Kim Priestap

Priestap Look-alike Meter

MyHeritage: Look-alike Meter - Vintage photos - Geneology

Thanks for stopping by!

For all my political blogging, please see my posts at Wizbang. For my personal site, click on over to Embracing Momminess.

Stop the ACLU Blog Burst

There is no doubt that a certain amount of transparency is essential for a modern democracy to function honestly.  However, taken to the extreme, complete transparency would effectively make our National Security impotent and threaten the ability of the democracy to secure its very existence.  There is a line that must be carefully walked.  We must maintain common sense, especially in times that enemies threaten our very existence.  We can not be so transparent that our enemies can see through us, and know our techniques and plans to fight them and protect ourselves against them.  We should never cede our security to exist over to a utopian  ideological dream of a completely transparent government.  It is also important to have government watchdogs keeping an eye on government from abusing and overclassifying information that the public has a right to know.  The danger lies in allowing too much liberty, especially to absolutist organizations like the ACLU, in that decision making process.

The Investor's Business Daily bring up some very good points in reference to the recent backing down of the government in trying to obtain a classified document from the ACLU.

"The government blinked," gloated ACLU executive director Anthony Romero.

Judge Rakoff is notoriously liberal, having declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 2002 (a ruling quickly overturned), and earlier this year forcing the Pentagon to make public thousands of pages of information on suspected terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay. So it's understandable for prosecutors to not want to fight an unwinnable battle.

Are we nearing the day, however, when the ACLU has our legal system so wrapped around its finger that government secrets can no longer be kept from terrorists? Consider these points: • The ACLU's Romero called the subpoena battle "a fight not over a document but over the principle that the government cannot and should not be allowed to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing."

But if leftist activist groups or journalists, rather than the freely-elected U.S. government, decide what is legitimately secret and what is "intimidation," there's little that will remain secret.

Indeed, the government did blink.  However, they caved in because they had a losing legal argument, not because they have no right to supress secret information from activist groups and the public at large.  Before we hand the decision making process of what should or shouldn't be secret or in the public interest to extreme partisan organizations like the ACLU, we should really take a look at just how reckless they have been with such information in the past.  Indeed, if we leave it to groups like the ACLU we might as well write the suicide note of our nation on the back of the Constitution.

There is probably no other issue as fragile to the preservation of our liberties than a careful balance between civil liberties and our national security. To its credit, the ACLU recognizes the danger if the scales are tipped too far to the side of national security, however it doesn’t seem to acknowledge the danger if the scales are reversed.  So, let us take a look at some of the extreme examples where the ACLU's absolutist views actually endanger our national security. 

In particular let us look at their attitude towards the intelligence community and secret information in general.

When it comes to drawing the line between classified information and national security the ACLU's record has never leaned toward the side of caution or national security.  They consistently defend leakers as brave "whistleblowers."  Even after the NY Times leaked details about the vital NSA program, the ACLU wanted more to come out in the open.  They have even defended leaks on vital programs like SWIFT, in which we track terror finances,  where there was absolutely nothing that even suggested government wrongdoing.  They have even fought for accused enemy prisoners to be allowed to see classified evidence against them.  The fact that our enemies learn and adjust from such traitorous leaks never seems to phase them.

More Points from the Investor's Business Daily:

The ACLU boasts that its legal efforts have made public "more than 100,000 pages of government documents" regarding the interrogation of suspected terrorists. It has posted many of these documents on its Web site in an effort to shut down the program.

But President Bush's policy of tough interrogation has secured information that has foiled numerous terrorist plots, saving thousands of lives. They include jetliner hijacking schemes targeting buildings on both the East and West coasts, another targeting Heathrow Airport in London, plus plots to destroy ships in both the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and Jose Padilla's plan to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the U.S.

Intelligence information key to preventing terrorist acts has also come from the president's other homeland security policies, like the National Security Agency's wiretapping program. But ACLU lawyers are aggressively trying to shut those efforts down in several jurisdictions.

So, let us take a look at the ACLU's real attitude towards the intelligence community.

To the ACLU, CIA means "Controlling the Intelligence Agencies."  That's the title they gave to Policy #117.  But even that is an understatement of what this particular policy calls for.  "Completely undermining the Intelligence Agencies" would be a more appropriate title.  It starts out badly and then gets worse.

