If you mention Fox News to a liberal and/or progressive, you can expect a vitriolic reaction without fail. And if you voice any opinion contrary to the liberal/progressive groupthink, you will be accused of being a dupe of Fox News. You don't even have to mention the network - any criticism of the Obama administration will be met with a rebuke and the suggestion that you must be brainwashed by Fox.

How ironic. The liberals/progressives are engaged in a lockstep mass propaganda without truth. One doesn't need Fox News to know that the current Congress is passing bill after 2000 page bill, each expanding the power of the Federal government at the expense of people's freedoms. One doesn't need Fox News to know that federal spending is out of control and the country is headed for fiscal disaster. And one doesn't need Fox News to know that the president says anything he thinks he can get away with and baldly lies to the American people.

If you can't see the lies, fiscal disaster and the theft of freedom, you must be blind or kidding yourself. But for those who can't see it, or are so brainwashed by the liberal media and the groupthink of their friends, Fox News is there for you. Maybe they should turn it on and unwash their brain. At least it will be a starting point.

I keep hearing people suggest that Obama is a socialist or Marxist, and progressives/liberals always respond with an attitude that suggests "that's crazy talk." They then proceed to bloviate about how that type of thinking is akin to hate speech, or it's racist, or that Marxist and socialist are buzz-words that have a lot of loaded connotations and we shouldn't apply them to the president because it just misleads people.

Well, just for the record, let's just say it straight out: Of course he's a Marxist. His father was a Marxist, his mother was a Marxist, his grandparents were Marxists, his mentor was a Marxist, the man who recommended him to Harvard was a Marxist, his former pastor is a Marxist, his new spiritual adviser is a Marxist. He has surrounded himself with Marxists and installed Marxists in high positions in his administration, people who openly praise Mao and say things like "who is going to step down so someone else can have power?" In his own words he speaks of "spreading the wealth" around, and the entire focus of his presidency has been income redistribution schemes. He has nationalized large swaths of private society, taken over banks, and is now working on complete control of the entire health care system.

So to anyone who says he's not a Marxist, I say this: what, are you blind? Seriously - there is so much evidence to this fact that to deny it you would have to blind, or stupid, or just plain lying to yourself. Wake up comrades, before it's too late.

It's looking like there is only perhaps 1 more day of real American freedom left. Enjoy it while you can.

Is our long national nightmare over? Only time will tell. But this is a good sign. No, a great sign. If a Republican can win in "the bluest of blue states," the progressive agenda of the current Democratic majority may actually be derailed.

I was surfing the web yesterday, and stumbled across a critique of a blog entry I wrote some time ago. The post was about how people generalize groups of people as "assholes," or some other derogatory and intellectually void term. Now I don't usually use such a term as "asshole" on my blog, but this post was in response to a person who generalized all Republicans as "assholes." So, the use of such a derogatory term was necessary. I made the point that we shouldn't just generalize all people who disagree with us in such disparaging terms. And I further made the point of how ironic it is that "those who claim to be against bigotry, who claim to believe in equal opportunity, and who claim to disdain any type of favoritism, speak against those whom they do not agree with in such bigoted, elitist rhetoric."

So, imagine my surprise to find this critique: "Here's a conservative asshole complaining that liberals call asshole conservatives, 'conservative assholes.'" That's it, no further examination of my post, just that statement. My first impulse is to paraphrase the words of Christopher Lloyd, written for an episode of Frasier: "What trenchant criticism... One can only wonder how many hours (he) sat in the glow of his computer screen before his trembling fingers sprang to life and pecked out this chef d'oeuvre..." But some sort of revenge is not my aim here. I wish to point out once again the irony of such a person, identified on here as "B-Dup," calling me such a word.

Perhaps it is apparent to him that I am such an "asshole." But it is striking that inherent in his comment is the fact that, if he indeed did read the blog post, that he entirely missed its meaning. What that says about him I will leave up to you to figure out. I certainly have my own ideas about his ability to parse the meaning of a clearly written idea, and they do not speak well of his intelligence.

The point I wish to make here is that in the battleground of ideas, we must not stoop to that level. Many who disagree with us have their own reasons for doing so, and if we wish to make real progress, we must address the ideas, not demonize the source. Our playbook should take a higher ground.

Of course, we see such low tactics all the time from both sides, but the liberal left has perfected the practice. It is right from the playbook of Saul Alinksy, who stated: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." In other words, don't engage on an intellectual level, but demonize the target. We see it in the persecution of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. Those who engage in these tactics are rampant, especially on the Internet, where little men (or women) with a mouse in their hand spew forth such garbage with relative impunity. Shielded from face to face contact, they criticize and disparage others. Or, they gather in like-minded groups and wax poetic about how intelligent, and even more important, morally superior they are, spouting their messages of "Hope" and "Change," while engaging in smug group think and issuing gutter-speak proclamations about how stupid are those that disagree with them. But we must not let them get away with it.

That is why I am even bothering to respond to this small-minded criticism from this person known to me only as "B-Dup." He took his valuable time to call me out as an "asshole" with a feeble attempt at building himself up while tearing another down. The fact that his critique says more about him than it does about me seems not to have entered his mind. In fact, I should appreciate the link to my site that is included in his critique, for it may undoubtedly drive some traffic to my little relatively unknown blog. An army of B-Dups may only succeed in increasing my exposure. Now that would be irony.

Once again, thanks to American Digest for turning me on to this video. If you haven't read American Digest, it is one of the most thought provoking blogs out there.

Rocco Landesman, the NEA chairman, has stated that Barack Obama is "the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar." That doesn't mean he is a good writer.

Take, for example, his puffed up tome "The Audacity of Hope." I found the book to be poorly written. On page 78, there are sentences that have no verb. There are no references for any of the points he cites. The book contains at least one outright lie, on page 188, where he directly blames the Bush tax cuts for the rising deficit even though it is widely documented that federal tax revenues have increased since the tax cuts. He frequently puts forward his opinions as if they are fact. No conservative politician could get away with writing a book with no cited references, no editor, and such poor grammar.

I posted the above paragraph on a Buzzillions review site for the book last year. One comment has been generated so far, stating that "A sentence at the top of the first Index page states: "Sources for the statistics in this book can be found at www.audacityofhope.com."" Well, I went there to look for the references and found none. Am I missing something?

That aside, Barack Obama is decidedly not a good writer. Compelling content (and that is debatable here) does not a good writer make. He's a good BS artist, who will say anything as long as it furthers his cause, but not a good writer. Good writing must include correct grammar, and it must site sources and back up arguments with references. Anyone who has written a college term paper knows that.

But the statement by Landesman does not say Obama is a good writer; it says he is a powerful writer. I suppose when you have the full force and weight of the most powerful office in the world behind you, that statement could be true. But let's not confuse that with good writing.

Flying the flags today in remembrance and honor for those who gave their lives for our country on September 11, 2001. Let us never forget...

I have started a pBlakeney Facebook page, and invite all readers to be my friend. You will be notified of all new blog posts, cartoons, and parodies, as well as receive extra pithy comments in my regular status updates. The pBlakeney facebook page is located at www.facebook.com/pblakeney1. Please take the time to log in and be my friend today!

I was talking to a friend who claims not to be a liberal, and the conversation turned to the impending health care bill. Of course, I voiced my objection to the bill, and my friend expressed the sentiment that people who don't have health care coverage need some sort of option to obtain it. One of my objections was that the bill would most likely be paid for by taxing the haves and redistributing the money to the have-nots; the Obama administration is pushing this "Robin Hood" propaganda and the people are eating it up. To which my friend replied, "well it's time the rich paid their fair share."

This comment has stuck with me, and to be honest, it kind of burns me up. The liberal mindset seems to be stuck in some sort of class warfare struggle, and they have no problem with spending other people's money. The overall perception is that "rich" people built their wealth on the backs of the less affluent, and they should give more of it back. But this perception is flawed.

There is an assumption in this argument is that these "rich" people did nothing extra to earn this money; that they are recipients of undeserved wealth gained through inheritance or dumb luck. The line drawn for "rich" people is an income of $250,000 or above.

Now, many people in this income range worked damn hard to get there. A relative of mine, for example, was born poor to a coal miner in depression era Iowa. Through hard work, stoic privation and shrewd investing, she was able to lift herself out of this poverty. She struggled, at times went without, and to this day watches every penny carefully, and shops for bargains like everybody else. Her most recent yearly tax liability was $120,000. Now, she obviously does well to have that much of a tax liability, and would certainly qualify as "rich" by the liberal standards. And how did she get that way? She earned it. To insinuate that paying a tax bill of $120,000 does not meet the obligation of her "fair share" is just plain insulting. She should be rewarded for being able to contribute that much money in taxes, but no, the liberals want to take more of her hard-earned income, and insinuate that she is somehow morally inferior because she has done well for herself.

Under the current system, much of the tax money she pays goes to pay for the services of the have-nots, people who pay little or no taxes at all. She should be praised as an example of American capitalism; a system where anyone can pull up their boot-straps and rise out of poverty to become a valuable contributor to the economic well-being of our nation. How many of the people who feel the "rich" aren't paying their fair share actually contribute that much tax revenue? Few of the liberals that I know do.

Rather than castigating the "rich" for not paying their "fair share," perhaps the people who pay little or no taxes should be more concerned with "doing" their fair share.

I can't believe I didn't create this one sooner...

What has happened to the concept of appropriate discourse in this country? After 8 years of Bush Derangement Syndrome, we were promised that once Barack Hussein Obama was elected President, the country would begin the process of "healing." No more were we to have to endure such a vulgar level of partisan bickering coming mainly from the liberal side of the aisle. Oh sure, there are conservatives who had engaged in hateful, hurtful speech, but it was the liberals who took it to a new level of distortion, demonization and pure outright hatred. The election of Obama was supposed to change that - once their anointed prince was in power, the nation could come together and put and end to the gutter speech that was so prevalent.

But it seems not to be so. The derogatory diatribes do not come so much from conservatives, who are now in the position of coveting a candidate that can hold the highest office in the land, but remains the province of the liberals, as it has been during the Bush years. When liberals were the underdogs, they viciously attacked, smeared and tried to destroy the reputation of any who did not drink the liberal kool-aid and agree with their talking points. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and it is the conservatives who are the underdogs, one might be tempted to presume the conservatives to be the vile attack dogs, spewing hate against those with whom they disagree. But it is not so.

Take for example the hate speech of Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondent's Association Dinner:

"(Rush Limbaugh) hopes our country fails... I hope his kidneys fail..."

Or take for example the recent hateful comments of Janeane "I'll do anything for a job" Garafalo. When remarking on the Tax Day Tea Party protesters, she called them all racists. That's a true representation of bigotry if there ever was one, as she tarred many good people with her broad brush. When confronted by Fox News' Griff Jenkins for an apology, she picked out a few people with racist signs among the thousands of well-meaning protesters and ascribed the bigotry of a few to all who attended. Can you say irony?

These are but a few examples among the many we have seen in Obama's first 100 or so days. There was Perez Hilton spewing forth a spate vulgar statements against Miss California because the latter happened to disagree with his stance on gay marriage. There are the numerous vulgar statements issued about Sarah Palin because she has the audacity not to follow the traditional liberal feminist agenda. There are continued misogynist attacks on Michelle Malkin, once again because she does not toe to the liberal agenda.

These are but a few of so many examples of liberal hate speech that display the liberal ideological mentality - a mentality that is more akin to Nazi brown-shirts than to modern American citizens. And I see no sign that it is letting up.

We conservatives need to stay above that type of behavior. We have our own hateful commentators, but they are rightly marginalized to the corners of the Internet, where the little men with mice in their hands talk tough from the safety of their darkened computer dens. But what of the afore-mentioned Limbaugh? Surely, he is as hateful as any. I say, not so. Limbaugh, however much one might disagree with him, takes the time to make meaningful observations and puts forth coherent arguments. One might disagree with him, but if one debates on his level, it would be a thoughtful meaningful debate where hate is not evident but merely a difference in viewpoints.

These particular hateful liberals cannot debate on that level. Their tactic is to demonize the messenger rather than engage the argument. They distort and demean their detractors and never take the time to address the statements that are actually made. In some sort of Orweillian double-speak, they can call someone hateful or a racist while making much more hateful and bigoted staetments with the same breath. To them, it is not a lie, because they believe it.

And thus, the hate speech continues, unabated.

Here's my photo round-up, starting with a group of people on the way to rally, then the rally itself...

We've most likely all heard of the "Obama Fingers" product being sold in Germany... if not, here's some information on it: Tasteful Germans' Tasty Obama Snack: Frozen Chicken Fingers. In any case, Michelle Malkin has reported on her blog that this product is screaming for a Photoshop treatment, and boy is she right. I'm a bit late on this, but here's my entry:

Reuters News Agency is reporting today that the nation's capitol is "struggling to contain" an aids epidemic, a problem it calls "complex."

"3 percent of the city's residents are infected with HIV. Officials believe the true figure is even higher.

While sex between men was the top cause, accounting for 37 percent of cases, heterosexual sex led to 28 percent of cases and injection drug use to 18 percent, according to the report."

I just can't believe the delusion of so many American people. Here we have a president who is transparently using the current crisis as a wedge to ram a liberal agenda down the throats of the nation, and so many people are so starry-eyed about him that they are willing to accept anything he says or does.

On Facebook we can see slavish tools that have Obamasized their Facebook picture by Photoshopping it to look like Obama's campaign poster. I have seen others whose status reads "So and so is in love with Obama." It's like an abusive relationship - the president is dismantling the engine of capitalism that is our only hope of digging out of this mess, and as we watch the stock market spiral down and the economy get worse and worse, these tools line up to praise him with fawning devotion.

The most ironic thing is that these are people who think they are so smart and Bush, as well as almost any conservative, is so dumb. Never mind that simple economics as well as history shows that tax cuts stimulate the economy and spending hurts the economy; that doesn't "feel right" to them. The Bush tax cuts were a pariah to them - it doesn't matter that they helped keep the economy chugging along for six of eight years of his presidency. Somehow, the tax cuts must be partly responsible for the mess we're in now, so repeal them!

And so we are now going to have a tax increase on the very sector of the economy that could dig us out of this mess - the people who have the economic power to employ others and grow the economy. The people who make more than $250,000 a year include more than just "idle rich" - this group includes thousands of small businesses whose taxes are about to go up, further stifling the economy.

"We cannot repeat the failed policies that got us into this mess," rails Obama. Well, of all the policies that I can pinpoint that caused the current mess, it was the liberal policies of Bill Clinton and Barney Frank that stand out. A close relative of mine was a banker for a large US bank, and he complained to me - years ago - that the policy of forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't pay them back was one day going to cause a big problem. He told me about groups like Acorn demonstrating at his very bank and trying to intimidate them into giving bad loans. And then Bill Clinton made it law, so bad loans they were forced to give.

When the Bush administration actually sounded an alarm, butt-banging Barney Frank stood up and defended the practice and the Republicans were unable to pass the proposed regulation that may very well have avoided this catastrophe.

So now we have Barack Hussein Obama excoriating a problem he "inherited" from the Bush administration. And too many American people believing him. Because these people are so blinded by ideology, and their hatred of Bush, they are willing to sell themselves out for an abusive butt-kissing relationship with the very man who drag us further into the mire.

Ron Howard was in the news recently, talking politics. Commenting on the release of his new "Frost/Nixon" film, Howard alleged that the crimes of Nixon pale in comparison to the crimes of Bush and Cheney. This kind of outrageous rhetoric is not surprising, but what are these "crimes?"

The left has built up this myth that the Bush presidency has committed outrageous and illegal offenses, but if that were the case, why don't they state what these "crimes" are? Nixon committed actual crimes, crimes that he was convicted of and would have served time in prison for, had Ford not pardoned him. Bush and Cheney are alleged to have committed crimes, but no one explicitly states these crimes or offers any tangible evidence that any crimes have been committed. It's an Orwellian double-speak, like the monkeys in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book: "We all say so, and so it must be true."

If anyone believes Bush or Cheney has committed a crime while serving as president and vice president, why are there no charges filed against them? The reason is that, to my knowledge, no actual crimes have been committed. Just because you don't agree with someone does not mean they have committed a crime.

Oh, of course the liberals will call out Guantanamo water-boarding, Abu Ghraib, etc. But there is no evidence that any laws have been broken by Bush or Cheney. The Iraq war has been called an "illegal" war by the left, but that's a ridiculous charge not backed up by the facts. The Abu Ghraib incident was committed by individuals who were charged for their offenses. Water-boarding as torture? Give me a break. The only thing Bush is guilty of is using any means necessary to keep our country from being attacked.

But that doesn't stop liberals like Ron Howard from making ridiculous unsubstantiated charges:

"the Nixon crimes pale by comparison, with uh, with uh, um, um, [picks up pen] you know, what we've been reading about and hearing about in the last few years. Uh, and yet, it also reminds us that abuse of power at any level cannot be accepted, and, so if there's a political point to be made, you know, I'd say it's nonpartisan, but that's the point."

So, Ron Howard, if you have evidence of any crimes, bring forth the charges before you go spouting off to your liberal base - by that I mean the main stream media. If not, get back behind your camera and stick to what you know best - making movies, not statements of political propaganda.

Good Morning Comrades...

Being for the benefit of the wonderful new direction we are taking in this, our U.S.S.A., I will immediately begin to tabulate my meager wealth so that it can be shared with all the people. I am joyful that I will not have to work so hard anymore, as hard work only results in excessive taxation, and the government will now send me the wealth of others for which to pay my bills. It is a glorious day for our country, when we all share everything and all will be equally poor...

Okay, so maybe that's a bit extreme of a view of Barack Obama winning the presidency, but there is some truth in it. But let's not kvetch about the loss of the candidate we supported without first looking at some positives.

History has been made, and America has elected its first black president. Whether you agree with the policies of this particular president-elect, it is an inspirational event and a stunning symbol for all people of color in this nation that any American, no matter what their heritage, can someday be president of the United States. This does not heal the racial divide, but it is a shattering of the final glass ceiling in racial disharmony. From the civil rights movement of the sixties to today, the ultimate progress has been made.

Another positive - the Democrats did not, so far as we can tell at this time with some races still undecided, gain enough seats to be fillibuster proof. While Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama try to enact the long-deferred liberal agenda, there will be at least one check against a complete liberal rollover.

And hey, this election cycle is finally, mercifully over. This has been the longest election cycle in my recent memory, and it is a welcome relief to turn to discussions of other things.

So it's not all direness. And many comparisons have been made between Barack Obama and John Kennedy, so let's hope at least one comparison rings true. And that would be the fact that even though John Kennedy was elected with the collaboration of underworld mob ties, he turned away from them and actually turned on them once he became president. He made the decision to put the sanctity of the office before his former "friends." Barack Obama was also propelled to power with the collaboration of many dubious nefarious people, so let's hope that he, like Kennedy, puts the country's needs before the agenda of his former "friends" as well. Of course, that course of action didn't work out too well for Kennedy, so let's hope that Obama does not suffer a similar fate. Let's just hope he does put the country first, and actually presides as a centrist with the good of the country as his first priority.

I'm not counting on it, but one can hope.

In less than 24 hours it will be election day, and most of us will be going to the voting booth and casting our ballots. From the way I see it, we have two major choices to make among the many decisions in local and state offices.

Barack Obama is a candidate who is persuasive and eloquent but uses his oratory to say very little. He has little experience of any kind, let alone the type of experience needed for the highest office in the land. In truth, he was groomed for the position of the presidency by nefarious people with dubious purposes. His goal is redistribution of wealth, and his candidacy is fueled by class warfare. Many have stated that if Obama was elected, the country may fall into an economic Depression, because he would raise taxes in an economic downturn. He believes that taxes are a way to punish the rich as well as a way to earn revenue, and does not understand that the very businesses, both small and large, that will be hurt by his economic warfare are the ones that create the jobs that ordinary Americans need. He has no foreign policy experience, and will drastically weaken our international footing by cutting defense spending and withdrawing troops from sensitive, unstable areas of the world where our interests are at stake. The media have done no real vetting of any of these issues as they all want him to win, so no critical assessment of this candidate is exposed to the American people by the mainstream media. In short, he is a candidate who is the least qualified, who has been given a pass by the media, and who has such questionable associations that he himself would not even pass a routine security check.

John McCain, on the other hand, is war hero who shown his love for his country in words and deeds. He has tremendous experience from serving in the Senate for many years, where is well-known for bipartisan efforts as well as bucking his own party when he felt it was right to do so. While he was involved in the Keating 5 Savings and Loan scandal in the eighties, he was forthright about all activities; he came before the American people and explained his every action, and was exonerated of any wrong-doing. That type of candor is something he possesses and Barack Obama does not. He has a good economic plan that does not involve the socialist redistribution and higher taxes that his opponent proposes. He is a candidate who believes Americans should be self-reliant rather than dependent, which, I believe, is the quintessential American way. He is a foreign policy expert, as was shown in the recent crisis in Georgia when he correctly assessed the situation almost immediately, while his opponent was jumping from position to position. He believes in a strong military and will not cut defense spending. John McCain is a man whose allegiance to this country have been tested, whose experience has been vetted, and is the clear choice for any thinking American.

Vote John McCain.

Barack Obama's effort to keep the argument focused on the economy is just another example of the Democrats using a crisis to keep the focus off of the damning arguments of Barack Obama's associations with William Ayers and Reverend Wright, as well as others like Rahid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, and Acorn. Of course, the economy is an important issue, but it is not the only one. We should not vote purely on this issue, as Obama would like us to, to the exclusion of all else.

There once was a man named T.E. Lawrence, who was known as Lawrence of Arabia. In World War 1, he fought in the Middle East during the Arab revolt of 1916-1918. One particular battle of note was the battle for the town of Aqaba. Aqaba was a seaport, with an expansive desert on the other side. To protect from invasion, the residents of Aqaba pointed their defensive forces towards the sea, as they believed that was the only place an invasion force would come from. Surely, no one could cross the expansive desert on the other side. Lawrence of Arabia and his forces did just that - they crossed the desert, and when they attacked Aqaba, all of Aqaba's defenses were pointed in the wrong direction.

Like Lawrence of Arabia, Obama wants to keep you focused on the Aqaba of the economy, while all these nefarious ties slip by unnoticed on the other side.

I saw An American Carol yesterday, on its opening day, and it did not disappoint. It was refreshing to finally see a movie that criticizes the American left the way they have been criticizing conservatives for years. The movie is a parody of the liberal left, featuring Kevin Farley as film-maker Michael Mallone, an obvious send-up of left-leaning film-maker Michael Moore.

I especially enjoyed the college classroom musical scene, where Kelsey Grammer, as General George S. Patton, proclaims "Education? You mean indoctrination!" Truer words have never been uttered. The movie attacks a number of liberal ideas, such as the fact that liberals believe that our enemies are justified in their hate of us because of our actions, that the current war in Iraq is just like Vietnam in 1968, and that we should negotiate and appease our enemies rather than confronting them with force. One particularly funny scene takes place in 1938, showing then British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin signing away half of Europe to the Axis powers and proclaiming "this will achieve peace," then being forced to shine the shoes of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito.

The movie is not all negative attacks, though, by any means. Sincere patriotic references are shown throughout, and the heroism of soldiers past and present, fighting for freedom, are highlighted at various points in the movie. When a soldier tells Michael Mallone he can't visit with him next week because he has to ship out to the Middle East, Mallone responds "can't you get out of it?" The soldier then proclaims that he volunteered to go and it was his duty. The liberals may think that such movie scenes are mere jingoism, but it rings true to me and makes me proud of those who fight and die for all of us.

Overall, the movie is funny and entertaining throughout. I was surprised at how scathing it was regarding liberals, and was pleased to finally see something in mainstream media that treats them as they have treated conservatives for many years. The liberal reaction I have seen to the movie of course, is utter indifference, and an attempt to bury it. Many liberal papers are not bothering to review it, nor even mention it. On movie roundups I have seen on TV, many critics do not even mention the movie in their lists of movies opening this weekend. Their bias is palpable, and their hypocrisy is clearly to be seen.

So, I urge you, if you are planning to see a movie this weekend or even this week, go see An American Carol. You will not be disappointed. I will go even further and say that it is a patriotic thing to do. The liberal left are trying to silence conservatives, and are trying to bury this movie and would no doubt like to see it fail, so that only movies they agree with are made. The only freedom of speech they believe in is speech they agree with. It took courage to make this movie, courage from David Zucker, courage from the many stars who "came out of the closet" of liberal Hollywood and stepped up to make a movie that may well keep them from being able to work in Hollywood in the future. They are taking incredible risk to make a statement that more than one kind of political ideolgy can exist in Hollywood movies. Support them in that cause and go see An American Carol.

More interesting than last night's VP debate was the exchange between Barney Frank and Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly, in an even more blustery than usual fashion, called Barney Frank out and called him a coward for not admitting fault in the recent near collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

O'Reilly once again did himself no favors by confirming what liberals already think about him: that he is shouts people down, calls them names, and refuses to let them make their points. But Frank was behaving despicably, denying any responsibility for the losses of many Americans after he claimed that Fannie and Freddy were sound, and the future for the companies was favorable.

If you look at the history of connections between Barney Frank and Fannie and Freddy, you see a troubling pattern of obsfucation. In 2003, the Bush administration raised concerns that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac needed more regulation and proposed a new agency to oversee the housing finance industry. Barney Frank responded with the following:

"These two entities--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddy are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investment these days from the long term standpoint...going back, I think they will do okay going forward... from what's happened to the housing market... I do think their prospects going forward are very solid, and in fact we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."

First of all, I agree with the fact that Barack Obama's Democratic nomination acceptance speech was a historic speech, as the Democratic Party has nominated the first black American in our history to the office of president. Truly a momentous and historic occasion.

In the first five minutes, the speech turned disgraceful. His comments took the personal responsibilities of Americans and blamed the failure to meet them on the Bush administration. He talked of "veterans sleeping on the streets," and referred to Katrina. He talked of the proud auto workers, whose jobs in reality were actually not destroyed by the Bush administration, but the wasteful practices of the UAW, among other things. He talked of self-reliance, but proposed grand government solutions. What happened to the new kind of politician? The negativity and bitterness of his opening salvo negates that new type of politics.

When he talked of changing America, that's when I became scared. He talked of measuring progress, but ignored the fact that the only reason the Clinton years were prosperous were largely because of the Internet boom. That bubble burst at the end of Clinton's presidency, and while still under Clinton's budget, the nation plunged into recession. He does not mention the fact that recession was remarkably short-lived under President Bush, and to this day, even though we have had an economic slowdown, no such recession has recurred. The economy, despite the Democrats Chicken Little prophesies that we have endured for the last few years, and through the housing crisis, has shown remarkable resilience. Just this week, we have learned that economy grew twice as much in the last quarter as was expected. He talked of businesses creating jobs, but it is no secret that he regards business as a villain, and his tax policies will hurt businesses, small businesses in particular.

The speech then turned to his familiar platitudes of his "brother's keeper." He talked of getting specific on these issues. He talked of cutting taxes for 95% percent of working families, and ending our dependency on Middle eastern Oil. These are all subjects he has spoken of before, but he still offered no real specifics. Nothing new here. It sounded like he was reciting the Picken's plan for energy independence.

At that point, it started sounding pretty expensive. Investments, tax breaks, world class education, free health care, etc. These all sound good, but I suspect that income redistribution will be his method of paying for it. That, and a decrease in military spending, but once again that's just an educated assumption on my part. He talked of eliminating programs that no longer work, but who decides what works?

He did talk of individual responsibility and mutual responsibility, but before he could delve into any details on that, the speech turned into an attack on John McCain and the Iraq War. That's an issue where he will have no chance to best John McCain. He can bluster about being strong in foreign policy, but John McCain can dance circles around him in this. He called for withdrawing the troops, which has been his mantra.

He made a claim about a squandered American legacy due to Bush, but I believe that Bush has made our nation stronger. After all, Bush smashed Al Qaeda in Iraq (eventually, I must admit), and had a real foreign policy success in Libya. Before Bush, America was thought of as a paper tiger. I'm sure Al Qaeda probably doesn't believe that anymore. Obama talked of veterans benefits, even though his party was the party that cut the military so much under Clinton, that any shortfalls of funding were really the fault of the Democrats.

The most ironic part of the speech was his call to not question another's patriotism. It reminded me of the Simpson's episode where Homer forgot to pick up Bart from softball practice, and Homer tried to wash away the subject by saying "we can argue all day about who forgot to pick up who..." It is obvious that no one will question McCain's patriotism. It is Obama's patriotism that is in question, so for him to make the call not to question it is completely disingenuous.

The speech finally devolved into the lofty platitudes we are used to hearing from Obama. "All across America, something is stirring," he said... it's not even a mouse. It is Barack Obama and his is a cult of popularity that has little to do with anything beyond a charismatic speech.

As I was slogging through the thousands of spam in my e-mail box, I came across an actual letter that I feel compelled, in all fairness, to respond to. Although months old, I just discovered this e-mail today, and as it is a thoughtful critique, I would like to do my best to offer a fair-minded response. Here's the letter:

Dear P. (Sense you favor use of initials),

I find it odd that you are so quick to call H. a racist, but you won't acknowledge your own families(sic) racist history of Slavery. I wonder how many of your readers would be interested in the history of your own families recent past. You are a talented writer and even though I'm a Democrat, I find your post well researched and informative. You should use your talents to be more open-minded and less bias. It is one thing to support your party, but another to build support by posting such negative (and often hateful) comments regarding your opposition. I have not read one post describing anything positive that McCain or Bush (W) stand for that would make the reader switch parties or even see your views. Your posts have more hatred and ridicule towards Obama, Syesha Mercado, R-Kelly, Rev Wright and other minorities than insight on the party issues.

There is an implication here that I am a racist, although it is not implicitly stated. I am not "quick to call" H. a racist; as the letter states, my post is "well researched and informative." I am not sure exactly to which post the letter writer is referring to, but I did a quick search of my posts from April and May (when the e-mail was sent) and could not find a statement where I called H. (Obama) a racist. I certainly have called Reverend Wright a racist, and perhaps it could be inferred by my linking of Wright to H., that I was calling H. a racist. While that may be a fair conclusion, I was primarily trying to question the judgment of H. for associating with racists such as Wright, and not just for a short time, but for twenty long years.

More importantly, I feel the letter writer did make a very important comment when he implored me to be more positive. I think he has a valid point there, and in the future, I will do my best to comment on the positive offered by the people I support, and not just knock the people I don't. I believe I have offered positive comments, but they may have been buried in the deluge of harsher criticisms. For example, I posited that the surge in Iraq is working when I stated on April 26, 2008 that the Iraq War has strengthened the U.S. international position. On March 27, 2008, I called attention to a great speech by John McCain where he deftly describes our current international position in regards to Iraq, and what he feels needs to be done. On February 19, 2008, I called attention to the recognition of Bush from Bob Geldof for providing more aid to Africa than any other American president. And more recently, on July 7, 2008, I compared and contrasted examples of what I feel are patriotic and unpatriotic actions in regards to the service afforded to our nation.

Still, these examples are few and far between, as the letter writer infers. So, in that regard, let me offer some of the positives that have resulted from the Bush administration:

• While the economy seems to be rocky right now and the price of gas was recently increasing, there is no question that our country has experienced one of the longest runs of economic growth in history. I believe this may be credited in part to the tax cute that Bush enacted early in his first term, as well as the pro-business, pro-growth policies that are implicit in lower taxes.
  
• The foreign policy of the Bush administration has yielded significant achievements in our world position. Libya has gave up its pursuit of atomic weapons and is pursuing a path to becoming a partner in the world, rather than an adversary. Pro American politicians have been elected in Britain, Germany and France. While Iraq has been a rough and sometimes tragic endeavor, a fledgling democracy is taking root there. In regards to the Iran problem, one of the reasons they are blustering on the world stage is that we now have our troops stationed in countries both East and West of them (Afghanistan and Iraq). From a strategic stand-point, we have them surrounded. That may a simplistic way to look at the issue, but it is true that we have troops on both sides, and they undoubtedly are feeling the squeeze.
  
• Al Qaeda in Iraq has been shattered. Of course, liberals will say that they weren't there until we drew them there, but one of the best strategic actions any nation can do in fighting an enemy is pick the battleground.
  
• Self reliance by the American individual is supported and strengthened by the Bush administration and Republican policies. While some may say that the American way is to offer hand-outs to the people who have less, I believe this is trumped by the American spirit of creating your destiny, not having it handed to you.
  

• John McCain favors the renewal of the tax cuts, which do not just help the rich, as some would have you believe. As a small business owner, these tax cuts have helped me tremendously. And I am not rich by any means. My income is in the low five figures, in other words, I make less than 50k a year. Much less.
  
• On foreign policy, McCain will continue the practice of regarding terrorists as engaging in acts of war, rather than criminals to be prosecuted. This is actually the number one issue facing the country today, and I believe it was the practice of treating terrorists as criminals rather than enemies of war that enabled Al Qaeda to proceed from the first World Trade Center bombing to the second.
  
• McCain has an admirable record of service to this country, both in war and in the U.S. Senate. He has experience in foreign policy that far exceeds his opponent, and I believe a McCain presidency will benefit our country much more than his opponent.
  

The final point of the letter seems to suggest once again that I dislike minorities, and once again infers that I am racist. I believe Reverend Wright is a racist and have called him so. I do not believe my criticism of him in my numerous posts shows me to be a racist. I am not attacking him because he is black, I am attacking him because I believe he offers a dead-end for the unfortunate members of his church who are posited by him as victims, rather than as self-reliant individuals who can take positive steps to further their own futures. As for Syesha Mercado, she can't sing that well. It has nothing to do with her being black; I just can't take that screechy voice. And the other minority mentioned is R. Kelly, who was found not guilty in his recent trial. Once again, I have no problem with him because if his race. I have first-hand accounts, which of course would be considered hearsay in the eyes of the law, that he has engaged in exactly the types of acts he was accused of. Although I am not at liberty to reveal my sources, I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. In addition, I have also learned that he treats his dogs poorly, one time leaving one locked in a hot car for hours. So I dislike and distrust him because of his actions, not his race.

I think it is unfair to suggest that I dislike minorities by cherry-picking criticisms of them and ignoring the many other people of all races that I have criticized. What about my posts about William Ayers, Allen Colmes, Jane Fonda, and the far more numerous other caucasions I have given the same treatment in my posts? By that logic, I must dis-like all races. I do not believe that minorities are off limits to criticism because of their race. And if I criticize them it is not because of their race.

In the end, I hope this answers some of the concerns this letter writer had. I appreciate his positive comments on my writing, and do thank him for taking the time to read some of my posts, and further, to communicate his response. I look forward to other readers doing the same. I do not allow comments on my site because I do not want to have curse words appear on my site, nor do I want to provide space for "hate bombs" by trolls. Nor do I want to deal with the spamming that inevitably comes with open comments. I do invite readers to send me an e-mail with their thoughts, and I will do my best to address them, as I feel I have done here.

Nancy Pelosi's book is tanking, and Michelle Malkin has posted a Photoshop sent by a reader with a funny parody of the book cover. Here's my take:

Michelle Malkin has asked for designs for an Obama World Tour t-shirt, and has been publishing some of the better entries. I'm a bit late on this, but I can't believe I didn't think of it sooner...

In honor of The New York Times apparent bias towards H., including this most recent example, we decided to update their front page in a way that accurately reflects their position....

When I saw the cover of the new issue of The new Yorker over the weekend, I was a little surprised. At first I wasn't sure what to think. The left is in a tizzy over this malicious "slander" of H. in the name of satire, and many on the right probably think that maybe someone is finally realizing that H. has some dangerous problems as a presidential candidate.

Thankfully, Michelle Malkin puts it all into perspective.

The verdict is in -- the jury has acquitted the pustule known as r. Kelly in the perverted singer's child pornography trial. I was a bit aghast when I heard the news, and will continue to believe that the jury did the wrong thing. If there is anybody that should be put in jail for his sick and degrading crimes, it is r. Kelly.

The most interesting thing to note about the jury's comments on their verdict is that they acquitted Kelly because they said there was "no victim." They agreed that r. Kelly was the man on the tape urinating on and raping a 13 year old girl, but they couldn't positively identify the child, so they felt they had to acquit. Yes, you heard right - they all agreed r. Kelly was raping a child, but they voted not to convict him. What a miscarriage of justice.

From the CBS 2 Chicago website:

CBS 2's Dorothy Tucker reports the jury said Friday afternoon that they did believe Kelly was the man on the tape, but could not be sure the alleged victim was the girl on the tape, because she never took the witness stand, so they felt they could not convict Kelly.

The graphic, sordid video shows the female dancing and urinating on the floor in the man's direction. The man then has sex with and urinates on her.

Of course, he can never be prosecuted for this particular incident ever again (except for maybe a civil suit). But it is my guess is that this isn't an isolated incident. There's got to be more video tapes floating around. If anyone ever finds one, they should turn it in immediately. There still may be a chance to nail this pervert...

American Thinker has a good article entitled Your Energy Future Under the Democrats by Larrey Anderson, but in addition to the critical look at Democrats energy plans, there was another thing that caught my eye. In a quote of a statement from the DNC website, writer Anderson had to point out that the bad grammar in the statement was not a typo on his part, but that the offending grammar exists in the source statement.

From their official website, here is the summary paragraph (including the bad grammar) of the Democrat plan to solve the energy crisis:

"We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology."

This shows a disturbing tendency I have been seeing more in more in younger people, especially those on the left. The "intelligentsia" of the liberal left seems to have given up on the discipline to precisely and correctly communicate. And their ideology is buried so deep in their psyche that nothing is just plain black or white or right or wrong. Feelings becomes fact, and actual facts are secondary to feelings. Details like conjugating a verb or communicating in complete sentences are secondary, as long as the point gets across.

What kind of slackers are our colleges graduating these days? The white collar work place is full of fresh faced young graduates who have been indoctrinated in the liberal mind-set at their respective universities. They spout high-minded ideals, and swagger with the smarm and confidence belying the intelligence their sheepskin confers upon them. Except that they can barely spell. Universities nowadays are more concerned with teaching children what to think than how to write or communicate decently. And it shows.

The irony of this is that they so deeply believe that they are the intelligentsia, and that conservatives are the clueless automatons who have been brain-washed by the Bush administration and aren't intelligent enough to vote in their own interest. But we are the ones who pay attention to details, and string facts together into intelligent arguments. And we are the ones who can conjugate a verb.

This morning in my Sunday paper, I came across an advertisement that made me stop and consider its content. The ad, reproduced at right, is for Kool-Aid. It depicts young black children in various "gangsta" poses.

This is wrong on so many levels. The ad was in the Sunday magazine section, so its obviously aimed at parents. I could be wrong, but I don't think people are going to coo and go "Oh look, they're little gangsters. How adorable!" At least I didn't. I immediately thought about how course culture has become when this is an acceptable depiction of children. Start your kids on the road to being a gangster early, so they can screw up their life later!

Then there's the racial component. The "angry black" image coming into everyone's homes in an ad for Kool-Aid? This merely reinforces a negative stereotype that is hardly constructive. Blacks as well as whites should find this ad to be objectionable.

What are the folks at Kool-Aid thinking? They must be drinking their product...

Carly Smithson was cut tonight on American Idol. Now, I usually don't blog about such things, but I just have to comment on this. Syesha Mercado was also in the "bottom two," and her performance, I'm sorry, was abysmal. So many wrong notes. Syesha is not half the singer Carly is. That's not to mention far worse performances from Jason Castro or sappy forgettable performances like the one by puppy dog David Archuletta.

America Idol voters, you are tone deaf. Syesha was off key throughout. Smithson did not hit a wrong note. Why am I blogging about this? Because quality and substance no longer matters. It's all just a "popularity" contest. That's why H. is still in the Presidential race.

The conservative blog world is abuzz about the Absolut "Reconquista" ad. While Absolut claims they meant to offend no one, the insincerity of this ad is surely evident. It was run only in Mexico, but isn't that a bit like Reverend Wright damning the USA only in his church?

Of course, Absolut is made in Sweden, but I don't think the Swedish understand the United States market. I'm sure we buy more Absolut here in a month than is sold in Mexico in a year. Of course, I could be wrong. In any case, I was an Absolut drinker (when I drink vodka), but now I'm switching my brand. There are plenty of fine distilled spirits out there that don't offend me.

Many web sites are featuring their own versions of the ad. Michelle Malkin has some, as well as some excellent response to to the ad, and another Photoshop is here.

Here's my contribution:

I have watched H. make the rounds of talk shows this week. After returning from vacation, he has gone to "soft" publicity outfits to further regain some of the poll points he lost due to the Reverend Wright controversy. It's interesting to see liberal media figures, who have unapologetically skewered President Bush with scathing innuendo and out right lies, fall all over themselves to make apologies for H. and his association with Reverend Wright. The double standard is blatantly transparent.

One notable stop was on ABC's "The View." Before H. came on stage, the ladies were actually a bit critical of H., but right before he took the stage, Barbara Walters uttered a proclamation absolving him of any responsibility for the issue:

"Barack Obama... has condemned those remarks. He has in no way supported them, advocated them, stood behind him, or praised his Reverend. There are still questions which we will ask him, about whether he should have gone further, whether he should still go further, but we cannot let it stand that these are.. any statements or any sentiments of Senator Barack. That's all I want to say."

In lighter news, Ray Romano made an appearance on Craig Ferguson's show last night, and one could not help but notice the new hairstyle. Comb-over alert! The future is not far behind...

Heather Mills was awarded less than half of the amount she was seeking in damages in her divorce settlement with Paul McCartney. Paul originally offered her approximately $35 million to settle out of court, but she instead chose to fight him, seeking about $125 million. The final amount came to about $48 million. Plus, when you think about it, the final amount is much smaller, because you have to minus from the amount she was awarded lawyer fees, two years of courtroom appearances, and what else... oh yeah... her DIGNITY!

Happy St. Patrick's Day Sir Paul!

Hitting the newsstands today is the new issue of Rolling Stone, featuring a cover photo of none other than Barack Hussein Obama. Such an endorsement is not a surprise, but the blog world is abuzz with discussion of the Star Wars reference ("A New Hope") and the reverential treatment signified by the ethereal glow they have given the candidate. Darth Barack is clearly smoking hot after doing battle with the forces of Republican evil. Or is he emanating a white smoke similar to that seen expelled from the Vatican chimney after the election of a new pope? It's too bad they ran the photo so high on the page, it cut off the halo that would be clearly seen floating above his self-righteous noggin.

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet... I wonder if they mention anything about him belonging to a church which has awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award to Louis Farrakhan, and which some believe is a racist cult? Or that it took a couple of Saturday Night Live skits to finally embarrass the national news media into taking a harder look at the candidate? Or if they examine his Senate voting record, where he has been virtually non-existent as any kind of representative in the Senate for the people of Illinois? Somehow I doubt it...

Jane Fonda is unrepentant in her recent use of the "C-Word" on national morning television. When questioned about the incident, she matter-of-factly stated that she was just describing a true situation in which she was asked to participate in the Vagina Monologues, and that was the particular monologue she was asked to do. So, in her eyes, it was completely appropriate to say the name of the particular monologue, despite the fact that she was on a nationally televised morning show which may have been watched by children and adults who do not care to hear such language.

Standing next to her at the time of her "explanation" was none other than Eve Ensler, the creator of the Vagina Monologues, who further interjected that saying the C-Word was about "taking it back" - in other words, to make it more acceptable to say in mainstream society, and to remove the stigma about it, much the same way black people have tried to remove the stigma of the N-Word by taking it and using it themselves. She intimated that she was fighting a war to reclaim that word, and similar words, and that is what the Vagina Monologues is all about.

Now that may be all well and good, but why does she and Jane Fonda think it is appropriate to drag us into their battle? The audacity of their position is unfair to those of us who do not share her views, or at the very least, do not want this battle waged on national TV during family viewing time. If they want to fight their battle, they should pick a more appropriate venue to make their initial stands. In warfare, you don't parachute right into the center of a country without at first making some initial gains on the periphery. Similarly, they should choose to fight their battle in an adult venue, and if eventually the adults have decided to side with their position, then they can start involving the rest of the family. To spew forth with what a majority of Americans think is vulgar language on a daytime TV show is simply not appropriate, no matter what battle you think you are waging.

In addition, the self-righteous nature of their behavior is beyond audacious. Jane Fonda and Eve Ensler care little or nothing for anyone who does not agree with them. The fact that someone may be offended by their behavior does not bother them at all. They are self-centered limousine liberals who believe they are smarter than the rest of us and do not have to answer to you and I. Let's show them that their are two sides in every battle, and that we will fight back by refusing to acknowledge their position, and by taking the other side in the battle of decency versus common vulgarity. Their shallow disregard for how others may feel is transparently obvious. Let's show them that we feel the same way about them.

Previous:
Jane Fonda Drops A C-Bomb

Jane Fonda said the "C-word" on NBC TV on Thursday - how ironic. That's the word I usually think of when I hear mention of Jane Fonda.

All kidding aside, I think it's ridiculous that she said that word on national TV. A few weeks ago, Diane Keaton made a similar slip when she let slip the f-word on Good Morning America. But unlike Fonda, Keaton's utterance seemed more like a genuine mistake, for as soon as she said it, she seemed flustered and looked like she realized she made a mistake. Fonda let loose with her profanity in an almost calculated effort to shock.

Whether it's a mistake or not, people swear all the time, but most of us know when to keep it in the back room or to do it when you are with the appropriate people. One of the reasons there are no comments on this blog is that the general tone of discourse on the Internet nowadays has grown increasingly vulger, and I'm not going to pay for web space and have it filled up with people who contribute to that. If you have an opinion about what I've written, put it on your own web server, and you can use all the expletives you want, but I'm not going to publish it.

Many people feel that the reaction to celebrities using vulgar language on national TV is overblown, that people use these words all the time and we're making to much of it. Maybe so, but I don't have to agree. To me, it is evidence that many of today's celebrities are so self-centered that wherever they are, they believe it is all about them, and the rest of the world be damned. It also shows a lack of intelligence when you can't find a balance between expressing yourself and using a careful and appropriate choice of words for the venue you happen to be in.

The Grammy redux; Herbie Hancock wins album of the year, and Usher slaps down Kanye again with this line, just before the announcement: "remember, there are no losers," and directs it to Kanye West. Do you get it Kanye? You are officially a joke.

Ha HA.

pBlakeney.com is beginning to expand beyond politics, and in that interest, I would just like to salute Vince Gill for his put-down of Kanye West at the Grammys. After Kanye's self-indulgent, mentality of a 5-year old boasting after receiving his Grammy, Vince Gill was presented with a Grammy from Ringo Starr. Gill, acknowledging that he was being presented with a Grammy by a Beatle, smacked Kanye down with the line, "have you done that yet, Kanye?" Good for him, and no good to Kanye, who is an egotistical hack whose music will hopefully fade faster than a cheap pair of jeans.

Garrison Keillor's column this week is about the conviction of Jose Padilla. Like many other liberals, Keillor bemoans the fact that Padilla was convicted for conspiracy to commit murder, among other things. It is his contention that Padilla was convicted on the flimsiest of charges, and that if Padilla could be convicted, he could be next. Well, worry not, Mr. Keillor, I doubt that you have done anything to warrant similar attention by our legal system.

Padilla was held as an enemy combatant before being officially charged and subsequently convicted. Unlike Mr. Keillor, Padilla is obviously an enemy to our country, despite being a U.S. citizen. Padilla stands out as a soldier in the service of the enemy — indeed, if we were engaged in a more traditional war, Padilla would likely have been wearing the uniform of the enemy. His conviction on conspiracy charges, while falling short of what the prosecution would have liked to see him convicted of, will keep a dangerous enemy off the streets and keep him from further plotting actions against us.

Mr. Keillor, on the other hand, is not guilty of any such thing. Freedom of Speech guarantees his right to speak freely, and if he is worried about the columns he has written, he should put those worries aside. We know that the only thing Garrison Keillor is guilty of is writing columns extolling the virtues of his liberal viewpoint, as well as performing some silly skits and songs designed to take advantage of the fact that heartland residents of his generation do not realize that their Democratic Party has been hijacked by a younger, more misguided sort of liberal. We know that he is not plotting a dirty-bomb attack or some other form of terrorism; he is simply an old curmudgeon who has succumbed to the "Hate Bush" syndrome which is so prevalent on the left.

So, write on Mr. Keillor. Continue spreading your liberal propaganda disguised as charming musings from an old heartlander. There's no law against writing silly, misguided columns.

I caught Tommy Chong's appearance on Fox's "Your World" with Neil Cavuto this week, and took note as he called President Bush a "moron." In addition to calling Bush a moron, he then called former president Clinton a "genius." In his drug-addled world, I guess he thinks anyone who can pull off getting a blow job in the White House is smart. It is indicative of how liberals think anyone who talks smooth and is well-liked is smart, regardless of their actions. And it also shows how pot can magnify your feelings on an issue, so that Clinton is no longer (in his mind) just smarter than Bush, he is a genius to Bush's moron.

This is especially ironic coming from someone who contributed less than a third of the total talent to the comedy duo known as Cheech and Chong. We wouldn't even be listening to him on this program had he not ridden to fame by hitching his wagon to Cheech Marin's much more talented horse. Let's see, what have they done since? Cheech - a top-rated TV show, a Children's book, and several well received Hollywood movies. Chong - sold bongs, got himself arrested, and now is on TV calling Bush a moron.

I guess it takes one to know one.

Or maybe not...