Following is an excerpt from last night's CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate. This part didn't get any coverage from our mainstream media, which instead reported on the REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF, like where Rudy accused Mitt of of running a "sanctuary mansion", or where Fred poked a little fun at the other boys in his video. Just crackerjack, our media. I can't say often enough what a wonderful job they do. 'Up next on CNN, Britney drives her car'.

The following question came from Yasmin, no doubt another of those CNN "undecided Republican voters" (aka Democrats). Yasmin wanted the candidates to explain how they would rehab america's image in the Middle East, since we've lost so much respect because of the Iraq war. I think this is the wrong question. America took down the murderous and fanatical Taliban and routed Al Qaeda, freeing Afghanistan in the process. America took down the Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein, and routed Al Qaeda, freeing Iraq in the process. Muslims have committed over 10,000 worldwide terrorist attacks since 9/11. Iran is run by anti-semitic Islamofascist lunatics seeking nuclear weapons. Syria is Iran's pawn. Palestine is being run by Hamas, a terrorist group. Saudi Arabia is the origin of the extremist Wahhabists. Hatred and bigotry is being taught in madrassas throughout the Middle East. It goes on and on. I think the RIGHT question would be: What is the Middle East going to do to rehab itself in the eyes of the Western world ??? The onus SHOULD be on them, not us.

But they didn't let me ask any questions during the debate, because I'm not a Democratic activist. Here is the question and the excellent responses from the three Republican candidates who were allowed to answer. This is from the CNN debate transcript:

Yasmin: Good evening, gentlemen. My name is Yasmin and I hail from Huntsville, Alabama.

My question has to do with the current crisis in Iraq, as well as the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.

After living abroad, personally, in the Middle East for a year, I realized just how much damage the Iraq war and the perception of invasion has done to the image of America. What would you do as president to repair the image of America in the eyes of the Muslim world?

Cooper: Mayor Giuliani, 90 seconds?

Giuliani: Well, the most important thing to do is to make certain we remain on offense against Islamic terrorism.

(Applause)

And then make it clear that what that means is this is a small group of people, Islamic terrorists, who have defiled a great religion, that the vast majority of people who are Islamic, the vast majority of people who are Arabs, the vast majority of people living in these countries are good people. We should be trading with them. We should have contact with them. We should expand our contacts with them. We should have cultural exchanges with them.

The night of September 11th, 2001, when we were beginning to recover — or, not really recover, but maybe just first catch our breath after the attack of September 11th, you'll see one of the first things I said was I said to the people of my city and then probably to the people of America that we should not engage in group blame.

We shouldn't do the thing that we're being attacked for. We shouldn't blame an entire group of people for the horrible acts of a few people who have distorted a great religion. They have turned it into an ideology of hatred and an ideology of violence.

By the same token, we can't do what the Democrats do. We can't put our head in the sand. You've got a Democratic debate and not a single one of those Democratic candidates used the word "Islamic terrorism." I don't know who they think they're offending. The people they're offending are the people we want to offend — the Islamic terrorists …

(Applause)

… and not decent people like Yasmin. We are intelligent enough and good enough as Americans to make this distinction.

Cooper: Senator McCain?

McCain: Well, I would do a lot of things, but the first and most important and vital element is to continue this surge which is succeeding and we are winning the war in Iraq.

(Applause)

That's the first thing I would do. I would make sure that we do what we can to help reconstruct the country, to help the Maliki government move forward as rapidly as possible to train the police.

But I'll tell you one other thing we're — I'm going to do, is we're going to fight back the Democrats' efforts to set a date for withdrawal which is a date for surrender.

(Applause)

Now, my friends, I'm the only one on this stage — I'm the only one on this stage — that said that the Rumsfeld strategy was failing and was doomed to failure. I'm the only one on this stage that said we've got to have a new strategy, and that's the strategy we're employing now.

And I got a lot of heat when I said that that strategy was failing and it had to be changed, because I've had the experience and the background and the knowledge of every national security issue we've faced in the last 20 years.

And I'm telling you, that if we continue this strategy, we can succeed. And if we had done what the Democrats said to do six months ago, Al Qaida would be telling the word they beat America.

