that has been often distorted by Bush's anti-war critics as some sort of promise of no further casualties -- Koppel incredibly told the Times: "That is purely a coincidence."

I'm torn between believing that this IS a stunt designed to elicit bad feelings about the war and the number of deaths - and believing that the American people will react positively to what they're trying to do. If memory serves me correctly, ALL of the recent anti-Bush publicity has only served to increase the support he has among the American people. I have a sneaking suspicion that this may backfire as well...just like when the newsheads react with surprise when a clearly anti-Semitic movie (sarcasm) like the Passion of the Christ becomes a #1 box office smash.

We'll see...

By the way - just to be fair - I'll be posting the names and states of every member of Congress who voted against providing 87-billion dollars in supplemental support for the members of the military in Afghanistan. Turnabout is fair play.

EMAILS FROM AN AMERICA FIRST TYPE DUDE...

Sentimentality will only get you so far in the battle for logic and critical thinking when it comes to the issues of outsourcing, trade deficits, and the shrimping industry here in South Carolina. While I understand the beautiful visions of someone going to work and being "protected" by the government from ever having to do anything different to earn their living, it's unsettling to me when you consider the advancement of the United States and how we got to where we are today. See if you can follow the logic of young Karl here:

Please explain to me why you are willing to sell out American economic advantage to the WTO? Why not sell out American military advantage to the UN and International Criminal Court while you are at it? You pretend like Iraq is a threat and ignore repeated attacks by China. I don't understand your hypocrisy. Imported drugs are dangerous but imported food is fine?

Seriously you don't know what you are talking about. Aquaculture has the ability to grow shrimp indoors. Indoors we can manipulate the temperature and photoperiod (daylength) to any "season" we want. We can have local shrimp whenever we decide. But not if shrimp dumping keeps prices artificially low.

Don't trust the seafood suppliers. They are making record profits by buying the low priced foreign shrimp and selling at normal or increased menu prices.

As soon as the American shrimp industry collapses, the price of foreign shrimp will soar. Look at the steel industry. Rebar costs are up 300% and Toyota Tundras now cost LESS than F-150s. That is unconscionable. Foreign substitutes should always be priced above homegrown alternatives.

My reply:

Indoor shrimp? Why isn’t anyone investing in an operation to do that in SC? That’s a great idea. I’m sure the shrimpers on Shem Creek would love to compete against that. They’d gladly give up their boats to sit in an office and monitor a pool.

The argument is being conducted with a lot of sentimental baloney. They are advocating preserving a way of life when the market for production and distribution is changing...they don’t want to keep up with change. We can compete economically – but it will have to be after some changing of habits...more work, better products, and better value...and there are far too many factors that play into those aspects than simply trade restrictions and tariffs. Had we not had Japanese car dumping in the US in the 80’s, we’d still be driving piece of crap K-cars instead of the much improved American vehicles of today (which I still avoid because they’re still not good enough).

Then, there's this:

Why do we have an Army? To protect what, if not the American way of life? And what is the American way of life but the way we make a LIVING! For what the free traders are suggesting, we might as well just go ahead and outsource our government and be done with it already! Because that is what we are doing with the HUGE trade deficits. The American people are buying on credit and selling off industry at every turn with no end in sight. At some point soon it will become obvious that the SS, Federal, Trade, and personal debt we are carrying cannot ever be repayed. And then what? The boom and bust of the capitalist system? At least we should defend against such economic attacks by countries like China, I think. They are trying to get control of the food supply.

Finally, I move in for the KILL:

The way you make a living is being protected...just not guaranteed to be the same forever.

More examples: Typesetters outsourced by laser printers; Typists outsourced by word processing; Secretaries outsourced by Outlook and Office software; bad local radio shows outsourced by satellites; Operators outsourced by computer switching; Magnetic tape outsourced by digital hard drives...

I could go on. The point not being considered by people like yourself are the jobs being created in the evolution of those kinds of jobs.

And by the way...The trade deficit is a somewhat bogus issue...as shown (graph photo), since 1997, the growth in GDP has been proportional to the growth in the trade deficit.

Read the book, The Tariff History of the United States, economist Frank Taussig concluded that high tariffs did little to stimulate domestic production. This is evident in the fact that the U.S. ran a trade deficit almost continuously from 1790 to 1875.

A key reason for the trade deficit is that the U.S. was the China of its day: a place where cheap land greatly reduced production costs, just as cheap labor reduces costs in China. This led to a flood of foreign investment into the U.S., especially in transportation technology like railroads, which were the Internet of their day. It is a simple matter of accounting: When a nation is a net capital importer, it must run a trade deficit.

