Mar

31

2004

“There’s a problem with John Kerry”

Filed Under Religion | 2 Comments

I’ve discussed before how some of the principles upon which the Republican Party was founded have endured the test of time, and how we’ve outgrown some prejudices that ought never have been a part of the Party of Lincoln in the first place. One of these positions was the initial anti-Catholic stance of most Republicans early in our history. Thankfully, we have outgrown that, and in fact we have long since reversed the trend with more and more practicing Catholics moving from the Democrat Party.

Note my differentiation by saying: “practicing”. A good deal of the “Catholic vote” is still going to the Democratic Party. The problem is those people aren’t Catholics as anyone should define them. Unlike many other religious or social affiliations, there actually is a simple litmus test for being Catholic: one must be a member of the Body of Christ, and the outward symbol of that membership (if I dare call it a mere “symbol”) is the reception of the Holy Eucharist. What is beyond the understanding of many once-a-week and twice-a-year Catholics is even some of them aren’t Catholic either. Without this becoming a long theology lesson, suffice to say there’s a lot of faith required behind that act, and a lot more action required behind that faith, before your card is punched.

Especially in America today, we Catholics don’t spend a whole lot of time talking about this self-amputation of our members, primarily because it would require us to make judgements about the nature and character of the faith of our brothers. But the Church does have a mechanism to shield the faithful from the most egregious of our erstwhile brethren, lest they drag us down with them: excommunication. By saying publicly that someone is not worthy of receiving the Holy Eucharist at this moment because of the example of his words or actions, the Church can show the faithful a clearly negative example of what it means not to be in union with the Body of Christ.

Here’s where we get back to politics. Any political party not run exclusively by practicing Catholics will have policy positions that may run counter to Catholic teachings. And for many years, the Democrat’s concentration on social welfare seemed to be as close a fit as one could make with Catholic doctrine. But those days have come and gone. Liberation theology has been repudiated as a serious economic system, leaving bare many of the Democrats’ social positions – abortion primary among them – as seriously anti-Catholic in nature. Not to be rebuffed so easily, many Catholic Democrats have insisted that Rome ignore their voting records and rhetoric, trying to separate their public acts from their “private beliefs”. (Nevermind for now the hypocritical concept that one should advocate something they personally disagree with.) But recently, bishops and priests have become more vocal in stating that they may need to use excommunication to chastise Catholic politicians who advocate positions contrary to the teachings of Catholic doctrine.

Believe it or not, this brings us to: Wictory Wednesday.

For the fourth time in American history*, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President is Catholic (or, at least, he says he is). But John Kerry has suggested that his Catholic faith is his “bedrock of values, of sureness about who I am,” even though he takes the standard anti-Catholic Democratic position on euthanasia, homosexual “rights”, and (of course) abortion.

Every Wednesday I ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign if they haven’t done so already. And if you have volunteered and donated, then get a friend to join you. This Wednesday, I’d like to especially encourage practicing Catholics to help fight the distortion of the Catholic perspective peddled by the anti-religion opposition. While I feel it would be a clear statement renouncing these secularist Catholics, we can’t count on the bishops to go so far as to excommunicate a Democratic nominee in the middle of an election.

If you’re a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the president’s re-election campaign. And don’t forget to e-mail PoliPundit so that you can be added to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which is part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:

* In reverse order, the previous three Catholic nominees for president were: John Kennedy (1960), Al Smith (1928), and Charles O’Conor (1872).

EDIT: I added a line in the sixth paragraph that completes a thought I left floating in the wind.

Mar

30

2004

So much to blog, and so little time

Filed Under Internet and Blogging | Comments Off

Some time in the near future I hope to find enough time and wit at the same time to post several things that are piling up on my plate. For the same reasons, I apologize for not keeping up on the editing very quickly lately, making the blog appear a little unkempt at times (no offense intended, guys – I’m just anal). That said, wasn’t someone asking me for talking points recently? :-)

Mar

29

2004

News Flash: Clarke invoked privilege in 1999!

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

The Drudge Report has information that Richard Clarke refused to testify before a Senate commitee in 1999, for the same reason that Dr. Rice is giving!

