Who Funds Pro-Amnesty ANSWER Group?

Amanda Carpenter knows: (links are mine)

Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER), one of the groups involved in promoting the planned May Day protest and recent rallies of illegal aliens against the House immigration reform proposal, has strong ties to the Marxist World Worker’s Party but maintains a low profile by operating through an unassuming 501(c)3 group whose funding sources are difficult to trace.

ANSWER was created on Sept. 14, 2001, to protest the use of violence in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At the recent immigration rallies it distributed high-contrast black and yellow signs that said “Amnistia-Full Rights for All Immigrants” followed by the group’s website www.answercoalition.org.

ANSWER is calling for “immediate and unconditional amnesty ... with no delays or complicated application process” as well as the jailing of “anti-immigrant vigilantes like the racist Minuteman,” says the website. “They [U.S. politicians] are terrorizing and criminalizing immigrants through repressive legislation, like the racist Sensenbrenner Bill, HR 4437, while instructing police to carry out arbitrary arrests, raids and deportations.”

Stalin-Era Soviets

Herbert Romerstein, a retired long-time Republican aide to congressional intelligence committees, wrote in Human Events on Jan. 24, 2003, that ANSWER was essentially “a core group in the United States of the Workers World Party.” Even the New York Times reported: “Some of the group’s chief organizers are active in Workers World Party, a radical Socialist group with roots in the Stalin-era Soviet Union.”

Phone calls to ANSWER’s offices attempting to find out how the organization is funded were not returned. The donations page on the group’s website says that contributions made by check to ANSWER should be made out to a tax-exempt California non-profit called the Progress Unity Fund (PUF). This group and ANSWER list the same San Francisco office address.

David Hogberg of the Capital Research Center said that because ANSWER donations are given to PUF, the only disclosure obligations ANSWER has are fulfilled by PUF’s filings.

Since ANSWER’s inception, PUF has given $147,987 to ANSWER as revealed on their IRS Form 990, a hefty amount considering PUF generated only $219,370 in revenue in 2004. PUF and similar entities are required to disclose their gross income on their 990, but not the sources of their funding.

PUF’s 990 also lists Brenda Sanburg, Rosa Penate and Keith Pavlik as officers of the organization, all three of whom have written for the WWP’s publication, Workers World. Deirdre Griswold, also active in ANSWER, is the daughter of Vincent Copeland, who co-founded the WWP. She ran for President as the Workers World Party candidate in 1981, receiving 13,200 votes nationwide.

Radical Vision

But just looking at ANSWER’s website reveals its radical vision. The members of ANSWER’s steering committee include the pro-Castro Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Korea Truth Commission, which held a mock war crimes tribunal against the United States military, and the Mexico Solidarity Network, which expressed solidarity with the Zapatistas who led an armed rebellion against the Mexican government after NAFTA.

The Progress Unity Fund also funds the International Action Center, led by former Atty. Gen. Ramsey Clark, who recently joined Saddam Hussein’s legal defense team. ANSWER and the IAC have worked closely together, at one point sharing the same New York address.

ANSWER also received money from a wealthy “social justice philanthropy,” called the Vanguard Public Foundation, which is also connected to PUF through grant exchanges. VPF gave ANSWER $7,000 directly in 2004 and gave PUF and IAC lump grants totaling $11,250 from 2002-2003. VPF has also sponsored anti-war protests that ANSWER supported. In 2002, VPF donated $116,391 to an anti-war march on Feb. 16, 2002, and $69,535 towards “Stop the War Marches” in March 2003.

The Alliance for Global Justice, an anti-free trade organization that focuses on Latin America, has given ANSWER $28,958. ANSWER, AGJ and the Mexico Solidarity Network also share the same Washington, D.C., office.

Related:
Just Invading the Homes Americans Won't Invade

-Home-

Neil Young and Pink are wrong...

This edition of John Gibson's "My Word" is on the mark.

Click the photo to the right for the video.

Neil Young, the Canadian singer who has been living in the U.S. for the last 40 years, has released a new album taking a shot at President Bush and the war in Iraq.

It's called "Living With War."

The line that struck me was, "I never bow to the laws of the thought police."

Another song is called "Let's Impeach the President." Impeach him for lying, impeach him for misleading us into war, for spying on people inside their own homes.

Debates with musicians are always problematical. You may have reason on your side, but they've got the rhythm section and the lead guitar. Hard to beat that.

Then there's Pink. She's got a new song called "Mr. President" in which she imagines taking a walk with the president and discussing war, No Child Left Behind, and asks him how he can live with himself.

