Archive for June, 2005

The Bush Doctrine

Wednesday, June 29th, 2005

President Bush did a good job of reminding us of the necessity to stay the course in Iraq. The reason he didn’t give us anything new in his Fort Bragg address is pretty clear to those with ears to hear and a willingness to comprehend; principles don’t change. If something was true yesterday, it is still true today. The reasons for fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq have been, and remain obvious to anyone with a sense of our enemy’s unwavering commitment to destroy us.

The home-spun sophistry employed by the President’s detractors is motivated purely by politics. They claim that the President violated the “sacred ground� of 9/11 by invoking it as the reason to pursue the war on terror in Iraq. They claim that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. For political reasons they intentionally fail to recall that, post 9/11, in a joint session of Congress, the President clearly outlined his strategy for defeating the terrorists by going after them wherever they were to be found and that that states that sponsored terror would be treated as enemies. In outlining the Bush Doctrine, he also clearly stated that the long-term goal of helping democracies to flourish is the best protection the US, and indeed the world, can have from the threat of future terror. No one raised a voice of dissent at that time. 9/11 was an unambiguous message to every American.

Perhaps our friends on the left should answer these questions; did Saddam sponsor terrorism? Can giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers be construed as sponsorship? Were his endless pronouncements about destroying America acts of terrorism (ask any prosecutor in the land for the definition of “terrorist threat� and whether it is taken seriously)? Is the Zarqawi faction, ruthlessly operating in Iraq since the beginning of hostilities, linked to Bin Laden? Did the world community consider Saddam a threat to world peace and stability? Did he ever use WMD’s? Would he ever have used them again?

The big question is this; where would these suicidal jihadists go to fight Americans if we weren’t in Iraq? We all know the answer to this question. Iraq is a terrorist magnet; drawing the rabid adherents of the fundamentalist Islamic death cult to the rivers of Babylon, where they will be introduced to their 72 virgins by the 82nd Airborne. Would it be preferable to the left if the suicide bombers, for lack of more accessible targets in the proximity of their own homes and homelands (Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc), chose instead to blow themselves up in American shopping malls or pizza parlors? These people have been programmed to kill themselves, taking with them as many Americans as possible. It would seem better to have them sacrificing themselves against the members of our brave volunteer military in Iraq than to experience more 9/11-style carnage among the civilian populations of our cities and towns.

The other aspect of the war that the left persists in promoting is to inflate and inflame the natural emotional response to the casualty figures. We have lost about 1800 brave souls in the three year war on terror; the same number that died in North Africa in the Battle of Kasserine Pass, at the outset of World War Two. Should we have quit that war after losing that many men in a single battle? Should we have abandoned the invasion of Europe after we lost 10,000 men that first day at Normandy? Should we have called for a cessation of hostilities in the war with Japan after 13,000 Americans died in the month-long battle for Okinawa? Should we have given up the war against Hitler after the deaths of 40,000 American soldiers in the Battle of the Bulge? Are our enemies today any less determined than those foes? Are they any less commited to the destruction of the United States? We must maintain perspective.

The Left would be wise to remember and consider this truth; evil prevails when good men do nothing. The rest of us would be wise to consider this truth when pondering the Left, its propaganda and its purposes.

Court\’s Commandment

Tuesday, June 28th, 2005

As of today all Americans have a reason to be upset with the Supreme Court; the old Gore faction for putting Bush in control of the Executive Branch, and the old religious faction for kicking God out of the Judicial Branch.

Today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the ACLU’s lower court victory concerning the display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse is the most recent reason to meditate upon Thomas Jefferson’s comments regarding the refreshing of the “Tree of Liberty�.

The majority in the 5-4 ruling claimed that the display violated the Constitution’s “Establishment Clauseâ€?. How are they able to make such a claim when it is obvious that they don’t even know that there is a difference between \”religion\” and \”a religion\”? You will get a kick out of this twisted bit of logic.

\”The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the \’First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,\’\” Justice David H. Souter wrote in the majority opinion, citing previous court rulings.

