This is a video of Bill Clinton emerging from the Ron Brown memorial.  Ron Brown was a cabinet member in the Clinton administration who was killed in a plane crash.  Clinton is walking out of the memorial smiling and chatting, turns his head, sees a camera, immediately lowers his chin and starts feigning tears.  It’s from the 1990s, but is unbelievable footage that should have been featured on every nightly news broadcast for weeks.  Of course, though, that doesn’t happen when the Shill Media knows that doing so would destroy one of their own.  Watch it, then ask yourself if you really want Hillary Rodham — with Bill by her side — in the White House.

Click here to view this amazing footage.

I don’t know — maybe cameras make Slick Willie sad.

Some of you may know that Christopher Hitchens, the very, very British new American citizen and quite literate journalist, has been traipsing around the country talking about his new book, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.  As the rather blunt title suggests, it’s basically an anti-religion screed; Hitchens is, after all, a frothing-at-the-mouth secularist. 

Based on what I’ve heard Hitchens say in interviews and debates and on what others have said about the work, there’s nothing new contained therein; Hitchens just seems to regurgitate worn-out secularist arguments that have been refuted long ago by people who, although impressive in intellect, usually don’t get much ink.  Oh, as you might have gathered, I haven’t read the book.  You’ll have to forgive me, but I’ve heard all the arguments before and also much of Hitchens’ drivel.  Besides, if I want to read a bad philosopher, I’ll read one of the best ones, like Friedrich Nietzsche.

I can’t truly do this issue justice here; that will have to wait for my book and some future pieces on the subject.  But I will mention a few things.

First, let me say that, although he is considered an intellectual giant among leftists, I don’t hold Hitchens’ intellect in high regard.  His criticism of religion always seems to be long on witticisms and contempt and short on philosophical arguments.  In fact, it seems as if his main tack is to say that religious people did this, that and the other thing, have been wrong about that, this and something other, so religion must be bad.  It’s not surprising, though, since deep philosophical arguments vindicate believers and indict secularists.  The only thing the left is left with is t

In my recent piece Banning Boyhood, I mention how there is a movement afoot in American schools to ban dodge ball.  I couldn’t devote much time in the piece to an actual defense of the game, as that wasn’t its focus.  Besides — and my reader email vindicated this idea — such measures are so preposterous that no explanation is necessary.  Yet, there are a few things I want to say.

In my article I printed this excerpt from a David Limbaugh piece:

According to one anti-dodge ball crusader, ‘at its base, the game encourages the strong to victimize the weak. … Schools preach the values of harmony, community and cooperation. But then those same schools let the big kids loose to see if they can hit the skinny nerd in the head with a hard, red rubber ball.’

Now, this portion of a reader’s email is quite apropos:

I am tired of writers on the subject of Dodgeball saying it is a game of "the big and strong against the small and weak".  Have these people ever played the game?  I can still remember his name.  Marc Fisher.  The smallest kid you will ever see.  He was definitely the runt of the litter.  He and his ilk destroyed us big kids.  Yes we were strong and we could whip that little ball but it was impossible to hit these fast little guys.  Any time there was a standoff at the end w/Marc and and one of us big guys, we were the ones quaking in our boots, especially so if it was Marc who ended up w/ that little ball.

I am so tired of the above quote. They make it seem as if
these big kids whip the ball at the helpless little kids and the girls just so
they could have the pleasure of seeing the imprint of the ball in their faces. 
This is so far from the truth.  There was an unwritten code.  You never hit a
girl full force w/ the ball unless she was a tough tomboy that was capable of
taking your head off w/ the ball.  If a kid was to unfairly hit another "smaller
/ weaker" kid then we all would ostracize that mean kid.

I point this out because I had a discussion about this very matter the night before receiving this correspondence.  It isn’t always the biggest and baddest that dominate in dodge ball.  I would also add that I have to wonder if these critics have ever played the game, because in dodge ball you’re not allowed to aim for the head; if you hit someone in it, you’re out. 

Now, I realize that dodge ball is a trivial matter, a pebble-in-the-shoe issue, but the way these malcontents have mischaracterized the game is typical of how leftists operate.  These critics don’t even know that aiming for the head isn’t allowed and that the biggest don’t always prevail.  Either they haven’t played the game and it’s another example of liberals claiming to be experts about that which they’re ignorant, or they’re willing to say anything, whether true or not, that they think will buttress their agenda.  The truth is that the last thing would have to explain much of this inanity, since the left always plays fast and loose with the truth.   And I find liars despicable.

Quite frankly, I also find anyone who wants to ban a
great childhood pastime like this game to be creepy; such an individual
should be carted off school grounds in a rubber truck. 

You know, I see in the
vicinity of most every school a sign stating, "Drug Free Zone."  How about making schools Nut Free Zones?

Rudolph Giuliani is starting to receive a lot of bad press.  The right is starting to pile on more and more (and deservedly so); in particular, I note that James Dobson and Rev. Chuck Baldwin, a columnist of some note on the Internet, have issued scathing commentaries about him.