"Control of our government's intelligence agencies demands an end to tolerance of "national security" as grounds for the slightest departure from the constitutional boundaries which limit government conduct in other areas."

Of course, its been obvious for nearly 70 years that protecting America's national security is certainly not something the ACLU favors. 

Here are some of the specific controls called for in Policy #117:

Limit the CIA, under the new name of the Foreign Intelligence Agency, to collecting and evaluatiing foreign intelligence information.  Abolish all covert operations.

Limit the FBI to criminal investigations by elimimnating all COINTEL-PRO-type activity and all foreign and domestic intelligence investigations of groups or individuals unrelated to a specific criminal offense.

Prohibit entirely wiretaps, tapping of telecommunications and burglaries.

Restrict mail openings, mail covers, inspection of bank records, and inspection of telephone records by requiring a warrant issued on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Prohibit all domestic intelligence and political information-gathering.  Only investigations of crimes which have been, are being, or are about to be committed may be conducted.Twilight of  Liberty

Two former members of the ACLU, Richard and Susan Vigilante, conducted a thorough analysis of the ACLU spelled out by the Union's Center for National Security Studies.

They wrote:

The ACLU opposes, and has fought in either Congress or the courts, virtually all "covert action," most "clandestine intelligence" gathering (i.e. spying), and in one case aid to an important U.S. ally with a poor human rights record.  The net effect of these efforts has been to hinder U.S. opposition to Communist expansion.  The ACLU may, at some point, have undertaken some major initiative that advanced U.S. interests and hindered Communist expansion, but our research never turned one up and no ACLU leader ever mentioned one to us.

In other words, strip the intelligence agencies useless.

One of the most revealing occurances towards the ACLU’s absolutist position on national security and its recent evolution can be seen in the action the board of directors took at its Oct 1989 meeting: It dropped section (a) from its policy, “Wartime Sedition Act.” Before, the ACLU held that it “would not participate (save for fundamental due process violations) in defense of any person believed to be “cooperating” with or acting on behalf of the enemy.” This policy was based on the recognition that “our own military enemies are now using techniques of propaganda which may involve an attempt to prevent the Bill of Rights to serve the enemy rather than the people of the United States.” In making its determination as to whether someone were cooperating with the enemy, “the Union will consider such matters as past activities and associations, sources of financial support, relations with enemy agents, the particular words and conduct involved, and all other relevant factors for informed judgement.”Twilight of Liberty

All of this is now omitted from the Official ACLU policy!  This is not the kind of organization one should trust when it comes to secrets that need to be kept from enemy eyes.

The ACLU's extremist position towards classified information can be seen in the very case they have been citing recently, the Petagon Papers.

The Pentagon Papers case shows how extremist the ACLU can be.  In that suit, the Supreme Court ruled against the efforts of the Nixon Administration to suppress documents that were a veritable history of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.  The ACLU, which filed an amicus, was happy with the immediate outcome-the newspapers could run copies of the Pentagon Papers-but was less than pleased with the high court's reasoning.  The Union was disturbed that the Supreme Court gave life to the idea that the president and the Congress had a right to restrain the press in bona fide instances of national security.  It wanted nothing less than an absolute ban on prior restraint.  Alexander Bickel, the brilliant constitutional scholar who argued the case against the government, criticized the unreasonableness of the ACLU stand.  He accused the Union of being too ideological, labeling the absolutist position "foolish to the point of being almost unprofessional."  Like most students of the Constitution, Bickel was generally opposed to prior restraint but nonetheless conceded that there may be times when not to invoke prior restraint may be disastrous to the well-being of the republic.  This is something the ACLU has not acknowledged and will not acknowledge.

In the recent case where the government folded in their attempt to get 'secret' documents back from the ACLU their first mistake was in their approach.  Their big mistake that they continue to make is in not aggressively investigating, prosecuting, and punishing the traitors that leak and publish the secret matters of national security for all, including our enemies, to know.

