Archive for May, 2007

Liberal Jews need cranial-glutial extraction surgery

Thursday, May 31st, 2007

One of the questions often asked about the Jewish people is “Why are Jews so incredibly liberal?” The answer is that they need cranial-glutial extraction surgery. In plain English, many liberal Jews simply have their heads up their hides.

It is not that they are liberal itself that makes these people such an embarrassment. It is that they are reflexively liberal, even when it overtly hurts them. Jews by and large are more secular than Christians and Muslims. Jews, especially liberal Jews, are taught at an early age not to be seen in America as “too religious.” This explains their discomfort with religious Jewish organizations such as Chabad.

Ask a secular Jew today if they are Jewish, and they will often say “I am, but I’m not religious.” As I look at them and say “I didn’t ask you that,” they have a look of discomfort that they would rather be talking about anything else. Christians and Muslims simply do not have this reflexive need to distance themselves from themselves. Because Judaism teaches people to question everything, and everything is open to interpretation, there are a large percentage of atheistic and agnostic Jews. Many Jews take pride in being “culturally Jewish,” which is a fancy way of saying “eats bagels, quotes Seinfeld, and makes Jewish jokes in front of non-Jews to gain acceptance.”

Since these secular Jews are often Jewish in name only, their religion does not play as vital a role in their voting as it does for Orthodox Jews, or many Christians. Yes, there are Jews that are liberal democrats and also “religious,” but this is not overwhelming enough to be seen as the norm.

Now I could care less if Jews obey the traditions. I am not God. I do care that these angst ridden guilty white liberals vote, and vote against themselves.

Ronald Reagan received 40% of the Jewish vote, which was considered outstanding. What this does not say is that a warm friend of Israel still could not convince 60% of Jews to vote for him. Many of them voted for Jimmy Carter, who has made so many blatant and virulent Anti-semitic statements that even Jewish liberals are losing faith in him. When Jewish liberals cannot support a democrat, then you know that democrat is bad. Jimmy Carter was a lover of Yassir “That’s my baby terrorist” Arafat, and yet Ronald Reagan still did not win a Jewish majority.

George HW Bush was seen as indifferent towards Jews, and his right hand man James Baker was known to have said “F*ck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” While this is a disgusting comment, I do understand why many republicans would feel that way. Again, I condemn the statement, but still think Jews are often not worth bothering to talk with, given their close-mindedness. I think that is more due to their liberalism though.

Bill Clinton was loved by the Jews. What did he actually do for Jews? Nothing. He forced Ehud Barak and Yassir Arafat to sit down together and hammer out a deal that was cultural suicide for Israel. After eight years of doing nothing, he desperately wanted a deal to give him a legacy beyond Monica’s blue stained dress. Clinton and Barak were leaving office, and so desperate for a deal, that Arafat held all the cards. Ronald Reagan once came back fro a summit with Gorbachev without a deal. This was seen as a failure. Reagan said that “it was better to have no agreement than a bad agreement.” Clinton and Barak did not believe this. A public handshake such as the disaster that was Oslo was more important than any long term consequences, which Clinton could blame on his successor. It was governing by photo op, which was what the Clinton Presidency was all about.

If Jews really want to do themselves a favor, rather than vote for someone who talks a good game on Jewish issues, why not consider someone who actually has a record on Jewish issues that is flawless.

George W. Bush has been a phenomenal friend of Israel, and liberal Jews still will not thank him. 75% of Jews voted for his 2004 opponent, a man who favored Israel’s border fence in front of Jewish groups, and found it troubling in front of Arab Muslim groups. I feel like sending the Dub apology letters on behalf of my community. Or I could buy a t-shirt that reads, “Don’t blame me, I voted for Dubya.” He gave Ariel Sharon a free hand to run wild. Many liberal Jews are uncomfortable with that. Then they insist that they are not a bunch of kumbaya singing love train desiring counterculture peaceniks. They get offended when they are told they favor surrender. When they are done getting indignant, I then ask them “Ok, so what would you do? What is the answer?” They then mumble platitudes about how complex problems require complex solutions, and that means dialogue. When someone tells you they want to kill you, dialogue with them is not an option, nor should it be. Normally I would favor the weak being eliminated, but there are not enough Jews in this world as it is, so trying to get the liberal ones to grow up is the only necessary option.

Many liberal Jews cannot vote republican because they are pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-trees and animals (at the expense of human beings, including Jews). This gives credence to the argument that liberalism is more important than Judaism. For Jews to thrive, it cannot be. It should not be. There is nothing in the Torah that tells Jews to be liberals. Social justice is a myth.

I know, I know, many Jews would vote for Hitler (He was a vegetarian after all) over a republican, but at some point Jews have to stop obsessing over liberalism and start voting their own interests. Liberalism and social justice are fancy ways of saying “Let’s help out other people who don’t give a d@mn about us, resent our help, and would never return the favor.”

Jews are wringing their hands over Darfur…when a billion Muslims could lift a few fingers and donate some blood-stained petro dollars and fix the problem. Does anyone think the people of Darfur would care about Israel?

2008 will tell if enough Jews have had this cranial-glutial extraction surgery. John Edwards has shown some Pro-Israel signs, but then again core beliefs do not seem to be his strong point. Barack Obama has not said anything anti-semitic, but nobody knows what he believes about anything. Barack Obama has said nothing, and John Edwards has said everything to everybody.

Hillary Clinton stood by and clapped while Suha Arafat accused Jews of blood libel, poisoning the water of Palestinian children. The fact that she did not know what was being said is no excuse. She should not have been in the room with that wretched woman. Come to think of it, Suha Arafat would make a great suicide bomber, provided only Palestinian terrorists were the victims.

The answer is for Jewish candidates to support candidates who are good on Jewish issues.

Rudy Giuliani fights for Israel and Jews, which is more than we do as a people. Rudy ostracized Arafat while Hillary was busy kissing Arafat’s wife. Rudy returned 10 million dollars from an anti-semitic Saudi Prince. That is principled, and the epitome of putting your money where your mouth is.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and is sensitive to the religious bigotry in this world. Liberal Jews may think he wants all Jews to become Mormons, but a more realistic explanation is he is a good human being with profound religious beliefs that teach him to respect all peoples, including the Jews.

John McCain and Newt Gingrich have stellar records on Israel, and Fred Thompson is so liked by everybody that it would be a shock if he did not also have solid Israel credentials.

I am not implying that Hillary, Obama or Edwards are anti-Jewish, anti-Israel or anti-semitic. I am saying they are indifferent, and will do what the polls tell them to do. If that benefits Jews, fine.

I am not willing to take my chances. This is not the feel good 60s or the Seinfeld 90s. This is a post 9/11 world, and only six decades from the greatest evil known to man, the Holocaust. I need someone in the White House that benefits Jews, whether they want it or deserve it. George W. Bush may never get the appreciation he deserves (although I suspect the history books will be much better than the Jayson Blair Times would have one believe), but he will be vindicated when his successor is someone who is close to him on the War on Terror, which includes the defining (human therefore) Jewish issues of our lifetime.

Jews will have only themselves to blame if things get worse for them, but luckily there are enough sensible non-Jews in this country (Thank you Christian America) to prevent this and stick up for us and help make our lives better, despite many of us refusing to do it ourselves.




Kerry & Edwards Revisited–The scam, the scum, the scrum and the Shrum.

Thursday, May 31st, 2007

Slash and burn political consultant Bob Shrum has written a tell all book where he builds up John Kerry and lambastes John Edwards. Given that Bob Shrum is the politics of personal destruction, in addition to being an 0-8 loser in presidential races, it is no surprising that he would do what anyone who has repeatedly failed on a spectacular level would do…write a tell all book. Having said that, he does indirectly give clear insight into John Kerry and John Edwards, although not necessarily as he intended.

He paints John Edwards as a snake oil salesman. This is like implying that Peyton Manning is a good quarterback. It is on the verge of being a given. Of course John Edwards is a snake oil salesman. He made his money suing hospitals. He is a medical malpractice attorney. He once claimed that a dead girl was speaking to him in the courtrooom. Perhaps that is why people confuse him with the other John Edwards (the psychic, who some also believe is a snake oil salesman).

According to Edwards, he ordered his staff in 2004 to never mention his late son Wade during the campaign, for fear of exploiting a tragedy for political gain. The suffering the Edwards family went through was I am sure as genuine as it was nightmarish, but Edwards claimed that when he spoke to Kerry, he talked about Wade for the first time. Yet Kerry claimed that Edwards spoke to him about Wade two years earlier, also claiming that he had never spoken about it before. Now this is only if one believes Shrum, who has every reason to tell the truth and every reason to lie. Knowing this bunch, somehow if it possible, they are all lying.

Yet John Edwards was who we thought he was. The son of a millworker was actually the son of the man who was the boss of the mill. The man who complains about poverty is a filthy rich man who may or may not have ever known it. The bottom line is, Edwards is Clinton minus the fancy degrees and the bimbo eruptions.

John Kerry, although coming across positive in Shrum’s book, is the worst of the lot. Shrum claims  that Kerry did not want Edwards, but that Shrum forced him into choosing him. What does this say about Kerry that he is not man enough to choose his own running mate? John Kerry did not like John Edwards. Yet John Kerry was so unpricipled that he would choose a man that he did not like or trust out of a cynical need to fool the voters. Kerry is a liberal, and he needed a good old boy Southern moderate. This is a dishonest attempt at “ticket balancing” that insults the voters. It did not work when George HW Bush picked Dan Quayle. They were too different. It was ok when Reagan picked Bush the Elder because Reagan was so likable that he could have picked Stalin as his VP and still won. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both picked people that meshed well with them. John Kerry did not.

John Kerry first decided to go for John McCain. The ludicrousness of this decision is beyond debate. McCain was wise to reject the offer. Dick Gephardt would have been a good choice because he was experienced, cerebral, and respected.

John Kerry simply was unprincipled. His campaign was about naked political calculations, and John Edwards was just another caluclation. Now Edwards has veere far to the left, showing that John Kerry did not vet him out properly. The bottom line is John Kerry wanted to win at all costs, which meant placing the fate of the world in the hands of somebody he himself had no belief or confidence in.

So John Edwards supposedly hates Shrum because Shrum chose Kerry, and now Shrum writes a book bashing Edwards through Kerry. Is there no honor among leftist thieves?

The scum created a scam that ended up in a big scrum of egos. So sayeth the Shrum. The Shrum may be the biggest ego of them all, and the least politically accomplished (which says alot compared to John Edwards), but that does not mean he is absolutely lying. Edwards may be the least scummy of the three, because by acting as the most blatant of the three, he is so obvious as to be honest about his phoniness. Kerry and Shrum are worse in a  perverse sense by being ever so slightly less transparent.

May they all devour each other. If they do not, they will quickly fade to public irrelevance, since anybody not named Clinton in the democratic party is irrelevant anyway. 


Alan Greenspan–Now that guy knows how to party

Wednesday, May 30th, 2007

Presidents come and go, but America’s lord and savior Sir Alan of Greenspan is forever. For the sake of full disclosure, the photo above comes courtesy of respected money manager Bill Fleckenstein, who does not worship at Greenspan’s altar the way I do. I have to give Mr. Fleckenstein credit. His slogan based on his years of experience predicting stock market movements is “Often wrong, but never in doubt.” For Alan Greenspan, it should be “Often right, but always doubted.” I have never seen a  man face so much criticism from people who were not as smart as him, and admitted they had no idea what he was saying.

Alan Greenspan spoke in such cryptic language that it became known as “Greenspeak.” Senators would grill him, tell him he was wrong, and he would politely address their concerns. The one irony is that for all the senatorial bluster, they could not do anything about it. Greenspan would politely respond to their idiotic questions all the while thinking that the imbeciles questioning him had most likely flunked economics 101.

His successor Ben Bernanke got off to a rough start by answering questions in a clear manner that was easy to understand. If the answer was deemed unsatisfactory, the markets would be roiled. Greenspan was ambiguously confusing enough to not cause too much damage. 

One of his famous phrases “irrational exuberance” was meant to warn that the buying frenzy of the 1990s was spinning out of control. Now had he just said that the buying frenzy was spinning out of control, people would infer a coming collapse, and there would be panic selling. Instead, traders and brokers worldwide turned to each other and asked “Did this guy just say irrational exuberance?”

Never has a guy with such a perceived lack of charisma been treated like such a rock star. When I worked on a trading floor, and Bill Clinton would speak, the traders would laugh, knowing that some meaningless proclamation would be announced. It would be said in a serious voice to convey gravity, as if the fate of the free world depended on school uniforms. When Alan Greenspan spoke, the Earth shook. The traders would stand quietly, hang on every word, and then run around in confusion. They did not understand exactly what he said, but they knew he said something of consequence. 

What most people do not know is that Alan Greenspan saved America. In 1987, after the stock market crash, the entire United States financial system was dangerously close to a nervous breakdown. To prevent 1987 from becoming 1929, he took decisive steps, including triggering stock market circuit breakers. When the market had another violent down day in 1989, the system was much stronger. Even after 9/11, the economy and the financial markets responded and rebounded. Yes, it took time, but it did happen. 

While I do not agree with Greenspan on every issue, and still disagree with him over his arguments against “dynamic scoring, (supply side economics),” one cannot deny that for 20 years, the American economic engine was in full party mode. Our economic expansions are getting longer and our recessions are getting milder and shorter. No, we have not defeated the business cycle, but the Phillips curve myth has been shattered (the idea that the economy cannot have low inflation and low unemployment).

As hard as this may be for some to believe, Alan Greenspan even had a wry sense of humor. Before one critical senate committee meeting, a senator found Greenspan in the hallway and asked him how he was doing. Mr Greenspan responded “I can’t tell you.” 

For those of you who think that a monkey could do his job (and I do concede that the monkey above does look ready to give a serious lecture on monetary policy), the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, aka the Central Banker (in case you wondered what his titel was) is always one mistake away from destroying the world economy. In 20 years, through stock market crashes, the Asian Flu of 1997 and 1998, the internet bubble and subsequent collapse, and of course 9/11, his steady hand guided the world to a better global financial well being.

As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the year he was hired by Ronald Reagan (yet another fabulous decision by the Gipper), it is important to recognize him for the wealth he has helped bring to this nation…not just in real dollars, but in economic knowledge.

If a monkey can do this job, then I want that simian to be blindfolded and given darts to throw at the Wall Street Journal so that I know what stocks to trade. Yes, this experiment did beat most S & P 500 mutual fund money managers, but they were not Sir Alan of Greenspan. 

The next time you get that first home with an affordable mortgage, or your stock portfolio provides you with dividend income, or you get a higher paying job because the rising tide does lift all boats, thank Alan Greenspan.

He may not be that charismatic, and he may not be a rock star, but this guy sure knows how to throw a great 20 year party. 

Good luck Mr. Bernanke. You have gigantic shoes to fill. 

As for Mr. Greenspan, the day something happens to him, the financial markets will be fine for only one reason. He will be kept alive like the character in “Weekend at Bernies” that was not allowed to ever die…he pumped up the health of the US economy, so the least we can do is return the favor. 

Mr. Greenspan may be retired, but make no mistake about it. Every respected economist and politician (perhaps an oxymoron) had him on speed dial.  

Thank you Mr. Greenspan. Thank you very much indeed. One day it would be an honor to know what you actually “did.” I could even pretend to understand, which would make me qualified to be a US senator. Then again, I might be bored to tears with the explanation. I don’t have to understand it. Just know I am appreciative.



Jane Fleming–Lust gone bust, attraction retraction

Wednesday, May 30th, 2007

Well folks, it was bound to happen. I engaged in behavior that Zell Miller would describe as a “deficit of decency.” I crossed the line. Time to make things right.

John Edwards has a supporter named Jane Fleming that is frequently a guest on Fox News. She runs a group called Young Democrats for America, or something to that effect. While I disagree with her views, and am not an Edwards supporter, her undeniable physical beauty caught my attention. Perhaps I could have expressed myself in a more tactful manner. I do not remember the exact words, but I think I mentioned something about having her on top of a pool table until we were both scuffed.

It was pointed out to me today that Jane Fleming just got married. I was not aware of this at the time. Had I known, I would have either not mentioned her, or toned it down ever so slightly. A man does not sexualize another man’s woman. The code of honor among men renders married women off limits. The fact that, as Ted Koppel points out, that the ten commandments are not the ten suggestions also plays a vital role.

Some may say that if she was single, my comments would still be inappropriate. Nonsense. Feminism did not get invented so that women could be reduced to delicate, fragile little flowers. It was not meant to destroy the laws of nature, or for those of you believers, God. Boys like girls (Yes, there are gay people in society, but the overwhelming majority of people, for better or worse, are heterosexual). Boys want to sleep with girls. Provided that they are not married and are over the legal age of consent, this is natural, biological and highly appropriate.

People will try to limit me, so I will never in life limit myself. If I want to sleep with someone, I will simply tell them, and let the chips fall where they may, or the fists fly where they may if I am not careful about how I phrase it. The key is to be closer on the tact scale to Marvin Gaye (Sexual Healing, Let’s Get it On) than 2 Live Crew (Me so horny, Pop that coochie), even though both types of songs have the same message.

I did not know Jane Fleming was married. I do not regret objectifying her sexually for any other reason than that.

This is not a namby pamby non-apology “statement of regret” that Bill Clinton made famous. This was not an “if I offended anyone” copout. I expressed lustful sentiments in an X-rated manner towards a married woman. I have to do a better job of researching these things.

I will survive. I have an MTV style attention span (although sadly enough the 80s rock bands I like are now on VH 1, a humbling life development). By tomorrow I am sure I will be able to find several hot women that are single, and therefore fair game for X-rated commentary.

Ms. Fleming, I regret not being able to act out with you the things I vividly described. However, I regret more that you were not single when these sentiments were expressed. Your fella is a lucky man. I still disagree with you on virtually every political issue.

I wonder if she has a republican Jewish twin sister with incredibly loose morals. Perhaps it is too soon to think such thoughts. Actually, if they are triplets and trapeze specialists…

Wait a second, the whole point of this was to apologize. Can an apology be sincere without an improvement in behavior? Well what actually defines an apology? Maybe I was too harsh on Bill Clinton. I mean this lust stuff is kind of powerful.

Ok, back to surfing (no, it’s not a real site, although if anyone creates it tomorrow, I better get royalties). I am such a disgrace to the republican party sometimes. The family values crowd and social conservatives are not pleased. As I have said before, it is my God given right to be unprincipled up to a certain point.

Ms. Fleming, every word I said about biting through your trousers was said with the idea that you were single. It will not be discussed from this day forward.

Lust has gone bust, so consider this my attraction retraction, from a conservative who desired a liberal taste of Jane Fleming up until…but not after…her last name changed.

Ok, off to engage in self congratulatory behavior for having the ability to admit I was wrong. Perhaps I can cry on cue for the television cameras. Bill Clinton’s lower lip quiver and gentle tear from the eye would be helpful.

What was my point again…oh yeah…girls…yummy…bouncy…delicious…tasty…but only if they are single and available…oh, and brunette would be helpful.

To all the hot married women on Earth…sorry! Didn’t mean it!

Ok, my Orinoco is flowing…or perhaps just my sincerity.

Oh, and liberals, do not blame all conservatives for these thoughts. They are as embarrassed that I would use such inappropriate language as they are that I would be attracted to a liberal, married or otherwise.

I blame Clinton…Not Bill Clinton…George Clinton…it’s just the dog in me. Come to think of it, that covers Bill as well.

Ok, Western Civilization survived my deficit of decency. As for getting over Jane, I will survive like Gloria Gaynor.

Wow, that was quick. Off to watch sports highlights and eat junk food.


Goodbye Rosie Queen of Morona Part III

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007


Another threat to decent society has been crushed by the forces of good. In our war against terrible television, a carbunkle on the rumpus of society has been removed.

No, Rosie did not mastermind the 9/11 attacks. No, she is not as evil as Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Now that the politically correct disclaimers are out of the way, the bottom line is a bad person got what they deserved. Now do not feel bad for Rosie Queen of Morona. She will get a multi-million dollar deal from some Hollywood (redundant I know) bottom feeder.

The irony is that she did so much harm to people and causes that she supported, much less opposed. By calling herself “Big Fat Lesbian Loud Rosie,” she reinforced negative images about people that did nothing to deserve them. There are plenty of moderates in this country who want to support gay rights, and then she comes along, and gives the opponents of the gay rights movement plenty of ammuition. She is Howard Dean minus any policy prescriptions. No wait, she is Howard Dean with breasts. He did not have policy prescriptions either.

Americans like civility. They do not like meanness. Kids are tought this in kindergarten. Rosie attacked people randomly, indiscrimately, and viciously. When listening to her, it was not just “What the heck is she babbling about,” but “Why is she babbling about it?” She became a freak show, and like all freak shows (Are you listening Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton?), the ending is not pretty.

I could care less that Rosie has girth. Nor do I care that she is a lesbian. What I care about is that she is a nasty shrewish woman. That is not name calling. That is definitional.

I would not expect the View to be a better program now that she left because there is only so much one can do with garbage. It will remain an idiotic program with insignificant people babbling about nonsense (with all respect to Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who belongs on a quality program worthy of her grace and class).

Don’t worry Rosie. Now you can spend more time with your family. Perhaps you and Cindy Sheehan can have dinner parties and draw Hitler mustaches on the President’s face in the name of intelligent discussion and civilized discourse. Come to think of it, with Cindy Sheehan retiring (a term I always thought wass reserved for useful employed people), you can always be the Grateful Dead version of the protest circuit. You could call it Rosiepaloser. Either way, time for you to exit, stage (extreme insane angry) left.

Again, cheer up Rosie. After your nervous breakdown you will write a tell all book and make even more money. Society rewards screwups who stop screwing up, rather than acknowledge the everyday people who wiork hard every day and pay your salary.

Rosie, you started out as the Queen of Nice. I will take every bad word I said about you back if you go back to being this person. You were nice once, so you have that capability. Then you became a hardcore leftist, which apparently just does not seem to mesh well with rational thought or civility or kindness or decency or anything else that good people possess.

May your child grow up to be a good citizen who treats people with kindness. This can happen if you spend more time with her, and less time being an attention seeker. Stay away from the cameras for awhile. Go heal. Go get better. Most importantly…just go.   


Cindy Sheehan–Exit, Stage (far) Left and good riddance

Tuesday, May 29th, 2007

Winston Churchhill, when speaking about the Royal Air Force, said “Never…in the history…have so many…owed so much…to so few.” With respect to perhaps the greatest orator ever, my reaction towards Cindy Sheehan is that never has one who owed so much to so many given so little. As expected, President Bush and the US military soldier on, and Cindy exits Snagglepuss (or is that sourpuss) style, stage (far) left.

When Yassir Arafat died, a columnist remarked that if one cannot say somethnig good, say nothing at all. So he wrote “Yassir Arafat is dead. Good.”

No, Cindy Sheehan did not murder anyone, but the only reason she did not murder the morale of the troops in the most consequentual and proper struggle of our lifetime is that that our soldiers are made of steel, and she is not. She tried to cause infinite pain and she failed, and I say good riddance.  

Cindy Sheehan started out as a sympathetic figure. She lost her child. No parent should see their child predecease them. It is the ultimate nightmare for any parent, and sympathy towards her was entirely appropriate. She then met with President Bush, ho met with her and offered sincere condolences, which is to be expected from a man who has had personal tragedies in his life (His sister died when she was a young child).

For some reason, Cindy Sheehan was not satisfied with his condolences. She waged a personal jihad against him. She stalked him for crying out loud. What else would you call someone that camps outside your personal residence and starts loudly yelling for days on end? She then aligned herself with the far left in this country, who when not hating everything conservatives and republicans stand for, find time to attack Israel and Jews. This makes perfect sense, given that Jews are as leftist as Cindy Sheehan is.

Cindy Sheehan stopped being sympathetic and started being seen as what she had become…a zealot. She was an activist, smiling before the cameras as she would get arrested, enjoying every moment of her newfound celebrity status. How do I know this? Again, she was smiling and laughing for the cameras.

She started her crusade over the tragedy of losing her son. What she still fails to acknowledge is that her son supported what he was doing, believed in what he was doing, and died a hero for a cause he voluntarily signed up for. There is no military draft in this country. Her son became a soldier, and died in a war. This is tragic, but he believed in the very thigns that Cindy Sheehan is fighting against. Like most activists, Cindy Sheehan neglected everything else in her life to go on her celebrity tour. Like college students in the 1960s sleeping outside and following the Grateful Dead around the country, she failed to see that while the Grateful Dead earned millions, many of their fans did not meet a happy financial ending.

Cindy Sheehan did not get a crisis of conscience, or a lobotomy. SHe is quitting because she is broke. I wonder if her celebrity friends such as Jane Fonda or Susan Sarandon will lift a finger to help her, or if they will discard her the way they lose interest in African nations once the glow of the newspaper wears off. They worry about Darfur now, and in the 1980s it was “We are the World” and Ethiopia (they did a great job improving that situation). The cause continues, as easily impressionable get sucked into a cause and then get thrown away.

“In the meantime, she said her antiwar activism had cost her her marriage, that she had put the survivor’s benefits paid for her son’s death and all her speaking and book fees into the cause and that she now owed extensive medical bills.”

Her husband asked her to come home for a long time. She started out angry over losing her son, and she ended up neglecting the rest of her family. That is what happens to activists. It is one thing to have causes, but they should not be a replacement for an entire existence. Her cause was her life, and it hurt the lives of those she claimed to care about the most. Even by Hollywood standards, this is selfish. Her son’s death was not a waste, but her losing all of her finances was a prime example of waste.

Cindy Sheehan did this to herself, and she has no one to blame but herself. I genuinely felt bad for Cindy Sheehan the mother, but I have utter contempt for Cindy Sheehan the activist. She says that she failed her son as his mother. For the last couple years she has failed her other children and her husband, who are very much alive.

The good news is Cindy Sheehan can make things right with her family. It will take time, but I genuinely hope those bonds are restored. There is something heroic in being a good spouse and parent, and as long as anyone is alive, they can be redeemed.

Plus, the more time she will spend with her family, assuming she cares more about them than her celebrity friends who care nothing about her, the less she will be on my television screen. This is a win-win for everybody. Perhaps one day Cindy Sheehan will be remembered best for the one very big positive thing she did…bring a fine young man into this world who gave his life for his country in a cause that he rightly believed in.

Or perhaps she will be remembered as another uninformed, nasty, venom spewing activist screwball who briefly made things worse and then disappeared. Come to think of it, there is a position open on “The View.”

God no. Like Bill Murray in “What about Bob,” she needs to leave. Her 15 minutes are up. Begone Ms. Sheehan. Exit, stage (ultra extreme) left.



Get ready for the Rahm Emanuel vs Howard Dean smackdown

Monday, May 28th, 2007

As Memorial Day draws to a close, liberals are waiting to jump out of their cages of graciousness. They were put on strict orders to act normal today. Asking them to wait until midnight asks for too much, so since it is past 5pm, let’s declare the day over and let them end this ceasefire. Republicans such as myself praised John Murtha, Charles Rangel, Jim Webb and John Kerry for their military service while fiercely disagreeing with their views on the War on Terror. I wonder how many liberals praised Bob Dole, George HW Bush and John McCain today.

Republicans and conservatives can now go back to disagreeing with liberals, and liberals can go back to despising conservatives. The question becomes as we get to 2008 what type of behavior will govern the liberals. Will it be Rahm Emanuel or Howard Dean?

I am not a fan of Rahm Emanuel. I find him arrogant and smug. I am not sure if those qualities are why the Clintons hired him for their cabinet, or if he learned those qualities while working there. Either way, he is a ruthless disciplinarian, which is not easy in a party that makes anarchy seem organized. Going into the 2006 campaign, he demanded that the party field “normal” candidates. The public was not tiliting to the left, or anywhere near liberalism. The public simply felt that the republicans had become complacent and lazy, and had strayed form their principles. If anything, the public had become more conservative on some issues, and voted for democrats as a protest vote. These democrats acorss the heartland were Pro-NRA, Pro-Iraq War, and anti-liberal. Nancy Pelosi was barely allowed to speak the last few weeks of the campaign.

Howard Dean has a different approach. He calls republicans evil, says they are all white Christians (last time I checked I was Jewish), are all wealthy (perhaps my parents hid the money, I remember being middle class), and have never earned an honest dollar in their lives (Does being “Deuce Bigalow” in my spare time count as honest work?). This is fabulous rhetoric if your goal is to burn down the village and alienate potential swing voters. Howard Dean fails to grasp that the goal is not ideological purity. It is winning.

I wonder how many liberals today were crawling out of their skin because they badly wanted to protest, but were under orders not to do so. I can picture Rahm Emanuel taking teenagers into a military “normalcy” camp and giving them clean haircuts and shaves, while forcing them to put on clean shirts.

The democrats listening to Rahm Emanuel, Bruce Reed, Al From and other DLC tilted individuals understand that those are the only democrats that ever win anything. James Carville, as bombastic as he is, does not compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler. The democrats listening to Howard Dean, the Daily Kos, George Soros and the like are about a left wing orthodoxy, where being a moderate democrat is akin to being a facist.

The democrats in 2008 will have to decide which path to follow. Right now the Howard Dean wingnut wing is winning. Bush Derangement Syndrome is their guide, and they have been against the President for so long that they cannot envision what they would actually do if they won an election. So far the Deaniacs are 0 for 26, with Ned Lamont being their latest moral victory.

I have confidence in the democrats. They will choose Howard Dean. They simply have too much rage, anger and venom to offer Americans anything positive. Time will tell if I am right, but the last six years are a good indication. Rahm Emanuel was able to keep the barbarians at the gate in 2006, but they are ready to knock it down.

Rahm Emanuel is a pragmatist, and Howard Dean is an ideologue. Ideologues simply in most cases do not have the ability to understand that getting things done requires pragmatism. This does not mean compromise everything you stand for (although the democrats have done that), but it does mean separating political opponents from enemies.

Let republicans and conservatives everywhere hope that the activists in the democratic party continue to party like it’s 1968, 1972, 1980, and 2004. They are the gift that keeps on giving. Many Americans look at liberals, and while not always thrilled with republicans, know that they prefer calm adults to enraged children. Those who question this analogy should go to a protest rally and videotape the language.

Rahm Emanuel was temporarily able to keep the jackals from gnawing themselves to death. He will most likely not be able to succeed for much longer. The Deaniacs are out for blood, and they are prepared to yell, scream, curse, and vandalize innocent republican lawn signs and car bumper stickers their way to getting their point across. Republicans can only hope so. They are as entertaining to watch on You Tube as they are destructive to the normal democrats that Rahm Emanuel is desperately trying to claim are friends to mainstream Americans.

Let the civil war begin, and may the lunatics speak loudly, proudly, and liberally.


Ideological Bigotry Part IV–The Cancer Eating Away at Liberal Jewish Souls

Sunday, May 27th, 2007

Once again, the Jewish community has decided to cannibalize itself. The people that have been the victim of the worst evil known to humankind have to decided to turn their fire inward. A conversation with a liberal Jewish woman was pleasant until she mentioned the big sign in her life that said “republicans need not apply.” She is not an aberration. Her vitriol is now mainstream in the Jewish community.

When racists and other bigots are forced to change, due to either societal pressures or court orders, they are forced to sit down with leaders of the communities they hurt. Reformed Neonazis sit down with Black Church leaders and Rabbis.  Gay bashers sit down with gay leaders. While this does not always work, dialogue and outreach has led to positive changes in individuals. Even one individual that gives up bigotry is a better person, and a victory for good over evil.

Liberal Jews need to be confronted, shamed and humiliated into changing. Attempting to be nice is not working. Dialogue has failed. Outreach has improved nothing. So again, for the umpteenth time, let me explain it to them.

Republicans are human beings. This phrase needs to be piped over a loudspeaker until it is drilled into their enlightened tolerant skulls. Republicans…are…human…beings.

Conservatives have different ideas on how to improve the world, but conservative intentions are just as noble as liberal intentions.

Republicans are not evil. They have different beliefs. Different does not mean evil.

Now at some point it may seem odd that I am explaining  a concept that a six year old child can understand. However, six year old children are too young to develop irrational hatred.

Now at some point liberals will say “Ok, we can accept republicans, even conservatives, provided they are not Bush supporters.”

NO! You still don’t get it. You have to accept people for who they are. Yes, exceptions can be made in extreme cases such as Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Osama and Pol Pot. Any person putting any American political figure in this category needs a good beating, which is what they would get if they lived in any area under the rule of one of the above mentioned leaders. My father is a Holocaust survivor, and I can guarantee you that if he were to wake up in the middle of the night screaming, it would not be because of Pro-Israel President George W. Bush.

Now before Jewish liberals complain that George W. Bush is Pro-Israel because he wants to Christianize all the Jews, again, this is bigotry. yes, religious bigotry against Christians counts. Apparently, Christianity is a religion, and a popular one at that. So hatred against Christians is bigotry. Now for those liberals who only object to the Christians who vote republican, that is ideological bigotry.

Some liberal Jews have expressed to me that by fiercely criticizing my own community, I am giving credence to Antisemitism. This bogus argument is used to justify bad behavior, and is akin to blacks that are critical of Bill Cosby for airing black America’s dirty laundry. Cleaning a community is not pretty, but it is vital. Liberals were overjoyed when democrats won congress in 2006, because the Bush administration finally had some “oversight.” Well Jews need some oversight right now, because too many members of the community are afflicted with a disease…a cancer…that is eating away at the soul of the community.

I want to make it crystal clear that I am not indicting Jews for merely being liberal. I am criticizing the many Jews that have an intolerance towards anyone that is not liberal.

I use the term “ideological bigotry” because it stings. It is one thing to tell people that they are insensitive. Calling them bigots gets their hackles up. It is a powerful term. It forces one to either reject the claim outright (which should be done if the claim is false), or take an introspective look inside oneself, and confront possible internal ugliness.

I will not stop battering the liberal Jewish community until they loudly condemn all forms  of hatred. Liberal Jews worry about Darfur, even though they have never met these people, and the nation of Sudan has never shown an inkling of caring about anything Jewish. Liberal Jews worry about racism against black people, even though black leaders  such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made Antisemitic comments. At some point Liberal Jews must confront the fact that hatred of conservatives and republicans…especially Jewish ones…is destructive.

There is absolutely nothing in Judaism that mandates a person to be politically liberal. Using the Torah to justify liberalism is as legitimate as Islamic Jihadists using the Koran to justify Jihad. Now before liberals think I am comparing them to terrorists, I would argue that while this is of course not the case in terms of deeds, in terms of self destructive and corrosive words, it is highly analogous. Whenever any group of people is dehumanized, the results are dangerous, and often violent.

Conservatives do not key liberals’ cars. Conservatives do not shout down liberal speakers or throw objects at them. It is often stated that while all Arabs are not terrorists, most terrorists are Arabs. Many liberals are not ideological thuggish bigots, but most ideological thuggish bigots absolutely are liberals, and Jewish in an amount disproportionate to their percentage of people in society.

Ideological bigotry is a cancer eating away at Jewish souls. The Jewish community has a 52% intermarriage rate. This is not George W. bush’s fault. It is not the fault of Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or anybody else that causes liberals to foam at the mouth like rabid dogs.

A song Jewish children learn in summer camp goes “To love your fellow Jew…just the same as you…that’s the basis of our holy Torah.” Somewhere long the line, those gentle Jewish children forgot the lessons of history. When the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors are preaching hatred, we are immolating ourselves. Many cultures from Germans to Arabs have tried to kill us, and we respond by trying to kill our own.

When Jewish liberals go to Synagogue on Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, I wonder how many of them will apologize for all the things they said about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and republicans and conservatives everywhere, not to mention their evangelical Christian brothers that support them (Lord knows why, we don’t deserve it the way we treat them. The only people who like us, and we spit on them).

I am the first person to fight Antisemitism and other bigotry from outside cultures. I will keep my integrity by fiercely defending republicans from ideological bigotry, especially from within the Jewish community.

Hineni. Here I am. Conservative, republican, Bush and Cheney supporting, and proud, ready to combat the cancer of ideological bigotry until every liberal Jew is cured.


Social Justice–The Big Jewish Lie

Sunday, May 27th, 2007

Awhile back I wrote a column entitled “Destroying the Jewish People One Schoolteacher at a Time.” Apparently it offended Jewish people that find nobility in helping people while complaining that they do not have the quality of life that they desire. I will again remind the Jewish community that we are well on our way to financial extinction by placing helping others at the expense of our own monetary well being. Rich people give more to charity than poor people because they can, and I would prefer us be wealthy than panhandlers, which we will end up being if we keep going into industries that value helping others at the expense of our survival economically.


There is nothing noble about being poor, and there is nothing sinful about being rich. For those who help others and are unconcerned with your financial lot in life I applaud you. For those who try to help others but complain of your financial hardships because you became schoolteachers or social workers, nobody forced you into a financially unrewarding life. You did it to yourself. The smiles on those kids faces don’t seem as sweet when the car payments are due.


Below is a partial response I received from a well intentioned bleeding heart, and my response to her.


“Traditional Values for Jews include valuing education, social justice, and good medical care. These are not the worst of Traditional Values to adhere to, and certainly reflect more positive core values than that of the dominant culture here. It is interesting-I work for a Jewish owner of the facility, and he pays the lowest in the area-I shall leave when the rest of my paperwork goes through the system, and I have reciprocity elsewhere-as the only Jewish Nurse in his little system, I am still scheduled to work Shabbat, and as he drives up in his 80K car, while paying his Nursing Staff small shekels, he makes me ashamed to share anything in common with him.


(name withheld)”


I responded to (name withheld) as follows:


You proved my point exactly. Now Jews can either BE the person driving the 80k car and making the rules, or we can be the plebeians following someone else’s orders. If enough Jews stopped going into these low paying industries, and went into business and made tons of money, they could build hospitals, schools, etc, and run them more ethically than your boss.

It is disgusting that you have to work on the sabbath against your desires, but in this world there are Chiefs and Indians, and Jews need to become Chiefs.


Lastly, there is nothing…and I repeat nothing…in the Torah that forces Jews to obey this concept of social justice, which is code for being politically liberal. Orthodox Jews overwhelmingly vote republican, and I trust their view of the Torah the most because they spend their lives reading and analyzing it.


Maybe if Jews stopped obsessing about Darfur, chloroflorocarbons, the wetlands, the rights of bunny rabbits, etc, and started worrying about a 52% intermarriage rate, a sky high divorce rate, and a political ideology that places liberalism over Judaism, we would be a stronger people.


Jews need to stop being bleeding hearts. The world hates us…and we thank them and say “may I please have another sir.”


The answer for Jews is to get high paying jobs, make money, and get power. Power can be used for good. By voting for candidates that are pro-business and anti-tax, we can keep more money. Then we can speak to the boss by looking in the mirror and saying “I am going to drive my 80k car with a big smile on my face, and I will refuse to work on the sabbath…because I can.”









Run For President, Lose Your Soul

Saturday, May 26th, 2007

What is it about running for President that turns normally brave people into lily-livered cowards?

As expected, the senate voted overwhelmingly to continue to fund the troops without any surrender poison pill. The vote was 80-14. That means even many democrats decided that abandoning our troops was wrong. Yet Presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama decided that Al Queda was less threatening to their future than those good folks at, who seem unable to move on past the 2000 election.

Make no mistake about it. This was not a vote based on principle. It was a vote based on fear…fear of losing an election. This is why John Edwards has gone from being a uniter in 2004 to a raging populist in 2008, a handsomer less angry version of Howard Dean.

In 2002, the democrats voted overwhelmingly against the Iraq War. Yet John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton all voted for it. This was strategy at its finest. Now some might say it is unfair of me to criticize them for voting yes and for voting no, meaning they cannot win either way. Wrong. I am criticizing them for using polls to determine what to believe. They learned that in 1992. Sam Nunn saw his Presidential aspirations collapse by voting no on the first Gulf War. Al Gore and Bill Clinton learned from his mistake. This cynicism was highlighted perfectly in the 2004 Vice Presidential debate when Dick Cheney asked John Edwards “How can you stand up to Al Queda when you can’t even stand up to the Howard Dean voters?” Edwards did not recover from that blow.

By trying to be all things to all people, one risks losing everyone. President Bush won two elections by telling people exactly who he was, what he believed, what he was going to do, and then doing it.

It is not just the Iraq war that turns politicians into pretzels. Abortion seems to take pro-life democrats like Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson, and get them to become pro-choice. The reverse journey happened to George HW Bush, Mitt Romney, and others on the right. Yes, sincere conversions are possible, but the timing of these conversions can create a lot of suspicion, often justified.

Rudy Giuliani is handling the abortion issue perfectly, after some initial stumbles. His first option would have been to become pro-life. He didn’t. The second option would have been to denounce the Christian right, which has not benefited John McCain, Arlen Specter, or anyone else trying to win a republican primary. What Rudy Giuliani understands is that many Christian Coalition members will forgive disagreements on issues such as abortion as long as they are treated with the same respect and dignity that all other human beings want. He can be pro-choice without calling them zealots. Time will tell, but by sticking to his principles while respecting those with opposing principles, he is succeeding in a way that he could not if he merely became pro-life. Contrary to popular liberal opinion, Christian conservatives are not imbeciles. They can spot a “pander bear” when they see one. The late Paul Tsongas referred to Bill Clinton as a pander bear, and he was right.

John Kerry is a particularly troubling example. Here is a man who claims to be unafraid of taking bullets in combat, but yet he was terrified of the voters. He was proud of being a war hero, and he was also proud of being an anti-war protester. This incomprehensible and contradictory position on a defining issue rightly painted him as a flip-flopper.

Some would say that this strategy of pleasing everyone can work, and Bill Clinton is proof of this. While Clinton did win in 1992, he had made so many promises to so many people that he was unable to govern, and the democratic coalition cracked under the 1994 republican revolution and Newt Gingrich. The last six years of the Clinton Presidency will be remembered for its unwillingness to actually do anything. In a world where famous politicians have legislation or ideas named after them, such as Reaganomics, Pell Grants, Roth IRAs, and the Bush Doctrine, can anyone name anything significant that was specifically because of anything Bill Clinton said or did? The argument that he let others take credit is laughable and a nonstarter for our oxygen sucking ex-president.

The bottom line, is some people want to “be President.” Others want to actually “do things.” In some cases, these things are bold and world changing. To do bold changing things, you have to risk ticking some people off. It is one thing to compromise and cut deals to pass legislation. It is another to compromise the core of who you are to try and add a few more wingnuts to your coalition.

Bill Clinton had his Sister Souljah moment. Rudy Giuliani is refusing to back down on his abortion position. John McCain is refusing to back down on torture or campaign finance reform. I happen to fiercely disagree with McCain on both of those issues. I think he is wrong. However, I have the utmost respect for his willingness to take a position that is against what many republicans believe. He is also doing so in a respectful manner (although his temper is legendary), proving he learned from his mistakes in 2000.

The bottom line is Rudy Giuliani and John McCain will be able to look in the mirror, as George W. Bush does, and realize that they became President the right way. John McCain has said that he would rather lose an election than lose a war. These are men that are comfortable in their own skin. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards refuse to allow themselves to let people see who they are and what they believe. They are afraid of the voters. Can they win? Sure. Anything is possible. However, what is the point of winning the White House if it comes at the price of losing one’s soul? Why achieve power if one is unable to govern?

The answer is because for some pretzel twisted politicians who are for and against every controversial issue, power is the end, and not the means. At this stage in history, the democrats running for President are running from themselves, and losing their souls by the day. They are followers. Thankfully the top republicans running are more concerned with the War on Terror. They are leaders.