Dems don't seem to care about troop morale...

I think the most important stat is on the bottom, even democrats believe this is hurting troop morale. Nothing like supporting the troops huh liberals? Oh well, this should make 2006 and 2008 easier.


Democratic Senators who say they support the troops continue to undermine their mission with harsh attacks on the Iraq war - even after a poll released over the weekend showed that more than two-thirds of Americans believe they're hurting troop morale.

"What's happening [in Iraq] is not working; it's a disaster," Sen. Barbara Boxer complained Tuesday - oblivious to the damage her comments would do. "Right now, there's an endless war," she declared.

Reacting to President Bush's Iraq war speech Wednesday morning, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid griped that all he heard was the "recycled [and] tired rhetoric of ‘stay the course.’

"Simply staying the course is no longer an option, we must change the course. We can do better," Reid groused.

Hours earlier, Sen. Hillary Clinton complained that she was tricked into voting to authorize the Iraq war when the White House gave her "false" intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
"Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the President authority to use force against Iraq," she chided.

The anti-war showboating by top Democrats continues despite the findings of an RT Strategies poll released over the weekend, which showed that 70 percent of Americans believe that Iraq war criticism by Democratic Senators is hurting troop morale.

A full 44 percent said the Senatorial complainers had hurt the troops "a lot."

Even self-identified Democrats agreed that their Senators were damaging the war effort, with 55 percent saying their criticism hurts the troops - and just 21 percent saying it helps.

The PC police go after Boston's Christmas Tree...

Unbelieveable. Yes Jerry Fawell is quoted in this article and even though I usually don't care for him he is right in this case.

BOSTON (Reuters) - Boston set off a furor this week when it officially renamed a giant tree erected in a city park a "holiday tree" instead of a "Christmas tree."

The move drew an angry response from Christian conservatives, including evangelist Jerry Falwell who heckled Boston officials and pressed the city to change the name back.

"There's been a concerted effort to steal Christmas," Falwell told Fox Television.

The Nova Scotia logger who cut down the 48-foot (14-meter) tree was indignant and said he would not have donated the tree if he had known of the name change.

"I'd have cut it down and put it through the chipper," Donnie Hatt told a Canadian newspaper. "If they decide it should be a holiday tree, I'll tell them to send it back. If it was a holiday tree, you might as well put it up at Easter."

Falwell and the conservative Liberty Counsel led a campaign that threatened to sue anyone who spreads what they see as misinformation about Christmas celebrations in public spaces.

The controversy reflects the legal vulnerability of city and state governments over taxpayer-funded displays of religious icons and concern over crossing the line in the separation between church and state.

Last year, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger lit what he called a "Christmas tree" at a state ceremony. The year before, he and former California Gov. Gray Davis presided over ceremonies for the more secular "holiday trees."

In Boston, many residents voiced their dismay over the Web site that promotes a December 1 ceremony for "Boston's Official Holiday Tree Lighting."

Christmas has become too politically correct, said 64 percent of people who responded to an online poll by a CBS television affiliate in Boston.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said he would keep calling the Nova Scotia spruce a "Christmas tree" regardless of what it said on the city's official Web site.

"I grew up with a Christmas tree, I'm going to stay with a Christmas tree," Menino told reporters on Thursday.

But the controversy cast a pall over a long-standing tradition between Boston and Canada. Nova Scotia donates a tree each year to Boston in gratitude for the city's help after an explosion killed about 1,900 people and injured 4,000 others in Halifax in 1917.

Let me repeat a line in the article... Christmas has become too politically correct, said 64 percent of people who responded to an online poll by a CBS television affiliate in Boston. I couldn't agree more, I'm impressed with the CBS affiliate for doing something like that, it's nice to know that the PC police haven't got to them yet.

back from vacation...

I'll be back to posting tommorow or monday, the 5 day break was nice though.

House votes down pullout 403-3

This "drama" unfolded last night. I watched a little of it on C-Span and it was amazing when I switched to CNN, you would almost think they were rooting for a pullout (deep down they were). And as I listened to the pro-pullout people call in on C-Span it gave me comfort. These people have no sanity left. Note Nancy Pelosi in this Newsmax article...

