January 2, 2005


The U. N. sex scandal


The link below will take you to a story concerning the most recent United Nations sex scandal, as well as the history of the United Nation's human rights atrocities for the last decade.

I am absolutely horrified by these accounts of rape, prostitution and pedophilia outlined in these stories. These atrocities have been consistently committed for over a decade without any real critical reporting from our mainstream press. A decade of abuse without any criticism from liberals who hold themselves as the protectors of all human rights in third world countries.

This is the same U. N. from which Jackass Democrats insist the United States should receive permission to remove a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein. No wonder the United Nations was against our actions. The U. N. and Jackass Democrats obviously see sex for food programs as misdemeanors.

This is just another example of the inconsistency of Jackass Democrats when it comes to their "core" beliefs. Name one high ranking liberal who has spoken out about these admissions by the United Nations. Where is the National Organization for Women? Where is Gore, Clinton and Carter (the world lovers)? Where are all of the black congressmen and women? This is incomprehensible. Yet it doesn't stop them from calling for Donald Rumsfeld's head based on allegation only. Allegations, I remind you, that get disproven daily.

The most recent U. N. opportunity has now come in the form of a tsunami. If the Jackass Democrats thought Abu Grhaib was torture, I am curious to know what they call raping and impregnating numerous innocent teenagers in the name of peace?

Blake Elliott




January 13, 2005

What Did She Say?

As a conservative, it is tough to watch some of these Jackass Democrats spew their conspiracy theories. Much like my disdain for vodka, just the sight of these people appearing in front of a cheering crowd, while they blatantly lie and incite hatred, makes me nauseated. But since the inception of this website, I have learned that in order to truly understand these vile people, you sometimes have to sit and listen to what they actually have to say.

While reading the latest issue of The Weekly Standard, I came across a story about Cynthia McKinney, Representative of the 4th District of Georgia. After a win in November, this woman is riding high on the waves of conspiracy and outright ignorance. Ms. McKinney’s journey here is an interesting one. The 4th district has already been represented by McKinney once. She served for 10 years from 1992 to 2002 making little noise during this time, that is until 9/11 happened. Just like many Jackass Democrats, McKinney is a conspiracy theorist who loves to engage in accusations directed at this administration, based on little or no fact. She gave an interview claiming President Bush and his administration gained enormous wealth from the attacks and demanded to know what these people knew prior to the fall of the World Trade Center. She believes that the monetary incentives, along with conservative think tanks, is what landed us in Iraq. From Richard Perle and Trireme, to the New American Century, it all was concocted without any outside opinions. I happen to consider Congress an outside opinion, but who am I. She is dumbfounded that Vice President Cheney still receives a “paycheck” from Halliburton, and McKinney‘s lone example of failed and misleading Iraq intelligence is the Joe Wilson/ Niger debacle. Maybe the hiring of a good informed aide would do McKinney well, because her lack of knowledge is astounding. Everyone knows that Vice President Cheney is receiving a retirement package, and that the once admirable Joe Wilson was rebuked by the 9/11 Commission and consequently labeled a liar. Rightly so, because the Niger uranium story has been proven to be true.

These liberals love to play the Kevin Bacon connection game when it comes to money and wealth, but McKinney may want to watch her step before she gets too deep in these corrupt corporate accusations. McKinney took campaign pledges from known terrorist sympathizers and terrorist fund raisers like Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former executive director of the American Muslim Council, and former college professor Sami Al-Arian. McKinney’s hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to money. She actually sent a letter of apology to Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal when his 10 million check was turned down by Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani refused the money due to a condition placed on the acceptance of this money. If accepted, the Saudi prince wanted America to publicly admit that their actions may have lead to the attacks on the twin towers. No problem Talal, now strip down while I grab my dog collar. Anybody have a camera handy?

Of course, McKinney’s love for the Muslim extremist must go back a long way. Her father was once a Georgia Congressman who publicly admits his hatred for the Jew. "Jews have bought everybody. Jews.", Mr. McKinney said in an interview with an Atlanta television station. Mr. McKinney then spelled out J-E-W-S in case the interviewer may have misunderstood him. Bill McKinney was soon known as a former state legislator.

After an hour of attempting to find something redeeming about this woman, I stumbled across her issues page. I was drawn to the Hip Hop issue in particular. How strange to have Hip Hop as a campaign issue. It did not take long to discover her reasoning here. Pandering for votes and money is a Jackass Democrat must. Ms. McKinney is troubled by the censorship being placed on the black music industry. This violates their freedom of speech. Seriously, how can ho playin', cop killin', bitch slapping and pimpin' be offensive? This is perfectly acceptable for our little ones in Cynthia’s mind. The Hip Hop artists should unionize in order to receive the money they so justly deserve. Their contracts should be reformed, and of course health care should be included. Judging by all of the shootouts and fights these people are involved in, I would look into a trauma express lane card first. She also voices her concern over racial profiling of these fine upstanding hip hopsters. McKinney has a hard time understanding why black males in this country make up 51% of the total prison population. I can’t see the difficulty here. Maybe black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime? Who knows. She also is convinced, without foundation, that the CIA introduced crack to black communities. McKinney ends her ridiculousness by admitting she feels as if Tu Pac is speaking to us from the grave with his great wisdom. I can only imagine the wisdom flowing from the likes of Tu Pac, Notorious B-I-G, and Eazy-E.

I hate to judge people, but the 4th congressional district of Georgia is obviously predominantly stupid. After listening to and reading about Cynthia McKinney, it is the only logical conclusion I can come up with. How a person like Cynthia McKinney can make it to Congress is beyond me. But for Jackass Democrats to deride President Bush when he has some of the brightest and most successful minorities to ever step foot in Washington D.C. on his staff, shows how ignorant these people are. Judging by their choices of brainless leadership, we as conservatives have little to actually worry about.

Blake Elliott

January 15, 2005

Modern Documentaries Meant to Propagandize, Not Inform


The media’s quest to form public opinion through distortion is not isolated to the United States, it is rampant throughout the entire world. The same people who have failed to prove countless accusations of scandal against the Bush Administration, gullibly believe anything written in opinion and editorial sections of newspapers. The latest attack in The Los Angeles Times has no shortage of lies and propaganda within it’s attempt to mislead readers into believing an extraordinary tale.

The article cites a new documentary , produced by Britain’s Adam Curtis, and to be aired on the BBC, that challenges the characterization of Al Qaeda as a centralized terrorist organization. The “documentary” refers to this notion as a “Boogeyman” theory. The Los Angeles Times' Robert Sheer compares the documentary to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, and describes it as brilliant. This comparison shows that neither Sheer or Curtis are inclined to believe facts when presenting information to the general public. For an informed reader, it takes little time to realize the untruths and irrelevance of this article. The conclusions drawn in the documentary titled The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear claim to be partially based on the final report of the 9/11 Commission, yet the producer actually lies in regard to the commission’s findings. I find it ironic that the Jackass Democrat’s consistently take small passages out of context from the 9/11 Commission to back their criticisms of the Bush Administration, yet refuse to believe the actual entire data within the commission’s final report . The majority of Americans have not taken the time to read this final report, and their ignorance allows them to be mislead into believing liberal accounts of the findings. This laziness has unfortunately become the norm, but even after the CBS collapse, the media shows no intentions to improve their coverage.

The list of so called intriguing questions raised by the documentary , and my brief retorts, are as follows:

• If Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist organization with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as claimed by Bush, why, despite torture of prisoners, has this administration failed to produce hard evidence of it?

Claimed by Bush? Again, the majority of the civilized world agrees with the description of Al Qaeda as a worldwide terrorist organization, but just like the media's refusal to recognize our current coalition operating in Iraq, they also refuse to believe world opinion in regard to terrorism.

• How can it be that in Britain since 9/11, 664 people have been detained on suspicion of terrorism but only 17 have been found guilty, most of them with no connection to Islamist groups and none who were proven members of Al Qaeda?

Jackass Democrats have never had a fundamental understanding of intelligence gathering or the process of trying and convicting suspects. This report from ADL should enlighten people on Al Qaeda’s operations in Europe. Just look at how long it takes to try a simple murder case in the United States. Trying international terrorists is a far more formidable task. The general public knows very little about specific information extracted from detainees. To properly combat terrorism, extracted information has to be protected, but how can we expect these people to understand this seeing that liberals believe the shrinking of military along with the reduction of intelligence networks actually strengthen national security? This is the most backward belief in society today.

• Why have we heard so much frightening talk about "dirty bombs" when experts say it is panic rather than radioactivity that would kill people?

This “intriguing question” is actually off base and irrelevant to the producer’s own argument, therefore we will skip this. The example was only included to demonstrate how ignorant some of the documentary’s content is.

• Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on "Meet the Press" in 2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan, when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing?

I have viewed countless descriptions and video by military personnel and news agencies concerning the cave network in Afghanistan, from the Afghan War to the most recent dismantling of the Taliban. I assume Adam Curtis missed these broadcasts. Considering the botched coverage by the BBC, I can’t actually fault the man here.

• Neither the 9/11 commission nor any court of law has been able to directly take evidence from the key post-9/11 terror detainees held by the United States.

This is a blatant lie. Liberals again demonstrate ignorance through assuming all information obtained from post 9/11 detainees has been released. If these people ever again gain control of our national security, we will all meet certain doom.

I have taken several lengthy excerpts from the final report issued by the 9/11 Commission to show the detail of evidence presented in regard to Al Qaeda.

“April 1988 brought victory for the Afghan jihad. Moscow declared it would pull its military forces out of Afghanistan within the next nine months. As the Soviets began their withdrawal, the jihad's leaders debated what to do next.
Bin Ladin and Azzam agreed that the organization successfully created for Afghanistan should not be allowed to dissolve. They established what they called a base or foundation (al Qaeda) as a potential general headquarters for future jihad.24 Though Azzam had been considered number one in the MAK, by August 1988 Bin Ladin was clearly the leader (emir) of al Qaeda. This organization's structure included as its operating arms an intelligence component, a military committee, a financial committee, a political committee, and a committee in charge of media affairs and propaganda. It also had an Advisory Council (Shura) made up of Bin Ladin's inner circle.25 “

“Bin Ladin moved to Sudan in 1991 and set up a large and complex set of intertwined business and terrorist enterprises. In time, the former would encompass numerous companies and a global network of bank accounts and nongovernmental institutions. Fulfilling his bargain with Turabi, Bin Ladin used his construction company to build a new highway from Khartoum to Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast. Meanwhile, al Qaeda finance officers and top operatives used their positions in Bin Ladin's businesses to acquire weapons, explosives, and technical equipment for terrorist purposes. One founding member, Abu Hajer al Iraqi, used his position as head of a Bin Ladin investment company to carry out procurement trips from western Europe to the Far East. Two others, Wadi al Hage and Mubarak Douri, who had become acquainted in Tucson, Arizona, in the late 1980s, went as far afield as China, Malaysia, the Philippines, and the former Soviet states of Ukraine and Belarus.“35

“Bin Ladin's impressive array of offices covertly provided financial and other support for terrorist activities. The network included a major business enterprise in Cyprus; a "services" branch in Zagreb; an office of the Benevolence International Foundation in Sarajevo, which supported the Bosnian Muslims in their conflict with Serbia and Croatia; and an NGO in Baku, Azerbaijan, that was employed as well by Egyptian Islamic Jihad both as a source and conduit for finances and as a support center for the Muslim rebels in Chechnya. He also made use of the already-established Third World Relief Agency (TWRA) headquartered in Vienna, whose branch office locations included Zagreb and Budapest. (Bin Ladin later set up an NGO in Nairobi as a cover for operatives there.)36
Bin Ladin now had a vision of himself as head of an international jihad confederation. In Sudan, he established an "Islamic Army Shura" that was to serve as the coordinating body for the consortium of terrorist groups with which he was forging alliances. It was composed of his own al Qaeda Shura together with leaders or representatives of terrorist organizations that were still independent. In building this Islamic army, he enlisted groups from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Al Qaeda also established cooperative but less formal relationships with other extremist groups from these same countries; from the African states of Chad, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Uganda; and from the Southeast Asian states of Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Bin Ladin maintained connections in the Bosnian conflict as well.37 The groundwork for a true global terrorist network was being laid.”

“This pattern of expansion through building alliances extended to the United States. A Muslim organization called al Khifa had numerous branch offices, the largest of which was in the Farouq mosque in Brooklyn. In the mid1980s, it had been set up as one of the first outposts of Azzam and Bin Ladin's MAK.40 Other cities with branches of al Khifa included Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Tucson.41 Al Khifa recruited American Muslims to fight in Afghanistan; some of them would participate in terrorist actions in the United States in the early 1990s and in al Qaeda operations elsewhere, including the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa.”

“Money problems proved costly to Bin Ladin in other ways. Jamal Ahmed al Fadl, a Sudanese-born Arab, had spent time in the United States and had been recruited for the Afghan war through the Farouq mosque in Brooklyn. He had joined al Qaeda and taken the oath of fealty to Bin Ladin, serving as one of his business agents. Then Bin Ladin discovered that Fadl had skimmed about $110,000, and he asked for restitution. Fadl resented receiving a salary of only $500 a month while some of the Egyptians in al Qaeda were given $1,200 a month. He defected and became a star informant for the United States. Also testifying about al Qaeda in a U.S. court was L'Houssaine Kherchtou, who told of breaking with Bin Ladin because of Bin Ladin's professed inability to provide him with money when his wife needed a caesarian section.“60

“The Taliban seemed to open the doors to all who wanted to come to Afghanistan to train in the camps. The alliance with the Taliban provided al Qaeda a sanctuary in which to train and indoctrinate fighters and terrorists, import weapons, forge ties with other jihad groups and leaders, and plot and staff terrorist schemes. While Bin Ladin maintained his own al Qaeda guesthouses and camps for vetting and training recruits, he also provided support to and benefited from the broad infrastructure of such facilities in Afghanistan made available to the global network of Islamist movements. U.S. intelligence estimates put the total number of fighters who underwent instruction in Bin Ladin-supported camps in Afghanistan from 1996 through 9/11 at 10,000 to 20,000.“78

“Al Qaeda's role in organizing terrorist operations had also changed. Before the move to Afghanistan, it had concentrated on providing funds, training, and weapons for actions carried out by members of allied groups. The attacks on the U.S. embassies in East Africa in the summer of 1998 would take a different form-planned, directed, and executed by al Qaeda, under the direct supervision of Bin Ladin and his chief aides.“

“By early 1999, al Qaeda was already a potent adversary of the United States. Bin Ladin and his chief of operations, Abu Hafs al Masri, also known as Mohammed Atef, occupied undisputed leadership positions atop al Qaeda's organizational structure. Within this structure, al Qaeda's worldwide terrorist operations relied heavily on the ideas and work of enterprising and strong-willed field commanders who enjoyed considerable autonomy. To understand how the organization actually worked and to introduce the origins of the 9/11 plot, we briefly examine three of these subordinate commanders: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Riduan Isamuddin (better known as Hambali), and Abd al Rahim al Nashiri. We will devote the most attention to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the chief manager of the "planes operation."

Obviously, there are people of influence in the media who actually believe Al Qaeda is NOT a worldwide terrorist network. This is truly unfortunate. There are no valid excuses for a reporter to ignore facts, or for a reporter to question something so completely proven by irrefutable evidence. And for the facts to be so readily available to the media for review, but still ignored, is a diplay of the most basic form of stupidity. Though most of us were hopeful, it is safe to assume that the Rathergate situation will not serve as a lesson to these people. Jackass Democrats do not possess the ability to learn from their mistakes, but the more we can out these masters of propaganda, the more informed our public will be, and all Americans deserve to be factually informed.

Blake Elliott

>
February 14, 2005

A Proven Loser as Their Chosen Leader

Washington Post reporter Ceci Connelly made a comment the other day that truly captures the current spirit and delusions of the liberals in this country. After the panel had a good giggle about the Dean appointment to DNC chair, Connelly said, “Well you know, he has always been underestimated.” Incredibly deep commentary for sure. According to Connelly’s logic, the Cincinnati Bengals should be feeling a bit optimistic these days, seeing that they have also been underestimated for years.

This was an obvious play on President Bush’s beloved “misunderestimated” theme. It stands as a symbol of the cold hard truth that liberals can’t seem to grasp, and as a humorous reminder of our president‘s unfortunate frequent misuse of the English language. But President Bush is more cunning than anyone the democrats can offer, and it burns them to the point of complete denial and constant opposition. But once again, last week’s appointment of Howard Dean shows a liberal direction incomprehensible to many. Dean’s televised melt down is his most memorable political moment, but was not the reason he failed to secure the democratic nomination last year. Dean’s numerous flaws in his political views were the keys to his unsuccessful run.

The democrat’s track record during the 2004 presidential race can only be summed up as a total failure. We started with the jackass democrats voting for the Iraq war, and then for individual political reasons only, later denounced it. The inherited recession made tax cuts a paramount issue for the administration. Without offering any coherent stimulus package of their own, democrats railed against this “fiscally irresponsible” position, only to watch it create robust economic growth, much needed job creation, and an eventual national recovery, just as the president predicted. Judges across the country were nominated, and quickly filibustered by jackass democrats. Even though they were successful in their attempt to thwart conservative appointees to the federal bench, they later ended up losing their commander in brief, Tom Daschle, who lost his senate seat for his constant ridicule of the administration based solely on spite and ignorance. The elections approached, and the democratic nominee was proving to be a difficult opponent. John Kerry not only had a wife with disposable wealth (inherited from a Republican), he also possessed a natural ability to avoid commitment to any one issue. But just as the once basset hound faced Kerry found the fountain of botox, taking the form of a Ripley’s wax museum figure, the conservatives found the best plan of attack for their formidable foe. Just let him talk, Kerry will defeat himself soon enough. Thanks for the job well done Johnny. The election came and went, securing another four years for Bush, but not without some interesting dissent among the jackass elites. Senator Barbara Boxer cried crocodile tears in front of the cameras as she and Representative Tubbs questioned the Ohio outcome. Voter fraud was the reason given for the formal objection, but after hearing Representative Sheila Jackson Lee testify that she is still a slave to some white man from Texas, it became apparent that something was amiss. The jackasses were just performing their normal routine of dissent. With all their friends in Hollywood, wouldn’t you think some director would have mentioned that squeezing tears from the frozen ducts of Nancy Pelosi would have been more impressive? Nevertheless, the message never resonated with the clear thinking Americans, because the only documented cases of voter fraud were the slashing of republican shuttle van tires by the children of two publicly elected democrats and the NAACP’s “free crack for votes” drive. Less than three months after landslide Republican victories in the Presidency, Senate, and House, Ted Kennedy was on the wagon again, claiming that Iraq was a Vietnam type quagmire and we needed to immediately leave. I am sure the soldiers appreciated such support from the left. Senator Kennedy has yet to learn that not everyone runs from a fight, or a submerged car for that matter. Two days after Kennedy’s alcohol induced quagmire speech, the historic Iraqi elections took place, proving to be an unexpected success. Much more successful than Kennedy’s attempted pronunciation of Barak O Sama….Obama Bin Laden….Bin Laden Obama, or whatever that guy’s name is. After all of these tactical errors on behalf of the jackass democrats, you would have thought that fourth down and forever would have brought the punting unit out on the field, but not these democrats. Being on your own ten yard line is considered four down territory for these warriors. Enter Senator Robert Byrd, the Ku Klux Klan wizard. Dr. Condeleeza Rice was soon named as Colin Powell’s replacement, and for the party of the black people, this had to be something they could be proud of, or at least live with. But not this party of opposition. They decided to protest once again and chose Senator Byrd, a man who has taken part in his own fair share of lynchings, to orchestrate yet another racially motivated beating. And as with everything else the jackass democrats have attempted during Bush’s presidency, they failed miserably again. So now, after one defeat after another, what do the democrats do? They appoint Howard Dean chairman of the DNC.

Howard Dean emerged as a frontrunner in the 2004 race for the democratic nomination by impressing the media with his internet money. Prior to the primary process, Dean was considered a nobody whose limited political ability would make him quickly forgettable. But after a few hate speeches, Dean became “the man to beat”, but for only a few months. It was the media that gave him his unwarranted fame. How can you declare a frontrunner based on polling data only? Easily, especially if you are the same democrats who characterize incorrect exit polling as voter fraud. With the primaries still weeks away, Dean had yet to win anything, but was riding high, and as the media reported his pre season success, college age loonies began asking their parents for allowance advances in order to fund Dean’s campaign. They proudly called themselves Deaniacs, an appropriate combination of their choice for president and the word maniac. Good choice, because the word maniacal best describes this man. He was a governor from Vermont who some say governed from the center, but his high tax rates and crazy health insurance plan paints a different picture of his leadership skills. How hard is it to govern an all liberal upper middle class state? You can tax these people until they are homeless. And to think, northeasterners once participated in a war over a simple tea tax. Dean is not charismatic, and he is far from tolerant. Just last week Dean proclaimed that he “hated all Republicans and everything they stand for“. In order to close the gap of four million voters, Dean directs his hate towards the only ones who can save his failing party. An insane stance for an equally insane person.

Yes, the jackass democrats have misunderestimated President Bush and it has cost them dearly, but I find it difficult to draw any comparison between Howard Dean and President Bush. One man was elected governor in a state where the opposing party held almost every single legislative seat, only to completely turn the tables before leaving office. The other was elected governor in a liberal northeastern state where status quo is the norm. Bush has been elected president, re elected president, and has lead the way in stabilizing a weak economy and succeeded in bringing free elections to Afghanistan, the Palestinians, and Iraq. Dean enjoyed brief fame for protesting a war that is currently posting more victories than he ever imagined possible. With all the Hitlerisms thrown at Bush by jackass democrats, isn’t it ironic that the one man at the forefront of American politics that truly resembles Hitler’s physical characteristics and hateful, over the top rhetoric is none other than Howard Dean? I know he would never gas millions of people, but he could definitely vie for an Oscar without even trying, because tiny tyrant is his natural role.

All politically concerned people were curious to see what the months following the democrat’s crushing November defeat would bring. Would the jackass democrats realize that the entire nation has come to doubt their ability, prompting the party to trash their current opposition status and begin to create ideas of their own? Or would they continue to act as obstructionists, once again blocking the president’s agenda without basis? The curiosity has faded, and a feeling of disbelief has set in. Accepting Howard Dean as their party leader proves how out of touch the liberals truly are. This is the same man who jackass democrats rejected for being too offensive and flamboyant, yet they choose him to organize and grow their party today. Dean is not charismatic nor is he well versed in regards to policy issues. He publicly opposed school vouchers, even though his own state is a 133 year old success story for that very policy. He is on record suggesting an increase to the social security age, an obvious cut in benefits. And his most disastrous policy was requiring United Nation’s permission to act against any threatening country. Howard Dean and his supporters hail his accomplishments in health insurance issues, but the period between his election and his leaving office, the number of uninsured rose in Vermont. The cost of healthcare and insurance also skyrocketed. Private insurers left the state in bunches, and ultimately, Dean’s plan was nothing more than an entitlement that caused doctors to reject Medicaid patients altogether. This is the same nightmare conservatives in Washington D.C. predicted everytime the jackass democrats pushed for free health insurance.

Dean’s first trip as DNC chair will be to none other than Mississippi. Dean and the south go together like hockey and cleats, and though he aspires to one day represent every rebel flag flying, big truck loving, rifle carrying southerner, I have never known the south to trust any loud, vertically challenged northeastern liberal. Anyone can bash Bush, and Lord knows every jackass democrat has taken a turn, but no matter how good it sounds to the shallow masses, this will never result in progress. The current state of the democrats has been more intriguing than any movie over the past ten years, but I smell a blockbuster in the making. Imagine the fireworks when Hillary officially throws her hat in the ring for 2008. Hillary will eventually run the show, including Dean’s duties as DNC chair, and nobody doubts how petty these two can be. The first fight of the next presidential race will be one from within, and though the Deaniacs hope for a good showing from their furor, what they will most probably see is a shortened tenure as DNC chair followed by a ride into the sunset with Elton John’s “The Bitch is Back” as the background music. Poor Howard, always the bride’s maid, and never the bride.

Blake Elliott

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Witch?

February 15, 2005

The Republicans have pulled off stunning victories nationwide since 1994. November 2, 2004 showed even more consistency. And as they say, with victory comes complacency. Even though most conservatives see through the charade of Hillary Clinton, it still would appear that she holds strong support from every corner of this country. The savoring of the 2004 victory is over, and conservatives desperately need to find a good candidate for 2008 or we may very well be governed by one of America’s most socialistic politicians.

Since Hillary no longer has her husband’s podium to vent from, she has taken an intelligent approach to politics. From 1992 to 2000 she enjoyed the advantage of safety, knowing that whatever she said the media would portray it in the best light, while reassuring the public that she was not president and lacked the ability to create policy. But now as a New York senator, Hillary has taken the oath of a policy maker, and aside from one tearful autobiography, I have yet to see anything substantial come from her Capital Hill office. Her supporters describe her as a tough politician who is incredibly intelligent. I just can’t accept this. The only issue that she has ever taken an active roll in was the socialized healthcare debacle from the early nineties, and with experience as first lady and senator, one failed issue on your resume doesn’t quite exude intelligence. But the facts still don’t seem to hold this woman back when it comes to positive media coverage or female support. This country could go an entire year without any Hillary news, and she would still reemerge as a dominant player in Washington.

Hillary will be an opponent much like John Kerry was in 2004, but without the heavy baggage. Both have done little as legislators, but John Kerry still had to defend 20 years of liberal voting, Hillary will only have to defend six years of often moderate voting. They both voted for the war in Iraq, but John Kerry reneged, creating an epic political nightmare. Hillary has been critical of the president, as every good jackass democrat has, but she hasn’t made the reneging blunder. Hillary voted for the 86 billion dollars, and of course the rest is history with John Kerry. She has shown a centrist disposition in her voting record, and this is a deliberate message to all fence sitters; she may be liberal, but voting for her won’t hurt that bad. This rational is eerily similar to a doctor’s prep speech just before a rectal exam.

Since being in the Senate, Hillary has voiced her opinion on many issues from abortion to the bombing of Serbians, and holding true to the jackass democrat way, she has often supported both sides. In October 2000, Hillary said late term abortion was only necessary if the life or health of the mother was at risk, but then voted against a bill that stated just that. She has said she supports parental notification, but rarely voices this in major speeches, and continues to be a major pro abortion player. She does not support school vouchers, but instead favors shifting the responsibility of raising children from the parent to the public school system by over funding after school programs. This position gets her a rating of 0% from the Christian Coalition on family values issues. Hillary opposes any oil drilling on protected American lands, but has failed to present any ideas that would lessen our independence on the middle east. Just like her liberal lawyer colleagues, Hillary is in favor of mega lawsuits against gun makers and HMOs, and shows no sign of supporting any major tort reform. Her ratings from various legislative watchdog organizations are all over the map. The ACLU rates her at 60%, depicting a mixed civil rights record. The NARAL rates her at 100% for her pro abortion voting record. The US COC rates Hillary at 35% due to a mixed business voting record. The NEA rates her at 82% for her public education voting record, and APHA rates her at 100% for her promotion of socialized healthcare. All in all Hillary Clinton votes the liberal line, even down to the indecision regarding business, tax, and national security issues. If she was anybody other than Hillary, nobody would consider her a viable candidate, but alas, she is a viable candidate.

Hillary has cast a hypnotic spell on the left, as well as many moderates, and has recently shown clear signs of posturing. If Republicans cast her candidacy aside, it may be Republicans losing seats the next go round. Bill Frist, Jeb Bush, George Allen, George Pataki, and Rudy Guilliani are not the answers to Hillary’s 2008 run. And I am not sure Condaleeza Rice can morph from a cabinet member into a politician, she is just too cerebral for that role. Within the next two years, a conservative needs to rise through the ranks and make a substantial political splash. Just as Bill Clinton arrived on the jackass democrats scene as a no name, he became a household name, proving that unknowns can be very refreshing. Keep in mind that George W. Bush was not well known outside of Texas in 1996, but you can bet that every liberal from here to China knows him now, and though he is not the most gifted individual when it comes to public presentation, he is well on his way to solidifying an immoveable Republican foundation that conservatives can consistently rely on in the nation’s capital for years to come. The political season now starts earlier than ever, with 2004 dominating the news two full years before the actual election. This is a plan by the media to identify their jackass candidate so to provide them with a platform, not to run for the party's nomination, but to begin a two year bash party at the expense of the sitting Republican president. Our party is the strongest that I can remember, but just like great sports teams throughout history, you have to reload, and whoever receives the Republican nod for 2008 better be up to the task. Rest assured, the media and jackass democrats will be.

Blake Elliott