What does this mean? It means that displaying the Ten Commandments violates their personal belief system (one would have to assume that to be “non-religion�), meaning that their belief system is more equal(in the Orwellian sense) than the Judeo-Christian belief system and its initial charter; the Ten Commandments. What else could this mean? For evidence one need only look to Souter’s own source; the citing of previous court rulings, not the Constitution, to back up this tortured assertion.

There is a difference between “religion� and “a religion�, but this is not addressed by the liberals on the court, certainly not in the traditional sense; on the basis of the Founders’ intent. The Establishment Clause was included in the Constitution to prevent the state from establishing a particular religion; the Church of England, for example, in which the State controls the religion, not the other way around (the fundamental fear of the neo-secularists and the radical hedonists). The Founders had no intention whatsoever to exclude “religion�; the acknowledgment of a God and Laws (akin to those inalienable rights to which we often refer) that existed before the form of our government was ever contemplated.

O’Conner’s resignation would be helpful at this juncture. She has obviously slipped over into the Dark Side (it’s gotta be the robes!). Let’s just hope that something could persuade Stevens, Ginsburg or Breyer to opt for retirement. Their failure to perform their proper Constitutional duties in a consistent, judicious fashion may well spell the end of America as we have known it.

Linguni with Fresh Clams

Sunday, June 26th, 2005

This is a wonderful and wonderfully simple dish that can be prepared by anyone with two pots and 15 minutes to spare. I offered this dish on nearly every menu in nearly every restaurant in which I worked as chef. One evening in our Vail restaurant, a big guy burst through the kitchen doors to announce that this was the best pasta dish he had eaten outside of Italy, and that it rivaled anything he had eaten there. I looked up from the dishes being plated to behold that the compliment had come from Billy Jack. Who was I to offer any disagreement? His girth was evidence of his expertise. We might not agree on much, but enjoying a good meal is one place that our interests can peacefully meet.

Linguini with Fresh Clams (for two)

Ingredients:

1TBL olive oil
Freshly chopped fresh oregano; about ½ tsp
1 medium clove fresh garlic, chopped.
¾ cup white wine (Chardonnay or Sauvignon Blanc- don’t worry, the alcohol burns off)
¾ cup light chicken stock (water with a ½ tsp dried bullion will suffice)
1 to 1 ½ dozen small fresh clams (or more if you are sharing), well rinsed to remove sand
½ pint whipping cream
1 tsp salt
½ pound linguini
1-2 TBL soft or melted butter
2-3 TBL freshly grated parmesan cheese (Reggiano is best)

Directions:

In one large pot, fill 2/3 full with water and add 1 tsp salt and bring to a boil. Add linguini and stir into the boiling water. As water returns to a boil, reduce heat to medium and continue to cook and stir pasta until it is done. How will you know? Keep trying a piece until the center is cooked, or until it suits your taste.

Meanwhile in another smaller pot, over medium high heat, pour in olive oil and add the oregano and garlic and stir briefly (but do not allow the garlic to brown). Add wine and chicken stock and bring to a boil. Add clams and cover (preferably with a shallow pan with a handle that will double as a lid). As the clams open, remove them from the broth with a pair of tongs and set them in the pan being used as a lid. This serves to keep the open clams warm while you wait for all the clams to open (if you have reduced the cooking broth by half and there are any clams that have not opened, set these clams aside. If they refuse to open on their own, throw them away). When all the clams are removed, add the cream and continue to boil until the broth reaches a good sauce consistency. Toss clams, and any residual juices in the pan, back into the sauce for just a moment, shaking pot back and forth to incorporate the juices and cover the clams with sauce.
Drain water from pasta completely, add butter and toss then add parmesan and toss again briefly. Pour onto serving plate. Arrange clams around the border of plate, pour the sauce over the pasta and serve.

I have never had better! Buon appetito!

(As with nearly all recipes, please feel free to make adjustments to suit your own tastes. After all, you’re the one who is going to eat it.)