Anti-war House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is blasting last night's 403 to 3 House vote in support of U.S. troops and their mission in Iraq, calling it "a disgrace."

Complaining that House Republicans had engaged in a "deception" by calling for a last minute vote on the Iraq war, the San Francisco Democrat said the pro-troop resolution was "a disservice to our country."

Pelosi said that the "Republican majority has stooped to a new low" by forcing Democrats to go on the record against an immediate pullout.

Her California colleague, House Armed Services Committee chairman, Rep. Duncan Hunter, wrote the resolution, which asked whether members thought "that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

"We're going to let every member answer that, and I hope the message that goes back to our troops in Iraq is that we do not support a precipitous pullout," Hunter said.
Pelosi slammed Hunter's proposal as "a political stunt and should it be rejected by this House" - minutes before she voted with the Republican majority.

Even she didn't have the balls to vote for a immeadiate pullout. This is also why Democrats must never be in power again. Frankly, I think that the vast majority of Americans are sick of them. Yes 57 million people voted against Bush but put up a solid candidate like Rudy Gulianni and I think there could be close to an electoral sweep. I mean why should you lead this country when you don't even like it or are willing to defend it against terrorists. Plus now with people like me and other conservative bloggers out there, their monopoly on what the American people see through media is over. There are more regular people than elitests out there and they know it. Note: on the radio, given a free market choice people will ALWAYS choose conservative talk radio, that's why Michael Savage is on 7 times as many stations as Air America, and NPR doesn't count because that's not free market, take public money from them and they wouldn't last a year. They're scared of us people, last night's vote proved that. Even the dems in DC with their heads up their asses realize that, if they didn't they would have voted for the pullout, only 2 did (yes 1 republican actually voted for it). Let the silent majorirty be heard!

Bush Continues Offensive Against Dems' Intel Claims...

This is what he needs to do, finally the Bush Administration is fighting back after taking a beating from anti-war critics since he won re-election last year.


WASHINGTON — President Bush carried his battle over the build-up to the war in Iraq across the Pacific Thursday, blasting Democrats for claiming the White House distorted pre-war intelligence.

"I think people ought to be allowed to ask questions," Bush said Thursday from South Korea, where he met with President Roh Moo-hyun. "It is irresponsible to say that I deliberately misled the American people when it came to the very same intelligence they looked at, and came to the — many of them came to the same conclusion I did."

Democrats, including West Virginia Sen. John D. Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, say the White House controlled the intelligence it saw and didn't tell Congress how weak it was in some cases or that other intelligence contradicted it.

But the president has maintained that lawmakers who voted in favor of using force to oust Saddam Hussein from power saw the same intelligence he did, intelligence that showed that the former Iraqi president did in fact possess weapons of mass destruction. His aides say the Democrats' claim that he exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam to build support for the war in Iraq crossed a line and can't be allowed to stand.

(Story continues below)

ADVERTISEMENTSAdvertise Here



Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday the accusation is "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city."

"Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein," Cheney told the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a conservative policy group.

"I agree with the vice president," Bush said Thursday in Asia.

Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett said the GOP counteroffensive against the Democrats' claims will continue.

"There's a bright line there that the Democrats have crossed. They have no facts on their side," Bartlett said while traveling with the president.

He said the administration to push back "will be sustained" because "in the last couple of weeks it has reached a critical mass and we felt it was important to respond."

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada on Thursday blasted the remarks by Bush and Cheney.

"Instead of giving our troops a plan for success or answering the serious questions of the American people, they've decided to start up the [Karl] Rove/Cheney attack machine in an effort to restore their diminishing credibility and raise their sinking poll numbers," Reid said. "We need a commander in chief, not a campaigner in chief. We need leadership from the White House, not more white-washing of the very serious issues confronting us in Iraq."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, noted that the intelligence Bush and lawmakers had was the same that brought President Clinton to advocate regime change back in 1998. Saddam since then continued to appear to hide things from U.N. weapons inspectors and defy U.N. resolutions.