I'm all for artists speaking out. I lived through the '60s, too. In fact, I worked in the music business back then, and everybody was against war. That was because we started a war we didn't have to. Everybody knew that.

~~~
Things are different nowadays for me.

When I think of the war, I think of Flight 93. I wonder if Neil Young and Pink are going to go see that. I wonder if they would accept free tickets from me.

I also commend to them the recent tapes of bin Laden and Zarqawi and Zawahiri. They continue to promise to kill us, as many of us as possible.

In fact, Zarqawi promised just a day or two ago that the worst is yet to come.

Wonder if they listen to Neil Young and Pink? Doubt it.

Think they would spare Neil Young and Pink while they killed the rest of us because, after all, Neil Young and Pink are against war and want peace?

If Zarqawi and bin Laden are against Bush, they must be against war, right?

You might think so if all you listened to was Neil Young and Pink.

The last song on Young's "Living With War" is "America the Beautiful." Unlike the Reconquista crowd, Neil Young didn't change the words. He sings the words as they have always been sung, but you get the feeling that now — on his album "Living With War" — they are an indictment, an accusation.

"America the beautiful, purple mountain majesties. Amber waves of grain from sea to shining sea."

The idea is that in Iraq we have turned our backs on America's ideals.

Young and Pink are angry and sad. 9/11 is a distant memory. They don't feel threatened by anybody but our own president.

This is what it has come to. They are forgetful. They have amnesia. They blame the wrong leaders. They are proud of their opposition. And they couldn't be more wrong.

-Home-

Kristol: "the United States of America is in retreat."

A tough conclusion from Mr. Kristol over at The Weekly Standard.

...And it's true the Europeans don't fear the Bush administration any more. Nor, unfortunately, do others. One might also note that, despite all the goodwill built up by our outreach to the capitals of Europe, President Bush seems much weaker today than he was in the bad old days of unilateralism and bellicosity, and so does the United States. But the State Department is popular, and at least we don't look like Neanderthals in the drawing rooms of Europe and Georgetown.

Condi and her colleagues may come home and say, privately, it ain't so. But it is so. Much of the U.S. government no longer believes in, and is no longer acting to enforce, the Bush Doctrine. "The United States of America understands and believes that Iran is not Iraq." That's a diplomatic way of saying that the United States of America is in retreat.

We argue and retreat... China acts, and quietly observes as American politicians and the media backs the U.S. down.

We have to stay strong folks. Iran has many good people in it, but it's leadership is very, very bad. They're next...air strikes most likely, to take out key nuclear and weapons facilities. Who else is going to step up...the U.N.? Not likely. Israel? With us planted firmly over their shoulder, maybe.

-Home-

Homeschoolers are activists almost by definition...

Very impressive. We couldn't do it...at least I couldn't. Well done for this group of homeschoolers though. Article here:

Home-schooling parents in Frederick County, learning that their children could not play on high school football teams, decided not to punt. They formed their own squad instead.

"My son and daughter have not been able to play football or cheer because the [community] programs end at eighth grade," says Terry Delph, who with fellow home-school mother Nancy Werking co-founded the Central Maryland Christian Crusaders.

"This team is really, really needed," she says.

The Crusaders now are the second football team in Maryland made up entirely of home-school and private-school students. The Maryland Christian Saints first took the field last year in Harford County, north of Baltimore.

"You can be a Christian, hit really hard on the football field and still glorify God," Mrs. Delph says.

The Crusaders and their cheerleader squad for girls yesterday held their second informal practice at St. Stephen's Reformed Episcopal Church in Eldersburg, Md. Official practices are set to begin July 31.

The football team currently includes 28 boys, while nine girls have signed up as cheerleaders.

target="_blank"

-Home-

Funny video shows are pretty lame generally, but this is worth a look if you need a laugh...

A few good laughs for a Sunday afternoon...


(hat tip Plattytalk)

I can't get enough of Manbearpig either.

-Home-

The world as we know it is coming to an end... sometime. We're pretty sure.

(click on the cartoon to go to a strong post over at Cox & Forkum)

Whether global warming, hurricanes, or man-bear-pig, you can count on the MSM and environmental scare-mongers to remain hysterical.

-Home-

Neo-neocon: Question Authority.

This is a tremendous blog. Click her photo to the right for info.

Here's how the series starts:

The story of the CIA detention centers leak raises issues far bigger than the personal fate of the leaker, or even whether the particular information divulged in this case might have damaged national security.

What could be more important? The old, old question of individual conscience and responsibility.

For a person joining a group that requires confidentiality and/or obedience to a certain set of rules, when is it all right to disobey the rules and/or to break confidentiality? In fact, when does it become a duty to disobey or to break confidentiality? And, if so, how best to go about doing so? And what should the personal consequences be to the person who disobeys?

It's the same issue raised during the Nuremberg trials, when defendants used the "we were just obeying orders" line as an excuse for egregious crimes against humanity. It's a question that comes up in the life of nearly every military person, whose duty to obey goes hand in hand with a concomitant duty to disobey what is a clearly illegal order, if such an order should ever be given.

It's an issue faced by psychotherapists and all others who are privy to confidential information and are duty-bound to protect it for certain obligatory exceptions. For example, ever since the landmark Tarasoff case was decided in 1976, therapists have struggled with the so-called "duty to warn," which requires them to breach confidentiality whenever they receive credible information that their client is planning to harm another person...

The rest of part I here.

Part II here.

Part III here.

-Home-

The lone conservative light over at ABC News...

Just added John Stossel to my list of "influencers" in the left nav bar.

Here's his latest about how Greed is Good. It's an interesting look at how our market driven economy works... as related to his steak dinner.

...No one person made my dinner possible. It took thousands of people to get me the food. And none of them did it for me. As economist Adam Smith put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Rosanke and the others don't particularly care if some TV correspondent gets his steak, yet they cooperate to make it happen, motivated by self-interest -- what many call greed. Think about that next time you listen to my colleagues sneer at the "greed" and "selfishness" of private business. They don't realize that the institution they celebrate, government, is far less effective at serving humanity.

"In a free market, you get more for yourself by serving your fellow man," said economist Williams. "You don't have to care about him, just serve him. I'd feel sorry for New Yorkers in terms of beef. If it all depended on human love and kindness, I doubt whether you would have one cow in New York."

Does anything get done based on "human love and kindness"? Well, a nonprofit group called City Harvest collects donations of restaurants' surplus food for the poor. But where does that food come from? Greedy people like Virgil Rosanke produce it, and greedy restaurateurs buy it. Kindness can only give away the goods self-love provides.

Previous:
Stossel Right : Teachers Unions Wrong...and public school students continue to suffer

-Home-

I hate to get into name-calling, but I can't come up with a better word... Howard Dean is a moron.

You simply have to click on the image to the left to watch the video of Governor Dean blaming Republicans and corporations for all the problems in the world.

He also points out that the Canadian national anthem is in two languages as well...as to compare with the un-American recording of our national anthem in Spanish.

Canada has two official languages you...moron.

Dean isn't real. He's completely unhinged.

Thanks once again for the video Ian!

-Home-

If you're looking for reasons to like sports, Bill Simmons is up to #881:

"Why I Like Sports"
by Bill Simmons

-Home-

United 93...our first victory.

They filmed in an actual 757 that was dismantled and rebuilt in a soundstage in London.

The actors playing the passengers were not allowed to meet the actors playing the terrorists until the filming. All of the family members were essentially given veto power over the movie, but chose to support it.

This first counter-attack in the war on terror was also our first victory. Without those brave men on that plane, the U.S. Capitol building would haven been destroyed.


It's too soon to forget. It's not too soon be reminded that our enemy is still there, and that we must not lose resolve.

We control our own destiny...inaction is the real danger.

-Home-

"Moderator" Wolf Blitzer and guests Donna Brasile and Bill Bennett discuss the Valerie Plame outing on CNN...

Do you remember how much coverage there was of this Plame issue last year? It was wall-to-wall!

Where's the equivalent outrage from the MSM about Mary McCarthy?

An update from Ian over at Expose the Left...(click the image to the right for the video)

On Wednesday’s strategy session on CNN’s The Situation Room, moderator Wolf Blitzer seemed to tag team with Donna Brazile and the Democratic opinion to go against conservative commentator Bill Bennett. Bennett made the case that Valerie Plame was not covert and her name was not leaked, it was legally disclosed, however Blitzer countered him as if the two were debating. Joe Wilson would have been proud of you, Wolf.

I'm a big fan of Bill Bennett, but I also wanted an excuse to link to this great Joe Wilson humor from WuzzaDem.

Related:
The New McCarthyism: Mary McCarthy, That Is

-Home-

While U.S. politicians pander hysterically, China digs for oil...

Neil Cavuto is right...(Click here for video)

Just let it be known for the energy record: While Congress digs up oil companies' tax records, China's digging for something else: oil.