Tares and Terrorists

Friday, June 24th, 2005

The Democrats’ outrage over Rove’s remarks is breathtakingly bemusing! Am I watching C-Span or Comedy Central? Can these people be serious? I always thought that “star comedy by democrats� was just a silly palindrome, but I was apparently wrong. To feign indignance over an infinitely corroboratable statement of fact would be howlingly hysterical if these people weren’t so transparent.

Rove complained that some Democrats used the opportunity of 9/11 to point the finger of blame at the United States. His exact words were that some Democrats reaction to 9/11 was to “prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.\” Can any sane human being doubt that this actually happened? Has anyone forgotten the Democrat Primary; a hand wringing-fest in which each candidate tried to outdo the others with their sullen solicitations of understanding for our enemies and our so-called friends? Do they not remember Senator “Osama Mamaâ€? Murray’s comments that Bin Laden built more day care centers than we did, or some such nonsense? Or John Kerry’s suggestion that we treat this as a legal matter and bring these terrorists to court? Or Bill Clinton’s post 9/11 comments about how we, as descendents of Europeans, somehow share the responsibility for inflicting harm on the Muslim world during the Crusades? What about Dick Durbin’s most recent remarks comparing our servicemen with Nazis?

The wheat and the tares look the same until they mature and ripen at which time they exhibit their obvious differences, allowing the servants to separate them; to bring the wheat to the storehouse and the tares to be burned.

Rove is right to point out the vast differences between the attitudes of the defenders of the nation and those whose allegiance is becoming increasingly questionable. We battle not just the terrorists but the tares.

The Worthwhile Life Defined

Thursday, June 16th, 2005

It appears that certain people and groups are declaring that the Schiavo autopsy vindicates their previously held position; that it was perfectly okay to kill Terri by removing all sustenance. Apparently, having a significantly smaller-than-average brain is now the benchmark for the mark of death. Blindness is also seen now as a legitimate reason for terminating a human life.

I’m glad that’s settled. Now we know what to do with the likes of Nancy Pelosi who has shrunken more than her wrinkles by her use of Botox. The half-witted John Conyers has also earned a compassion-filled retirement, along with his Senate colleague Dick Durbin who is either operating with diminished mental capacity or is simply a seditious sycophant who is capable of feeding himself but only with the fruits of the labors of others. If impaired memory function is a critical element, should forgetting what happened on 9/11 carry the death sentence? Do we simply ship them off to the crematorium, or is GITMO just as good?

What about those with shriveled souls?

I am sure that Terri is nevertheless better off in her present setting; she is far less likely to be further abused by the moral midgets.

(It is difficult to maintain a Christian attitude in the face of such blatant hypocrisy. This “forgive all menâ€? thing is a tough one, but I’ll work on it—–starting tomorrow!)

Jackson Verdict

Tuesday, June 14th, 2005

There are several cultural conditions that caused the Jackson verdict to conflict with the generally held perception of his guilt. The first is that he was successful at portraying himself as a victim on a number of levels; he is eternally the little boy in a man’s body (well, maybe he is just a little boy—with whiskers); he is obviously troubled, physically and emotionally (back pains, dizziness, pajamas, epidermal disorder, etc.); and the mother of his chief accuser appears to be a deft abuser.

The second dynamic is that of his celebrity. It is common in our culture of celebrity worship to build up a star or a hero and then proceed to destroy that very same celebrity after we have chased them across the front pages of the Globe. In Michael Jackson’s case, the destruction phase feels too much like child abuse.

The third and most significant condition is that Michael was a respected (albeit peculiar) neighbor to these jurors. He was also responsible for bringing in a certain amount of revenue to the local coffers. In this light he is not substantially different from most politicians who are ethically challenged but continue to bring home the bacon. When Jim Wright was Speaker of the House and under severe pressure for questionable dealings, a reporter questioned one of his constituents who was quoted as saying, “He might be an SOB, but he’s our SOB!â€? This is precisely why term limits were adopted in so many regions of the country; a very strange thing really, considering that election cycles are already term limits. The problem is that voters continue to re-elect their SOB’s in order to ensure that they are supplied with their fair share of the pork. Complicit in the crime, the voters have no one to blame but themselves (\”Stop me before I vote again!\”).