Now, I was probably ahead of the curve in criticizing Giuliani, as I gave him a shellacking back in February in this piece here; I exposed his leftist leanings and predicted that he could not win the Republican nomination (I stand by that prediction).  Thus, I cannot be cast as a Giuliani apologist and don’t want to see him anywhere near the presidency.  However, some, including Rev. Baldwin, overreach in their condemnation of him.  Moreover and more distressingly, these critics seem to be so blinded by emotionalism that they would have us bite off our nose to spite our face.

Lest I be misunderstood, from what I’ve seen of Chuck Baldwin, I’d have to say that he and I are mostly on the same page and that he seems like a good fellow.  So, Rev. Baldwin, if you read this, don’t view it as a personal attack, because it isn’t.

I’ll first mention that Chuck Baldwin has said that Rudolph Giuliani is as bad as Hillary Clinton and maybe worse, which is a descent into hyperbole of grand magnitude.  Now, Giuliani is a liberal, no doubt about it, being pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rights, etc.  But to equate him with Lady MacBeth . . . well, I’ll be kind, is indicative of failed discernment.  Clinton is an unreconstructed leftist, a liar, and a woman to whom we entrust our national defense at our own peril.  For all Giuliani’s many faults, he at least is a man who won’t blink in the face of danger.

Second, the equivalence between the two ignores an extremely important factor: Supreme Court appointments.  I’m not saying that Giuliani would give us Robert Borks, but he wouldn’t visit Ginsberg clones on us like Clinton would.  And this is a very safe bet.  Remember, for all President  Bush’s faults, he has given us fairly sound (if not better) justices.  Would we prefer to have had Gore or Kerry making those choices?  Remember also that the Supreme Court has tremendous power and has been responsible for much of the social engineering that has been foisted upon us the last half a century.  Thus, to just cavalierly dismiss such concerns would be irresponsible. 

Anyway, there are many substantive differences between Giuliani and Clinton just as there are many legitimate  criticisms that can be leveled at the former.  As to those details, read the piece I cited earlier.

Chuck Baldwin also printed an email he received in which the respondent, a New Yorker, claimed that Giuliani was " . . . the worst mayor we ever had."  Now, Baldwin obviously never lived in NYC (which he can be thankful for, believe me), because if he had he would laugh such a sentiment right out of his email box.  I spent the first 27 years of my life in the Big Apple, and I can tell you that New Yorkers with a hold on their sanity know better. 

Here’s what must be understood: In NYC, you don’t get near public office if you’re any more traditional than Giuliani.  Realize that the city’s denizens are the people who elect socialists such as Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.  So, when seeking to rank Giuliani, you must consider his competition.  And, trust me, in modern times he is the king of that hill, for sure.  For instance, his predecessor was a man named David Dinkins, a thoroughly incompetent leftist ideologue who, through comparison, can make anybody look good. 

Then, Baldwin mentioned — and he obviously got this from hard-line leftists in NYC — that Giuliani trampled the rights of minorities.  This is what the left says of any man who seeks to secure law and order, and it’s only true if you believe that minorities should enjoy the right to engage in criminal behavior.

As for Giuliani’s handling of crime and stewardship of the city, when viewed in the context of the alternatives, it was stellar.  I saw the difference in the city personally; crime dropped precipitously; the "squeegee " harassers were brought to heel; Times Square was transformed from a den of iniquity into a relatively clean, attractive tourist attraction; and the quality of life improved markedly.  Again, I’m no fan of Giuliani, but, well, let us give the Devil his due.

You may be wondering why I’m wasting ink defending a man of whose politics I’m not fond.  It’s for a simple reason: James Dobson said that he would not vote for Giuliani even if he were running against Clinton, and Baldwin concurred unabashedly.  Baldwin said that between the two there is no lesser of two evils.  Again, this is overreaching; it’s what happens when emotion trumps reason.

I have a tremendous philosophical problem with this attitude.  Many may detest Giuliani, and more sympathetic I could not be.  When I payed him my compliments, I was, in essence, saying he was a large dwarf in a land of lilliputians.  I don’t want him anywhere near the nomination, but — and this is a big but — if he were to capture it, I’d do my level best to get him elected over Clinton. 

It’s simple, and I’m issuing a challenge to one and all.  As I said in vain in this piece, written prior to the 2006 mid-term election, the time to defeat the Giulianis, McCains and Bushes is during the primaries — that means now.  If the prospect of Giuliani being the Republican standard bearer turns your stomach, work harder.  Become a campaign volunteer for Alan Keyes, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul or whomever you think fits the bill.  Wax passionate, sway people, use your influence.  Act now, don’t complain later.

And when later comes, what do we do?  I, for one, will not become petulant and take my ball and go home.  I’m not taken with the idea of wasting my vote, and I know that temper tantrums in the voting booth are self-defeating. 

Lastly, I would point out that, in a way, every race is the choice of the lesser of two evils.  After all, and I’m sure Rev. Baldwin will understand this, since we’re all sinners, no one can be a perfect candidate.  As Jesus said, "Only God is good." 

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t equate a Giuliani with an Alan Keyes, but I do know this: If you find a perfect candidate, don’t plan on voting for him.  Because you are then in a place where the boss isn’t determined by the democratic process.