As the lawyers at Powerline have pointed out, in the case of the NSA leak, federal law is 18 U.S.C. § 798, a law that precisely prohibits leaks of the type of classified information disclosed in the story. Subsection (a) of the statute provides:

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or

(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or

(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or

(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Powerline further points out that in cases like that of the NSA leak, the Pentagon Paper case the ACLU loves to cite so much, only applies to prior restraint and not to punishment after the crime of publishing has been committed.

Indeed, in their concurring opinions, Justices Douglas and White cited and discussed 18 U.S.C. § 798 as the prototype of a law that could be enforced against a newspaper following publication of information falling within the ambit of the statute. Justice White noted, for example:

The Criminal Code contains numerous provisions potentially relevant to these cases. Section 797 makes it a crime to publish certain photographs or drawings of military installations. Section 798, also in precise language, proscribes knowing and willful publication of any classified information concerning the cryptographic systems or communication intelligence activities of the United States as well as any information obtained from communication intelligence operations. If any of the material here at issue is of this nature, the newspapers are presumably now on full notice of the position of the United States and must face the consequences if they publish. I would have no difficulty in sustaining convictions under these sections on facts that would not justify the intervention of equity and the imposition of a prior restraint.

Make sure to read the entire analysis.

When it comes to national security and classified information the ACLU has a long record of recklessness.  When it comes to keeping our government from wrongdoing there are many suggestions that could be pursued to alleviate the problem.   Allowing the press and the ACLU unfettered liberty to make the call on what can and can not be classified is a death wish.  The government needs to step up and aggressively investigate and prosecute those that act, participate, aid and protect in the unlawful disclosure of our national security secrets.

The Investor's Business Daily sums it all up well:

The civilized world simply can't win against the forces of Islamo-fascism if we are deprived of the vital weapon of secrecy. Letting the ACLU force us to operate according to its radical ideology of "open government" would be like telegramming Hitler that we plan to invade Normandy.

This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst.  If you would like to join us, please email  Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com.  You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll.  Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Fair Tax Blog Burst

by Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous

I came across this article several weeks ago from one of my favorite columnists. Professor Williams has a very succinct way of conveying complicated topics and themes. If you are not a regular reader of his, you should at least check out his regular column at Townhall.

In this piece, Professor Williams tackles the Fair Tax, and as we would hope he describes some of the highlights and benefits that would be reaped upon its passage.

If enacted, the Fair Tax would eliminate: the federal individual income tax, alternative minimum tax, corporate and business taxes, capital gains tax, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and estate and gift taxes. These taxes would be replaced by a 23 percent sales tax on all goods and services sold at the retail level. The Fair Tax would be revenue-neutral in the sense that it would replace the revenue from current federal taxes; thus, it would change the way government is funded. Our current tax code is an abomination, and we desperately need that change. The time Americans spend simply complying with our tax code comes to 5.8 billion hours of record-keeping, filing taxes, consulting, legal and accounting services. Breaking those hours down to a 40-hour work week, it translates into a workforce of 2.77 million people. That's more than the workforce of our auto, aircraft, computer and steel manufacturing industries combined.

The Fair Tax has much to recommend in its favor, such as being a more efficient form of taxation. It would go a long way toward protecting our privacy and preventing Congress from using the tax code to micromanage our lives. The Fair Tax is an excellent idea, but only under three conditions: first, the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment that created the income tax; second, a provision fixing the tax at, say, 23 percent; and third, a constitutional amendment mandating that a tax increase requires a three-fourths vote of Congress. Notwithstanding any provisions within the Fair Tax, if the Sixteenth Amendment weren't repealed, down the road we'd find ourselves with a national sales tax and an income tax.

But, what I found to be the most interesting is the Professor William's take on the prospects of the passage of the Fair tax. Seeing it as a tremendous obstacle, Professor Williams is quite pessimistic in outlook. While we here at the Fair Tax Blogburst respectfully disagree with this synopsis, his underlying rationale for the difficulty of passage of the Fair tax cannot be ignored.

You say, "Williams, it sounds as if you don't trust Congress." I don't trust Congress any farther than I can toss an elephant. During the debate prior to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, congressmen said that only the rich would ever pay income taxes. In 1917, only one-half of one percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid one percent, and those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply propaganda to dupe Americans into ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment.

