Lottery Post Journal

Prince Charles' Wasted trip to USA

Can you believe this crap?  Prince Charles is using his rare trip to the United States to persuade George W. Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam?

What the heck is that guy smoking?!

He says that the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11.  What the....?

Does he think it is intolerant when Bush was crowing about the "beautiful religion of Islam" on the day of the September 11th attacks?

Personally, if I were Bush I would never have made those remarks, especially about a religion that preaches that you should destroy people who don't believe in your religion.

I think instead of talking about tolerance of Islam, Prince Charles should be talking about increasing tolerance of Christianity, which is constantly under attack in the USA and around the world.

Everywhere it seems it is OK to bash Christian beliefs and customs, and silence any mention of Christianity from the public discourse, but breathe one word of that about Islam, and you're labeled "intolerant".

I think Prince Charles has his head screwed on backwards, and he should stay home.

By the way, here's a link to the story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/30/nchas30.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/30/ixportaltop.html

Hurricane Wilma Satellite Photo

Let the Circus Begin

Today the circus, otherwise known as the Saddam Hussein trial, began.

There are a couple of reasons for my labeling of it as a circus:

  1. We will all witness the mainstream media falling over themselves to couch everything they say about Saddam in the most admiring way possible.  In fact, they will probably call him a "leader", a "fighter", and other ridiculous words that are supposed to make him seem to be a hero of sorts.  They will not call him what normal, thinking people would call him, like murderer, dictator, and villain.  Even though we have all seen the video tapes of the dead women clutching their poisoned babies in their arms as they died a horrible death at the hands of Saddam, he is "innocent until proven guilty" in the liberal media's eyes.  Even though the reporters toured the torture chambers, where inhuman acts were committed on Saddam's prisoners, and survivors recounted the grisly stories of their imprisonment, the liberal media thinks we should give Saddam the benefit of the doubt.
  2. The Iraqi courts and prosecutor are under-skilled and under-matched.  They will focus on Saddam's deeds, and are ill-prepared to deal with his strategy of public relations pressure.  Think about it: does this scenario remind you of another trial?  Perhaps the O.J. trial?  Remember the outmatched prosecutor's office, which laid out in excruciating detail how O.J. murdered two people, but failed to get the conviction because they were played like a deck of cards by the crafty defense "dream team"?  The Saddam defense team has a good template to follow.
  3. Which leads me to the last point: the defense team.  The mainstream (read: liberal) media is purposely burying the fact that Saddam is being defended by a team of 25 lawyers from around the world, and over 1,500 volunteers from around the world -- including the United States.  Instead of trumpeting the fact that there are almost 2,000 people who would go out of their way to go to Iraq and try to release a murderous dictator who gassed his own people and ordered the torture of children, the liberal media has said almost nothing.

It all comes back to the fact that there are liberals from around the world who are so filled with hate, that they would literally do anything to hurt America's sitting President.  Including attempting to liberate the murderous monster who once ruled Iraq.

And what does the liberal media in the United States do?  They support those back-stabbing miscreants with their silence and with their kid-gloves reporting.

Let the circus begin, and let us hope that the Iraqi courts turn out to be better than the L.A. courts in the O.J. era.

Short View of History

SHORT VIEW OF HISTORY

History began some 12,000 years ago. Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast to live on fish & lobster in winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can was invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as "the Conservative Movement."

Other men, who were weaker and less skilled at hunting, learned to live off the Conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of “the Liberal Movement.” Some of these Liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as 'girleymen.'

Some noteworthy Liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, and the concept of democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that Conservatives provided.

Over the years Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern Liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard Liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: Most of their Liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood, and group therapists are Liberals.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, fighter pilots, athletes, and generally anyone who works productively outside of a governing body. Conservatives who own companies hire other Conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the Liberals remained in Europe when Conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history. It should be noted that a Liberal will have an uncontrollable urge to respond to the above instead of simply laughing and moving on.

There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup"

Holding Court
There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."

BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m.

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.


We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.

Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.


The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.

The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.

The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.

New German Chancellor to Seek Stronger U.S. Ties

Excellent!  After celebrating the exit of the old German Chancellor (an ass), I found an article outlining the new Chancellor's objective of stronger U.S. relations.

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20051011-100017-2107r.htm

This is very welcome news.  The bootprint on the hind end of Gerhard Schroeder will be ever-the-more evident when the new Chancellor reaches out to Washington.

Thankfully, German chancellor gets the boot

I have no idea if the new German Chancellor will be any better or nicer than the old one, but it is sweet satisfaction to see that ass Gerhard Schroeder get the boot.

They Ruined James Bond

With the number of actors rotating through the James Bond role, I guess it was only a matter of time before they picked someone completely wrong for the part.

Now they go pick a blond-haired guy for the role.  Everyone knows James Bond is a dark-haired guy, and the farther they get from Sean Connery, the worse things get.

Here's an article describing the new hero:

http://www.thisislondon.com/showbiz/articles/20594611?source=Daily%20Mail&ct=5

Probably another example of how Hollywood feels the need to do things differently just because they think that something different means they will get more money.

What they can't seem to figure out is that the way to get more seats filled (and DVDs sold) is to hire better writers and stop monkeying with a winning formula.

If they would write better stories and better dialog, they would revive this dying series, but hiring the blond guy is ..... a pretty blond thing to do.  LOL

It takes a Canadian to say it

This perspective on Bush is so unusual, coming from the Canadian Media.  Also the Kipling poem at the end is very applicable in this case.  A bit more objectivity than we get from our own press and politicians.


GEORGE BUSH, THE MAN

David Warren
The Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, September 11, 2005

There's plenty wrong with America, since you asked. I'm tempted to say that the only difference from Canada is that they have a few things right. That would be unfair, of course -- I am often pleased to discover things we still get right.

But one of them would not be disaster preparation. If something happened up here, on the scale of Katrina, we wouldn't even have the resources to arrive late. We would be waiting for the Americans to come save us, the same way the government in Louisiana just waved and pointed at Washington, D.C. The theory being that, when you're in real trouble, that's where the adults live.

And that isn't an exaggeration. Almost everything that has worked in the recovery operation along the U.S. Gulf Coast has been military and National Guard. Within a few days, under several commands, finally consolidated under the remarkable Lt.-Gen. Russell Honore, it was once again the U.S. military efficiently cobbling together a recovery operation on a scale beyond the capacity of any other earthly institution.

We hardly have a military up here. We have elected one feckless government after another that has cut corners until there is nothing substantial left. We don't have the ability even to transport and equip our few soldiers. Should disaster strike at home, on a big scale, we become a Third World country. At which point, our national smugness is of no avail.

From Democrats and the American Left -- the U.S. equivalent to the people who run Canada -- we are still hearing that the disaster in New Orleans showed that a heartless, white Republican America had abandoned its underclass.

This is garbage. The great majority of those not evacuated lived in assisted housing and receive food stamps, prescription medicine and government support through many other programs. Many have, all their lives, expected someone to lift them to safety, without input from themselves. And the demagogic mayor they elected left, quite literally, hundreds of transit and school buses that could have driven them out of town parked in rows, to be lost in the flood.

Yes, that was insensitive. But it is also the truth; and sooner or later we must acknowledge that welfare dependency creates exactly the sort of haplessness and social degeneration we saw on display, as the floodwaters rose. Many suffered terribly, and many died, and one's heart goes out. But already the survivors are being put up in new accommodations, and their various entitlements have been directed to new locations.

The scale of private charity has also been unprecedented. There are yet no statistics, but I'll wager the most generous state in the union will prove to have been arch-Republican Texas and that, nationally, contributions in cash and kind are coming disproportionately from people who vote Republican. For the world divides into "the mouths" and "the wallets."

The Bush-bashing, both down there and up here, has so far lost touch with reality, as to raise questions about the bashers' state of mind.

Consult any authoritative source on how government works in the United States and you will learn that the U.S. federal government's legal, constitutional, and institutional responsibility for first response to Katrina, as to any natural disaster, was zero.

Notwithstanding, President Bush took the prescient step of declaring a disaster, in order to begin deploying FEMA and other federal assets, two full days in advance of the storm fall. In the little time since, he has managed to co-ordinate an immense recovery operation -- the largest in human history -- without invoking martial powers. He has been sufficiently presidential to respond, not even once, to the extraordinarily mendacious and childish blame-throwing.

One thinks of Kipling's poem If, which I learned to recite as a lad, and mention now in the full knowledge that it drives postmodern leftoids and gliberals to apoplexy -- as anything that is good, beautiful, or true:

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise.

Unlike his critics, Bush is a man, in the full sense presented by these verses. A fallible man, like all the rest, but a man.