So it is with this jury, many members of which are fairly certain that Michael molested little boys but they simply could not square this conviction with the other elements in view; primarily their open and universal disdain for the mother of the victim, and finally because Michael, pigment problems aside, could still bring home the bacon. So we have another predictable, emotionally predicated verdict.

Let me propose that while we are removing the Ten Commandments from our courtrooms, that we also take down the statue of the blindfolded goddess of justice and replace her with the statues of our ancient ancestors; the three monkeys who neither see, hear nor speak evil.

The Tortured Use of Torture

Tuesday, June 14th, 2005

Torture is the term we use to describe any number of unspeakable acts of inhumanity inflicted upon helpless captives who are unable to resist. I have visited a fully functional medieval torture chamber with its rack, wheel, iron maiden, whipping posts, stocks, thumbscrews and sundry portable devices used to render the victim malleable, unconscious or useless. Most of these devices were employed, not in an effort to extract crucial information from a foreign enemy but rather with the purpose in mind of humbling the haughty, suppressing the rebellious tendencies of those who opposed the current tyrant, or in securing a confession of guilt from the innocent (you know—-the kind of things we witnessed under Saddam?). Occasionally an enemy soldier would be interrogated for the purpose of learning the enemy’s plans, strengths or weaknesses but as a common practice torture has been primarily relied upon as a political tool rather than a military necessity.

1492 was not only the year that Columbus arrived in the New World; it is the year the Old World adopted the “Inquisition� as a means of gaining new converts to the Church in Rome. The Inquisitor’s favorite tool in pursuit of the goal was their resort to torture; all the horrific methods noted above plus “burning at the stake�; a favorite of the Spanish and the French as a means of dispatching witches and heretics. (Many secularists frequently point to the Inquisition to validate their negative opinions of religion. A more objective appreciation of this event, and all others in which religious zealots have mercilessly afflicted others, will reveal the fact that these are the actions of misguided mortals; not the ordained will of the God that made them or the precepts that would ever govern God’s true church.)

Now that I have tortured the neo-secularists that occasionally drop by the kitchen where the frog is slowly poaching——- let us return to the subject; what truly constitutes torture? The word seems to have been overworked of late; diluted considerably by its application to things like tapping a finger on someone’s chest, putting captives within earshot of a barking dog, desectrating their holy writ by placing it on or near toilets, providing copies of the Koran in languages other than the one the captive reads, or removing their clothing. In light of the methods described in limited detail above, I find these latter offenses to be less than lackluster. Most professional torturers throughout the ages would laugh uncontrollably at the idea that these mildly offensive gestures are considered torture by any sane being. We can almost hear him exclaim, \”now this is torture!\”, as he gouges your eyes out, rips off your arm and beats you with the bloody stump.

If we are to buy into the notion that the behaviors in which American military personnel engaged was indeed torture, we must add these. Torture is listening to Barbara Boxer’s yapping. Torture is enduring Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid or Patrick Lahey spewing their bile and their bald-headed lies; desecrating the hallowed halls of Congress. Torture is reading a voter pamphlet written in languages I can’t understand. Torture is witnessing the social decay sponsored by the hedonists who promote nudity for everyone but captured enemy combatants. Torture is watching the news on CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC. Torture is the knowledge that there are enemies within the gates and that we have to wait for two, four or six years to have any hopes of sending them into retirement.

If we have truly tortured the prisoners in GITMO or Abu Ghraib, I am filing a complaint with Human Rights International against Barbara Boxer, et al.

What\’s Another $80 Million?

Monday, June 13th, 2005

The complaint that a special election in California will cost the taxpayers $80,000,000 is the latest red herring from the whole kettle of fish that panicked Democrats and trade unions have hurled at the Governor and other supporters of this very reasonable notion; that reforms are critically necessary if California is to be spared from descending into the third world. The Governor has made countless overtures to the Democrat controlled legistlature to join him in crafting reforms crucial to California\’s future but the Dems arrogantly used those olive branches as kindling. The Governor\’s only choice is to take these matters directly to the voters.

