By
Four new releases this weekend, and not much there. If you’re a parent, there’s something semi-okay in “The Game Plan.” Otherwise, I’d recommend “,” “,” and “” (if you haven’t yet seen them)–all of them fantastic–instead of this weeks offerings. Otherwise, there are these:
* “The Kingdom“: The plot: FBI agents fictionally get to enter the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to investigate who is behind the bombing of a building populated by Americans. This is nothing more than a Pan-Saudi propaganda action thriller that tells us we’re just like the Saudis and our FBI agents are morally equivalent to terrorists. Yeah, right.

* “The Game Plan“: I’m not sure I like the idea of Disney promoting a movie about a kid born out of wedlock, though the circumstances here are different. Still, this corny movie has its redeeming value–like the fact that a father figure becomes a stand up guy who loves his daughter and does his best to protect and raise her. And, surprisingly, the post-steroidal Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson does a stand-up job (he’s shrunk so much that he went from playing a Lineman–Defensive Tackle at the University of Miami–to now playing a QB on the silver screen).
The plot: A conceited, self-centered, Elvis-loving NFL quarterback learns he has an 8-year-old daughter when this cute and sagacious little kid pops up for a visit. After resenting it, he quickly grows up and falls in love with his daughter.
The daughter, Peyton–played by Madison Pettis–is at first so very cute. But she’s so cute, it becomes saccharin-ly so and very annoying. Still, it’s suitable for taking young kids to the movie and, again, shows a great father-daughter relationship, something we see far too little of from Hollywood.

* “The Darjeeling Limited“: This movie was so bad, I’m considering never drinking Darjeeling Tea again, lest it remind me of this moviegoing experience. Three brothers–Jason Schwartzman, Adrien Brody, and the Wilson that’s in rehab (Owen)–go on a train journey in India a year after their father (Bill Murray) died. The only funny part is at the beginning when you see Bill Murray racing across town in India to catch his train. The rest is just absurd and stupid. This is billed as a comedy, but there were no jokes, there’s no humor, and it’s not funny. So, I don’t get that label. Even though it’s only an hour and a half long, it seemed like forever. And there were five times I thought–I hoped and prayed–it would end, but it kept on going for no apparent reason. A complete, self-absorbed waste of time.
No wonder Owen Wilson is in rehab. If I were in this disaster, I’d be there, too.
(In the screening for critics, we were shown a short film related to the movie, beforehand. That film–whose sole purpose seems to be to show us Natalie Portman’s saggy, cellulite-endowed, naked butt–was equally a waste of time, if not moreso. It’s not being shown in theaters, but instead is available online. But don’t waste your time. It’s an experiment to get moviegoers to watch dumb things online. Make that experiment fail, as well as the movie. Yuck.)
* “Feast of Love“: More Like “Feast of the Lifetime Network on Steroids” filled with unattractive softcore porn of all varieties, including lesbians. Director Robert Benton–the guy who made “Kramer vs. Kramer“–made this after a long hiatus from the movie biz. He should have stayed retired. Instead he gave us “Kramer vs. America’s Moviegoing Public.” Or maybe it’s “Benton vs. America at the Movies.” Either way, here’s a hint: America’s Moviegoing Public loses . . . if you wasted $10 bucks to see this. Absolutely horrid and pointless.
The plot (if you can call it that): A professor on a leave of absence (Morgan Freeman) gives love and relationship advice to various friends from a local coffee shop. The relationships mostly fail, and in the process we’re shown more onscreen close-ups of flat-chested women’s nipples than even a pervert would care to see. Also stars Greg Kinnear as a two-time loser in relationships. Same goes for the lesbian sex scene involving Selma Blair (who was called Blair Beitner when she attended the same private school I went to). Yuck.
Don’t waste your time on this useless chick-flick melodrama (with apologies to “chick-flicks”–this is far worse).

By
I’ll start from the end of this movie, “The Kingdom” (out in theaters, today) to give you a good idea what it’s about. This isn’t a spoiler. But it’s an important comment on the juxtaposition of two men, two scenes, at the conclusion of the movie.
At the conclusion of “The Kingdom,” We’re shown the family of a terrorist leader just killed by the FBI in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi mother asks her son why he’s not crying or afraid after he just witnessed the shooting death of his terrorist leader grandfather at the hands of Black and female FBI agents. The young boy responds:

He told me, “Don’t worry, my child. We will kill them all.”

Then, the camera cuts to the Black FBI agent (Jamie Foxx), the lead counterterrorism agent involved in the terrorist’s assassination–his race is important because most Blacks in Saudi Arabia are slaves and are looked down upon and called “abed” (slave) even if they aren’t. He is asked by his young son what he said to comfort the grieving young daughter of an FBI agent murdered in a terrorist attack (committed by the assassinated terrorist leader). The FBI agent (Foxx) tells his son:

I told her we’d kill ’em all.

In the final analysis, that’s the message of the action thriller “The Kingdom.” The lead FBI counterterrorist agent and the chief terrorist are morally equivalent. They say the same thing. They have the same message. They are both killers. One is not better than the other.
But aside from that, before you decide whether to see this weekend’s heavily promoted new release, “The Kingdom,” you need to take a short quiz. It only has one question:
Which of the following is true in real life?:
a) After the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia allowed a team of FBI agents into the country to investigate, a billionaire Saudi Prince helped the FBI extensively, and a Saudi police Colonel enthusiastically helped the FBI track down the terrorist murderers inside the Kingdom?;
b) An American woman–an FBI agent, no less–is allowed to roam and gallivant around Saudi Arabia in a very short-sleeved tight T-shirt, bearing all of her arms, and without anything covering her long, flowing hair . . . and she carries a machine gun in the process?;
c) A Jewish man–an American FBI agent, no less–is allowed into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that his grandmother lives in Israel, and he has three stamps from Israel in his passport from three separate trips to visit her there. When asked whether he’s “got a problem with that,” a Saudi police Colonel says, “It is not a concern,” and waives the Jewish-American with the Israeli stamps in his passport into the Kingdom, since they are such a tolerant society?;
d) Only a distinct, small group of Saudi Arabians are Wahhabis, with the rest being law-abiding moderate Muslims running and living in the Kingdom?;
e) The FBI Director will not pander to Muslims and tells off the U.S. Attorney General about it, saying “We won’t cry uncle,” when one of his agents is killed in a Saudi terrorist attack. He tells the pro-Saudi AG, “The end is coming no matter what. The only thing that matters is if you go out on your feet or on your knees.” He insists on sending his men inside the Kingdom to investigate, and to get there, he has his top agent (Jamie Foxx) blackmail and threaten a Saudi Prince and Ambassador (who–surprise!–looks exactly like )?
Which if these five things is true in real life? Which would actually or has actually happened?
If you answered, “None of the above,” then you are cleared to see “The Kingdom,” but you wouldn’t want to waste your time and ten bucks to view this pan-Saudi propaganda.
If you answered that any of the above is true, you are clearly too ignorant to attend a showing of “The Kingdom.” You will believe anything Hollywood puts in your face. And you’re dangerous.
The truth is, none of the above is true in real life. But all of the above are portrayed as true in “The Kingdom.”
In fact, despite many pandering requests and stronger demands, the Saudis did NOT allow the FBI into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, after Saudi terrorists attacked and murdered Americans in the Khobar Towers bombing. The FBI did NOT get to investigate at the crime scene.
In fact, women–especially sexy American women with machine guns–are not allowed to run around the country without their arms fully covered along well as their body and hair. That’s not what were shown with an FBI agent played by Jennifer Garner. The only hint of anything is when fellow FBI agent Jamie Foxx tells her, “You need to dial down the boobies,” for a dinner with their pro-American ally, the Saudi Prince, who resembles the just a little too closely.
In fact, while few Jews are allowed into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, NO Jews with stamps from Israel on their passports are allowed in. That’s a strict no-no and is official written and practiced Saudi diplomatic protocol. The only ones allowed in with an Israeli stamp on their passports are Muslims who live in Israel or the Palestinian Authority who are on the Hajj, making the pilgrimage to Mecca. That is the only exception and it is very hush-hush. Yet, the movie makes a point of showing us Jewish FBI agent Jason Bateman (who should have retired after “Silver Spoons“) raising the issue of his Israeli-stamp-filled passport, with the Saudis telling him they’re not concerned about it. Riiiight.
In fact, almost all Saudis are Wahhabis, following the strict, extremist teachings of Mohammed Ibn Abd-Al-Wahhab. There isn’t this small group of radicals, like Crips and Bloods, who think this way and can be singled out. They all think this way (but for the few oppressed, persecuted Shi’ites in the Kingdom–who are just as extremist but don’t follow Ibn Abd-Al-Wahhab) in Saudi Arabia.
In fact, FBI Director Robert Mueller has made it his policy not to stand up for his agents, but to kowtow to the Saudis and their well-funded surrogates here on U.S. soil. He’s had his agency sponsor their events and has broken pita with the Saudi-funded American Muslims tied most strongly to terrorists.
Instead of telling the Attorney general, “We won’t cry ‘uncle,'” Mueller cries “uncle” on a daily basis and asks his Islamist friends around America in which falsetto tone they’d like to hear it on that particular day. Like he’d ever blackmail a Saudi Prince/Ambassador. Puh-leeze. His nose is irreversibly brown from kissing their butts on a regular basis.
The rest of the movie is equally hilarious in its falsehoods. We see a Saudi police commander telling his Colonel to use all of his energy to “get these criminals” who murdered Americans. Uh-huh. We’re shown endless scenes of the pro-American Saudi police Colonel lovingly affectionate with his daughter, then scenes of the FBI agent Jamie Foxx calling his young son. See?–We’re exactly alike. We’re just like the Saudis. They love their kids, just as we love ours. At least, that’s the movie’s propagandistic message.
The Saudi Colonel, Faris Al-Ghazi, became a cop because he watched “The Incredible Hulk” and “The Six Million Dollar Man” as a kid. (Did they even have those on Saudi TV back then? Doubtful.) See?–We’re exactly alike. He wants to “get those men who murdered innocent people [Americans].” See–We’re exactly alike, even watched the same TV shows growing up.
(Ironically, the actor who plays “American-loving” Al-Ghazi, Ashraf Barhom, an Israeli Christian Arab, played a Palestinian terrorist leader in the pro-homicide bomber movie, “.”)
We’re also told that “Saudis, like Americans, don’t do manual labor. They believe it’s beneath them.” See?–“We’re Exactly Alike,” Comparison #5,376. It goes on and on and on in this movie.
Director Peter Berg claims “The Kingdom” is “98 percent action, 2% message.” But he’s lying. It’s 100% false message and propaganda . . . with action thrown in to make it go easily down the American throat.
Berg told USA Today how upset he was when clueless American audiences like the movie and think it’s patriotic (like the applauding for this tripe of a movie, as the ignorant audience did when I saw it in August):

When a test screening in Sacramento erupted in cheers during a battle scene (he was hoping for a more somber reaction), he told Universal Studios executives he wanted a screening for a largely Muslim audience.
“I didn’t want this to be an ‘America kicks (butt)’ movie,” he says. I wanted action but not jingoistic action.” . . . [DS: , “jingoistic” is the word the left–especially in Hollywood–uses to deride American patriotism.]
[After a London audience gave the scene an ovation], Berg decided audiences were cheering a win over terrorism, not [DS: American] nationalism, and kept the scene.

As and , I believe there’s Saudi money behind this movie. At first the Saudis look bad in this film, but in the end, they work hand in hand with the Americans to “get the terrorists.” That’s not how it happens in real life. But that’s the message the Saudis have been desperately trying to pimp on the American public–without much success–over the past 6 years since 15 of their countrymen murdered almost 3,000 Americans.
Now, they’ve found a way to do it–through an insidious thriller that’s really just outside wrapping for a pan-Saudi Trojan horse.
While I can’t prove the Saudi financing behind this one, I have already documented that :

How much Saudi or Muslim money is going into this propaganda film? Would love to know, but the credits don’t tell you that kind of info. What they do show is that two Saudis, Yamen Al-Hajjar and Ahmed Al-Ibrahim (who also co-stars in the movie), are listed as consultants on Arabic, Islam, and Saudi Arabia. Al-Hajjar is a Saudi National who is a student at Boston University and says he will return to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia after graduation to work for Saudi Aramco oil company. I’m sure they’re not biased at all in favor of their native land and “peaceful” religion.

After I wrote this, Al-Hajjar e-mailed me and was clearly very upset. I think by exposing his involvement and connections to The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, I exposed their very visible plan.
Whether or not the Saudis heavily invest in the Kingdom, they clearly got their money’s worth.
And, , Jamie Foxx is in on this Islamist propaganda machine and very motivated to perpetrate the fakery. He said:

Well, my biological father is Muslim . . . . It was a breath of fresh air as opposed to what you see on TV. It was beautiful to see the other side in a good light.

It’s not a breath of fresh air. It’s stale, old propaganda in new, more clever packaging.
Don’t go to “The Kingdom.” But if you do, make sure you wear a headcovering and/or hide your Israeli-stamped passport. And bring a BS detector.

Saudi 9/11 Flag by David Lunde/Lundesigns

By
Did you know that American Indians a/k/a Native Americans have feet shaped differently than those of most other Americans? Their feet are apparently bigger, according to Nike. (And you know what they say about big feet. Just kidding.)
Anyway, apparently, Nike not only took notice, but made a new shoe specific to Native Americans’ foot specifications, including a much wider toebox and footbed. The new model, to be sold exclusively to Indian tribes and reservations (and priced in the $40 range), is called the Nike Air Native N7.

Nike Air Native N7: Only For Members of the Tribe (Not the Jewish Kind)
According to Nike specifications for the shoe, the Air Native toebox for women is four widths wider than that of a traditional Nike women’s shoe. For men, it is two widths wider. For both sexes, the shape of the shoe is different, to accomodate the different foot shape of American Indians. Other things, like “thicker outsole rubber for added durability,” are not explained, and I’m not sure why Native Americans would need added durability.
That’s interesting and smart niche marketing. Still, you have to wonder about the sales strategy, since many of those of American Indian heritage no longer live on reservations and probably also want such shoes tailored more to their foot shape–even if they are only part Indian and the foot difference isn’t as pronounced).
For example, “Katzimo, Mysterious Mesa“–a book my Dad bought me as a kid and which I read–tells the true story of how an entire Indian tribe in New Mexico (at the Acoma Pueblo) converted to Judaism when the tribal chief’s daughter married an Orthodox Jewish trader in the early 1900s. There were many such Jewish traders in the Old West of the 1800s who intermarried with Indians. And many Native Americans, today, aren’t on tribal rolls, so they wouldn’t have access to that purchasing channel, either.
Clearly, the price is subsidized for Indians unlike other Americans in the Nike customer base, since you’d be hard-pressed to find any shoe by Nike in that relatively-low price range, especially this kind of specially-customized shoe. That might upset other Nike customers who are paying $160-$180–at least four times the Air Native price–for Nike running shoes, etc., which aren’t as customized.
Still, the story and Nike’s entry into the Native American foot market is definitely an interesting piece of Americana.
More from Associated Press on the Nike Air Native N7.

By
Many readers sent me this story since it went up on Arutz Shevah/Israel National News, Wednesday Morning. It’s generally not my policy to post material from or link to A7/INN because at least two of my stories (word for word and using exact ellipses from my quotes)–and they’ve plagiarized stories from many others, as well. Besides being wrong, that’s chutzpah because my family held fundraisers for A7/INN over the years and raised them a great deal of money. Each time I catch them and call them on it, the response is an “aw shucks, we made a mistake (by ripping me off word for word without credit?!), not a big deal (for them).” One of the times , after no-one read the story anymore. BFD.

Still, this story is important. So, this time, I chose to overlook A7/INN’s ongoing thievery and post it as I prepared items for the site in my absence to observe the Jewish holiday of Sukkot (and hope that A7/INN didn’t steal the story from someone else without credit). The site reports on a State-Department funded University of California business training program for residents of the Middle East, which explicitly specified on the State Dept. website that no Jewish Israelis could apply to the program. Yup, it’s tax-funded, anti-Semitic apartheid committed by State Department Arabists and pan-Islamists who don’t care that they are now coppos in the new Nazism (courtesy of your taxes). More of the story:

U.S. State Department-funded University of California program which provides business training for residents of the Middle East specifically excluded Israeli Jews – until Jewish journalists protested.
The University of California has now altered the program’s eligibility requirement that initially barred Israeli Jews. The turnaround in policy also may have saved the State Department, whose Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) finances the program, from having to provide an embarrassing explanation. MEPI also selects the participants.
Jerusalem-based marketing specialist and businesswoman Miriam Schwab uncovered the bias last week when she checked into applying to the university’s San Diego branch Beyster Institute program for Middle East Entrepreneur Training (MEET). She discovered that the program was open to citizens of “Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel (limited to Israeli Arab citizens), Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, West Bank/Gaza and Yemen.” [DS: Emphasis added.]

State Dept. Application Says NO to Israeli Jews

The Beyster Institute, which manages the program, offers three 10-day seminars, each one with 20 eligible participants. The program includes professional coaching and offers opportunities to make new contacts and “to help promising leaders realize their aspirations to build successful [businesses]… The participation of women is highly encouraged.” . . .
In response to an IsraelNationalNews.com question for confirmation of the restriction in Israel, program manager Mona Yousry verified, “It is only for Arab Israelis.” A subsequent question as to why Israeli Jews are not eligible for the program elicited the following reply from the Institute’s Director of Entrepreneurial Programs, Rob Fuller: “I’m sorry for the unfortunate misunderstanding about eligibility for the new MEET program. To be clear, for the programs for which we are now recruiting to be held in 2008, ALL Israeli citizens are eligible to participate. Sorry for any confusion we may have inadvertently caused.”
Israeli Jews originally were excluded despite the program’s stated advantage as “an important cultural exchange.” Fuller did not explain the initial “confusion” in barring Israeli Jews. . . .
The US official who made the online edit, however, reposted the story in “track changes” format so that the document displays in the left margin, at the time of this writing, the words: “Deleted: Limited to Israeli Arab citizens.”

The question I have, aside from the anti-Semitic apartheid is: Why the heck are we funding business studies for citizens of oil-rich Arab Muslim countries? Why can’t they pay for their own? It’s, frankly, ridiculous to do so, when we don’t do the same for our own citizens. And even if we did, we shouldn’t be funding the citizens of countries whose people mostly hate us to learn from our business professionals. We should be funding citizens of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE to study business here?! Why must Americans living in trailer parks subsidize Middle East Entrepreneur Training? It’s absurd.
The MEPI State Department application for MEET is here and here.
You’d think this story would be all over our news–our mainstream media–but you’d be wrong.

By
Whenever I write about Hollywood movies sympathizing with terrorists or hitting the moviegoer over the head with some other far-left cause or political point of view, I generally get one or two e-mails or comments saying, “Lighten up. It’s just a movie.”

Movies Proven to Harmfully Influence Kids
Problem is, many ignorant moviegoers are influenced by what’s in the movies. They take it as truth. That’s the case with and “Amistad“–both of which were fictional and lie-filled–and Oliver Stone’s many conspiracy theory cinematic screeds. After “JFK,” a lot of Americans believed Stone’s fanciful conspiracy theories about JFK’s murder, despite the facts which controvert what he put on film. Even liberal former ABC reporter Sam Donaldson shook his head at the movie.
Now, there’s more evidence to back up my constant irked status with regard to the revisionism and lies put out by Hollywood. A study conducted by Susanne Tanski, James Sargent, and other researchers at Dartmouth Medical School shows movies influence kids. They emulate what they see. The study is in the September issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
The study focused on smoking, but I don’t think smoking is unique in the constant set of behaviors and viewpoints inculcated into movie-viewing kids’ minds.
The researchers counted the number of smoking scenes in 532 box office hits over the past five years. Then, they surveyed 6,522 kids aged ten to 14 about which of those movies they’d seen as well as about their smoking habits. Then, they resurveyed the kids 8, 16, and 24 months later.
The study found a direct correlation between the number of smoking scenes watched and the chances of becoming a habitual smoker. Those who’d seen the most such scenes were twice as likely to end up addicted to smoking as those who’d seen the fewest. This was constant in all social and economic groups of kids.
Again, smoking is not unique to learned behavior from the movies. If kids see enough scenes that tell us that extremist Muslims are innocent victims of a “backlash” or, worse, that terrorists have justified grievances which are legitimate grounds for attacks on innocent Americans, then they will ultimately believe it.
Just like smoking, it’s harmful to your children’s health. And America’s health.
It’s not “just a movie.” It’s a prescription for disaster.
And the movies’ influence on America in general is no secret. Those who claim it’s just a movie have to answer why companies spend millions for product placement onscreen. If we weren’t influenced by what we saw, they’d be wasting their money.
Then, there’s another issue that intersects with the faulty “it’s only a movie” philosophy.
A number of parents are upset that in-flight movies are often R-rated, complete with graphic violence, nudity, and obscenities. That led Reps. Heath Shuler and Walter Jones, both of North Carolina, to introduce the Family Friendly Flights Act. It would mandate that airlines have certain sections on planes that are “kid-friendly zones” where such movies would not be shown.
Although I generally side with parents on these issues, I have a problem with Congress micromanaging airlines in this way. On the other hand, since so many airlines asked for government help and bail-outs after 9/11, they’ve given themselves over to more government supervision. I believe in the marketplace, and I think if enough parents raised objections, airlines would do this on their own, instead of having Congress tell them how to do it.
I think this issue will be resolved as more and more airlines introduce personal video monitors on each seatback. Until then, I can’t argue with the fact that exposure to such movies influences kids unfavorably. And parents stuck with them blaring on a screen onboard a plane thousands of feet in the sky can’t exactly walk out.
Kids and other sponge-like Americans are impressionable, and they learn behaviors and viewpoints from movies, which they ultimately emulate. The smoking study makes that point in spades.
It’s not “just a movie.”

By
If you’re tired of government waste, as I am, then you’ll be disappointed to learn of two recent developments.

The Navy’s “Swastikon” to Get Wasteful $600K Makeover
The first is a set of U.S. Navy buildings in Coronado, California (near San Diego) that look like a swastika. The buildings, erected in 1967, were apparently designed by some smart aleck with leanings to the Third Reich. They are part of the amphibious base at Coronado and serve as barracks for Seabees. But for 40 years, no-one ever noticed, until Google Earth came into play. Since the five-sided set of buildings we all know as the Department of Defense headquarters is called the Pentagon, I’ll nickname this one, “the Swastikon.”
Enter the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a liberal Democratic Congressman from San Diego, and several bloggers who are up in arms. We, as Americans, cannot allow buildings that look like a swastika from a satellite up in space to remain standing as is, they say. So, in response to their whining and fingerpointing, the federal government, at the cost of $600,000, will redesign the building, adding walkways, camouflage landscaping, and rooftop “photovoltaic cells” to hide the swastika design.
Sorry, but as a proud Jew, granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, and daughter of their daughter who was a Displaced Persons camp resident, I think it’s a ridiculous waste of money. Sure, $600,000 is pizza money in the vast scheme of government trillions and gazillions. But, come on. No one even noticed the Swastikon until 40 years after the fact. And no-one will notice it unless they’re an astronaut going into or returning from space prior to driving to Florida in a diaper. The buildings are not under any flight pattern, so you wouldn’t see them from a plane, either.
I really don’t see the need. We as Americans know who fought and defeated the Nazis. We know who liberated the concentration camps. And we know who decimated the Third Reich. We know that America–but for its ever-growing Islamic population–is the least anti-Semitic country and the most anti-Nazi. Whether or not 40-year-old buildings resemble the Nazi symbol to outer space creatures and Google Earth obsessive-compulsives, should not be the subject of government spending on a perfectly good building, Swastikon or not.
I’m sure the Navy has more pressing needs for the $600,000, like better equipment for troops and the like.

The Penny: If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Redesign It
Then, there’s the penny redesign. While a bunch of Congressional idiots and others are calling for the penny’s demise (which will only lead to every price and every state’s sales taxes being rounded upward to the nearest 5 or 10), the U.S. Mint (part of the Treasury Department) is doing something even more stupid: redesigning the penny. We already know that the penny costs more to produce than the 1 cent value on its face. So, why waste more money redesigning it?
As a coin collector and afficionado myself, I understand the value of making collectibles and getting collectors to hoard them (I love Wheatback and Indianhead pennies). But how valuable can gazillions of pennies redesigned actually be? And since there are only four, if every collector pockets each of the four versions, the government will make . . . 0 cents (again, it costs more to make them than a penny, so the govt. is losing money on them).
This begs the question–and I gotta ask: Doesn’t the Treasury Department have better things to do with its money than pay artists and numismatists to redesign money-losing coins?
If it doesn’t, time for Congress to cut Treasury’s budget. Congress should probably do that, anyway.
If there’s any upside, it’s that the penny marks the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth and depicts various parts of his life. Maybe that will get the many brain-addled kids, who learn less and less of White Man’s history in America, more interested in this White Man of merit and what he contributed to American history.
But I doubt they’ll even bother to look at the coins and take notice.

By
When I was in grad school (law school and business school) at the University of Wisconsin (Madison), to make a little extra money, I was an academic tutor for the athletic department. One of the Wisconsin football players I tutored, Azree Commander (an ex-Muslim and a good, smart guy), had a great word for anything that was an outrage: “That’s vomitous!” he would say.

Liberal Dem Claire McCaskill: Lone Non-“Vomitous” Voice on The ICE Princess Nomination
(Julie Myers Diet Coke by David Lunde)
Upon hearing Wednesday’s predictable vote in favor of the absurd Julie L. Myers nomination for Assistant Homeland Security Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), I could think of no better adjective for the final 8-1 tally: Vomitous. Even though it’s not a real word, it best describes the ridiculous pandering to and gushing over The ICE Princess at her confirmation hearing held a few weeks ago and, later, yesterday’s vote.
Watch the nauseating webcast video. You’ll see Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman display why I think conservatives are all wet when they praise his position on staying in Iraq. He may rail against the jihad there, but he prominently enables it here. Lieberman had no problems with Myers on her extensive waste of money and resources meant for immigration enforcement, and, in fact, even praised her financial performance. Just what is he smoking? No qualms whatsoever on her abysmal record of illegal alien arrests.
Lieberman took her word for it that catch-and-release of aliens–which continues ad infinitum–had ended. And Lieberman praised “written answers to our questions” that Myers provided. Does he really think Myers provided those answers? Hello . . . she doesn’t even know what her agency does, which is why a month ago she was being furiously tutored. She’s like Voshon Lenard, who in college didn’t know who George Washington was, but whose smart friend wrote the paper.
While Lieberman did cite , which show , he acted as if it didn’t matter. And I’m not sure why he cited it, as he went on to brown his nose with an apocryphal Myers record. (His kowtowing to her reminded me of his kowtowing to Louis Farrakhan when he was Al Gore’s Veep candidate.)
But then, there’s what Lieberman DID cite as his concerns with Myers. He had a problem with ICE allegedly singling out members of a certain religion, not allowing them to practice it, and discriminating against them. You can guess which religion that is. Here’s a hint: It’s the same one he claims is the reason we need to stay in Iraq (yet doesn’t give a damn about its cancerous metastasization here). And he cited alleged problems of ICE agents’ treatment of those seeking asylum here. Again, guess which religion files the highest percentage of asylum cases? And guess which religion has the highest percentage of phony asylum cases filed?
And then there’s Ranking Republican Senatrix Susan Collins of Maine. She’s the poster child for liberal Republican birth control (or abortion, if necessary–and I’m pro-life). If her liberal parents practiced it, there wouldn’t be this silly Yaya Sisterhood grrrlpower dynamic on this commmittee that seems to whitewash, er . . . pinkwash, the complete incompetence and disaster that emanates from ICE under Julie Myers’ “leadership.” Listening to Ms. Collins was not only “vomitous.” It was impossible. I had to close the video screen. It’s like listening to constipation.
Ditto for Myers’ written speech–also written by her smart friend/basketball tutor–from which she read and hadn’t a clue and her rehearsed answers. The flailing hands were the best, her “tell” that she didn’t know anything and was rotely regurgitating.
But then, there is the lone voice of reason–the sole Senator on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs–Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. She was the only vote against The ICE Princess, and not based on partisanship. Listen to her reasons. This chick gets it . . . in spades:

The only dissent came Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who complained that Myers has not shown enough interest in tracking how many employers are prosecuted for hiring illegal immigrants.
McCaskill has spent weeks asking the agency to reveal the number of employers who have faced legal action for hiring illegal workers. But Myers has said law enforcement statistics do not break out records that way.
Late Tuesday night, the agency finally sent McCaskill a list of all 716 people charged with immigration violations in the most recent fiscal year. McCaskill claims the list will show the Bush administration has not seriously pursued employers who break the law.
“All you have to do is glance at the list and you do not get a good feeling that employers are being held accountable,” McCaskill said.

Right on, sistah!
Like McCaskill, I know The ICE Princess lied about obtaining the info McCaskill wanted. If the figures were favorable to her, Myers would have easily obtained the breakdown of employers facing legal action. But, as we all know, few employers have faced anything–that’s why The ICE Princess wouldn’t turn over the goods on that (there’s no way even her statistical massage experts could fake this statistic). And the few who’ve been prosecuted have gotten a slap on the hand.
Myers simply doesn’t go after employers. She merely conducts show arrests of aliens and wastes agents’ time and our tax money.
But, other than Senator McCaskill–who’s earned newfound respect from me–don’t expect the rest of the idiots on the Senate Homeland Security Committee to care.
They already told us–before the hearings–they’d vote to confirm Myers. And all too often, they engage in premature articulation.
They just can’t help themselves with the Empress, er . . . ICE Princess, who wears no clothing.
And that’s nothing short of VOMITOUS.

By
Well, you didn’t see this issue in Michael Moore’s “Sicko.” But if this becomes a trend, it will be a problem.
Sophie Currier, a Harvard medical student, sued the National Board of Medical Examiners after it turned down her request to take more than the standard 45-minute break during the 9-hour medical licensing exam. Why?

Well, she needs a lot more time to pump breast milk to feed her 4-month-old daughter. This, despite the fact that the board offered to allow her to bring a breast pump into the exam room and to provide her with a private room in which to express milk during breaks. Would you want your doctor doing this while she operated on you?
And while a smart trial court sided with the medical board, citing the need for equal treatment (other nursing moms have found the 45-minute break adequate and have taken and passed the exam), a Massachusetts Appeals Court judge overtuned the decision. Currier will now get even more time.
Here’s part of Mass. Appeals Court Judge Gary Katzmann’s absurd pronouncement:

In order to put the petitioner on equal footing as the male and non-lactating female examinees, she must be provided with sufficient time to pump breast milk and to address the same physiological and other functions to which those examinees are able to attend.

PUH-LEEZE. This is not about “equal footing.” It’s about EXTRA footing. Hope you never hear this kind of thing while your under anesthesia on an operating table.
Add to that the fact that Currier, who already has a 22-month-old son, already has received more time allowances for the exam, under the Americans with Disabilities Act for her dyslexia and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Because of that, she already has permission to take the test over two days, instead of just one, like most licensed doctors in Massachusetts. Talk about chutzpah. (A couple of years or so ago, ABC News ran an in-depth investigative piece on the growing number of high school, college, and grad students who go doctor shopping to get these excuses for diseases and, thus, extra time to take standardized exams.)
So my question is this: What will “Doctor” Currier do when she is in the middle of a complicated, 9-hour surgery? Will she tell the patient that he/she must sit on the operating table with clamps and open body cavity for several hours or an extra day, while she pumps breast milk and attends to her dyslexia and ADD?
Again, hope that women with breast-milk-pumping time allowances and other doctors-to-be with alleged ADD and dyslexia problems don’t ever come near your body . . . or the operating table.
This kind of legal decision and extra allowance gives us more reason to choose male doctors. No-one wants to risk “healthcare” from an affirmative action provider like Currier.

By
I will be on the nationally syndicated “Michael Reagan Show,” tonight at approximately 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time, discussing , the movie, “The Kingdom” (my writing on this pan-Saudi movie, and ) and assorted other topics. (For those who know I observe the , the interview was pre-taped, this afternoon.) Listen/Watch.

By
To my friends and readers:
Tonight at sundown, the Jewish holiday of Sukkot begins (and ends next weekend – it lasts seven days). Therefore, in observing it for the next two days, I will be out of blog commission, but I have some things I’ve written ahead of time to be posted in the next two days, including my movie reviews on Friday. Stay tuned for those. I’ll be back full-time on Monday.

Various Versions of Sukkahs/Sukkot
A bit about the holiday: Sukkot (also called Sukkos, Succos, or Succot) is called Tabernacles in English. It is one of the three Jewish harvest festival holidays, and we commemorate the Jews’ temporary existence (and temporary dwellings) in the Sinai desert. To do so, Jews build temporary huts (called “Sukkot” for plural) outside their homes. They decorate the Sukkah (singular of the word) and eat all meals there during the holiday. (My father used to sleep in it, too.) It is very fun for kids because they also visit other Sukkot in the neighborhood and get candy and other treats there, sort of like on Halloween.
I will miss the Sukkah my father built every year and the many decorations he put up. , my favorite was a laminated aerial photo of the Old City of Jerusalem with thick white tape covering up the mosque built atop the Temple Mount.
More on Sukkot here, here, and here.