CNN posted a list of Hollywood celebrity campaign donations recently. As expected, they are all a bunch of liberals. What I found interesting, however, was not necessarily who contributed to each candidate, but who CNN highlighted.

Instead of highlighting liberal celebrity idiots who contributed to multiple Democrat candidates, CNN posted a big picture of Tony Sirico, actor, “Paulie Walnuts” on “The Sopranos.” Sirico was one of only two people on CNN's list that contributed to a Republican.

No sane person looking at the list below could possibly think that talking about Tony Sirico should have been the story. The story was clearly the absence of Republican celebrities. But, I guess CNN would not want to acknowledge the fact that Hollywood is filled with a bunch of left-wing lunatics.

Now, it should be mentioned that CNN actually had to physically input each name that they posted on their site into the government database, so it is possible that many republicans were left out by pure chance. However, this does beg the question, "What led a balanced network like CNN to leave out Republicans in the first place?" There has to be at least one celebrity who contributed to Fred Thompson. For god's sake, he is a celebrity.

Here is the list if you would like to examine it for yourself. (source)

HILLARY CLINTON (D)
* Ruby Dee, actress: $250
* Danny DeVito, actor: $2,300
* Fran Drescher, TV’s “The Nanny”: $2,300
* Joely Fisher, actress $4,600
* Tom Hanks, actor: $2,300
* Ed Helms, actor, “Andy Bernard” in NBC’s “The Office”: $250
* Sharon Lawrence, “NYPD Blue” co-star: $1,000
* Tobey Maguire, actor $4,600
* Marla Maples, actress: $1,000
* Paul Newman, actor: $4,600
* Rhea Perlman, actress $2,300
* Pauly Shore, actor $1,000
* Ben Stiller, actor $6,900 ($4,600 is the legal limit)
* George Takei, actor $1,000
* Lily Tomlin, actress $2,000
* Rita Wilson, actress $2,300
* Joanne Woodward, actress $4,600

CHRIS DODD (D)
* John Lithgow, actor: $1000
* Christy Romano, actress, singer, voice of “Kim Possible”: $300

JOHN EDWARDS (D)
* Oliver Stone, director: $500
* Mary Steenburgen, actress: $2300
* Ben Stiller, actor: $4600
* Peter Coyote, actor: $1054
* Sharon Lawrence, actress: $1000

MIKE GRAVEL (D)
* Mark Ruffalo, actor: $700

BARACK OBAMA (D)
* Adam Arkin, actor $250
* Paul Dooley, actor $2,300
* Jodie Foster, actress $1,000
* Jamie Foxx, actor $2,300
* Martha Hackett, “Star Trek” actress $2,300
* Bruce Hornsby, singer $2,300
* Anna Horsford, “Amen” actress $500
* Cedric “The Entertainer” Kyles, actor $2,500
* Eriq La Salle, actor $500
* Paul Newman, actor $4,600
* Tom Skerritt, actor $1,000
* Jean Smart, actress $4,600
* Jada Smith, actress $4,600
* Will Smith, actor $4,600
* David Sutcliffe, “Gilmore Girls” Actor $1,250
* Isaiah Washington, former “Grey’s Anatomy” Actor $2,300
* Joanne Woodward, Actress $4,600

DENNIS KUCINICH (D)
* Shelley Morrison, actress (“Rosario” on “Will and Grace”): $1600
* Alexandra Paul, actress, “Baywatch” co-star: $1300
* Deirdre Hall, “Days of Our Lives” actress: $1000
* Hector Elizondo, actor: $300

BILL RICHARDSON (D)
* Michael Douglas, actor: $3100
* Val Kilmer, actor: $2300
* Paul Newman, actor: $2300
* Edward James Olmos, actor: $2300
* Wendie Malick, “Just Shoot Me” actress: $500
* Steven Spielberg, director: $2300
* Kate Capshaw, actress, wife of Steven Spielberg: $2300
* Jodie Foster, actress: $1000
* Christie Brinkley, self-described as “Model/Mom/Environmental activist”: $500
* Bette Midler, actress/singer: $4600
* Sherry Lansing, former film executive: $2300
* William Friedkin, director: $2300
* James L. Brooks, producer/writer: $1000

RUDY GIULIANI (R)
* Tony Sirico, actor, “Paulie Walnuts” on “The Sopranos”: $1000 <-----------Here's CNN's Story!!
* Melissa Gilbert, actress: $4600


Related Editorials
Celebrity Experts
Bono and the Myth of Forced Compassion
Fred Thompson: Gaining Political Momentum Without Leaving His Chair
Paris Hilton: Liberal Activist in the Making
Hillary and The Sopranos
A Quick Word About "The Sopranos"

Given the Libertarian slant of this web page, I think it most appropriate to push a book that discusses certain elements of this country and their attempts at eradicating personal responsibility and instituting a nanny state. David Harsanyi is releasing a new book called “Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotalling Do Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and Other Boneheaded bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children.”
Harsaanyi describes the book in this following message:

“Nanny State details the rise of the busybody -– those who act as our parents, making decisions for us in the name of health, safety and decency. Nanny State asks: Why are we allowing politicians, bureaucrats, and social activists to dictate what we eat, where we smoke, how much we drink or what we watch and read? The book argues that allowing government intervention in its citizens' private lives not only denies us freedom of choice, but also erodes our national character by promoting a culture of victimhood and dependence.

The target of the nannyists are never-ending: It could be Girl Scout cookies, swing sets, bicycles, cigarettes, alcohol, cartoons … In some Massachusetts towns, school-yard tag is banned. San Francisco has passed laws regulating the amount of water you should use in dog bowls. In California, some towns now ban smoking -- outside. Each day a new, more intrusive, law is proposed. And each day we lose a little more of our freedom.”

This book will know doubt address some of this website's greatest fears. The American left aims to create a generation of people who are forced to be helpless. This is why they relentlessly pursue gun control, tax hikes, limits on personal property and free speech. Of course their reasons for prmoting such initiatives are completly disengenuous (unless your name is Barney Frank). It’s all about forcing you to be reliant on them and their big government. This book will prove to be more evidence that the urge to reform is a disguise for the desire to control.

UPDATE:

Liberals used to tell us that the poor did not eat as well as the rich. Well American prosperity (which the left has now declared war on) eradicated that problem, so now the left has moved to saying that the poor did not eat as nutriciously as the rich - that there was a "diet gap. Well it turns out that that isn't even true. Again, these are all attempts at controlling us.


Related Editorials
Bloomberg: The Biggest Little Man in Big Government
Bono and the Myth of Forced Compassion
Milton Friedman and Why Limited Government Helps the Poor
The Wall Separating Economics and State

The United Nations recently claimed that rising food prices has hindered it from fighting famine in Africa and other regions around the world. It simply can no longer afford it as a result of environmentalists pushing biofuel and ethanol. One of the United Nations’ bureaucratic heads was quoted saying, “In a world where our contributions are holding fairly steady, this [cost of grain] means we are able to reach far less people.” This was so predictable it is astounding. But, I guess liberals will keep trying to push their big government policies and killing people as usual.

On paper you clearly did not need Nostradamus to tell you this plan would lead to disaster. First, the environmentalists encourage people in growing populations to use their food supply as fuel, thereby reducing the supply. People still need to eat, so the price rises. When poor people cannot afford the food they starve. Then add to this brilliant plan a massive bureaucratic nightmare known as the United Nations to use forced compassion to tax citizens and bring food to poor countries. This destroys any agricultural businesses in the poor countries because no business can compete against an influx of “free” food to their region. Those businesses fail because of the United Nations’ aid relief and this further perpetuates the mass starvation.

So now the United Nations is officially worthless. It is ironic, however, that the United Nations has become ineffective as a direct result of liberal environmentalists who are often the United Nations greatest supporters. We can all thank Al Gore and the Green fanatics for yet again killing people in Africa. It is rather sad, though, how fast it took them this time; it took Rachel Carson at least a couple of years before her plan led to the death of millions.

The Democrats may have unleashed a hornet’s nest of harsh criticism that may be impossible to impede. This time the condemnation is not coming from Conservatives, but from the liberal lunatic base. Recently, after realizing that the Democrats only care about power, Cindy Sheehan announced the possibility of running against Nancy Pelosi for the House of Representatives in the next election. Sheehan conditioned her running on whether or not Nancy Pelosi impeaches George Bush and brings the soldiers home from Iraq. While this threat will never cause Nancy Pelosi to bend, it does have very important implications for the 2008 Presidential Election.

Like Ralph Nader’s impact in the 2000 election, Sheehan and her supporters may stay home in 2008 or vote for an unelectable third candidate. Consequently, the Democrats will be forced to seek independent voters to come to their side, which often leads to disappointment.

Moreover, this recent phenomenon with Sheehan and Pelosi is very ironic. Pelosi understands that she must take baby steps in order to prevent public backlash in the next election. Nancy Pelosi knows that the Democrat takeover of Congress in 2006 was not a push for an increase of progressivism, but for an increase in competence and integrity. However, without Pelosi drastically pushing the liberal agenda, she risks losing her base.

To add to the recent attacks from the fringe base liberals, Dennis Kucinich blasted John Edwards and Hillary Clinton on Friday, for demonstrating “a constant lack of integrity” by attempting to exclude candidates from the presidential forums who have no chance of being elected. Kucinich even went so far as to say that Edwards was trying to rig an election.

This feud started when John Edwards approached Hillary Clinton and whispered in her ear. Edwards said, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group." Hillary Clinton agreed saying, "Our guys should talk," and whined that the large format that included numerous candidates had "trivialized" the discussion.

Subsequently to Kucinich’s outrage, Edwards made an excuse that he was not in favor of barring anyone from future gatherings. Rather, he said he wanted to see them separated into two groups of four each, chosen randomly. Kucinich did not buy it. In fact he said, "I accept their offer to participate in a debate with just the two of them…John should be happy with this, since he wants a small group." For having no chance of winning, Kucinich is pretty cunning if you ask me.

Nevertheless, Kucinich and Sheehan are likely to mean trouble for the Democrats in 2008. The Democrats with Bush Derangement Syndrome are not going to want Hillary Clinton being elected as “George Bush Light.” Instead, they are going to want a total lunatic like Dennis Kucinich. This is going to be hilarious when all their demands ultimately lead to a Republican President more conservative than Bush.

In an act of pure arrogance and stupidity, Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal rule that gives the government, not only the ability to license and regulate the public airways, but allows government control of political content as well.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman and other Republicans have been attempting to mirror the actions of Mike Pence (R-IN). Pence effectively thwarted the reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine in the House of Representatives. We should all be proud to have politicians working for the American people as diligently at him.

Sadly, however, when Coleman (R-Minn.), tried to bring up his amendment Friday to a defense authorization bill, Democrat Senator Carl Levin objected.

More frightening, Senator Levin is not the only communist who supports the Fairness Doctrine. For example, Senator John Kerry, Senator Dick Durbin, and Dianne Feinstein support this Stalinist legislation as well. In fact, Senator Dick Durbin and John Kerry have been very open in saying that it is time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.

Dick Durbin went on the Senate floor Friday to spout socialistic rhetoric. Durbin said, "The airwaves belong to the American people." Consequently, he thinks he should be in charge of banning conservative viewpoints of which he disagrees. He went on to say, "Those who profit from them do by permission of the people through their government." What nonsensical blabber. Saying that companies on the radio airways only profit “by permission of the people through their government,” is reminiscent of the Soviet Union or the recent media takeover in Venezuela by Hugo Chavez.

Evidently, it is not enough that 90% of all university professors identify themselves as liberal and openly attempt to indoctrinate students. It is not enough that virtually all journalists in the mainstream media also identify themselves as liberal, and consequently skew their news stories to meet their liberal templates. Now liberals seek to use government power to attack the last conservative stronghold in the media, the radio airways.

It is amazing how far liberals have gone in this Country. They used to say, “I may disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Moreover, John F. Kennedy stated, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” We clearly have no more liberals in this Country, only communists.

At a recent International Women's Peace Conference in Dallas, Betty Williams said, "Right now, I could kill George Bush. No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that." As a result of these detestable comments, some member of the audience cheered; others laughed. It is nice to see what actions are promoted at a Women’s Peace Conference.

While some may think it is ironic that this violent rhetoric was spouted at a venue that promoted peace, by a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, none of this surprises me. It is in fact very typical.

The reason why this does not surprise me is because I have researched past nominees and winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. Past nominees include: Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, and Tookie Willaims. Jimmy Carter even won the Nobel Peace Prize; being objectively the worst American President automatically awards someone first place. Had they added Rachel Carson to the list, think they could have nominated people responsible for 80% of all the involuntary deaths over the last century.

It is about time that people on the left start admitting that they are only nonviolent when it is expedient. Cindy Sheehan said she had fantasies about killing George Bush. A liberal movie maker made a movie about the “hypothetical” assassination of George Bush. A liberal blogger just advocated the assassination of Rush Limbaugh and Ted Nugent. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that people who disagree with anthropogenic global warming are traitors and should be treated like traitors; the penalty for treason is death.

So, liberal peace activists demonstrate that violence is never the option. It is never an option at least until the situation gets so bad that it is time to beg for the United States’ military to come to the rescue. Let these militant peace activists be a lesson to you all that this will not be the last time where liberals are hypocritical. In fact, it is what makes them liberals in the first place.

The always well written Peggy Noonan column today suggests that she is uncomfortable with President Bush’s lack of gloominess with respect to his current difficulties. Noonan makes references to Lyndon Johnson and Abraham Lincoln and refers to the struggles they faced at the lowest levels of their Presidencies. Noonan apparently is not satisfied with the President’s level of suffering and self pity. As if having a bad attitude somehow corresponds to being an effective leader.

Though Carter was a horrible President he struggled as well with his Presidential problems. Did this inner doom make him a better President? Where is Noonan on this? Where was Noonan on Harry Truman’s lonely days in the Oval Office? I find it quite ironic that the woman who wrote President Reagan’s uplifting and optimistic address to the nation after the Challenger disaster now has a problem with George Bush’s positive outlook.

Noonan is usually dead on but accusing the President of being too optimistic is just plain weird. Perhaps all those leftist Columbia Journalism grads that fill all sections of the Wall Street Journal (except for the usually reliable editorial page) are starting to get to her. Perhaps the woman who accuses politicians of spending too much time in Washington has spent too much time in Manhattan.


Related Editorials
George Bush is Our Jimmy Carter
Kick 'em While They're Down?
President Bush Outwits Team Clinton

John Stossel is always a refreshing face to see in the mainstream media. His common sense approach to analyzing public policy is second to none. Moreover, he is masterful at analyzing statistics and demonstrating the real unintended consequences of big government. Consequently, liberals cannot stand him. I guess his facts and cogent arguments seem to get in the way of their emotions.

Recently, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the “Live Earth” concert called John Stossel and other anthropogenic global warming skeptics a bunch of traitors, corporate toadies, and flat-earthers. He also called for the boycott of any corporation who supports Stossel.

As a result of Kennedy’s babble, John Stossel in his witty way debated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Fox News with Neil Cavuto. In my opinion, this was not a debate; it was a clear thrashing. Evidently, Kennedy is not a fan of facts either.

Before I discuss specifically what was said between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and John Stossel, allow me to divulge a little bit about Kennedy the man. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is a trust fund baby who flies around on private jets telling others about the horrors of global warming. Notably, he was arrested for heroin in 1983. So, he is no different from any other liberal activists. Instead of just getting his life together and moving on, he has to create his own pet causes and dictate the lives of everyone else.

On Cavuto, Kennedy refused to recant what he said about Stossel. He still called Stossel a liar and went back to the same mantra of the fact that there is a consensus about global warming, and humans are causing it. In response, Stossel framed the argument in a way that only Stossel could. Stossel basically said that he agrees the temperature is warming, but there is no evidence that the present solutions to global warming can solve the problem, and there is no evidence that anything really negative will result from the warming.

John Stossel also said there is no substantiation that changing light bulbs can lower the temperature of the earth, and at worst, these liberal policies will increase the price of goods for the poor, and devastate the economy. Conversely, Stossel’s solution was to wait this out until more data comes in and our technology improves to actually have an impact. It was a very responsible, coherent, and reasonable solution. Kennedy then avoided addressing the merit of his solutions.

Lastly, Cavuto asked Kennedy if he thought it was appropriate to boycott corporations that advertise on 20/20 to “silence” Stossel. But, before Kennedy could respond, Stossel, being an intellectually honest libertarian, argued that it is American to boycott if people do not like what he has to say. He said he had no problem with Kennedy’s freedom of speech, and encouraged him to come on 20/20 to explain himself.

Kennedy ultimately left with his tail between his legs. No wonder Al Gore and celebrity experts have yet to debate with anyone about global warming. They would much rather lecture us at a rock concert about the necessity of everyone using compact florescent light bulbs. Clearly, the mercury has gone straight to their brain.

For quite some time, I have wanted to discuss how liberalism is destroying the competitive spirit of our Nation’s children. This is the same competitive drive that made our Country great and so admired throughout the world. I briefly touched on this insanity recently regarding Seattle Schools banning Legos. But, after watching Glenn Beck last night, I knew it was time to unleash my rage.

Glenn Beck last night spoke with an attorney for Wycoda Fischer. Evidently, Fischer had a dire crisis that required legal counsel. You see, poor Wycoda Fischer did not make her cheerleading team.

No, you are not dreaming; this is not a joke. Wycoda Fischer did not make her junior varsity cheerleading team and so she is suing her school. Forget the fact that Michael Jordan attributes his competitive drive, and ultimate success, because he was cut from his high school team. Today, instead of children learning from their failures, and striving to succeed, they are rewarded for their lack of effort. Somehow, we are surprised when these children become abject failures as adults, and then argue they have a right to a college education and a comfortable living.

As a result of this ridiculous lawsuit, the School District will have to waste tax dollars to pay a lawyer to defend this nonsense. Worst of all, this will have a terrible effect on competitive sports throughout the Country. The damage from this single case may have a more devastating impact than the media cares to mention.

After this lawsuit, coaches of high school teams throughout the Country are going to hesitate when holding tryouts. What will happen if they cut anyone? They may worry that sitting a player on the bench may result in a lawsuit. They are going to worry that any criticism directed at a player will lead to legalized extortion by lawyers. Sports around this Country may never be the same, and this is only going to get worse.

Allow me to share a quick story with you. About five years ago I went back to my high school wrestling team to say hello to my coaches. Moreover, it is a tradition around the Country that when wrestlers go back to their high schools, they bring their wrestling shoes and actually practice with the team. It is very nostalgic, and the teammates learn a great deal from returning wrestlers.

But, when I went back, I was no longer allowed to wrestle with the team. Why, might you ask? Well, because a girl wrestler from another school district was injured when wrestling with a former wrestler. Consequently, she sued the School District. Let me say that again in case you missed it. A girl wrestler was injured on a male wrestling team, forever preventing all wrestlers throughout the School District from practicing with alumni.

So not only are girls forcing themselves onto male wrestling teams with the threat of lawsuits, now they are suing if they get injured. Tomorrow they may sue if a coach disciplines them for losing a match. A year from now they may sue if the lose at all.

This craziness all started when liberals took over the legal and education systems in this country. Years ago, if a lawyer brought a lawsuit such as the ones I mentioned above, the lawyer would be sanctioned and the party sued would be awarded attorney fees for a frivolous claim. Those days are long gone.

Today, teachers cannot use red ink if a student fails an exam. Today, there is no dodge ball. Today, there are no trophies for first place; everyone gets awarded for participating. Today, nobody fails. Today, we are all equal no matter how much effort each child exerts. Instead, children who sacrifice their summers to train and excel in school and sports are told they should be ashamed for their achievement.

I cannot imagine being a student in the education system today. It can only be described as a prison of mediocrity. This stranglehold that liberals have exerted over education has led to the absence of pursuing excellence. Maybe it is because liberals believe everyone is entitled to an education regardless of merit.

Let me mention as a side note that I am completely disgusted when I hear the argument that people have a right to an education. Education takes work, tenacity, diligence, sacrifice, and actual intelligence. When someone says they have a right to something that requires these attributes, the next question is, “At whose expense?” Who must sacrifice for everyone else who fails to succeed? I guess the liberal answer is that the gifted children must sacrifice for everyone else. The “self-esteem” of the losers is more important.

There really needs to be a total overhaul of our education system in this country if this nonsense is ever going to stop. After looking today at the recent lawsuits and liberal insanity, I do not even want to imagine what is coming next. Let us hope that the case involving Wycoda Fischer is thrown out of court, her lawyer sanctioned, and attorneys fees awarded back to the district. Sadly, I think it would be more likely to see a 100 pound female student assert a right to play linebacker for the football team, and of course sue when she gets injured.

Today, China executed the former head of its Food and Drug Administration for approving untested medicine in exchange for cash. As expected, there were no protests from liberals who supported Tookie Williams. Moreover, the front page of Amnesty International online has not mentioned the execution.

This is clear evidence what happens when liberalism is taken to its extreme. First, they attempt to impose their Big Government policy, and then if people stand in their way, they execute them. This is not to say that Zheng Xiayu, the executed man, was not corrupt; he clearly was. But, this begs the question why governments should be in charge of what people can and cannot put into their bodies. I digress.

Notably, liberals tend to mask their brutal tactics and intentions until they actually obtain power. Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, and Joseph Stalin did not become mass murderers immediately, but rather with a slow gradual process. Like past dictators, I will not be surprised when Hugo Chavez orders mass executions in the next five years. Predictably, Danny Glover, Cameron Diaz, and Cindy Sheehan will defend him.

Moreover, while America gets blamed for having a high rate of incarceration, are liberals really arguing that we should model ourselves after countries like China? China carries out more court-ordered executions than all other nations combined. That may explain why they have less people in prison.

Also, the clear difference between executions in America and other Countries around the world is that people in America can only be executed if they murder someone. The 8^th Amendment prevents people from being executed for a crime less than murder or treason. In other Countries like Iran, however, you can be stoned to death for adultery. In fact, a stoning for adultery just took place in the village of Aghche-kand, near the town of Takestan, Qazvin province, last Thursday July 5th. His co-accused, Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, will see the same fate very soon. But, thankfully liberals in this Country continue to support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Holocaust denier.

So, what have we learned from this recent execution in China? Well, liberals are not against executions unless the person is guilty of multiple murders and starting a violent gang. Lastly, if history is any indication of what liberals do when they take power, they cannot be trusted to control the government without mass murders or overall misery.

Via Oraculations:

"I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz. We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned. And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride. They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for
themselves and others, for our children and theirs."

The New Europe . . .