Cooper: Time.

McCain: There's a lot at stake here, my friends, and thank God for the young men and women who are sending the message I repeat to you again, after having been there over Thanksgiving weekend, let me win, let us win.

(Applause)

Cooper: Thirty seconds, Congressman Hunter. The question is, how do you repair the image of America in the Muslim world?

Hunter: Cooper, Cooper, very simply, to the critics of America I would say this. When you were faced with disease and starvation, the Americans brought food and medicine. When you had earthquakes and tsunamis and floods, the Americans came and helped you. And when you were threatened from outside, the Americans left the safety of their own homes to come and defend you.

I will never apologize for the United States of America.

(Applause)

CNN is unbelievable. I reported on their planted Democratic activists in my Ordinary People, Undecided Voters post, where all the questions from "undecided voters" during the Democratic presidential debates were really softball planted questions from Democratic operatives and activists, but CNN has gone a step further. Last night, they planted a bunch more Democrats to ask the Republican candidates questions during the CNN/You Tube debate. Michelle Malkin has a good story on it. This is definitely worth reading.

In summary, here are a few of the "concerned undecided" voters asking the Republican candidates questions:

- Concerned Young Undecided Person “Journey” who asked the abortion question is a John Edwards supporter

- Concerned Undecided Person who asked the Log Cabin Republican question is David Cercone, an Obama supporter

- Concerned Undecided Mom LeeAnn Anderson is an activist for the John Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers union. She is an aide to the Steelworkers union president.

- Concerned Undecided Gay Military Retiree Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr is a Hillary/Kerry supporter and anti-”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” activist

I guess in CNN's world, "equal time" and "fairness" is having Democratic activists asking Democrats debate questions, and also having Democratic activists asking Republicans debate questions. Like I said, unbelievable (not that there's any liberal media bias. Gosh no).

Ex-prez Bill Clinton, stumping in Iowa for the would be next-prez, his wife Hillary, re-created a little history yesterday. That's not an unusual thing for a Clinton to do, pretty normal really, but this one was notable. Here's the statement Bubba made, according to the Washington Post:

"Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers," Clinton said. He said he "should not have gotten" the tax cuts he received as a wealthy earner.

Today, Fox News was talking about Bill saying that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning", because, well, he didn't. In May of 2003, Mr. Clinton said, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". So, Bubba was for the war before he was against it, and let's not forget that he was also the one who made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US government in 1998 when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act. Let's also not forget the Clintonistas were sure those wmd were in Iraq in 1998, 2000, and 2002. Let's also not forget that Bubba's wife voted FOR the Iraq war, also before she was against it. Bill Clinton's only caveat against the Iraq war was his precarious statement that he wished Bush had let the weapons inspectors finish their job, even though the weapons inspectors had been attempting to do their job for over 10 years in Iraq, but couldn't, due to Saddam's misdirection and interference.

Do these politicians not realize that we have the ability to look their previous statements up on the internet nowadays ? How do they think they can get away with this stuff ? These lies just don't fly.

But that stuff is just Clintons being Clintons. If they didn't lie all the time, they wouldn't BE Clintons. If they didn't lie all the time, they'd be real human beings, complete with consciences and other vestiges of humanity. Oh well.

What I really want to talk about is the other part of Bubba's statement, the part where he said he didn't deserve the Bush tax cuts, and that he was "not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers". Now, maybe the ex-prez wasn't asked to give his money to support those soldiers, but he sure as heck has the opportunity, as do all the others who think they aren't paying enough in taxes. For all you rich folk out there who don't think you're paying your fair share, i.e. Bill Clinton, Warren Buffett, Barbra Streisand, and all the rest of you overpaid phonies, I'm going to help you all to ease your consciences and assuage your guilt. Lord knows, I don't want a bunch of guilty liberals running around crying in their stretch limos. So, get out your checkbooks right now and write a bunch of big fat multi-million (or billion, Mr. Buffett) dollar checks to Uncle Sam right now. I'm sure it will be greatly appreciated. If enough of you guilty fat cats like Mr. Clinton get together and pony up enough dough, maybe y'all can support the troops AND get rid of that federal deficit. I'll even provide the address for you. Consider it a public service:

Internal Revenue Service,
1111 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20224.

