More Port stuff

Although the screaming seems to be dieing down ... the ports issue still seems to be steeped in a lot of rhetorical nonsense. There are some facts leaking through in the mess, however.

One of which is the fact that this entire thing started last October. Yes ... that was roughly about the same time that the cartoons associated with the Danish newspapers were first printed. So my remarks there are basically the same as my remarks here ... what is the statute of limitations expiration on outrage related to something like this?

Actually, it might be more important in this case, since if the blowhards (from either side, particularly those opposed) had any objections, why do they lock their jaws until NOW, when the deal is all but done, as opposed to when comments actually would have mattered (or, as the case may turn out, could have avoided the embarassment and insult of having to renege on the deal)?

Note: do not construe these remarks as indicating that, if it is a bad deal, we are somehow honor-bound to complete it ... we should not feel honor-bound to getting ourselves killed. This is akin to the statement (somebody famous ... I don't recall whom) that the "Constitution is not a suicide pact" ... meaning we will not let our desire to fully embrace the Constitution allow our enemies to exploit it and use it to destroy us (kinda like what the idiot democrats want to allow to happen when trying to extend the Constitution to al Queda terrorists).

Clinton hypocrisy

Is anybody but me tuned into how outrageous the junior (both in experience and in intellect) Senator from New York is on this issue. At first she goes off like a lunatic, acting like she is somehow tougher than Bush when it comes to national defense.

Well, I guess we'll just have to ignore how her husband's administration sold out to the Chinese ... for personal gain (not any strategic national security thing) ... turning over not only our ports, but also satellite technology that has helped the Chinese "perfect" their nuclear arsenal just in case they want to destroy our country.

We can have the argument about whether or not UAE is our friend, and whether or not they pose a threat, and whether or not it makes sense to let them operate this port as a private entity ... all valid points of discussion. But the last person on EARTH that should be throwing around accusations of weakness on National Security relative to this situation is the person who was an integral part of an administration that turned over ports to a country with specific plans to destroy the US (and the means to do so) and turned over secrets to allow that country to be better equipped to kill millions of Americans. And all this had nothing to do with creating better relations with that country ... but instead was a direct result of illegal political contributions that country made to their political campaign.

Having said that ... we can even ignore the former activities of The Queen and focus on what is happening today ... where der Schlickmeister is a regular on the Arab speaking circuit ... particularly when it comes to supporting the terrorists (i.e. re-affirming Osama's lines about how evil President Bush and the US are). Nevermind that Algore is even making up bald-faced lies about the US rounding up hundreds of innocent Arabs in this country ... Clinton himself has reaped hundreds of thousands per speech, even in the UAE. He was also apparently active in supporting this exact deal on behalf of Dubai.

So now Hillary is going to stand there and rip Bush on the deal?

Quickies

I have no idea-r where to be on the whole ports issue ... UAE company/government running a port ... but I will say that there are some unbelievable twists to the story.

For instance ... while in one breath the democraps (and lots others, mind you) are howling about the fact that there is a distinct threat of terrorism by letting this happen (oh, not in so many words, but the inference is certainly there) ... if 4 of the company officials came to visit in D.C., the political correctness rules that these same democrats insisted upon would ban the airport officials from checking all four of them for weapons or whatever.

Think about that!

Having said that ... I am all over the place on the whole ports issue. This is due, in a very large part, to a fundamental ignorance (probably shared by 99% of the world, which to a large extent includes the majority of Congress-people screaming about the problem) of how the seaports of the world operate. Common sense dictates that the UAE are not going to buy the ports for obvious terrorist activities ... blowing them up or even bringing in something that could be traced back through them ... that would be INSANE (paint a gigantic target on their castles). BTW ... you will note that, like in virtually all wars throughout history, the rich and powerful of the Islamists are notoriously good at saving their own asses ... but I digress. One might argue in fact that the UAE folks are laying everything on the line by doing this, since (if they ever cross Osama and pals), these wide open assets set up an easy target for the terrorists against the UAE ... and the repurcussions are that the political hacks in D.C. would demand a pound of flesh if something went wrong.

The downside I see is if the "owners" of whatever it is that these guys would be involved in would a) be privvy to otherwise inaccessible information regarding operations of the US ports (i.e. opportunities to uncover weaknesses that they would not normally be able to get), or b) much more importantly: would allow them to gain access to security related information along those same lines (something that they would not otherwise be able to get).

