The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20041204104044/http://www.rjwest.com:80/blog/index.php?cat=14

North Georgia Dogma

Mediocre political banter and various blather
Girlie-Men & Pinkos
Commie Electoral Losers
Brad DeLong
Philosoraptor
Emerging Democratic Majority
The Poor Man
Pandagon
Talk Left
Angry Bear
Centrist Coalition
Staunch Moderate

Georgia bloggers
Bejus Pundit
Paul McCord
Jim Flowers
Spare Change
The Dax Files
Days Limit
Dizzy Girl
Single Southern Guy
TechLinks
Red State Liberal

Latest Comments
  • AndrewBB: A good question
  • Cassidy: Your forgetting context.
  • Crank: And here I
  • Jay G: I'd say that
  • Bruce: Ooh, ooh, Mr.
  • MIB: Your use of
  • Duane: Just so's you
  • Duane: Just so's you
  • Cassidy: For one, I
  • Jay G: Cassidy, "Who are you,
  • adk46er: I don't see
  • Cassidy: No slings and
  • Jay G: Hey Moe! (Sorry, I
  • Moe Lane: You did better
  • countertop: All pretty good
  • Bruce: I hear you.
  • debt consolidation: 1833 komank
  • debt consolidation: 6112 komank
  • debt consolidation: 2360 komank
  • WarHawk: (double-posted because I
  • Testimonials
    "...so funny..."
    "Don't make the mistake of treating RW like a GOP shill."- Jane Finch

    "Bush apologist" - Skeejin

    "one of the best Conservative blogs on the web" - Ezra Klein

    "unprincipled.....jackass" - JP

    "Approved Rightwing Blogger" - Matthew Yglesias

    "neo-confederate Racist" - Mac Diva

    "Anyone who calls you anti-gay or racist either doesn’t have a sense of humor, or is COMPLETELY misreading what you write."- Michael Demmons

    "partisan shill" - commenter

    "Liberal Christian" - Peiter Friedrich

    "As somebody who actually kinda likes Ricky, but who almost never agrees with him..." - rea

    "I have to jump on the "Liberals for Ricky" bandwagon." - Daryl McCullough




    Blogroll me, baybee!
    Contact: ngdogma at rjwest dot com
    Yahoo IM: rjwest21_ga

    Archives
    Archives:
  • December 2004
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov    
     1234
    567891011
    12131415161718
    19202122232425
    262728293031  
  • Other:
  • See you in December
    Okay, I'm outta here, folks. After the holiday, I'm taking my family for a 9 day trip to Disney World. Personally, I'll be upset if I don't gain at least 5 pounds, for that'd mean that I didn't eat enough during my 'down time'.

    So, be good, stay safe and God bless.

    12/1/2004

    Turning point.
    Filed under Posted by — Jay G @ 9:06 am Edit This


    I originally had planned on titling this post “Tap-dancing on the third rail”, but I chose not to because I didn’t want to make light of the subject. Indulge me for a moment as I get serious here, and talk about my turning point in my views of abortion.

    Through my formative years (high school, college, graduate school), I never really formed much of an opinion about abortion. I kinda left it that since I was a guy, and therefore not of the gender that has the option of undergoing the procedure, my opinions on the subject were pretty much in the same vein as quantum physics: Sure, I may have an opinion, but an uninformed one that won’t add anything to the discussion.

    I mean, I’ll never be the 16 year old high school student whose night of young-love passion leads to a pregnancy that could derail her hopes and dreams of college and a career. I’ll never be that struggling mom, already coping with two rambunctious kids, that finds out she’s pregnant even though precautions were taken.

    In short, it wasn’t for me to decide. Sure, I might be the 16 year old boy who got that high school student pregnant, or the struggling dad who’s not ready for a third child, but the moment I chose to have unprotected sex, I forfeited my voice in the matter. My choice had already been made.

    All this changed in an instant. With one look at one picture, my entire outlook on abortion changed, and changed dramatically. It happened around 22 weeks into my wife’s second pregnancy. Our first pregnancy ended in miscarriage after a few short weeks, just long enough for us to start getting excited about the baby and telling eveyone. When we hit the second trimester with the second baby (my son Joey), we passed that point and were feeling more confident. Halfway through the second trimester, we had the ultrasound done.

    When the ultrasound tech handed me the picture of my little boy (I won’t go into the details of the happy dance I did when I found out that I would not be the one to break the family tradition of having a male child first), my heart was instantly stolen away by that little person.

    And it was a person.

    At that stage, Joey had a face. He had legs, and arms, and recognizable features that were far more than just the “lump of cells” the pro-abortion crowd would have us believe that a fetus remains until the second of birth.

    That was my son in that ultrasound picture.

    And yet, at any time after that picture was taken, my wife could have gone to an abortion clinic and ended my son’s life. Without any input from me whatsoever.

    Now, we’d already had the amnio done. We knew that he didn’t have any genetic defects. The ultrasound showed that all organs were where they should be and developing at a normal rate. There was nothing wrong with this baby.

    And yet his life could have been taken from him on the say-so of one person.

    (Note: My wife never considered abortion even for a second. This baby was DEFINITELY wanted; I’m talking in the abstract here…)

    I had an epiphany looking at that ultrasound. That child should be allowed to live under virtually any circumstances. At that point in time, I would have considered it cold-blooded murder to have terminated that pregnancy. Nothing less than cold-blooded, first degree murder. And any doctor who performed the abortion should be charged as an accessory to first degree murder. I don’t condone those who shoot abortion doctors, mind you, but I gained insight into the mindset of those who might be tempted.

    Now, granted, I still believe that there should be some choice. Most women don’t have access to pregnancy kits like my wife did and don’t find out they’re pregnant three days after it happens (ahem…). So I’ll be willing to compromise on the issue: Unlimited access to abortion the first 6 – 8 weeks. In fact, the ultrasound changed my position completely on the RU486 “Morning After” abortion pill – I had been opposed to it on the grounds that it would make abortion much more common. Now I see that it’s actually one of the best defenses AGAINST abortions of unwanted pregnancies.

    Look at it this way: RU 486 can alleviate at least some of the arguments for abortion. One night of unprotected sex in the heat of passion (and hey, we’ve all been there. Some of us caught things that required heavy doses of penicillin to cure… ahem…) no longer has to mean a trip to Planned Parenthood. This takes an arrow out of the quiver of the pro-choice crowd: No longer can they stand behind some poor 16 year old girl who’s being “forced” to have a baby she doesn’t want and can’t afford.

    With RU 486 readily available (and I don’t know about it’s status FDA-wise if it could be an over-the-counter thing), the only other reason for abortion would be quality of life for the baby – i.e., when the amnio is performed, gross imperfections are found that would result in a severely handicapped child. This happened to the mother of one of my sister’s friends growing up. They discovered that the baby was not developing properly; that many internal organs were not maturing as they should; that the baby had most of its brain missing. To deny a woman the right to terminate this pregnancy would be wrong. I’m willing to concede that there should be a window or windows in a pregnancy where a physician’s counsel could allow for an abortion.

    I shouldn’t have to say it, but I will anyway: If, at any point in time, the mother’s life is at stake, the option for an abortion should ALWAYS be available. Let’s clear that up right now. If the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, then termination of the pregnancy should be allowed.

    I’ll readily admit that 99% of my argument is based purely on my own emotions and opinions here. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology, and have studied the development of many species of animals as part of Developmental Biology and Endocrinology, etc. I know that at (approximately, hey, it’s been more than a decade since I’ve taken any Bio classes) 10 weeks the human fetus is indistinguishable from a dog, cat, or seahorse. But that doesn’t mean we can treat it as anything other than a human being.

    It’s time to put the choice back into being “pro-choice”. If you decide to have unprotected sex, that’s a choice you have made. If for whatever reason you didn’t make the choice willingly, whether through intoxication or force, you have the choice of RU 486. This also removes the argument about forcing a woman who’s been raped to carry the child of her rapist. And lastly, if your developing child is found to have severe defects, you should be given one final choice.

    But that’s it. None of this “selective reduction” bullshit. You choose to have a kid, you take the chance of multiple births. ESPECIALLY if you’re using fertility treatments (this also falls under the “Physician’s Choice” part, too, if the doctor feels that reducing the number of fetuses gives the remaining ones a better shot at living).

    Anyways, that’s my position on abortion and how I arrived at it. Notice the stunning lack of words like “religion” and “Bible” – feel free to write me off as a Bible-thumping Jesus freak, but you do so at your own peril. I arrived at my choice independent of organized religion, just on my own sense of right and wrong.

    I await the slings and arrows…

    11/24/2004

    When anecdotal becomes the norm
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:45 am


    Op-ed page editor Cynthia Tucker gets caught passing along her own experiences as a nationwide fact…by me. Here’s the e-mail exchange based on this column (requires registration):

    Ms. Tucker,
    Last Sunday you wrote:
    “From conservative pulpits around the country, pastors had implored their flocks to go to the polls and vote against the “abomination” of homosexuality. They claimed that preventing gays from getting married would shore up the institution among heterosexuals — though it is not clear how.”

    This was put forth as a matter of fact, not a supposition. What is your source?

    The reply from Ms. Tucker:

    Sitting in church pews, reading news accounts, reading sermons from around
    the country

    My reply:

    Thanks for replying, but…..isn’t that sort of generalization (based on little more than anecdotal evidence) something that should have been noted? I’ve sat in church pews my whole life (I’m 37 years old and been a member of southern baptist churches since I was 9) and the only places I’ve seen people state that pastors do such a thing from the pulpit are you and a host of left-wing bloggers (and their commenters).

    Would it be any different than if Ann Coulter said that “From liberal pulpits around the country, pastors had implored their flocks to go to the polls and vote for the confirmation of partial birth abortion.”

    I’m not trying to seem obtuse, but….anecdotal evidence?


    She has not responded….and it’s been a week. And, I don’t expect her to….perhaps she’s too busy reading “sermons from around the country”....that one caused me to run it up the flag.

    11/19/2004

    The case for Bush, pt II
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:14 am


    A rehash for new readers: Andrew over at Byte Back (Think People, Think) has agreed to have a cyber-discussion about why someone would vote for Bush.  He doesn’t want to go point by point and I’ll adhere to that request as best I can, but I’ll try to respond with my own thoughts after noting what he blogged (which I sorta have to do in order to let new readers know what I’m replying to, lest they get dizzy reading all the links back and forth).  First, go read Andrew’s entire entry.  Now, keep in mind that we’re having a discussion, not a ‘fisking’ contest or bitch session.  There is no one "right" and there is no one "wrong"....these are opinions, so we can’t be wrong.  Andrew is making his case against voting for Bush and I’m making mine in favor of Bush.  If you want to jump in, I hope you go to his site and leave in the comments, or do so on your own site and link to his version….he’s the one who put in the long work.


    Under the summation: Bush shows contempt for international law and then expects everyone to play along.

    Voicing words that he, too, wishes the UN could again become meaningful if only they would agree with him, is incendiary, and does nothing to placate anyone. As it appears now, those UN sanctions and those UN inspections were, in fact, working. Just because George Bush Junior didn’t think they were, doesn’t make it so.


    Many of us who supported Bush’s actions in this arena really wanted the UN to sign off, although resolution 1441 was all that was necessary.  It really wasn’t a point of having the UN "agree" with Bush, it was having the UN resolutions actually mean something.  From my standpoint, if the inspections were working, exactly what did Clinton bomb the #@&$ out of in December, 1998?  One cannot have it both ways…either

    1. the inspections were working as they should, thus Bush was wrong to initiate war and Clinton was wrong to bomb a bunch of buildings that couldn’t have been weapons (or, could they?) or
    2. The inspections weren’t working, the UN was pretty much useless, but Bush was still wrong to go to war (and, as always, ignore what Clinton did).  I have, and still do, maintain that Clinton was right in 1998 and that Bush was right in ‘03, and the discoveries that France and Germany were never, under any circumstances whatsoever, going to sign off on enforcing any UN sanctions, show that the UN (sadly) is
      nothing more than a bunch of bureaucrats pushing papers and spending taxpayer dollars. 

    I was ambivalent about using ground troops from the get-go, but I’m not a military expert.  When people like Tony Blair go along and people like Jacque Chirac do not, I tend to side with Tony Blair.


    Reminder, go read Andrew’s entire entry to get the full gist….I’m only culling a bit & don’t want to take things out of
    context.

    Under the summation titled Arrogance wins no friends and Bush only hopes – wishfully thinking? – it’s gonna make us safer. 


    We have crossed the at-any-cost line in many areas. I won’t define that, yet. Pre-emption is one of those areas, though. Both Bush and Kerry stated that if America is threatened pre-emption would be perfectly acceptable and neither would hesitate to act. The difference? For whatever reason no-one believed Kerry. Painting him as indecisive on this matter was dishonest – Kerry’s position all along has been the same;

    He gave himself away during the Democratic convention when he said that if we were attacked, he’d respond.  How someone let that text get into a convention speech is beyond me .  Yes, he said he’d use pre-emptive action when the situation called for it (depending on the group he was talking to).  And, yes, he did say that he’d RESPOND to an attack by using military force, because the anti-war Democratic convention crowd didn’t like pre-emption. 

    Did I think Kerry was indecisive?  Heck, yes.  But, this is supposed to be about why I supported Bush, so…...

    Was Bush arrogant?  Possibly.  I was of the mind that he put the nation’s security first and foremost.  Kerry’s ever-changing statements didn’t give me that level of comfort and what he did during his 1971 testimony most certainly displayed his adherence to foreign nations and willingness to give short shrift to his fellow soldiers.  Are we safer with Saddam gone?  John Kerry said so and opined that anyone who didn’t think so wasn’t fit to be president….who am I to disagree with the Democratic nominee?



    Under the summation:  Bush holds no strong conviction on either of these matters, but they sound good to Republican ears.

    Anti-union all the way. Ricky says he supports Bush’ position oncivil unions. He surely knows that this position was only obtained within the last 10 days of the election cycle. And Ricky must surely know that the civil unions stance was Kerry’s all along.

    Actually, I think that Bush has supported civil unions all along.  However, Kerry voted against DOMA, which gave the states the final say-so, so his newfound ‘policy’ of letting the states decide went against his official voting record.  And, let me re-emphasize that what someone does in their personal life is of no consequence to me, but Kerry went from saying that DOMA was "bashing gays" to "let the states decide" pretty fast.  Since Kerry is pro-civil union and Bush is pro-civil union, then there really isn’t much of a disagreement, other than the one I stated that I had with the FMA.

    No unions at the Department of Homeland Security? I’m not secure on the details, forinstance whether FBI, CIA are or were unionized, or really whether unionizing them was the goal. I rather suspect that they were talking merely aobut some of the thousands of staffers, who in other departments are traditionally unionized; and who would not get in the way in case of an emergency (Did firefighters? Did police? no.)


    I’m pretty secure on the details & some people (Dems) wanted to make sure that the new Homeland Security Department had civil service protections (unions) first, before the final paperwork on the bill was finalized, thus making union protection a requirement in order to have a HSD.  Bush wanted a department whose first priority was the protection of the nation, not having segments that look out for employee/employer agreements (which is what unions are for, and nothing more).  In that area, negotiating grievances over ‘contract infractions’ shouldn’t be on the docket.  Joe Schmoe working for the HSD is entitled to worker protection rights, just as we all are, but running to his shop steward with a complaint about someone else getting the overtime he wanted should be outside of the scope of Homeland security.  I agreed with Bush, and apparently so did the voters…that issue is what helped end the political career of Senator Max Cleland.


    And, for the record, I support unions and think they’ve served a very important role in our society.  That so many have outlived their usefulness and are fronts for the mafia aside, they’re still needed in some areas.  I don’t like enemas and rarely speak kindly of them, but that doesn’t mean that they’re unnecessary in some areas (nice visual, huh?) :lol:



    Under the summation: Acknowledging you have a problem is the first step. Bush never got that far. The problem they had was when when their people spoke the truth at
    politically inopportune moments.

    To me this is idea comes out to mean that Bush is being re-awarded for starting a war that no one planned very well – but everyone in his administration thought would turn out well, despite many, more experienced voices saying otherwise. In other words – wishful thinking. When does anyone get held accountable for mistakes in this administration?

    The war turned out better than anyone imagined.  I have in my long term memory cells the image of Wesley Clark, serving as military expert for CNN, projecting that we’d likely lose 4 to 5
    thousand soldiers on the march into Baghdad.  What no one realized was the degree that the Saddam sympathizers and terrorist clerics were willing to go in order to keep chaos in line (and maintain their own power).  No one, left or right, thought that Iraqis would go around beheading fellow Iraqis, or that they’d burn contractors alive (to the nonchalant wave-off of Markos "screw ‘em" Zuniga) or that they’d blow up their own police stations.  Had anyone known that, I’m sure things would’ve been handled differently.  That said, a look back in history shows that this military mission has been executed with astounding success….it’s what’s happened after the military offensive maneuvers were complete that has driven the death rate upward, as we’re going against a foe who is willing to kill themselves so that they can kill others.  There weren’t very many Kamikaze pilots crashing into ships after Japan surrendered.  That said, I do not argue against those who say that the planning should’ve been better….actually, I concur, although not to the level that they do.


    On this point, I give people who were against the war the benefit and don’t think they’re "wrong" in many of their stances….what I have a problem with are people who were against the war no matter what chiming in.  Look, if we found seven thousand nukes and swimming pools of anthrax, there’s still a segment of the population who would’ve never admitted that Bush made the right decision, simply because it was Bush (for they supported military action in 1998 when it was Clinton behind the helm).  I have no qualms with those who opposed the war based on their own convictions.  Has Bush made mistakes?  Sure.  But, the worst question of any of the debates was the one where the lady asked Bush to name 3 mistakes (which would be a ready-made commercial for camp Kerry)...look, I did research during college on how to present myself in the best manner during a job interview and how to create a top-notch résumé’ and took a class on business communications where the interview was covered and I can tell you that a bunch of people like me had canned answers to the ridiculous question "tell me what your biggest weakness is".  Those are bogus questions that get bogus answers.  It was tried in ‘00 when Bush gave the camped "traded Sammy Sosa" answer. 

    And that goes for everyone, since Kerry (and others) blamed Bush for their votes on the war and on the $87 billion. 

    However, Arnold Schwarzenegger had a press conference immediately after the LAT hit piece and admitted that he had done "bad things" and look how well that went, so what do I know?



    Under the summation: Bush: Not saying what he means and meaning what he says. Obsessive secrecy

    I’ll add a ninth point. I detest with absolute magnanimity, the slippery use of language to cover, not merely a blowjob, but the true cost of war, the true reason for war, the random abridgment of privacy rights, and the true mistakes of judgment that have occured – to name just a few.

    You forgot the energy commission meeting minutes that they kept secret.  In most of those, we agree (I’ve yet to see any of my privacy rights abridged and they stated the rationale for war throughout).


    An example is Ricky’s statement that Saddam Hussein attempted an assassination of George Herbert Walker Bush, 41. No, what happened there was he attempted a plan to assassinate him. Does not America have plans in place for all eventualities, even assassinations?

    Yes, we do.  If our chief executive is assassinated, we go to war.

    An attempt on a former chief was enough for me to take him out and Clinton somewhat agreed because he sent a bunch of missles into Iraq as retaliation.  I guess the only part where I was in disagreement with Clinton was that I wanted the job finished.  We’ve since finished the job. 

    I’m glad it’s finished, which is part of the reason I (and 60 million others) voted for Bush.

     

    11/12/2004

    Well, it’s winter…
    Filed under Posted by — Jay G @ 8:50 am Edit This


    Okay, so it’s snowing this morning… Doesn’t look like it’s going to amount to anything, but still…

    Snow before Thanksgiving is generally considered a harbinger of a bad winter.

    Looks like I’ve got to stock up on soup and whiskey…

    UPDATE There’s an inch of snow on the ground now…

    Hmmmm
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 7:33 am


    Lots of rumors about Arafat’s death.
    If it was due to some sort of blood disorder (or disease), that’d say a lot about his photo-op after 9/11 when he was willing to donate his blood, eh?

    11/8/2004

    Wow
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 1:41 pm


    No links, for I’m far too compassionate, but I must admit (this is the evil part of me talking) that I’m taking no small amount of joy in reading some of the people who were proven to have their fingers closer to their prospective rear-ends than the pulse of the public, yet who are holding nothing back in declaring exactly what various politicians should do.

    Constructive criticism is good…...but Bill Buckner shouldn’t be giving defensive advice, just yet. As the Rock sez: “know your role…”.

    11/3/2004

    Bush country
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 8:42 pm


    County by county, via USAToday:

    Bush country

    Looks like a broad victory to me. (or, better yet, like someone sneezed their grape Nehi on a brick wall)

    11/2/2004

    My vote
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 8:20 pm


    I was disappointed that there were 3rd party candidates in only two races: President and Senate.

    Overall I voted for the Republicans in the major races, can recall two Democrats I voted for in local races, against the marriage amendment and for the streamlining of the judicial court process. Generally, I vote for libertarians on the lower ticket items, but there were none. Of course, with the party’s protectionist mantra of late, they wouldn’t have deserved it.

    Voting in 2004
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 10:50 am


    Got to the polling place, which is less than 3 miles from my home, at 6:59am, just as I’d planned. I’ve done that in every election since 1998 and the longest it’s taken is 6 minutes as I generally walk up to no line, sign my forms and go vote. Today, the line was out the door, to the street, curved and about 25 feet away from going into the next street. The parking lot was full, the next parking lot across the street was full and the streets were lined with vehicles.

    By the time I got back to my vehicle, it was 7:45am and on the way home I heard the Secretary of State on the radio predict around 72% (more than 367,000 voted early) and long lines as many have taken a personal interest in this election.

    And, as I’ve stated earlier, since there is no “big” race in the state that is getting people to the poll (like Governor in ‘02) and since Isakson, the marriage amendment and Bush will all win easily, it can only mean that people are wanting to have their “voices” heard.

    This is cross posted at the Command Post.

    10/29/2004

    It’s “Dirt” Friday
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:03 am


    No surprises, but look for the usual tricks to be escalated as we go into the weekend:

    1. The right will see voter fraud everywhere.
    2. The left will see every blink of an eye as voter suppression.
    3. How many instances will there be where someone in a “black” neighborhood finds a flyer that has something offensive about the vote? (there is always…..always…a flyer found [as if a printer or a Kinko’s is difficult to find] that arises the week before an election. Just like claims that social security will be taken away, the fallback standby will happen….the question is how many times)

    10/27/2004

    Georgia insight
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 8:15 pm


    Cathy Cox, the secretary of state (D) is projecting a 73% voter turnout for the state of Georgia on November 2. That’s monumental. And, since Bush and Isakson are going to win in walks, it’s tough to single out one reason why the interest is this high (no, it’s not…...gay marriage).

    So, for all those polls (all of which are within the margin of error) giving info and all the partisans that say “such-and-such group is going to have a big turnout and don’t you dare ask them to do something so outrageous like…....be legal voters, you know, you suppressor!”, keep in mind that more than a few people are interested in the elections.

    Besides, I recall the trash talk in ‘02 and the pronouncements from the SAME SOURCES that we’d surely have Governor Bill McBride in Florida right now (he got his ass kicked). It’s close & the voters will decide. All legal votes should count & if there’s no attempt at (more) cheating (again), there’ll be no problems.

    73%......wow. Chances are, those will NOT be San Francisco Democrat type voters, so Republicans should take heart.

    10/24/2004

    Team America: World Police
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:24 pm


    Short review: Every blogger and blog reader should see it.

    Warning: Not a chick flick. Leave the wives at home unless they’re fans of crude, tasteless, Andrew Dice Clay-esque humor.

    9/28/2004

    Quite the rebuttal
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 1:00 pm


    Check out the trailer. This looks good.

    9/18/2004

    The beginning of my Christmas list
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:22 pm


    1. - That people stop taking Jane Fonda seriously as a political commentator. The 70s are over.

    2. - That I be able to click on CNN and not see Nancy Grace anymore.

    3. - That I be able to log on to the blogosphere in the future and stop seeing references to ‘pajamas’. Look, I agree & the guy was an obnoxious prig, but it was only cute the first four thousand times it was referenced.

    4. - That I be able to go the rest of the year and not hear or see one more reference to Vietnam unless I travel to D.C. and visit the memorial.

    9/7/2004

    Step back
    Filed under Posted by — RW @ 6:10 am


    I have nothing to say that others aren’t saying better & faster.
    So, I’m going to shut up for a while.

    Digital Brownshirts

    Somewhere out there
    Stuff
    Public Debt
    Drudge
    Best of the Web

    FrontPage Mag
    MRC
    NewsMax
    FAIR
    Real Clear Politics
    Ann Coulter
    Krugman Truth Squad
    blogs4God
    Hugh Hewitt


    Powered by WordPress



    Fight Spam! Click Here!