Thus when a nation has good economic prospects and attracts foreign investment, it tends to run deficits. Conversely, when its prospects are bleak and capital is trying to escape the country, it will tend to run surpluses. Therefore, the existence of a surplus or deficit may tell us exactly the opposite of what a lot of people believe. Deficits may be a sign of strength, while surpluses are a sign of weakness.

Feel better? Good...

THE WAR ON TERROR

I had a interesting caller yesterday (among the many libs who I allow through) claiming that there's absolutely no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In my belief, this is not true. Citing a number of other well documented connections between terrorists and the former Iraqi regime, I offer the following from news reports and research and a thought below:

Abu Abbas -- Iraq's terror connection was evidenced by Saddam's longstanding protection of Abu Abbas, the leader of a terrorist group that in 1985 hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship and murdered an elderly, wheelchair-bound American passenger named Leon Klinghoffer. This was the same Abu Abbas who in recent years, according to FBI counter-terrorism analyst Mathew Levitt, "was the conduit for Saddam Hussein's financing of the [Palestinian] suicide bombers"; the same Abu Abbas whom three captured Palestinian terrorists recently admitted they had met in December 2000, at which time they were in Iraq for training in the use of weapons and explosives. Earlier, US commandoes tracked down and arrested Abbas in Iraq, where he had indeed been living for most of the past seventeen years - just as President Bush told us.

Ansar al Islam -- it has been known for years that Saddam armed and financed Ansar al Islam, a force of some six to seven hundred extremists that operated a terror camp in northern Iraq's no-fly zone, controlling a string of villages along the Iranian border of the Kurdish self-rule area. Ansar al Islam, a bin Laden-affiliated terrorist group in Northern Iraq, which a government official says was involved in smuggling the nerve agent out of Iraq. In "The Great Terror (March 3, 2002)," Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker described the relationship between Saddam Hussein's intelligence services and al-Ansar -- senior Ansar members trained at a camp in Afghanistan that specialized in the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons, such as ricin.

Abu Mussab al Zarqawi -- He is a very senior al Qaeda leader and fled Afghanistan after the Taliban was defeated, had his injured leg treated in a Baghdad hospital - surely with the knowledge of the Iraqi dictator and his secret police - after which he was sent to create a poison laboratory in the Ansar terrorist cell. The Ansar camp, incidentally, was targeted and annihilated by American warplanes.

Judge Harold Baer -- The judge in the lawsuit filed by September 11th families ruled on May 7 2003 that Iraq provided "material support and resources" to al Qaeda and conspired with them to commit the 9/11 attacks. The evidence included testimony about Salman Pak, a terrorist training facility southeast of Baghdad that featured an old passenger jet used to teach hijacking techniques to terrorists.

Sabah Khodada -- defected from the Iraqi army and came to the U.S. in May 2001. He gave an interview to the PBS Frontline program and the New York Times. U.S. troops in Iraq took control of the facility on April 6, 2003, and confirmed Khodada's account of what was at Salman Pak. CIA director George Tenet had written an October 7, 2002 letter noting that there had been "senior level contacts" between Iraq and al Qaeda "going back a decade," that Iraq and al Qaeda had "discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression," that there was "solid evidence" of al Qaeda members in Iraq, and that there was "credible reporting" of al Qaeda members seeking weapons of mass destruction "capabilities" from Iraq.

These are just a few of the things I could dig up in the short time between the end of the show yesterday and this morning. There are more...but again, it is up to you to put aside your normal biases and read the reports objectively.

The problem with some of you liberals is you keep moving the bar - we are not fighting the War on September 11th...or the War on Al Qaeda...it is the War on Terror. First it becomes a test on whether there was any connection between Saddam and terrorists. Then, when that's proved to any sane persons satisfaction, it becomes a test on whether there was any connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Then that is proved, and it becomes a test on whether there was any connection between Saddam and September 11th. I suppose the next test will be whether Saddam purchased the box cutters at a local hardware store.

In the end, you can choose to believe that Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda at all...he worked publicly and privately with EVERY OTHER terrorist group including Hamas, PLO, Islamic Jihad, Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Ansar al Islam, but NOT Al Qaeda? Saddam and Iraq somehow avoided noticing and/or working with the most successful and well-funded terrorist group in the world? Seems strange when you think about it that way...

Two of the better reports:

Stephen F Hayes report in the Weekly Standard of September 1, 2003

Washington Post article of December 12, 2002 (psst...BEFORE the war)

WELL, I'M BACK...AND LOOK WHAT THE MEDIA DRAGGED IN...