Note: the key here in both cases is the phrase "they would not otherwise be able to get". If they already have the information, or the information is readily available ... then there is no point to denying them this contract.

There is an underlying thing, however, that gets under my skin, and itches like hell because it is something that Hillary also said (that cracking noise you just heard is the ice in hell) ... the "owners" of this company are not people, but the government of the UAE. Seems like we're in a lot of these types of deals ... mostly in totalitarian (even the particularly evil ones) regimes. China, Venezuala, etc. ...

I don't know why, but that just strikes me as bad.

Katrina: "Heartless" Representative deserves our thanks

I doubt anybody will allow the "I told you so", or to even give him credit, but James Sensenbrenner deserves a big fat apology from all the liberal lefties and thanks from the taxpayers for his opposition to the Katrina boondoggle.

Remember? Sensenbrenner stood in opposition to the Katrina packages, some for untold billions, but instead he suggested that it would be far better for the federal government to dole out the money piecemeal, forcing Congress to review progress along the way. Of course, the liberal freaks ignored the second part of that logic, and demagogued the issue by painting Sensenbrenner and other conservatives as heartless bastards who did not want to help the victims of this momentous tragedy.

So, in light of the new findings about how billions of the dollars have been totally wasted ... including an entire airfield full of trailer homes in the middle of nowhere, that are falling apart because despite the fact they were purchased with taxpayer money for housing in New Orleans, cannot actually be brought down there because it is ILLEGAL TO PUT UP TRAILER HOMES IN FLOOD PRONE AREAS!!! Yeah, your taxpayer dollars in the hands of bureaucrat morons (redundant), hard at work. We are tearing off Michael Brown's head because of his "slow response" in the heat of the battle (and can I remind you? Something that FEMA was NEVER designed for to begin with!), where is the outcry by the fanatics for the head/butt of whomever it is that ordered up the thousands of (now crumbling) trailers?

Sensenbrenner and other similarly minded conservatives knew that this was a second chapter of the disaster in the making. He knew that a bunch of wolves were outside the gates just drooling over the idea that the feds were going to drop huge buckets of money, and they could gobble it up indiscriminately.

Another lesson on why you don't give "the poor" money ...

I don't know if this was part of Sensenbrenner's thinking ... but we also see another example of how incredibly stupid it is to put cash money into the hands of irresponsible (at least as far as money goes) people. Hear this ... this goes to the heart of virtually all government programs ... these people are where they are because they cannot handle money, simply put ... giving them more money is just plain stupid. Almost on cue, the "victims" lived up to expectations: using the cards DIRECTLY for purchases of luxury items (designer purses, etc), porn shops, guns, contraceptives (well, maybe that isn't so bad since hopefully it keeps them from making more idiots like themselves), etc.

What is not even surprising anymore, as that these irresponsible goofs were not even smart enough to try to cover it up ... how hard would it have been to simply withdraw the cash and spend that anonymously?

Be clear on my message here ... I do not blame the poor for being poor ... some people are always going to be poor no matter what anybody does, because there are just plain foolish people out there who cannot handle money. What I am saying is that it is just plain stupid to give money without accountability to somebody in that situation, and downright criminal to do it with other peoples' money.

This should be a lesson the conservatives drive home again and again and again in the upcoming budget fights, and carry into the next elections.

Scratchin' my head over Dean, The Freak from Vermont

I will admit up front that I am not 100% confident I know how all of this works, but I am reasonably sure I am correct ... so let's just lay that on the line.

Over the weekend, Howard Dean, the complete moron that runs the Democrat party, much to the sheer glee of Karl Rove, et al. ... made comments about the Scooter Libby situation that just left me bewildered.

The context is a note that the Special Prosecutor leaked indicating that Libby had testified that he was authorized by his superiors to release (I think that they used the term "leaked") information about very old security briefings that was classified. Now, let's ignore for the moment that if the information from the Special Prosecutor was in fact correct, this would have been a crime ... but it is not in fact one of the things that ol' invent-a-crime-where-there-is-none prosecutor is going after poor Scooter on.