"There were all the signs of danger there and I think it would have been irresponsible not to act," Cornyn told FOX News.

Meanwhile, Rep. John Murtha, an influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war, called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

"This is the immediate redeployment of American forces because they have become the target," said the Pennsylvania lawmaker, usually one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. At times during his remarks to reporters, the decorated Vietnam War veteran was choking back tears.

"It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region," said Murtha, who is the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

But not everyone agrees with that move.

"We have to remember — there's no easy way out," former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told FOX News. "We are going to magnify the terror danger that got us involved in the first place" if U.S. troops pull out of Iraq too early, he added.

The coalition should wait until the Iraqi elections are held on Dec. 15 and give the new government time to get organized before any drastic troop movement is contemplated, Kissinger added.

"We do need to get out of Iraq but not until we've stabilized the country and allowed this fragile democracy that's just beginning to bloom to grow into a vital stabilizing force," Cornyn told FOX News.

Sen. Jeff Binghaman, D-N.M., who voted against the congressional resolution giving the president authority to use military force to oust Saddam because he said the administration didn't make the case for it, agreed that simply pulling troops out now is not the way to go.

"I think it would not be responsible for us just to pull our troops out at this point," he told FOX News. "I do think it's appropriate we begin to hold the administration accountable, to tell us how they're going to get us out of Iraq, and give us a timetable and begin meeting certain conditions."

Pushing back against the push-back, the Democrat's 2004 presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, said Cheney "continues to mislead America about how we got into Iraqi and what must be done to complete the still unaccomplished mission."

Bush has made two speeches in recent days that painted Democrats as hypocrites for criticizing the Iraq war after earlier supporting the idea that Saddam should go.

Although critical of some administration tactics in prosecuting the war, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Sunday that "I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people" about prewar intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.

The Republican National Committee has posted on its Web site a video montage of prominent Democrats — including several 2008 presidential hopefuls — who, before the war, publicly said Saddam did in fact have weapons of mass destruction and he posed a danger to the world.

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld singled out a number of Democrats, including President Clinton and his secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, who had depicted Saddam as a threat because of weapons of mass destruction.

Following up on that theme, Cheney said Wednesday that "these are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that was made by this administration and by the previous administration."

He said there was "broad-based, bipartisan agreement" that Saddam was a threat, had violated U.N. Security Council resolution and had banned weapons.

Saddam did have WMD's

this is what I've been saying all along and I've been called crazy. Courtesy of Newsmax...

New Documents Reveal Saddam Hid WMD, Was Tied to Al Qaida

Recently discovered Iraqi documents now being translated by U.S. intelligence analysts indicate that Saddam Hussein's government made extensive plans to hide Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in March 2003 - and had deep ties to al Qaida before the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive evidence was discovered among "millions of pages of documents" unearthed by the Iraq Survey Group weapons search team, reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes.

In the magazine's Nov. 21 issue, Hayes reveals that the document cache now being examined contains "a thick stew of reports and findings from a variety of [Iraqi] intelligence agencies and military units."

Though the Pentagon has so far declined to make the bombshell papers public, Hayes managed to obtain a list of titles on the reports.

Topics headlined in the still embargoed Iraqi documents include:
• Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)

• Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents

• Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)

• Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs

• Ricin research and improvement

• Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam
• Memo from the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)

• Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team

• Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment

• Correspondence from [Iraqi Intelligence Service] to [the Military Industrial Commission] regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002) • Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals

• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)

Still other reports suggest that Iraq's ties to al Qaida were far deeper than previously known, featuring headlines like:

• Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)

• Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity

• Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq

• Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals

• Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda - reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak

• [Iraqi Intelligence Service] report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims

• Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan

While the document titles sound stunning enough to turn the Iraq war debate on its head, Hayes cautions that it's hard to know for certain until the full text is available.