Here's my prediction: The Fair Tax will never become law. The two most powerful congressional committees are the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance committees. These committees write tax law, and as such they are able to confer tax privileges on some Americans at the expense of other Americans. The Fair Tax would reduce or eliminate this form of congressional privilege-granting power and, subsequently, campaign contributions from the beneficiaries would dwindle.

The method used to finance the federal government is very important, but I've always argued that government spending is the true measure of its impact on our lives. If there were a Fair Tax, what's to stop Congress from deficit spending or inflating the currency? Deficit spending and inflation are simply alternative forms, albeit less obvious, of taxation.

You say, "What's Williams' solution?" My solution is an amendment limiting federal spending to a fixed percentage, say, 10 percent of the gross domestic product. You say, "Why 10 percent?" If 10 percent is good enough for the Baptist Church, it certainly ought to be good enough for Congress.

The question we must ask is "What makes Williams think that this will pass any easier than the FairTax?" The outcome is doubtful for the exact same reasons that Williams argues would doom the FairTax -- the committees which decide where certain monies are spent can also confer privileges on some Americans at the expense of other Americans. Limiting spending to 10% would eliminate much of the congressional privilege-granting power, and corresponding campaign contributions.

The one thing that the FairTax has behind it is the power of a grassroots organization. Ultimately, this is still a government of, by, and for the people. It is up to us to see that our representatives perform as we believe they should. It is up to us to insure passage of the FairTax bill. We must take Mr. Williams arguments for the FairTax and spread them as widely as possible, while ignoring his pessimism. Together, we can get this done.

And maybe in the meantime we can also cut spending, thus reducing the amount of tax required for the FairTax. Now isn't that an idea?

US Military Personnel Receive British Honors

Dave Terron of Cabarfeidh - Highland Warriors emails to inform us that three US military personnel received honors from the Queen of England for bravery.

Afghanistan:

Queen's Commendation for Bravery in the Air: Senior Airman Jason Broline,
United States Air Force; Staff Sergeant Cameron Hystad, United States Air
Force.

Iraq:

Distinguished Flying Cross: Major William David Chesarek, United States
Marine Corps.

Read more at the UK Times Online.

It was Beautiful and Heartbreaking at the Same Time

That is how I would best describe the funeral of SFC Jim Priestap, my husband's cousin. I would like to personally thank everyone in Iron Mountain and Kingsford, MI for their unbelievable support. It was truly humbling. I also want to thank the Patriot Guard Riders for their commitment to Jim's memory. They stood outside the armory all day Sunday, December 3rd and Monday, December 4th in fifteen degree temperatures to honor Jim:

They also led the processional as Jim was transported from the airport, to the funeral home, to the armory, and then, finally, to the cemetery.  It was an amazing sight. Jim was admired and loved by many, many people. About three thousand people came to the public viewing to pay their respects.  The family's viewing was Sunday morning and then Jim was moved to the armory in order to accommodate the crowds for the public viewing. Here are a couple of photos of the crowds that came to see Jim, and keep in mind, the line looked like this from about 1:00pm - 7:30pm continually.

Jim's family displayed photos of Jim with his family from childhood to the present time. Here's a photo of him and his wife, Connie, during one of their many happy times together.

We found out on Monday morning when General Thomas Cutler met with the family only a couple of hours or so before the funeral that Jim would not only be awarded the Purple Heart, but the Bronze Star as well. Jim's dad was stunned. I think he spent the entire weekend in a daze, not from just the shock of losing his son, but from the overwhelming love that surrounded us all. Probably one of the most emotional parts of the entire weekend was the response to the processional from the Armory to the cemetery. People came out of their homes and businesses and stood in the cold to pay their respects to Jim. Some held American flags, some had their hands on their hearts, and some saluted. It was an amazing outpouring of support and respect. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it.

My husband was so moved by the response that he wrote a letter to the editor of the Iron Mountain Daily News to express his gratitude:

I will never forget EDITOR,As a cousin of Sergeant Jim Priestap, I would like to express my gratitude to the citizens of Iron Mountain, Kingsford, and surrounding communities for the incredible support they showed this past week to Jim's friends and family. Please know that all the flags, ribbons, signs, and long hours of volunteer work were deeply and greatly appreciated. As Jim was driven into Kingsford from the plane that brought him home, and again on the long cold ride from the Kingsford Armory to the cemetery in Foster City, we were moved to tears at the dozens of people who stood in silence in front of their homes or businesses, or just at the side of the road, many with flags or hands over their hearts or saluting, and some just in tears, to pay their respects. It is something I will never forget as long as I live, and I will forever hold the citizens of this community in the highest possible regard. Stephen T. Priestap

Steve and I were also grateful for the response from readers and other bloggers on the news of Jim's death. Many bloggers were kind enough to write a post on their sites thanking Jim for his service and expressing sincere words of sympathy.  Kevin and Gregg at Pundit Review Radio also featured Jim during one of their Someone You Should Know series, and we really appreciate that they dedicated part of their show to tell their listeners about how amazing a man SFC Jim Priestap was and always will be. My father-in-law, Jim's uncle, spoke at the funeral, and he focused his message on one particular verse from the Bible - John 15:12, which burns in my mind when I think of Jim's sacrifice:

Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Bill Faith left this poem in the comments section of the first post I wrote about Jim's death, and I want to reprint it here.

THE FINAL INSPECTION

The soldier stood and faced his God,
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining,
Just as brightly as his brass.

"Step forward now, you soldier,
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"

The soldier squared his shoulders and said,
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't.
Because those of us who carry guns,

I've had to work most Sundays,
And at times my talk was tough.
And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.

But, I never took a penny,
That wasn't mine to keep...
Though I worked a lot of overtime,
When the bills got just too steep.

And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear.
And sometimes, God, forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.

I know I don't deserve a place,
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around,
Except to calm their fears.

If you've a place for me here, Lord,
It needn't be so grand.
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand."

There was a silence all around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.
As the soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.

"Step forward now, you soldier,
You've borne your burdens well.
Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets.
You've done your time in Hell."

Author unknown.

Thank you, Jim, and we will see you again someday.

Stop the ACLU Blog Burst

Crossposted from Stop The ACLU Via the ACLU we find out the U.S. government is finally being proactive against the ACLU in protecting classified information from being leaked for our enemies to know.

The American Civil Liberties Union today announced that it has asked a federal judge to quash a grand jury subpoena demanding that it turn over to the FBI "any and all copies" of a December 2005 government document in its possession. The ACLU called the subpoena, served on November 20 by the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, a transparent attempt to intimidate government critics and suppress informed criticism and reporting.  "The government's attempt to suppress information using the grand jury process is truly chilling and is unprecedented in law and in the ACLU's history," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "This subpoena serves no legitimate investigative purpose and tramples on fundamental First Amendment rights.  We recognize this maneuver for what it is: a patent attempt to intimidate and impede the work of human rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose government wrongdoing." The three-and-a-half page document, issued in December 2005, is marked "Secret" and apparently is classified.  The ACLU received the document, unsolicited, on October 23, 2006.

  Apparently a document marked "Secret" is classified?  You don't say!  Quite a scary thing that such a dangerous organization like the ACLU has its hands on classified information.  I think the ACLU has already demonstrated how reckless they can be with secret information.  You can bet there would be no regard to National Security.  The ACLU think that exposing government wrongdoing is exposing to the enemy the governments efforts and techniques to secure our nation. 

In legal papers, the ACLU said that while release of the document might be "mildly embarrassing" to the government, the ACLU's possession of it is legal and its release could in no way threaten national security.  To the contrary, the ACLU said, the designation of the generally unremarkable document as "Secret" "appears to be a striking, yet typical, example of overclassification."

So who elected the ACLU to determine what should or shouldn't be classified?  And if the document is so "unremarkable" why are they fighting so hard to keep it?  The ACLU then goes on to justify having classified information by stating that some of the biggest news of the past year came from leaks of classified information, like the NSA surveillance program, SWIFT, etc.  I think we all remember how the ACLU handled these leaks.  When it comes to National Security, the ACLU has created a dangerous reputation.  I don't think they should have any say so in what remains classified or not. Rob at Say Anything sums it up:

So, basically, the ACLU is claiming that the Bush administration is trying to “suppress information” by getting some leaked classified documents back.  But isn’t the government supposed to suppress classified information?  Isn’t that the reason it is classified in the first place?  I mean, if the government isn’t supposed to be suppressing classified information, then why are we classifying it in the first place? And how does the government requesting leaked classified documents back violate the ACLU’s first amendment rights?  Surely the ACLU isn’t suggesting that first amendment rights extend to illegal leaks of private information, otherwise I wouldn’t be able to stop someone who obtained my bank records from somebody at the bank who illegally divulged them from putting my private information on the internet. I sometimes wonder if the ACLU even takes its own arguments seriously.

Although the ACLU has been told that it is not a target of the investigation, which I think it should be, it is interesting that the the subpoena refers to the Espionage Act.  That is too bad.  The FBI have their own concerns over the ACLU. Between the shady business of their funding issues, helping America’s enemies, spying on their own members, and FBI concerns;  there are many reasons besides illegally obtaining classified information that the ACLU should be investigated.  I'm just glad to see the government being proactive to prevent classified information from falling into the hands of our enemies.  If the ACLU has its way that is where it will end up. 

Peter Boyle, aka Raymond's dad, Dead at 71

He died of multiple myeloma, and I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't know he was suffering from cancer. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends as they deal with his death just weeks before Christmas. He blessed us with a lot of laughter.

The story from the AP:

Peter Boyle, the actor who transformed from an angry workingman in "Joe" to a tap-dancing monster in "Young Frankenstein" and finally the comically grouchy father on "Everybody Loves Raymond," has died. He was 71.

Boyle died Tuesday evening at New York Presbyterian Hospital. He had been suffering from multiple myeloma and heart disease, said his publicist, Jennifer Plante.

"It's like losing a spouse," Doris Roberts, who played his wife on "Raymond," said in a statement. "I'm going to miss my dear friend, so unlike the character he played on television. He's a brilliant actor, a gentleman, incredibly intelligent, wonderfully well read and a loving friend."

A member of the Christian Brothers religious order who turned to acting, the tall, prematurely balding Boyle gained notice in the title role of the 1970 sleeper hit "Joe," playing an angry, murderous bigot at odds with the emerging hippie youth culture.

Briefly typecast in tough, irascible roles, Boyle began to escape the image as Robert Redford's campaign manager in "The Candidate" and left it behind entirely after "Young Frankenstein," Mel Brooks' 1974 send- up of horror films. The latter movie's defining moment came when Gene Wilder, as scientist Frederick Frankenstein, introduced his creation to an upscale audience. Boyle, decked out in tails, performed a song- and-dance routine to the Irving Berlin classic "Puttin' On the Ritz."

It showed another side of Boyle, one that would be best exploited in the sitcom "Everybody Loves Raymond," in which he played curmudgeonly paterfamilias Frank Barone for 10 years.

"He's just obnoxious in a nice way, just for laughs," Boyle said of the character in a 2001 interview. "It's a very sweet experience having this (success) happen at a time when you basically go back over your life and see every mistake you ever made."

Kofi Annan's Parting Shot at President Bush and the US

Fellow Wizbanger Lorie Byrd discussed Annan's upcoming and last speech at the UN in which he will slam President Bush and the US on US soil. She also comments on Annan's corruption at Wizbang:

Kofi is a corrupt and ineffective joke and is a prime example of all that wrong with the U.N. Anyone who oversaw the corrupt oil-for-food program has no credibility whatsoever and if he were speaking out against the policies of a Democrat president such as Bill Clinton, the shamefull oil-for-food debacle would be cited in the first paragraph of an article like this one.

Jay at Stop the ACLU  comments as well and writes this:

I join with LGF the American Pundit is saying “good riddance” to Kofi. I hope the door hits you really hard on your way out. Hopefully the stinch at the U.N. will decrease with your departure, but alas, I’m probably being too optimistic there. Hey Kofi! Have you ever heard the old saying about glass houses?

Be sure to check out Michelle Malkin's roundup post. I concur with her title: Good riddance to you, Kofi Annan. And I'd like add, don't let the door hit you in the butt as you leave.

Say Thanks to Our Troops this Christmas

Say thanks to our troops this Christmas and send them a card. You pick the card design and content, and Xerox will deliver it.