Oh, this is just priceless.

Is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green?  Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. “By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. “Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses.”

Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in “discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream-colored center that most people want. “They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it,” Heymann says. “So we bought all this throwaway stone. It’s fabulous. It’s got great color and it is relatively inexpensive.”

Meanwhile, at Stately Gore Manor in Nashville….

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. 

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year.   As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.  Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.”

Pajamas Media has exclusive photos of the Gore Mansion here.  

Oh.. remember how Bush’s Crawford, TX house is only 4,000 square feet?  Well, check this out.

According to Schweizer, the Gores own three homes: a 10,000-square-foot home in Nashville, Tennessee; a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Virginia (across the Potomac River from Washington, DC); and a third home of undisclosed size in Carthage, Tennessee. Neutral Source has verified the Gores own a 2.1 acre property at 312 Lynnwood Blvd. in the Belle Meade section of Nashville, Tennessee  

According to MLS data, these houses are 9,727, 7,340, and 9,878 square feet respectively. So we can confirm that it’s quite plausible that the Gores’ Nashville home is, as Schweizer claims, 10,000 square feet.

Gulfstream Liberals at it again.  Do as I say, not as I do.  But at least Gore doesn’t have the largest home in the county he lives in.  That prize falls to the Democrats’ 2004 Veep candidate, John “Two Americas” Edwards and his sprawling, energy-sucking, 28,000 square foot luxury estate.

What hypocrites.  They don’t want to save energy, they want power (in many ways) for themselves.  They just don’t want YOU to have the lifestyle you have earned for yourself.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Hat tip to this beaut goes to Cassandra from Villianous Company.

In a Satirical Poem, Saudi Author Laments Conditions in the Arab World – Middle East Media Research Institute

“When you cannot find a single garden in your city, but there is a mosque on every corner – you know that you are in an Arab country…

“When you see people living in the past with all the trappings of modernity – do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country.

“When religion has control over science – you can be sure that you are in an Arab country.

“When clerics are referred to as ’scholars’ – don’t be astonished, you are in an Arab country.

“When you see the ruler transformed into a demigod who never dies or relinquishes his power, and whom nobody is permitted to criticize – do not be too upset, you are in an Arab country.

“When you find that the large majority of people oppose freedom and find joy in slavery – do not be too distressed, you are in an Arab country.

“When you hear the clerics saying that democracy is heresy, but [see them] seizing every opportunity provided by democracy to grab high positions [in the government] – do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…

“When monarchies turn into theocracies, and republics into hybrids of monarchy and republic – do not be taken aback, you are in an Arab country.

“When you find that the members of parliament are nominated [by the ruler], or else that half of them are nominated and the other half have bought their seats through bribery… – you are in an Arab country…

“When you discover that a woman is worth half of what a man is worth, or less – do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…

“When you see that the authorities chop off a man’s hand for stealing a loaf of bread or a penny, but praise and glorify those who steal billions – do not be too surprised, you are in an Arab country…

“When you are forced to worship the Creator in school and your teachers grade you for it – you can be sure that you are in an Arab country…

“When young women students are publicly flogged merely for exposing their eyes – you are in an Arab country…”

“When land is more important than human beings – you are in an Arab country…

“When covering the woman’s head is more important than financial and administrative corruption, embezzlement, and betrayal of the homeland – do not be astonished, you are in an Arab country…

“When minorities are persecuted and oppressed, and if they demand their rights, are accused of being a fifth column or a Trojan horse – be upset, you are in an Arab country…

“When women are [seen as] house ornaments which can be replaced at any time – bemoan your fate, you are in an Arab country.

“When birth control and family planning are perceived as a Western plot – place your trust in Allah, you are in an Arab country…

“When at any time, there can be a knock on your door and you will be dragged off and buried in a dark prison – you are in an Arab country…

“When fear constantly lives in the eyes of the people – you can be certain that you are in an Arab country.”

Let me add one:  “When you see your partner hanging by a rope in a public square just because he is gay — you can be certain you are in an Arab country.” 

Now to Ian, Chet, lester and the other Bush-as-Tyrant Crowd… can you look yourself in the mirror and honestly say that any of those things are happening in the United States or other Western democracies?