It's possible, he writes, "that the 'Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity' was critical of one or another Taliban policies. But it's equally possible, given Uday's known role as a go-between for the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda, that something more nefarious was afoot."

"What was discussed at the 'Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government' in November 2000? It could be something innocuous. Maybe not. But it would be nice to know more."

Hayes also notes that an additional treasure trove of evidence on Saddam Hussein's support for al Qaida may be lost forever.

"When David Kay ran the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction, he instructed his team to ignore anything not directly related to the regime's WMD efforts," he reports.

"As a consequence, documents describing the regime's training and financing of terrorists were labeled 'No Intelligence Value' and often discarded, according to two sources."

Want the connection dems? Well there it is.

New laws shield terrorists...

Kinda scary that this would become law.

Tancredo: New Law Would Shelter Terrorists

A new law that exempts religious groups from prosecution if they employ illegal immigrants as volunteers protects potential terrorists, says Colorado GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo.

Tancredo vows he'll work to repeal the legislation.

"This provision opens a hole in our immigration system so big, a terrorist could drive a truck bomb through it," said Tancredo, a vehement critic of illegal immigration, in a statement reported by the Denver Post.

"Terrorists in the United States have used religious organizations as fronts before," he said. "This provides legal cover for any church, synagogue, mosque or group that calls itself a religion to aid and abet illegals who may pose a national security threat."

The new law - authored by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) - shields religious groups from a federal law, which prohibits knowingly transporting, concealing, harboring or shielding an illegal immigrant.
Under Bennett's legislation the law no longer applies to religious groups if illegal immigrants are volunteering to serve in a religious activity, such as working as missionaries or in a soup kitchen.

"It does not under any circumstances allow a terrorist or any illegal alien any kind of special sanctuary," Bennett told the Post, adding that church volunteers who are illegal immigrants could still face legal action.

According to the Post, Bennett wrote the provision at the request of attorneys for the Mormon Church, which - according to Bennett - uses the largest number of volunteers of any U.S. religious group.

A spokesman for the church, Michael Purdy, told the Post the law would allow illegal immigrants to serve as Mormon missionaries, which they previously could not do.

"This narrow exception to the immigration act allows people of all faiths to fulfill their religious obligations," Purdy said.

Asked if a church might be protected if it housed illegal immigrants, he said, "No, I don't think so." He said the law does not protect religious groups acting as fronts for terrorists.

But Tancredo's spokesman, Will Adams, said that while Bennett might intend for the law to apply only to soup kitchen volunteers or missionaries, it would give shelter to those working with terrorists.

Adams explained that while the Department of Justice in the past could charge a religious group with immigration violations while investigating alleged terrorist activities, under the new law it could no longer do so.

He added that a large number of terrorism cases are first brought as immigration violations and that religious groups have been charged with sheltering terrorists in the past.

US preparing for bio attack...

Are they not telling us something? Sounds a little ominous to me.

U.S. Preparing for Smallpox, Bio Attack

The U.S. is preparing for a potential bioterrorism attack using the deadly smallpox virus – federal grants are funding efforts to produce a new, safer vaccine.

The terrorist and anthrax attacks of late 2001 raised concerns about the smallpox virus. Anthrax does not spread from person to person, while smallpox does, and a bioterrorism attack with smallpox could kill millions.

But for a population of nearly 300 million, the U.S. had only 15 million doses of vaccine at the time.

After that the government stockpiled enough vaccine for every American. But when President Bush announced a plan to inoculate up to 10.5 million doctors, nurses, police, firefighters and other workers ahead of time so they could respond to an attack, many health workers refused inoculation.

They were not fully convinced of the smallpox threat and worried about the safety of the standard vaccine, according to the Washington Post.
Then after unexpected heart problems emerged in some vaccine recipients, the administration canceled plans to offer shots to the public.

While the smallpox virus today is stored in only two official repositories, in the U.S. and Russia, there are fears that some other nations countries kept hidden stocks and terrorists or rogue states could get their hands on the virus.

But the standard vaccine is "relatively dangerous compared with most modern vaccines,” the Post reports.

