A Pretty Funny Charity Auction on eBay

In light of the Michael Vick controversy, this member of eBay is taking him to the dog house.  Ok, so maybe just some of his trading cards.  Check out this auction that fetched $7400.  (Puns intended)

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/LOT-OF-falcons-michael-vick-CARDS-CHEWED-ON-BY-MY-DOG_W0QQitemZ200145651449QQihZ010QQcategoryZ215QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

Hope Y'all have a good week, and GO UTES!

--
Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

Fwd: Celebrating Income Inequality

All,

 

The following article is a truism.  Please read it for your knowledge and enjoyment.

 

All who have WANTED to make money in this economy, whether bearish or bullish, have done so.  They have accomplished this by purchasing great stocks, investing in managed funds, 401ks, IRAs, building their own businesses, patenting their own ideas, and brokering business and product deals under trade secrecy.

 

Don't you think that if 'Income Equality" were really a 'problem', and that control of the 'Nation's Wealth' could trly be accoplished, that the wealthy Bill Gates would have squashed people like eBay founder Pierre Omydiar, Google Co-Founder Larry Page, and MySpace founder Chris DeWolfe?

 

It goes without saying.  OF COURSE HE WOULD HAVE.  But that is not how it works.  Those three, among many others, are Billionaires due to their ideas and passions.  They all were middle to lower class workers, professors, or students before making the big time. 

 

What's more is that their 'valuation', or rise to the top, took investment from others.  Investment is democratic.  Anyone can invest, and startups will take any investment money they can get.  They are hardly restrictive.

 

There are many ways to making money and success.  You just have to find one that works for you.

 

Wealth is not a finite thing. 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ayn Rand Institute Op-ed <media@aynrand.org>
Date: Jul 25, 2007 6:14 PM
Subject: Celebrating Income Inequality
 

Ayn Rand Institute oped Celebrating Income Inequality By Alex Epstein Democrat and Republican candidates for President are debating one another on nearly every issue--but nearly all are united on one thing: America faces a crisis of "income inequality." The rich are getting richer, the refrain goes, while the poor and middle class are held back by stagnating wages, lousy schools, and growing healthcare costs. The solution, we are told, is more government intervention: spend more on education, provide "universal healthcare," and force employers to raise wages through minimum-wage increases and union protection legislation. But all of this outcry is based on a false premise--that income inequality is bad. While some of the problems critics point to are legitimate concerns, income inequality is not. Income inequality is a natural and desirable part of a free, prosperous society. Criticisms of income inequality are always couched in a certain type of language. For example, it is claimed that wealthier Americans "command" an "unfair share" of our "national wealth." Such language implies that American wealth is a communal pie that belongs equally to all of us. But it is no such thing. The vast wealth that exists in America has been created--through the productive activities and voluntary arrangements of individuals. And individuals do not necessarily create the same amount of wealth. Compare the value brought into existence by the entrepreneur whose productivity software is eagerly bought by millions--and the checkout clerk at a store that sells it. Such vast differences in productivity--which can be caused by vast differences in ability, work ethic, interests, skills, and choices--are the root of vast differences in income. Because all wealth is created, it rightly belongs to those who earn it (or their chosen beneficiaries)--and no one can rightly claim to deserve wealth earned by others. If someone wants to make more money, he is free to enter a new field, gain new knowledge, start a business, or do anything else to enable himself to create more value. It is often implied that the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else--that if some get big slices of pie, the rest get only crumbs. But the exact opposite is true. Since wealth (including pie) is created, there is no limit to how much can exist--and the wealth of others cannot inhibit us from creating and enjoying our own. Further, the wealth creation of the richest Americans makes us far more productive and well-off. Consider how the wealthiest individuals in any free economy, businessmen, make their money. The job of a businessman is to orchestrate productive enterprises that efficiently coordinate people, resources, and tools to create valuable products. Businessmen profit when they bring out valuable products at desirable prices; thus, they are continually making more, better, and cheaper products for everyone to purchase. Businessmen profit when they make others more productive; thus, they are continually seeking to create new jobs that can add to their bottom line, and providing their workers with as many productivity-enhancing tools and technologies as they can. Businessmen's pursuit of profit has been the driving force behind the incalculable increase in our standard of living over the last 150 years--and economic history shows that the freer they are left to make money, the greater the increase in productivity and wages at all levels. What then explains the poor educational opportunities, growing healthcare costs, and stagnating wages that are real problems for many Americans? Government policies based on the same egalitarian mentality that denounces "income inequality." In the name of giving citizens "equal access" to education and medicine, the government has virtually taken over these fields, placing crippling controls on both producers and consumers. In the name of equalizing income, it enforces minimum-wage and anti-firing laws that make it difficult for eager newcomers to enter the job market. In the name of saving us from the alleged evils of rich, Big Business, it enforces endless regulations that apply to every business, decreasing the productivity of all and making it hard for new business ventures to succeed. In America, equality should mean only one thing: freedom for all. If business and wages were deregulated, we would see a dramatic rise in economic opportunity. If education and medicine were left free, with America's businessmen, doctors, and educators liberated to offer education and medicine at all different price points, we would see quality and price improvements like those for computers or flat-panel television sets. But these benefits of freedom require that we recognize the moral right of each individual to enjoy whatever he produces--and recognize that none of us has a right to something for nothing. Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved. Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Institute are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions. If you would like to help support ARI's efforts, please make an online contribution at http://www.aynrand.org/support. This release is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute, and cannot be reprinted without permission except for non-commercial, self-study or educational purposes. We encourage you to forward this release to friends, family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it for these purposes only. Any reproduction of this release must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or redistributing this release for any other purposes should contact media@aynrand.org. This release may not be forwarded to media for publication. ARI's media releases are solicitations sent to addresses obtained from individual subscription requests.  The Ayn Rand Institute, 2121 Alton Pkwy, Ste 250, Irvine, CA 92606

--
Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

Sheehan Finally Impeaches Herself!

All,

 

Finally, Cindy Sheehan is no longer going to be leading the Anti-War protests!  As the MSN story points out, Sheehan was "drained by biting criticism and partisan politics" and has said she's "been wondering why I'm killing myself and wondering why the Democrats caved in to George Bush."  Here is the story link:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18919775/

 

What Congress did last week by passing the war funding with no strings attached was a huge win for our country, and shows to me that "America did not speak against the war" but elected Blue-dog, "Reganist" Democrats into many of the offices that were up for election last year. 

