Archive for July, 2007

Darfur–Will liberal Jews ever learn?

Tuesday, July 31st, 2007

People are dying in Darfur. Let me be the first to go on record and stamp my passport to hell right now now by saying I don’t care.

Yes, you heard me correctly. I do not care. I do not lose sleep over it. It does not affect my daily life. It never will. I may be an awful person, but at least I have integrity. I admit that I do not care. I admit I cannot force myself to cry over people I have never met, know nothing about, and who have never done anything to help me.

Before I lace into the people who claim that they actually do care, and do as much to actually make a difference as I do, I stumbled across an excellent article on Doctor Bulldog’s website that should be mandatory reading for every liberal Jewish person worldwide.

The Finance Minister of Darfur blames the Jews for the crisis in Darfur. Yes folks, in a place where Muslims are killing other Muslims, and no Jews are to be found, the Jews are responsible. I would like every Jewish liberal who has been ringing their hands trying to come up with a way to save these people to snap out of it. If you are a Jewish liberal, here my words loudly:

The world hates you. They want to kill you. You are the source of all the evil in this world. If you need proof of this, I can tell you about my father’s experiences in 1940s Germany. Nothing has changed. You cannot make the world a better place, because most people that you want to help think that the world would be a better place if you were dead. These thoughts would be turned into action in a moment’s notice if it became feasible. I know it goes against everything you think the Torah teaches you, but your interpretation is wrong. Jews, for once, have the courage to deliver a message to the world that it has been delivering to us for years…the message of, “Go f*ck yourself.”

There, I said it. Now do not get me wrong. I do not want innocent people to die. What I want is for other people besides us to for once in their miserable lives contribute something positive.

Let’s start with Muslims. There are a billion Muslims in this world. Why did they sit by and let Bosnia deteriorate? Why are they letting Darfur go to hell in a handbasket? If all Muslims are brothers, which is a noble sentiment, why are they not helping their brothers? Perhaps many of them are, but it is obviously not enough. All human life is precious, but how many people in Syria or Iran sent Israel anything but homicide bombers? Jews should support Israel and other Jewish causes, and refuse to lift a finger to help Muslim nations until hard evidence is presented showing that these nations are taking care of their own.

The United Nations, that useless, worthless, hopeless excuse for an entity, could upgrade itself to a moderately colossal failure by doing something for once in its wretchedly ineffective existence. Steeped in a tradition of letting people die that gained no attention in Rwanda, this antisemitic and anti-American monstrosity continues to allow Darfur to destroy itself.

I am not advocating that these plutocrats that fly lear jets to New York City and then drive one block in limousines to expensive lunches actually do something. It is too late for them. I recommend we fire them all and hire people who actually will do things. In the same way Jews should not help save Muslims who want to kill Jews (We absolutely can and should help all people including Muslims who do not hate us), the United States should not help the United Nations as long as it continues to hate us.

The reason why I could care less about Darfur is because I know that the people who claim to care will forget about it soon enough. It is the latest cause celebre. In the 1980s it was “USA for Africa,” in the form of helping Ethiopia. In the 1990s it was trendy to wear ribbons and ignore Rwanda. Today it is Sudan, and office pools around the country are betting on who we will pretend to care about next while doing nothing about it.

I am tired of ribbons. I am tired of smugness. I am tired of people criticizing President Bush for saying “Mission Accomplished,” after ousting Saddam Hussein when they think that wearing ribbons means anything has been accomplished. I am tired of people who want to commit troops to Darfur to improve their lot in life while simultaneously wanting to cheat the people of Iraq from this noble goal.

For those who want to appear trendy at wine and cheese parties, please do not ask me to respect you. Words mean nothing. Life is about deeds. Social justice itself is a miscarriage of justice. It places concepts over metrics, feelings over dollars, and wishful thinking over actual results and lives saved.

Liberal Jews need to understand that trying to love those who hate you is pointless. Ironically enough, the one group of people that love Jews is Christians, and liberal Jews hate them. I have apologized to Christians many times for the 70% of Jews that need cranial-glutial extraction surgery.

If Christian America wants to tell Jews to “go f*ck themselves,” I will understand that. The liberals in my community are ungrateful brats, and they should stop trying to help those who do not help themselves.

It is for this same reason we should ignore Darfur. We need to strengthen our own people, that being Jews in America and Israel. Given that many people worldwide hate Jews, the Sudan Finance Minister’s antisemitic rantings should be more than enough reason for Jew haters everywhere to donate money to their brethren. Perhaps if the people of Sudan threaten Israel with homicide bombers like the Gaza lunatics do, the Iranian and Syrian blood money will flow and they can all bathe in it.

For the millions of Arabs and Muslims that are good decent people, help your brothers. God requires you to do so.

For Jews, I still recommend that we only help our own, as every other culture on the planet does without being criticized. For those of you on the left who must be bleeding hearts that want to help people, make sure that they do not hate you. My father did not escape the Holocaust so that he could donate his charity money to Nazis today, wherever they live.

Lastly, to activists everywhere…take off those stupid ribbons. They do nothing to help anybody. The money spent on ribbons can be used to help people. Charity according to Jewish law is more noble when it is anonymous. Do good deeds quietly, without the self satisfaction of letting the world know how righteous you are.

I am not righteous. I could care less about most things. Yet when I look in the mirror, I know I am not making things worse. I know who I am, and I will not help those that wish me harm.


Support Terrorism–Buy the Los Angeles Times

Monday, July 30th, 2007

While the Washington Post is firmly entrenched as the ugly kid sister of the Jayson Blair Times, the Los Angeles Times has decided that it is now qualified to be the retarded family cousin that nobody talks about.

Once content to be a badly written paper that was simply less awful than its East Coast counterparts, the LA Times has now officially declared itself an enemy combatant. Take the editors to Guantanamo Bay, there is no turning back. This is not about free speech, or even disgusting speech. This is about expressing support for terrorists.

The LA Times wants American Taliban John Walker Lindh to be set free.

The headline “Free Our Talib,” is eye popping. Talib is short for Taliban, which I guess would be fine if the LA Times were communicating to their childhood friends on MySpace or FaceBook. He is also not “our” anything. He is not “my” anything. Perhaps they can redo the headline so it reads properly: “San Francisco Liberal Killer Defended By Los Angeles Liberal Rag.”

This might be the first time in history a Southern California entity has so fiercely defended someone from Northern California. Perhaps if John Walker Lindh was accused of cheating in baseball, there would be more outrage from their editorial staff.

The first paragraph reads like only something an imbecile suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome could write.

“The president’s power to grant clemency — in the form of either a pardon or a commutation — is much maligned and occasionally abused, as was the case when President Bush used it to keep his colleague, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, from facing even a day in prison for lying and obstructing justice. But the power has its appropriate uses as well, and the case of John Walker Lindh calls out for it.”

The obligatory left wing cheap shot at the President is laughable. However, unless the LA Times was not paying attention, which based on the quality of everything they say and do is easily within the realm of possibility, Scooter Libby did not kill anybody.

“John Walker Lindh broke the law. He pleaded guilty to the one crime of which he was guilty — aiding the Taliban — and to carrying a gun and hand grenades in the service of that regime’s war against the Northern Alliance. For that, he deserved to go to prison…”

No, he did not deserve to go to prison. He deserved to have two bullets put right in his heart, and it should have been broadcast on live television, and not pay per view either.

“Lindh, who converted to Islam as a teenager, joined the Taliban before Sept. 11, not after; he did so to fight the Northern Alliance, not the United States. Lindh never took up arms against this country. He never engaged in terrorism; indeed, his commitment to Islam leads him to oppose the targeting of civilians.”

Belief in Islam prevents targeting of civilians? Who on Allah’s green Earth is beheading people? Has it occurred to these LA Times terrorist supporters that just because somebody says they are a Muslim, that maybe they do not obey all the rules of their own religion? Some Jews eat pork. Some Catholic Priests molest young boys. Some Islamists murder people for sport. 

The other claim that San Francisco Johnny should get the equivalent of a get out of jail free card is the ludicrous notion that he did not directly attack the United States.

Let’s see. Al Queda attacked the United States. The Taliban protected Al Queda. San Fran John fought for the Taliban. These dots are only possible to connect if one keeps their eyes and minds open and functioning, which apparently disqualifies those who are severely mentally retarded, and those who write for the LA Times.

When “The Onion” wrote, “ACLU defends Nazi’s right to burnd down ACLU headquarters,” it was satire. The LA Times seriously wants to free a man who supported enemies of the United States.

It is one thing to argue wrongly for the release of enemy combatants at Gitmo becasue there is some mistaken belief that they might be innocent (until they are freed and go back to terrorism), but the LA Times is advocating freeing a man that pled guilty!

Do LA Times editors have to have their own children kidnapped and beheaded before they realize that the enemies are the kidnappers and beheaders, not George W. Bush? Is their hatred of President Bush and the Iraq War that much that they need to free people who want everything American dead out on the streets?