The vaccine sickens some people, and can lead to heart inflammation and a catastrophic brain infection in a few cases. In addition, it was killing several infants a year in the U.S. when routine vaccination was halted.

Thus the government has been pushing for safer vaccines.

One newer type of vaccine is known as modified vaccinia Ankara, or MVA. It was first developed in Germany in the 1970s, and does not reproduce in the body – as the standard vaccine does – and appears less likely to cause illness.
But because it is weaker, people may need two shots several weeks apart for full protection. That could limit the usefulness of the vaccine immediately following a bioterrorism attack Two companies - Acambis PLC, with headquarters in England and Cambridge, Mass., and Bavarian Nordic A/S, with headquarters in Denmark - have received federal grants to develop MVA.

Their vaccines have undergone extensive tests, but their side effects are not yet fully known.

The Department of Health and Human Services has issued bidding documents asking for at least 20 million doses of MVA - enough for a minimum of 10 million people - and has said it may eventually buy an additional 60 million doses, according to the Post.

Replacing the entire vaccine stockpile with the MVA could cost billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, with no public funds, VaxGen Inc. of Brisbane, Calif., is developing a vaccine that reproduces in the body and therefore produces strong immunity with one dose, but appears safer than the standard vaccine.

VaxGen's product is expected to be significantly cheaper than MVA and, as a one-dose vaccine, more useful in an emergency. Experts say it’s likely to be at least a year or two before significant quantities of new vaccine arrive in federal stockpiles.

Smallpox was eradicated in 1977, and routine vaccination stopped. Studies have suggested that a quarter of the U.S. population has some lingering immunity from childhood smallpox vaccination, but the rest - 223 million people - are believed vulnerable, the Post reports.

Virtually no one younger than 37 has been vaccinated.

Happy Veterans Day everyone...

Today I will leave you with a quote from General Patton.

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived."

To anyone who still thinks they can say, "support the troops, bring them home." suck on that.

Do as I say hits NYT bestseller list...

in no thanks to the liberal media of course.

Peter Schweizer’s new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy” has made it to the coveted New York Times best-seller list in its first week out.

The book – which previously reached the #1 spot on Amazon.com’s list of best-selling nonfiction work after it was previewed on NewsMax – will debut at #14 on the Times list. The list will be published in the Times’ Book Review on Sunday, November 20.

The book’s inclusion on the Times list is even more remarkable considering it only received national attention last week on Wednesday evening – giving it just 3 days to make the list. The Times checks books sales each week ending Saturday to make its bestseller lists.

In his blockbuster book – and in the November edition of NewsMax Magazine – Hoover Fellow Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Barbra Streisand, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and George Soros.

The book is getting rave reviews from leading conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter. Limbaugh told his audience last week that the book was "just fabulous," adding, "It is just replete with example after example of the utter hypocrisy of the left."

New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter declared that ‘Do As I Say’ is "the book of the century.”

Schweizer sums up his book this way: "The reality is that liberals like to preach in moral platitudes. They like to condemn ordinary Americans and Republicans for a whole host of things - racism, lack of concern for the poor, polluting the environment, and greed. But when it comes to applying those same standards to themselves, liberals are found to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy.”

Big surprise huh? This book confirms what I have felt, and have said, about the left. That is the biggest reason that I am "Republican" (I put it in quotes because I consider myself more libertarian than republican but I vote republican because voting libertarian is just counter-productive).

Bad night for GOP...

But thanks to this article I am not as down as I was earlier this morning.

Election Deja Vu for Bush

After last night's gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey, Democrats are celebrating President Bush's loss of political clout as they salivate over the prospect of retaking the House and Senate in next year's midterm elections.

Not so fast, says the New York Post's John Podhoretz.

He notes that the results were much the same for Bush in 2001 - a year before he steered his party to historic gains in the House and Senate - and three years before he beat back a Democratic onslaught in his own reelection race.