These chronic complainers are the very same people who want to want to raise taxes to squander on the staggering status quo. The trade unions are prepared to spend $200,000,000 of their members’ dues to defeat these reforms; reforms that will yield significant dividends for the state and its citizens; reforms that will echo eastward across the political landscape. What is $80,000,000 compared to the billions of dollars wasted annually by those these reforms are intended to appropriately address?

The other argument is that we should wait for the 2006 election; as if doing nothing to correct an obvious problem is the ideal solution. There are many who subscribe to the idea that problems will auto-correct if left to themselves. Of course most of these people endure lives riddled with difficulties. There is no better time than the present to address a glaring problem.

In the beginning I was only cautiously optimistic about a Schwarzenegger administration. I am now convinced that Arnold is probably the only person who can do what needs to be done. He continues to enjoy the majority support of the voters; he does not fear the Dems in the State Legislature and is not afraid of a private or a public fight; unlike the vast majority of politicians he is not overly beholden to special interests; his ego/esteem/confidence is not measured by political performance unlike the sociopaths with whom he must negotiate. He is a genuinely charismatic, infinitely likable character who brings his whole being to work. The solutions he offers were not crafted by the inept adepts who labor with insufficient oxygen in the bowels of the machine. His approach is as refreshing as a cool Alpine breeze.

Let’s have that special election and let’s employ it to reverse decades of politically sanctioned economic abuse and neglect. Union members should demand that what remains of the $200,000,000 earmarked to defeat the Governor\’s initiatives be put into their pension funds instead. The unions might be wise to invest that money in California bonds in hopes to recover the money they have already misspent.

The Pursuit of Provocation

Sunday, June 12th, 2005

There seems to be a rising level of anxiety, in secular circles, over the increasing political visibility of the “religious right�. If this is so it is purely due to the provocations of the neo-secularists. The Chairman of the Democrat Party in California, in his defense of the inimitable “Dr. D�, remarked that “Republicans were more interested in pushing a Christian agenda than in promoting the morality of Medicare and honest Social Security reform�. What this gentleman has failed to consider is that the religiously motivated among us have unjustly suffered from decades of continual attacks emanating from the ACLU, homosexual groups, liberal judges, Hollywood, the leftist media and the Democrat Party.

Religious people, usually content to quietly worship their God, feel that their freedoms to do so are being infringed and that this government, created specifically to guarantee personal freedoms (and what could be more personal than a person’s spirituality?) has moved in a direction that has endangered these basic precepts. All the while Christians endure being branded, by the irreligious left in the halls of congress and federal courts throughout the land, as intolerant and spiteful.

One of the most effective means of marketing the notion that Christians are hateful and intolerant is the same basic ploy long used in sports; the sucker punch. Employed by coaches of lesser character, the scheme is to induce an unsportsmanlike response from a key opposing player by verbally or physically provoking that individual. The referee will not often see the initial act of aggression but the reaction to it is usually quite visible or audible and is often subject to penalty. Anyone who watches sports has frequently observed this particular phenomenon; it can take a player out of his game and increase the level of hostility. Most familial relationships are pockmarked with similar occurrences; one sibling quietly provoking the other into loud or violent protestations, leading the parents to punish the child who is reacting to the provocation while the toady escapes unscathed.

If those who simply prefer to pursue pleasure will stop interfering with the pursuit of happiness by those who are religiously inclined, we should all be able to get along just fine.

The Cycle of Violence

Thursday, June 9th, 2005

Russell Crowe’s apology seems credible enough but is almost inconsequential; most people seem to recognize when they have behaved in a particularly despicable fashion. The problem is that most don’t recognize it until after the fact because they don’t recognize the symptoms of a pending violent episode until it actually occurs; after it is too late. After the event comes the guilt and remorse and the apology, the honeymoon and the slow return of habitual behavior, then the stressors and the build-up, followed by the proverbial straw and the point of no-return (often fueled by alcohol or other drugs), ultimately followed by another violent event.