I had a great vacation...sort of. The weather was terrible, but the golf and companionship was great. Wondering the whole time how the great debate is going, I summed up the entire weekend by receiving and responding to the following email:

Greg,

Was wondering if you noticed if the troop support is still there? From my eyes , I don't see it much anymore. Just in driving and lookin around I see that the US Flag is not out as much. And some of the ones I do see , should have been respected and taken down along time ago.

I am not longer surprized at the reactions of deaths in Iraq and Afgahn. I feel that Pat Tillman showed America that there are some real heros in the world. We could all stand to have Role Models such as that in the NFL , NBA, MLB, NHL . But alot of those trops dying were not celeberties, so why should there deaths be not just as important?

I hope that we have not let our guard down, but I see that we have. And again I feel that we will have another sad awakening.

Blake

National Director 82nd Airborne Division Association

Commander Low Country All Airborne Chapter

My Response:

I think it is, but the problem is in the relay of information on how we're fighting the war on terror. People are used to seeing military involvement in the "old way" of fighting battles...and thanks to the media, it's not being understood completely by us non-com-civies. I just finished reading Endgame by USAF General (ret) Tom McInerney and US Army General (ret) Paul Vallely...very interesting take on how we're fighting this war. They're military analysts for Fox news, and I think they get it...

To put it bluntly, the American people are used to large divisions of troops moving in "sweep and clear" operations. You know, soften them up with some heavy artillery and tomahawk missles...then send in troops to clean up and go home a month later. It's NOT that kind of war...it's primarily intelligence led, high-tech, light and medium infantry and special ops...

And we don't get to see that stuff...we only get body counts. There's a wall inside the CIA building with stars for each member of the intelligence services and special ops/black ops people who lose their lives in the performance of their duties...there are no names under those stars and most of us will never know what they did for our country. There ARE those who respect and understand that...but far more who don't...primarily those who don't have faith in their government leaders and can't contemplate sacrifice on behalf of that faith.

That's the best I could do...thanks for staying in touch. I'll try not to go on vacation again for a while.

A LITTLE VACATION

I'll be out for a couple of days, so the site won't be updated until Monday, April 26th. In the meantime, join Newsradio 730 WSC for the following:

Wednesday, April 21 - The SC GOP Senatorial Forum with Keven Cohen of WVOC, Columbia

Thursday, April 22 - TJ Philips of 103.5 WEZL filling in (he's a liberal, I think)

Friday, April 23 - TJ Philips of 103.5 WEZL filling in (if he's still sane)

If you have some interesting correspondence in the meantime (or just want to let me know how they're doing), send me those emails:

Station Email

Personal Email

THE IMPERIAL QUESTION

In between activities this weekend (daughter's birthday party, wife sick, my golf), I managed to come up with something brilliant in response to the fools who think Iraq will be better off by us "pulling out" and turning it over to the UN. I heard Denis Kusinich (sp?) make this outrageous suggestion on Saturday in between cake clean-up and nappy time.

Those that oppose our Iraq policy (Kerry, Kusinich, Dean, DNC, Bush-haters) are constantly saying that we should withdraw our troops and let the UN handle it. It puzzles me in a number of ways:

1. Who IS the UN? WHEN we "withdraw our troops and leave it to the UN" - exactly who are we leaving it to? In my memory, the US is the UN. Every time we need to send troops to "feed the children" or put down some "ethnic cleansing" or whatever, it has been United States military forces who do the work...the UN has no standing army that handle such situations. About the only thing they handle would be - installing their own UN commanders. THAT, I believe, is the real objective of the "call the UN" movement...they don't trust the US commanders to do the job. That's an important statement to think about. What is it about our commanders that makes them so much worse that what the UN would provide? Again, realize that the United States would offer the most technology, troops, know-how, and involvement...do you really think we should risk our soldiers lives (or other "coalition" soldiers lives) to communications and bureaucratic problems. Why?

2. What are the chances the UN would install a market oriented democracy or capitalism? I mean...really...say you were thinking of operating your own country and needed some suggestions on how to run it...would you want the UN to tell you how best to structure your government? Given the fact that the UN Security Council (which would have organizational control in the beginning) would have several members who could maintain a veto power over the implementation of plans...what idea or part of the Iraqi Constitution could you do without in order to get China, France, Germany, or another country to support it? That's called compromise...and you would need that in order to get anything done.

3. What's so scary about a US-led Coalition? This is the big one that has me thinking conspiracy. There's something inherently scary to the "world community" of our leading this coalition I suspect. I get the feeling that somehow all would be right with the world if it were a UN-led Coalition...even though there's no proof anything happening now would be that much better. In fact, as we saw in Somalia, things could be far worse. I think the United Nations sees their own death in the mirror of Iraq. Like a lot of Americans, they suspect that eventually there will be success in Iraq...and the United Nations will be having to see the parade from the sidelines.