Dean then remarks, over the weekend, that if this is true, then VP Dick Cheney should be impeached. Now, on the surface to people without brains (i.e. the democrats that Dean is trying ti whip up) ... this makes sense.

But it really left me scratching my head. Who the hell does Dean think (assuming, of course, he actually does think) authorizes the de-classification of materials? As far as I know (and again, this is where I get a little fuzzy on the exact procedures), the Administrative branch is the branch of government that can de-classify its own material any time it wants. The VP (obviously under the auspices of the Chief Executive, the President), has the ability to declassify the security briefings, or any portion thereof, anytime he wants for whatever reason he wants. Not like we (the People) really want them to do so willy-nilly, particularly when it comes to national security, but they have that ability.

Note that I am not even talking here about whether or not it was a good idea that Cheney did so, assuming that he did. I am speaking exclusively of the fact that the Executive branch IS the branch that handles the de-classification process of items of national security ... this is literally something that takes place every single day.

The Elephant Trumpets

Now, here's the time for the obvious ...

Dean is such an idiot, that he does not even realize how dumb it is to sit there and lose his mind over the "outing" (which we all know was not, as does the Special Prosecutor, since darling Valerie was already about as far "out" as anybody could be) ... when at the same time the Democraps are stone deaf and dumb about the treason surrounding the outing of the terrorist surveillance program.

The NSA program has been irreparably damaged, and this disaster has given the terrorists yet another clear view of the inner workings of our systems that could have helped us stop them. Yet not one Democrat, in more than an afterthought of an "IMPEACH BUSH" speech ... is screaming for an investigation to nail the bastards that are going to get some of us killed.

Speaking of impeachment ...

As long as we are on the subject of impeachment ... let me add this subtle twist ... if The President, et al, does not take firm and fast action to bring those involved in this scandal to justice, then I believe he is derelict in his duty by NOT protecting us by protecting this program, and by not shutting down every person and/or institution involved in disseminating information about our national security. And when I say shut down ... I mean SHUT DOWN! Like busloads of armed federal agents storming the building, cutting off communications and disconnecting electricity, confiscating every computer and every other electronic device ... lock down.

Now follow me here. The lunatic left want to impeach the president for holding his spoon in his left hand or wiping his heiney incorrectly ... it is laughable. What is *really* a problem, however, is that we are allowing members of government bureaucracies, elected officials (democraps), the news media, etc. to break the law by revealing information about secret / classified programs. This is not about revealing some pathetic little operative playing James Bond in a foreign land (let alone Ms. Valerie, who was flattening her butt in D.C.). Their arrogance, based in the pre-9-11 paradigm, is going to get us killed, and I am talking about you and I as well.

In addition, Bush should shut down all talk in government about what is going on and arrest any jackass that starts shooting off his/her mouth. If Congress wants to argue about it, let them do so behind closed doors under extremely tightly managed conditions. As a matter of fact, where are Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert?

Rush Limbaugh put it the best ... these Democrats love to stand up and talk about how they are all about and all for National Security ... "OK, then why are you wearing make-up?" Why are you, Mr. Senator, getting your fat, ugly faces in front of the TV cameras every chance you can, and revealling as much information (and also mis-information, of course, since these are democrats we're talking about here) as you possibly can?

9-11 changed everything ... but not in the context that the politicians are explaining very well. Before that time, the threats we faced came from outside the United States, and our defensive posture was all about figuring out what our enemies had going on in their lands. Their soldiers wear uniforms, they build or buy guns and large ships and airplanes, and act in fairly conventional methods, once in awhile a twist or turn, but still generally within a classic context. Our defensive posture was about intimidating and deterring the opposition ... a big part of which was the fact that we have the ability to wipe off of the earth just about anything that we want at one level or another.

That is what Rove means when he talks about having a pre-9-11 posture.

The truth is that a very serious enemy is now living and breathing all around us ... their kids go to school with your kids ... they wear the same clothes as you ... eat at the same places. They have no countries, do not wear uniforms ... fighting in complete violation of any international standards. They make weapons out of whatever they can, or better stated make things we would never have imagined into weapons. More importantly, they go out of their way to avoid our military capabilities, but intentionally try to kill what was formerly considered off-limits, Mr. Average Joe civilian trying to make a living, and even there preferably his wife and children.