You need to decide which side of this War you are on, folks.  American “progressives” have turned into nothing more than appeasers to Islamic terror these days.  I wonder if these same progressives, in 1939, would have shown the Storm Troopers the way to my home?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Earlier today, as I was reading for class, I answered a phone call from a telemarketer. Normally, I check my caller ID before picking up the phone, but, this time, failed to consider the 866-area code. As soon as I realized she was a telemarketer, I tried to end the conversation politely, telling her that I did not have an account at her bank.

Despite my statement and my expressed intent to end the conversation, she continued to read from the script. She mentioned something about needing my approval to send me something. At this point, I told her I needed to go, but she kept reading about this amazing offer. I realized it was impossible to be polite, so finally just hung up.

She didn’t even listen to me, just kept reading from the script.

We see the same thing frequently in our political discourse. Someone will raise an objection to the argument of an ideological adversary, but he won’t address the objection, merely continue on as if the person had said nothing — or assume the objector had said what he (the adversary) had wanted him to say in order to make the point of his script talking points.

I mean, just look how Democrats reacted to the president’s new strategy for Iraq. He appoints a new commanding officer (against whose confirmation not a single Democrat voted) and outlines a new plan for dealing with the violence in Baghdad. And they respond with the same criticism they had been offering for some time — it’s nothing new.

Some of our critics too reply to our points, not as we expressed them, but as they wish we had expressed them. As, from time to time, so do some of our defenders.

Instead of responding like a telemarketer with a set script, let’s respond to each other by listening to our adversaries’ points. But, I’ve said this before. I guess we’ll just have to accept that some people are just like telemarketers, not interested in the person with whom they are communicating, but content to try to push their product to a generic human being.

Well…. if there’s a chance that Al Sharpton may be related to Strom Thurmond himself (and not just the Thurmond Family slaves), then there is probably a reasonable chance that Nancy Pelosi can trace her DNA back to….

Hey, stranger things have happened … and it is certainly logical since Nancy and Neville share the “Appeasement Gene.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Many Americans who now have “voter’s remorse” (Congressional approval numbers are abysmal) should hope that the much ballyhooed “100 Hours” have expired. 

The folks at The Politico.com have a story with the most obvious headline I’ve read in a while…..

Pelosi Falls Short on Election Promises  (Duh.. anyone with a brain knew she would)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is discovering the cold truth about governing with a slim majority: It’s much easier to promise behavioral change for Congress than to deliver it.

That isn’t entirely true.  The House is designed for, as a friend of mine describes, “mob rule.”  So it is a bit disingenuous to make this statement if you are just talking about the House of Representatives.   Passing final legislation, yes, is harder than promising it.  But the truth is being in the Majority Is Being King (even with one vote) in the US House.

But Nancy isn’t even living up to her most highlighted promise: to be “the most ethical Congress in history.”  *coughs*

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a congressional watchdog organization, said [US Rep. William] Jefferson’s reelection put the new speaker in a bind.

“Pelosi had to put him somewhere,” said Sloan, who has also worked as minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee for then-ranking member John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). “But I am troubled by the fact … that (Jefferson) is the kind of guy who could not pass a security clearance test and yet now he has access to top-secret government info.”

Some Democratic lawmakers privately warn that Pelosi could blow a rare opportunity to change voters’ perception of the party and Congress if she reverts to old Republican ways.

In a recent newspaper commentary, former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana expressed concern “that the new Democratic majority in the House, which certainly understands the sting of unfair treatment, has on occasion yielded to the temptation of its newfound power to shut down Republican participation.”

Ah, the 110th Imperial Congress (with the Speaker’s craving of a Luxury 757 and all) continues the “people’s work.”

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

There is little that I can add to the discussion last week on the tussle between the presidential campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. While most pundits thought Obama came out the winner, others thought Hillary emerged victorious. While I think Obama came out slightly better than Mrs. Clinton, the real exchange really brought out the strengths — and weaknesses — of her candidacy. (Jim Geraghty offers thoughtful insight here; Peggy puts in her two cents here. And Bill Kristol has also weighed in.)

It showed how sensitive she is to criticize, but how eager she is to attack.