THERE'S ONE FOR YOU, NINETEEN FOR ME...

Yes, it's tax day - fortunately, Tax Freedom Day comes a little earlier than it used to thanks to the tax cuts passed by GWB - but for some, it's never tax day. Right around this time of year, the scammers and hucksters prey on innocent little talk radio hosts looking to generate...um...something.

Usually, it begins with an innocent little thought starter - the Constitution of the United States and how giving someone else your personal private income information is violating some portion of that wonderful document. It could also be how "income" isn't defined properly, or how you're not considered a "citizen" of the US, and a number of other scams and reasonable sales pitches.

There's a specific talk radio host who I directly compete with on a daily basis - I won't mention his name - but this guy comes out from under a rock and is preying on ignorance just like the liberals like to do with a host of other issues. He's actually encouraging people to not file their taxes based on the "voluntary filing" of your IRS forms. Yes, it's true...you voluntarily file your taxes...but you don't voluntarily pay them. The IRS gives you until April 15th to voluntarily file your taxes using all available means to do so (including home interest deductions, child tax credits, and so forth)...after which, they begin telling you how much you owe them without all that stuff.

I should tell you a little radio secret specific to talk radio hosts. We are supposed to be very good story tellers, very good communicators, very good salespeople. After all, we're selling ourselves to YOU...the listeners. We also sell other stuff like our personal involvement with advertisers we do business with. I get people all the time who want me to endorse their product or service, and I have to tell you, the money involved with some of these folks is extremely tempting. I could pay my house payment each month with what just 1 or 2 prospective clients want to pay me. Why don't I? I don't use or like their product or service...it's that simple. I can't fake interest in something that doesn't excite me...and I know you could tell easily (or through research of your own) if I am being insincere. Why would I risk that relationship? We're talking about my livelihood and my career here (and indirectly my family).

With that said...I want to warn you about people like We the People, or National Audit Defense Network, or any number of so-called "ex-IRS agent" led tax schemes...they're all bogus. They're making money...a lot of it. In fact, there are two stories just today about a few of these scams...

First...

The Justice Department asked a federal judge yesterday to effectively shut down a business that it says promotes income tax fraud and has bilked the government and 100,000 customers out of $500 million or more.

And this one:

As millions of taxpayers prepared to meet the April 15 filing deadline, an anti-tax author attempted to argue Wednesday in federal court that no American is required to pay taxes. Tax opponent Irwin Schiff and two of his associates appeared in U.S. District Court on charges they helped thousands of taxpayers file bogus returns.

They make their money by being salesmen of bogus information on "tax free" living scams...just like a certain Charleston area radio host is doing (hint: not me). I think a great question to ask this person is whether or not they have the guts not to file their own taxes for the sake of legitimacy...

If he takes the challenge...he's in for a rocky road...perhaps breaking rocks himself in a federal pen somewhere.

THE PRESIDENT WAS HORRIBLE LAST NIGHT...BUT IT'S NOT HIS FAULT

What is the purpose of a Presidential press conference? If it's generally accepted that a press conference is to allow the press to solicit information they already don't know, then the performance last night was awful. I can't think of one thing we learned about the major issues of the day...Iraq, Marriage Amendment, September 11 Commission, the Economy and Jobs, Healthcare, Outsourcing, the Deficit, etc...

Basically, it was about the President recommitting to the June 30th deadline in Iraq and not accepting blame for September 11th. The President didn't really offer any new information...so, what's up with that?

The thing that bothers me TODAY is - the press has been hammering him in a rather sneering way that he offered no new information in the press conference in their usual way:

Bush was on message; Bush repeated himself several times; Bush offered nothing new - all of this coming today from the President's political opponents.

But, who really did worse last night? Bush.....

...or the PRESS. Consider the fact that the PRESS had the responsibility for soliciting the information they wanted...they failed...and now they have the gall to complain about how much they didn't find out.

It's a strange world, my friends...

ABOUT AS CLOSE TO 9/11 AS YOU CAN GET...

Remember 4/19? Sure...I knew you would.

From several AP articles:

1995 - A federal informant warns that white separatists in Oklahoma are threatening "assassinations, bombings and mass shootings." The FBI secretly interviews a witness familiar with a plot to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. Other agents learn of a book being circulated that promotes a truck bombing of a government building.