This is the cycle and unless and until something is done to break the cycle, the time/distance between events gets shorter while the levels of violence and abuse increase in severity. In relationships both the abuser and the abused get addicted to the program; the abuser because that is how he or she maintains dominance, and the abused because of the seductive intensity of the honeymoon phase. The danger to both is increased with each subsequent event as the abuser pushes harder for a response while the abused tries ever more diligently to avoid a response out of a natural tendency to avoid provoking the abuser. Nothing good can ever come out of this dynamic, this ever-tightening spiral, especially when children are involved.

There is, however, a proven method for breaking this cycle; the Time Out. First, one must understand that the cycle is best attacked during the stress phase of the cycle; between the honeymoon and the point of no return. During the earliest stages of a potential confrontation, either party is entitled to stop the process by declaring a Time Out. The Time Out is not just a few minutes facing the wall; it is very specific, non-negotiable and is equally available to both parties, but the onus is really on the person who knows that his or her temper is capable of spinning out of control. The specifics are as follows.

The Time Out lasts two hours, no more, no less. Two hours is enough time for both parties to adequately cool off. Returning in exactly two hours establishes trust and is an unambiguous demonstration of commitment to both the relationship and the solution to the current problem.

Once “Time Out� is declared, all conversation ceases immediately. The person who called the Time Out physically leaves the premises. One should not drive if overly angry, distractedly emotional or under the influence.

No alcohol or other drugs are permitted during the Time Out.

Exercises (no punching bags or martial arts!) such as walking, jogging or meditation, are an optimal use of time.

Stay away from “Friendly Enemies�; the ones who already think your spouse is a jerk. These people will only fire you up instead of cooling you down.

Never use the Time Out as means of avoidance. It is also not to be used to watch the NBA Playoffs at your friend’s house.

Do not immediately resume the conversation that resulted in the Time Out but do endeavor to discuss the matter peacefully and unemotionally within 24 hours. If temperatures start to dramatically rise, call another Time Out.

The Time Out should be used early and often.

This is the very best method of which I am aware for restoring a consistent calm to a relationship while avoiding a spike in the severity of a disagreement and the potential for violence and abuse. It works great for either party but must be agreed upon in advance. It is wholly appropriate for one spouse or partner to explain how the program works and then explain further that this procedure is non-negotiable; this is the way it works—period! Of course, one would only want to enter in to this discussion at an optimal moment for such a conversation. It is not permissable to simply spring this on another person without first explaining it and gaining their agreement. Most spouses will agree because they have equal access to the program.

This works! If you use it you will spare yourself more trouble than you can possibly imagine while protecting yourself and others from potentially dire consequences. After the cycle of violence and abuse is broken, a couple may then proceed to work on communication skills. More will follow relative to specific methods for better communication.

Remember, if you do not break the cycle it will ultimately break you and your relationships. That kind of failure is nothing to Crowe about. Good Luck!

Sundry Comments on the News

Wednesday, June 8th, 2005

Now we know why Kerry did all those mystifyingly dumb things while simultaneously failing to seize the moment and the momentum out on the campaign trail. He just ain’t too bright; four “D’s� in his freshman year at Yale? One can guess what he was really studying.

Jimmy Carter, another major league failure; the guy who single-handedly destabilized the Middle East by dumping the Shah and jumpstarting the Jihad, offers yet another brilliant idea; close down GITMO. What earthly purpose would that possibly serve? Where else can we keep the sworn enemies of our nation that would not raise the ire of the other enemies of our nation? One must wonder what motivates people such as Carter; people who worry more about the “human rights� of criminal combatants than the human rights of their victims.

Los Alamos whistle-blower, Tommy Hook, wasn’t treated quite as well as FBI whistle-blower, Mark Felt. One was severely beaten and hospitalized just prior to his appointment with a Congressional panel convened to look into massive fraud at the government’s troubled Los Alamos facility; the other is about to get a $1,000,000 book deal. Several possible lessons may be gleaned from these two circumstances; the first being that Mark Felt was wise to keep his identity secret; the second being that Tommy Hook should have done likewise, and third and most likely; a crime is not a crime if it is committed for a “higher� cause. This illustrates the most distinct difference between the two events; one whistle blower committed a series of crimes for political reasons; the other was the victim of a crime for political reasons.