“We were scheduled — at the beginning of this gathering we agreed not to call that portion of it a hearing, to have a briefing from Mr. Richard Clarke. And many of you have been notified that he would be here and as recently as yesterday afternoon when I was with him, we were looking forward to his appearance and he was sharing with me some of the areas that he planned to discuss while he was here. Mr. Clarke, as many of you know, is the national coordinator for security and infrastructure protection and counterterrorism on the National Security Council.

Last night, into the evening, we were notified that the legal staff of the National Security Council had determined that it would be inappropriate for Mr. Clarke to appear. I have just spoken to him on the telephone. The rule apparently is that any member of the White House staff who has not been confirmed is not to be allowed to testify before the Congress. They can perform briefings, but they are not to give testimony. And that in response to that rule, Mr. Clarke will not be coming.” – Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah), during a committee hearing in 1999

Mar

29

2004

Clarke’s “…is, is” Moment

Filed Under Politics, War and Terrorism | Comments Off

Can anyone who served in the Clinton administration speak in direct terms? Must we parse their every word to understand the real meaning behind what they are saying?

Appearing on yesterday’s edition of Meet The Press, former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke explained away the letter he gave to President Bush as he left government service in terms that reminds one of Clinton’s famous, “It depends what the meaning of is, is” testimony before a government inquiry. Specifically, he now wants us to believe that when he stated to Bush, that, “I will always have fond memories of our briefings for you on cybersecurity”, that he wasn’t padding his resume by getting on the record that he, Richard Clarke was on top of this coming threat, but instead was just being nice and was carefully avoiding telling Bush that, in Clarke’s view, the Bush administration’s approach to terror was more flawed than Jesse Jackson’s non-profit tax status. (He even managed to invoke “Mother” in his response.)

Mar

26

2004

Living up to the ideals of the original Black Republican

Filed Under Education | 1 Comment

More proof that the executive Bush is living up to the ideals of the original Black Republican – only this time it’s Jeb, and not GW that’s leading the charge. (Though the article, oddly enough for the WSJ, never mentions that these are Jeb’s initiatives.) These Bush boy do come from very fine stock, don’t they?

Florida will be a pivotal battleground this November, but on the crucial subject of education reform the battle in that state is already joined.

In the past five years Florida has delivered real school choice to more American schoolchildren than anywhere else in the country. Which is no doubt why Jesse Jackson was down in Tallahassee earlier this month calling Governor Jeb Bush’s policies “racist.” He and his allies understand all too well that when poor African-American and Latino children start getting the same shot at a decent education that the children of our politicians do, the bankrupt public education empire starts looking like the Berlin Wall.
Combine this good news with the seeming affects of the Supreme Court’s decisions last summer in the Michigan affirmative action cases, and one can detect – ever so slightly – a change in the prevailing social/political winds.

Chris and I have often discussed our own perceptions of this “change” within the context of the theories of Strauss & Howe, and how the changes of this age (that their theory predicts will occur) will eventually play out. We have, if I may speak for Chris a bit here, concluded that the attacks of 9-11 were the catalyst for a great and gathering crisis, and that the past 2+ years have been a time in which the major players of this age (Bush, Blair, and yes bin Laden) align themselves, set strategies, and plan courses of action. The paradigm of war and conflicts has shifted and Bush (et al) are reacting to that shift. This can be seen very well in the examples of the Bush Doctrine and the Patriot Act – marked departures from the way this country had always dealt with terrorist, countries, and law enforcement before. The fact that opposition to these ideas (and by extension, to Bush) is so intense, is testament to how radically different they are, and that they are having an affect.

This election will either be an acceptance of this new paradigm or a refutation of it. Either way, the consequences will be huge – and one of the things that we here at the Black Republican hope gets put aside forever is this preoccupation some people (read liberals, the elite media, and most Democrats – Jessie Jackson) have with race. A persons race has no bearing whatsoever on abilities or capabilities, and the sooner those people come to that understanding or are forced to accept that premise, the better for us all.

I do think, however, that these liberal elite also feel this change in the air. They see the subtle yet significant changes within the Black and Latin communities, with the Jewish and Catholic population, and with key issues like abortion and tort reform, and realize all too well that these are the groups and issues they have relied on for 40 years to provide their political success – and they are afraid, and their reactions over the past 3 years reflect that fear.