The U.S. government obtained all of this intelligence before Timothy McVeigh detonated his truck bomb in 1995, but officials did not warn federal buildings managers in Oklahoma, according to government documents that detail such miscommunications.

Two documents obtained by the Associated Press show two separate federal law enforcement agencies had information before the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that suggested white supremacists living nearby were considering an attack on government buildings.

In fact, officials at FBI headquarters in Washington were so worried that white separatists at the Elohim City compound in Muldrow, Okla., might lash out on April 19, 1995 - the day Timothy McVeigh chose - that a month earlier they questioned a reformed white supremacist familiar with an earlier plot to bomb the same Murrah Building that McVeigh selected.

"I think their only real concern back then was Elohim City," said Kerry Noble, the witness questioned by the FBI on March 28, 1995, just three weeks before McVeigh detonated a truck bomb outside the building and killed more than 160 people.

Noble told AP his FBI questioners appeared particularly concerned about what Elohim City members might do on April 19 because one of their heroes, Wayne Snell, was being executed that day, and another, James Ellison, was returning to Oklahoma after ending parole in Florida.

FBI officials confirmed Noble's account.

Snell, Ellison and Noble had plotted to attack the Murrah building in 1983 with plastic explosives and rocket launchers, according to Noble and FBI officials. The plan never reached fruition, and the group was arrested in 1985 after a siege with law enforcers in Arkansas.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Wednesday the information gathered by AP "is another example of the problems federal law enforcement bureaucracies have with connecting the dots, seeing the big picture, sharing information and preventing attacks, whether it's domestic terrorists like militia groups or foreign terrorists like the 19 hijackers."

The FBI wasn't alone in its concerns back in 1995, according to thousands of pages of federal investigative memos and handwritten notes obtained by AP.

In the days before he was executed for a 1980s murder of a pawn broker, Snell began making threats from his Arkansas prison of a bombing or explosion on April 19 to avenge his death, according to prison and FBI officials. He also had contact in his last days with members of Elohim City, who later took his remains back to their compound.

The government also had information suggesting that compound members had detonated a 500-pound fertilizer bomb like the one McVeigh would use and had visited Oklahoma City several times. The FBI could never verify the detonation.

The ATF informant would tell the FBI shortly after McVeigh's bombing that Elohim City members specifically discussed targeting federal buildings in Oklahoma for "destruction through bombings." She also reported that compound members were particularly interested in April 19 as the two-year anniversary of the deadly ending of the Waco siege.

But when ATF considered raiding Elohim City two months before McVeigh struck, the then-FBI agent in charge in Oklahoma, Bob Ricks, stopped the plan.

"I do remember I told them I didn't want another Waco on our hands," Ricks said, comparing the danger of a raid on Elohim City to the ill-fated ATF action on David Koresh's compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993. "At the time, they hadn't told me everything they apparently knew."

Neither the FBI nor the ATF passed on information or misgivings to the agency that manages federal buildings in Oklahoma City.

THE MEMO DEMOCRATS WANT YOU TO SEE!

The PDB (Presidential Daily Brief) that the 9/11 Commission wanted you to see was finally released. Of course, it's still not going to be enough for nutty liberals who think GWB (George W Bush) knew about the attacks. So, with the help of the VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy), I made sure to un-redact the memo of August 6th, 2001 to fit their small-minded brains...

Un-Redactions in italics

POTUS = President of the United States
FLOTUS = First Lady of the United States
VRWC = Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
TGTTR = Tax Giveaway To The Rich
others should be self-evident

Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US (just as planned)

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports (that we had John Ashcroft censor when he eliminated the First Amendment) to indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 (when we urged our friends in the VRWC to go after Clinton for sex) has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef (who you might remember had a hand in the Vince Foster killing) and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington (but we convinced them to do nothing then because we wanted them to wait until current POTUS was in office so as to distract anti-POTUS groups from allegations he was AWOL in the National Guard), according to xxxxxxxxxxx service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an xxxxxxxxxx service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike. (Would like to reschedule attacks to coincide with planned downturn in economic performance due to TGTTR)

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack. (Again, operatives of the VRWC urged delay to 2001...recommended sometime in September just as tax giveaway to the rich plan was being implemented).

Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded (yet), his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. (We recommend extending original US 1984 monetary support of Bin Ladin and increase heroin production to urban blighted areas of US). Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997. (Previous POTUS prevented our efforts to delay INS involvement because of his and VPOTUS success in reinventing government – minor delay...VRWC plans in TGTTR will re-energize initiative).