"Bush won Virginia by 8 percentage points in 2004," notes Podhoretz, "while Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore appears to have lost by 5 points. But if you think Kilgore's loss reflects Bush's weakness and a nightmare for the GOP in 2006, consider this:


Story Continues Below


"Bush won Virginia by eight points in 2000, too — and the following year Democrat Mark Warner became governor with a 5-point margin of victory. The next year, in 2002, Republicans won a stunning midterm victory, taking four Senate seats and expanding their majority in the House of Representatives."
The same thing happened in New Jersey four years ago, when Republican Bret Schundler lost to Democrat James McGreevey.

What's more, there's a fly in the ointment for Hillary Clinton, the Dem's presumptive 2008 nominee. As the Post's Deborah Orin notes, last night's vote in Virginia, where Democrat Tim Kaine rode to victory on the coattails of his term-limited popular predecessor Mark Warner, only boosted Warner's status as a Democrat who can win red state votes.

That's something Hillary has yet to demonstrate she can do. And with Warner also on the party's presidential short list, anything that makes him look good hurts the former first lady.

So it's not the end of the world for us. Personally I still feel confident going into next year's election. And get this, some of the liberal blogs were already crying foul before their candidates actually won. Man they are a bunch of nuts, even when they win they still look crazy. Apparently everytime we win a election it has to be stolen according to them. How pathetic.

Bill Clinton speaks on Immigration...

he says that cracking down will hurt forigen students studying here and doesn't think the trade-off of protecting us against terrorists is worth it. Even Bill has lost it now. I've said it before and I'll say it again, liberalism is a mental disorder. They have no low.

Newsmax wins silver medal

NewsMax Magazine has won a Silver Medal in the News/Commentary category of the 2005 Eddies, the prestigious journalism awards presented by Folio magazine.

Folio, a bible of the magazine publishing industry, announced the 16th annual Eddie Awards winners on November 1 at The Folio Show New York, the largest and most comprehensive conference and exposition for the magazine industry.

Amy Zucchi, Event Director for Folio, said: "It is truly amazing to see such excellence within the magazine industry not only from publications that have been around for many years, but also from the brand new magazines on the block.”

NewsMax Magazine now has a monthly paid circulation of 101,000 on average, and a readership of well over 400,000.

"This Silver Medal, won against impressive competition, is recognition that NewsMax Magazine has become a major player in the news and commentary field of magazine journalism,” said NewsMax President and CEO Christopher Ruddy.
"It is truly an honor.”

Hats off to a great magazine, it is a daily read for me and should be for you too.

Ah the hypocrites on the left...

Remeber Micheal Moore(on) everyone? He said he never owned stock, but he did, and the company that he owned will stun you all.

Filmmaker Michael Moore has made a career out of trashing corporations and said he doesn't own any stocks due to moral principle.

How then did author Peter Schweizer uncover IRS documents showing that Moore's very own foundation has bought stocks in some of America's largest corporations – including Halliburton, other defense contractors and some of the same companies he has attacked?

In his blockbuster new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Hoover Fellow Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Al Franken, Ralph Nader, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi.

But he reserves some of his sharpest barbs for Moore.


In his first documentary "Roger & Me," Moore skewered General Motors, Schweizer points out.

In "The Big One," he went after Nike and PayDay candy bars.

"Bowling for Columbine" was an attack on the American gun industry.

Oil companies played a major role in "Fahrenheit 911."

His upcoming film "Sicko" pillories drug companies and HMOs.

On his television shows "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth," he criticized HMOs and defense contractors.

He once said that major defense contractor Halliburton was run by a bunch of "thugs," and suggested that for every American killed in the Iraq war, "I would like Halliburton to slay one mid-level executive."

Publicly, Moore has claimed he wants no part of these companies and won't own stock.

In his book "Stupid White Men," he wrote: "I don't own a single share of stock."

He repeated the claim in a 1997 letter to the online magazine Salon, saying: "I don't own any stock."

Privately, however, he tells the IRS a different story, Schweizer discloses in his book.

