Again, What Liberal Media?

Here's a CNN poll I from yesterday for which I did a screen capture. Here's how the supposedly liberal media treats John Kerry.

I've never seen a poll that reads "why does Tom DeLay take money and hold up lobbyists for good jobs for his supprters? "Politics or conviction."

I've never seen one that reads "why did George W. Bush ignore a presidential daily briefing titled "bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside US?" "Politics or conviction?"

When will people finally understand that the media enables Bush and his administration? There's no such thing as the "liberal media."

What "Liberal" Media?

Yesterday Katie Couric, alleged journalist on NBC's Today Show, challenged with no factual basis Howard Dean's 100 percent correct assertion that Jack Abramoff DID NOT contribute money to Democrats in Congress:

COURIC: Hey, wait a second. Democrats took money -- Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff, too, Mr. Dean.

DEAN: That is absolutely false. That did not happen. Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff went to any Repub -- Democrat at any time.

COURIC: According -- let me just tell you. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Abramoff and his associates gave $3 million to Republican and one -- Republicans -- and $1.5 million to Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid [R-NV]. So, this --

DEAN: Katie, not one -- not one dime. Not one dime of Jack Abramoff money ever went to any Democrat. We can show you the FEC [Federal Election Commission] reports, we'd be very happy to do it. There is a lot of stuff in the press that the Republican National Committee has been spinning that this is a bipartisan scandal. It is a Republican-financed scandal. Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff ever went to any Democrat. Not one dime.

COURIC: Well, we will obviously have to look into that and clarify that for our viewers at a -- at a later date.

So on today's program, alleged journalist Matt Lauer "corrected" Couric's falsehood by telling another one:

LAUER: Howard Dean was on this program yesterday and asserted, basically, that it is a Republican scandal. Let me play you a clip.

DEAN [video clip]: It is a Republican-financed scandal. Not one dime of money from Jack Abramoff ever went to any Democrat. Not one dime.

LAUER: Katie pressed him on that, and then we -- we did some research. We went to the Center for Responsive Politics and we found out that, technically speaking, Howard Dean may be correct. But here's what we found: that 66 percent of the money in this situation went to Republicans, but 34 percent of the money -- not from Abramoff, but from his associates and clients -- went to Democrats.

First, Katie didn't press him on anything. Second, Dean is not "technically correct." He's absolutely correct. Couric is wrong. Period. And surprise, surprise. Lauer is wrong, too. Just read this. And this. And this. Abramoff personally contributed only to Republicans. And if you read this, you'll see that his clients contributed overwhelmingly to Republican members of Congress. They did not give 34 percent of their contributions to Democrats. In fact, some Abramoff clients who used to contribute to Democrats stopped doing it after they became Abramoff's clients.

So Couric was wrong. Lauer was wrong. In fact they are so wrong, they are refusing to acknowledge the incorrectness of their wrongnesss.

Umm, no, actually he doesn't

Scott McClellan, the guy Bush pays to lie to reporters, got grilled by David Gregory of NBC the other day: Gregory: Another question, on Katrina. Why won't the White House provide the specific information that senators want who are trying to do a detailed postmortem on what went wrong, particularly who knew what when from the President and among senior staff? Isn't that an important question to answer?

Liar ...Now, the issue you bring up goes to separation of powers issues. The President believes that Senator Lieberman ought to have the right to confidential conversations with his advisors, just like all Presidents have asserted they ought to have that same right. That's what this is about. That's the bottom line here...

Actually, Bush does not believe that Lieberman or anyone else has the right to confidential conversations. The Current Occupant of the White House believes he has the right to listen in to Lieberman's (and anyone else's) conversations without a warrant, without probable cause, without charging you with a crime, and without telling you he did it. They believe they have the right to look into what you research on the Internet. And the idiot general Bush trotted out to defend this unconstitutional spying program, General Michael Hayden, principal deputy director of National Intelligence with the Office of National Intelligence, revealed that while the 4th Amendment to the Constitution reads "no warrantless searches," that's not what it means. So much for "strict constructionism."

Enough already. The Constitution means what it says. Bush does not have the right to listen in on honest Americans without a warrant and without probable cause. He already has the ability to listen in without a warrant on anyone who the authorities have a good faith belief is engaging in terrorist activity -- after they start listening, they have up to three days to obtain a warrant. Like his boss, and like his predecessor, Scott McClellan lies. he lies often. And he lies implausibly about stuff that can be verified. The only way they'll stop is if we make them. So what are Joe Lieberman and the rest of us waiting for?

Why Al Gore Should Be President

Ben Smith explains in this New York Observer article that former Vice President Al Gore got a huge welcome at the Sundance Film Festival. The reason Gore was on hand was the premier of a new documentary in which he's featured, An Inconvenient Truth, produced under the auspices of Laurie David, the wife of comedian Larry David. According to Smith ..."The film features Mr. Gore trundling through airports and, mostly, giving his famous presentation—famous to his growing circle of acolytes, at least—on the reality and gravity of climate change and the need for action."

Here's more from Smith: "What has happened in Hollywood and around the country is, everybody who sees his presentation on global warming is just blown away—and it isn’t a real reach to think that he represents real vision and leadership in the White House, as opposed to what we have now,” said Roy Neel, a longtime senior aide to Mr. Gore who is still close to the former Vice President. Mr. Neel added that Mr. Gore has told him he isn’t running for President now—though Mr. Neel also said that “he would certainly be my candidate if he ran, and I think he’d make a hell of a President.

“It’s no surprise that people spend a little time with him, get enthusiastic and say, ‘Damn! He’d make one fine President.’”

Gore supported President Bush's call to fight al Qaeda after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but he has also made several high profile speeches challenging the Bush administration on warrantless searches and other civil liberties issues.

Gore's experienced in the public arena. He understands both domestic and foreign policy. He's gaining more and more experience in the private sector. He writes books while the current White House occupant doesn't read newspapers. Gore actually won the presidency once already. So why not vote for him in 2008?

Why John Kerry should be President

Senator John Kerry hammered Karl Rove's phony assertion that Democrats want Osama to win (see my previous post). From ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos:

KERRY: You know, Osama bin Laden is going to die of kidney failure before he’s killed by Karl Rove and his crowd. And all he does is divide America over this issue and exploit it. And what he’s trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don’t want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That’s a lie.

We’re prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer. But we put a procedure in place to protect the constitutional rights of Americans. And what I believe, George, and I believe it deeply, is you can protect the United States of America without devoiding, without ignoring the Constitution of the country.

John Kerry gets it. He gets it in a fundamental way that escapes the current occupant of the White House, who responded to an attack on the US by Saudis based in Afghanistan by invading Iraq. John Kerry knew then and knows now that Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan or Pakistan should be the target, not millions of Americans who've done nothing to justify combing through their private lives. That's why John Kerry should be President.

Pussies -- College National Republican Committee

Check out this awesome comic by August J. Pollak.

The College Republican National Committee is sponsoring a January 30 pro-war rally called "Finish the Job." This brings up the obvious point posed by Operation Yellow Elephant -- why are so many people within the age range for military service who support President Bush unwilling to enlist? If they're so "pro-military" why are they unwilling to go through basic training and skill training and then fight in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Read this CRNC -- I've served in uniform for over 23 years. I've been to Iraq. Take it from someone who knows -- if you're not willing to walk the walk, you've got no business talking the talk.

I'll make it easy for you. What follows are links to recruiting web sites for the various branches of the full time military.

Army -- www.goarmy.com

Air Force -- www.airforce.com

Navy -- www.navy.com

Coast Guard -- www.gocoastguard.com

Marine Corps -- www.marines.com

Think you'd rather become a member of the part time military. Try these links:

Army National Guard -- www.1800goguard.com

Air National Guard -- www.goang.com

Army Reserve -- www.goarmyreserve.com

Air Force Reserve -- www.afreserve.com

Navy Reserve -- www.navyreserve.com

Coast Guard Reserve

Marine Corps Reserve

Once you've been to boot camp, skill training, and a deployment or two, then go ahead and hold your "Finish the Job" rally. Until then my brothers in arms and sisters in arms and I aren't listening.

Howard Dean -- I Just Like Him

I've always been a fan of former Vermont Governor and current Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. Among other reasons why I like him, Governor Dean hits back when he's attacked and smeared.

His response to yesterday's lame attack by soon-to-be-convicted felon Karl Rove (see my previous post) is no exception. After Rove suggested that the party of revealing the identity of covert operatives is the one that can campaign in 2006 with the claim of being strong on national security, Dean issued a statement that reads in part:

"Karl Rove only has a White House job and a security clearance because President Bush has refused to keep his promise to fire anyone involved in revealing the identity of an undercover CIA operative," Dean said in a statement. Dean added: "The truth is, Karl Rove breached our national security for partisan gain and that is both unpatriotic and wrong."

Howard Dean won't let go without comment Rove slanders against the Democrats. And he tell the truth. That's why I just like him.

Karl Rove, Johnny One Note

According to this CNN story, Karl Rove, that sucker of Satan's cock, told the Republican National Commitee that Republican candidates for Congress in 2006 should make national security a central campaign issue, just as they did in 2002 and 2004:

"Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world," Rove told Republican activists. "That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

Are you f**king kidding me? It wasn't Democrats who ignored the presidential daily briefing "bin Laden determined to strike inside US." It isn't a Democratic administration whose response to an attack against the US by Saudis based in Afghanistan was to attack Iraq. It wasn't a Democratic occupant of the White House who said bin Laden "isn't that important." It isn't a Democratic administration that's claimed credit for killing "the number 2 man in al Qaeda" so often that only Number One is left.

And it was KARL ROVE who, out of a desire to exact retribution from a critic of the administration and to warn future critics, leaked the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Wilson, blowing her cover and that of who knows how many other covert operatives, ruining her career, and possibly endangering the lives of everyone with whom she ever had contact as part of her undercover identity.

Neither Karl Rove nor his boss who illegally occupies the White House can claim any credit for improving America's security. They certainly can't claim to be better at protecting the United States than their Democratic opponents.

Karl Rove should be frog marched out of the White House and put on trial. When (not if) he's convicted, he should be punished as harshly as possible. The idea that this stealer of elections, this liar, this man who's willing to use law enforcement officers for his personal benefit, a man who so cavalierly disregards national security and state secrets when it suits his selfish political objectives is still working for the taxpayers in his role as Assistant to the President, Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor is outrageous. WHY is Karl Rove still employed in the White House?

James Webb strikes a blow for liberty. In this excellent New York Times editorial the former Navy Secretary and decorated Marine slaps down those who further their own selfish partisan interests by denigrating the military service of veterans like Jack Murtha and John Kerry and Bob Kerrey and John McCain and Al Gore.

In the photo at left, Jan Mohammed, governor of Afghanistan's Oruzgan province, chats with, from left, James Webb, an interpreter, and Colonel Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the commanding officer of the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable).

Jim Webb is a potential US Senate candidate against George Allen in 2006. Allen may be the dumbest man in the Senate, so naturally he's a Republican front runner for President. And since the Republican Standard Operating Procedure is to gain partisan political advantage by attacking the service of real veterans it's only fitting that Allen snarked his way into a Senate seat by beating Marine officer Chuck Robb. Robb, the son in law of President Lyndon Johnson, used his White House connections to get into Vietnam.

I say we need more guys like Webb in the Senate. and fewer guys like Allen.

Santorum equals Bullshit

Senator Rick Santorum was the key Senate player in the Republican party's naked power and money grab The K Street Project. After the 2000 election, Santorum began closed-door meetings every Tuesday with "a handpicked group of two dozen or so lobbyists:"

Every week, the lobbyists present pass around a list of the jobs available and discuss whom to support. Santorum’s responsibility is to make sure each one is filled by a loyal Republican–a senator’s chief of staff, for instance, or a top White House aide, or another lobbyist whose reliability has been demonstrated.

Facing reelection with the Abramoff albatross hanging around his neck, Santorum has decided to restake his claim to his integrity by using Abramoff Amnesia:

The senator does not recall meeting Mr. Abramoff,” [spokeswoman Virginia Davis] said. “He has no recollection of being introduced to Mr. Abramoff, and he does not know him.”

Oh, bullshit. According to this March 2001 Roll Call article when Santorum launched the K Street Project in 2001, the first meeting was held with an ultra-exclusive group of D.C.’s ten most influential Republican lobbyists. That group included Abramoff.

Don Bailey is a crook -- spread the "news"

Former Congressman Don Bailey of Pennsylvania took bribes from bookies to fix the 1965 Rose Bowl in which he was a player. He also lied to obtain the awards he received for his service in Vietnam. In addition, he took bribes while serving in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s. While he was Pennsylvania's Auditor in the 1980s, he embezzeled state funds.

What's my proof for this? I don't have any. But guess what -- I don't need it. Under the new standard of journalistic integrity employed by the Washington Post, which I wrote about in my previous post, I don't have to prove anything. I wrote these charges against Bailey, and if the Post obtains a denial from Bailey and then runs my charges and his denial, giving equal weight to both, they've satisfied themselves that they're "objective." The truth be damned.

The "Swiftboating" of Jack Murtha

On Friday the Washington Post amplified and gave credibility to a partisan an attack on Democratic Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania, an attack first carried by the obscure Cybercast "News" Service. The CNS story (and it's just that -- a story) accuses Murtha, who volunteered to serve in the Vietnam War and received the Distinguished Service Medal, Bronze Star with Combat V and two Purple Hearts for his service -- of faking and lying to get his medals.

The Post quotes David Thibault, the alleged editor in chief of the alleged Cybercast "News" Service, as saying that Murtha's medals from 1967 are relevant now "because the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement."

But the article says very little about Thibault. Had the Post reporters done a simple Internet search, they would have discovered this biography which describes him as a "senior producer for a televised news magazine" broadcast and sponsored by the Republican National Committee. Thibault's biography also indicates that he used to work for Republican Senator Judd Gregg. In other words, Thibault is not a journalist he's a partisan with a particular point of view to espouse.

The Post article about the CNS story also quotes an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. In this article, Harry Fox, the former assistant to Congressman John Saylor, tells about Murtha allegedly trying to get Saylor's help in obtaining awards:

The article included a 1996 quote from Harry Fox, who worked for former Representative John Saylor (R-Pa.), telling a local newspaper that Murtha was "pretending to be a big war hero" Fox, who lost a 1974 election to Murtha, said the 38-year old Marine veteran had asked Saylor for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts because the office believed he lacked adequate evidence of his wounds.

What the Post leaves out of its story is that Congressman Saylor is deceased, and has been since 1973 -- he's not available to confirm or deny what someone else (Fox) says he (Saylor) said. So the Post is relying on something said by a person with an axe to grind (Thibault), who is quoting someone who is deceased (Saylor), but who the newspaper forgot to tell you is deceased. In addition the Post is quoting the biased Cybercast "News" Service, which is quoting a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, which includes an allegation by Fox, who cites as his source someone who's been dead for over 30 years (Saylor).

But it gets even worse. Not only does Cybercast "News" Service rely on third hand hearsay, it never interviewed Harry Fox:

"Cybercast News Service attempted to contact Fox for this article, but learned that the health of the 81-year-old was too poor to allow him to communicate."

And it gets worse. Also contained in the Murtha smear story are quotes by former Congressman Don Bailey, a former Murtha friend. Bailey lost a primary to Murtha after the 1980 census put them in the same district. The Post mentions Bailey's possible motivation, but many other sources do not. Wouldn't the fact that Murtha beat Bailey in these elections at least raise the possibility that Bailey has a reason to lie? How about the fact that Bailey did't raise this story until the mid 1990s -- if it was true why didn't he use it against Murtha in the 1970s or 1980s?

So to smear Murtha the Washington Post is relying on the less than objective reporting of the partisan Cybercast "News" Service, which is in turn is relying on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's version of comments made thirty years ago by Harry Fox, who is in turn is quoting the dead Congressman Saylor.

So in Bush's America, those who decided not to serve in the military because they opposed what they saw as an unjust war, like Bill Clinton and Muhammad Ali, are traitors.

Those who did serve in the military but oppose Bush, like John Murtha, John Kerry, John McCain, Al Gore, and Max Cleland, are also traitors.

Those who supported the war in Vietnam but did not serve, including Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, and Saxby Chambliss, are patriots.

And shammers like Dan Quayle and George W. Bush, who joined the National Guard to escape serving in an unpopular war, then either performed less than capably or didn't even bother to show up, are heroes. In fact the Air National Guard named an achievement award for Bush. Are you kidding me? When he wore a flight suit and landed on the deck of the Lincoln I told my friends Bush must have been making up a drill from 1973 and that if he did it 47 more times we'd credit him with a good year towards his military service.

By the way, I'm really pissed about the way Bush describes himself as "proud" of his national Guard service. The Guard of the 1960s is not the Guard of today. In the 1960s political considerations made the Guard unlikely to serve in combat in large numbers, and standards were generally regarded as more lax than on active duty, so many people tried to get relatively comfortable positions in the Guard rather than risk being sent to into combat. Since the 1980s the Guard's standards have improved so that part time soldiers have to meet the same requirements as those on active duty and are just as likely to be deployed.

The Post's ethics suck. They've decided that simply because an allegation is made it should be reported. But that's not objective, and objctivity is what the mainstream media says it's all about. How about the truth? Instead of "here's an allegation, here's a denial, you decide for yourself if it's true," how about "here's an obviously false allegation by a partisan operative who relied on fourth hand hearsay and has personal and political motivations to lie?"

Fox News -- Fair AND Balanced

Fox News, Fair and Balanced. Fox News -- We report, you decide.

Where's the liberal media bias?

Republican Congressman Tom DeLay of Texas, the former House Majority Leader, lost his bid to have money laundering charges against him dismissed or made the subject of an immediate trial. He originally asked for one of these actions to be taken so he'd have a chance of quickly reclaiming the Majority Leader post he'd had to temporarily vacate when he was indicted. Even though he has now permanently given up his leadership job, DeLay still wanted a dismissal or an immediate trial so that they could (he hoped) be resolved in advance of the March 2006 Texas Republican primary vote in which he will be a candidate for reelection to the House.

Here's what I'm wondering -- in December, when DeLay made his request of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, several news stories like this one noted that all the judges on that court are Republicans. Now that DeLay has received an unfavorable ruling, NONE of the news stories I've seen, including here, here, here, and here indicate that it was an all-GOP court that told DeLay he can't have what he wants.

Is the political affiliation of the judges relevant? I think so, given that DeLay and his shyster lawyer Dick DeGuerin have claimed that the money laundering and conspiracy charges against DeLay are an unprovable plot concocted by a liberal Democratic District Attorney for the purpose of making DeLay look bad. Clearly there must be some merit to the charges -- if there were baseless allegations against a Republican Congressman, wouldn't Republican judges have been the first to say so? So why are the journalists reporting on this ruling not mentioning something that would clearly help readers, listeners and viewers put the action of the court in the proper context?

The way the media reports on stories like this convinces me there's no such thing as liberal bias in the media.

The White House staff says President Bush doesn't recall meeting with disgraced lobbyist and newly convicted felon Jack Abramoff. Further, Bush's staff says Bush and Abramoff ever did meet, it was only in passing at a public gathering, not in private. To me, that seems funny, because Abramoff was a Bush Pioneer. The Pioneers were Bush supporters who raised at least $100,000 for his campaign. Now you can see for yourself just how boldly McClellan is lying:

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I said it’s possible that they would have met at a holiday reception or some other widely attended gathering. The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him.

Q But he has the special designation as a Pioneer, as Terry was alluding to, raising more than $100,000. And he attended, as you told us, three events, holiday receptions at the White House. How likely is it that the President would not have met him —

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s why I said it’s possible. But I just told you what I know at this point, and the President doesn’t recall meeting him and he certainly doesn’t know him.

But as always with this administration, and with McClellan in particular, they're lying. Bush and Abramoff did meet. It was in private. It did involve lobbying for legislation favored by an Abramoff client.

Read this Lou Dubose report in the Texas Observer and see that Abramoff met with Bush on May 9, 1991. This meeting included Abramoff's clients, the Coushatta tribe of Native Americans. The chairman of the Coushatta tribe initially denied the meeting, but now admits it happened. Abramoff charged his client $25 thousand to arrange the meeting.

So between over the top contributions, outright bribes, hiring Republican members of Congress and Republican Congressional staffers through the K Street Project and Abramoff's ties to the Bush administration, it's pretty clear that you could get administration action or a law you wanted mostly by being willing to pay through the nose for it. This scandal is monumental. Now that Abramoff is cooperating with prosecutors, it may take down as many as 60 members of Congress, all of whom are Republicans. It may even reach right into the White House -- in addition to administration officials already in trouble for their ties to Abramoff, let's not forget that Karl Rove's former Senior Advisor, Susan Ralston, used to work for Abramoff.

And Abramoff's connections extend to Republican activists, many of whom are conservative Christians and claim to be anti-gambling -- Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, etc. Clearly these activists are hypocrites who will do anything for money and power.

NOW will people finally realize that enough is enough and do something to end this Republican culture of corruption?

“And sometimes you have to go above the written law, I believe.”

Oliver North's secretary, Fawn Hall, famously uttered this quote during her testimony to the Iran-Contra committee Congress formed in the 1980s to investigate the Reagan administration's contempt for nuisances such as Constitutions, statutes and ordinances. Of course, the Iran-Contra investigation was only one aspect of the Reagan era illegalities -- see here and here. Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, continued the trend of breaking the law and ignoring it when it didn't suit him.

The current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush, who has brought many of Reagan's lawbreakers back into government, is demonstrating that he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and the first President Bush.

According to this article, Bush has stated that he will comply with the law only when it's convenient for him. Congres passed legislation that included the McCain Amendment, which explicitly states that that the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody is illegal regardless of where they are held. In other words, the United States does not engage in torture.

In response, Bush issued a "signing statement" in which he indicates that he reserves the right to not comply with the law if he sees fit. According to

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush will continue to authorize torture when he sees fit.

''The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " Golove said.

This is simply the latest example of Bush's contempt for the both the letter and spirit of the law. He believes that even if he gets fewer votes, he wins. He believes that anything he wants to do is legal. He reminds me of the old Cornelius Vanderbilt quote "What do I care about the law? Ain't I got the power?"

Election results don't stop him. Congress is his rubber stamp. Laws don't slow him down, and he brushes aside the Constitution whenever it becomes an inconvenience. How do we make him stop? Impeachment?

Why Does God Hate Texas?

Guys like Pat Robertson are always claiming that non-Republican states are or will be subjected to God's wrath. Robertson and his ilk clearly equate "Christian" with "Republican." So how come when there are wildfires or other disasters in Republican-leaning states like Oklahoma and Texas Robertson's claim that the disaster is God's punishment for their supposed bad behavior doesn't equally apply?

Pat Robertson is in fact he most egregious example of those who equate being Republican with being Christian. He ran for President in 1988 claiming that God told him to run. Apparently God forgot to let Robertson know he was also going to lose, since George H.W. Bush went on to win the Republican nomination and the presidency.

Robertson's other statements and actions also betray him. He famously lied about his military service. He was a vocal supporter of Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, who was charged with war crimes. While supporting Taylor, Robertson neglected to mention that he had an $8 million dollar investment in a Liberian gold mine under Taylor's control. Robertson has previously claimed to be against gambling, yet it was discovered a few years ago that he not only owned a race horse, the horse was named for him -- "Mr. Pat." Robertson claimed that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were God's punishment on homosexuals, liberals and feminists. And in one of his most noteworthy faruds, Robertson claimed that funds used to support his Operation Blessing charity were being used to provide disaster relief in Africa. In fact, Operation Blessing's planes were being used to haul equipment for African Development Corporation, Robertson's diamond mining concern.

So Pat Robertson is a fraud, a liar and a crook. Why this guy hasn't had his tax exempt status revoked, and why he hasn't been charged with crimes is beyond me. I will also state that as long as Robertson claims non-Republican states are experiencing the wrath of God any time a natural disaster occurs, he's a hypocrite for not saying the same thing about Republican states that experience similar disasters.