(You'd think Bill Clinton would know about this IRS place, since he lived right down the street from it for 8 years)

If y'all don't want to pony up the money, that's fine too, but please then, Mr. Clinton and all the rest of you rich whining pinheads, shut your lying yaps !

So, whaddya think, everyone ? Will those rich people start sending in their big checks to support the troops now and fill up the federal government's coffers ?

Not a chance.

The CNN Democratic presidential debate was a highly choreographed, controlled, and censored setup masquerading as free and open inquiry. The section of the debate where the "public" got to ask questions of the candidates was the phoniest part. The public, introduced by Wolf Blitzer as "ordinary people" and "undecided voters", was a collection of Democratic activists representing various factions of the Democratic party. Check out the following links for the details about who these people were. None of them was identified as to who they really were.

CNN plant link #1

CNN video plant link #2

So, we had a former intern for Harry Reid (who asked Hillary that difficult 'diamonds or pearls' question), an anti-war activist, a Muslim activist, the director of the Arkansas Democratic party, an immigration activist, and a union worker who it appeared Obama already knew. These are the "regular" people CNN randomly plucked from the audience. Any questions ?

Now you know why the Democrats debate on CNN or MSNBC instead of Fox News. On Fox, they might be asked real questions instead of pre-screened softballs coming from their friends.

Not that there is any liberal media bias. Gosh no.

Now that CNN has been exposed, though not by any of the crackerjack mainstream media outlets (not that the MSM has any liberal bias. Gosh no), I wonder how the sorriest excuse for a political team on television over at CNN will handle the GOP presidential debate they are moderating on wednesday night. Will only Republican operatives be allowed to ask questions, as in the Democratic debate ? They almost have to do it that way, since the blogosphere has busted CNN's shilling for the Democrats. If CNN does anything else now, they may have to register as a Democratic fundraising and campaigning organization, not that I ever suspected them of being anything else.

Thank goodness we have the United Nations organization to keep peace in the world. They have done a masterful job, haven't they ? The UN's atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been investigating Iran's nuclear program for 4 years now. What have they found ? Heck, they don't know, because Iran hasn't been cooperating. Strange behavior for a country that claims to have nothing to hide, isn't it ? I remember Saddam Hussein playing the same cat and mouse games with the UN for over 10 years. That didn't turn out so well for Saddam, but it didn't have anything to do with the UN. The UN is good for passing resolutions and making strongly worded statements (especially against Israel), but that's pretty much it. When it comes to actually enforcing anything, the UN is about as useful as screen doors on a submarine.

According to an AFP article:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "has so far not been able to verify some important aspects of Iran's nuclear programme," its director general Mohamed ElBaradei told a board meeting here.

He specifically cited key questions related to the scope and nature of Iran's centrifuge enrichment activities, "as well as those relevant to alleged studies and other activities that could have military applications".

As a result, the UN watchdog was "unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities," ElBaradei complained.

The Egyptian-born diplomat noted that the IAEA had seen an increased level of cooperation from Iran in answering questions about the past, but its knowledge of Tehran's current programme has "diminished" since 2006.

Furthermore, Iran's cooperation was more "reactive than pro-active," he lamented.

In other words, El Baradei doesn't know what the hell Iran is up to, and Iran is engaging in a pattern of disinformation.

But not to worry, the UN is ON THE JOB. As the AFP article also states, "(the IAEA's) 35-member board seemed divided on how to get Tehran to shed more light on its activities".

Sooo, the UN asked for cooperation for years, Iran didn't give it to them, and now the IAEA can't decide what to do. Same as it ever was. The West largely wants sanctions, arguing that Iran only cooperates when forced to cooperate in the face of real consequences (yeah, no kidding), but another faction, led by that world beacon of freedom and human rights, Cuba, disagreed. Those "non-aligned nations" (do I even have to list them ? You know who they are: Russia, China, Arab league, etc) described Iran's non-cooperation as "a very positive step". I kid you not. That's really what they said, and somehow, everyone in the room didn't burst into uncontrollable laughter when they said it. Those UN people must have lots of self-control. I would have been on the floor.