The year that Moore claimed in "Stupid White Men" that he didn't own any stock, he told the IRS that a foundation totally controlled by Moore and his wife had more than $280,000 in corporate stock and nearly $100,000 in corporate bonds.

Over the past five years, Moore's holdings have "included such evil pharmaceutical and medical companies as Pfizer, Merck, Genzyme, Elan PLC, Eli Lilly, Becton Dickinson and Boston Scientific," writes Schweizer, whose earlier works include "The Bushes" and "Reagan's War."

"Moore's supposedly nonexistent portfolio also includes big bad energy giants like Sunoco, Noble Energy, Schlumberger, Williams Companies, Transocean Sedco Forex and Anadarko, all firms that 'deplete irreplaceable fossil fuels in the name of profit' as he put it in ‘Dude, Where's My Country?'

"And in perhaps the ultimate irony, he also has owned shares in Halliburton. According to IRS filings, Moore sold Halliburton for a 15 percent profit and bought shares in Noble, Ford, General Electric (another defense contractor), AOL Time Warner (evil corporate media) and McDonald's.

"Also on Moore's investment menu: defense contractors Honeywell, Boeing and Loral."

Does Moore share the stock proceeds of his "foundation" with charitable causes, you might ask?

Schweizer found that "for a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and film."

Moore's hypocrisy doesn't end with his financial holdings.

He has criticized the journalism industry and Hollywood for their lack of African-Americans in prominent positions, and in 1998 he said he personally wanted to hire minorities "who come from the working class."

In "Stupid White Men," he proclaimed his plans to "hire only black people."

But when Schweizer checked the senior credits for Moore's latest film "Fahrenheit 911," he found that of the movie's 14 producers, three editors, production manager and production coordinator, all 19 were white. So were all three cameramen and the two people who did the original music.

On "Bowling for Columbine," 13 of the 14 producers were white, as were the two executives in charge of production, the cameramen, the film editor and the music composer.

His show "TV Nation" had 13 producers, four film editors and 10 writers – but not a single African-American among them.

And as for Moore's insistence on portraying himself as "working class" and an "average Joe," Schweizer recounts this anecdote:

"When Moore flew to London to visit people at the BBC or promote a film, he took the Concorde and stayed at the Ritz. But he also allegedly booked a room at a cheap hotel down the street where he could meet with journalists and pose as a ‘man of humble circumstances.'"

That's hypocrisy with a capital H!

There is also a new book out there called, Do As I Say (Not As I Do):Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, that I will be getting very soon. It looks like a good read. And proves that the left really does have almost nothing left to cling onto. The book also comments on how George Soros hides his billions from the US Government and how much of a hypocrite Barbra Streisand really is. This is a must read for everyone, even the lefties out there.

Dan Rather hates us...

Gee, I wonder why? Courtesy of Newsmax...

Dan Rather: Beware of 'New Media'

Former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather on Tuesday delivered a pointed message to an audience of young people at the University of Maine.

"News is something people need to know which someone, somewhere, doesn’t want them to know,” Rather said. "All the rest is advertising.”

Speaking at the Maine Center for the Arts on the University of Maine campus, Rather called for a return to what he termed "independent journalism,” warning his listeners to cast a wary eye of the plethora of "new media" outlets that he said feign objectivity while working to advance their own - or another's - agenda, according to the Bangor Daily News.

Many of these students had never heard of Rather, according to the newspaper, because few of them watch evening news shows or read daily newspapers. A large portion of the audience receives its information from various Web sites and "non-traditional” news media.

Rather - who was driven from his anchor seat largely because bloggers and other "new media” outlets, such as NewsMax.com, exposed his use of forged documents last year to falsely attack President Bush of shirking National Guard duty - says that such media sources should be viewed critically.

"You need to ask yourself: Is more better, and is all that calls itself news really news?" said Rather, who turned 74 this week.

Rather praised the youthful audience as "more sophisticated because you have much more information coming in.” However, the former news anchor tempered the compliment immediately afterward.

"Your intelligence is not yet matched by the information that you need,” he said.

I love it, nothing is greater than making the old media tremble like this.