So, when it comes to the compromise of our new weapons against this new enemy, Mr. Bush seems to have flunked this major test. I believe that people are going to die as a result unless we can quickly and decisively fix what has been broken.

Iraq ... end of liberal bashing respite

OK ... that's enough strokes of liberals for awhile ... back to some nasty ol' bashing!

Actually, it ain't bashing if its true, is it? Hee hee hee.

OK ... right now the libs have got to be quaking in their boots. There is a ton of "chatter" about some pretty significant evidence of the fact that Saddam did, indeed, have plenty of WMDs, but now we have some pretty serious evidence about exactly how he disposed of them. What is critical here is that the evidence comes from two distinct sources, the Iraqi officials responsible for moving the stockpiles, and tape recordings of Saddam planning the details in the hands of the US Congress.

In case your only news source is the Mainstream Media ... which is doing its best to undermine the story (if not ignore it altogether) ... General Sada of Saddam's Air Force has written a book describing the details of the situation, including the conversations with the pilots that flew the gutted out (pasenger) jets filled with WMDs out of Iraq and into Syria. This was possible during the collapse of a dam in Syria in 2002, under the guise of an emergency aid project to the flooded regions.

The second part will come in a few days, when some group called the Intelligence Summit will post the recordings that are being reviewed in the Congress. Apparently these recordings reveal the details, at the highest levels of the Iraqi government, of the plan to move the weapons to underground bunker facilities in Syria.

More proof?

This completely ignores the fact that they have found actual weapons in Iraq, remember the roadside bomb with Sarin nerve agent in there? They also found a shell with mustard gas. Oh, but there was only one of them, right? (oops, what's that smell ... could it be they have their heads up their butts?) What is absolutely critical about these is that the actual armaments themselves are significantly different from what we "knew" Saddam had, which (for those of you with a public school education) means that Saddam actually had weapons that we did not even know existed, let alone how much.

You also have to conclude that every one of the principal Iraqi military and government officials who had a capacity to know (including the aforementioned General) was/is lying, while Saddam and his murderous henchmen are all telling the truth. This also ignores the fact that Iraq was trying to buy uranium yellow cake from Africa (and yes, even the Democrats in congress know that Joe Wilson is a liar), and that just before the war Saddam had these large ballistic missiles without any kind of conventional warheads ... hmmmm? Then of course there were all the dual use technologies, including the "fertilizer" manufacturing facilities that were scrubbed so clean, they could not find any evidence of a mosquito dropping, let alone any sign of any fertilizer.

We are, of course, also forgetting the location of a lot of chemical war gear placed in front line defensive positions before we overran them. I guess, in the eyes of a liberal, that Saddam was assuming the U.S. was going to use chemical weapons?

So why are the conservatives so quiet about this?

One would imagine the administration would be singing this tune from the rooftops, yet there is deafening silence from Pennsylvania Avenue. Why? Well, think it through ... would you want to broadcast to the terrorists that their pals in Syria are sitting on a stockpile of the world's most dangerous weapons? How about to the Iraqi insurgents that some of the warheads they have been digging up for IEDs actually had chemicals in them ... yeah, that is a great idea.

Still, with all of the bashing that the Dems have wreaked upon GW, particularly in terms of his credibility, you would imagine that somebody, somewhere would stand up and point out the obvious.

This formerly was something an honest media would do, but of course we don't have one of those around, now do we?

More Cheering for Liberals!

Warning to my conservative freinds ... this may be unsuitable ... oh, never mind.

This is a note to commend Alan Colmes on his support for the folks being victimized by the asinine ruling of the liberals (including Sandra Dazed O'Conner, thank God and Greyhound she's gone!) to allow governments to seize private property any damned time they want. Colmes has been unrelenting in his criticism of governments, and their show has featured story after story after story of renegade governments literally stealing peoples' property not for real public needs, but for gain (including gain to the government in one form or another, but especially gain for the fat cats that fill the politicians pockets).

During t0night's show, toward the end of the segment on eminent domain abuse, Hannity snuck in a cheap shot that really caught Colmes off guard. Truth be told, I thought the remark was totally uncalled for and Alan was definitely right in his very obvious anger at the comment. He restrained himself very well, and is to be congratulated. I would like to see Sean apologize for the comment ... it was harsh and very wrong.

A bone to my conservative pals ...