 

What has that done?  It has caused stalemates in Congress and Vetos from the President, which is exactly what the businessmen were saying they wanted to have happen last October.  Why do you think the Dow Jones is hitting record highs?

 

I also think that having Democrats controlling Congress, (which I don't think will change come next election) will help Republicans in the Presidential election in 2008.  Historically, Americans have liked to have a different party control the opposing branch of government, so that the laws that come out of either one are laws passed by compromise.

--
Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

FW: Hillary And Rudy Could Wrap It Up This Year

----Original Message Follows----
From: DickMorrisReports@Vote.com
Subject: Hillary And Rudy Could Wrap It Up This Year
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:29:14 -0600

Hillary And Rudy Could Wrap It Up This Year

By DICK MORRIS

February 8, 2007 -- The nominees for the 2008 presidential race will be
selected in 2007. The tempo of the new political process, driven by 24-hour
cable news, Internet bloggers, conservative talk radio, and liberal NPR is
so rapid that the nomination race cannot exist in stasis waiting for Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina to get around to holding their
votes in early 2008. Well before they open their caucuses or polling places,
this nomination, in each party, will have been decided by the national media
coverage during 2007.

In 2004, we saw the precursor of this expedited process when Howard Dean
upset Kerry's early lead in the fall of 2003, propelled ahead by his
Internet fundraising and antiwar positioning. Then, in December 2003, the
establishment media unloaded on the former Vermont governor - likely driven
by disinformation passed around by other Democratic candidates - and he was
gone by Christmas. Kerry's victory in Iowa a few weeks later was no more
than a projection on the Iowa screen of the results settled at the national
level the previous month.

A recent Gallup poll found that 35 percent of Americans - probably everyone
who votes in a caucus or primary - watch cable news stations frequently. The
intensity of viewer and voter interest and the ubiquity of the political
coverage on these stations force the process to accelerate and to come to an
early conclusion.

(Column continues below)

Editor's Note: Save your heart from cholesterol, inflammation Go Here Now!

The role of Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.

What is the role for the early, small caucus/primary states in 2007? They
will not have held their primaries or caucuses yet, but the state-by-state
polls published regularly in 2007 become the equivalent of virtual primaries
in each of these states. But to win these polls, it doesn't matter so much
what happens within each small state but what is going on nationally.
Hillary, for example, has moved from down in the pack to a lead in New
Hampshire, and perhaps in Iowa, by announcing her candidacy nationally. Her
perfunctory visits to each state likely had little to do with her surge
compared to her national media efforts.

The old model - a Jimmy Carter labors in obscurity in the Iowa vineyards and
then is discovered nationally after he wins there and sweeps all remaining
primaries - is quaint but obsolete. Now you have to win the American Media
Primary of 2007 and then your victory is ratified in the primaries and
caucuses of 2008.

The importance of the front-runner

The key for the candidates is to become the early front-runner and hold the
position for the first three quarters of 2007. Once that is accomplished,
the nomination is probably in the bag. No clear front-runner, except for
Rockefeller in 1964, has ever failed to win the nomination since the primary
process became pivotal in party nominations in 1960.

Among Democrats, Kennedy in '60, Humphrey, once he entered the race, in '68,
McGovern in '72, Carter in '76 and '80, Mondale in '84, Dukakis in '88,
Clinton in '92, Gore in '00 and Kerry in '04 were front-runners who held
their leads. Mondale, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry were front-runners who were
briefly shaken by challengers (Hart, Tsongas, Bradley and Dean) but held on
to win their nominations

Among Republicans, Nixon in '60 and '68, Ford in '76, Reagan in '80, Bush in
'88, Dole in '96, and Bush in '00 were all front-runners going in and the
nominee coming out. Only Goldwater can be said to have pulled off an upset
in 1964 by toppling Rockefeller.

So once there is a clear front-runner, he or she is likely to go all the
way. This is especially true since he or she will have won front-runner
status by intensive national media exposure rather than just insider
chatter. With the process giving him or her so much face-time so early, the
front-runner is unlikely to fade once the real primaries start.

Rudy and Hillary: tentative leaders

Already the process seems to be congealing around Hillary and Rudy as
tentative front-runners.

Hillary re-established the dominance she had back in the spring of 2006 by
moving out to a 43 percent vote share among Democrats in the presidential
primaries in the Fox News poll of January 30-31. Obama is second at 15
percent, Edwards at 12 percent and Gore at 11 percent. Hillary had been at
43 percent in a previous Fox News poll in March 2006, but slipped to 32
percent in August with most of her previous support going to either Gore or
undecided. By December 5-6 of last year, she stayed at 32 percent with Obama
at 12 percent, Gore at 11 percent and Edwards at 8 percent. But now, even
with Obama and Gore in the trial heat, she has regained her robust 43
percent vote share again. Even though media coverage of her announcement and
Iowa tour was mixed, the electorate is obviously thrilled at the prospect of
a woman candidate and rallied to her banner last month.

There is still time for Obama to recapture the charisma he seemed to have
going for him over Christmas through his book, his articulateness, his
moderation and his novelty; or for Edwards's tough antiwar and healthcare
positions to eat away at Hillary's base. But they had better get it
untracked pretty soon.

Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani is eclipsing John McCain for front-runner
status. In the most recent Fox News poll among GOP voters, Rudy had a
convincing 34-22 lead over McCain, with Gingrich in third place at 15
percent. McCain has been hovering in the low 20s all along. In March '06, he
was at 22 percent, in August at 25 percent and in December at 23 percent.
But Giuliani has shown steady progress from 27 percent of the vote in August
to 30 percent in December to 34 percent at the end of January.

This poll finding - combined with McCain's dismal financial report for the
fourth quarter of 2006 ($1.7 million raised and less than $500,000 on hand)
- put him in a convincing second place after a year of sharing front-runner
status with Giuliani. Do McCain's fundraisers think he is running for
Congress or president?

In the battle among second-tier GOP candidates, Gingrich is moving up and
Romney is fading badly. The Fox News poll has Newt moving up from 9 percent
in December to 15 percent at the end of January while Romney has dropped
from 8 percent in December to only 3 percent on Jan. 30-31. In the wake of
George Allen's and Bill Frist's withdrawals, conservatives seem to be moving
away from the former Massachusetts governor and toward the former Speaker.