Finally, the AFP article states that "Iran's UN envoy to the IAEA, Ali-Asghar Soltanieh, warned that any talk of possible sanctions would be "counterproductive"". RIIIIIGHT. I presume he means counterproductive to Iran, which is the whole argument IN FAVOR OF sanctions.

On the bright side, the UN is going to issue a report and schedule more meetings. Terrific.

What could possibly go wrong ?

A few weeks ago, I speculated that we must be up to about 5,000 worldwide terrorist attacks since 9/11. I am here now to confess I was wrong…

The number is actually 10,067 (probably higher by the time I finish this column), found at thereligionofpeace website. Here is another link to the terrorist attacks carried out in only the last two months.

I don't know about the rest of you, but this seems like a real problem to me, as opposed to a mere bumper sticker. It's not a problem that George W. Bush caused either. He might have made our enemies mad by invading Afghanistan and Iraq (I'm certain he made the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Saddam mad), but they were already our enemies. He didn't create that. Islamic extremism was alive and well before Bush ever took office. The attacks on american interests were escalating all throughout the 90's, and I'm almost positive that 9/11 happened before we went into those aforementioned countries. For america, the active war on terrorism started on 9/11 - for the terrorists, it started long before.

In spite of over 10,000 terrorist attacks by radical Muslim extremists in 6 years, there is an inexplicable faction within the american left who says there is no such thing as Islamofascism, and who start foaming at the mouth whenever the term is used. For some reason, they think it's politically incorrect to call a spade a spade when referring to terrorists. Conservative speakers have been shouted down on american college campuses for talking about Islamofascism, which leaves me thinking that perhaps these leftist Islamist apologists should be called the Talibanettes. They act just like the Taliban and Al Qaeda do. They squash free speech and attempt to impose their beliefs on all. No dissension allowed. They hate when conservatives get all preachy and morally judgemental against terrorist mass murderers of the innocent, because the american Talibanettes know all this is america's fault. It has to be, because america is the real fascist, and all the other peoples of the world are oppressed by the Great Capitalist Satan (despite decades and decades of overwhelming evidence to the contrary). The Talibanettes know Bush and the neocon devils went to war for oil, even though the obvious fact that WE DIDN'T STEAL IRAQ'S OIL eludes them. Nothing as small as a fact can stand in the way of a zealot's beliefs. Maybe Bush's approval rating would be higher than 30% if he HAD stolen all Iraq's oil and we americans could buy gas for $1.50 per gallon instead of $3.19, but Bush didn't do that.

More than just the Talibanettes think that terrorism is no big deal. The Democratic presidential contenders hardly discuss it except in their ongoing debate over who will end the Iraq war the quickest (Hillary is excepted from this, but only when she is speaking to the VFW). To any incoming president who might not think terrorism is a real and serious issue, Dubya said he/she will, "learn differently when they get in there and hear the intelligence I hear." Speaking of Dubya, he also realizes the war against terrorism is going to be a long war. In a recent column by Kathleen Parker on the subject, Bush is quoted as saying:

"It's real important for the president to not be making moves based upon political calendars," he told me. "I really view this as a first chapter of a long struggle — not the only chapter, not the last chapter, but the first chapter.

"And I've told our people, we're going to write it … so that the next president will have an easier task of dealing with the threats. And that's why it's so important that we get the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) issue right, and that's why it's so important to get the detainee issue right, because presidents are going to need the information that comes from those programs in order to defend the homeland."

A lot of people don't want to hear that kind of talk. They want the war to be over. They want to concentrate on americans inside america, and they don't want to deal with extremists halfway around the world. The problem with that attitude is, you can't have peace when only one side declares peace. Both sides must declare it, and the terrorists won't just because we decide to go home. When they stop blowing up innocent people, or when they are all dead or imprisoned, then it will be over. How can it be any other way ? Until then, we can debate about how to fight them, but attempting to avoid fighting them, or even worse, attempting to demonize our own country for fighting them, is an attempt to avoid the elephant in the room.

You are supposed to feel guilty today, you know. We all want to celebrate Thanksgiving, because most of us realize we have a lot to be thankful for, but protesters remind us that the original Thanksgiving wasn't followed up by many more good times for the Indians, I mean, Native Americans, while other protesters tell us that killing turkeys isn't such a good thing either. So humanocentric. Maybe we should listen to PETA and eat some tofurkey instead, whatever that is. Plus, eating all that food will make us fat and lead to health problems, overburdening our health care system and causing us to miss work, decreasing productivity.

And what are all you men doing sitting on the couch watching football while the women do all the work, you sexist pigs ?

After today, the Christmas shopping season kicks into full gear, with all our american decadent consumerism on full display. Oh, wait a minute, am I still allowed to say 'Christmas', or is that a bad word now ? Do I have to say 'the holiday shopping season' instead ? Lord knows, I mean, gosh knows, I want to be politically correct. Let me phone the ACLU to check on this year's protocol. I'll remember to press '1' for english.

Or…..

Forget all that, and have a great day with your loved ones. Thank God for your blessings, and say a prayer for our troops while you're at it. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. We are truly fortunate to live in this country and in this time.

Of course you did. How could you not ? The mainstream media won't let you forget it. They can barely mention Mitt's name without telling you about his weird Mormon religion. They are such wonderful journalists, aren't they ? Top notch professionals (as in 'the world's oldest profession'). Lord knows, we don't want any icky Mormons as president of the United States (the unspoken reason for the constant mention of Mitt's Mormon-osity). He'd probably appoint the entire Osmond family to his cabinet. You know how those Mormons stick together. All that singing would be so-o-o distracting. Plus, Mitt's a Republican. From Massachusetts, no less, a state which everyone knows is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Kennedys. So, who does this Romney character think he is, moving in on Kennedy turf like that ? This has to be one weird bird, this guy. One uppity Mormon. What else could we possibly need to know about him ? I mean, really. Oh yeah ! Romney also changed his position on the totally non-controversial issue of abortion (now he's one of those wack jobs who thinks we SHOULDN'T kill babies), so you know he's no darned good. Let's send him back to Utah where he belongs, along with his six wives, or however many he has. The White House is for Christian Christians, not Mormon Christians.

But then again, maybe I shouldn't be so hasty. To quote Saint Hillary The Pure-Hearted (snicker), maybe I shouldn't sling mud. Maybe I shouldn't engage in the politics of personal destruction (that's only for Clintons). Gosh, Hillary makes me want to be a better man…..well, better than her husband, anyway, which shouldn't be much of a challenge. All I have to do is NOT sexually assault the next woman I encounter. Done ! But who am I kidding ? If Hillary could push Romney off a cliff and get away with it, Romney would be laying on the rocks below. In spite of that, I'll give Romney a closer look, since I've become a better man than I was when I wrote that last paragraph three minutes ago.

First of all, you'll notice from the photograph that Mitt Romney has those Hollywood presidential good looks. If he does become president, he could play himself in the movies. He's also wearing a nice suit and standing in front of an american flag, so he's patriotic. I know this stuff seems silly, but I'm trying to think the way our media thinks for a minute. 'If only we could lose the Republican thing and the Mormon thing, Mittsy'………oh well. I guess the left coast celebutante vote is out. Romney will just have to get by without Barbra Streisand's endorsement. Life is tough.