China is plunking down more than $4 billion to gain a foothold in key Nigerian oilfields.

This is on top of PetroChina's $800 million deal last year to tap up to 30,000 barrels a day of Nigerian crude.

And get this, it's spending billions more to explore for oil. Guess where? Here! Only miles off the Florida coast.

That's the same coast environmentalists prevented U.S. oil companies from tapping.

I don't know. All I do know is while we bicker, China bites at any and all oil opportunities it sees.

As The Financial Times reports, China's rapidly rising oil demands have already made it the world's second largest oil importer behind the U.S. — the same U.S. that couldn't come up with an energy solution if a caribou's life depended on it.

China seems to worry less about caribou and energy company profits and more about its people and its future.

China's got its priorities right. It's acting like the super power that it is.

That's what super powers do.

We should try it some time.

I just don't understand this one. I mean I understand it, but it's significantly more surreall than the usual confusion out of Washington.

Literally, as our elected politicians have blundered around and prevented U.S. drilling of all types from happening, China is bulking up on oil... and it seems in our back yard.

Conservation is GREAT! All for it...just like we're all for immigrants. Let's just get off our *&^%$'s and start allowing our existing fuel entrepreneurs to drill in ANWR, and off our coasts...just like we all know that it's a bad thing to be beholden to our enemy's as we continue to fight the current global war on terror.

We're better than this. At least we should be better than this. We are an independent country...one that has a huge burden of responsibility to lead on the side of good. There are sides you know.

Relativism is a dangerous thing, and our country is already fairly far down a slippery slope. We cannot allow ourselves to become so tangled up in the courts with special interest groups who don't represent the majority of the country.

We need oil. The sooner the better. If we remain at the mercy of the Middle East for our energy longer than 5-8 years from now, I think we're in trouble.

Related:

How China is winning the oil race

-Home-

Al Gore visits South Park to talk about the single biggest threat to our planet: Manbearpig.

This is absolutely hysterical. Al Gore is "super serial"!

Part I:

Part II:

Part III:

Part IV:

Part V:

-Home-

Sowell on the political vulnerability of free markets...

Thomas Sowell is right again in part II of III or more:

One of the beauties of an economy coordinated by price movements is that nobody has to understand it in order for it to work.

If vast new iron ore deposits are discovered tomorrow in Timbuktu, 99 percent of the people on this planet may be wholly unaware of it -- and yet the prices of everything from paper clips to automobiles would begin to decline, from Singapore to Seattle. Moreover, people around the world would adjust their behavior in response to this event that they know nothing about.

Many people who were not sure about buying a new car might decide that they could now afford one at the new lower prices. People who were thinking of buying wooden desks could begin to reconsider, when they discovered that steel desks had become much cheaper than they expected.

In short, the whole world would adjust their economic behavior in response to a discovery that most people were wholly unaware of.

This economic benefit of price-coordinated markets is also its biggest political vulnerability. If people don't understand what is happening, politicians can tell them anything -- and get their support to take actions that look good, even when the consequences will be counterproductive...

The rest here.

-Home-

Video roundup: Durbin on oil prices, Tony Snow on his new role...

Sure! Conservation is GREAT Dick, but let's pull the oil out from under our own feet also!!! Sheeeesh. Get rid of them all.



Tony Snow joining the team is the only encouraging news I've heard out of the White House recently.

Also, Ari Fleischer shares some interesting perspectives about the Press Secretary role last night on O'Reilly.

(Thanks again to The Political Teen over at Expose the Left for the video!)

-Home-

If Social Security reform is dead, then how come so many people are still trying to kill it?

Donald Luskin, from Trend Macrolytics on Social Security reform:

Oh, sure, the enemies of the Bush administration on the left and right pretend it’s dead. During the most recent State of the Union address, when President Bush acknowledged that his initiative last year to introduce private accounts into Social Security had been thwarted, all the Democrats in Congress rose to their feet and applauded.

And conservative Bruce Bartlett, in his recent anti-Bush book, acts as though Bush had never even tried to reform Social Security, writing that last year the president “generally avoided talking about stabilizing Social Security’s long-term finances.” Bartlett seems to have forgotten the myriad times last year that Bush talked about the “Social Security problem” — calling the system “bankrupt” — and his photo-op visit to a government vault in West Virginia where he exposed the non-existence of the so-called Social Security Trust Fund.

And as for those cheering Democrats, they didn’t applaud because reform is actually dead. They applauded to embarrass the president of the United States, and make it harder for him to promote reform in the future.

But reform isn’t dead. It can’t die. Reform is inevitable, because the Social Security system really is in crisis, in the sense that the accounting mirage of the Trust Fund doesn’t hold any real assets to pay off the system’s obligations. Even if it did, the assets would be exhausted in a few short decades as the baby boom generation retires.

So the Left remains mobilized to keep reform off the table as long as Republicans are in power. The Left wants to be sure that all the entitlement goodies of their favored constituencies — unions and minorities — are left intact. And the Left wants to be sure that reform doesn’t diminish the size and scope of government interference in our lives, as President Bush’s proposal for individual investment accounts would surely have done.

Consider the bogus scandal that the liberal New York Times has tried to stir up about the fact that the annual reports of the Trustees of Social Security and Medicare missed the statutory deadline of April 1. An editorial three weeks ago fulminated, “it’s information Congress and the public deserve to have. Holding up the reports seems like an attempt to hide the truth.”

What truth? The truth that the so-called trust funds aren’t going to be able to cover promised benefits in the future? That’s precisely what the president said over and over last year — and that’s precisely what the Times consistently denied.

Besides, this marks the first time the Bush administration has missed the deadline. And where was the Times during the Clinton presidency — eight years in which that administration missed the deadline six times?

And the reason why the report is late is because Max Baucus — the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee — has held up confirmation of the Bush administration’s reappointment of the two public representatives on the Board of Trustees. One of the trustees up for confirmation is a Democrat and one’s a Republican — just as law specifies — and both were originally appointed by Bill Clinton. So what’s Baucus’s beef?

Yes, the committee’s Republican chairman is on record preferring new faces. But Democrats have been the driving force behind the hold-up because they want a new face that will oppose reform. Baucus and Senate minority leader Harry Reid each proposed to the White House a candidate for the Democratic trustee position. The names haven’t been revealed publicly, but both candidates were anti-reform – and Baucus’s was a partisan anti-reform zealot. In frustration, the president finally made “recess appointments” of both the existing trustees last week, while the Senate was off for the holidays.

In the meantime, left-leaning think tanks — and the liberal academics who take their money in the form of “honorariums” and “fellowship grants” — continue to churn out bogus “papers” and “studies” opposing reform. The idea is to put a slick academic veneer on partisan lies designed to preserve the status quo.

Take a look at “African Americans and Social Security: The Implications of Reform Proposals,” a paper published in January by William Spriggs (of Howard University and the union-funded Economic Policy Institute) and Jason Furman (of New York University) under the imprimatur of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The thrust of the paper is to play an anti-reform race card by claiming that the president’s proposal for personal investment accounts is “likely to have an adverse effect on the African American community.”

Spriggs and Furman celebrate how wonderful the Social Security status quo is for blacks. They totally ignore that the punishing Social Security payroll tax consumes any capacity for independent retirement savings that might have been enjoyed by lower-income Americans of any race, leaving them effectively wards of the state in their old age.

Instead, the authors sing the praises of how blacks benefit from the current system’s “progressive” benefit formulas that are skewed in favor of lower earners; how blacks, who are more likely to become disabled, can take greater advantage of the program’s disability benefits; and how blacks, thanks to their lower average life expectancy, benefit more from the program’s survivor benefits.

All those things are true. But Spriggs and Furman lie when they use their academic skills to manipulate statistics to claim that Bush’s proposals do anything but make all those things even more true. (You can find a detailed deconstruction of all their tricks on my blog. Tricks aside, the simple fact is that what the president proposed last year would make the Social Security benefit formula even more “progressive”; it would increase the share of total benefits paid to the disabled and it would increase the share of total benefits paid to survivors.

Spriggs and Furman do admit that the current system disfavors African Americans in one way. Because blacks live shorter lives, on average, they have fewer years in retirement in which to collect their benefits. So you’d think Spriggs and Furman would look favorably on the fact that the president’s personal accounts could be passed on through inheritance. But no. Astonishingly, instead they claim that that would weaken the financial strength of the system. But if that were true, then it’s true of any feature, new or old, that favors African Americans or anyone else — or indeed any feature that does anything but cut benefits or increase taxes. What they don’t like about this feature is that George W. Bush proposed it.