Should the right seek a real alternative to Giuliani, Romney's flip-flops
will likely disqualify him. Gingrich could develop momentum with his
strength and intellect, but he will only become a factor if he declares and
runs. If he waits on the sidelines, events will eclipse him.

Beyond Newt and Romney, GOP wannabes like Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter,
Tancredo, Gilmore and Thompson deserve some attention. Huckabee, a former
client, may be the most interesting of the bunch.

Right now, neither Rudy nor Hillary has a front-runner's lock, but they are
clearly the man and woman to beat in their respective parties.

If they hold their leads through Labor Day, my bet is that it will be all
over.

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN
DICKMORRISREPORTS!

TO SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE TO DICKMORRISREPORTS:

If you want to receive free copies of all of Dick Morris' and Eileen
McGann's commentaries, sign up at www.dickmorris.com

TO UNSUBSCRIBE:

If you would prefer not to receive future mailings from DickMorrisReports,
please reply to this mailbox and type UNSUBSCRIBE ME in the subject line.
Please allow us time to process this request.

THANK YOU!

***Copyright Eileen McGann and Dick Morris 2007***

_________________________________________________________________
Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live
Spaces

http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us

FW: IT'S NOW A RUDY ROMP

----Original Message Follows----
From: DickMorrisReports@Vote.com
Subject: IT'S NOW A RUDY ROMP
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:01:12 -0600

IT'S NOW A RUDY ROMP

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

February 5, 2007 -- Until now, the status of front-runner in the Republican
primaries for president was jointly held by Arizona Sen. John McCain and
former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain is clearly no longer the
front-runner. In the last week or so, Giuliani has moved out to a clear
lead.

* McCain's latest fund-raising report, for the fourth quarter of 2006, was
pathethic: He raised only $1.7 million and has only pocket change - $472,454
- on hand.

* A Fox News poll of Jan. 30-31 shows the former mayor jumping out to a
significant lead among Republicans - 34 to 22 percent.

* A Gallup poll taken Jan. 25-28 shows Giuliani is better liked by
Republicans than McCain -74 to 21 percent and more trusted to handle a
crisis (68-20). Some 60 percent say Giuliani "better understands the
problems of the average person," against 33 percent who pick McCain. By
58-34, America's Mayor is seen as the stronger leader.

Conversations with conservative activists also show a remarkable openness to
supporting Giuliani - a belief that he can overcome (perhaps finesse) his
pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights and pro-immigration positions.
Feelings seem bitterer over McCain's role in Washington battles - his
opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his support for "amnesty" for illegal
immigrants and for campaign-finance reform.

Giuliani has developed an effective parry to charges that his pro-choice
stance would undo eight years of pro-life heavy lifting by the Bush
administration. He's saying he'd oppose partial-birth abortion and work to
continue to curtail Medicaid funding for abortion. More, he'd appoint judges
like Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court.

None of this means the race is over, of course. Even if McCain falters, some
candidate would likely gain traction as the "true conservative" in the race.
But who?

Massachusetts' former Gov. Mitt Romney is flailing, thanks to his flip-flops
over the last decade on abortion (pro-life, then pro choice, now pro life
again) and on gay issues. These reasonable concerns - and unreasonable
bigotry about a Mormon candidate - may doom him.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich seems stalled in the low teens in the
polls and not likely to move up.

So a dark horse will probably move up. These names are still obscure, but
get to know them - lightning will soon strike at least one: Arkansas Gov.
Mike Huckabee (our favorite), Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, ex-Virginia Gov.
James S. Gilmore, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson and Reps. Duncan
Hunter and Tom Tancredo.

If all the GOP's starters go on the disabled list, one of these minor
leaguers may make it to the World Series by capturing the Republican
domination. Of course, that "winner" will then have to face the Big Mean
Clinton Machine - which in the latest polls is looking likely to clean the
floor over in the other league.

-----------------------------------------------------
PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN
DICKMORRISREPORTS!

TO SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE TO DICKMORRISREPORTS:

If you want to receive free copies of all of Dick Morris' and Eileen
McGann's commentaries, sign up at www.dickmorris.com.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE:

If you would prefer not to receive future mailings from DickMorrisReports,
please reply to this mailbox and type UNSUBSCRIBE ME in the subject line.
Please allow us time to process this request.

THANK YOU!

***Copyright Eileen McGann and Dick Morris 2006***

_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page

http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=football

REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING DICKMORRISREPORTS

I wish to reply to this report regarding Governor Mitt Romney. I believeyou are wrong in your assessment of him, and I am one who finds himselfmostly agreeing with all of your reports.

Some say that Mitt's affiliation with The Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints will be a negative for him. The people of Massachuswetts,overwhelmingly Catholic, didn't seem to think so. In fact, one people learnmore about Romney, he will be appreciated for his values that his Church ahshelped provide him with for the guiding principles of his life---just as itdid for his late father, George Romney. Mitt believes as his church does onabortion, prolife, and abortion only able to be considered in the interestof the health of the mother, rape, or incest. It is no coincidence that inUtah, a state 70 % overall LDS, or "Mormon," you will hear and see adspromoting adoption as the alternative more than any other health issue adcampaign. When Mitt ran for Governor, of course he responded that we hewould uphold and defend the laws of the State, which in MA are liberal onabortion. That does not translate to a personal belief of Mitt Romney. Heis a defender of his Church's stand on that issue as well as on the gayrights issues. Is it not Mill Romney who led out, against the will of hisown state leaders, on a call for a marriage constitutional amendment thatwould define marriage as that between a man and a woman? Check it out!Mitt put his name on the line forthrightly on that one. So, as forconservative social issues, Mitt Romney is a leader for all conservatives,republicans, democrates, and independents to get on board with.

Mitt Romney is reaching out to the evangelicals across the country, andother conservative Christian church leaders, and is making inroads with themto respond to their concerns. His message is simple to them: "We agree onthe major social issues. Let's work together for the good of the country asa whole."Just this week, Romney and some supporters staged a fund raising event inBoston, to which 400 prominent people were invited to come and help raisemoney for a Romney candidacy. Only 12 of the 400 were from Utah. By theend of the day, just under $7 M was raised, whereas the standard to thispoint for candidates who had formed the necessary exploratory committee haddone $1-2 M in an event. And the people called upon were simply asked tocommitt to a possible Romney candidacy as the next President of the US.

There will be much more support that comes forward for his campaign, becausepeople who know him can testify enthusiastically about his brilliance,understanding, articulation, leadership, charisma, charm, good nature,affability, and vision. And yes, his wife Ann is nothing but a great asset.

People of all persuations appreciate a fiscal conservative and one whovalues the use of the dollar. It is well documented what Mitt Romney'sleadership meant to the 2002 Utah Winter Olympics, taking it over during theworst scandal of the Olympics' times, and turning it around, even following9/11/2001, to become the most successful Winter Olympics ever held, with a$100 M surplus even after paying all the debts, including the public debtsto the State of Utah and the local municipalities.I am convinced that Mitt Romney will win people over just as he did in theliberal state of Massachusetts. I hope you will reconsider your positionabout a conservative choice for the Republican Party.

Original Message by DICKMORRISREPORTS

Subject: HELP WANTED: RIGHTY FOR '08Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:02:30 -0600HELP WANTED: RIGHTY FOR '08By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANNJanuary 8, 2006 -- It's getting to the point where the conservative -dominant - wing of the Republican Party needs to take out a want ad in thenewspaper or post a listing on Craigslist.com to find a candidate forpresident. In the field taking shape before our eyes, none of the top fourcontenders is likely to satisfy their delicate palates - made more arrogantand discerning by decades of victories.Rudy Guiliani? Pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay rights,pro-immigration, pro-gun control Rudy? Righties will vote for him only ifthey have lobotomies first. Remember how the New York City Councilprohibited the Boy Scouts from meeting on city property because theywouldn't let in gay scoutmasters? Rudy let it happen.Yes. There is a war going on and of course Rudy Guiliani is the man weshould have had all along running Homeland Security. Obviously, he is thecandidate Osama would least like to see in the White House. But has thereligious right so abandoned its draconian agenda that it is willing toelect its ideological opposite president? Don't bet on it.

Sen. John McCain? The McCain of the Kennedy-McCain bill to let illegalimmigrants become citizens? Of the "anti-torture" bill to handcuff ouragents when they question terrorists? Of the McCain-Feingoldcampaign-finance bill that the right wing hates? Of the Lieberman-McCainanti-global-warming bill that addresses a problem the right doesn't believein? That John McCain for president? The right wing can't tolerate hisapostasy even if he is the pro-life candidate that Rudy isn't.Mitt Romney, who was pro-life and then switched to pro-choice when he ran tobecome Massachusetts governor and now is switching back again as he runs forpresident? The Mitt Romney who said "I will protect and defend the right ofMassachusetts women to choose?" The Romney who has flip-flopped on gayissues? Will the right wing back him? No way.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich? A man who has never valued theright-wing social agenda?And then there are the personal lives - the only one of these guys whohasn't had multiple wives is the Mormon - a church that's viewed dimly bylots of conservative Christians.Conservatives may think they are going to vote for Rudy, McCain, Newt orRomney - but wait until the negative ads start running.Part of the problem is that the agenda of the evangelical side of the partyhas expanded beyond religious issues. Somehow, the Christian right's litmustests have widened to include opposition to illegal immigration, affirmativeaction and gun control along with antipathy to gay marriage and abortion.In the flush of victories since 1980, the movement has come to expectcandidates to toe the line of their agenda . . . and to reject those whodon't.

But the Republicans have to nominate somebody and the Christian right has tohave a candidate. Who will it be? We don't have any idea, hence the want ad.Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is articulate, a former Baptist Minister and aninnovator. He even lost 100 pounds. But another Arkansas governor? Give us abreak!

Maybe Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. Senator who? Or Rep. Duncan Hunter ofCalifornia or former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore.Or whoever answers the ad.-----------------------------------------------------PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY WHO MAY BE INTERESTED INDICKMORRISREPORTS!TO SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE TO DICKMORRISREPORTS:If you want to receive free copies of all of Dick Morris' and EileenMcGann's commentaries, sign up at www.dickmorris.com.

FW: Weather Bulletin Denver

----- Original Message ----- From: Jerrie Strickland
To: Max Sweat
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:00 PM

Thought you might like to see this one.
WEATHER BULLETIN--DENVER

Up here, in the "Mile-Hi City", we just recovered from a Historic Event---
may I even say a "Weather Event" of "Biblical Proportions" ---
With a historic blizzard of up to 44" inches of snow and winds to 90 MPH
that broke trees in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of
motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated scores of
communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.

FYI:

George Bush did not come.

FEMA did nothing.

No one howled for the government.

No one blamed the government.

No one even uttered an expletive on TV.

Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.

Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.

Our Governo R did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.

CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit - or report on this category 5
snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.

No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.

No one looted.

Nobody - I mean Nobody demanded the government do something.

Nobody expected the government to do anything, either.

No Larry King, No Bill O'Rielly, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews and No Geraldo
Rivera.

No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to be found.

Nope, we just melted the snow for water.

Sent out caravans of SUV's to pluck people out of snow engulfed cars.

The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn't ask for a
penny.

Local restaurants made food and the police and fire departments delivered it
to the snowbound families.

Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.

We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or Coleman lanterns.

We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is "Work or Die".

We did not wait for some affirmative action government to get us out of a
mess created by being immobilized by a welfare program that trades votes for
'sittin at home' checks.

Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never fallen this
early, we know it can happen and how to deal with it ourselves.

"In my many travels, I have noticed that once one gets north of about 48
degrees North Latitude, 90% of the world's social problems evaporate."

It does seem that way, at least to me.

I hope this gets passed on.

Maybe SOME people (Like New Orlense and Wash. DC freeload ers) will get The
message. The world does Not owe you a living. The Government and Tax $
are not your insurance company.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?

http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://davevscarl.spaces.live.com/?icid=T001MSN38C07001

Bush and Rumsfeld - Why so late?

BUSH STIFF ARMS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
Late move confuses both sides as questions fly; We have the 'answer' to why it happened so late

So Rummy and Bush decided to make the 2006 election period extremely interesting. And that is an understatement. From all reports and sources, it can be gathered that would Rumsfeld have resigned his post in September with Bush's approval, Republicans would have had a greater chance at keeping control.

So why did they wait till Nov 8th to announce the resignation. A resignation that, again, from all reports can be gathered, was in the stream of conciousness for at least a few weeks before the election. Bush even made up his mind on the Sunday before the election day. So, what is the purpose of this? Shouldn't Bush have helped the party by announcing this before the election?

