Democrats Stem the Tide of Violence in Iraq

It’s absolutely brilliant! Harry Reed declares that the war in Iraq is lost. Nancy Pelosi travels to Syria and praises the insurgents. And now violence in Iraq has dropped precipitously. What happened?! Simple. We all thought they were serious about their blather. Bush is a criminal; get out off Iraq now...; blah, blah, blah. They had us all going but you have to imagine what it must have been like for the terrorists to find themselves on the same side as Democrats! These poor religious fanatics found themselves on the same side as godless baby killers. True, terrorists have killed their share of babies but at least they wait until the babies are born to determine if they are infidels. Liberals, of course, can’t wait to suck the broken remains of innocent life from the womb and flush them down the sink, simply because these potential humans have come at an inconvenient time. Next, Kucinich goes over there and talks about how Bush should be impeached and we need to get out of Iraq right away. How embarrassing to find yourself as a devout terrorist on the same side as a man who claimed on national TV that he had seen a UFO. Not even Ahmedinijad wants to be associated with someone that nuts. The last straw was when a tape reported to be from Bin Laden had him parroting what could have come from a Clinton campaign speech. Terrorists began quitting in droves. Now violence is dropping at a rate so fast that the war may be over by the time Clinton takes office as President. She, of course, will justly claim responsibility on behalf of all liberals for ending the war. Unfortunately for the terrorists, Clinton finally came out this week saying she would not support giving them driver’s licenses even if they move to New York. No word, however, on whether she supports granting licenses to the pilots of Kucinich’s UFO.

Are Environmentalists Bad for the Environment?

At the end of a hot summer, environmentalists are once again debating global warming. They proclaim that man-made global warming is a fact. Like medieval popes, they threaten excommunication and banishment to any heretic that crosses their world point of view. In the 16th century, over a thousand years of study of celestial bodies had led to the scientific consensus that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun went around the earth. In fact, anyone with any intelligence could see this was true. When Copernicus proposed that the the earth went around the sun, Pope Clement VII had no choice but to threaten him with excommunication. Copernicus recanted under the pressure and the world lived under this misperception for hundreds more years but at least the scientific consensus was unanimous. Today, Heidi Cohen of the Weather Channel, calls for the revocation of meteorologist credentials for anyone disagreeing with the theory of man-made global warming. Over 400 years after Clement's declaration, Pope John Paul I declared that Copernicus may have had a point. Ya think?! Do we need to wait 400 years to question the veracity of environmentalist dogma and ask if environmentalists might even be bad for the environment. Here are the facts.

Scientists tell us that the earth has gone through ice ages where the average surface temperature was possibly a hundred of degrees lower. According to the experts that helped Al Gore make his award-winning movie, man's activities could raise global temperatures as much as 0.07 degrees. Man-made emission of green-house gases has steadily increased over the last century but global temperatures have not. Global temperatures in 1900 were much warmer bottoming the the 1970s when scientists predicted we were entering a new ice age. Natural sources of green-houses gases, such as volcanoes, can emit century's worth of pollution in mere months. The admonishment to "Go green" is a bit like saying "Don't spit in hurricanes" for fear that it might increase flooding.

Medieval papal abuses and hypocrisy did great harm to the medieval church. This led Martin Luther and others to question if the pope even knew what he was talking about. Today, Al Gore preaches conservation for every one else while he spews tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from his private jets. The garbage created by his concerts to bring awareness to global warming (as if not everyone knows already) will last centuries longer in anaerobic landfills than the radioactivity of spent fuel rods from your local nuclear plant. Environmentalists have done great damage to the environment over time. They declared that coal burning was bad. We put in scrubbers and built hydroelectric plants. But the scrubbers have highly toxic chemicals, such as palladium, which we have to encase in cement to dispose. And, now they have decided the carbon dioxide is given off warms the environment. The hydroelectric plants kill fish so we need to use more wind power. But wait, that kills birds. Let's use less energy by driving hybrid cars and using fluorescent light bulbs. But electric batteries are high in cadmium and the energy needed to produce hybrids far exceeds the energy the car will ever save in its life time and the fluorescent bulbs contain high levels of mercury. I can just hear the whining now when they start polluting the landfills. Do these guys even know what they are talking about?

So I ask, are environmentalists bad for the environment?

We Need Undocumented Appropriation Reform

It’s time we show some compassion. There is a group of patriotic Americans that endure derision simply because they appropriate funds from banks without proper documentation. Hateful bigots among us call them thieves and bank robbers. Such despicable names are racist and do not take into account the plight of these needy people. How desperate must these people be to leave their friends and family and live in the shadows of society by appropriating funds from banks without proper documentation! Sometimes they even have to enlist their families in what should be a perfectly legal activity just to make ends meet. It’s time we stop the insane rhetoric about shoring up bank security and just recognize that undocumented appropriaters are living among us. It's not realistic to round up thousands, if not millions of appropriaters and throw them in jail, leaving their small defenseless children at home to fend for themselves. The vast majority of appropriaters are law-abiding citizens that have never hurt anyone. The stories of people getting shot during bank appropriations (what you racist call robberies) are just over-blown hype coming from Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk radio. We are a nation descended from appropriaters. When our ancestors arrived in this country, they started by appropriating land and other resources from the Native Americans to build this great nation. Besides, appropriation is good for the economy. Undocumented appropriation provides billions of dollars to the economy every year while doing a job that most Americans will not do.

But I am a reasonable person. To solve the problem of undocumented appropriation I call on Congress to pass a law to make all appropriaters in this country legal after paying a $10 fine and promising to learn how to balance a checkbook. Then Congress should create another massive bureaucracy to take over bank security just as they did with airport security. Call it the Bank Security Agency. The BS Agency will rip out all the security cameras in all the banks to end the unfair practice of facial profiling. Die packs will, of course, will become a thing of the past because they are bad for the environment. The BS Agency will not waste time and taxpayer’s money tracking down alleged appropriaters, but more wisely spend its billions on TV ad campaigns talking about the dangers of undocumented appropriation and urging people to apply for benefits offered to former appropriaters. Then Congress should promise that at some future date they will build a bank security system that has not been invented yet. This is how we can treat undocumented appropriaters humanely while banks across the country can rest assured that there will be no more undocumented appropriations.

I Support the Terrorists!

Rosie O'Donnell and Elizabeth Hasselbeck got into this week. Apparently Rosie made disparaging remarks about the military and then was angry that Elizabeth did not defend her in the media when pundits claimed Rosie did not support the troops. Rosie's claim that she supported the troops made me wonder what that meant. What does she actually do to support the troops? Also, fresh from the campaign trail where Hilary Clinton and Barach Obama claimed to support the troops while making anti-American speeches and demanding we surrender and leave Iraq, they showed their support for the troops by voting against the money needed to fight the war in Iraq. And fresh from his vacation in Iran, arch-terrorist, Muqtata al-Sadr returned to Iraq to make anti-American speeches and demand the US surrender and leave Iraq immediately. He also showed his support for the troops by organizing more militias to go out and kill them. That's right; I realized that al-Sadr supports the troops too. When a liberal says they support something (like the troops) that means they speak against the job it's doing, do everything they can to demoralize it, and do whatever they can to ensure its swift and inevitable defeat. So let "Muqi", Rosie, Hillary, Barach all the other liberals support the troops, I support the terrorists!

Sharpton Insults Democrats; ACLU Defends Terrorists' Rights

Well, Sharpton has got himself in some hot water again. Concerning Governor Romney, he said, “Here we have the only Mormon candidate running for president. Don’t worry about him; those who really believe in God will defeat him.” When Romney was asked to comment, he said he was surprised that Sharpton would make such a bigoted comment. Now I think Romney is really out of touch if he is just learning that Sharpton is a bigot. Or perhaps he was just goading Sharpton into clarifying his statement. In the most convoluted parsing since “is” was redefined, Sharpton claimed that he was not implying that Mormons do not believe in God but was referring to Democrats that believe in God would vote against Romney. That comment sparked outrage among the ACLU, the Center for Understanding Islamofascists, dead people, Rosie O’Donnel and other core Democrat groups. Spokesman Bill Mahrer said, “I am deeply shocked and greatly offended that Sharpton would imply that Democrats believe in God.”

A terrorist plan was uncovered when an alert video store clerk noticed that some middle-Eastern men wanted several copies made of videos instructing how to use certain weapons. The plan to attack military installations in New Jersey was subsequently foiled. The six defendants will now be represented by the ACLU in a multimillion-dollar law suit that claims these individual’s rights were violated. The ACLU claims that the clerk had no right to report them when they were only exercising their first-amendment rights to have such material and it is their religious duty as good Muslims to blow up Americans. The ACLU was also asked why it was also asserting that their second-amendment rights were being violated since the ACLU has long stood for gun control. A spokesman stated that, “Although we generally think citizens should not have weapons, the Constitution clearly makes exceptions for terrorists and bodyguards of abortion doctors.” A spokesperson for the anti-war group Pink Ladies said, “This never would have happened if George Washington hadn’t gone into New Jersey to begin with. It was an illegal war and I hope President Bush takes advantage of the Queen’s current visit to make things right.” When it was pointed out that loosing New Jersey means losing a state that votes largely Democrat, the spokesperson responded, “The Iranian government is mostly Democrat but I don’t advocate occupy it either. Besides, we will never run out of new Democrats; that’s what illegal immigration is for.”

Liberism: Africa's and New Orleans's Common Ailment

So I admit, I like to watch American Idol. But I don't want to comment about Sanjaya's hair or whether Ryan Seacrest will ever admit he has a secret crush on Simon Cowell. Rather, I was a little annoyed by their recent charity night, "Idols Gives Back". This was a fundraiser for combating poverty in Africa and New Orleans. Now I know you do-goody liberals might bristle at my conservative audacity to be annoyed at the so-called attempt to improve the lives of the poor. The host of the show waives a packet of pills that cures malaria and states that ten dollars would cure twenty children. Naturally, we conclude that we should send the money to cure the kids. Why don't the kid's parents shell out the fifty cents themselves? No, really? Because, as you might say, they can't. That is the real problem to be solved. So why do liberals not address that? For decades, we have been shelling out billions to Africa with no end in sight and no improvement either. Liberals not only do not want to look at the underlying problems, they seek to bring the problems to America. Let's take a closer look.

The underlying problem is that people have lost their ability to take care of themselves. In Africa, this is largely caused by their governments through war, slavery, corruption, and high taxes. Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, African tribes made war on each other and made slaves of one another (ya, that's right, you liberals out there, Africans employed slavery long before the Europeans arrived.) Through institutionalized racism, blacks were barred from opportunities to take care of themselves. Education and equal employment opportunities were kept from native Africans. In South Africa, a minimum wage was employed with the stated purpose of making is prohibitively expensive to higher blacks with an exception for menial jobs such as gardeners and maids. In this country liberals promote the same thing by supporting raises in minimum wage with opposing illegal immigration which carves out and exception for gardeners and maids. With the end of colonialism, the black Africans have majority rule. Yet democracy has brought them no relief. They have elected people who thwart the rule of law, taking through corruption that which is not rightfully theirs. People who cannot count on planting crops and raising cattle and having is for themselves later, simply stop. Business cannot start because credit markets and and stock markets cannot count on a return without someone stealing it. The result is an economy that collapses. Governments that rely on economic activity for tax revenue react by raising taxes, which, of course, hastens the collapse. Heavy government borrowing robs the countries' citizens through ever-increasing interest payments. Government services slow and even stop. Desperate, some turn to war and even outright slavery. Human capital is wasted in a literacy dearth and made dependent on international relief aid. So instead of improving life, these aid shows perpetuate the problem.

So what is the solution? Unfortunately, it's like the old joke: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, the bulb has got to want to be changed. Corruption and high taxes can only exist if people put up with it. In this country, we constantly fight with liberals who want to raise taxes and protect corruption. Every time taxes are cut, revenue to the treasury increases (unfortunately, government spending increases more along with government borrowing). And the recession that came at the end of Clinton's last term that was supposedly talked into existence by Bush, was just Clinton's tax policies finally taking effect. Just once, I would like the moderator in a presidential debate to ask whether it's more important to maximize revenue to the treasury or "soak the rich".

And corruption is the liberal stock and trade. When it was clear the Nixon had become corrupt, the Conservatives joined in drawing articles of impeachment, including one accusing him of lieing to the American people. Ultimately they asked him to resign. Clinton, whose smallest sin may have been lieing, sought to use his power as president to fix the outcome of a court case in which he was the misdoer. Liberals insisted on keeping him so he went on to pardon Mark Rich and Dan Rostenkowski. New Orleans, famous for corruption and Democrat rule, had a separate government agency for each levy. Did they spend the money on the levies? No, the commissioners squandered funds on expensive luncheons and monuments to people you never heard of.

And New Oreleans knows its share of slavery and war. Trapped in schools that do not teach, liberals fight resident's attempt to flee through education vouchers just vigorously as illegal slave holders in Africa guard their human livestock. People's ability and will to provide for themselves is robbed through welfare payments and empty promises to make things better. Desperate, some have turned to drugs and the ensuing crime and gang wars have made life miserable. Businesses flee and the economy collapses. And liberals keep the wars going by opposing long prison terms that would otherwise separate the waring factions for the citizenry.
So maybe next year, Ellen DeGeneres will come on American Idol and announce they have plan to rescue Africa by exporting capitalism and save New Orleans by getting more Republican elected. Until then, my wallet stays closed and the clicker stays in hand to fast-forward past her diatribe. Gee, I hope I don't sprain my thumb in the meantime.

If I were a racist, I'd be a liberal!

Well, another liberal is in trouble for making racist remarks. Why are we surprised? Political philosophies throughout history have fostered racism. Misguided beliefs in white supremacy led to this country's most horrendous war to date to redeem us from America's "original sin," slavery. But Senator Biden's comment expressing how surprised he was that a Black man could be articulate and more recently Don Immus's comments disparaging Black women are just another in a long line of racist remarks made by liberals. Like the slave owners of old that looked benevolently at their slaves at a group of people that needed taken care of while demanding their servitude, liberals today have pretty much the same attitude, demanding votes in lieu of picking cotton. While it is a gross exaggeration to claim all liberals are overtly racist, their political philosophies attract racists and even foster a soft racism among those that do not realize they are being morphed into racists. In fact, if I wanted to inflict the maximum misery on a group of people, I couldn't come up with a better program than that used by liberals to reek havoc in the Black community. Indeed, if I were a racist, I would be a liberal and here is how I would do it.

Let's go back to 1968, the dawn of modern liberalism. Blacks throughout the South are trapped by Jim Crow laws and not much better respected in the North. But Black families are intact and largely reaping the rewards of living clean, Christian lives. In the sixties we have an overwhelming Democrat majority in Congress and a great liberal icon, Kennedy, elected president. He continued the policies that kept Blacks in their place. Then Johnson sides with the civil rights movement and tries to empower blacks through the Voting Rights Act. But we have the overwhelming majority in Congress and great liberals such and Senator Gore from Tennessee and the Klansman and Grand Wizard, Senator Bird from West Virginia; they will help us block the legislation. But then tragedy strikes. An overwhelming majority of the Republicans join a small minority of Democrats in Congress to vote for Blacks to claim their rights as citizens and the legislation passes. Blacks, in deference to their liberator, Lincoln, vote en mass for Republicans. This will not do. We need to come up with a plan to destroy the Black community while getting them to participate in their own destruction by making them think it's in their best interest to vote for us Democrats. I know, let's promise them stuff if they vote for us that looks good but is actually to their detriment.

Let's start by exploiting their weaknesses. Years of segregation have left them largely ill-educated and unprepared for employment. But some are getting jobs at wages lower than whites, gaining needed experience and working their way up. Without segregation, they make integrate and work up to the level of other groups within a generation or two. That is what Jews, Irish, Germans, Poles, Italians and countless other groups have done, in spite of prejudice. Let's have a minimum wage law. We will tell Black folks that we are forcing employers to pay them the same as white folks just to be fair. But we know that if employers must pay the same for an ill-prepared Black person as for a well prepared white person, the Black person will not get hired. This should keep the unemployment rate higher among Blacks and this poverty can be exploited later. And we need to raise the minimum wage often so the pay will always be beyond the worth of their average skill level.

Now we address the education situation. There is a danger that Blacks may become as well educated as whites, eventually. We need to get them stuck with rotten teachers who teach poorly or not at all. But if teachers do a poor job, they will get fired. How do we keep bad teachers from getting fired? Of course! Let's support teacher unions. Unions are all about job preservation, not job performance. We can spew more of our nonsense about fairness while picking up campaign cash from yet another group. But how do we keep this plan from affecting whites? Well, whites can escape our strongholds, such as inner cites, while we trap Blacks there with high unemployment. Maybe they will even become discouraged enough to drop out at a high rate.

But a minimum wage will not be enough. Black men can be quite resourceful in providing for their families. We need to put a wedge between Black men and their families. How about welfare? We can pay women for having babies when they have no husband. The disproportionate unemployment we caused among Black men will encourage them to flee their responsibilities, especially if they know the government will take care of their families for them. Black women may even see having babies out of wedlock as way to get money. Nothing says poverty like an unwed, drop-out, single mother. Then they will have to vote for us because they depend on us for their very survival.

But they will never go for that; they are good Christians. That's it! Too much Christianity! Let's get prayer out of schools along with any reference to religion or moral judgments. We will allow anti-God, anti-Christian things such as Evolution Theory and Halloween but take out things like Bible Study and Nativity displays. We will attack people of faith, accusing them of being wackos while defending sacrilegious displays of a naked Jesus make of chocolate or a crucifix in urine as expressions of free speech. Heck, we might as well fund them with Federal tax dollars. And if all this godlessness spawns a culture of violence, perhaps Blacks will start killing each other. Perhaps an environment of hopelessness will push them into a culture of violence and drugs to destroy themselves. We will be as soft on crime as we can so that the drug dealers and the criminals stay on the street as much as possible. And if anyone tries to put the thugs responsible in jail, we will accuse them of being racist. Maybe Blacks will have such a low respect for themselves that they will start using racist epithets on each other. How about that for a twist!

Now we may have some hard cases that try to rise above their circumstances. We will constantly remind them that their ancestors were abused and that because of this, they are victims of the society and that society owes them a living. That way they will wait around for the justice we promised that will never come instead of striking out to make something of themselves. Bestowing them with victim status will keep them helpless while talking about how lousy a job this country has done with race relations will keep them angry and prevent them from joining and enjoying the benefits of the society they hate so much. Maybe some non-racist whites will even belief this blather and join us in our quest to "help."

Now what if some Blacks do manage to get through the system and get a college degree. I don't mind if they get college degrees as long as they do not actually get educated in the process. The help we offer will not be to improve schools. Not after all the work we did to trap them there to begin with. No, we will lower standards in admittance to college and lower standards in college graduation and professional programs. We will get them that piece of paper without the risk of their actually becoming educated. And if we do get the occasional well-educated Black, he/she is likely to go to the other (i.e., conservative) side anyway. We will just accuse him/her of not being black enough or not being the right type of Black. Heck, we might as well vent our racism toward them through hateful speech and ugly cartoons. After all, as a racist, we need to vent at someone. Surely we could get a pass if our racism is directed at Conservatives. Some of these smart Black people may be allowed to become mayor of Atlanta or Secretary of Agriculture but never chair of the Democrat Party, and heaven forbid, a Black ever becomes Secretary of State or President.

Suppose some Black people succeed in building wealth through successful business. We will have taxes as high as possible, regardless of how devastating these taxes are on the economy or the overall flow to the treasury. The important thing is to keep people from rising into affluence by increasing taxes as their incomes rise. And lest they pass their businesses on to the next generation, we will have an estate tax so high that it will destroy the businesses and send the next generation back to the poverty to which they belong. Whites, like the Kennedy family, have enough money that they do not need to run businesses and can just avoid the taxes by putting their money in trusts.

But will the American people let us have enough power to inflict mass malaise on an unsuspecting group we hate so much? That remains to be seen. We are and will remain the power brokers in the urban areas where Black populations are concentrated. And if the Conservatives are in power nationally, we will blame them for the chaos we have caused. We will make up lies of how electing conservatives will cause black churches to burn and children to starve. We will even go into Black churches and campaign for them to elect more of us. We will promise to make things better while things get worse. We will teach everyone that this is a rotten country and blacks can only be delivered if they vote more liberals in power. And if other groups come to this country, we will trap them in the same system. If they do not speak our language, we will promote education in their native tongue to discourage them from assimilating either. Maybe we can convince them they are victims too, expanding our voting base. Everyone who opposes us will be accused of being racist.

And after we have spread our death and misery, we will send a white liberal president to a Black community, like Harlem, to declare that he sympathizes with Blacks so much he considers himself to be the first Black president. How poetic is that?! The ultimate insult of how they will never rise to our level and they will see it as a compliment.

Yes, if I were a racist, I would definitely be a liberal!

Gore Glum over Feline Flatulence

Global terrorism, Iran with nuclear weapons, Russia pealing back democracy! What a dangerous world in which we live. But do these even rate among the concerns of Democrats? What do they see as the greatest threat to the planet? Global warming, of course. That’s right, the global devastation being reeked by feline farts and puppy poots. Never mind that a score or preeminent scientists say that the evidence does not support his outlandish claims. And the left-wing press showed up in droves to cover Al Gore’s bloviating over the subject. This after CBS told us that they will not air their interview with the Iraqi ambassador who says the situation in Iraq is getting better, because CBS claims it’s boring and we have heard it all before.

And what about the tons of carbon dioxide released by Gore’s private jets as he crisscrosses the country to sound the alarm, not to mention the voluminous amounts of heat and excess carbon dioxide he himself releases into the atmosphere every time he launches into his diatribe? Well, he buys carbon credits to make up for the fact that he produces 14 times the amount of green-house gas than that of the average person. Carbon credits, of course, are contracts that countries like China sell, promising to offset a certain amount of green-house emission in their part of the world to allow Gore to devastate his part unabated. Carbon credits are sold on the open market, brokered by a company like the one Al Gore owns. Under the terms of the contract, China will demolish, for example, a coal-burning power plant. And what does China do with the net profit after demolishing the power plant? You guessed it; it builds another coal-burning power plant. Now you see why it is so vitally important that China remain exempt from the Kyoto Treaty. I got to hand it to him. Supporting Chinese communists is no big deal; all Democrats do that. But making a profit at the same time is brilliant. Wait until he unveils his Universal Caron Credit program whereby the Federal government funds carbon credits for everyone. This pipeline from the Federal Treasury to Gore’s pockets (after an obligatory stop in Beijing) will supply him a campaign war chest ten times the size of Clinton’s Swiss bank account. Gore can just buy the presidency without having to ask Buddhist monks for campaign donations this time.

No Mormon President for Me!

There is shocking news that Republican contender, Mitt Romney is descended from polygamists. Although the Federal government marched into Utah to force Mormons to give up polygamy about 30 years after it marched into South Carolina to force Southern Baptists to give up slavery, being descended from slaveholders like George Bush is one thing but being descended from polygamists is quite another. Have you ever heard of anyone good descending from polygamists? Ok, so there was that Jesus fellow who performed a lot of miracles but aside from rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics and getting Massachusetts to vote Republican, what miraculous things has Romney done? Ok, so maybe he is a bit of a miracle worker, but can you imagine him as President? Sure he might balance the budget, win the war in Iraq, bring peace to Palestine and convince Leiberman to see the light and finally switch parties, but what then? Edwards might realize that the only reason there are two Americas is because he and his trial-lawyer buddies sued the crap out of one them. Can imagine how bored you would be without the warning labels to read while you enjoy a hot beverage or apple turnover at McDonalds. Barach and Hilary might start getting along, again. How dangerous is that? Or worse Bill and Hilary could fall in love for real and take to dancing on the beach again! Yuck! I couldn't take it the first time. No, thank you! No Romney for me. I wonder what McCain's and Julianni's great-grandfathers were up to.

And a new study out today reports that liberals that go into science are 50 times as likely to suffer from hyperopia (that's far-sightedness for those whose brains have been burned out by too many Kerry speeches). A spokesman for the study said, "Liberal scientists seem to be able to see far into the future or far into the past but are otherwise clueless concerning more recent events." As evidence researchers point to a recent announcement that liberal scientists have found the tomb of Jesus and a child said to be Jesus' son from some 2,000 years ago. This while they have no idea where to look for former Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa who disappeared just thiry years ago and the paternity of Anna Nicole Smith's baby is a total mystery. They also point out that these scientists can predict the climate 100 years from now while weather a week from now is still quite iffy. And while liberal scientists can tell us that people came from apes, much to Hilary Clinton's chagrin, Barach Obama seems to have come out of nowhere.

I Love Geffen

[Quotes in bold are not satire but actually uttered as claimed.]
Sadly, things are not well in the land of America today. David Geffen, a Hollywood Executive and long-time supporter and contributor to the Clintons said “Everybody in politics lies, but Bush does it with such ease, it’s troubling.” Senator Clinton has long denounced the politics of personal destruction and when asked what she thought of Geffen’s comments she stated, “Well, I have nothing but respect for the US military. I suppose David Geffen has an issue with how Bush is running the War, but it has nothing to do with my campaign.” James Carville, who would like to see a speedy end to the war, gave the same advice he gives all citizens of this country. In an on-camera interview, he said, “People should open their mouths and shut down this war.”

And sadly, things are not well in the land of Democrats today. David Geffen, a Hollywood Executive and former supporter to the Clintons and contributor to Barach Obama said, “Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.” Senator Obama has recently denounced slash-and-burn politics and when asked what she thought of Geffen’s comments he stated, “Well, I have nothing but respect for Senator Clinton. I suppose David Geffen has an issue with the Clintons, but it has nothing to do with my campaign.” James Carville, who would like to see a speedy end to the Obama campaign, gave the same advice he gives all citizens of this country. In an on-camera interview, he said, “Geffen should open his wallet and shut his mouth.”

Last Fall it came to light that Democrat congressman, William Jefferson, had $90,000 in stored in a refrigerator in his house with no tangible explanation where it came from. At the time, Nancy Pelosi had him removed from the Ways and Means Committee (WMC). “Hiding money in a complicated land deal is one thing, but..” she said, “Any congressman who has $90,000 stored in a refrigerator has a problem with this caucus.” Mr. Jefferson was apparently admired for his fund-raising prowess by his constituents in the great city of New Orleans and has been reelected. In a town known more for making money disappear into thin air, Mr. Jefferson finds, however, that Speaker Pelosi does not admire his ability to pull money from a hat, or even a refrigerator as the case may be. Pelosi has decided that since Mr. Jefferson cannot be trusted on the WMC, which controls vast sums and money and power, both of which Democrats crave to control as much as possible, he needs to be placed on a committee for which Democrats hold no esteem whatsoever. Now what committee would that be? The committee that oversees the dog-catchers union? No, unions are too important. How about the committee that oversees free trade. No, better not tick off the Chinese, their campaign donations may be needed again later. But of course, how about the committee for Homeland Security. What could be more insignificant to Democrats than that? Peter King, the ranking Republican has blown a gasket but Pelosi is defending her choice. “Mr. Jefferson has shown no inclination to use banks and who can better teach him the ins and outs of covert banking and money laundering than terrorists? Though he may never learn to hide payments for pardoning international arms dealer, or raise vast of campaign donations from impoverished Buddhists monks, he must at least make his bribes look like it’s the Republican’s fault.” When asked about Jefferson’s latest requisition for 52 refrigerators, Pelosi had no comment.