So the battle for Social Security reform rages on, even as the opponents of reform claim to have already won.

And it’s a good thing. When the report of the Trustees finally comes out in a week or two, it will undoubtedly show the existing system’s continuing downward spiral into bankruptcy. When the opponents of reform are done griping that the report was late, maybe they should actually read it, and find out how deep the crisis really is. And for the good of the country, maybe they should forget their partisanship and actually do something about it.

Right on.

View a TV ad for private SS acounts here.

-Home-

Know a CEO who is rude to people perceived to be in subordinate roles?

As a golfer, I've always known that behavior on the golf course can tell you a lot about a person's character, but Del Jones believes that you can learn a lot in other places too...

Click the image ---> for a great video. Click here for the article:

Office Depot CEO Steve Odland remembers like it was yesterday working in an upscale French restaurant in Denver.

The purple sorbet in cut glass he was serving tumbled onto the expensive white gown of an obviously rich and important woman. "I watched in slow motion ruining her dress for the evening," Odland says. "I thought I would be shot on sight."

Thirty years have passed, but Odland can't get the stain out of his mind, nor the woman's kind reaction. She was startled, regained composure and, in a reassuring voice, told the teenage Odland, "It's OK. It wasn't your fault." When she left the restaurant, she also left the future Fortune 500 CEO with a life lesson: You can tell a lot about a person by the way he or she treats the waiter.

Odland isn't the only CEO to have made this discovery. Rather, it seems to be one of those rare laws of the land that every CEO learns on the way up. It's hard to get a dozen CEOs to agree about anything, but all interviewed agree with the Waiter Rule.

They acknowledge that CEOs live in a Lake Wobegon world where every dinner or lunch partner is above average in their deference. How others treat the CEO says nothing, they say. But how others treat the waiter is like a magical window into the soul.

And beware of anyone who pulls out the power card to say something like, "I could buy this place and fire you," or "I know the owner and I could have you fired." Those who say such things have revealed more about their character than about their wealth and power.

Whoever came up with the waiter observation "is bang spot on," says BMW North America President Tom Purves, a native of Scotland, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, who lives in New York City with his Norwegian wife, Hilde, and works for a German company. That makes him qualified to speak on different cultures, and he says the waiter theory is true everywhere.

The CEO who came up with it, or at least first wrote it down, is Raytheon CEO Bill Swanson. He wrote a booklet of 33 short leadership observations called Swanson's Unwritten Rules of Management. Raytheon has given away 250,000 of the books.

Among those 33 rules is only one that Swanson says never fails: "A person who is nice to you but rude to the waiter, or to others, is not a nice person."

Swanson says he first noticed this in the 1970s when he was eating with a man who became "absolutely obnoxious" to a waiter because the restaurant did not stock a particular wine.

"Watch out for people who have a situational value system, who can turn the charm on and off depending on the status of the person they are interacting with," Swanson writes. "Be especially wary of those who are rude to people perceived to be in subordinate roles."

The Waiter Rule also applies to the way people treat hotel maids, mailroom clerks, bellmen and security guards. Au Bon Pain co-founder Ron Shaich, now CEO of Panera Bread, says he was interviewing a candidate for general counsel in St. Louis. She was "sweet" to Shaich but turned "amazingly rude" to someone cleaning the tables, Shaich says. She didn't get the job.

Shaich says any time candidates are being considered for executive positions at Panera Bread, he asks his assistant, Laura Parisi, how they treated her, because some applicants are "pushy, self-absorbed and rude" to her before she transfers the call to him.

Just about every CEO has a waiter story to tell. Dave Gould, CEO of Witness Systems, experienced the rule firsthand when a waitress dumped a full glass of red wine on the expensive suit of another CEO during a contract negotiation. The victim CEO put her at ease with a joke about not having had time to shower that morning. A few days later, when there was an apparent impasse during negotiations, Gould trusted that CEO to have the character to work out any differences.

CEOs who blow up at waiters have an ego out of control, Gould says. "They're saying, 'I'm better. I'm smarter.' Those people tend not to be collaborative."

"To some people, speaking in a condescending manner makes them feel important, which to me is a total turnoff," says Seymour Holtzman, chairman of Casual Male Retail Group, which operates big-and-tall men's clothing stores including Casual Male XL.

How people were raised

Such behavior is an accurate predictor of character because it isn't easily learned or unlearned but rather speaks to how people were raised, says Siki Giunta, CEO of U.S. technology company Managed Objects, a native of Rome who once worked as a London bartender.

More recently, she had a boss who would not speak directly to the waiter but would tell his assistant what he wanted to eat, and the assistant would tell the waiter in a comical three-way display of pomposity. What did Giunta learn about his character? "That he was demanding and could not function well without a lot of hand-holding from his support system," she said.

It's somewhat telling, Giunta says, that the more elegant the restaurant, the more distant and invisible the wait staff is. As if the more important the customer, the less the wait staff matters. People view waiters as their temporary personal employees. Therefore, how executives treat waiters probably demonstrates how they treat their actual employees, says Sara Lee CEO Brenda Barnes, a former waitress and postal clerk, who says she is a demanding boss but never shouts at or demeans an employee.

"Sitting in the chair of CEO makes me no better of a person than the forklift operator in our plant," she says. "If you treat the waiter, or a subordinate, like garbage, guess what? Are they going to give it their all? I don't think so."

CEOs aren't the only ones who have discovered the Waiter Rule. A November survey of 2,500 by It's Just Lunch, a dating service for professionals, found that being rude to waiters ranks No. 1 as the worst in dining etiquette, at 52%, way ahead of blowing your nose at the table, at 35%.

Waiters say that early in a relationship, women will pull them aside to see how much their dates tipped, to get a read on their frugality and other tendencies. They are increasingly discussing boorish behavior by important customers at www.waiterrant.net and other blogs. They don't seem to mind the demanding customer, such as those who want meals prepared differently because of high blood pressure. But they have contempt for the arrogant customer.

Rule works with celebrities, too

The Waiter Rule also applies to celebrities, says Jimmy Rosemond, CEO of agency Czar Entertainment, who has brokered deals for Mike Tyson, Mario Winans and Guerilla Black. Rosemond declines to name names, but he remembers one dinner episode in Houston a few years back with a rude divisional president of a major music company.

When dinner was over, Rosemond felt compelled to apologize to the waiter on the way out. "I said, 'Please forgive my friend for acting like that.' It's embarrassing. They go into rages for simple mistakes like forgetting an order."

Rosemond says that particular music executive also treated his assistants and interns poorly — and was eventually fired.

Odland says he saw all types of people 30 years ago as a busboy. "People treated me wonderfully and others treated me like dirt. There were a lot of ugly people. I didn't have the money or the CEO title at the time, but I had the same intelligence and raw ability as I have today.

"Why would people treat me differently? Your value system and ethics need to be constant at all times regardless of who you are dealing with."

Holtzman grew up in the coal-mining town of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and in the 1950s saw opportunity as a waiter 90 miles away in the Catskill Mountains, where customers did not tip until the end of the week. When they tipped poorly, he would say: "Sir, will you and your wife be tipping separately?"

"I saw a lot of character, or the lack thereof," says Holtzman, who says he can still carry three dishes in his right hand and two in his left.

"But for some twist of fate in life, they're the waiter and you're the one being waited on," Barnes says.

-Home-

Why take responsibility or look for solutions when you can obfuscate, blame others and play a sypathetic media with overt political opportunism?

Again, Ann Coulter speaks for me...

I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.

But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.

Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.

For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.

The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station." This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.

Click here for the rest.



-Home-

Finally, a conservative in The White House...

The Radio Equalizer has the story.

-Home-

Message to all biography-reading presidents, past present and future: Just because they call you a jackass doesn't mean you're Lincoln...

The quote above made this recent article from Peggy Noonan too good to pass on.

Here's some highlights:

...We all like a president who says "The buck stops here." Mr. Bush never ducks the buck. But he puts severe limits on the number and kind of people who can hand it to him. He picks them, receives their passionate and by definition limited recommendations, makes his decision, and sticks. All very Trumanesque, except Truman could tolerate argument and dissent. They didn't pass the buck to little Harry, they threw it at his head. Clark Clifford was in in the morning telling him he had to recognize Israel, and George Marshall was there in the afternoon telling him he'd step down as secretary of state if he did.

It was a mess. Messes aren't all bad.