For those who don’t recall the story, the whole thing got underway when one-time (Bill) Clinton fundraiser and current Obama supporter David Geffen told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times that while everyone in politics lies, the Clintons “do it with such ease, it’s troubling.“

And Mrs. Clinton’s team replied, basically belly-aching about “the politics of personal destruction.” She seems to repeat this mantra any time anyone dares criticize her or her husband. The danger in dealing with the Clintons is that they’re experts at what I have called the reverse-offense defense, attacking anyone who dares criticize them.

As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich put it earlier today:

If a campaign is going to degenerate into a mud slinging contest, the Clintons will always win because they are vastly more ready to jump into the pit. The recent attacks over David Geffen and Barack Obama are just a sample of how quickly and fiercely the Clintons will attack if the campaign is simply about who can ‘out negative’ whom.

Dick Morris points out that Hillary “was among the first to hire private detectives to dig up dirt on women who had been linked to Bill, on Linda Tripp, on other Clinton accusers, and on virtually anyone else who stood in the way of her ambitions for her husband.“

While the Clintons have long dug up dirt on their opponents, they haven’t been used to their opponents fighting back with the skill that Senator Obama’s team has. When Team Clinton attacked Geffen, Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs replied, “The Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when [he] was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.” Nice.

Peggy thinks this episode has made Hillary (for a moment at least) seem “less inevitable” while Roger Simon thought it showed that Geffen doesn’t think Hillary could win. Whatever the case, this shows that the Clintons aren’t used to such deft replies to their attacks. It may be a sign, as James Taranto speculated today (about another matter related to her campaign) that the junior “senator from New York may find herself unprepared because she is so used to deferential treatment from the press.“

This is a different campaign for Team Clinton. In the past, they were accustomed to rivals who did not respond well to their challenges. It remains to be seen if Obama’s campaign can continue to so respond to the Clintons’ attacks. And in the case that she wins the Democratic nomination that the Republican candidate (and his team) will show the skill Obama’s team did in this recent dustup.

UPDATE: John Fund has a good column in today’s Wall Street Journal on HIllary’s problems, noting the unwillingness of her team to address the “scandals that swirled around Bill Clinton’s eight years in office.” Fund believes this strategy “carries the danger of eroding Mrs. Clinton’s carefully cultivated image of moderation and reasonableness during a campaign that still has almost a year to run before the first primaries.” Now that I’ve whet your appetite, just read the whole thing!

The Democrats have already held their first candidates’ forum for the 2008 presidential election. And ten months before the first primary, one candidate, former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has already withdrawn from the race. And like Peggy Noonan’s friend, I too am wondering why “everyone is obsessing on the presidential race so early?“

For the first time in twelve years, we have a Democratic majority in Congress. Shouldn’t the focus be on their legislative priorities rather than speculation about who will succeed the current Chief Executive? Alas that next year’s presidential campaign has alas impacted the way Congress does business. I highly doubt that Senator Joe Biden (D-DEL) would be working on legislation deauthorizing the War in Iraq were he not trying to reach out to the left-wing base of his party.

It’s unfortunate that the presidential campaign has begun so soon. It has led to an overpoliticization of the war in Iraq, with top Democrats more concerned with criticizing the incumbent’s policies than in considering the national interest — and achieving victory in this conflict. As Senator Joe Lieberman wrote today in the Wall Street Journal:

Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq–or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?

Unlike some of his Democratic colleagues, he recognizes that “the new security strategy . . . differs from previous efforts” and suggests we give our new commander there General David Petraeus “and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.“

But, with the presidential campaign having begun so soon, too many Democrats act as if the incumbent has already lost all authority. Perhaps, it’s because these Democrats –and some even in the MSM — so resent this man and question the legitimacy of his initial election that they have begun campaigning so soon.

Whatever the case, so early a start to the campaign threatens the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. Like it or not, in November 2004, George W. Bush was elected to a four-year term, to serve as president until January 20, 2009. The Constitution makes him Commander in Chief of the armed forces and also grants him the power to veto any legislation the Congress passes. Instead of posturing for their political base, Democrats need to confront this reality.