A rising tide does lift all boats, but a shifting wind only helps the captain skilled enough to see the signs early, and adjust his sails accordingly. It may seem now like we have turned the ship too soon and that the winds of war and change are against us, but isn’t it true that only the most innovative and successful people get labled as being “ahead of their time”? In this time in which we live, and in this race, my money is on my Captain.

Mar

25

2004

Rattling the purse – and heart strings

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

I’ve heard several people (on the Imus and Limbaugh shows respectively, among other venues) suggest that Clarke might improve his credibility by donating all advances and proceeds from his book to 9/11 charities.

Thinking back on Thomas Sowell’s column yesterday, I have to ask – if Viacom does not do the same, will we see in the future the children of 9/11 casualties sue the media conglomerate for their adding to and abetting “the 9/11 conspiracy” while they were growing up?

I’ll be sure to bring it up with my cousin, Alexandria Dunn, in twenty years or so.

Mar

24

2004

News Flash – Clarke In His Own Words

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | 5 Comments

Fows News just interrrupted the coverage of 9/11 Comissioner Ben-Veniste’s soft-ball leads to witness Sandy Berger’s Clinton terrorism effort defense to announce that reporter Jim Angle has a tape of Richard Clarke praising the Bush administration counter-terroism efforts.

Mr. Clarke, a year and a half ago, gave Mr. Angle an “on background” interview, which is now released for publication, in which he proclaims that the Bush administration was getting after the terrorist problem in 2001.

And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we’ve now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
UPDATE: Four other journalists were also involved in this conference call, the White House has notified them all that they are free to use the interview in public now; thus far none have come forward.

Update deux: Former Senator from Nebraska and 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey (also spelled Kerry in some news reports, no relation to Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts) lashed out in committee at Fox News for releasing this transcript. Apparently Mr. Kerrey is not interested in the truth.

Mar

24

2004

God’s gift to humanity

Filed Under Race and Prejudice | Comments Off

This morning I was at Amazon.com reading reviews of Star Parker’s book, “Uncle Sam’s Plantation”. I should know better than to bother reading web rants against a book written by a black Republican, but considering what I’ve constructed to pass my free time, it shouldn’t be a wonder that I subconsciously go looking for this kind of stuff.

There are the usual collection of reasonable and fawning reviews from mainstream conservatives and traditional values folks. And they are followed by an equally predictable pair: an insulted African-American and – my favorite – a racist liberal. The former is innocuous enough:

Yet another waste of paper from Ms. Parker. She has nothing new to say except that many poor people are lazy. I think we know that since there are lazy, dishonest people in all classes of society. Also, unless you went back in time Ms. Parker, spare me the plantation analogies. Their is nothing in modern day America that comes close to the horrors of plantation slavery. The title is an insult to the sufferings our of black ancestors.
With effort, I’ll avoid a lengthy commentary making this an example of the effectiveness of our public school system. And though it’s tempting to analyze the comments for the logical paradoxes regarding laziness and plantation analogies, I’ll just state that it’s possible to imagine more than a few former slaves rolling over in their graves at some of the depravity in which their descendants are participating.

The liberal, however, is a real charmer. And he deserves special attention. “Step right up folks and take a gander behind this curtain, at a dying breed! The LIBERAL!” I’d ignore most of the more bizarre and mundane ad hominem attacks as the usual diversion tactic of a weak mind. But there are some comments from our subject that deserve inspection, and once they’re done, there’s really no substance left.