Chinese spies, according to a recent defector, are everywhere. They are disguised as businessmen, students and tourists. They arrive with visas and green cards and are welcomed as guests. But just what are they looking for? Back in the mid-1990’s we were told that Americans were the victims of the largest espionage effort in the history of the world; that we were being overrun by tens of thousands of Chinese spies. Some thoughtful Americans reasonably speculated that they were just here to learn how to drive, but it was later ascertained that they simply wanted to know the contents of every retail shop in the land. Why? So they could produce everything Americans needed and wanted and were already purchasing, so they could manufacture and sell the same or similar items to us at a lower price. The Chinese are not “D� students.

Mother Goons

Tuesday, June 7th, 2005

Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks are not a departure from her core “centrist values�. She had no centrist values. She is as much a leftist as Justice Ginsberg whom she appointed to the Supreme Court during the Partner Presidency. This is the real Hillary; pillorying the Bush White House for being power-mad and abusive; speaking volumes about her own perception of the office of President. She should know. Her own power grab, though falling short of her insatiable ambitions, was significant in its naked disdain for tradition and truth. If one had tuned in to her speach a moment late, one would have been certain that she was talking about the Clinton Administration.

This is a very dangerous woman; the kind of progeny one would anticipate from a marriage between the likes of Joseph Goebbles and Evita Peron; a Rosemary\’s Baby\’s blend of articulate but rabid propagandist with a “feminist messiah complexâ€? who simply won’t go away even long after she should have been politically dead and buried!

Remember, this is the woman upon whose coffee table the 1200 missing FBI files mysteriously appeared (and disappeared again; whose files were they?). This is the woman who turned a $1000 investment into a $100,000 windfall inside of one year (wouldn’t you like the number of her commodities’ broker?). This is the woman whose White House attorney and former partner died under extremely mysterious circumstances. This is the woman who squelched the voices of the “trailer-trash bimbos�; the objects of her husband’s boundless lust and the girls he obviously found more appealing than his wife. This is the woman whose “goon squad� preceded her down every street where opposition was like to rear its ugly American head. This is the woman who authored “It Takes a Village� (a peek inside her socialist vision for the future of federal child-rearing) among other fairy tales or horror stories, as you wish. From Mother Goose to Mother Goons; this is Hillary, and much, much more.

Don’t be fooled. She wants to be president. Heaven forbid! We must make sure that never happens by contributing to her opposition and by voting for the opposing candidate. Defeating her re-election bid as Senator from NY would be a great start.

America Is Not a Place

Tuesday, June 7th, 2005

As we anticipate the start of the NBA’s championship series this week, it seems appropriate to consider the following.

In a recent conversation with a disgruntled Sacramento King’s fan, dismay was voiced over the playoff performance of Peja Stojakovic. Peja is arguably one of the best shooters in the history of the National Basketball Association but that talent, as yet, has been unable to deliver the illusive championship trophy to the long-suffering Kings’ faithful. The knock on Peja, deserved or not, is that he is not the same player in the post season that he is during the regular season. Injuries can be legitimately blamed in two campaigns but during the concluding rounds of playoff series in the other seasons he has not displayed the exceptional talent that most followers of the game know that he possesses. The question is “Why?�

Certainly he is not the only player in the history of the game to be challenged by the rigors of playoff basketball. With 82 regular season games behind them, many players have to reach very deep to tap into that reservoir of reserve energy. The league’s teams of officials seem to call playoff games differently in the post-season resulting in more physical contests. Opposing players, with rings and dollar signs in their eyes, focus ever more diligently on preventing their counterparts from excelling. Until game seven, there may always be a tomorrow, but the chances are 50/50 that the season will be over by next week. All of these various stressors impact every serious player. Why are some elevated by the challenge while others appear to be beaten by it? If we knew for certain, we could be coaching this week.

Relative to Peja, there is a more significant issue at play. While he may be an outstanding shooter, he is not an outstanding competitor. He doesn’t have the instincts that set him apart and above; the juice, the drive that exists at the core of every champion. I will be happy to be proven wrong about him at any time. If he does break through this barrier it will be the result of a major change in attitude on his part; a departure from his up-bringing behind the Iron Curtain.