People shouldn’t be focusing on next year’s election particularly when our nation is at war this year. We can speculate why the campaign has heated up so quickly, so long before from the first caucuses. But, we can’t lose sight of our nation’s current political dynamics. This does not mean Democrats should refrain from criticizing the president. For I do believe they should speak out when they disagree with his policies, but they should do so in recognition of his constitutional responsibilities and the national interest of the United States of America.

UPDATE: Some good news — Senator Majoriy Leader Harry Reid is going to “delay votes on Biden’s measure to “repeal the 2002 war authorization and narrow the mission in Iraq.“

With non-stop Anna Nicole news dominating the cable networks, and with Democrats trying to circumvent the Constitution by playing Commanders-in-Chief, this photo says it all.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

So says the Washington Post in Sunday’s edition.

The story of Murtha’s star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Party’s deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress. From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts.

Then for an entire week, as members of Congress returned home for a recess, Murtha refused to speak further. Democratic leaders failed to step into the vacuum, and Republicans relentlessly attacked a plan they called a strategy to slowly bleed the war of troops and funds. By the end of the recess, Murtha’s once promising strategy was in tatters.

Tom Andrews, a former House member and antiwar activist who helped Murtha with his Internet rollout, fumed: “The issue to me is, what is the state of the backbone of the Democratic Party? How will they respond to this counterattack? Republicans are throwing touchdown passes on this because the Democrats aren’t even on the field.”

Keep going, Imperial Congress.  America is watching….

And in the meantime, the Crazy-Blogo-Left continues their campaign to undermine America during wartime.

From DailyKos: …it is certainly conceivable that at some point in the future, the Bush administration will be able to provide genuine evidence of Iranian aid to militant groups in Iraq. Will it then follow that an attack on Iran is justified? The question is an interesting one: should we despise Iran for aiding the insurgent attacks that are killing our troops, or should we respect them for it?

Yes, folks, I do question the patriotism of those who would ”respect Iran in their killing of American troops.”  I guess Democrats now think that killing our troops is also “supporting our troops“?  Just like Hanoi Jane and Cambodia Kerry. 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When a friend alerted me to a press release from the Democratic National Committee trying to sow divisions within the GOP by claiming that my man Rudy Giuliani is snubbing the party’s “Conservative Base,” I was delighted to note that they referenced this blog as a source for one of their quotations (this post where I quoted American Spectator’s Philip Klein who had written that “a Giuliani victory would be difficult, not impossible.“)

Democrats, gay activists and others on the left frequently accuse the GOP of using gay issues as a wedge issue, but with this release, the Democrats are attempting to use gay issues as a wedge to divide the GOP frontrunner from conservatives in his own party. They highlight Giuliani’s stance on gay issues in order to play on the bias of social conservatives, assuming that these Republicans would never support a candidate with such a record.

They even feature quote by Pat Buchanan. It’s amusing that while nearly all Republicans, including social conservatives, have distanced themselves from that angry man, the Left continues to define him as “Conservative Leader.” Buchanan’s politics have increasingly come to resemble not those of the conservative mainstream, but those of left-wing activists.

Once again, the Democrats attempt to define the GOP not as it is, but as they wish it were.

What this release really shows is that Democrats fear Giuliani’s candidacy. They want bring his differences from social conservatives to the fore in order to heighten divisions within the GOP and prevent his nomination.

To be sure, the former New York City Mayor will not have an easy time winning over many social conservatives. But, he has impressed the party’s rank and file with his leadership and resolve. If he can focus on those issues which unite our party, he could persuade those currently opposed to (or skeptical about) his candidacy to support him, particularly given the alternative of a Democratic president beholden to the far left.

Instead of Rudy snubbing the conservative base, as the Democrats contend, he has been reaching out to them, highlighting areas of common ground, notably his intention, once elected, to appoint strict constructionist judges to the federal bench.

The Democrats have it wrong. Rudy Giuliani is not snubbing the conservative base, but working to unite the GOP. And Howard Dean’s party seems intent on using gay issues as a wedge issue while frequently decrying Republican efforts to do the same thing.