Bitching about government takes no courage, especially when the bitching echoes opinions of the country’s wealthy, and it need not (and often does not) involve rational thought.
The first thing that comes to mind is that this “gentleman” has obviously never sat inside a board room before, and with millions of dollars and his family’s future riding on his ability to make sense of the tax code for the directors. For that matter, neither have I – but at least I have the imagination to accept the possibility that a wealthy man has plenty he can be scared of.
Explaining her adventures with the welfare system, Star says she was, “. . . caught up in the welfare cycle, seduced by the easy living and the carefree allure . . .” as well as ” . . . its magical, sometimes luxurious hold.” Wow!!! Those I’ve known who would have reveled in welfare’s carefree allure and its magical, luxurious hold – had those delights existed – failed to notice them.
Notice that the subject admits that he isn’t poor himself, and has never participated in the welfare state as a recipient of its beneficence. As such, he utters those immortal words so close to the liberal heart: “Those I’ve known…” Yes, I’m sure. And what did you know of their lives the next day, after you’d left the heating grate behind you and returned to your home? While I can’t say I would openly describe my own drug-free participation in the poverty class in those terms, I most certainly had moments of such sheer mental and spiritual exhaustion that I was incredibly giddy, against all common sense and beyond all hope. But lest I digress… back to our subject:
Many blacks who get a leg up in this society abhor the failures of liberalism, but apparently don’t want to recognize that without liberalism’s successes, conservatives in this country would have kept them all back in the cotton fields.
Okay, now our subject is teetering on irrationality. “Many blacks… abhor the failures of liberalism…” First of all, I wasn’t aware that liberalism admitted it had faults. Is there hope for them? Not likely. For indeed: which blacks exactly are they that have arrived at this startling conclusion? Would that 9% who voted for George Bush be considered, “many”? Obviously this isn’t rationality, it’s denial. As indeed it must be, because the “conservative” party that held the reigns over those cotton fields was called “The Democrats”. Even if you were to claim that conservatism itself is a racist ideology (a contention I ardently oppose), the Republican Party has only been conservative relatively recently, and long after those cotton fields had hired employees instead of slaves. We press on:
I came out of high school with nothing more than a few brains and a white face, neither of which I had earned but which made me rich in light of the times. Throughout seven years of higher education (all supported by government) and then later with my two businesses (with little or no government obstruction) I’ve lived a very good life . . . and I’m a committed liberal.
Seven years of graduate work, two businesses with no federal regulation, and no tax accounting headaches? If his arguments weren’t so vapid, I’d think perhaps we’d have a trial lawyer on our hands here. But that is merely a strange sideshow before our main event – “the money quote”, as it were:
But I confess that sometimes – such as when books like these percolate out of the conservative cesspool – I regret some of the liberalism of the past 150 years. Without all that smarmy liberalism, Star would be back in her rightful place up in the mansion, doing special favors for Massa . . . all the while bitching about the laziness of the field-hands.
Give The Man a cupie doll – and make sure it’s a white cupie doll, too.

One would think perhaps that I would learn my lesson and leave it there, but all this had occurred within the first 20 minutes after I woke up this morning. Discouraged, I still had to face the day – but then TownHall.com would brighten that day with the perfect remedy for what ails me: Thomas Sowell.

Weren’t we just discussing cotton fields and slavery? Weren’t we just talking about the plantation mentality of the liberal Left exploiting a segment of our population for political gain? I could try to say something insightful to tie Sowell’s comments today with what I found at Amazon, but Sowell already says it. Many times, there’s just no point trying to say more when you’re referencing the man G. Gordon Liddy refers to as, “the most brilliant mind in America.”

In a moment of frustration, I began to peruse the Sowell archive, and I stumbled across something equally appropriate for the moment. Back in March, 2002, Sowell decried the attempt by some activists to sow division amongst Americans by suggesting black families give up their family names because of their mythical ties to their ancestral masters.

Those who try to claim that the shattered families in today’s ghettoes are “a legacy of slavery” ignore the fact that, a hundred years ago, a slightly higher percentage of blacks than of whites were married and most black children were raised in two-parent families, even during the era of slavery.

As late as 1950, a higher percentage of black women than of white women were married. The broken families of today are a legacy of our own times and our own ill-advised notions and policies.

Of all the reactions against the supposed “slave names” among blacks, the most painfully ironic has been the taking of Arab names instead. The Arabs engaged in massive enslavement of Africans before the Europeans began to — and continued long after the Europeans stopped.

One of the many rea
sons for studying history is to prevent history from being misused for current hidden agendas. Names are just one of the things being misused in this way.