Nonetheless, before anybody thinks I've gone soft ... that disastrous ruling did come from the left wing of the Supreme Court. So Alan's current stand certainly flies in the face of the support he has given to the judges that made this whole situation possible.

I would also like to know if these kinds of things are happening from politicians that are primarily liberal or conservative, albeit I believe we know the likely answer to that!

King funeral ... please stop

I cannot begin to express how stupid the conservative response is to the peanut farmer. After years and years of the liberal whine machine, have we not learned that whining only turns people off?

Ladies and Gentlemen ... former (one term, thank God) president Jimmy Carter was arguably one of the worst 5 presidents OF ALL TIME. The guy was a total bungling idiot. Why the hell does ANYBODY care what that idiot has to say (with the possible exception of other idiots)?

Think about this ... during the 2004 campaign the democrats got together all the former (democrat) presidents on one stage ... remember? NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, wanted to get anywhere near Carter. They had bodyguards around Kerry to prevent anybody getting a picture of him in the same frame as Carter, since a "reminder" like that to the American people would have been a kiss of death! Remember the convention ... they locked him in a booth with Michael Moore!?

I remember a commentary from somebody in the Reagan administration that knocked it out of the park ... the administration official was asked about concerns that Carter expressed because Reagan had not consulted him (the peanut farmer) on anything. The reply, which I am sure was only possible after a resounding, belly splitting laugh ... was that if Reagan wanted advice on how to weaken our national stature, get interest rates back up to 15%+, get inflation back in double digits, etc ... he would give Jimmy a call.

Carter is simply living up to his "former" president position with all the competence he did as president.

So what should the response be?

I'm thinking that instead of hammering Carter, Republicans ought to do everything they can to get this guy talking as much as possible. I mean, he's totally deranged ... after that whole Iran disaster, getting up and criticizing somebody else on how to handle a foreign crises????

Besides ... the more Jimmy Carter and Algore and Dean we get ... the more secure the upcoming elections will be.

And that preacher ... oh baby ... tee that one up too! The only people that a goof like that is convincing is the choir. Normal people have a gut-wrenching response to crap like "don't spend money on war, give it to the poor". Again, the more he talks, the more we win.

But first, we just have to shut up about Carter ... with the exception of reminding everybody exactly who he is and what his record is.

More Muslim outrage, more dead muslims

If you thought that the whole Scooter Libby thing was a herd of elephants rampaging through the living room, that was more like a swarm of mosquitos compared with this Muslim 'rage' problem. I mean, you talk about an entire population that needs "anger management" ... sheese!

Elephant #1 (covered by all sorts of folks ... last heard on Brit Hume's show) ... how wonderful is it that the folks in the gaza strip and other destitute areas (seems to be an awful lot of poor folks in lands run by the richest people on the planet, eh?) had all of these Dutch flags laying around, eh? Funny how a population that is so desperately poor that we need to keep paying them billions in aid, yet they always seem to have enough money to scrounge together whatever kind of a flag they need to burn that day, along with plenty left over for suicide bomb jackets for their kids and plenty of bullets (nevermind the guns) to shoot in the air.

Elephant #2 Why exactly is it that when a non-Muslim insults Allah or Mohamed or the Koran or whomever they happen to be pissed about today, it spawns worldwide outrage and bloody protests, but when a Muslim does it ... well, "no big deal"? Several of the offending images being circulated were not drawn by those whacky dutchmen, and obviously were put together by the bastards stoking up this explosive situation. Yet all of the outrage is directed at the Dutch, and nobody seems to want to go after the viscious thugs who are instigating the riots. This is along the same lines of the lack of outrage with the MUSLIMS that were flushing the Koran down the toilet after it was revealed the story about Americans doing it was a (liberal) lie.

Elephant #3 These pictures are from last September ... talk about a "delayed" response????

That third one gets me ... and when I hear the various pundits in the media talking about Muslim sensitivities ... I've just gotta believe that whomever is saying this has their head so far up the elephants' ass that their in danger of getting coughed up. Isn't there a statute of limitations on how quickly you have to be outraged before it (their sensitivity) is no longer an excuse?

Elephant #4 The ugliest, most violent stuff is in the heart of Muslim lands, and directed against anybody BUT the actual folks that did the article, namely the dutch newspapers.

Same basic discussion as #3 ... again testifying against the "pundits" that are trying to analyze this in regards to what the screaming is about (a friend of mine would coin this as "all of your taste is in your mouth!"). I even heard somebody say the Dutch government should come out and apologize ... apologize for what?

Higher action

So what should our response be? Well, in the first place ... stand fast on the Truth ... this has nothing to do with cartoons, or sensitivities related to those cartoons ... NOTHING! It may be a thousand different little tyrants stoking this up for a thousand different reasons, but the LAST reason is because of the comics. All efforts of reconciliation (if anything is even remotely possible) based upon the cartoons or freedom of the press or any of that nonsense are ultimately doomed to failure.

Next, recognize that the so-called moderate muslims either are not (by any western standard thereof), or if they really are moderate and hiding in their basements, then they have absolutely no voice, power, or means to assert themselves.

Random Musings

Will somebody finally say it? Cindy Sheehan is about herself, and it is ugly

I was sick of Cindy Sheehan about 5 minutes after first hearing her crap. It seems like now ... at long last ... everybody is sick of her crap. I guess at some point I just wonder if I am so damned much more perceptive than everybody else, or was it that people just made themselves look damned silly trying to give her the "benefit of the doubt"?

It came to root at the State of the Union speech ... both when that wench got her butt thrown out contrasted with the family of fallen soldier, Marine Staff Sgt. Dan Clay, that president acknowledged. I heard an interview with the family of Sgt Clay the next day that totally cemented the difference. In the case of this family, everything was about the Sgt Clay, who had given his life in service to his country "so that his family would not have to do the same" ... everything in the conversation came back to him over and over and over again. In the case of Sheehan, it is all about her and her radicalism, and in fact she (and her whacky followers) ride her son ONLY to try to shut up her critics (I'm untouchable because my son got killed), but she has to minimize everything about him when it comes to her politics because (by all reports) he would have stood firmly against his insane mother. She has SHAMELESSLY exploited her son's demise to gain fame for something he would vehemently oppose.

I think sheehan is a despicable pig urinating on her son's grave, and should be treated as such.

The Dutch cartoons are Bush's fault too!!!

From the "how far is too far" file, you have Bill Richardson, democrat governor of New Mexico and wannabe Vice President ... in an interview about the latest Muslim explosion regarding the Dutch comics ... but it is all George Bush's fault. His delusional logic is that the muslims are all pissed off because of Iraq, so that every little thing sets them off.

I just do not even know at this point what to say about these freaks. I mean, this was even too much for Matt Lauer to swallow, and he more or less smacked Richardson back on this one.

What was even better, however, was that this discussion came up on Laura Ingram's radio show, which she is covering from Iraq this week, and she was in a room full of soldiers who were listening in (she was actually "listening in" on her guest host over the phone), and the soldiers just let loose because of how stupid this remark was. Over and over and over again we hear from the soldiers how great the Iraq situation is in terms of accomplishments (obviously acknowledging the danger as well) ... how it is really worth it ... and yet these lunatic lefties just cannot let up on blaming every possible thing on GW.

Don't these soldiers know that absolutely nothing bad happened before Bush was elected? I mean the Jews and Christians and Muslims and everybody else were just sitting around holding hands and singing kumbaya while Clinton was in office, the whole world was perfect, the planets in perfect alignment ... but now because of GW the whole world is falling apart.

Scooter Trial Postponement

Apparently the judge in the Plame "not really outing" situation is on with the Democrat "culture of corruption" message, pushing off the trial until next January. This permits the Democraps to hold the issue over the Republicans during the election cycle, after which the case will likely be dropped in about 5 minutes. I continue to marvel at just how weird this whole thing is ... that the prosecutor spent no time at all determining if a law had even been broken (which indeed everybody seems to conclude it did not).

What is also fascinating in the total left wing nut biases in the media is how on the one hand we should all live in fear of nuclear death because of this serious "outing" of our best spy while on the other hand disseminating highly classified terrorist monitoring techniques in the NSA situation is, ya know ... no big deal. Equally fascinating is that despite the fact that the American people see how weird this comes off, the freak base of the Democrap party is riding them to the wall on this.

ATTENTION LIBERALS!!! Bravo for Gavin Newsom!

"No way ..." you say? Somebody broke into RMW's site and hacked that headline.

Nope ... this is RMW, and I am completely within my mind (albeit, it has been a very long couple of days ... as I could see by some of my rather shrill responses on some other blogs). I am dedicating a report to give massive kudos to Mayor Gavin Newsom, left wing leader of San Freak-sisco.

Well, OK ... I am only doing this for one particular reason ... his acutely "conservative" (more like Evangelical Christian) new program for dealing with the homeless of that once great city.

Some background ... many moons ago, on a few boondoggles for work, I had the distinct pleasure of staying in one of the top tourist destinations of the world. I had a blast, enjoyed some of the best food around ... jumped in the rental and headed to the amazingly beautiful shorelines along US 1, chowed down WAY too much seafood on the wharf ... etc. etc. etc. Loved it so much I hauled my bride there and we had another awesome week in Monterey and SF ... some of the best times, food, and fun we have ever had.

Needless to say, when (in the last few years) my consulting travels were to take me to San Fran after a long time away, I was really looking forward to it ... so much so that I decided to stay over the weeked (2 week gig).

Man, and I mean MAN ... did that place change. It was a total cesspool ... just disgusting ... the last place on earth I would take a vacation at. NOTE: I was staying in a 5 star hotel, in a great part of town. But the vagrants had taken over the city and rendered it into a literal toilet ... you would walk out the door of the hotel and the smell of human waste was overwhelming ... and on the two block walk to work, I had to tiptoe around the fresh piles of human feces on the sidewalk in front of Saks 5th Avenue. I was dumbfounded.

Commuting through the city was like running a guantlet of agressive beggars ... don't dare open your windows (not like you would anyway given the smell) ... there was a bum at every corner and sometimes several at midblock. Even the wharf, where one might imagine the cops might run off these people to keep from driving off the tourists, had a good amount (albeit not nearly so many as downtown).

It became obvious to me as to why ... when walking to work one day I noticed one of those 'free' newspapers ... geared toward the advocacy for the homeless ... and when I read an article or two (just about all I could stomach) that virtually worshiped these souls, I realized that there was likely a huge industry that shamefully exploited the plight of the homeless for their own personal gain.

In my further travels ... I ended up in New York, which I had heard bad things about but never actually witnessed. I was shocked at how "clean" it was ... no bums, no hookers, no drug addicts, ... none of the type of stuff I was supposed to expect. I remarked about this and the SF situation to a friend (lifelong resident of the Bronx), who reflected that NYC was exactly like SF before Guiliani came in and cleaned things up.

Well, it sounds like Newsom is working toward that end. In the report tonight, Shepherd Smith of FoxNews reported on Newsom's program to help the homeless WITHOUT GIVING THEM MONEY. It is something along the lines of provding housing and food stamps, but NEVER money.

WOW!!! And this guy is the same whacko that broke CA laws by trying to unilaterally declare homosexual marriage legal?

What was really worth it though, was to hear how he was being hammered by the welfare / socialist pimps ... stuff I thought was exclusively reserved for Republicans ... heartless, cruel, etc.

And Newsom himself ... I almost dropped my dinner ... acknowledging that his critics are the ones who make huge bucks advocating for the homeless ... he discussed an entire industry around this thing. And he pointed out that these "advocates" (his term) / poverty pimps (my term) were in essence lying about the real numbers. He even talked about the fact that "they" have spent billions for this and have accomplished nothing (I am not kidding, he really said "they"!!!).

Holy cow ... are we sure this guy is not a Republican? Sounds like a right wing fanatic to me (at least by the Kennedy standard, which is apparently the mainstream of the modern Democrat party).


What more can I say??? Other than I hope and pray that he continues to be successful! The cruel, inhumane policies of the liberal democrat establishment to sustain these hopeless souls on the street must end. All the money we have pissed away, making a lot of fat cat socialists rich while they guarantee that the homeless stay exactly where they are (otherwise, how do we keep the money flowing)? I mean think about it ... what kind of insane policy is it to put money in the hands of a derelict that has already proved that they cannot handle money???

And trust me ... the money we give to the homeless is a tiny fraction of the total we (as taxpayers) spend ... the vast majority ends up in the pockets of the bureaucrats and poverty pimps.

Thank God that a liberal finally gets it. Lets hope that a lot more do.