John Kerry Talks; Osama bin Laden Listens

Bob Schieffer: Osama bin Laden Used John Kerry's Talking Points

9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden may have borrowed some of Sen. John Kerry's talking points for the audiotaped message he released on Thursday - veteran CBS newsman Bob Schieffer said Saturday.

Asked whether bin Laden had expressed "almost the same" sentiments that Kerry did during an appearance on Schieffer's "Face the Nation" broadcast in December, the CBS anchorman told WABC Radio's Mark Simone: "Well, he did. That's exactly right."

Back then, Kerry complained to Schieffer: "There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids."

In his message, bin Laden also complained that the U.S. was terrorizing Iraqi innocents, saying that "the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S. Army and its agents" show "there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands."

Schieffer said he wasn't sure whether bin Laden was consciously borrowing from Kerry, but he added it was possible.

"You can never know about things like that," he told Simone. "But these people seem to have tremendous access. And television being what it is, and now with satellites and so forth, these things go all over the world. Perhaps he did."

Since liberals have been telling us for years that there is no terrorist threat and what a great guy Saddam Hussein is, why should anyone be surprised their terrorists pals like Osama bin Laden would be stealing one of their members' talking points? But could it all be a ruse? Could it be that since there hasn't been any known terrorist attacks on this country since 9/11, that bin Laden appearing "out of nowhere" for the first time in almost a year, is another example of hijinks from those "evil" guys in the GOP?

Of course! That's it!

After all, it can't be that George W. Bush has done such a great job protecting our country, especially when the Prez can get together with Evil Man Cheney and Evil Man Rumsfeld and listen in on average Americans' conversations just for kicks. Now we all know that's not right, so why don't we send our troops home already and listen to the experts when they tell us to let President Saddam have his country back.

George Clooney Is An Idiot

From USA Today.com:

Abramoff's dad bashes Clooney's 'ridiculous attack'

By Erica Solvig, The (Palm Springs, Calif.) Desert Sun

The father of controversial Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff is responding to actor George Clooney for what he's describing as a "glib and ridiculous attack" on his son.

Frank Abramoff, in a letter addressed to Clooney and sent to The (Palm Springs, Calif.) Desert Sun Thursday, said he was watching the Golden Globes Monday night when Clooney, during his acceptance speech for best supporting actor, thanked Jack Abramoff "just because" and made a comment about the lobbyist's name.

"Who would name their kid Jack with the last words 'off' at the end of your last name? No wonder that guy is screwed up," Clooney said during the internationally televised awards show.

In the letter, Frank Abramoff furiously defends the name, saying his son is named after Frank's father. In the two-page letter, he calls Clooney's act a "lapse in lucidity" and an "obscene query."

It's sad how liberals like George Clooney will never learn that insulting people and engaging in narcissistic hyperbole to get your "point" across will never work with the American public. And because they're so blinded by hatred for anyone who disagrees or opposes their agenda, liberals will not only continue to bathe in ignorance, they'll continue to make less of a mark where it matters most: holding public office. It's their close-mindedness that prevents them from accepting the fact that two-thirds of the American voters in this country do not think like they do. It's their close-mindedness that prevents them from realizing that the re-election of George W. Bush told the world that more and more people are being turned off by their agenda.

As for George Clooney, it's a well-known fact that he's a bad actor who gets by on his good looks and charm. His movies do not make any money and the one good role he's ever had (as "Dr. Ross" on E.R.) only became popular because the excellent writers on that still-successful show played to the sole strengths Clooney has as an actor: his good looks and charm.

For the Left, Clooney is a latter-day Jane Fonda: a proud liberal and another non-talented "actor" who can parlay their physical acumens into fame because as people like Pamela Anderson continues to prove, Hollywood values looks over talent. While Clooney may speak from the heart, he comes across as stupid when he makes infactual comments concerning politics and like a fool when he bows to his fanbase and makes leftwing conspiracy lies like "Syriana". In other words, he's a typical liberal and like Fonda, conservatives would be wise not to take Clooney seriously as an actor, as an activist or as a human being.

Lauryn Hill Is Still Nuts

So I saw The Artist Formerly Known As Lauryn Hill on the cover of the latest issue of Black liberal magazine Essence the other day, picked it up and got some insight on her reunion with the Fugees, her recent hiatus from recording music, her 4 kids and the reasons why everyone must now address her as "Ms. Hill".

From MTV.com:

The reason Lauryn Hill had to step away from the spotlight, she told Essence magazine for its new issue, was that it was a "very toxic situation" for her, because she wasn't able to be herself. "I discovered people could only acknowledge red and blue and I was somewhere between. I was purple," she told the magazine. "And when I can't be whole, I have a problem. I was like, 'I've got to get out of here.' "

So she spent two or three years "away from all social interaction," with no music and no television. "It was a very introspective and complicated time because I had to really confront my fears," she said.

During her downtime, Hill also wrote a lot — music as well as screenplays — and even dabbled in fashion design, endeavors that helped her become "older, wiser, and clearer." Still, she vetoed plans to do a clothing line, because it bothered her to see her look "exploited, appropriated, copied and reproduced" by others. "Fashion is something I breathe," Hill said. "I wasn't really trying to share my style, I was just trying to be me and exist."

Now that's she back with the Fugees, Hill says her hope is that other artists don't get "trapped in images that don't really reflect who they are."

As far as artists go, I've always been a huge fan of Lauryn Hill. I really have. Her God-given talent iimmeasurablele and besides the superb effort that was "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill", I still think that she can contribute many more great things to this planet. But that's up to Ms. Hill and it starts with her taking some responsibility for her actions. And nowhere in this article does she do that. In her eyes, her family, friends and men were the problem, and she doesn't take any responsibility for her contributions to the problems that she faces. While she talks about needing to "love herself" more, she still comes off as controlling and she gets angry at any perception of someone disrespecting her.

Sorry, but Lauryn Hill needs to get some Act-Right and quit pointing fingers.

After all, no one forced her to have an affair with fellow band member Wyclef that led to the group's downfall. No one forced her to get with a married man and have kids out of wedlock and she shouldn't have tried to take all the credit for the work performed on "Miseducation", as she did and later got sued for. So granted, while I'm sure that plenty of people, including myself, are happy just to see the Fugees reunited, considering that it's been like 10 years since their last album (the magnificent opus that was "The Score"), I sure hope that Ms. Hill's on-going personal dysfunction doesn't get in the way of the group actually putting out another record or two.

Memo To Al Gore: "Get Over It!"

As he infamously proved in 2000, this guy just doesn't know when to quit.

From Newsmax.com:

Former Vice President Al Gore asserted Monday that President Bush "repeatedly and persistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant and called for a federal investigation of the practice.

Speaking on Martin Luther King Jr.'s national holiday, the man who lost the 2000 presidential election to Bush only after a ruling by the Supreme Court on a recount in Florida, called Bush's warrantless surveillance program "a threat to the very structure of our government." Gore charged that the program has ignored the checks and balances of the courts and Congress.

Gore said that Bush's actions - which the president has defended as indispensable in the war against terrorism - represented a "direct assault" on the special federal court that considers, and decides whether to authorize, administration requests to eavesdrop on Americans.

Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, shot back: "Al Gore's incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America. While the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger. "

Gore said the concerns are especially important on King's birthday because the slain civil rights leader was among thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government.

King, as a foremost civil rights activist in the 1950s and 60s, had his telephone conversations wiretapped by the FBI, which kept a file on him.

Now seriously Al. You had your chance. You blew it bigtime. Now go away already.

Despite the fact that I voted for you (mostly because you decided to show some guts in being your own man and running away from Slick Willie's "sleazegacy"), even I was embarrassed that you went to the courts first and tried to get them to find you some more votes. But thank God Justice O'Connor put a stop to that mess. Now you wanna' score a few brownie points with the same liberals who backstabbed you after you lost in '00, by attacking President Bush?

Now that's just dumb.

Unless, of course, you're getting paid really well to utter such nonsense.

Besides that, it's always funny to me how every year Democrats will use Martin Luther King Jr.'s holiday to speak to and about Black folks, then never be heard from again till elections come around or the next MLK Jr. holiday turns up. Whichever comes first of course. And sadly, Black liberals buy it all the time.

Martin Luther King Jr. Was Not A Liberal

In his prophetic "I Have A dDeam" speech, Martin Luther King said, "Let freedom ring till righteousness rolls down like a mighty river." Dr. King draws a direct correlation between righteousness and freedom. After all, you can't have one without the other.

The Left's dirty little secret is that as a movement it has no vested interest in racial harmony or minority progress. The Left needs poverty, racism, and suffering (or the perception of it) to justify its own existence. The last thing Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, etc. want is for everyone to "just get along." Instead, they create conspiracy theories and use scare tactics to tell those who follow them that "the deck is stacked and you can't possibly do anything without our help." Therein lies the roots of the Left's agenda.

Growing up I can remember members of my family voting Democrat in every election. However, since the Reagan administration, the Democrats have over the years adopted a platform completely different than the values that made my family so Democratic in the first place. Back then, Democrats identified more with the values of the voters as a whole and were seen as the poor man's "best friend". Now, while many Democrats may claim to still represent the poor and disenfranchised, one has come to wonder if instead, they really identify with what a poor man treasures most? True, the poor have issues specific to their plight, however, many still have a deep seated faith and belief system that's just as important. After all, whatever a man owns can be taken from him except for his values. The same can be said for minorities and women, the other two groups Dems have long claimed to be looking out for. However, the civil rights movement has been hijacked by people who have turned Dr. King's beliefs on their ear, and through the mainstream media and guilt tactics have managed to embed their newfound version of liberalism in the nation's consciousness.

Today, discussions of race are not about ''content of character", they are about color of skin, sexual preference, nation of origin, and gender. Any person who dares to go against the current-day politically correct stance will be labeled a "racist", "homophobe", "sell-out", etc..

Thus, it needs to be noted that the kind of "liberalism" fought in the civil rights movement, is not the same as today's liberalism. Back then, it had biblical foundations to it. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian who recognized the inherent worth of every human being as a biblical principle. The civil rights movement may have attracted immoral people to it, but that didn't make it immoral itself. Its foundations were still biblical. Today's liberal philosophy is not biblical in any sense of the word. Instead it is an immoral ideology based solely on secular humanism and self-indulgence.

Thus, I'm confident that if Martin Luther King Jr. were still alive today he'd want nothing to do with what defines today's liberalism.

Lindsey Graham's Got It Right

Finally, a member of the GOP shows some guts and tells a liberal senator where to stick it.

From Newsmax.com:

Charles Schumer: Alito Filibuster Still Possible

Leading Senate Judiciary Committee member Charles Schumer, D-NY, said Sunday that it was too early to rule out a filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, even though Committee Democrats failed to land a glove on Alito during a week of tough questioning.

Asked if "the filibuster option was dead in this case," Schumer told "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace: "We're still finishing the process. Written questions have to be answered. I submitted a whole bunch. So it's premature to say anything till we fully assess the record."

Appearing on the same show, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, predicted that if Democrats filibuster Alito, "there would be a huge backlash in this country . . . That would not be advising and consenting, that would be hijacking the [last year's presidential] election."

Asked if Alito was "more out of the mainstream than Ruth Bader Ginsburg," Schumer said: "He may well be. And that's the fundamental question that we are assessing right now."

The Ginsburg comparison rankled Graham, who complained: "Ruth Bader Ginsburg went through the Senate with 96 votes. No one put up her writings or her associations to try to smear her. No one on our side held her views [supporting] Roe v Wade against her."

In previous interviews Graham has noted that Justice Ginsburg had been the chief legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and had once written in favor of lowering the age of consent for women to twelve.

Graham said that the goal of Alito's opponents was to "overturn the election and take away from President Bush the rights that President Clinton enjoyed - and it's not going to happen."

It's long past time for the GOP to stop playing nicey with these MoveOn-owned liberals. It's about time the GOP starts acting tough, keeping in mind that with ownership of the House, Senate and the Presidency, it's the Republicans who have the leverage, NOT the Democrats.

I supported the Gang of 14 resolution last year because it was in the best interests of the Senate at the time, got 3 conservative judges higher seats on the court and it definitively made note that only "extraordinary circumstances" would be an acceptable reason for a filibuster.

Despite ACLU safeguard Ruth Ginsberg being on the court thanks to a 96-3 vote by senators whose principles weren't defined by special-interests groups, only liberals would dare to apply Samuel Alito as an "extraordinary circumstance".

You see, normally senators accept a president's court nominations for three reasons: they respect the perspectives of their nominees; they believe a president should have the right to choose whomever they please as America's legitimately elected leader; or they fear the president's political power. Since Democrats lean on poll numbers much more than Republicans do, we know that Bush's low ratings are playing a major part in the Democrats' continual delay tactics. Yet, they'd be stupid to attempt a filibuster on the sole basis of getting revenge for Bush. In order to make a just case to the American public that Alito doesn't belong on the Supreme Court, liberals needed to come up with some more capital. Yet, despite having a week to do so, Teddy and his gang fell on their face, made the poor guy's wife cry and failed miserably in putting a dent in Alito's armor.

Now it's time for the GOP to step up their game and make sure Alito gets in at all costs.