Al-Qa'ida members _ including some who are US citizens _ (we can blame opposition party members when plan is implemented) have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a xxxxxxxxxx service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists. (when VRWC plan is in place, we should release this aspect of PDB showing redacted date versions to place initial blame on previous POTUS, even though specific plan previous POTUS has recommended elimination of Bin Laden, we should maintain operation of previous FLOTUS shredding machines)

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks (VRWC is concerned this information may be accurate enough without misleading), including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. (WTC is NOT a federal building, so statement is accurate)

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. (Mostly of NOW, ACLU, DNC, and previous POTUS and FLOTUS - VRWC guarantees no investigation of Halliburton or other oil and energy related interests). CIA and the FBI are investigating a call (GWB, current POTUS made) to our Embassy in UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives. (Sufficiently accurate since airplanes are not considered explosives).

PREVENTING 9-11

Well...let's set the old "way back machine" to the Summer of 2001 and attempt to do exactly as the esteemed 9/11 Commission is appearing to want us to do...

1. EDUCATE AIRLINE PASSENGERS - Given the fact that no one outside of a few on the plane bound for a Pennsylvania field knew what the new tactic was, we should instruct all passengers to fight back during all attempted hijackings. Prior to September 11th, most of us would probably agree that a hijacking is nothing more than yet another delay in reaching our eventual destination. All other previous hijackings in the US were usually met with a few FBI people waiting on the ground after the "refueling" to attempt to negotiate and/or stall until the Delta Force guys get there to take them out in some kind of Hollywood movie-style operation. A boxcutter used by even the most highly trained Ninja would do more than kill a minimum number of passengers, box cutters are not much of a threat to a plane full of 200 or more people. From now on, passengers should take the law into their own hands and respond by force in order to prevent the plane from hitting any buildings.

2. BAN BOXCUTTERS - See the above for reference. Just in case.

3. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF FLIGHT SCHOOLS - All private flight schooling should be eliminated and become solely operated by the Federal Government, and limited only to those with previous military training. In fact, no private planes - large or small - would be allowed. If you want to fly your own aircraft, you sign up first for the Air Force; do the usual tour of active duty; and THEN you would be allowed to get an FAA license. In addition, the United States will only train naturalized US Citizens...similar to the limitation on who may become the President of the United States.

4. ESTABLISH AN INTELLIGENT COMMISSION - We must gather all believers of things like UFO's in Hangar 18, JFK conspiracy groupies, anti-Rockefeller types, black helicopters, and anyone who's ever put tinfoil on their heads to protect them, and establish them as the Connect The Dots Commission Members. The FBI, CIA, NSA and other "black ops" groups would hereby be under their control (perhaps Oliver Stone or David Duchovny would help) and be required to investigate every lead recommended by the committee. When modern evolution catches up, we'll employ clairvoyants and "mind melders" to predict with more accuracy.

5. ESTABLISH A PERMANENT INTELLIGENCE COMMISSION - Depending on what political party controls the most branches of government, we should use all blogging resources to seek out those with the most radically opposite points of view and establish the Finger Pointing Commission to assail on a regular basis all of the incorrect decisions made by the Connect The Dots Commission. The AP, UPI, ABC/CBS/NBC, CNN and other "truth seekers" would hereby be under their control (perhaps Harold Raines and Ted Turner would help) and be required to investigate every lead recommended by the committee. Since modern evolution has allowed us to point our fingers, we'll only need to use the current members of the press.

6. NEVER ELECT "A CLINTON" AGAIN - By Constitutional Amendment, we ban all those with geneological ties to William Jefferson Blithe Clinton from serving public office. Nuff said.

Whew...now let's set the "way back machine" to the present and use our heads people...perhaps the only thing we really SHOULD do is cancel the election in November.

THESE ARE YOUR EDUCATORS

I had a listener send me a note recently that pointed out a couple of billboards in and around Columbia, SC that scold drivers for not "fully funding" (whatever that means) public education in South Carolina. So, I checked them out - and sure enough, they come from the South Carolina Education Association...but I had to look really close to find out what they're all about. It was there that I found a screed by the Executive Director of the SCEA, Richard Miller.

In it, he snips and sneers at SC Governor Mark Sanford for having the guts to propose a tax credit for a parent who may want to send their child to a private institution. I won't go into too much detail, but suffice to say - a parent would get a tax credit of up to $4,000 at the end of the year when they fill out their tax forms IF they send their child to a private school, homeschool, or other public school. Of course, proving education can be a bad thing for some people - he laments the goals of the plan because it would be "neglecting public education" and other silly claims.

From the Richard Miller "column":

"...Sanford campaigned on a voucher scheme by any other name -- education passport, opportunity scholarship -- and now it's here...You have to give it to this governor; he's got chutzpah..."