UPDATE: While Democrats contend Rudy is snubbing the GOP’s conservative base, this post on Powerline indicates he’s reaching out the right. In this post, I suggested Rudy appear on Hugh Hewitt’s show as a means to reach out to conservatives. And this transcript shows that he has done just that. Another sign that instead of snubbing, Rudy is reaching out to his part’s conservative base.

UP-UPDATE: Another sign that the Democrats have it wrong is that gay-marriage opponent Maggie Gallagher is “thinking hard” about voting for Rudy Giuliani. While she lived in New York City, she never voted for because of his views on abortion and the way he “treated his second wife.” Two things are making her think about changing her mind: “national security, and Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments.” I would dare say other social conservatives have similar sentiments.

UP-UP-UPDATE: Yet another sign that Rudy is not snubbing the conservative base. Captain Ed reports that he will addressing “The American Conservative Union’s CPAC event this weekend.” This is one of the biggest, if not the biggest conservative confab of the year.

Like most people in Los Angeles, I will be going to a party today to watch the Oscars. While in years past, I have seen all the films with nominations for the big awards, Best Picture, Best Director as well as those tapped for the acting and writing awards, this year, like last, I have not seen all of the nominated films, indeed have seen only two of the Best Picture nominees (Litte Miss Sunshine and The Queen). I’ll be rooting for the former for Best Picture (though I wonder why Dreamgirls was not nominated in that category).

Of the movies I have seen, I have really been quite impressed with the acting — and some of the writing. Litte Miss Sunshine and Pan’s Labyrinth had first-rate scripts. And that latter had simply amazing Art Direction — as did The Prestige.

But, it was in acting where I saw some real talent this year, with amazing performances by a number of talented actors, most from those from whom we expect such work like Alan Arkin, Djimon Hounsou, Helen Mirren and Meryl Streep. And also those from performers about whom I had previously heard little (or nothing at all) or from whom I was not accustomed to seeing such topnotch performances. I had never really thought of Mark Wahlberg as an actor, but friends who have seen his performance in The Departed agreed that he deserves his Best Supporting Actor Nod.

The performance that really blew me away was that of Eddie Murphy in Dreamgirls. I have enjoyed Murphy’s performances in comedies since I was in college, always seeing Murphy not so much as an actor, but as an entertainer, a comedian with the gift of his presence and timing. His performances seemed little different from Beverly Hills Cop to The Distinguished Gentleman to a number of other films where he has played comedic roles. What distinguished him was his attitude, his inflections and his gift for impersonation.

Impersonation, however, is not acting. It’s when a performer represents — in exaggerated, caricatured form — the stereotypical behavior of a certain individual — or a class of individuals. And whereas an impersonator specializes in stereotypes, an actor realizes the archetype, the true nature of an individual character. But not just that. In revealing a character’s archetypal quality, aspects of his personality which reveal his fundamental weaknesses (and strengths), qualities common to all men (and women). So did Eddie Murphy realize James Early on screen.

We truly saw the this man’s ambitions, his weaknesses — and the depth of his suffering. I was blown away because I had never expected that Eddie Murphy could so powerfully portray such pathos.

(more…)

Earlier this week, I got this email from one of our usual rabble-rousers.

Thanks for pulling quoting only the end sentence to my letter and still not providing me with the posting(s) which you claim violated your rules.

I suspect this has been done to other people who simply don’t agree with your point of view.   You do however allow your conservative supporters to attack people on a personal level on a regular basis with no action taken against them.   If you actually followed the rules you set down, posters  like [name deleted] and [name deleted] would be banned from posting.

My response:

Wrong.  You have no idea what I think or do.  And you shouldn’t be a baby and whine about what others do or don’t do.

Be a man and stick to the damn rules of conduct for yourself.  This is my blog and I’ll deal with people (and always have) appropriately regardless of their viewpoints.

I have NEVER censored a comment because of an opinion stated.

Stop worrying about what others are doing and tone down your own flaming and inciteful rhetoric.  You are a bully and if you want to continue commenting at GayPatriot, you need to stop it.

Otherwise, move along….  pretty simple.

Now, for the benefit of all…. here’s a reminder of the Terms of Community Conduct.  They apply to all commenters, regardless of party or ideological affiliation.  Worry about your own conduct, and we’ll be fine.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Remind me again…. just who are the anti-free speech fascists?

A Fredericksburg man was arrested Saturday on charges he assaulted three strangers at their home during a dispute over politics, police said.

According to a Fredericksburg police report, the suspect went to a home in the 900 block of Marye Street about 5:30 p.m. after finding one of the resident’s name on a Republican Web site.

The resident and his two roommates engaged in a discussion with the suspect, though none of them had ever met or had contact with him before.

The argument got heated and the suspect learned that the young residents had not enlisted in the military and “put their all” behind the Republican-led war effort in Iraq, police spokeswoman Natatia Bledsoe said.

The suspect refused to leave the home after repeatedly being asked to do so, police said. The three roommates were hit multiple times each as they attempted to get the suspect out of the door, authorities said.

Michelle Malkin, who has volumes of Unhinged Liberal thuggery stories catalogued, has more about the left-wing nut attack at University of Mary Washington.

Will the UMW college administration and police treat the incident seriously or let the accused assailant off with a slap on the wrist? I’ve reported on enough of these loons and thugs–and their enablers–to fear the worst. And I’ve dealt myself with enough of these BDS-addled [Bush Derangement Syndrome] stalkers to know that Pannell, his roommates (who happen to be apolitical), and the rest of the Republicans on Stone’s list are in for a long, protracted headache.

You may recall I had my own run-in with a food-throwing unhinged liberal in 2004.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

It seems that now even in the majority, Democrats are less interested in governing and just as interested in posturing as they were when they were in opposition. A few days ago, Bruce noted how John Murtha (with the apparent support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) is attempting to use surreptitious means to block the president’s policies in Iraq while pretending to do something else. Now, some Democrats appear to be more upfront about their goals, “drafting legislation that would effectively revoke the broad authority granted to the president in the days Saddam Hussein was in power, and leave U.S. troops with a limited mission as they prepare to withdraw.“

Yet, even as Democrats posture to please their base — and even as the war appears unpopular, recent polls indicate that Americans remain opposed to “(a) surrender, (b) losing, (c) defeat and (d) compelling the troops do any of them same.” Well over half of the voters surveyed in one poll “stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.“

With their proposed legislation, Democrats seem eager to undermine the president’s authority. They seem more interested in damaging him politically than in promoting the national interest. As the president said last month about his critics (and I noted in this post), “They have an obligation and a serious responsibility therefore to put up their own plan as to what would work.“

Instead of their relentless posturing with non-binding resolutions and legislation that the president is sure to veto, Democrats need to make clear that they stand for something besides opposing him. If they want to retain their majority status, they need to put forward policies which show their commitment not to pleasing the angry elements of their base, but to moving the nation forward.

Only two months into their Congressional majority, Democrats are resembling the GOP after more than a decade in power, not working on substantive legislation, but instead offering meaningless bills to please that base. If the Republicans can capitalize on the Democrats failure by returning to the party’s principles and articulating those principles in responsible legislative proposals (and that’s still and open question), they could well return to the majority in next fall’s election.

But, until I see more signs of a congressional GOP commitment to principle, I will continue to despair at the state of our national legislative politics, with representatives and Senators more eager to score partisan points than to present ideas and author legislation which promote the national interest.

UPDATE: Jules Crittenden thinks that the Democrats’ move to limit the mission of US troops may well serve as a “is a shot in the foot that will drive Americans farther from” the left. (Via Instapundit” He’s got lots more good news — and some bad news, so as Glenn would say, just read the whole thing“!

Outstanding ad!

Many Americans these days delude themselves into forgetting how vital our nation is to protecting the ideals of liberty and freedom throughout the world.  We cannot forget we are the good guys. (h/t – The Corner)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When I first heard about this story two weeks ago, I told PatriotPartner that this story would have legs.  Why?  Well, it involves a question of fairness:  Why should someone with no credit history, no Social Security card, and more importantly, no legal status as a citizen get credit preference over a law-abiding working American citizen?

More importantly the story had legs, I said last week, because Jay Leno was all over it.  He still is.

Today, the Charlotte Observer reports that the CEO of Bank of America is defending the credit card program.

The bank has found itself in the center of the nation’s fiery immigration debate since news surfaced last week of a new credit card that could be used by illegal immigrants. It requires little or no credit history and customers don’t necessarily need a Social Security number to sign up.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal’s opinion section, Lewis said criticism of the program has been “deeply concerning,” but said the pilot will continue in Los Angeles. He said the card follows the USA Patriot Act and Treasury Department rules that allow financial institutions to accept identification issued by foreign governments, including matricula consular IDs provided by Mexican consulates.

That is the BS-talking point that the BofA salesperson told me when I called and said I’m going to cancel my credit card with them.  That is ridiculous and a cop-out.  My response to her: “I don’t care what the Patriot Act says, what you are doing may be legal…. but it isn’t right.”

In the piece, Lewis said the bank “does not deliberately market financial products and services to illegal immigrants from any country” but acknowledged illegal immigrants could sign up for his bank’s offerings as well as those of competitors. He said denying service to people who can legally use his bank’s products would only encourage customers to resort to underground financial services.

Another laughable line.  That’s like saying the tobacco industry doesn’t deliberately market to the yoot anymore.

Do something about it by helping to Boycott Bank of America. 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Newly-openly gay actor Neil Patrick Harris (aka – Doogie Howser) is featured in an interview in the March 2 Entertainment Weekly magazine.  He is profiled in what EW bills as “his first chat since announcing he’s gay.”

In the interview, Harris states one of the most eloquent, simple and yet multi-layered facts about him being a gay actor.  It is definitely the quote of the week for me:

But as happy as Harris is to be out, he’d be even happier if we could just stop talking about it.  “As much as I respect advocacy, I don’t feel that my job description is ‘advocate.’  My job description is ‘jester.’”

Bravo.  If only Harris could talk some sense into the Dixie Chicks and Barbara Streisand, we’d all be better for it.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

If I watched Grey’s Anatomy more often, I might know the names of the characters. On the show tonight (Thursday, February 22, 2007), I caught a conversation where a female character asked her boyfriend (or at least I assume he was her boyfriend) to go sixty days without sex with anyone. He seemed to balk at first, but eventually agreed.

It does seem harder for us men to go without sex than it is for our female counterparts.

So, my questions for the thread–Is this guy going to make it all sixty days? Can men go so long without sex? Should they? Have you ever done that? And was it a good thing for you?

UPDATE (Friday 02-23 @ 12:15 EST (blog time): I had waited to give my own answer to the question. Yes, I think the guy can make it all 60 days and that it will change him as he will learn to appreciate his girlfriend more, realizing that one can indeed go so long without sex. For when we go so long without, we learn to focus on other aspects our relationships.

While I don’t think people should eliminate sex from their lives, the Jung quote in this post pretty much sums up my views. I think there are times when it is good for us to go without sex. And whether it is sixty days — or six hundred — each individual should figure out for himself what works best for him.

Even as I just found that the urban dictionary offers an alternative defintion of T-Shirt Blogging, I’m sticking with my own.

I always seem to be in a strange mood when I return from my intense three-day class session for my graduate program in Mythological Studies. I can’t always focus on things. I’ll make a list of things I need to do on the day I get back and only get to a handful.

Today was no different. Even though I woke before the alarm, I didn’t get much done in the morning. I called a friend to see if he wanted to do lunch. He thought it was a good idea because we might not otherwise be able to get together this weekend. I drove over to his place and we walked to a restaurant (how very un-LA of us) but it was closed. So, we went to a neighboring establishment. Soon after we sat down, the president of the local chapter of Log Cabin walked in.

Later, I got an e-mail from an old friend who had seen my picture in The Advocate.*

Later still, when I was on the phone with the elder PatriotBrotherWest (a doctor), I mentioned a dermatologist friend, a doctor with the same (first) name as my brother. It seemed he had heard me speak my name for I heard the beep of call-waiting; he was calling.

Perhaps, I read too much into things. But, I do wonder about these synchronicities, coincidences that appear to be meaningful. I tend to see them as signs that the universe is working — and I’m in the right place. Or maybe it’s just my imagination.

*And the friend with whom I had lunch had had that very magazine on his coffee table.