I have said on more than one occasion, that until San Francisco gets bombed, they will not get it. If I did not live in Los Angeles, I would absolutely add LA to the list. This is not hypocrisy because I am one of the Californians who was not raised here, and am willing to loudly condemn those who want to blow my city to kingdom come. I am not willing to send them home to the wonderful parents who raised this monster.

Maybe this is what Hillary Clinton means when she uses the term “Modern Progressive.” It is her way of distancing herself from San Francisco Liberals. No, I am not blaming them for what John Walker Lindh did. However, can anybody doubt that an environment of absolute hatred for President Bush can lead to violence when carried one step further?

After 9/11/2001, President Bush stated that people were either with us or against us. If you harbored a terrorist, you were a terrorist. The Taliban was against us, and John Walker Lindh was with them. He was against us.

The problem with the LA Times is that it only recognizes terrorism when the person committing it is right of center. Animal rights activists who break into testing labs and free the animals are seen as rescuers, not terrorists. Environmentalists that commit violence at trade summits and burn down buildings because they dislike construction are not just tree huggers…they are ecoterrorists. Leftist rebels that try to overthrow right wing governments, or take over schools with children inside…yes, they are actually terrorists. The men that defeat them, be it Vladimir Putin, Ariel Sharon or Alberto Fujimori, are not the terrorists.

Some will say that being raised in Northern California had nothing to do with John Walker Lindh’s descent into evil. Yes, real evil, not the kind of evil described about people who merely want to cut taxes and give businesses incentives to make profits. Well perhaps his conversion to Radical Islam had something to do with it.

The bottom line is it is not the fault entirely of his parents, Radical Islam, or even Radical San Francisco. The fault is with him. A young man chose to fight along side America’s enemies. The fact that he did this is less tragic than the fact that he was taken alive, an act of mercy he not only did not deserve, but would not have shown an American soldier.

John Walker Lindh should spend the rest of his life in jail. He is entitled to his Koran, and his Los Angeles Times. While it would be a civil right violation to ban him from reading his Islamic Holy Book, nobody is entitled to read a fourth rate newspaper with horridly written editorials by equally contemptible human beings.

Somebody give this kid a Wall Street Journal or a New York Post so that he can be reprogrammed. Unfortunately, he will be reintroduced to society again, where by the standards of Nancy Pelosi’s district, he will be considered normal. Perhaps if he gets reprogrammed in jail he will be less disgusting than his defenders upon his eventual release.

As for the LA Times, I simply wish Angelenos would stop buying it. It will not go out of business, since I am sure there are plenty of people in terrorist sponsoring nations that would be happy to import it while enjoying their morning Jihad and Java.




Walter Mondale–As exciting and relevant as ever

Sunday, July 29th, 2007

Today is a day about nothing. Sundays are a day about being with family, watching football (lord, let it be September already), and going outside on a sunny day. It is not a day for being indoors typing a political column, hence my typing furiously, mistakes be d@mned.

Given how difficult it is to write a column when nothing is occurring (yes Al Queda is plotting our deaths, but there is no unique news about it today), I can only imagine the backflips that the Jayson Blair Times and its ugly kid sister the Washington Post are doing to convince people to read their papers today. Their first option is to completely fabricate stories, but that has gotten them into trouble in the past. The other option is to come up with human interest stories, or as I call them, disinterest stories.

Therefore, the Washington Post has decided to party like it’s 1979. Dusting him off from obscurity, Walter Mondale…yes, you read that correctly…Walter Mondale…is concerned about…stuff. Apparently whatever reporter failed to get the Lindsay Lohan interview for the paper was relegated to this story. Walter Mondale is displeased with Dick Cheney.

For those of you expecting me to file this under the, “water is wet” category, I am not sure it is any more if this is the best that the news has to offer today.

For those of you who do not know Walter Mondale, he was by most people considered to be an honest, decent man who was the Vice President to Jimmy Carter, the worst President since possibly before the Civil War. They stumbled into the White House in 1976, and were defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980 44 states to 6. In 1984, after promising to raise taxes (again, he was honest), he was defeated in his quest for the Presidency 49 states to 1. Out of mercy, Reagan did not schedule one more visit to Minnestoa (Mondale’s home state), which would have given Reagan the clean sweep. Hey, unlike Al Gore, at least Mondale won his home state. To some, that gives him relevance.

Mr. Mondale states, “Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it (The Vice Presidency) has gone seriously off track.” So Walter Mondale is considers Dick Cheney a failed Vice President. Given that I disagree with a controversial 2001 football game between the Raiders and Patriots, I am declaring Tom Brady’s 3 Super Bowl rings irrelevant. He is now a failure as a football player. See how easy it is?

What is it about people like Carter, Mondale, Geraldine Ferraro (Mondale’s VP candidate), and consultants such as Susan Estrich (Michael Dukakis’s campaign manager), Bob Beckel (Mondale’s campaign manager)? How can they fail in such spectacular fashion and then have the nerve to think they should be take seriously as critics? Michael Dukakis did what people in that situation are supposed to do…disappear, keep quiet, and find a sanctuary where liberals are tolerated, in his case education.

Again, Walter Mondale was never seen as a bad person, but his claiming how relevant he was seems like a desperate cry for relevancy. How many people would recognize him on the street?

As for his criticism of Dick Cheney, he writes, “Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president.”

So to put this into English, Dick Cheney does not consult and get the approval of the Jayson Blair Times or Walter Mondale himself before making decisions. He trusts those closest to him. Perhaps he is a normal person that relies on close confidants rather than complete strangers that do not have the best interests of the administration at heart. It seems any vetting process Mr. Mondale disagrees with is irrational.

“Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts.”

What courts? Federal courts with entrenched liberal judges hired during the Carter-Mondale debacle years? What constitution? The evolving one liberals like Mondale believe in or the strict constructionist version that brilliant men like John Roberts and Sam Alito believe in? For those keeping score, President Bush hired them.

Every President wants more power, and every Supreme Court sometimes has to tell the President no. For a true constitutional dictatorship, one should read about FDR.

“The corollary to Cheney’s zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I’ve never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress — even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying — it’s almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him. ”

Mr. Mondale, have you heard of Hillary Clinton? Perhaps you remember her disastrous attempt at health care reform. As for Cheney’s desire for secrecy, the issues he has tried to keep secret are issues that should be kept secret. It is difficult to conduct a War on Terror when the Jayson Blair Times decides to publish troop movements, getting American soldiers killed. Yes, Mr. Cheney actually has the nerve to not reveal secret information to people who cannot keep their mouths shut, aka bloviating Senators.

Openness in government is vital, but national security is only a cliche to people who think the War on Terror is a bumper sticker. Dick Cheney is not going to go on Oprah, have a good cry, and reveal everything for the sake of healing. Anyone who has friends knows we want the big picture of their lives, but we do not want every painful gory detail. The bottom line is results, and getting things done. If anybody knows what it is like to fail to deliver results, it would be Jimmy Carte and Walter Mondale.

Saving his best comments for last, Mr. Mondale writes, “Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.”

Hey dad…remember when I got an F on that report in school? Aren’t you proud of me that I did not cheat and earned that F the honest way? Was that not a fine moment for both of us? Remember the ticker tape parade you gave me for it?

Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale may have obeyed the law. Big deal. They are supposed to do that. Comedian Damon Wayans rightly points out that people who brag about taking care of their kids are pathetic because “people are supposed to take care of their kids.”

They did not keep the peace. They surrendered. They allowed hostages to be taken. The economy was a disaster, and it took Ronald Reagan to bring dignity back to America.

Walter Mondale is as exciting and relevant as ever. As I said, in a world with nothing else going on, on a beautiful sunny Summer day, on a day when I wanted to write a quick column that most people would not read, I took pity on him and gave him a few moments of attention.

Perhaps the Jayson Blair Times next Sunday can print an article detailing the late Lady Bird Johnson’s opinion of President Bush. Or maybe they will get that Lindsay Lohan interview and admit that they just needed to fill space on a page.


President Bush, Please Tell Charles Schumer to Bring It On

Saturday, July 28th, 2007

New York Senator Charles Schumer, a man who discovers the true meaning of love every time he listens to his own voice, has thrown down the gauntlet against President Bush.

MC Gangsta Chuckie S has decided that a conservative republican president does not have the right to appoint conservative republican judges to the Supreme Court for any reason. This is despite the fact that President Bush stated he would doing this during his campaign for President.

So what is the reason for Chuckie S, like most hardcore gangsta thugs, to eliminate reason  altogether in evaluating Supreme Court Justices? The reason is that John Roberts and Sam Alito are not being judged based on their qualifications. They are being based on their ideology. Senator, Schumer, welcome to the world of ideological bigotry.

John Roberts is one of the finest legal minds on this planet. He is an intellectual titan. Sam Alito is also a brilliant legal scholar. They are strict constructionists that interpret the constitution. They take a minimalist approach, as opposed to an activist approach.

So given their brilliance, geniality, and respect for the law as the Founding Fathers intended, what could be the problem with these judges according to Chuckie S?

Their flaw is he disagrees with them. That’s it. It is no more complicated than that. They are conservatives, and he is a liberal. The fact that conservatives supported ACLU activist Ruth Bader Ginsburg (although she was stealth in her hearings, pretending to be a moderate) is lost on Mr. Schumer. Bill Clinton’s ultra leftist nominee passed 97-3. Mr. Schumer runs the risk of creating a future poisonous environment for any democratic president.

This blind hatred is one sided. From Robert Bork to Clarence Thomas to Miguel Estrada to Janice Rogers Brown to Charles Pickering to John Roberts to Sam Alito, liberals simply cannot accept that conservatives have a right to exist. They also cannot accept that they lose presidential elections more often than not, which prevents them from nominating candidates they prefer.

Charles Schumer has told President Bush that he will fight any nominee for any reason. If bush is for it, Schumer is against it. This is the democratic party philosophy. It is Bush Derangement Syndrome, and it is driven by the Axis of Antisemitism, that being Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and

The solution to this problem is two-fold. First of all, President Bush needs to take an uncompromising hard line. He smacked down Saddam Hussein. He can surely stand up to a lilliputian like Charles Schumer. The President has 30% approval. Congress is standing at about -5% approval. The Alito hearings were a disaster for the democrats. President Bush should name the most conservative nominees possible, provided that they are qualified. Being conservative cannot be the only criteria. Harriet Miers was conservative, but she was not seen as a fine legal mind.

Liberals are never going to like President Bush. Therefore, President Bush needs to raise his support among those who want to support him, but are demoralized. He needs to reach out to the base, and hitting back hard raises support.  His press conference could say:

“I am the President. I won two national elections. My critics did not. I will nominate the finest legal minds, and the democrats will play politics with the nominations. For those of you who believe that all democrats or all republicans are evil, you are lost souls that are blinded by hatred. For those of you who believe that the issue should be whether or not my nominees are qualified based on their experience, knowledge and intellect, let’s have an honest discussion. I am offering fine legal minds representing the American People, and the Senate is offering nominees representing their dwindling left wing base. I am the President, I will nominate whoever I please, and those who do not like this I say one thing…bring it on.”

The President is too polite to do this. He is too gracious. So I will do his dirty work for him.

Senator Schumer, length is no substitute for strength. You are an arrogant gasbag, and the ash heap of history awaits you. Being on television makes you a celebrity. It does not make you a good person. I am a conservative with an advanced degree, and it offends me that you think my disagreeing you makes me an extremist. I want my President to nominate the finest legal minds to the high court, and if you will not give them the swift confirmation they deserve, I hope he rams the nominations down your liberal throat. You will lose this battle because you are not the President.

Lastly, Hillary Clinton had better be careful how she picks a horse in this struggle. Republicans have a long memory, and there are plenty of people who might want to limit executive power if a senator who hypocritically advocates this changes their mind if they get a taste of the Oval Office.

The choice is between a President who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and a liberal senator who wishes to rewrite this sacred document in their own narcissistic image.


Cuba (Gooding Jr.) Has Excellent Health Care

Friday, July 27th, 2007

Michael Moore, aka the Jayson Blair Times of the movie industry, is once again being forced to backtrack from his newest movie. “Sicko,” an indictment of the U.S. health care industry, is a Fidel Castro lovefest for the 12 to 14 people who truly do get top notch health care in Cuba. Given that Michael Moore is second only to NBC News in his love and enthusiasm for fake and doctored footage, it is no surprise that he faces the same accusations again.

When confronted with the truth, that the USA does have superior health care to Cuba, Michael Moore made a startling admission. His remarks were taken out of context. He was not saying that the nation of Cuba has better healthcare than most Americans. He was saying that actor Cuba Gooding Jr. has better health care than most Americans.

When news reporters confronted the Oscar winning actor from “Jerry Maguire” and “Men of Honor,” he said that he was taken aback by the controversy.

Mr. Gooding Jr. stated that he was fairly apolitical, and really did not know much about his own health plan, much less having any knowledge of the entire health care system. He said that he had an HMO or PPO or something, his vision and dental care were fine, and that he was with either Blue Cross or Blue Shield. He did have a bad flu a couple years back, but the doctors took good care of him, and the antibiotics they gave him worked just fine. He hopes everybody named Cuba could be so lucky.

He also stated that he had no idea if any of his former costars such as Robert Deniro, Tom Cruise or Renee Zelweiger had health care as fine as his was, because the topic did not come up during filming. He also said that while he had heard of Michael Moore, he really thinks it is unethical of Mr. Moore to film an entire movie about him without providing adequate compensation.

This whole fiasco brings back the memory of a comedian (name escaping me) who once two decades ago discussed the war between Libya and Chad.

“When I heard that Libya went to war with Chad, I thought, ‘Man, a whole country went to war with one person.’ Then when I heard Chad was winning the war I thought, ‘Man, this Chad is one bad dude.'”

This is not Mr. Moore’s first brush with controversy. It was explained to him that Venezuela was a country in South America, with a dictator who ruined the health care system. Valenzuela was a baseball pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers in the 1980s, and like Cuba (Gooding Jr.), his health care was fine. The real problem is that Moore refuses to acknowledge these mistakes.

Then again, this is the same man who calls Americans lazy and stupid, yet cannot remember his own upbringing. He was not from a small town called Flint. He was from a very wealthy town nearby. To quote a 1980s rock band, “Park Avenue leads to Skid Row.” I can personally attest that Beverly Hills is only 15 minutes away from Downtown Los Angeles by car, and those two neighborhoods are about as similar as classy actor Cuba Gooding Jr. and classless fraudumentary maker Michael Moore. 

The bottom line is that Michael Moore cares only about the bottom line. I am not bothered by his winning awards. Nobody cares about awards. The quickest way to tell me that a movie is boring, unwatchable, and about some far away social topic that I could care else about is to label the movie “critically acclaimed.”

The American people are not as “sophisticated,” as elite critics, meaning they have better taste, more integrity and more class. They decided not to see “Sicko.”

Long after Fidel Castro dies (assuming that ever occurs) and Michael Moore fades into deeper irrelevance than Al Gore (several years ago), the common knowledge that the USA has virtually the best of everything this world has to offer will be universal. No, our health care system is not universal, but outside of Mr. Gooding Jr., neither is that of Cuba, despite Mr. Moore pretending otherwise.

I wonder if Mr. Moore knows the difference between a lip roll and a liposuction. Either way, he should have them done in Cuba. That way, if something goes wrong and they accidentally sew his mouth shut, he will not be able to blame America for another problem he created himself.


Michael Vick–When heroes fall

Thursday, July 26th, 2007

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has been indicted on federal charges of dogfighting and conspiracy. It is my hope that while this case is attracting passion from many people, that those same people will take deep breaths, step back, and let the process work itself out.

Dogfighting is barbaric. Nobody disputes this. It is a sick, twisted, disgusting, vile activity, and I wish that those involved would be subjected to the same fate as the animals.

My interest in this case is not about the animals. My passion is the National Football League. I will be the first person to admit that if an NFL player was not involved in this story, I might not even know about it. I will not pretend otherwise.

I have met Michael Vick. We did not speak, and my opinion of him as a person was neutral. As a football player, he is Superman. The Atlanta Falcons were perennial NFL doormats until he came along. To see a guy roll out, stop on a dime, and throw it 70 yards down the field for a touchdown, is breathtaking. The guy is a human highlight reel.

This does not give him a free pass to committ acts that are detrimental to society, but again, it is the main reason this story will have so much traction over the long haul.

I once remarked that Michael Vick “has the potential to be the greatest quarterback to ever play the game of football.” Maybe I bought into the hype, but his talents were apparent to me. One year he was injured, and missed the first 12 games in a season that is only 16 games. When he came back for a Sunday night game, the Falcons were 2-10. The stadium was packed to capacity, as if the team was 10-2. They were there to see him. The team finished 5-11, but again, winning three out of its last four games.

Now his multimillion dollar salary, his football career, and perhaps even his freedom, might be gone for good. If he is guilty, he deserves to lose it all. However, the process must play itself out.

What we do know is that a house that Vick owned did have dogfights going on. The house was painted pitch black, so that it would not be noticed at night, when most dogfighting takes place. Michael Vick has claimed that he did not partake in the dogfighting, but a  confidential witness has said that he did.

Sports leagues are given wide latitude to handle most matters internally. However, the perception that professional athletes get special treatment has allowed courts to end the days when “self-policing” meant sweeping everything under the rug and denying that the problem exists (are you listening baseball?).

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is in his first year on the job. He has yet to be Commissioner long enough to see an actual game. His predecessor Paul Tagliabue reigned over a golden age for the NFL, and rightfully deserves his treatment as a rock star by NFL fans everywhere. While Tagliabue zealously guarded the league’s image, the last couple years has seen some tarnish on that golden reputation.

Roger Goodell is the new sheriff in town, and the sheriff is cracking down. He wants law and order, and no player is above the league.

I met Roger Goodell twice, at the NFL Drafts of 2006 and 2007. When I met him this year, I spoke to him for about 2-3 minutes, which was significantly more than any average Joe should expect from the Commisioner of the hottest sports leage in America. I told Mr. Goodell that I loved the NFL, but did not want to see the game tarnished. He said he felt exactly the same way, which was why he was taking drastic action towards players that violated the NFL’s conduct policy. He had already handed out severe suspensions to players that in the past might have gotten off with a wrist slap.

What was very heartening was that the overwhelming unmber of fans at the NFL Draft agreed with the tough crackdown. They praised Goodell, which goes against the stereotype of win at all cost fans. Goodell listened to every one of them, taking several minutes out for one fan in a wheelchair. This was done while the cameras were nowhere near him. Goodell understands that doing the right thing for the league benefits everybody. This Vick incident will be a tough test.

The NFL Conduct policy has come under scrutiny as well. It states that a player does not need to be convicted of a crime to be punished. Accusations and patterns of behavior would be sufficient. While many have said that this violates the U.S. Constitution and the right to due process of law, the NFL is a private entity. Nobody is entitled to play football. The NFL cannot have a policy that is looser than government laws, but they can have one that is more strict.

Yet just because something is legal, that does not make it moral. What happens if Michael Vick, or any player for that matter, is suspended, and then found not guilty? The life span of a football player is short, and declines rapidly at the end. Time cannot be reversed. Also, what about the other players on the Falcons? They did nothing wrong. Players want to win championships, and the chances of the Falcons winning a Super Bowl without Michael Vick are slim to none.

Arthur Blank, the owner of the Atlanta Falcons, is cooperating fully with the league. He was prepared to suspend Vick for four games. The league, aka Mr. Goodell, has told Blank to hold off while the investigation is pending.

None of this is news, but behind all the stories is a young man who’s life is at stake. Before we burn him in effigy, we had better make sure the legal ducks are in a row, and that row is perfect. God help us if an innocent man is convicted.

I admit being biased. I want Michael Vick to be innocent. The NFL will survive without him, but he is electrifying to watch. The deeper worry I have is the analysis of what type of human being I want to be. I love the NFL, but am very hesitant to pass it on to my children. It is a brutal, violent game, and lately that violence has spilled beyond the field, which has been to the detriment of society. If leatherheads like me who spend Sundays analyzing x’s and o’s do not pass the game on, then the game dies.

Although some have spoken about overzealous district attorneys, this is wishful thinking. Yes, some defendants do get “Nifonged.” Yes, a district attorney can indict a ham sandwich. Yes, some district attorneys just want to get their names in the paper. Putting all of that aside, most district attorneys value their reputations and their jobs. Too many defeats, and they get fired. If this district attorney is like most of them, then we are dealing with a hard working individual that indicted for a reason. The case could be strong. We do not know all of the cards the district attorney is holding.

Also, if Michael Vick is a low level or mid level player, the district attorney’s goal should be to get the big fish, the people at the top. To crack down hard on Vick because he is a celebrity makes no sense. Whoever is leading this ring should get the most punishment, and if Michael Vick cuts a deal and gets leniency, this is fair, and normal.

The only thing I know is that right now there is a lot that I do not know. We will be hearing barbaric allegations, and it will make people sick to their collective stomachs. Having said that, enforcement is a cold blooded process. Michael Vick is entitled to a fair trial. He should not be punished more severely because he is wealthy or famous. Equal treatment under the law is not a slogan. It is what keeps our society from collapsing.

It does not look good for Michael Vick. However, I will try to separate my bias as a fan of his during this tial. I hope that those who love animals or hate sports can separate their biases as well.

The rule of law is important. So are animals. Yet, so are children. To many young children, Michael Vick is still Superman. He is a hero. Their hero has fallen. For every kid today wearing a Michael Vick jersey who wants to emulate him, do not destroy their dreams just yet. Their fathers may have to tell them that a bad man did bad things, but we do not know that yet.

Michael Vick, as of now, is not a dog. He is a person. The dogs he allegedly abused were not given a fair chance at life. That does not mean Michael Vick should be given less of a fair chance to defend his life.

Everybody step back, and let the process work.

In September, I will be cheering for the Oakland Raiders, the silver and black. Right now there is a black cloud hanging over the National Football League, and I hope some silver linings arrive very soon.



My Interview with Amanda Carpenter

Wednesday, July 25th, 2007


I had the pleasure of interviewing political reporter Amanda Carpenter of Townhall recently. She is bright, determined and tenacious. Conservatives are lucky and privileged to have her on our side.

If I were a liberal working for the Jayson Blair Times, here is how I would doctor the interview to mislead the readers:

Eric: Is it ok if I let everybody know that you and I are happily married with two perfect children?

Amanda: That would be difficult since we have never met.

Eric: We have corresponded by email. It depends how you define the word “met.”

Amanda: You and Bill Clinton have a lot in common.

Eric: Thank you. So should we even discuss the Clintons after all this time?

Amanda: Of course. The truth needs to be told.

Now for the doctored version of the above fictional interview:

Eric: Is it ok if I let everybody know that you and I are happily married with two perfect children?

Amanda: Of course. The truth needs to be told.

Given that truth and integrity are vital to virtually everything in life, below is my actual, unabridged interview with Amanda Carpenter. She is a serious person, which is important given the serious times we live in.

1) What led you to Townhall, and what is your mission with regards to your contribution to Townhall?

I really admired what they were doing in terms of incorporating video media and talk radio into I thought I could bring something to the table in terms of delivering news conservatives want to hear about, which sets me apart a bit from a traditional commentator.


2) Who are your top 3 political heroes in terms of actual politicans, and who are your top 3 political contributor inspirations that are not actual politicians?

Hmm. I admire conservative politicians who do their jobs well and with class. So, for that I’d have to say I really admire Sen. James Inhofe from Oklahoma and Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL). Sen. Jim DeMint (SC) is also a great one to have up there in the Senate. I admire other politicians, but with the nature of my job I can get closest to senators so I’ll put those three at the top of my list.

For those in political life, but who haven’t been elected to it, I would put my former editor at Human Events, Terry Jeffrey, at the top of my list. He’s certainly the most principled man I’ve ever met. I’m also wowed by Bob Novak’s reporting record over the years. There are also a number of reporters who do outstanding jobs like Stephan Dinan at the Washington Time and Lynn Sweet at Chicago Tribune who I make sure to read every day.


3) Given the plethora of books that treat Hillary Clinton in a less than flattering light, what do you contribute to the conversation about her that is new?

When I began writing my book I made an explicit decision to only discuss things that happened after 2001 when she entered the Senate. I felt there was a good deal of material there to work from, especially regarding Iraq, Bill and federal money she had routed back home. I broke the story about Bill Clinton earning millions of dollars in foreign money that could legally be used to fund her campaign. After I wrote it, other publications like the Washington Post started picking that story up and I think we’ll slowly be hearing a lot more questions asked about what Bill has been up to internationally while Hillary has been working in the Senate.


4) What separates you from the many conservative authors in general? Do you have a special niche or theme?

For now, I pretty much cover the 2008 elections and Capitol Hill. Like I said before, I’m not a commentator. I’ll give you the news you want straight. And, I love reporting on the democrats, so by reading me you’ll be sure to get all the news the mainstream media leaves out. You’d be amazed at what kind of things people will say in a news conference that doesn’t get picked up. For instance, in the second Democratic debate Hillary Clinton said “we’re going to take things away from you” to fund her global warming programs. No one reported that. I put it up the next day and you’d think I was the only reporter who heard her say that and thought it was important enough to write about. A few weeks ago Nancy Pelosi told reporters in a press conference to “just forget the word earmark” because she was sick of answering questions about them. I put that in the lead of my story the next day, but no one else did. It’s crazy what other reporters won’t publish.


5) In general the media are seen very unfavorably. Do you believe this reputation is justified, overblown or even understated? If not overblown, what can the media do to improve itself?

I think the media has such a great impression of itself it doesn’t matter what other people think. To be a reporter by nature I think you have to have a little bit of arrogance and cockiness—who else but you could decide what is important enough for everyone else to know? And, to add to the cockiness, I’ll say that the mainstream media could be improved by putting more reporters like me front and center.


6) Do you belong to any religious faith, and does that faith play any role in either your career or the stories you cover?

I was raised Catholic and actually have been “church shopping” since I came to Washington, DC. I’ve been praying and asking God to find me a good church home. Send some prayers my way on this. I’m not sure religion plays a huge role in my reporting. I am pro-life but I don’t believe anyone has to be religious to be pro-life although the two certainly do go together. Lately, I’ve enjoyed reporting on how the liberals are trying to tie religion and global warming, though.


7) Given the liberal bias in education, how do you or anybody get through to the “South Park Conservatives” before they get indoctrinated? What is the key?

I became a conservative in college because I had to pay my own bills. Most of my friend who got fat students loans and blew it on cars and computers, partied their way all the way through and basically leeched off the system were mostly liberal. I think if more students were forced to recognize the true costs of education, that isn’t subsidized with government funding, they’d wise up faster. College has just become an extended play period for high school kids without parents, curfews and access to alcohol. I had my fair share of fun, but it’s ridiculous that college kids feel like it’s their right to go to school for four years for the purpose of sleeping in, binge drinking and taking philosophy.


8.) Do you believe that “infotainment” should be banned from the nightly news? Should the news only be “hard news,” with celebrity stories relegated to shows such as Access Hollywood? Is the news harmed by infotainment stories, or is that overblown?

Nah. I’m free market. Sure, it’s annoying to me sometimes to see Paris Hilton all over the place, but that’s why I don’t watch a lot of tv news. I love print because you can filter all that kind of stuff out. Then, if I want the other stuff, I just go online to read the gossip blogs.


9) If you could write the history book for the George W. Bush Presidency, what would be the main points you would want people to know and understand about him?

I’d really like to explore what he calls “compassionate conservatism.” With a Republican Congress and White House for so long I do think we squandered opportunities to really cut back on the size of government that would fundamentally alter things. But, I do believe he is sort of a big government guy. How else do you explain the Medicare drug bill and No Child Left Behind. Now, “compassionate conservativism” is really just a code word for big government, embodied by programs like this. We lost a key opportunity to tackle big things like Social Security and tax reform that I think we’ll regret for quite some time.


10) What are your thoughts on the 2008 elections? What makes 2008 important to you?

I’m scared. Hillary, unless she makes a big mistake soon, is probably going to be the Democratic nominee. She has a team that has won the White House twice before and the GOP has no apparent front-runner with this kind of ability to run in a national race. I am deeply worried about another Clinton presidency.

11) What are your views on the Bush Doctrine of preemptive military force? Do you feel we are headed in that direction with Iran? Should we consider that?

I’m okay with it. Obviously, something has to be done about Iran. I don’t think we should negotiate with them, but there has to be some lower level diplomacy things we could do to try and make some inroads in there. But, I am not a foreign policy expert and we’ve clearly got to get Iraq stabilized before we go venturing anywhere else.


12) If you were given five minutes to interview General David Petraeus, what would you ask him? What would you say to him? Are we winning in Iraq, and are we winning in the overall War on Terror?

I would want him to tell me about the victory’s we’ve had in Iraq so far. I would want him to tell me about how many Iraqi children have been saved and how many roadside bombs our troops have intercepted. I would want him to give me as much good news as he could in five minutes so I could write about it and let people know why it’s so important we see this thing out. My brother was formally discharged from the Marines last week after four years of service. He had pictures he brought home from Iraq that showed cars containing bombs in the back seat he had seized in roadside stops. This sort of thing happens every day, every hour there. Our guys are doing great work and they are getting no credit. They are true, American heroes and no one seems to like to write stories to celebrate them.


13) If you were given five minutes to interview President Bush or Vice President Cheney, what would you ask them? What would you say to them?

I might take Cheney over Bush for five minutes just because I think he’d be able to speak a little bit more freely. I’m not one of those reporters that tries to make a point and tell the interviewer what I think in the course of asking a question so I’m not sure I’d tell him much. But, I would want to ask him about what can be done now by the Bush administration to prevent the expansion of government that is certain to occur with the Democratic-controlled Congress and possible (if there is) a Democrat president in 2009.


14) Given that there are many liberals in America, why are they failing in some segments of the media from a ratings, and more importantly, a financial standpoint? Are Air America and the Jayson Blair Times anomolies, or typical of a larger problem?

I think it’s just market saturation. The mainstream media is liberal. Period. It’s television, it’s the New York Times, all the celebrities and every fashion magazine you pick up. It’s all just so repetitive and predictable.


15) Are the many Clinton scandals involving Hillary such as Travelgate, Filegate, The Pardons, Whitewater, and the Commodities Trading, fair game for the 2008 election? Even if it is fair, is it politically wise? Do you think it would hurt Hillary or have a boomerang effect that will hurt republicans?

Of course it’s fair game. The key, I think is talking about them in a fair way, meaning you don’t just scream “Travelgate! She’s a liar!” You have to be able to talk about it reasonably in a way that makes sense with current events. Otherwise, you are just bringing up old dirt. For instance, how does Hillary’s handling of travel office staff predict how she would make appointments as President? If people choose to talk about old scandals in a way that allows Hillary to play the victim, of course it could have a negative effect. But, her past is certainly the best indicator of how she would govern in the future and it can’t be dismissed. That’s a perfectly fair way to begin thinking about broaching those topics.


16) Are the Clinton scandals specifically related only to Bill Clinton’s alleged sexual crimes fair game for the 2008 election? While Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky involved consensual sex, should people be reminded that Kathleen Willey accused him of sexual assault and Juanita Broderick accused him of rape? Is this a politically wise move, or do you think it would boomerang back and hurt republicans?

Sure, but again the key is approaching this in a reasonable manner. Would Bill Clinton be entertaining unscrupulous guests in the White House as First Gentleman? Would this be a distraction for a wartime President Hillary? These are better questions.


17) What do you think have been the most positive achievements of the Bush Presidency, and what has left you most disappointed?

The Bush tax cuts and his Supreme Court Justice appointments are undoubtedly the best. I just wish the tax cuts weren’t scheduled to sunset soon. The most disappointing is the failure to privatize Social Security.


18) You, Amanda Carpenter, are President on January 20th, 2009. What are the first three things you do? What is your hundred day plan?

I would kill as many government programs as I could, compress the tax code into 10 pages a fifth grader could read and destroy hurtful regulations that infringe businesses like Sarbanes Oxley. And, if I had some time left over I section off a state like New Hampshire—mainly because I love their state motto “Live Free or Die”—and make it a free-market experiment zone with no regulation or taxes. The economy there would sky rocket and then I could brag to everyone about how great it works and make it a model for the nation.


19) If you have five minutes on O’Reilly or Hannity right now, what do you talk about? What do you want people to know?

I’d talk about how Hillary has played politics on Iraq and why she’s not credible on this subject—one of my favorite parts of my book.


20) What do you want people to know most about you? What do you want most out of this world?

I’ll half jokingly say I don’t want anyone to know anything about me except that they love to read my columns on

With regards to Amanda Carpenter, I would like everybody to tell her brother, “Thank you, and welcome home.” Amanda, I personally want you to offer him a hearty handshake from me.

As for Amanda Carpenter, although I am normally in favor of allowing people to live their lives freely, her columns should be mandatory viewing.

Much success to you Amanda, and may God find you the perfect place of worship.


The Seinfeld Network & Seinfeld Party had a Seinfeld Debate

Tuesday, July 24th, 2007

The cable network of the past had a debate with a party offering a vision of the
past discussing nothing. It was the Seinfeld debate.

In 2 hours, the War on Terror was not discussed. For that reason alone, this debate
was amazing in the sheer magnitude of its worthlessness. You Tube is a perfect fit
for liberal voters, who competed to see in videos who could be more narcissistic
and preening than the candidates.

First the idiotic questions have to be eliminated, which would condense the debate
in half.

How will you be different (asked by a fellow who yelled “wazzup!” This was funny
a few years ago, and accurately reflected the seriousness of today’s democrats)?
What republican would you run with? How can women deal with Muslim Nations? Who
was your favorite teacher? Did your kids go to public or private school? Will Al
Gore run (the stupidest question, which says a lot in this case)? Are political
dynasties a problem?

None of the candidates were asked what type of tree they would be, but then again,
one question about Al Gore is boring enough.

Now for the slightly less idiotic questions, proving that CNN is great at hiding
behind other people even though they screen the questions and decide which questions
are truly dumb enough to present to the world watching.

Hillary was asked if she was a liberal. She replied that she was a “Modern Progressive.”
This was a gutless answer that proves she is ashamed of who she is.

As for reparations for slavery, are you kidding me? Who doles out the money? How
much money? Who decides who gets reparations? I am the son of a Holocaust survivor,
and some of my dead relatives were denied entry to America. Should I get reparations?
Should Bill Cosby get reparations? How about Clarence Thomas or Condoleeza Rice?

Here is my reparations policy. Anybody who is alive today that currently owns or
used to own slaves should pay reparations. Everybody else should move on. I wonder
how feels about that.

Was there a racial component to Hurricane Katrina? Dodd and Richardson played the
race card. The other candidates need to be asked this as well. Obama said George
W. Bush has not gotten past Jim Crow laws. Incredibly classy.

On gay marriage, Kucinich showed integrity by saying yes. Dodd said no. Richardson
ducked the question. The others need to be asked. Edwards babbled about being emotionally conflicted, stating he was against it but his wife was for it. Unless Elizabeth
Edwards is running for President, this is irrelevant, an attempt to be on all sides
of the issue. That proves John Edwards is in Hillary Clinton’s league. Obama ducked
the question, ignoring a valid question of how it differed from interracial marriage.

As for the candidate videos, John Edwards appealed to the Vietnam protesters and
other counterculture filth of 1968.

On Darfur, Biden continued to be strong but wrong. I disagreed with his solutions,
but at least he was clear and unequivocal, balancing integrity with idiocy. Biden
wants to send US troops into Darfur now. Hillary said the UN should do it. Richardson
said the same, but then went a step further by stating that foreign policy was about
“caring,” not about strategic U.S. interests. I could not make this up if I tried.
Gravel stated that we are not wanted there, ducking the question.

When asked about pulling out of Iraq, Biden had integrity. He stated that we cannot
just pull out right away, and he correctly chastised those who want to leave now
as irresponsible. Kucinich also gave an honest answer of pulling out now, and saying
he supported cutting off all funding. Obama, Hillary and Dodd ducked the question.
Obama criticized the Iraqi congress for taking a vacation with so much at stake.
Apparently they learned from the U.S. Congress. This would be the pot calling the
kettle black, which would lead to me being accused of playing the race card for
mentioning the word black. When asked if Vietnam and Iraq vets died in vain, Gravel
said yes. This was disgusting, but an honest answer. Edwards said no, but answered
the question. Obama ducked.

A specific timeline for leaving Iraq was offered by Dodd, Richardon and Kucinich,
with Kucinich wanting out now. Biden correctly pointed out that he supported the
bill providing supplemental armor to the troops, and his candidates opposed it.
He was right.

All agreed that women should register for selective service, and were against the
draft.  They taught their kids about sexual abuse, ducking a question about teaching
sex to kids. They would all agree to work for the minimum wage except Joe Biden.
Let’s reduce their salaries tomorrow to test this.  With social security they all
ducked the question and are against privatization, a great combination of cowardice
and being wrong. Again, Obama invoked Ronald Reagan in a nonsensical manner.

A key moment was when the candidates were asked if we should talk to foreign killers
like Syria and Iran. Obama blew it. He said, yes, and for some bizarre reason, invoked
Ronald Reagan to back up his view. Hillary hit a home run out of the ballpark, and
said no, we should not just talk to them. Hillary came across as an adult, with
Obama naïve. Edwards was the strangest, saying that we should talk to them but that
Hillary was right. Edwards learned more from Bill Clinton than Hillary did.

Bill Richardson wants a minimum salary of $40k for teachers and federal programs
to teach art and music. He voted to scrap “No Child Left Behind.” Biden wants to
scrap it, but says he voted for it because of Ted Kennedy. I wonder how Biden feels
about drunk driving laws. Dodd was right when he said that accountability is important,
so it should be revised rather than scrapped. This might be the first time a democrat
talked about accountability regarding anything.

Kucinich had a good line about global warming vs global warring. Gravel and Dodd
want to raise taxes to combat global warming. The others need to be asked. They
all took a private jet to attend the event except for Kucinich and Gravel.

When asked about nuclear power, Edwards said no, and no to liquefied coal. Had he
studied the issue, he would know that gassified coal, not liquefied coal, is the
serious alternative. Obama had his most honest moment when he said yes, and that
there were no magic bullets. Hillary Clinton ducked the question in a bizarre manner
by stating she was an “agnostic” on the issue. Does that mean she does not know,
does not care, is skeptical, or all of the above? She also wants to tax big oil,
reminding me of Vladimir Putin going after Yukos.

One ridiculously stupid question asked why Starbucks can standardize coffee but
states cannot standardize voting. Starbucks is a corporation, proving once again
corporations can do virtually everything better than governments. Richardson played
the race card, accusing republicans of suppressing minority votes, with no evidence
to back this up.    

It took almost two hours to get a question that mattered, but somebody asked about
taxes. Biden wants to soak the rich, without defining who is rich. Kucinich ducked
the question, which is not his typical style. The others need to to be asked this

On health care, Edwards mandated that everybody be covered, and then told one of
his heart wrenching stories that may or may not be true. Obama ducked the question
again, and blamed big business. Hillary offered platitudes. Dodd brought up stem
cell research, the only legitimate attempt to answer the question.

When asked if health care should be given to illegal aliens, or as Anderson Cooper
kept calling them, “undocumented workers,” Dodd and Richardson said yes. Richardson
said all Americans deserve healthcare, forgetting that illegal aliens are not Americans.
The other candidates need to be asked this question.

Nothing has changed since the previous democratic debates. Everybody not named Hillary, Edwards and Obama need to get off the stage and let the adults have a serious discussion. Liberal voters continue to ask questions that only CNN could appreciate. CNN continues to be the Kucinich/Gravel of news networks.

The big winner of the debate was Osama Bin Laden, and his terrorist friends everywhere.
They are no longer important enough to deal with or even talk about. For those who
crave, nay demand, a serious debate among adults about what actually matters, the
republicans will oblige.

Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson also did well by not being
associated with or representative of the Seinfeld nothingness that is now the modern
democratic party, one that consists of modern progressives, but no liberals.


My Interview With Evan Sayet

Monday, July 23rd, 2007

It was my pleasure this weekend to interview politically conservative satirist Evan Sayet. I have met Evan on several occasions, and have enjoyed his “Right to Laugh” comedy shows at the Friar’s Club in Beverly Hills, among other locations.

His website is If any of you cheat and skip the interview, Evan will know about it somehow.

I was initially going to ask him what kind of tree or Al Gore he would be, or which Fox News anchor he most wanted to share a jello bath with, but he told me to leave Greg Gutfield out of this (No, he did not say that).

Although Evan has his roots as a stand up comedian, he has very serious notions and thoughts about very serious topics. Like most people, there is a lot more than meets the eye. Here is the transcript of my interview with Evan Sayet. 

1) You were not always politically conservative. What specific events led you to conservatism?

I call myself a 9-13 Republican.  I wasn’t surprised by 9/11.  Of course I was sickened by the carnage and the specific targets were stunning, knowing that the Islamists were murdering the Jews of Israel for decades for no other reason than that they were the CLOSEST infidels (and because of the Arab/Moslem world’s lack of accomplishment, the only ones they could reach), it didn’t surprise me that when they could they would begin to murder the BIGGEST infidels — Americans.
    No, what surprised me took place figuratively on what I call “9-12” — the days and weeks and months AFTER 9/11 and that was the response of my Liberal friends to the attacks.  The notion that we “deserved” them and that somehow we could avoid future attacks by being nicer to the terrorists and giving in to their demands made it clear that there was no place for me in the leftist party.
    I began, for the first time, to investigate the Republican and the conservative movement and discovered that not only were the caricatures of them that I’d been raised with weren’t true, they were smarter, more moral, more patriotic and much, much, much more reasonable in their positions than the hysteria I began to recognize was the whole of the Liberal movement. 

2) Who are your top 3 political heroes, and why?
    I’m not much of a hero-worshiper.  There are people who I respect for their intellect, their clarity and, because the leftists along with their Islamist allies are often violent or at least threaten violence, courage as well.  My unwitting mentor is Dennis Prager, for their clarity of thought I also turn a great deal to the works of Victor Davis Hanson and Charles Krauthammer.  I could list another score whose works inspire me and inform my own works and thinking. 

3) Who are your top 3 inspirations that led you to your career in the entertainment industry?
       I’m not sure that choice could be called “inspired.”  Frankly, I needed a profession where one wasn’t cooped up all day and this was the only job where, as comedian Rich Voss says, “where you can say to your friends ‘I have to go to work…I’ll be right back.'”  It was more the liberty that stand-up offered and the luck of the timing where a comedy “boom” was taking place that stand-up suddenly was a real profession where one could make a living. 

4) On stage you are funny but the world can be a serious place. What political issues are you most passionate about?
    There are two overriding concerns.  They are interrelated and virtually all other issues are but subsets.  There’s the need to defeat Islamic fascism for the world is truly threatened with a return to a dark age — “reprimitivization” I think Mark Steyn calls it and, despite the left’s inability to recognize it, it is real and it is spreading throughout the world and it is worse in ways than Nazism.
    Failing to defeat Islamism makes nothing else of any great importance.
    The other great issue has become known as “the culture war” in America and this is related to Islamism because the Democrats’ are so morally and intellectually perverted in their “thinking” they believe that it is America that is evil and the Islamists are the innocent victim of America’s evil prejudices and thus are (sort of) unwitting allies of the movement that threatens the existence of enlightened civilization.
    The leftists’ efforts to destroy Western Civilization through the perversion of our children, the promotion of indiscriminate and promiscuous sexual activities, the denigration of our society in their schools and movies, the undermining of the family unit and their portrayal of American patriotism as “xenophobia” are things that have to be beaten back.

 5) Who are your favorite 3 comedians, and what do you think makes them so special?      The comic whose style most influenced my own is Johnny Carson.  His reaction to the audiences’ reactions were often better than the jokes.  I also learned how to be a good interviewer from Carson because unlike, say, Leno, Carson allowed the show to speak for itself.  If the show worked then he saw it as a success.  For this reason, if the guest was doing well on their own he let them roll.  He would only insert himself if the guest needed some help (like being asked questions instead of telling a story.)
    I was a huge fan of Woody Allen’s stand-up when I was young as well.  His stories were well-crafted and intelligent.  I loved Rodney and Henny Youngman’s one-liners, but it was the stories of Woody Allen that let me know there was more.
    Please don’t think I’m denigrating Rodney because I’m not.  In fact I’d say he’d be the third of the three you asked for because his one-liners were as good as they get.


6) Liberal comedians such as Al Franken and Janine Garofolo can be funny when not discussing politics. Why in general are politically liberal stand up comics not successful in doing straight political routines as you are? Or are they? What went wrong with Air America in your opinion?

Liberals have the problem that they are so filled with hate for non-leftists that they cannot laugh at themselves and they cannot give their enemies human qualities.  It’s hard to be witty and clever when you consider anyone who disagrees with you to be nothing short of “Hitler.”  There just aren’t all that many good “Hitler jokes” out there.
    On the other side, they are terrified that if they point out foibles or failures of their own side they are somehow arming the enemy by pointing out their failures.  This leaves them very little to actually make jokes about.  This is why when John Kerry turned to the best leftist political comedian he could find, Whoopi Goldberg, for his big event at Radio City Music Hall a few years ago, the best joke she could make was to point to her crotch and say “Bush?  I have a bush in my pants.”    Air America failed because the Modern Liberal cannot compete in any forum where debate and discussion is allowed.  Their arguments are so devoid of truth that they only succeed in those venues where they can LECTURE to other people swearing that their lies are the truth.  This is why they do well on the 23-minute nightly news programs on the networks where the anchor dictates “the truth” but fail miserably on the hour-ling debate and discussion programs on the cable news channels.  On talk radio the host gives his opinion — and admits it’s his opinion — and then must be prepared to thoughtfully answer up to forty callers challenging his assumptions and facts.  Because the leftists’ assumptions and facts are wrong, they cannot survive the challenge. 

7) Which politicians past and present from a comedic standpoint are the “gift that keeps on giving?” Which are more difficult to have fun with?

It’s easier to make fun of George Bush both because he is the President and he stands out as opposed to Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid whose jobs and personalities are lesser known.  For this reason I try to play to audiences who are extremely knowledgeable about politics. 
    Watch a Leno monologue and you’ll see that his punchlines almost invariably address the most obvious, well-known and caricatured aspect of the subject.  Boris Yeltsin being a drunk, George Bush being “stupid,” Bill Clinton being a philanderer, etc.  Lesser known politicians don’t tend to have that one thing that stands out.  Further, because they are protected by their co-ideologists in the media, those that would stand out, such as Nancy Pelosi’s staggering stupidity, are covered-up by the press and thus not of much use in front of a general audience. 

8.) Many funny individuals from Jim Carrey to Bill Murray to Adam Sandler have tried to grow beyond comedy, taking on serious roles. Do you want to stay on the comedy side, or do you want to branch out into more serious endeavors?
     I don’t bill myself as a stand-up comedian.  I call myself a “satirist” so that it’s understood that my shows aren’t going to be “joke-joke-joke” and that there’s going to be more heft to it.  I also have a very serious presentation of my unique understanding of the Modern Liberal “thinks” and why they side invariably and inevitably with evil, failure and wrong.  This more serious talk I call “Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals ‘Think'” as opposed to the “satire” which I call my “Right to Laugh” tour.  Sometimes, especially when I play colleges or symposiums, I’ll do the comedy one night and sit on or moderate a serious panel the next day. 

9) In your lifetime, what television comedies have you enjoyed the most? What made them so good?
   When I was young I loved the TV show “MASH.”  I didn’t realize how it was intended to indoctrinate people into the leftist mindset and enjoyed both the storylines with their life-and-death undertones and the sometimes smart, sometimes silly but always rapid-fire delivery of Hawkeye Pierce whom I fancied myself a disciple. 
      These days I find myself watching very little episodic TV but I do like “Monk” a lot for it’s clever twists and interesting characterizations and the animated shows like The Simpsons and even “Family Guy” (although I’ve grown sick of their gratuitous and hateful attacks on America and Americans).  These shows, though, have some of the cleverest lines and can do almost anything for they don’t have to worry about reality.

10) Do you feel the increased amount of sex, violence, and foul language in comedy routines is problematic for society, or are concerns about this much ado about nothing at all?

This is much of what I write about and I think that it’s part of the leftists’ plan to undermine the values of American society.  They hope to destroy the innocence of America’s youth and undermine the values that made the last century the “American Century” and which created “The Greatest Generation.”

11) If you had an invitation to the White House, would you prefer to do a stand up routine for the President, or interview him? What would you say to or ask him?

First I would thank the President for defending this nation, for being, according to Ariel Sharon (and he was right) “the best friend Israel has ever had,” and I would implore him to take off the gloves and start fighting back against the leftists who are not constrained in their attacks by such things as truth, morality and decency.  The left HATES America and because the President isn’t fighting back hard enough, they are winning the battle in the minds of many Americans.
    Thanks to their lies in the leftist media, for example, people think this economy — one of the best in human history — is in bad shape, they are unaware of the Islamists intentions because the media lies about their crimes by not calling them terrorists and covers-up the perpetrators by not calling them Moslem.
    I have often said that I think the President’s Christianity is his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.  It’s has greatest strength because, having a strong moral standard he doesn’t need to take a poll like Bill Clinton to determine what is right and he can continue to do the right things even if it means he’s “less popular.”  People who have no values care if they’re popular, people with values care only if they are right.
    But Bush’s Christianity, I think, prevents him from taking off the gloves and fighting back against the liars on the left.  He keeps “turning the other cheek” as Ted Kennedy slanders him and America, Jimmy Carter goes around the world lying against this nation and Michael Moore gets standing ovations for his lie-filled, anti-American propaganda movies. 

12) Do you think it is a positive or negative development that infotainment has become a staple of the nightly news? Should Hollywood celebrities be relegated to shows like “Access Hollywood,” with the news only covering hard news, or is the “dumbing down” of the news overblown, or a myth altogether?

 This, too, is a reflection of the lefts’ lack of values and intellect.  Because they believe in nothing, celebrity rather than intellect has become the measure of what is right.  Why would I care what Barbra Streisand thinks?  Because she sings “perty?”  It’s asinine — which is why it’s so much a part of the leftist news media these days. 

13) Do you belong to any religious faith, and what role does it play in your life? Does it play a role in your comedy routine?

 I was raised “culturally Jewish.”  What that means is that I was snipped at the age of eight days, was Bar Mitzvah’d 12 years and three hundred something days later with no knowledge whatsoever about what I was saying and with no obligation to actually be a man after that, but I ate my bagels and cream cheese with “lox” as opposed to “smoked salmon.”
    I was taught that all religions are basically the same — a lot of tradition, some ritual, a great deal of hocus-pocus, but really no different than any other.
    It was only after my rejection of the mindlessness that is behind these “thoughts” that came with my rejection of the utterly mindless Democratic Party after 9/11 that I began to seriously investigate religions, including my own.  I have since fallen in love with Judaism (and have the highest regard for Christianity — especially American Christianity which honors its Jewish heritage) and recognize that I have far more in common with a practicing Christian in America than I do with the “secular,” liberal Jew who is really an anti-Semite and America-hater (I explain all this in my forthcoming book).
    There are certain givens in my comedy routine and my serious lecture — truths I hold to be self-evident and these include that Judaism and American Christianity are good and the Islamism is evil.  It’s discussed and implied throughout my talks. 

14) Without mentioning any mediums or television shows in particular, how do you balance the desire to gain exposure, which is vital in the early going, versus protecting the quality of the “Evan Sayet Brand?”

Because I was starting over with my new take on the world, I have been promoting myself in a grassroots fashion.  My old rolodex from 20 plus years in show biz could get me a meeting over at “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” but didn’t include the Republican Jewish Coalition of the Women’s Federation of Republicans — people both knowledgeable enough to appreciate and be supportive of my efforts. 
     Mass exposure, then, hasn’t been my goal.  I’ve been building from the local to the state and now to the national by becoming the sort of “go-to guy” for high end, intelligent gatherings such as David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend and CPAC and the like.  I’ve also gotten a great deal of support from the talk radio community where I can be both funny and serious depending on what needs to be said. 

15) Were you doing comedy or entertainment of any kind in 2001, and did 9/11 force you to make any alterations, especially in the short term? How did 9/11 affect you on a personal level?

I’ve answered this in detail above.  In 2001 I was working at an internet company providing content (yes, like so many others I’d been suckered into the dot com world) and writing and producing my documentary on the 70’s for the Discovery Channel (available at my website.) 

16) If you are on O’Reilly or Hannity for 5 minutes, what are you talking to them about?

Everything I talk about comes down to a single, overarching subject, how the Modern Liberal “thinks” and why they invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.  Thus, if the subject is their promotion of promiscuity in the schools or trying to undermine our efforts to defeat Saddam Hussein or any other specific issue, it is always approached from the point of my understanding of their agenda and methods. 

17) What other projects do you have in the works?

I say that I am in the “conservative thought industry.”  That means that I sell my thoughts in a variety of ways: as a guest on talk radio programs or TV (mostly Fox, of course, as the leftists don’t want to hear it), guest hosting these radio shows, writing articles, giving my serious lecture to groups small and large, participating in symposiums, doing the humorous version and right now I am writing the book “Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals ‘Think'” for publication by Regnery Press in 2008. 

18) What other up and coming comedians should America be on the lookout for in the next 2-3 years? What current comedians are the most underrated, and deserving of a breakout? What do you like about them?

I really don’t have the stomach for watching stand-up comedy much these days.  Remember, I was a road comic for a decade, eating, sleeping and breathing jokes, routines, other comics, watching the comedy shows to see if they were right for me, etc.  That being said, I think Chris Rock borders on the brilliant at times.  Jon Stewart is exceptionally funny (although because of his blatant leftist, New York, liberal, Jew, show biz POV the jokes can get old easily).
    As far as the “unknowns” go I haven’t the foggiest as I don’t spend any time in the clubs these days nor watch them on TV. 

19) What is most important to you in this world?

Right now it is fighting to preserve what Abraham Lincoln rightly recognized as “the last best hope for man on Earth.”  If the Islamists win — and that’s almost inevitable if the Democrats win the White House in 2008 as they will run around the world trying to appease them — then nothing else much matters.   

20) What do you want people to know about you most?

They don’t need to know anything about me.  I have my friends and my family and they need to know me.  All anyone else needs to know is my work and to recognize that it doesn’t come from a bearing political hatchet — I was one of them until I came out of my moral and intellectual coma.  It’s not a religious thing.  I was one of them in that way, too.  It’s not that I want “tax cuts for the rich,” for I am far from rich.  I have no reason whatsoever to believe what I have come through my studies to believe.  In fact, I wish it weren’t true.  I wish we had a loyal opposition in America instead of what the Democratic Party has become.
    I will never forget listening to a Holocaust survivor talk about her “happy childhood” before the Nazis.  Just because everything is wonderful in America today doesn’t mean the Islamists can’t and won’t create another dark age if we don’t stop them.  Too many on the left have lived such isolated and privileged lives and have no clue about the real world and the horrors that exist, that they are angry at America for not giving them — literally giving them — everything they want and, because of the narcissism induced in them in the schools and elsewhere through “self-esteem” programs — believe they are entitled to.
     I am a patriotic American not because I was born here and am “xenophobic” but because America has afforded me — and all Americans (even the ones taught to cry “victim” at every one of their failures) more freedoms and more opportunities than any other nation in human history.  I am grateful, the Democrat feels “entitled” to all that and more.

I would like to thank Evan Sayet for his graciousness and his time. Although he did not ask me to tell any of you this, I want the world to know that in the time it took to conduct and publish this interview, Al Queda formulated more plans to kill us and democrats in Congress did nothing to stop them. 

It is a rare pleasure to have somebody who can discuss the War on Terror, make us laugh, and know when each situation is appropriate. Much success Evan.



Happy Birthday Grandpa…The Mets won today

Sunday, July 22nd, 2007

On July 22nd, 2007, my Grandfather would  have turned 102. He died in 2002, just shy of turning 97. He was an Orthodox Rabbi, a husband of 67  years, a father to two children, a grandfather of five, and a New York Mets fan.

I cannot recall the Mets ever losing on his birthday. Sometimes the games would run 14 to 16 innings, and end after midnight, so it did not count as a birthday loss.

Given that Jews are not supposed to watch television on Saturdays due to the commandment of honoring the Sabbath, it would be worse for an Orthodox Rabbi to watch it. However, the rule only says the television cannot be turned on or off. If it is already on it can be watched. My job as the heretic grandson would be to trip over the table and have my nose turn on the television. This was especially difficult given that his old television had a knob.

My grandmother, who is still a spry 99 year old woman as of this column, would walk in the room, and wonder why the television was on during the Sabbath. I would happily fall on my sword, she would give me the “Eric, you know better!” speech, and then Grandpa and I would go back to watching the game since we could not very well violate the Sabbath twice by turning it off. This of course did not count other Sabbath violations that involved adjusting the volume control.

We would also eat the candy and potato chips that Grandpa was not supposed to have because it was bad for him. We thought we were smart, but Grandma knew what was going on. She would say, “Eric, he should not violate the Sabbath. God would not like that.” I would respond by saying, “Grandma, God has already punished him many times over. He is a Mets fan.” My grandmother would think about this for a few moments, and grudgingly acknowledge that while my argument was not sound theologically, it would be good enough for the congregants in his synagogue, in addition to every other long suffering Mets fan. I used to think that “long suffering” was the first name of any Mets fan because those words always preceded the name of the team.

Normally he preached personal responsibility during his sermons, but the World Series winning 1986 Mets could do no wrong. Dwight “Doc” Gooden and Darryl Strawberry were just good kids who needed some love. Darryl Strawberry could have killed 20 people and my grandfather would have said, “Straw is confused. He is just a good kid who needs some love.”

Late in his life when he was confined to a nursing home, I would always test his mind by asking him “the baseball question.” Even though he could not speak at times, I would ask if his favorite team was the Yankees. He would shake his head no. I would ask about the Red Sox, and he would again move his head from side to side. I would ask him if he liked the Mets, and he would shake his head yes up and down.

In the 21st century Dwight Gooden and Darryl Strawberry were playing for the Yankees. Grandpa never believed this. When I pointed out their legal troubles, he responded, “Are you reading me headlines from 20 years ago?” Since he never acknowledged their playing for the Yankees, they remained good kids who needed love.

My grandfather never found out that I had no interest whatsoever in baseball. I find it to be a boring game where nothing ever happens of consequence. Yet I still remember watching a couple games with him. One game between the Mets and the Phillies stood out. The Mets went ahead 3-1, and my grandfather responded, “Ruthven (Dick Ruthven, the Phillies pitcher) is tiring.” He was pulled after 7 innings. I never understood why you would pull somebody. Why not let them work their way out of it? In the 8th inning the Phillies closed to 3-2. I was shocked when Gooden did not come back to pitch the 9th inning. The Mets won, as their closer held on. I was thrilled the Mets won, but my grandfather understood that it was a long season. “Baseball, like life, is not a sprint. It is a marathon.”

I went to Dodgers Stadium today to watch the Dodgers play the Mets. The Dodgers, classy organization that they are, have various games reserved for many ethnic communities. Today was for the Jewish community, and kosher hot dogs were brought in for the game. As somebody who still has no interest in baseball, this was a day about being with my friends in my community, as well as for scoping out Jewish girls (This always pleased Grandpa, who, when heard of my pursuing the ladies, said “That’s my boy.”).

The game bored me to tears for most of the game, with the Dodgers leading the Mets in a game that I did not expect to care about in any way by a score of 4-2. Then I looked up to the sky, and I saw him smiling down. He was watching the game. His birthday was approaching. The Mets scored a run in the 8th inning, cutting the gap to 4-3.

In the 9th inning, a routine fly ball that should have ended the game was dropped, a miracle error I had not seen since 1986, when the Mets defeated the Boston Red Sox to win the World Series. This dropped ball led to the Mets tying the game 4-4.

I kept looking up to the sky, and he was still there. In the top of the 10th inning, the Mets took a 5-4 lead. The bottom of the 10th was nerve wracking. A sport I had no interest in had me riveted. I pumped my fist after each out, and pointed towards the sky. With the Dodgers in striking distance, the last batter went down strike 3. I pumped my fists in celebration, pointed both arms toward the sky, and I think I saw Grandpa smile a big smile. It could have been exhaustion or dehydration, but I know he was there.

I cannot promise to find baseball interesting on a long term level. I certainly will not watch the game on television. I am too young to die, especially a slow coma induced death.

However, every July 22nd, I will make an effort to check the scores. I cannot wait to read the paper for July 22, 2007. Mets 5, Dodgers 4, in 10 innings.

I love you Grandpa. Happy Birthday. I hope they have baseball in Heaven. Keep watching over our family. I would have saved the paper for you, but that will not be necessary. You saw it for yourself. Like when I was a kid, I enjoyed watching the game with you.