My Dad and I think we have an answer. Bush's answer is that he didn't want to make it a political issue. This is a good, and necessary, political answer. But signs point to Bush stiff arming his own party. The Republican party was facing, and had faced, all kinds of corruption issues. They were madly overspending, much to their own demise and Hypocirsy, since the Newt Gingrich GOP prided itself on constraint, balanced budget, and a corruption free environment.

The Republicans in congress also fought against some bills that Bush wanted passed, such as immigration reforms. These bills were halted, torn apart and killed in the Capitol, logn before they had the chance of reaching the White House. So, what do you do with a Congress that is flailing, unsopportive of your homefront agendas, and helping to make you look bad?

You let Rummy resign after the Dems beat the party handily.

You don't campaign big on supportive issues such as the economy.

You don't campaign in tough races.

Don't be fooled. Carl Rove is a campaign genius. If this wasn't a 'good' strategy for Bush, he wouldn't have let it happen. But, I think they see internal issues in the GOP that they didn't and don't like, so they turned their backs.

Bush knows how to work with blue dog Democrats. He did so in Texas as governor, and many great things were passed for the state. Ronald Reagan also knew how to do it, and did it his entire 8 years in office. (There were also more Democrats in congress then, than the newly elected 228 democrat member house and 51 member senate)

And lastly, by having Democrats win, and then giving them what they wanted (as you sometimes do to a child to let them learn a lesson: that what they want isn't always best for them) in firing Rumsfeld, they now can no longer blame him for the current affairs in the war. They'll only have themselves to blame, because now the silver lining is exposed.

Now the silver platter is theirs to drop. Time will tell if Nanci Pelosi can live up to her words, and truly work with the President as she said in her victory speech. I should add that only two days before, she called the President an idiot and other malicious names.

Take it or leave it, this is our theory.

Polls Mostly Correct - Gridlock and Rising Stock Market Ahead

NANCY PELOSI TO BRING 'CALIFORNIA GRIDLOCK' TO WASHINGTON

Gridlock is usually good for the stock market

With some analysts saying that the stock markets are undervalued some 25% and the probability of more concise and refined legislation, including the hope of decreased spending as legislation gets halted, and some budgets get sliced and diced, the stock markets should rise to great levels. However, a consevative majority congress should still be in support of the current Defense spending, which will be good for defense contractors, helpiong the Dow Jones even more.

Expect the new balances in the Congress to keep both parties on their feet, especially about taxes. I don't expect to see tax legislation passed that would raise taxes, as the populus, whether Republican or Democrats, are conservative. Taxes will not be able to be raised as the legislation will not be passed, because neither type of conservative likes raised taxes.

This will be great for business.

The election also sets an amazing stage for the upcoming presidential election. Interesting, because changes to the War in Iraq will not be able to pass without serious scrutiny and bipartisanship. Even with this, however, the President will continue to control the war, although congress could be able to force some moderate changes.

The only thing I don't like (and many democrats like Harold Ford feel the same way), is that Nanci Pelosi will be house speaker. If you thought Hastart was bad, just wait to see what she'll conjure up. Hopefully, the Bush administration and the House will be able to come together on these issues, rather than causing bitter divisions within the federal government. I highly doubt that would be good for America.

If the Republicans can still hold a majority, or at least tie the Senate, we may see interesting governmental actions there as well. This will be interesting to watch from a government history standpoint, especially if the Vice President has to exercise his tie breaker votes, etc.

To add to this, I see it interesting that Senator Lieberman was re-elected as an Independent (Largely from Republican voters, I would bet). His support of Judeo-Christian values should help make close votes in the senate quite fun to watch. I think analysts have missed the point that Lieberman will be a boon to Republicans more than he will to democrats when it comes to actual votes on the floor. I don't think they have considered this when talking about seat powers and majorities in the senate.

In any case, the next two years will be a fun political show to see which party can produce the best legislation for the country, Iraq, and the economy, which is soaring at this point.

It will also spawn a great political debate setup for the Presidential election in 2008. Where will Hillary Clinton differ with Mitt Romney or Senator John McCain? The next two years will tell. If you ask me, these years may actually make both sides sick of Clinton and McCain, setting up another Gubanatorial presidential hopeful: The "Blue State" Republican Mitt Romney (Frmr Gov. Mass), who I think can mediate both parties very well. Now, for Vice President...

Election 2006 - How will this one fare?

Bush and the Republican side - Holding On for the ride

For the first time in more than 6 years, the Republican party is looking to eek out a narrow party line victory that may prove to be one for the history books. And with a rising economy, and all finacnial signs pointing to the direction of a narrow republican win, it just might work out for them

Although the major sentiment is that the Dems will gain enough seats to gain the majority, some pollsters are saying that historically, it would be a tough win. They cite the fact that the party with the most campaing money usually wins in a year that the stock markets are up significantly. And it must be remembered, that one of the larges influential voting pools are investors, numbering in the tens of millions, making up a huge faction of the 33% of registered voters that normally vote each election season.

Simply put, it is nothing but aatounding how the possiblilty of a republican hold is even plausible at this point, but it is a no brainer that the gains have coincided with good strategic moves by Republicans and the White House to shift the spotlights from problems within the party, and problems with the War, to domestic issues. North Korea even helped this by shifting focus, and current unilateral moves against the country from the US and Allies has showed that the White House has clout.

Add to that the muscle flexing Bush showed all of us who want to win the war by once again aknowledging faults made, but also showing that the strategy will continue to evolve toward the ultimate goal of a United Iraq. (I fail to say 'victory' because the Iraq war was won when Saddam's government toppled. That was an offensive war. The current war is a different, defensive war against invaders and traitors to Iraq. Much like the US had in 1812, shortly after the formation and solidification of this Union. All too often, we forget that we faced the same difficulties the Democracy of Iraq faces today. We fought many continued battles even after the Revolutionary War with other countries, and in 1812 with Great Britain, all who wanted to take over this new, 'feeble' government.

Bush showed that he has more knowledge and control of this thing than any of us thought, and showed that he is working a great friendship with the People of Iraq and their new government, and that he will not put up with failure, whether from us or them. He also showed that his staff understands politics, announcing these new idioms only 2 weeks before a very important election.

Why a Democrat victory could be OK

Since the Dems will not be able to win with an extreme majority, this will make the next 2 years of politics interestng. I actually prefer a two party city, BUT ONLY WHEN THE TWO PARTIES WILL NEGOTIATE AND COMPROMISE. This one could go either way. With Nanci in the hot seat, we could see a spectacle of hate mongering and what I call "push button politics" from the democratic party. If this happens, the 2008 presidential election would be in favor of a Republican candidate. If neither party will come to terms, and instead slings mud all over Washington, not only will the next 2 years be gruesome, but the 2008 election will be downright devisive.

However, I like what I see in most of the democrats that are looking to be elected. Most of them are moderate or conservative. Heck, I even like Harold Ford! Either way, I like the prospect of a Republican congress or a gridlocked congrress for one reason. Business. Both are historically good for the stock market (not necessarily the economy, though) and actually a gridlocked congress has the best numbers. Let us remember, that the great econimic boom of the mid nineties was headed by a Republican congress. And so is the current one. So we'll see what happens at election time, and see if history holds true with gridlock.

As a student of government politics, I am intrigued.

More comcast for me

Guys,

FYI.....

I just ordered comcast high speed internet service for my home, to go with
my comcast cable TV/DVR. I will be paying $33/mo. for each of these two, so
$66 and the extra ten for the DVR. I am cancelling my verizon wireless as
my internet provider because it has givne me too many problems and costs me
$80/month. I am still keeing my T-moblie cell phone service, because then I
don't have to have a land line phone, and I take my cell with me everywhere.

Comcast is a Utah based company and they are beating the competition in this
market hands down.

Love to all.....a happier camper to be Nev

_________________________________________________________________
Search�Your way, your world, right now!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG

e coli outbreak in spinach

Dear readers,

I wanted to pass this photo on to the general public, which I received from a friend of mine. The photo above shows a bag of spinach, prepackaged, with a frog inside of it.

I am a student of science, and most know that e coli usually grows on meat products. Well, I would bet that the e coli outbreak may have had something to do with dead frog materials and eggs being packaged with the spinach. This frog was still alive, I believe, so it must have hatched from an egg that was packaged inside of the bag.

The truth about tough interrogation

"If you watch us often, you know one thing that sets me off is when guests come on the program and say stuff that isn't true. That's what's going on with this so-called torture deal - the far left believes the Bush administration wants to torture people for sport and asserts that making terror suspects uncomfortable is actually torture. In addition, they claim tough interrogation methods never lead to valid information. Today, the Senate continues to debate the coerced interrogation issue. Talking Points believes there will be a compromise - the CIA will be allowed to use some so-called coercive interrogation methods. And that's a good thing, because they do work on some bad people. American interrogators did rough up some captured Al Qaeda terrorists, and those men did give up vital information that that badly damaged terror operations. That is the truth."

ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross joined The Factor with evidence that coercive interrogation can be effective. "The CIA broke 14 high value leaders in secret prisons," Ross declared. "They used coercive techniques. They started with a slap in the chest, then cold rooms, then sleep deprivation, then waterboarding, where you think you are drowning and about to die. In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the information he gave up was very valuable regarding one plot which would have involved an airplane attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles. It's clear that in several cases coercive interrogation does seem to have an effect, and that's the bottom line." The Factor reiterated that harsh tactics can be useful. "In all 14 cases coerced interrogation was used, and in all 14 cases they gave it up. And you say more than a dozen plots were stopped. I want to make it crystal clear that what we have said is true."

Next, Human Rights Watch's Caroll Bogert joined the program with a diametrically opposed viewpoint. "Torture is a method that should never be used by the United States. Sleep deprivation over days is a form of torture, and waterboarding is unquestionably a form of torture." The Factor reminded Bogert of evidence to the contrary. "Brian Ross just said that 12 plots were thwarted that would have killed thousands of Americans. Are you going to sit there and say those deaths would have been allowed?" "I can't confirm or deny Brian Ross's reporting," Bogert replied, "but you can't say that traditional means of law enforcement would not have produced that same information. You can trick people, you can talk tough with people. I would not deny that torture may in some circumstances produce evidence, but at what cost?"

 

Taking action against terrorists

"Let's stop all the nonsense, shall we? A month ago two Fox News journalists were captured in Gaza - their lives were obviously in danger. If a terrorist was captured and had information about where those guys were being held, are you telling me the authorities can only ask them name, rank, and jihad number? Is that what you're telling me, John McCain, Colin Powell, and other senators who oppose coerced interrogation? The military, thanks to the McCain bill, can not do anything to coerce information out of suspected terrorists. Now there's a debate over what the CIA can do. The President wants the agency to be able to use the following techniques: cold rooms, forced standing, sleep deprivation, slapping a suspect's belly, and using loud noise and bright lights. In an unbelievably foolish display, far left Princeton professor Paul Krugman poses this question: 'Why is President Bush so determined to engage in torture?" Well, here's your answer, professor - the President is trying to stop attacks on Americans. We tried to get some of the senators opposed to coerced interrogation on The Factor this evening, but most of them are hiding under their desks. That's because they know the American people realize this whole debate is absolutely ridiculous. We're fighting a war here, and all the theory in the world is not going to defeat the enemy, who is laughing at us as this debate takes the Senate floor this week."

The Factor was joined by former US Senator and current FNC analyst Al D'Amato. "This is going to hurt McCain," D'Amato predicted. "He is absolutely wrong when he equates sleep deprivation with torture. We talk about homeland security - how did we interrupt a number of attacks? By using those methods we were able to stop terrorism." The Factor posed a real-world scenario. "If one of your children is captured, and the CIA picks up a guy who is in the cell that did the kidnapping, is John McCain going to tell me the CIA can not do anything other than ask the guy's name and where he's from? These senators can not answer that question, and that is the reality. Coerced interrogation is necessary to protect every citizen in America."

 

ABC film on 9/11 follows in Moore's footsteps

By Dan K. Thomasson
Scripps Howard News Service

      WASHINGTON — When my youngest son was barely a teenager, he engaged me in a debate over the Kennedy assassination, announcing authoritatively the existence of a huge conspiracy that reached to the highest levels of government.
      It was clear that his opinions had been formed through the magic of Hollywood and the fertile imagination of Oliver Stone, whose docudrama about that tragedy was mainly fiction verging on propaganda.
      All my entreaties about the lack of substantive proof — in fact, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary — failed to sway him that day. Thankfully, as he matured, he began to understand that there is no end to the distortion of history for commercial purposes by those who put entertainment first and fact second. Feeding the public need to place blame as a balm to national trauma can be hugely rewarding financially.
      The recent ABC television spectacular purporting to map the path to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks is just another in a long line of efforts to accomplish that. Ostensibly based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, its factual flaws were embarrassingly obvious and caused a firestorm of protest from Democrats, who saw it as just another attempt to influence the upcoming elections by dumping much of the failure to thwart the terrorists on the back of President Bill Clinton.
      Well, welcome to the world of Michael Moore.
      If memory serves, Moore's attempts to portray George W. Bush as a bewildered, blubbering incompetent in a 2004 presidential election year "documentary" about the first hours and days after the attacks brought about the same response from the Republicans, as it should have.
      The difference between the two films is that Moore eschewed professional actors, making his twists more credible, but none the less distortions. In fact, Moore has become the propagandist of choice for the left.
      At least ABC tried to clean up its presentation. Moore never did.
      The truth is, there probably is enough blame to go around for failing to head off the incredibly improbable 9/11, just as there was 65 years ago in the apparent refusal to heed the signs of an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
      For years after, conspiracy theorists — including leading Republicans — accused President Franklin D. Roosevelt of doing nothing to stop the assault he knew was coming as a way of dragging the nation into World War II. Their charges were grounded in circumstantial evidence that included sloppy handling of decoded Japanese messages clearly indicating that something was afoot in the hours immediately preceding the air strike. As it was, the commanding officers of both Navy and Army forces in Hawaii became scapegoats unfairly.
      During the years preceding 9/11, any number of mistakes can be cited that might have prevented that event. A litany of the intelligence failures alone dating to Jimmy Carter would fill volumes. Crucial among them was the decision to downgrade the CIA's covert operations. It is certainly clear now that during much of the decade before the attack no American agency regarded Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as a serious threat to the U.S. mainland. In the months just before 9/11, the documented lapses of the FBI and CIA are monumental.
      Let's be fair. Neither Clinton nor Bush should be held personally accountable for that hideous morning five years ago. Bush had been in office only eight months, after all.
      Both, like the rest of us, were the victims of the incompetent intelligence.
      But in the long run, the arguments about who did or didn't do what along the path to 9/11 are only useful if they provide a plan aimed at preventing a recurrence and there is a willingness to follow it.
      The 9/11 Commission provided a solid, comprehensive, historic report, outlining the deficiencies and recommending the path to follow to minimize the possibility of another horrible incident. Its work deserved better.

---

Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service

Red Hot Torture

By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com

Thursday, Sep 14, 2006

 

Thanks to the New York Times, we now know the dreaded torture methods

the sadistic CIA used on captured al-Qaeda big shots shortly after the 9/11

attack. I warn you: Reading this column any further will subject you to

unvarnished brutality.

According to a front page article in the Times on Sunday, September 10th,

Pakistani authorities captured Abu Zubaydah, al-Qaeda's personnel director,

a few months after the terror attack five years ago. Zubaydah, wounded in

the confrontation, was turned over to American authorities and whisked

away to Bangkok, Thailand, where FBI interrogators began questioning him.

According to unnamed sources in the Times article, the FBI and CIA clashed

over whether to use soft or tough questioning methods on the captured

terrorist. Because it had jurisdiction, the CIA took over, and the inquisition

began. Agency interrogators stripped Zubaydah, put him in a freezing room,

and subjected him to Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Not the vegetables, the rock group.

Apparently, the CIA sadists cranked up the volume on some Red Hot Chili

Peppers recordings and Zubaydah broke. Wouldn't you?

Now, I am not making this up. The dreaded torture machine that is the Bush

administration unleashed the Red Hot Chili Peppers on an al-Qaeda big shot.

How could they?

According to the article, Zubaydah gave up a number of his fellow killers,

including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11. But come on,

the ends do not justify the means. Using the Chili Peppers is beyond the

pale.

Somewhere, Attila the Hun is weeping with laughter.

But this whole thing is deadly serious. Thanks to the American thugs at Abu

Ghraib and the hysterical left-wing press, the entire world thinks the USA is

a nation of brutes who torture for pleasure. Human rights groups can't

condemn us fast enough for our terrible treatment of people captured on the

battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. Guantanamo Bay is a Gulag, Dick

Cheney is Henrich Himmler. And the beat goes on.

But amidst all the hew and cry, there are few specifics. As far as I can

determine, waterboarding—that is, submerging a suspect in water—was

used a couple of times, but is now banned. Stress positions and sleep

deprivation have been used in limited situations. And now we know the

Peppers were in play.

Of course, in reporting the interrogation story, the Times played up the

conflict between the FBI and the CIA big, but buried the lead. In the final

two paragraphs of the lengthy report, the importance of the Chili Pepper

story emerges. Times reporter David Johnston quotes yet another

anonymous "government official" as saying, "The fact of the matter is that

Abu Zubaydah was defiant and evasive until the approved procedures were

used. He soon began to provide information on key Al Qaeda operators to

help us find and capture those responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

That sounds like a good thing to me, but I do have some advice for the CIA

the next time around: Use Ludacris, and you'll get bin Laden.

##

 

Put Up or Shut Up

By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com

Tuesday, Aug 29, 2006

The TV Emmy Awards were broadcast a few days ago and it was the usual:

a bunch of smug, self-satisfied show biz types cloyingly parading their liberal

views in front of an adoring Los Angeles audience. I mean, come on, you

show biz people are supposed to be creative—how about something new and

exciting: Maybe demonstrating to the country you might have a clue about

what's going on in the world.

I am an independent who believes good policy can be found on both the left

and the right. For example, Al Gore has the right idea about global warming,

and President Bush is correctly defining Islamic fascism. It annoys me

greatly that some Americans are so fanatical about ideology that they have

lost the ability to think. Many of those Hollywood types mugging to the

camera the other night are in that category. Largely dressed in borrowed

clothes and spouting borrowed ideas, these people constantly vilify

conservatives as complete idiots. How irresponsibly condescending.

So let's be straight here. My money says Tina Fey doesn't know anything

about the roots of terrorism or how to prevent the next terror attack. The

woman can sneer all day long, but I'll put her on my TV program in a

heartbeat if she wants to prove me wrong.

Neil Young can write all the mediocre music he wants about how evil the

Bush administration is, but while he is rockin' in the free world, I know it

wouldn't be free if Young were in charge.

My pal Jon Stewart and his legion of writers think they're ultra cool and hip

because they embrace every left wing cause that comes down the pike.

Yeah, you won an Emmy, Stewart, but the fix was in. The choir to whom

you preach dominates the award voting. You Daily Show guys can be funny

but how many Americans want you people standing between them and Iran?

Maybe Larry David, but that's it.

One of the few positives in the Emmy program was host Conan O'Brien, who

was funny in a good-natured way. Although he didn't say so, I believe

O'Brien understands the absurdity of these entertainers displaying their

knee-jerk left-wing politics in an entertainment venue. Even if you're a

liberal, you've got to see how obnoxious this is.

So I say this, Bill Maher. You're a witty guy, but out of your league on

complicated matters like national security. When you can tell me what Ansar

al-Islam was doing in Northern Iraq, then I might watch your HBO show.

When George Clooney can explain exactly how the Pakistani secret police

broke a captured al-Qaeda big shot who subsequently gave up the London

terrorists arrested for planning an attack on American airliners, then I'll rent

"Syriana."

When the pouty Dixie Chicks, who are having big trouble selling concert

tickets this summer, can tell me the origin of the Islamic Brotherhood, then

I might go to one of their shows.

But I'm not holding my breath on any of these challenges. As the saying

goes: Opinions are like lips, everybody has them. But some opinions, like

some lips, are razor thin, and there ain't enough collagen in the world to

help these misguided showbiz people.

 

 

War does make enemies mad

Ted Wilson is right. War does make our enemies mad. Imagine that! I guess the Japanese were pretty mad when they employed Kamikaze pilots during World War II. Maybe we should have told them we were sorry and brought our boys home. Certainly, by fighting on we were "adding to the enemy's enthusiasm for terrorism and recruiting suicidal bombers" as Wilson so eloquently stated. Let's just apologize and leave Iraq. That will put a halt to that nasty terrorism stuff.

Frank Trinnaman

Alpine

 

 

The Iraq Solution
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, Aug 24, 2006
War is a performance business. That is, if you get in it - you better win it. Stalemates are not acceptable, especially in America where we worship victory and do not suffer defeat easily. Despite what revisionist historians say, the USA did not lose militarily in Vietnam, we simply did not defeat the communist enemy. And shortly after we withdrew, they violated the signed treaty and took over South Vietnam. Today, we are facing a similar situation in Iraq. The latest Opinion Research poll says 61% of Americans now oppose the Iraq war, just 35% support the action. But this is misleading. The opposition is not against the campaign to bring democracy to Iraq, the dissent is about our performance there. In other words, if the coalition was winning in Iraq, the folks would be behind the effort. The far left is trying to make this a moral issue, it is spinning that somehow America is bad for deposing a murderous dictator and making free elections possible. If that's bad, then George Washington is Satan. That's how dopey the moral objection to Iraq is. But the folks are correct when they say that unlimited sacrifice in Iraq is not good for the nation. So far, the USA has spent hundreds of billions and lost thousands of good people to death and grievous injury in that chaotic place. If victory is not assured, then we need to change direction. There is no question that Iran, the world's most dangerous country, is behind much of the instability in Iraq. If the USA follows John Murtha's advice and pulls out quickly, Iran will partner up with the killer Shiite cleric al-Sadr and dominate Iraq. That will heighten Iran's power in the Gulf region and give Hezbollah and other terrorist outfits including al-Qaeda far more opportunities to develop their homicidal plots. So cutting and running is irresponsible and dangerous to America, and anyone who promotes that strategy should be aggressively challenged. But the Bush administration does owe a new battle plan to the fallen American soldiers. If the sectarian violence cannot be brought under control by, say, the end of this year, then a partitioning of Iraq should occur. Already, the Kurds in the north have a state that pretty much does what it wants without Baghdad's approval. Similar states could be established in the Shia south and the Sunni triangle with Baghdad becoming an open city. There would be a centralized government in the capital but all three states would largely be autonomous, sharing oil revenue based upon population. Iran would influence the Shia, no question, but it would not be able to dominate the entire country if the U-S kept a strong presence to make sure coups did not take place. This might be the best solution to a bad situation. President Bush should realize his current Iraqi policy is not acceptable to most of the folks. If Mr. Bush continues to stay the course based simply upon hope, his party and his legacy will suffer dramatically. So, once again, no good deed goes unpunished. The United States and Britain held a mass murderer, Saddam Hussein, accountable for his misdeeds and his repeated violations of the Gulf War ceasefire. They removed him and gave millions of Iraqis a chance at freedom. That was noble. But the action has gone unappreciated because the world is not a noble place. Time to recognize that and impose a new, workable solution.
##
Would you like to read more of Bill's newspaper columns? Premium Members of BillOReilly.com have access to Bill's Article Archive that contains dozens of his best articles.

 

Re: What A Propaganda Article Brought To You By Qwest

You've delivered again! My admiration grows, Nephew.

Uncle Nevin

>From: "Tijs Limburg" 
>Subject: Re: What A Propaganda Article Brought To You By Qwest
>Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:45:57 -0600
>
>Garth,
>
>They also forgot one thing, that is that most household phones these days
>use power due to their portability as wireless handsets. I haven't seen a
>phone that doesn't use power in years. And as you pointed out, cell phones
>can be charged in a car if needed. Try charging a handset in a car! As
>well, my cell phone batteries last for days. I think on average I charge
>my
>phone 3.5 times per week. I don't think power outages are even an issue.
>If your power is our more than a few hours, it is usually due to something
>severe enough to knock down power poles, which means landline telephony
>won't work either because those lines are down also.
>
>Remember how they tell everyone not to make calls during an earthquake in
>order to keep the lines that do work open for emergency crews? Well, cell
>phones relieve that problem. And the towers themselves are extremely
>resilient Let's remember that when September 11th happened, people were
>able to use cell phones without many problems. I remember cell phone usage
>during that time was at record volumes as relatives from all over were
>calling the cell phone numbers of loved ones in NY to see if they were
>affected. Try that with a copper land line. (Oh, and did I mention that
>the long distance call for all of those who used a cell phone was free?)

_________________________________________________________________
Get the new Windows Live Messenger!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline