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	January 5, 2005 Ethics or Smear I have to commend Jackass Democrats for a moment. Not for their self described battle for right against wrong, but for their constant need to have their faces on the television repeating the same charges over and over. If it wasn't for this, I would more than likely discard 75% of the news headlines I read. But an alarm goes off in my head when a Jackass Democrat makes the same accusation three times in the same week, and that is when I read every news story available to clear the situation of political smoke. The latest case was in regard to Representative Tom DeLay (R, TX) and the attempt to have him unseated from Majority Leader of the House based on some very serious allegations. First of all let's preface the situation with a basic understanding of the political climate. Politics survives off of money. Political Action Committees, large corporations, large national associations, and thousands of others give, give, and give some more. Special interest groups and lobbyists rule Washington D. C. and it is getting worse. Every elected official in Washington takes money from someone in hopes of getting their legislation looked at favorably. This is the business of D. C. Rep. Tom DeLay was accused of using federal political funds for a state level purpose. Problem is, in some cases, this isn't illegal. The Jackass Democrats conjured up, yet again, another legally flimsy case, in order to make big solid news. And with the media's help, they got it done. The Jackass Democrats complained that Delay took those funds and used them in the campaign for redistricting Texas. The redistricting itself was unconstitutional according to Texas Jackass Democrats, but when you read a little Texas history, it was the Jackass Democrats who redistricted the first time in order to gain control of the legislature. A dose of their own medicine has never been swallowed without some gagging. The other supposedly disgraceful step was that Republican s in the House were going to do away with an ethics rule that would in essence force DeLay out of his Majority Leader status if indicted. Why would the Republicans lower our ethics standards, actually rewrite the rules? There must be something scandalous here. Not really. The Republicans were completely aware of who was leading this charge, and that if enough innuendo was produced, some Jackass Democrat judge would indict DeLay, therefore automatically dethroning him. How silly of me to believe Jackass Democrats respected that little "innocent until proven guilty" thingy. They sure did when it came to terrorists in Guitmo, but not with a filthy Republican American. Finally, DeLay will not be indicted, because even after almost a year of published allegations and political smear, the evidence doesn't exist. That is right. For almost a year, the media has been reporting the blatant guilt of a Congressman when there was never any proof. No wonder Jackass Democrats continue their slide in the Congress. Instead of doing the business of the Congress, Jackass Democrats have been consumed with removing every Republican in Washington D. C. Can you imagine the hours of meetings involved in order to draft these attacks? The Jackass Democrats love the camera, but most Americans love hard workers. This is why Jackass Democrats will continue to lose political power in this country every year....and I love it. Blake Elliott January 5, 2005 Wait, I Think I'm Gonna be Sick Normally I write a minimum 100 words on every subject, but this time I will leave all the glory for this original story. The link below just proves our journalists today care more about hitting the big one, than they do informing people and reporting truthfully. Enjoy. This is the link to Media Whore. Blake Elliott March 1, 2005 Race at the Forefront of the Oscars Let’s set the stage here for a moment. I do not watch the Oscars. I find it hard to realize anything worth while in people who are so far out of touch with reality. It also burns me to the core that these people act as if they are a voice for you and me when in actuality, if they encountered us on the street it is doubtful they would listen to anything we had to say, unless we had a credentialed camera on them. I am also exhausted with racism, or the attempt by so many Americans to promote it, which leads me to this story. Today it was very difficult to avoid the aftermath of the Academy Awards. Every news agency had the winners pictured on the front page. And I was glad to see Jamie Fox and Morgan Freeman win awards. Jamie Fox was obviously born to impersonate, and coupled with the ability to act, he could be a regular at the Oscars. Morgan Freeman is just a great actor who I have loved since I was a child who worshiped the Electric Company. Morgan Freeman is the best supporting actor ever in the history of Hollywood. This is not a knock either, because Mr. Freeman has enjoyed greater success in a supporting role than many leading role actors. I brought myself to read a few responses from the various winners of the night, and as it usually turns out when dealing with Hollywood, I was terribly disappointed. In this country we consistently chastise the majority who mention race. If you are white, you must not ever base an argument on, or even approach the subject of race. And if you do, you are not only labeled a racist, but you are accused of turning back the clock on all of the supposedly wonderful accomplishments this country has made on the issue of race. Yet Morgan Freeman, while accepting his Oscar, congratulated the Hollywood community for finally recognizing the black actors there. What a crock! How hypocritical can people be? The civil rights fight has always been portrayed as the movement to one day rid the world of recognizing color as a factor in anything. But why do the so called advocates of this mission continually emphasize color when presented the opportunity? Isn’t this the same infraction they supposedly battle against? Imagine if Jamie Fox and Morgan Freeman just accepted their awards without mentioning their ethnicity. If a person wins a competition based solely on their talents, then just simply thank the judges for their kind gesture. By acknowledging your color, you then allow doubt to seep into the reasons you were selected. The refusal by blacks to acknowledge race in a situation would actually be the best example of how far we have come with equal rights activism. The real benchmark of success is to be without color, and to not acknowledge it, thereby proving that you succeeded based on your ability, not your color. Hollywood loves to love itself. When they heard Morgan Freeman’s words, you could almost feel the collective hug they were giving themselves. Yes, finally, we white actors broke through and recognized a black man. We truly are the best and most thoughtful people in the world, leading the way on human rights issues. Now where is that damn servant with my seltzer?! But honestly, people need to understand that the endless spotlight placed on the issue of race by blacks doesn’t actually turn the clock back per say, but it definitely stops it. How can we progress if we always mention race in any situation where a minority receives recognition? This philosophy goes hand in hand with Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton, the three most ignorant people leading the way today in squashing progress. Their teachings are simple. If you keep reminding the whites about their bigotry, then we can continue to achieve through their guilt. I personally have no guilt. I have never owned a slave. I have never treated a minority poorly based on their race. And I could care less what color you are. I just long for the day where a black man receives an accolade, and mentions nothing of race, therefore allowing me to feel good about their accomplishment based on nothing more than good will. This is the way America truly feels, but many blacks, and guilty whites, refuse to allow me this freedom. Shame on them. Blake Elliott	January 4, 2005 Social Security Reform is a Must A report is out today in the Houston Chronicle that predicts President George W Bush's administration will tackle the Social Security problem soon. The President has been meeting with several different groups concerning the pending disaster that lurks in the near future. I have never been able to completely grasp the current Social Security system, but I do know that this program is the biggest entitlement in this country's history, and it grows yearly. Even though the majority of news reports will paint this decision as cold hearted, and completely unacceptable, clear thinking people realize that something has to be done. Our government leaders consistently speak out about how broken so many of our government programs are, but never act to correct them. Jackass Democrats have always been the first to chastise, and the last to offer any ideas. This will be the case once again. I have made my personal opinion clear concerning the upcoming retiring generation. The baby boomers have milked this country dry, and if Social Security reform doesn't happen soon, they will collapse many of the positive strides we have made in the past 20 years. People have been told for decades to save, yet Social Security was created as an excuse not to. This government can't afford to take in $12,000 only to pay out $60,000 later. Our calculations for Social Security payout is way too generous, and at the cost of future generations like mine. It is rumored that benefits will be cut by 10% for persons retiring 20 years from now, and many Jackass Democrats will accuse Republicans of stealing this money. This reveals how skewed the thought process of Jackass Democrats is. That increase between what you put in and what is paid out is not yours. This is as absurd as me demanding my losses back if Microsoft fell three dollars a share today, because they stole it. My generation is preparing much better for retirement. I credit this to better financial education and the awareness of how money grows over time when placed in an open market. Our generation isn't really concerned with Social Security because we have seen the gains that are possible when investing on a regular basis, plus we tend not to trust government when it comes to receiving from them. I do not completely blame the upcoming retirees, because many were unaware of opportunities that could have helped them prepare for this day, but these same people have been supporting government subsidies on everything for years. I want everyone to be taken care of, but it also takes individual responsibility in order not to burden future generations with that same care. America is built on individual responsibility, not socialized government, but Jackass Democrats don't see it that way. Jackass Democrats envision a socialist America from healthcare to retirement. If we allow these thoughtless do nothings to achieve such an agenda, this great America of capitalist opportunity will vanish. Blake Elliott ======================================================== January 5, 2005 What a Terrible Economy Your reaction to this headline says it all. You either laughed in anticipation of a parody, or were surprised that a conservative would even dare type such a headline. Well, relax, it is a parody. After being blamed for job losses since 9/11, and ridiculed for an explosive deficit, President Bush seems to have shown the detractors that they are basically Jackass Democrats with no real feel for remedies. Please follow the link to Mr. Kudlow's article concerning the current state of our economy. I also found a very informative page concerning consumer debt. It seems that the boom of the 90s has been documented to show the biggest increase in consumer debt and bankruptcy cases ever. So we were spending huge back then. It just happened to be other people's money, that's all. From the NASDAQ collapse due to phony strength, to people spending more than what they make, the late 90s was just a facade. 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
January 6, 2005 Marriage is Sacred, But to Whom? The marriage debate heated to it's boiling point in the middle of last year with the allowing or banning of same sex marriages across the country. Though I honestly haven't figured out all of the positives and negatives involved in this debate, I do know to be very skeptical when Jackass Democrats across the country attempt to brand an issue as a crusade. I look at homosexuals with a sympathetic eye. I do not believe that all of them choose to be homosexual. I also have to agree with President Bush when asked the "choice" question during a debate. President Bush, honest as usual, replied, "I don't know." Neither does anybody else. Homosexuals wanting to marry each other in order to be legally recognized doesn't sound so bad on the surface, but what is really going on here? Let's look at one of the main crusaders in this battle. Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco. I see no need in placing his political affiliation beside his name. The good Mayor, in the name of equal rights, actually broke the state law of California by granting homosexuals marriage licenses. The most basic, most fundamental charge a person has as a government official is to uphold the laws of his jurisdiction. But Jackass Democrats have never really respected the law, their main goal is to change the ones they do not agree with through liberal judges. For Mayor Newsom, this cause was the equivalent of hitting the "big one" politically. He will now be forever known in California as a groundbreaking government official, and I am sure the media will depict him this way in their coverage. But if a crusader is to be legit, he must believe in the sanctity of what he is fighting for, and for Mayor Newsom, it seems his conviction on marriage only runs skin deep. Just today Mayor Newsom and his wife announced that they have filed for divorce. The reason? Their careers make it difficult to sustain a marriage. I believe that when you choose a life partner, that partner and the commitment made by both, supercedes any career, but I guess that doesn't apply to the marriage "crusader". Marriage is serious, until it becomes inconvenient. The ACLU shows a similar facade when fighting the equal rights marriage battle. After all the hubbub concerning Christmas and religion in this country, they actually would like to see more people get married "in the eyes of God"? These Jackass Democrats might need to regroup and show some basic consistency before trying to sell me their snake oil. I tend to believe that the actual motive of the ACLU, in regards to gay marriage, is to dismantle it altogether. Marriage is a practice based on religion, and the ACLU has consistently shown their disdain for this type of institution. This is why the ACLU has not been so publicly boisterous on this issue, and the media has followed suit when reporting on gay marriage, being careful not to link the two too intimately. Much of the money backing these gay marriage battles comes from organizations who oppose marriage completely. Now how does that make sense? Do homosexuals deserve the right to get married? Do they deserve the right to adopt and raise families? What kind of court battles will ensue when these families breakup and custody battles follow? Worker benefits, retirement, Social Security and other issues need to be addressed also. If you think this is a simple yea or nay situation, you are mistaken. In order to be equal, gay marriages will fill legislature itineraries for years, wasting time and dollars, and for what? Have these people been harmed by not having the ability to be married? I am not sure, and I am willing to listen, but only to fact, not to a phony marriage crusader or to an organization who opposes the foundation of the very issue they fight for. Blake Elliott		January 7, 2005 Majority Will Continue to Rule I can't quite explain my reaction to some of the things said yesterday in Congress. My plethora of emotions ranged from nausea, anger, bewilderment, shock, to anger, disbelief, and utter disgust. I considered seeking medical attention at one point, but everything was going so fast I really couldn't think straight. Yet even during my fit of emotional instability, I realized I was still more fit to lead in my current condition than the Jackass Democrat blowhards that appeared in front of the podium yesterday in protest. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee not only overstayed her allowed welcome, but stated at the end that she came to this country as a slave, and now she wanted her right to vote. WHAT?! First of all, the obvious. She never came here from anywhere, well, maybe Mars where she still couldn't find that damn flag. She has never been a slave, and she has always had a right to vote. Representative Maxine Waters said that Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell never followed the constitution or current voting procedures. I am still waiting to see the proof of this. Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones assured the audience that her parents didn't raise no fool. I do not take issue with this exactly, but I do believe they raised an absolute Jackass Democrat. After four years of the lingering arguments in regards to voter fraud and the disenfranchisement of voters, these same dissenters proved yesterday that they did not perform their sworn duty, to protect their constituents from the very same things they are protesting right now. What do these people do in D. C.? Their actual job is just an afterthought, especially if there is a camera available. The actions yesterday were moronic and ill advised, but alas, there is some good news. The Jackass Democrat's display of ignorance coupled with the urging of Terry Mcauliffe to stay as DNC Chairman proves once again that the Jackass Democrats are losing their not so firm grip on any power they still possess. These false accusations of racism and voter intimidation are old and continue to hold no truth. The only proven election day problems other than weather was the slashing of tires by Jackass Democrats and the arrest of a DNC worker in Ohio who was registering Democrats in exchange for crack. Funny how these things were never mentioned yesterday. My prediction is that all this pathetic behavior will soon lead to a huge Republican majority in Washington D. C. all the way down to state level governments. Over sixty million people have spoken without any intimidation, and even more will speak next election. This leaves the Jackass Democrats flat on their backsides while little stars continue to encircle those empty heads. Blake Elliott
January 6, 2005 The Congressional Black Carcass I am not even sure it should be allowed for a group of Congress men and women to engage in a group in which they all vote the same, and membership is solely based on race. The old adage of, "What would they do if we had a Congressional White Caucus?" comes to mind, but that is for another story in the future. This group is just intolerable. There are no surprises with these people, except for that time Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee asked why she couldn‘t see the American Flag on Mars during a NASA meeting in front of Congress. The sign of a good group, a skilled and intelligent group, is their ability to explain a position based on factors that you never considered. This is how government is supposed to work. The public elects the most gifted and brightest because they think beyond what many of their constituents do. This is the true sharing of ideas, and the result is usually good legislation. That is not the way it works with the Congressional Black Carcass. Everyone knows which side of the issue these clowns will fall on, and they have always abused their power in Congress. It seems that the voting irregularities in Ohio, and Ohio only, is just more than they can bear. The CBC plans to reject the Ohio electoral vote. They already have Senator Barbara Boxer (D, CA), who’s behavior resembles a dog from an Alpo commercial when an issue like this is available for her exploitation, and they are seeking more. Make no mistake about it, the President's resounding victory is not in jeopardy, but once again, the Jackass Democrats’ reputations, or lack thereof, are. For 10 years now, Americans have unequivocally denounced this sort of ridiculous waste of time. Jackass Democrats have routinely lost power in both houses for the past decade. They may successfully bribe an Independent or moderate Republican into grazing on the other side every now and then, but when a man like Senator Jim Jeffords accepts this invitation, he only ends up where he initially belonged. The verdict is always the same though. The American people realize that Jackass Democrats just don't get it. Ohio reportedly had some serious problems during election day. Long lines, lack of voting machines, inadequate weather, rude volunteers, and so on and so on. Astonishingly, it only affected Jackass Democrats, which now makes me believe Carl Rove really is a genius, who truly possesses super natural powers. So now it is time to contest the election results in Ohio. Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones will stand before Congress and testify that this is the only way to bring light upon this matter, that she is doing this for millions of Ohio voters , and all Americans that care about freedom stand with her, but when her diatribe comes to a close she will be left at that podium alone looking just as foolish as she did when she first approached it. For Representative Tubbs admits that she has failed by making this speech. In 2000, these same people screamed about voting problems, some of them legit. Outdated machines, too few or no machines, and confusing ballots were all problems that these same detractors promised to fix. Yet now the American voters find themselves in front of the television forced once again to witness a Jackass Democrat doing their best impression of a caring person taking action. Representative Tubbs doesn’t have the presence of mind to do her job behind the scenes, and the people who vote her into office do not possess the keen ingredient of thought that would lead them to ask her why she did nothing about this for four years. Her speech will be well written, but her inherent laziness will overshadow the entire display. This latest shenanigan will hopefully be remembered by many in Ohio. Not for the illusion of history Representative Tubbs and the media will claim she made, but by the example Jackass Democrats continue to set for the American public. Jackass Democrats are more interested in the existence of an audience, than the actual audience itself, and for that selfishness, they will continue to lose. 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	January 8, 2005 Does Bipartisanship or Unbiased Reporting Exist? To answer my own question, no. Step into the web for a day and read up on any controversial subject, and from just the headline, you know what political persuasion the writer belongs to. I am not asking for the same news from everyone, but I am asking for something very different from what I get today. News was defined in the past by how deep you could get in the story. The depth was judged by how many people close to the situation you could interview in order to better inform the reader. The current standard for today's news is for the reporter to quickly include an accusation headline, quote an unnamed source, then interview several law professors and past political pundits to solidify the story with an onslaught of opinion. The media's motto could easily be, "The more they hear it, the more they believe it!" I remember watching 60 minutes on Sundays. I enjoyed watching it with my parents because it made me feel like an adult, and I always came away feeling smarter and as informed as a kid could be. I never felt like they were being unfair or out to get anybody. If politics was ever a factor, it was usually undetectable. But with sensationalism at a premium, even those once respectable guys don't impress me anymore. Of course how could you watch a show in which they actually used forged documents in order to attack a sitting President less than two months from election day? How can these witch hunters remain employed? The producer of the Bush National Guard story happens to be the same person that broke the Abu Ghraib photo story, making her a very popular Bush basher. She remains proud of this and has shown no signs of remorse, but her boss recently did. If you ever doubted the political persuasion of CBS news staff, doubt no more. The President of CBS News visited The White House with his hat in his hand last week in order to extend an apology and a promise that their future news coverage would not be so biased. The Bush Administration should be wary of this visit. When the Abu Ghraib prison photos surfaced, I honestly wasn't surprised. The smiling soldiers posing with the detainees was the most offensive thing I saw. Those soldiers displayed deplorable behavior, and are currently up for court martial. The headlines that followed the next three days was the shocking part. Without any specific knowledge of why, who are how often, journalists around the country began to blame administration officials for the actions and claimed that these type situations were widespread, and that the photos confirmed that the detainees were tortured. There were no Generals on record to back this up, no eyewitness testimony to prove it, and no top administration officials quoted. The one thing that I thought would be important, but never reported, was the status of the detainees? Were they being held for suspicion, charged with an actual crime, or were they terrorist types? Come to find out many were murderers, rapist and violent criminals, some set free when Saddam opened the gates before he fled. Not that mistreatment is acceptable, but don't try to portray these people as innocent Iraqis being tortured. In fact, how dare the media even characterize this as torture. I have seen all of the still photos made available to the public, and though Rush Limbaugh's "fraternity initiation" is not what comes to mind, proof of torture was never present. Only one side of this story was reported, and it was by the anti war news agencies. The conservative news agencies disagreed, as did most of the American people, with the Jackass Democrats, and the partisan politics raged on. I watched my share of testimony in the 9/11 commission hearings. The Bush Administration attempted to tout this group of people as bipartisan. This was wishful thinking, for the majority of commission members had pasts connected to other administrations and or with the current one. The few members who couldn't be pegged with an existing relationship showed little knowledge in regard to the direction the CIA desperately needed. Richard Ben Veniste immediately displayed his partisanship with his harsh questioning meant to lead Condeleeza Rice into a trap. Of course that never happened, yet the media's headlines attempted to show her at fault, while assuming she was hiding something. Jamie Gorelick was a Clinton Administration official who was instrumental in creating a wall between the FBI and the CIA where they could not fluidly share information. This problem was cited by other commissioners as one of the main reasons for our intelligence failures, yet she was not questioned and defended by all. Jamie Gorelick was allowed to remain on the commission. Then came Richard Clarke, the now famous White House terrorism expert. Clarke opened by apologizing to the American people, which the media consumed with great satisfaction. I remember as a child apologizing for something I later said was actually another person’s fault. (Mama, I am sorry Will didn’t wash the dishes, but I told him that he better get them done before you came home.) Those apologies aren't quite so sincere. The difference is, I was ten years old, Richard Clarke is a grown man in an important position, who just happened to release a book that same month. Clarke immediately became the darling of the media because he testified that he tried to tell people of the terrorism danger, but the warnings fell on deaf ears. Through all of this, nobody ever corroborated Clarke’s story, and many of his accounts were disproven. He still gave the media the seed they needed, and they planted it in the public’s mind and then nurtured that into a full blown scandal. Now the media has fabricated yet another scandal involving Armstrong Williams. Williams admitted yesterday to being paid to promote the Department of Education’s policy in regard to The No Child Left Behind Act. The media headlines and stories state that Williams was paid by the DOE, yet this is a blatant lie to provoke scandalous talk within the general public. Williams was paid by a public relations firm that was hired by the DOE to promote policy. These contracts are actually common in Washington D. C. and are not considered illegal or unethical, until a Republican does it, that is. Journalists do not believe news just happens, they believe it has to be created. As a child I would laugh at the tabloids while passing through the checkout lane, but now the same type of headlines, minus four headed babies, are showing up in the major, supposedly respectable papers. Today, the pursuit of news starts with unsubstantiated rumor, and is then aided by a journalist’s imagination. It isn’t news, it is politically driven opinion and it helps no one. In order for our society to practice freedom, we have to be free to rationalize and decipher without the source leading us in a direction they chose. News is just information, and it is up to us to muddle through it to find our own opinion. This is the basis for freedom of thought, and for anyone to violate this right is torture far worse than a growling dog, or even having to stand on a box. Blake Elliott