Yes, the words of Al Gore live on - anything out of the normal "more money" mantra is called a "scheme" because we all know "new ideas" are always coming from the worst intentions. And then there's this from Dick Miller:

"...In public, Sanford rolled out a voucher bill despite the fact that vouchers have been proven to deliver no greater results than mere added investment in public schools. No, he says, it's not a voucher bill. It's a 'universal tax credit' bill...When public dollars are used to -- take your pick: subsidize, reimburse, underwrite, pay for -- private or parochial school tuition, it's a voucher..."

Oh, NO! He rolled out his plan in PUBLIC! Factually, of course, the hypothesis is completely backwards. Vouchers (which the plan IS NOT) have delivered greater results...it's the "added investment in public schools" that haven't delivered greater results in more than 30-years. Finally - if you can stomach much more - there's this from Dick:

"...It's also illegal, as clearly stated in South Carolina's own Constitution, Article 11, Section 4. A governor who claims that a legislative override of his veto is unconstitutional surely has spent time poring over his Constitution, and he shouldn't miss the clarity of this section..."

You know, one would think that it would be dangerous for such spinmeisters to include actual searchable information in their columns. But I guess he's not expecting anyone of the teaching class to dare suggest doing research on their own to find out the truth of the matter. Well, being no better than a high school graduate myself, I looked it up.

Here's the actual Article of the SC Constitution...(notice I provided a link so you can see it for yourself):

"Direct aid to religious or other private educational institutions prohibited. No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution."

I'm guessing they hope with only a South Carolina education, you won't be able to interpret that by yourself, but I trust you to know what it says and know what it means. Even Dick himself admits that the credits go to the parents AFTER they apply and pay their tuition to a private institution...no such credit is given to a "religious or other private educational institution"...it's given to the PARENTS. Duh.

You should read the whole article yourself, though...pay particular attention to all of that concern they have "for the children"...the way I read it, it's mostly about them and their own job protection "schemes"...

SAME STORY, DIFFERENT YEAR

Which of the following stories appear to be more likely REAL stories? (Hint: The one with the link)

Actually, they all could have been written at one time or another:

FORMER COLONY GOVERNOR: WE WERE BETTER OFF WITH THE BRITS - 1777 headline of the New York Times

GERMAN FACTORY WORKERS: WE WERE BETTER OFF UNDER HITLER - 1946 headline of the New York Times

FORMER WEAPONS INSPECTOR: IRAQ WAS BETTER OFF WITH SADDAM - USA Today 2004, Blix: Iraq worse off now than with Saddam

A NEW TAKE ON PROFILING...BY COPS

My wife got stopped and ticketed...I didn't. Of course, I didn't do anything wrong, but there are hundreds of times where I swear that if an officer were around to ticket me for some violation while driving...I would deserve one. It happened about a month ago when I was to meet my wife at the doctor's office for a check-up on her pregnancy. Since I was going to go directly to work after the visit, we drove separate cars. Well, she got stopped by a cop when she turned at an intersection on a red light. I made the light, she didn't. Anyway, she goes to traffic court this week to plead her case. Am I wrong in prodding her to "play up" the pregnancy angle and make sure to have our other child on her arm when she goes before the judge?

Well, after reading the story in the Tennessean today, I guess I am.

The basis of the article is to point out something that goes completely against previous beliefs. Those beliefs were highlighted by a poll the newspaper did on "Who readers thought would most likely get a warning when stopped by police for a traffic violation"...and the results were pretty typical of our "general understanding" that has been pounded into us by the race baiters and cop haters:

Who do you think is more likely to get off without a traffic ticket?

Women, 86.8%; men, 13.2%

Whites, 73.2%; minorities, 26.8%

Old, 88%; young, 12%

Source: Online Tennessean Survey Conducted Thursday And Friday, Based On More Than 300 Responses

So in other words, if you're an old white woman, you probably wouldn't get a ticket...but if you're a young black male...you're pretty much guaranteed to get a ticket...at least in Tennessee and probably in the US as a whole.

WRONG!

Unbelievably...the research of actual tickets shows nearly the opposite. Women are more likely to be ticketed than receive a warning...93-percent of the time! Black males were only ticketed 88-percent of the time when stopped! Of 126,000 traffic stops by police, 91-percent of drivers of all races and ages were given a ticket...only 9-percent got a warning. Women in almost every age and racial category were more likely to get tickets than their male counterparts. But Hispanic women ages 16-25 and 36-45 were less likely than Hispanic men to be ticketed. As a group, white women were more likely to get a ticket than anybody else.

Of course, this didn't do a whole lot to change the perception of anyone...as this black woman quoted in the story points out:

Kim Newson, 38, an African-American...said she had ''never, never, never'' been given a warning either, ''just tickets.'' According to police figures, Newson is less likely than a white woman her age to get a ticket if stopped — but she said she doesn't believe it.

Well, my question is this: Why is the onus of proving the racial-profiling claims on POLICE when it appears to be our own personal perceptions that mean so much more than the data would ever indicate otherwise...

Perhaps we need racial sensitivity training.

BTW: Good luck, honey...despite the evidence, do as I said...play up the 3-months pregnant with a 1-year old and try and get the judge to lower the fine.

OK, BACK TO NORMAL

Well, now that the dust-up over the "filling in for the Rush Limbaugh program" joke is over, it's time to employ a little of the same critical thinking it required to figure out what was happening - to the local news of the day:

School-choice study called flawed, biased - Post and Courier story on April 1

First of all, you have to read the article several times to find any kind of refutation of the actual results of the study. I read it three times and still couldn't find anything other than a simple statement by John Butzon of the Charleston Education Network:

But critics called the findings flawed, biased and intentionally complex.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.," Jon Butzon, executive director of The Charleston Education Network

And just what B.S. is that? Well...again, I've read it three times and can't find any specific opposing statistic. The last line of the story says simply that the School Board Association and Administrators plan their own study to come out in three weeks or so.

But the best line in the whole story is the following:

Jim Foster, spokesman for the state Education Department. "South Carolina taxpayers won't have a clue how their tax dollars are being spent, and that's a recipe for disaster."

Not quite where you got your education Jim, but these are TAX CREDITS and we already don't have a clue how our tax dollars are being spent - ON EDUCATION. And thanks to idiots like you, Public Education isn't just a recipe for disaster...it's a fully cooked 4 course meal about to get cold from sitting too long. That's the problem, you dope.

And don't you just love these people still thinking that it's their money? Quick, name the time the government made sure you were spending the $1,000 tax credit you got for each of your children on something that's okay with them...

Lesson #2 is now complete...you can open your books and read chapter 3 for Monday's pop quiz.

APRIL FIRST, HUH?

A little lesson in critical thinking, reading, and listening...thanks for playing along with the joke today. Highlighted portions of the "press release" below. I never said I was filling in for RUSH LIMBAUGH...just the program...and the program in Charleston. Everything is technically accurate in the "press release"...true from a certain point of view. Now, if people only read, watched, listened to the NEWS with a little more discerning eye, ear, and brain:

CHARLESTON LOCAL HOST TO FILL IN FOR THE RUSH LIMBAUGH PROGRAM!

(Charleston) – Newsradio 730 WSC local afternoon talk show host Greg Alan has announced that he will be filling in for the Rush Limbaugh Program on Thursday this week.

Rush Limbaugh announced that he will be having substitute hosts fill in for him while he takes a break from his daily radio show which is heard on more than 600 radio stations nationwide, including Newsradio 730 WSC in Charleston. Rush Limbaugh will be returning on Monday, April 5th.

Greg Alan, who also serves as program director of Newsradio 730 WSC, will host during the Rush Limbaugh Show on Newsradio 730 WSC from 12:00pm ET until 3:00pm ET from the studios in Mount Pleasant. The station will have alternative programming during his normal timeslot of 3:00pm to 6:00pm.

This will be the first time a local radio host will substitute for such a well-recognized syndicated program. The Rush Limbaugh program is the local area’s number 1 Arbitron rated talk show in Charleston.

WELL, HERE'S THE BIG NEWS:

CHARLESTON LOCAL HOST TO FILL IN FOR THE RUSH LIMBAUGH PROGRAM!

(Charleston) – Newsradio 730 WSC local afternoon talk show host Greg Alan has announced that he will be filling in for the Rush Limbaugh Program on Thursday this week.

Rush Limbaugh announced that he will be having substitute hosts fill in for him while he takes a break from his daily radio show which is heard on more than 600 radio stations nationwide, including Newsradio 730 WSC in Charleston. Rush Limbaugh will be returning on Monday, April 5th.

Greg Alan, who also serves as program director of Newsradio 730 WSC, will host during the Rush Limbaugh Show on Newsradio 730 WSC from 12:00pm ET until 3:00pm ET from the studios in Mount Pleasant. The station will have alternative programming during his normal timeslot of 3:00pm to 6:00pm.

This will be the first time a local radio host will substitute for such a well-recognized syndicated program. The Rush Limbaugh program is the local area’s number 1 Arbitron rated talk show in Charleston.