~~~
Bill Clinton didn't govern by personal conviction, in part because he doesn't seem to have known what his convictions were. They were unknown even to his cabinet members. His first labor secretary, Robert Reich, later said he thought Mr. Clinton liked late-night bull sessions where every problem was looked at from every angle and decisions ultimately deferred because talking gave Clinton the impression that he believed in something beyond his career.

---

Bill Clinton didn't
govern by personal conviction...

---

Ronald Reagan's convictions were clear to everyone around him. The destination was clear to everyone around him. But the route was not. That was always up for grabs. Reagan presided over a White House that fought every day over what exactly to do and how to do it. There were liberals, moderates and conservatives around him, and they brutalized each other. He allowed it. But at the end of each day there was a plan, and in the end it worked out pretty well. Reagan could tolerate dissent and ambiguity. He could even tolerate disrespect, which is what some within occasionally showed him. He didn't really care. His ego wasn't delicate.

---

Reagan could tolerate
dissent and ambiguity.

---

FDR could tolerate tension and dissent too, and in fact loved setting his aides against each other. There was in his management style a certain sadism -- he enjoyed watching Harry Hopkins torpedo Harold Ickes at lunch -- but there was a method to his meanness. He thought the aide armed with the better plan would kill off the man with the lesser plan. As for personal loyalty, he doesn't seem to have bothered much about it. He had a job to do. Loyalty can be a nice word for self-indulgence.

---

FDR loved setting
his aides against
each other.

---

George W. Bush, on the other hand, does not tolerate dissent, argument, bitter internal battles. He is the decider. He decides, and the White House carries through. He is loyal to his aides, who carry out his wishes. (It is unclear whether this is a loyalty born of emotional connection or one born of calculation: Do it my way and the tong protects you.) His loyalty means they will most likely not be fired or leaked against, no matter what heat they take from the outside. And so his aides move forward with the sharpness and edge of those who know their livelihoods and status are secure. Bruce Bartlett has written of how, as a conservative economist, he was treated with courtesy by the Clinton White House, which occasionally sought out his views. But once he'd offered mild criticisms of the Bush White House he was shut out, and rudely, by Bush staffers. Why would they be like that? Because they believe that as a conservative, Mr. Bartlett owes his loyalty to the president. He thought his loyalty was to principles...

---

Bush does not tolerate
dissent...he decides,
and the White House
carries through.

---

...Sometimes Mr. Bush acts as if he doesn't know you don't have to look for trouble, it will find you. When you are the American president, it knows your address by heart.

I know that on some level he knows this. The president has taken, those around him say, great comfort in biographies of previous presidents. All presidents do this. They all take comfort in the fact that former presidents now seen as great were, in their time, derided, misunderstood, underestimated. No one took the measure of their greatness until later. This is all very moving, but: Message to all biography-reading presidents, past present and future: Just because they call you a jackass doesn't mean you're Lincoln.

~~~
In the end it doesn't matter if White House staffers suddenly listen to critics, to non-pre-vetted policy intellectuals, to questioners, complainers, whiners, Wise Men, if you can find them, and people who actually have something to say. But it does matter if George Bush does.

It matters that he becomes his broadest self and comes to tolerate dissent, argument, ambiguity. That actually would be daring. It would mark not the appearance of change but change, not the appearance of progress but the thing itself.

I'm officially off the Bush bandwagon unless he actually grows his spine back and starts to lead again. I am looking forward to Tony Snow though...

-Home-

Not so much choice in "Choice" anymore...

From The National Catholic Register:

April 21, 2006 / WASHINGTON — A bill introduced in Congress by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., seeks to take direct aim at the country’s estimated 3,000 pro-life crisis pregnancy centers. That legislation, known as the “Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act” (H.R. 5052), would grant the Federal Trade Commission the authority to penalize organizations that falsely advertise resources for abortion care services or counseling when they do not offer such services.

“When women are making a health decision, they should never be subjected to deceit and trickery. Some of these crisis pregnancy centers should be called ‘counterfeit pregnancy centers,’” said Maloney in a statement, adding that they “only offer anti-choice coercion.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, Naral Pro-choice America, the National Abortion Federation, and Planned Parenthood quickly got behind the legislation. Naral, the pro-abortion organization, sent out an action alert to supporters saying, “The Bush administration has given these fake clinics well over $60 million in taxpayer dollars.”

“Hardworking Americans should not have to foot the bill for anti-choice groups that pose as health clinics, misrepresent the services they provide, and in some cases even harass and intimidate the unsuspecting women they lure into their centers,” it said.

“Crisis pregnancy centers have a long history of engaging in deceptive advertising,” said Vicki Saporta, president and chief executive officer of the National Abortion Federation. “Some CPCs intentionally choose names similar to those of legitimate clinics to mislead women into believing that they offer a wide range of services, including family planning and abortion care, when in fact they offer neither. They also choose locations in close proximity to legitimate reproductive health care providers to confuse women even further.”

Commitment of Care
Crisis pregnancy centers have taken exception to such allegations. They contend that the majority of the nation’s crisis pregnancy centers are affiliated with national organizations such as Care Net, Heartbeat International and the National Institute of Family Life Advocates, which call for truthful and honest advertising.

Centers affiliated with such organizations pledge to uphold a Commitment of Care agreement that states: “All of our advertising and communications are honest and accurately describe the services we offer.”

“We offer only the clearest representation of ourselves,” said Susan Lear, executive director of the Pregnancy Crisis Center of Wichita, Kan. “If clients inquire about abortion, we will clearly say that we don’t provide for abortion, but will provide information about pregnancy options.”

Lear added that her center offers authentic medical services by partnering with the public health clinic to offer sexually transmitted disease testing, treatment and therapy.

Pat Foley, an administrator with the Wakota Life Care Center in West St. Paul, Minn., agreed.

“When a woman comes in the door of a Total Life Care Center, she is presented with a scope of services card that tells her what is done and what is not done here,” said Foley.

Minnesota’s Total Life Care Center’s 22 affiliates offer pre-natal care, ultrasound exams, testing for sexually transmitted diseases and immunizations. Services are provided by doctors, nurses and midwives associated with local hospitals. The Total Life Care Centers are members of Heartbeat International, as are more than 900 other centers across the country.

Under Attack?
It’s not the first time that such centers have come under attack.

In 2002, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer launched an investigation of 24 crisis pregnancy centers, alleging that they may have used misleading advertising or practiced medicine without a license. The centers countersued, resulting in Spitzer’s subpoenas being withdrawn.

Foley recalled a similar effort in Minnesota several years ago.

Abortion advocates like Vicki Saporta complain about crisis pregnancy centers advertising under “Pregnancy,” “Medical,” “Women’s Centers” or “Clinics” categories in the Yellow Pages. But Jor-El Godsey, vice president of affiliate services with Heartbeat International said those listings were created “at the behest of the abortion industry.”

“So the category ‘abortion alternatives’ was created, and we were then listed first,” he said. “Now they’re coming back and crying ‘foul.’” Lear, of the Pregnancy Crisis Center of Wichita, Kan., admits some centers could be practicing deceptive advertising. “But it would be very, very rare and frowned upon by any of the national organizations,” she said.

Bill’s Genesis
Opponents of the bill say the real reason for it is abortion providers’ fear that they are losing business and access to the tens of thousands of women seen by crisis pregnancy centers every year.

“When you talk about truth in advertising, it’s the abortion providers who don’t want women to know that there are choices other than abortion,” said Lear. “We work with women who make abortion decisions, and also counsel women with post-abortion counseling.”

Maloney’s office told the Register that the legislation is the result of the firsthand experiences of women the congresswoman came across through her connection to pro-abortion groups. The genesis of the bill stems from the personal experience of a friend of one of Maloney’s office assistants.

While Maloney did not respond to telephone inquiries by deadline, her office said that the legislation isn’t designed to go after all crisis pregnancy centers, but only those that are using “intentional deception.”

Congressional watchers doubt the bill will find much support in a Republican-led Congress. Still, crisis pregnancy centers are concerned that such legislation could limit the services they provide. Those who direct such centers say that they make easy targets because they depend on volunteers and often operate on shoe-string budgets.

“This is nothing more than a routine attack on pregnancy centers by organizations seeking to limit their competition,” said Kurt Entsminger, president of Care Net, which is affiliated with 900 centers nationwide.

“Abortion providers are clearly threatened by grassroots community efforts,” said Godsey. “Crisis pregnancy centers do what they do at the behest of the community that supports them financially and with volunteers. They do their work quietly, compassionately, and offer all of their services free of charge.”

This article is outrageous! It is as diabolical and pernicious as anything scheme concocted by Screwtape advising his disciple Wormwood. The last thing that the pro-abortion advocates want is an honest, open discussion about the truth of abortion and its consequences. When these people call pro-abortion counseling at Planned Parenthood clinics “family planning” rather than “doctor-assisted infanticide”, who is really playing fast and loose with the truth? When young, vulnerable woman are being told that their only sensible option is to terminate their pregnancy and that abortion is their liberation, who is really being subjected to deceit and trickery? The last thing the promoters of abortion really want is the truth? As Nicholson said in A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth!”

What is truth? Whose truth? In our postmodern morass of relativism, there is only the imposition of some group’s “truth” by force (political or otherwise) on other groups. The self-designated “oppressed” become the oppressors and the government is their handmaiden, the tool to impose their “truth” on everyone else and label their detractors “deceivers.” Truth has no objective standing, only utilitarian function to manipulate others and promote the group’s social agenda.

But Jesus said “You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.” I am convinced there is no greater crisis in the world today than the crisis of Truth. The killing of preborn children sold as a woman’s right and liberation is but one of many of the great lies spewing from the pit of hell and the beast of postmodernism. For the Church and the culture to survive, Christians must know, love and stand for Truth. And once armed with the sword of Truth, they must stick it in the heart of the beast.

(Above commentary by JCR)

Amen.

I love how "pro-life" is called "anti-choice"... by that standard, "pro-choice" should be "anti-life" or better..."pro-death". One thing's for sure, the pro-abortion crowd isn't liking competition.

Reader Kira comments:

Whatever the circumstances - why can't the anti-abortion crowd bring itself to arrest the woman? If they really think its murder - its potentially worth capital punishment, right? Lets be logically consistent here.

Judy Brown agrees:

Truth be told, abortion is a dastardly act; it is not an issue. The result of the act is a dead human being whose value is in fact no different than yours and mine. The mother of that dead child will suffer; how could she not? The law should reflect respect for human dignity rather than disrespect for the sanctity of life. Murder is what it is, even when the vast majority of us prefer to define it as nothing more than an issue.

Related:
Poll: Americans Don't Understand Roe

Previous:
Abortion in a Post-Roe world: 22 states likely to "significantly restrict abortion access"
The abortion business is down: time for some creative marketing...
A Muslim Australia through "multi-culturalism" and RU-486...the human pesticide


Ramesh Ponnuru on what we’re doing to life.

Click on the image to the left to check out his book: How Democrats became the party of abortion, euthanasia, and disregard for human life

The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life.


-Home-

The great oil debate...

This was a great exchange last night on The O'Reilly Factor with Mac Johnson as his guest. Mac is one of my favorites over at Human Events, and we're regular O'Reilly watchers too.

O'Reilly has been down on oil companies that he feels are price gouging. His most recent column called "Gas Pains" is here.

Johnson responded here with "The O'Reilly Ficton", thus the invite onto The Factor.

Strongly reasoned on both sides I think. The difference in the arguements is that O'Reilly feels that in a time of war the oil companies have a duty to keep pricing down for the good of the country. Johnson correctly points out that supply and demand dictate price, not the product cost. Great stuff.

(Hat tip Expose the Left)

Can we PLEASE start drilling for more oil in Alaska and off the coast of CA!!! I'm all for conservation, but this is ridiculous!

-Home-

Thomas Sowell on political corruption - Parts I, II & III

Worth a second look...term limits, term limits, term limits. These career politicians - all of them - are just not doing the job:

(Originally posted February 1, 2006)

I'm just starting to get into the writings of Thomas Sowell. These recent articles spawned by the Abramoff scandal raise some very provocative questions about term limitation, compensation, and the importance of private sector experience over political prowess.

From Part I:

"...What really needs to be done is to put a limit of one term in one office and a waiting period of several years before being elected or appointed to another office in government. In other words, make political careers impossible.

Can people who are not career politicians run the government? People who were not career politicians created the government and the Constitution of the United States of America..."

From Part II:

"...If we paid every member of Congress $10 million a year, that would not increase the federal budget by one percent.

Chances are that it would reduce the federal budget considerably, when members of the Senate or the House of Representatives no longer needed campaign contributions or the personal favors of special interest groups and their lobbyists.

One term in the Senate would bring in $60 million, which most people could live on for life, without being beholden to anybody and without having to seek a job afterwards for special interests, much less having to sell their soul to continue a political career..."

From Part III:

"...Nowhere is it more important to have people who know what they are doing than in Washington. And nowhere is it more important that what they are doing is carrying out the duties of the job, not spending their time focussed on getting re-elected.

Many people fear that government has gotten so complex that only the permanent bureaucrats can cope with it, so that turnover among elected officials would make the bureaucracy the real rulers of the country.

But the "expertise" of bureaucrats, like the expertise of Congressional staffers, is largely an expertise in personal political survival..."

Thomas Sowell is right.

-Home-

The British Sunday Times uncovers the "new woman"...

The "new woman" is a housewife:

A NEW breed of educated women has discovered the secret of a happy marriage — opting to stay at home instead of pursuing a career.

The phenomenon, in which wives prefer their husbands to be the main breadwinner, has been identified by American sociologists and is now gaining a foothold in Britain.

Unlike the housewives of the 1950s, who had little choice over rearing children and acting as homemaker, this generation of women is building on the advances of the feminist movement to determine their optimum lifestyle.

The women are predominantly drawn from the middle classes and have young offspring. They regard themselves as “at-home mothers”, seeing their prime responsibility as bringing up the children rather than housekeeping.

They include women who have given up jobs altogether as well as those who have taken extended career breaks to be with their children throughout their upbringing.

According to research by academics at the University of Virginia, 52% of modern housewives describe themselves as “very happy” with their marriages compared with 41% of working women.

Other key ingredients to matrimonial bliss include an attentive and emotionally responsive husband, a sense of fairness in a relationship and a lifelong commitment to the institution of marriage.

Women who go to church with their husbands also claim they are happier than those who do not, according to the study, which is based on the responses of more than 5,000 couples.

“Progressive women with kids at home feel it is a legitimate choice,” said Brad Wilcox, co-author of the report, which has been published in the Social Forces journal.

In a second study that has not yet been published, Wilcox found that even wives who described themselves as feminists claimed they were happier staying at home to raise children. The research shows fairness is seen as vital, although this need not mean splitting domestic chores down the middle.

In most marriages, wives do twice as much housework as husbands, yet only 30% of women in the study thought their relationship was unfair.

“They tend to think things are fair, either because the man is taking the lead in breadwinning and/or he is taking care of the car and other household affairs,” said Wilcox.

With divorces in Britain reaching a seven-year high in 2004, the latest year for which figures are available, some couples might heed the example of Jessica Renison, a self-declared “liberated” housewife.

Renison, 33, a former English teacher from Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, has chosen to stay at home to raise her 16-month-old son George, while her husband Mark continues to teach physics at a secondary school.

“I certainly feel a woman has a right to work if that is what she feels is right for her family,” said Renison. “But I am happier than I would be if I was working. If you are working, you can be torn between professional and home life.

“It is a difficult decision to make from a financial standpoint, but I do feel liberated.”

Kirsty Robeson, 32, from Wolsingham, County Durham, gave up her job in financial public relations to raise daughters, aged one, three and five.

“If your mind is fully occupied with other things and you don’t put the effort into marriage, then it can go awry,” said Robeson. “My husband Simon is involved emotionally with everything that happens at home and everything to do with the domestic side.”

The University of Virginia study does, however, have its critics. Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas in London, said: “What makes a happy marriage is likely to be people engaging with each other. If the full extent of your relationships with the external world is the toddlers’ group, daytime TV and ironing, it has got its limits.”

Does this mean that the "new man" is going to make a comeback too?

The "obey your husband" part doesn't have a chance in my house :), but the feminist movement sure hasn't done the male role any favors in the last 40 years.

Related post here.

-Home-

These amazing photos by Jan von Holleben will make you smile...

Click any of the photos below to see all of the photos...
Jan's site is here...
fantastic...
hat tip Clive Davis.

-Home-

Atheists for Democrats!

No help needed...it speaks for itself.

-Home-

If Delay was a Democrat, he'd be a hero...

Gateway Pundit does some nice work shining a light on Texas liberals getting their parting shots in on Tom Delay before all charges are cleared:

Rushing to print, the liberals get their Delay Texas Monthly cover out before he is cleared of all charges.

The Texas Monthly acts wisely and gets their Personal Attack Cover Story on the indicted and not convicted (except in the press) Tom Delay.

Interesting enough, in this article the Democrats fess up to the strategy they know best... personal destruction:

"Nicknamed the Hammer for his mastery of the dark arts of persuasion, the man who had arguably been the most powerful figure in Congress for a decade had taken so many hits from Democrats and the media, and faced so many perils for so long, that what’s amazing is not that he fell but that he survived as long as he did...

This is the point in the eulogy where we say of the dearly departed scoundrel, "No one really knew him." And outside the Beltway, it’s true. A feeding frenzy engulfed DeLay with such intensity that the public came to regard him as a cartoon character: a one-dimensional caricature of the corrupt, devil-may-care pol. They saw him as a crook. A cheat. A right-wing fanatic whose motivation never changed..."

The article is really not worth your time but if you'd like to read it all here is the link.

Sad that since the liberals can't win with higher taxes, weak defense, partial birth abortion, atheism, and socialism, they are forced to spit out personal attacks, even on their own molesters.

I can't say that I'm a huge fan of Tom Delay and can't speak with any authority about his character, but he's been raked accross the coals prematurely by an all-too-eager media. Ronnie Earle forced this indictment, and it seems likely that all charges will eventually be dropped or cleared.

Texas Rainmaker is back too!



-Home-

McClellan out...Bauer in.

So Scott McClellan has finaly called it quits. I have boundless admiration for anyone who serves in that role... especially in a Republican administration, but it was time for him to step down.

As far as replacements go, Blogs 4 Bauer has an idea...

Top 10 Changes Jack Bauer Would Bring to the White House Press Corps:

10. Positive stories about Bush increase 145% in his first hour alone.
9. Five moles weeded out of press corps by Bauer.
8. Ask a stupid question; get hooked up to the sensory deprivation device.
7. Podium replaced with bullet-proof barrier with gun ports.
6. All press conferences last an hour, with all tough questions coming at 45 minutes past the hour.
5. By the end of a press conference, a minimum of 34 people would have been killed.
4. "No comment" replaced by "We don't have time for that question".
3. Gary Bauer mistakenly showed up to a press conference, once.
2. All comments will be yelled.
1. Blogs4Bauer starts to live-blogs press conferences.

The Left sure isn't happy to hear anything nice said about McClellan as he departs.

Michael Wolff lays into Scott in this month's "green" issue of the lib rag Vanity Fair. (ughhhh...more Clooney)

If not Bauer, will it be Tony Snow...vote here.

Personally, I'd be checking to see if Ann Coulter is available.

-Home-

As if the obviously-perverted "man with the yellow hat" and "curious" George weren't enough...

I'm poking (no pun) fun with the politically incorrect "Curious George" reference in the title, but the all-too-serious gay agenda continues it's infultration of the public schools: (hat tip Stop the ACLU)

Teacher reads 2nd-graders story about 'gay' wedding...from WorldNetDaily

While two parents in Lexington, Mass., are upset about the fact their second-grade son was read a fantasy book in school about two princes getting married, what makes them even more angry is the fact the boy's teacher said because same-sex marriage is legal in their state there is no way a mother or father can opt out a child from such experiences.

"We are outraged," parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin told the local Article 8 Alliance. "This is a highly charged social issue. Why are they introducing it in the second grade? And we cannot present our family's point of view to our children if they don't tell us what they're saying to them."

According to a statement from the traditional-values organization, March 24 the Wirthlins' second-grade son came home from Estabrook Elementary School and repeated to his mother the story read to him earlier that day about men getting married to each other. His teacher had read the book "King and King" to the class, in which a prince doesn't want to marry any princesses, but instead falls in love with a princess' brother and marries him in a big palace wedding.

The Wirthlins say they immediately contacted the teacher, Heather Kramer, who acknowledged she had read the book to the class and admitted that it was not part of the curriculum.

It was explained to the couple that since same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, discussion of the matter is fair game -- parents do not have to be informed before or after the issue is presented. Kramer reportedly told the Wirthlins that the theme of the day was "weddings" and the teacher wanted to present all points of view on the subject.

Article 8 Alliance reports other parents in the school claim Kramer attended a presentation last year by the Gay Lesbian & Straight Education Network on promoting homosexuality in the classroom.

David Parker, parent of kindergartner, stands before Judge Robert McKenna in Concord District Court April 28 after spending the night in jail (Photo: Article 8 Alliance)

States the organization: "Lexington school officials continue to claim that homosexuality and homosexual relationships do not does not constitute ‘human sexual relationships’ and thus do not trigger the Massachusetts parental notification law – Ch. 73 Sec. 32a."

After the Wirthlins met with Kramer and Principal Joni Jay to discuss their concerns, Jay sent an e-mail to the couple inviting them to contact Dr. Paul Ash, superintendent of the school district, "since your concerns involve district-wide issues."

As WorldNetDaily reported, a North Carolina couple was equally outraged two years ago when "King and King" was read to their daughter's first-grade class.

Estabrook School was also in the news last year when father David Parker faced prosecution for trespassing and spent a night in jail after confronting school officials about homosexuality being discussed in his son's class.

More reasons to consider home schooling or private school.

Previous:
Big Al takes no prisoners as he fights his gag reflex...
Homosexuality and education: The rants roll on... (a must read!)
The U.S. & the Roman Empire...

-Home-

To Iran: You want "Big George" or "Big Rummy"?

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney talks about the "Big George" scenario, and "Big Rummy" as plan b.

Certainly, all options need to be considered, but more and more it appears as if we're up against a nuclear jihad.

In his "Big George" scenario, the United States would attack 1,000 targets in Iran. Fifteen B2 stealth bombers based in the United States and another 45 F117s and F-22s based in the region would carry out the initial waves of the attack, crippling Iran's long-range radar and strategic air defenses.

Massive, additional waves of carrier-based F-18s, as well as F-15s and F-16s launching from ground bases in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, and Bahrain, would take out Iran's known nuclear and missile sites.

"Big George" would also target command and control facilities – Revolutionary Guards command centers, key clerics, and other regime-sensitive sites – in the hope of triggering a revolt against the clerical regime by opposition groups inside Iran.

The massive strike scenario could be carried out in just two days, McInerney told an audience of intelligence specialists recently in Washington. "We must destroy and damage Iran's nuclear capability for at least five years," McInerney said.

If the president decided to focus solely on Iran's nuclear and missile sites, McInerney proposed a Plan B version he called "Big Rummy."

"Big Rummy" would be executed in a single night, and would concentrate on 500 "aim points." It would require greater assistance from covert operators if the administration's goal was to provoke regime collapse, McInerney added. But in a report appearing in the New Yorker, left-wing columnist Seymour Hersh claims that President Bush is so filled with doubt over the Pentagon's conventional capabilities that he asked military planners to consider using nuclear weapons against Iran.

Hersh claimed that his sources in the defense and intelligence establishment suggested the military could use the B61-11 warhead. But Hersh's scenario, based on old technology, packs more political shock value than actual military punch...

Click here for the complete article from NewsMax.

Cox & Forkum are all over it again...


(Click image)

Sort of similar to what Phillip Adams is saying in Australia:

We cannot wait any longer for the impeachment of George W. Bush. Far more efficient to have Bush certified. There is no need for further debate on his mental state. The US President is bonkers.

Having turned the White House into a madhouse, having taken more lunatic positions on more issues than any head of state since GeorgeIII (are they, perchance, related?). GWB needs a long rest and a change of medication. And it shouldn't be too hard to guide him into a padded cell. Just tell him it's the presidential bomb shelter.

~~~
And that possibility is more than enough. A lame-duck President with the eagle as his symbol once again takes the role of hawk. With his presidency a total mess, what's there to lose? So it's time to certify the President. Yes, you'd have to certify his equally deranged Vice-President as well. And toss in Rumsfeld to keep them company. Along with anyone else in the administration, the Congress, the Senate or the Australian parliament mad enough to think Iraq a sane decision.

(Click image)

-Home-