Since the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917, the Leninists and subsequently the Stalinists, made a point of killing, deporting or otherwise driving off everyone who exhibited anti-Soviet behaviors; taking initiative, working hard, exercising contrary opinions, striving for excellence, scavenging for truth, clinging to religious beliefs, refusing to spy against and denounce friends and neighbors, displaying entrepreneurial tendencies, questioning the unbridled power of the state and the malevolence of its rulers, in other words, for acting like Americans! Excluding these traits and behaviors from the gene pool for nearly a century has left most of Eastern Europe devoid of the qualities required for the successful transition from the failed Marxist-Leninist ideologies of the past to the fluid currency of ideas of the present day; the ideas that built and fueled the various technologies that yielded the modern world in which we live.

Having bread-out the competitive spirit (why work harder than the other guy when everyone receives the same reward?), the communist elites created a slave state, not a bastion of the best and brightest, and the most daring. Those who did excel at certain things (the great gymnast Olga Corbett comes to mind), sacrificed familial relationships and became wards of the state until they outlived their usefulness as tools for Soviet propagandists. The Soviet’s post war scientific advances were due almost exclusively to their successful espionage efforts in the United States (employing treasonous Americans to do the work) and their capture of German scientists at the conclusion of the war. If one could take away all that the Soviets stole they would be, today, an archaic agrarian culture, sodden with the spirit of potatoes. Even with all they stole they are an archaic agrarian culture, sodden still —– but with a massive conventional arsenal and bristling with nuclear tipped missiles pointed in every direction.

The point I wish to make is this; unchallenged at the free-throw line, Peja is one of the worlds very best at making points. His Yugoslavian (Serbian) team won a European Championship but this is more a contest (in a Continental context) of pure talent, not a measure of the heart. Until he can somehow get an infusion of good ol’ American competitive spirit, he is not likely to be as successful at the game as his talent should permit. He is not a courageous refugee making his bold escape from behind the Iron Curtain in pursuit of the grand dream of freedom. He would be better off if he had been.

Americans are not a race. America is not a place, but rather a state of mind; an attitude. Americans are born everywhere. They overcome major obstacles and endure great hardships to get here in order to fulfill the American Dream; to exercise the righteous desires of their hearts. When an NBA championship becomes the true and sincere desire of Peja’s determined heart, he will already be a champion.

Revenge of the Psyck

Friday, June 3rd, 2005

The following is from the \”active conspiracy to minimize human potential\” department.

I have been intrigued by the title of a new book; “One Nation Under Therapyâ€?, in which the authors point out that modern childhood is being treated as a pathology by an increasing number of school systems and “professionals\” in other children’s welfare organizations. Sited in the book is the striking example of “no strike-outâ€? baseball; interminable games in which no one is allowed to strike out for fear of the irreparable harm such trauma could inflict upon the fragile sense of youthful esteem. In some places this peculiar new nuance has been modified to create “no scoreâ€? baseball in which nobody loses (and by logical extension, nobody wins). The outlawing of dodge ball and tag in favor of the all-inclusive “circle of friendsâ€? is another example of the myopic attempt not simply to level the playing field but to eliminate it altogether. Is this the way those who were not very good at sports as children are now getting even with those who were; by warping the latter\’s children?

Who is really in need of therapy here? The children will be should they be forced to endure continued and prolonged exposure to such rampant lunacy. Protecting children from one of life\’s great purposes; learning to overcome obstacles, is utter madness. This illogical notion is no different than placing these youngsters in a germ-free environment in an effort to keep them safe from disease. They could never be allowed to leave the bubble because they would not have developed an immune system capable of protecting them from the rest of the world, thus consigning them to perpetual frailty and terminal hypersensitivity.

I fear this agenda is driven largely by the childless among us; those who have little or no understanding relating to the rearing of children. Only love-deficient lunatics would perpetrate such unbridled cruelty and disguise it as fairness.