When you start reading Mitt Romney's resume, you start to understand why the liberal stink media talks incessantly about the Mormon thing and the abortion thing. I've also heard some conservatives are spreading anti-Mormon spew in Iowa. Shame on you. They do it because Mitt Romney's resume is very impressive. He's been quite the whiz kid, with a record of success everywhere he's gone. The media loves to talk about Hillary's vast experience, but seriously, the woman hasn't done jack squat compared to Mitt Romney. Ditto when you compare Obama or Edwards to Romney. Jack squat. They are posers. Those two probably couldn't even get hired to work for one of Mitt Romney's companies. When Romney says Hillary hasn't run anything before, he knows what he's talking about, because Mitt has lots of experience running things, and running them well. None of the three leading Democrat presidential contenders has ever run a large organization. NONE OF THEM, and they think we should appoint them to the top job in the land. No thank you. Romney has been a CEO and a governor. THAT is running things. He started his own company, which became wildly profitable. He has turned several organizations from losing propositions into profitable ones, including Bain and Company, the Olympic Winter Games, and the State Of Massachusetts. In Taxachusetts, Romney turned a huge deficit into a surplus, cut spending, and cut taxes, yet he gets criticized for closing some tax loopholes and raising a few state fees, including a 2 cent raise in the gasoline tax. Unbelievable. If we want someone who can turn these perpetual federal deficits and astronomical debt around, we can't find one person better qualified for that job than Mitt Romney, because there isn't one. Romney has a proven track record of accomplishment. And for all you universal health care advocates (although I'm not one of you), Romney was also the first one who accomplished that. It wasn't Hillary talking about it, not Edwards talking about it. It was Mitt Romney doing it. He did it in Massachusetts. Yeah, a mean old Republican was the first to do it. In fact, the second to do it was another mean old Republican, Ahnold in Cali. Wake up and smell the coffee folks. Get off the Democratic plantation. George W. Bush isn't running in 2008, so you won't be voting for or against him. Mitt Romney IS running, and he's very worthy of your vote, once you put all the nonsense aside and look at the facts, which the media will make every effort to keep hidden from your eyes. I bet you didn't even know Mitt Romney's real first name is Willard. Vote for him in spite of that moniker. Besides, Willard was that weird guy who liked rats in that old movie, and for those of you who know me, you know I like rats too, so Romney is just the guy for this old rubber city rat.

For the record, Mitt Romney married his high school sweetheart and has been married to her for 39 years. He has ONE wife, and five sons. He doesn't cheat on her and they waited until marriage to have sex. There are no scandals I know of in Romney's past or present. In other words, he's the anti-Clinton. Sounds good.

Mitt Romney for president website.

The Akron Beacon Journal printed an editorial by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman in the sunday newspaper. The column was called Obama, played for a sucker like many in the Beltway. I've always been confused by Krugman, one reason being that he is a professor of Economics at Princeton University, but nothing he writes about economics ever makes any economic sense. You'd think even liberal Economists would be able to add and subtract, but not Krugman. His latest column is a case in point.

Krugman takes the position that Social Security isn't going broke, and he cites as his sole proof the contention that our country's financial health will be determined by the growth of health care costs……….???????? I'm not kidding, that's what he said. Here's the relevant passage:

…But the “everyone” who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn’t include anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided.

As Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, put it in a recent article co-authored with senior analyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the United States has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid to demographic challenges, such as the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation, our country’s financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.”

How has conventional wisdom gotten this so wrong? Well, in large part it’s the result of decades of scare-mongering about Social Security’s future from conservative ideologues, whose ultimate goal is to undermine the program

If that doesn't make any sense to you, you're not alone. I had to read that part of Krugman's column like three times to make sure I read it correctly, because the growth rate of health care costs doesn't have one single thing to do with the solvency or insolvency of Social Security, but Krugman pretends he just settled the whole issue with that fatuous statement, and then he just moves on to how the Republicans misled everybody about Social Security the whole time. It is so astoundingly illogical that I think Krugman is misleading us intentionally and hoping we are too dumb to notice. He HAS to be. HE TEACHES ECONOMICS AT PRINCETON, for crying out loud. He HAS to know that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. He has to know it's going broke. He HAS TO KNOW ! Either that, or he cannot add or subtract and ended up as a Princeton professor anyway. I don't know what Krugman's students at Princeton are learning, but it sure isn't economics. They are probably learning Anti-Conservatism 101.

Krugman says Social Security is a small problem, way down the list of american problems. Never mind that your SS payroll taxes are put into the general fund and immediately spent. Never mind that there is no SS Trust Fund. It doesn't exist. It never did. Never mind that it is nothing but IOU's, a claim on future taxpayers. Never mind that in about 10 years, SS will be paying out more than it takes in. Never mind that such a ponzi scheme would be highly illegal if a private industry tried it (Enron DID). I wrote a previous column about Social Security that you can find here. Paul Krugman says never mind, it's all just Republicans trying to scare you. AND HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A ECONOMIST !?!?!?!? In a pig's eye, he is ! If Paul Krugman is an Economist and can still write utter nonsense like this, then I'm Elvis Presley, and I'm — All Shook Up.

Quote of the week: “There is something profoundly wrong—something that should trouble all of us—when we have elected Democratic officials who seem more worried about how the Bush administration might respond to Iran’s murder of our troops, than about the fact that Iran is murdering our troops.” —Sen. Joe Lieberman

Isn't it great to be an independent, Joe ? Now you can say what you want to say.
——————————————————————————————-

Now that the Democratic primaries are over and Hillary is the nominee…..Say what ? They're NOT over yet ? Oh. It seems like they are. Well, just a minor technicality. WHEN Hillary is the nominee, I'm wondering if we want the woman who said the following to be the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the US armed forces:

"Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief." Hillary Clinton to General Petraeus, September 11th, 2007.

Nothing like calling the troops liars to demonstrate how much you 'support' them, eh ? It's apparent to all now that Petraeus was telling the truth about the progress of the surge in Iraq, and Hillary was the one whose words required the willing suspension of disbelief, as she engaged in pure partisan spin to score political points, (aka standard Democrat procedure). The only thing Hillary has inspired me to do is retch.
——————————————————————————————-

Isn't it just perfect that Sandy Burglar Berger is part of Hillary's campaign team ? The old Clintonistas are coming out of the woodwork, from James Carville to Sidney Blumenthal to Bubba himself. Even more perfect than Burglar's Berger's appearance was Hillary's explanation that Burglar Berger has "no official role in my campaign", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. I guess Hillary is saying Burglar Berger works for her, but he doesn't do anything. Perfectly reasonable explanation for the Leftmedia, I guess, who will swallow any fantastic whale tale from a Clintonista, including Burglar's Berger's own laughable story that he forgot he stuffed classified documents from the National Archives down his pants and in his socks on multiple occasions. You know, when Republicans did stuff like this, far less than this actually, Nixon ended up resigning over it. When Democrats do it, Burglar Berger gets probation and there isn't even a real investigation. Not that there's a double standard or anything. Nah. It barely even made the newspapers, for god's sake. I guess 9/11 wasn't a big enough news story. Whatever happened to that polygraph Burglar Berger was supposed to take as part of his plea deal, anyway ? He's never taken it, but he's working for Hillary.
——————————————————————————————-

Post-partum debate thought: In a righteous world, shouldn't Hillary's head have exploded on the spot when she complained about John Edwards slinging mud at her ? You could have cut the hypocrisy with a knife. Kathleen Willey has just come out with a book about all the mud the Clinton's slung at her, all because Willey had the brazen audacity to come forward and tell people how Bubba the sexual predator accosted her. This is one book the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media will conveniently ignore. You can bet on it.

Btw, Edwards didn't 'sling mud' at Hillary at all, he gave an accurate description of her issue flip-flopping and an equally accurate description of her as a powerful DC insider (and the audience booed at THE TRUTH). If that's slinging mud, then I guess asking Hillary planted questions about diamonds or pearls is all we have left. Also, even as Hillary complained about Edwards slinging mud, in the SAME SENTENCE she slung mud at Republicans by saying that Edwards tactics were "right out of the Republicans playbook" (no booing from the audience at this actual example of nonspecific mud slinging). It boggles the mind. The fictional narrative of the Clintonistas continues, year XV, with a major assist this time from CNN. If they do any more of these Democratic pseudo-debates, I think the National Enquirer should moderate. They have a tad more journalistic integrity than CNN does. I'd really recommend the next Democratic debate be held by FoxNews, but I hear the powerful presidential wannabee John Edwards breaks out in hives and gets the vapors whenever Fox News is mentioned. They'd have to send his wife to debate in his place.