And now we are engaged in a war at home and abroad with an enemy that seeks to destroy us. If they succeed and our cause is lost, the last thing about which we will be worrying is what Arab family name to take.

This, of course, brings us to Wictory Wednesday.

There is a party of inclusion in America today. There is a party that was born with respect for the nation born with the pledge that “all men are created equal”. That party fought long and hard for the principles of fair labor and civil rights, which were once described by a young president as a “progressive” agenda. Today, we hold many of the same views, but the Democrats have gone so much further into socialism and humanism that members of this party today are despised as backward-looking hicks. This party was the original and best home for black Americans – ever since the first President elected under her banner declared they “henceforward shall be free”.

That party was and is the Republican Party. And that President was, since even before his election, derided by the opposition as The Black Republican. His message of faith, hope, tolerance, and charity continues today alongside an abiding respect for the government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” built by our forefathers. We still believe we must defend this land from all foreign enemies – and despite the best efforts of any internal opposition to unjustly deny all these principles from us.

Today we rally behind a President of the same stalwart character – the same kind of Black Republican – who calls us to fight for our own liberties and those of our allies around the world. We must rise to meet our destiny.

Every Wednesday I ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign if they haven’t done so already. And if you have volunteered and donated, then get a friend to join you. It’s the only way to defeat the distortions and lies of the disloyal opposition.

If you’re a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the president’s re-election campaign. And don’t forget to e-mail PoliPundit so that you can be added to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which is part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:

Mar

23

2004

WHO said that?

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | 2 Comments

The Free Republic has found an old Washington Post article quoting a Clinton administration official saying there was a link between bin Laden and Iraq. The official’s name: Richard Clarke.

But the funny part comes from the Blogs for Bush entry for this new piece of news:

Welcome to the Blogosphere, Clarke.
As long as we have the Internet, we’ll never be unwittingly subjugated by a lying Democrat Party again.

UPDATE: Okay, I’m slow, but I see the pattern better now. Clarke is saying in the late ’90’s that there’s a link between bin Laden and Iraq. 9/11 happens. (Despite Clarke’s assertions, I remember very well the confusion running through the country for the following week, as we tried to come to grips with what happened and who did it. There was considerable speculation if it was bin Laden (who most of us had never really heard of before) or Hussein (who most of us most definately had).) Condi turns to the man who developed the links between the two back in the Clinton administration and asks him assess if Iraq had anything to do with it. When the War Cabinet met a week later, Iraq was “not on the agenda”. Having developed the information for the links, but not a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, Clarke may have been seen by the Administration as the counter-terrorism version of John Kerry: he says both things are true so he can claim credit regardless of what happens. The one exception to this behavior were his assertions regarding cyber-attacks, which seemed to have gone nowhere. So the Administration dumps him into a position managing Internet security to get him out of the line of fire while real men get to work. Next election cycle, while we’re in Iraq fighting the War on Terror without him, the disaffected Clarke is writing his memoirs….

Mar

22

2004

Good news, Bad news

Filed Under War and Terrorism | Comments Off

The Good News

An Israeli airstrike killed the founder of Hamas.

The Bad News

I don’t have a gun to fire into the air in exhiliaration, and I don’t know how to do that clucking shriek like that Palestinian woman did after the WTC fell!

Mar

21

2004

Anti-War? Nope. Pro-racist, communist, anarchist, Palestinian anti-Semites? Of course! (but I repeat myself)

Filed Under War and Terrorism | Comments Off

I have no words to describe these articles at littlegreenfootballs. Suffice to say, whatever you heard on the major TV networks about “anti-war” rallies going on over the weekend was probably whitewash peddled upon you by your friends at the PLO, the Communist Party, and the Democratic Party. (But I repeat myself… again. Why do I keep doing that?)

If you aren’t a regular reader of LGF, you should be.

Photos from the Heart of Idiotarianism
New World Odor

WARNING!: Zombie’s pictures especially are very hard for a red-blooded American to stomach. Make sure you haven’t eaten before viewing. (No, I’m not kidding.)

Mar

20

2004

Day By Day

Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments

As you may see by now, I’ve added a new feature to the blog. Aside from it’s insightful commentary from a conservative perspective, the comic strip Day By Day features a character named Damon who is the real deal: a Black Republican. Hopefully, this will at least remind me on a daily basis of an idea I occasionally stray from… this blog should be as much about the “Black” as the “Republican”.

Take some time to go back and catch up on the strip from its beginning, which is entirely online. This entry especially (offered back in the first week of Chris Muir’s creation) is what told me the strip belongs here at The Black Republican:

Mar

20

2004

They’re coming in too fast!

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

It must be some sort of blogging festival. I just can’t keep up with them today. Some snippets from around the ‘net:

Allah has a picture of John Kerry’s “best friend” from Vietnam.

Ace of Spades takes note that Andrew Sullivan is on idiotarian – I mean, “suicide” watch.

Britain is showing “signs” of solidarity with the U.S. (pun most definately intended)

Mar

20

2004

“The Prince-As Bride”

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

Shelby Steele eloquently lays out the case against the homosexual agenda as a civil rights struggle…

The civil rights movement argued that it was precisely the utter innocuousness of racial difference that made segregation an injustice. Racism was evil because it projected a profound difference where there was none–white supremacy, black inferiority–for the sole purpose of exploiting blacks. But there is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the former, sexual and romantic desire is focused on the same sex, in the latter on the opposite sex. Natural procreation is possible only for heterosexuals, a fact of nature that obligates their sexuality to no less a responsibility than the perpetuation of the species. Unlike racial difference, these two sexual orientations are profoundly–not innocuously–different.
…right before he falls off the Cliffs of Insanity.
Racism projects a false difference in order to exploit. Homophobia is a reactive prejudice against a true and firm difference that already exists.
If there is a “true and firm difference”, is it not at least possible that someone could disagree with the endorsement of the other side of that difference without “reactive prejudice”? Why is it that anyone who disagrees with homosexual conduct (or rather, the complete lack of a moral and ethical rationale for it) is always prejudged “homophobic” sans psychotherapy? How is it that in a few short years the stigma has completely reversed itself, and opposition to this “lifestyle choice” is now the mental disorder, and not the pathology itself?

It’s absolutely true that “racism projects a false difference in order to exploit”. But it is equally true that the desire to impose an acceptance of homosexuality is just as much of a moral stricture as opposition to it. And stating otherwise is just as much of a false difference in order to exploit as is racism – only now the prejudice comes from those who want to deprive certain people of their religious freedom, and their right to cite their religious beliefs when they petition the government of a state to define its own standards.

From there, Steele continues to bounce his way down the cliffside:

The stigmatization of homosexuals is wrong and makes no contribution to the moral health of our society. I was never worried for my children because they grew up knowing a gay couple that lived across the street, or because several family friends were gay. They learned early what we all know: that homosexuality is as permanent a feature of the human condition as heterosexuality. Nothing is gained in denying this.
Nothing, of course, except the one thing in our overly licentious age that we are no longer allowed to regulate: morality itself.

UPDATE: A couple of letters to the Baltimore Sun speak clearly in support of my position. As Mik Megary points out:

The majority of Americans are against homosexual marriage. They make a moral statement that marriage is between a man and a woman. Our laws reflect these morals, as all our laws reflect our morals….

But this is unacceptable to some homosexuals. They want to be labeled as “married,” as if that will force the rest of society to accept their actions as morally right….

(N)o right exists for all behavior to be morally accepted by society….

The struggle of a people to be accepted for who they are is just not the same as the effort by a people to be justified in what they do. (my emphasis – Chris)

(I should openly disclose my Dowdification

Mar

19

2004

I’m dyin’ here

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

As if most of the comments at LGF weren’t good enough, sometimes they’re just downright hilarious.

Have a Nice Trip, See You Next Fall

On Friday, Kerry, his snowboard strapped to his back, hiked past 9,000 feet on Durrance Peak, then snowboarded down the mountain, taking repeated tumbles. Reporters counted six falls, although Kerry was out of sight for part of the descent.

#5 Ms. Andi 3/19/2004 04:49PM PST

Even when he snowboards, he flip-flops. It’s a permanent condition.

UPDATE: And again.

Next Page →

  • Featured Sponsor

  • Recent Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories