'West Wing's' liberal White House

I knew better, but I decided to watch NBC's newest television
primetime drama Wednesday night called, "West Wing." In case you
haven't heard of it, it's about the machinations of modern politics in
the White House and Washington, D.C. Yes, I know -- we've got enough
fiction in the White House as it is. But having said that, there was
more fact than fiction in this piece of garbage, and that's what makes
it truly vile.

I suspected that NBC could never allow a "Reaganesque" depiction of
the presidency -- largely full of characters emanating honor, morality,
decency, and a healthy respect for the American people. But because NBC
executives, writers and producers are all decidedly liberal, what my
wife and I saw instead was worse than just "decidedly liberal" -- it was
decidedly trash.

The dialogue was filled with expletives like "bitch slap," and in one
scene, "President" Martin Sheen told some religious leaders who were
invited to meet with White House communications officials to get their
"fat asses out of my White House." You would think NBC executives could
be more mindful of the young viewers still not in bed by then.

The show was crammed with other references -- some subtle, some not
-- to the superiority of liberal ideals over "crazy" and "extremist"
conservative ideals. For example, Rob Lowe's character denounced gun
rights by comparing all pro-gun supporters as crazies with "assault
weapons." Furthermore, in recollecting a talk show appearance by a
friend and colleague -- where the friend rudely attacked and insulted a
woman playing a "zealous" religious leader -- to another associate,
Lowe's character worried that his friend's abysmal behavior would "get
him fired for being right."

TRENDING: GOP senator joins in the narrative twisting

Lowe's character also slept -- albeit unknowingly -- with a
high-priced call girl that was filmed smoking a joint with a roach
clip. It's my understanding of the film industry's rating system that
any depictions of drug use are supposed to garner an "R" rating,
but here this was during "prime time" for all the nation's kiddies to
see.

Sheen's "president" character was long on philosophy and portended
religious beliefs, yet had no problem evicting "religious leaders" from
"his" White House. But then, Sheen evicted them because one member of
their organization had sent his daughter a Raggedy Ann doll with a knife
stuck in its throat -- like religious leaders in this country do
that quite often. Note to the show's writers: If that's how you
view religious leaders in this country, you need to get out
more. If you're looking to depict violent religious leaders, try the
Middle East -- they car bomb and "drive-by" their enemies.

Finally, "President" Sheen -- to a background score of stirring music
-- admonished his "administrative staff" to do more to admit hundreds of
Cuban boat people into the country, because, after all, "they're risking
their lives to come here" and you know, America isn't allowed to have
guarded borders and citizenship rules.

If this pilot episode of "West Wing" is typical of the entire series,
I predict the show will last about as long as Clinton's integrity.
After all, only a caveman could not know this show was fashioned after
Clintoncrat liberalism.

But then again, that's a good thing because it will demonstrate --
again -- that this country is, by and large, nowhere near as
liberal as a few arrogant elitists would like it to be.

After about three-quarters through the program, my wife and I looked
at each other and turned the channel. I'm betting hundreds of thousands
of other viewers did the same thing (NBC advertisers, listen up!).
Afterward she looked at me and said, "Can you imagine what people in
other countries who are seeing this think of us and our government?"

Sadly, I said, "Yes, I can."

Welfare job perpetuation

Officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture are worried.

They're worried because -- now get this -- fewer people are
applying for food
stamps.

Egads. What will happen to this nation if the government
can't support all of us?

According to a report by the National Center for Policy Analysis,
food stamp rolls have decreased by nearly 10 million people since 1994,
while the cost of the program has fallen from $24.5 billion in 1994 to
$18.9 billion last year.

What this amounts to is a fear within this mammoth federal agency
that if officials and employees have less to do, then sooner or later
lawmakers might find that they need less officials and employees at the
Department of Agriculture. I'd be happy if lawmakers decided they
didn't even need the Department of Agriculture.

But don't worry, because DOA advocates are already fighting back.

Shirley R. Watkins, undersecretary of Agriculture for Food, Nutrition
and Consumer Service, is worried that some Americans are just too darned
proud to accept government largess. So she's changed the meaning of the
program.

She says food stamps are "not a welfare program," and has taken to
referring to them instead as "nutritional assistance." Oh.

Rep. Nancy L. Johnson , R-Conn., who chairs the House Ways and Means
Subcommittee on Human Resources, is blaming governors and state
administrators. She says Congress needs to determine "why state systems
don't seem to capture the food-stamp eligible population very well."

These career "in-touch" politicians just don't seem to understand
that, heck -- maybe more and more Americans are sick and tired of
turning to them for subsistence. To them, anyone who chooses to do that
instead of waiting by their mailboxes for a government check must be
crazy or, worse, a conservative "extremist."

Thanks to Nam vets

Since I published my column about the traitorous deeds committed by
Jane Fonda
during the Vietnam War, I have received tons of e-mail thanking me for
my words and for bringing this issue to light.

Many vets admitted that the column revived painful memories of the
war, but thanked me anyway, and said they were glad to be reminded about
what she had done. I've also been informed there may have been some
discrepancies in the names used in the story (they were provided to me),
but I've been assured the incidents are valid. That's good; I certainly
don't want to be wrong, because Nam vets have been lied to enough.

Even though President Clinton has apologized to the Japanese for
nuking their country after they attacked us; to American Indians
for the theft of their land, even though his own Interior Department has
ripped off the Indians as well; to American blacks for slavery, though
nobody alive in this country today has either owned a slave or has
relatives who have; to Jews for Hitler's Holocaust; and even
though he refuses to apologize to you for the way our country
(and Ms. Fonda) treated you, I wish to at least thank you for your words
of support and your sacrifices made on behalf of this country.

Clinton -- who ran like a coward and lied like a rug in the late '60s
to avoid doing what you were forced to do -- doesn't have the
guts, moral courage or conscience to apologize to you. And he sure as
hell doesn't have the fiber to thank you.

But somebody has to, and I'd like to do it.

Though I may not agree the war was a good idea -- most of you didn't
think so either -- I admire your courage and your willingness to go when
called.

"You don't hafta like it, but you do hafta do it."

Thanks, Nam vets. Regardless of the politics of the war, nobody
could have done what you did better.