Typically liberal ranting from the French Socialist candidate

On one hand, you'd think they would mature at some point, these lefties. But on the other hand, fear mongering is one of the most often used plays of their playbook, so they pull it out whenever they can.

France risks violence and brutality if right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy wins Sunday's presidential election, his Socialist opponent Segolene Royal said on Friday.

On the last day of official campaigning, opinion polls showed Sarkozy enjoyed a commanding lead over Royal, who accused the former interior minister of lying and polarizing France.

"Choosing Nicolas Sarkozy would be a dangerous choice," Royal told RTL radio.

"It is my responsibility today to alert people to the risk of (his) candidature with regards to the violence and brutality that would be unleashed in the country (if he won)," she said.

Pressed on whether there would actually be violence, Royal said: "I think so, I think so," referring specifically to France's volatile suburbs hit by widespread rioting in 2005.

Isn't that pathetic. It's not "vote for me because my ideas are good" or even "vote for me because I'll work for prosperity", but instead the french hear "vote for me or else . . . something bad will happen."

But it's typical. The left really can't offer anything that people will vote FOR. If they did that, then they'd have to tell people that they are FOR abortion, FOR higher taxes, FOR bigger government, FOR the nanny state, FOR more regulation . . . you get the idea. And there's no salesman on earth who could make that pitch (not even Slick Willie). But they can run like mad against any idea.

And there's some hope for our own Hillary problem

Rudy Giuliani beats the top three Defeat-ocrat presidential candidates in a Quinnipiac University poll:

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has a slight 44-41 percent lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in a possible 2008 presidential face-off, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released Thursday.

Giuliani leads former Vice President Al Gore 48-41 percent and tops New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 49-40 percent.

Keep going, Rudy.

Thursday night, ten Republican candidates debated each other at the Reagan Library (missing are Chuck Hagel and Newt Gingrich). Not getting MSNBC on my satellite receiver, I didn't watch. But, as you can see from my left navigation bar, I am backing Rudy for President. So far, he's the one candidate that has spoken presidentially concerning our need to defeat the terrorists. And, of course, no one, Republican or Defeat-ocrat, can match his experience.

The wild card is Fred Thompson, undeclared and also missing from tonight's debate. I believe his conservative credentials are real, but I don't know that he has the stomach to go through a presidential campaign.

Time will tell.

France's Hillary problem may be clearing up

France's conservative candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy, appears headed for victory after their debate earlier in the week.

French conservative Nicolas Sarkozy extended his lead after a television debate with Socialist rival Segolene Royal and stayed on course for victory in Sunday's election, opinion polls showed on Thursday.

A poll for the Opinionway institute showed 53 percent of viewers found Sarkozy more convincing during the sometimes fiery debate, against 31 percent who judged Royal better.

...

Sarkozy, a right-wing former interior minister and the favorite of financial markets, has hammered young hoodlums, illegal immigrants and enthused supporters with his attacks on the left wing protesters of May 1968.

Hated and feared as a dangerous authoritarian by many on the left, he has nonetheless been consistently rated the more "presidential" of the two candidates by most voters.

Lucky them.

President Bush vetoes the Defeat-ocrats surrender bill

In a blow to the party of defeat and to Al-Qaida, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have signaled America's surrender in the War Against Terror.

In only the second veto of his presidency, Bush rejected legislation pushed by Democratic leaders that would require the first U.S. combat troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.

"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush said in a nationally broadcast statement from the White House. He said the bill would "mandate a rigid and artificial deadline" for troop pullouts, and "it makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing."

Finally, after a long wait, something good has come out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

May Day II: what happened?

I was so looking forward to the second "new" May Day, the day where those who have violated our nation's sovereignty brandish their violation for all to see. But for some reason, this year the celebration isn't as large as last year's.

Demonstrators marched in cities across the United States on Tuesday to demand rights for illegal immigrants, but the demonstrations were much smaller than last year's massive rallies, which were hailed as the start of a new American civil rights movement.

...

In Los Angeles, where an estimated 500,000 protesters poured into the streets last year for boisterous pro-immigrant rallies, about 10,000 people converged on City Hall for a noon protest.

What's the deal? Aren't these people proud of their illegal status?

And, just to be sure, they are indeed illegal. Here is the applicable law: United States Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VII, Section 1325.

Sec. 1325. - Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United State by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Happy Tax Freedom Day!

I hope you have a wonderful Tax Freedom Day. The Tax Foundation has calculated that today is the day that you begin working for yourself instead of the government. All of the wages you have earned so far this year will (on average) go to pay your taxes. From here on out, your earning money to pay your bills. Doesn't that give you a warm fuzzy?

Happy Tax Freedom Day!

Hillary's new "Multilingualism"

Read this article that has no bias whatsoever and is most assuredly not written by a Clintonian synchophant.

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she sees her sometimes Southern accent as a virtue.

"I think America is ready for a multilingual president," Clinton said during a campaign stop at a charter school in Greenville, S.C.

Now how is it that Her Vileness, our nation's first First Lady to be subpoenaed to testify before a Federal Grand Jury, doesn't know the meaning of the word "multilingual"? Or is it perhaps the case that she does in fact know the meaning of the word, but that she's counting on her listeners to NOT know the meaning. I suspect the former. It aligns with her penchant for displaying "breathtaking gall".

Clinton added a Southern lilt to her voice last week when addressing a civil rights group in New York City headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. On Monday, dealing with a microphone glitch at a fundraiser for young donors, she quoted former slave and underground railroad leader Harriet Tubman.

The two episodes prompted some ribbing in the media and hatched more than a few humorous YouTube video clips.

And here's an example of the new "multilingualism" from YouTube:

Here's a bit of that transcript:

"You know, when I walk into the Oval Office in January of 2009, I'm afraid I'm going to lift up the rug and I'm going to see so much stuff under there."

Yes, your vileness, should you be elected President, you will find a lot of stuff under there, all of it deposited by your husband, the Fornicator-in-Chief. It should be tremendousloy familiar stuff to you. Back to the article:

Clinton is a linguistic polyglot—a Chicago native turned New York resident who works in Washington and spent two decades living in Arkansas when her husband, Bill Clinton, was governor.

This is where the complete bias of the so-called reporter is shown to the world. No, Her Vileness is NOT a linguistic polyglot. Polyglots are people who speak more than one language, NOT people who use more than one dialect. Her Vileness is a power-hungry, political whore whose sole interest is obtaining and maintaining personal political power.

Defeat-ocrats generate emissions traveling to their debate

And I'm not just talking about what they said on the way there.

A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.

For Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, it was wheels up shortly after they voted in favor of legislation requiring that U.S. troops begin returning home from Iraq in the fall.

No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.

It's all too predictable, isn't it? Did you hear any cries from the environmental wackos about this? Me neither.

The "D" stands for defeat

Thursday, the Defeat-ocrats earned their name.

In a bold wartime challenge to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress cleared legislation Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later. The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival."

The 51-46 Senate vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage a day earlier it underscored that the war's congressional opponents are far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.

Democrats marked Thursday's final passage with a news conference during which they repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider his veto threat. "This bill for the first time gives the president of the United States an exit strategy" from Iraq, said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin.

Make no mistake. The Defeat-ocrats want another Vietnam. They cannot stomach our success in Iraq becuase it will mean success for President Bush. They are counting on our country's defeat in this war. Their "exit strategy" is us leaving Iraq with our collective tail between our legs. The correct exit strategy is getting the job done.

These people will do anything and say anything to get elected

France has its own Hillary problem

And I can't say it any better than the headline of this article in the Guardian Unlimited.

Socialists push Royal towards the centre to break Sarkozy's grip

Gee, I wonder who's the conservative in this story?

The Benedict Arnold of our generation...

is Harry "Shady Land Deal" Reid. Here's his comments to the press today.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid...

You Republicans in the Senate need to immediately call for his censure. This man is a disgrace. He openly tells our enemies that they have won.

Respect for Life returns to our country, partially

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority handed anti-abortion forces a major victory Wednesday in a decision that bans a controversial abortion procedure and set the stage for further restrictions.

For the first time since the court established a woman's right to an abortion in 1973, the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific abortion method, labeled partial-birth abortion by its opponents.

The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The law is constitutional despite not containing an exception that would allow the procedure if needed to preserve a woman's health, Kennedy said. "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice," he wrote in the majority opinion.

Doctors who violate the law face up to two years in federal prison.

And, as if on cue and following the same playbook, the Defeat-ocrats bemoan a reduction of "rights". Here's Her Vileness, Mrs. Bill Clinton.

"Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account.

But apparently the rights and lives of unborn children aren't your concern. Aren't you some type of children's advocate?

"It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

Tell me Mrs. Clinton, with exacting specificity, where is the right to abortion located in our nation's constitution. I won't hold my breath for your answer.

And here's His Audaciousness, Barry Obama.

"I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women,” Obama said.

No, no, no, Barry. It will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to protect a child's right to live. You got it backwards.

And the Breck Girl weighed in.

"The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women," Edwards said. "This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election."

Oh, it's a stark reminder alright. Millions of unborn children can't afford for you or your ilk to win in 2008.

So dang funny

I'm a huge Jim Carrey fan. I saw this bit when it first aired. I laugh out loud every time.

Happy Tax Day!

By way of World Net Daily, comes this article by W. James Antle III in the American Spectator.

Despite several major federal tax cuts since 2001, Washington still helps itself to a very large slice of the national income. The average family devotes a higher percentage of its income to taxes than food, clothing, medical care or shelter. And I do mean "average," not members of the much-maligned richest 1 percent -- factoring in payroll taxes, a family of four earning $50,000 surrenders nearly a third of that income to the feds.

Yet we docilely pay. As the American Enterprise Institute's Kevin Hassett pointed out in Sunday's Washington Post, the levies that provoked our ancestors' historic tax revolts against the British were pathetically small by today's standards. The tax take that helped bring about the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence was about 2 percent.

[emphasis mine]

Did you get your taxes filed on time? Did you pay more taxes this year than you did last year?

No, Mr. Light Bulb, I'm getting money back, so I didn't pay any taxes.

Yes, I've actually had people say that to me. Apparently, these people don't understand that they are getting back only the amount that they over-paid to the IRS. They don't seem to understand that they still yielded to the IRS their Total Tax (line 63 on the 1040 long form). And I'm not even considering Social Security and Medicaid taxes.

Here's an exercise to do this weekend. Find your 2006 Total Income (line 22 on the 1040 long form). Then look on line 63 of the 1040 long form (or whatever line is labeled Total Tax on the other 1040 variations) for your Total Tax. Now divide your Total Tax by your Total Income. The result is the percentage of your income you paid as income tax.

Question: how does it compare to 2 percent?

What drives the Conspiracy Theorists?

Now, before I continue, I must tell you that I love a good conspiracy. I find it fascinating to trace the minutiae of secret workings. But I do so through a lens called "skepticism". For, while I find these secret workings fascinating, I know in my heart that they are highly unlikely.

I found the link to this wonderful article at Michelle Malkin's blog. Here's just a choice section. (As Michelle says, printout the whole thing for a good weekend read.)

Recently, Rosie O’Donnell said on national television that she believes 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.

Well, that’s why we went through the steps above. If you believe that the government lied about the moon landing, you can believe they lied about killing JFK. If they lied about JFK, then they can lie about chemtrails. And if they are willing to poison the entire population with aerial spraying, what are a few thousand people in four airliners and a couple of buildings?

Rosie O’ Donnell making such a claim on a major network is a national disgrace. The fact that much of the audience cheered and applauded is nothing less than a national catastrophe.

To her, and to her audience, it is taken as granted that the government is capable of such things. As if “the government” was operated by cyborgs grown in Haliburton vats, rather than by well-meaning and patriotic people that love this country.

"This is the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel," she said. This is a statement of such pristine and perfect idiocy that it surely must be emblazoned in stone across the entrance to the Physics Imbecile wing of the Moron Museum of Natural History. But mastery of physics and engineering requires some intelligence, some perseverance and some discipline: none of which are in evidence in this buffoon. Everything is a conspiracy to a mind this far gone. The 15 British sailors kidnapped at sea? All a plan by our evil (but incompetent!) government to get the next war it so desperately needs. “Gulf of Tonkin! Google It, people!” she said on national TV.

And I will, Rosie. I promise. As soon as I finish googling MAD COW DISEASE.

I will make the point yet again because I believe it is the crux of the issue: what kind of moral universe do you have to inhabit to be able to believe that your own people – airline personnel, demolition experts, police and security forces, faked witnesses and all the rest – are capable of such a thing? How much hate for your own society do you have to carry in order to live in such a desolate and ridiculous mental hell? What psychoses must a mind be riddled with in order to negate what was perfectly obvious and instead believe a theory of such monumental fantasy? How much pure constant hatred does that take?

What, in short, is the miserable black hole of self-loathing that drives a person like Rosie O’Donnell and millions like her?

[Emphasis in original.]

Indeed, that's the answer to the opening question. It is hatred. Hatred of responsibility. Hatred of morality. Everything bad is someone else's fault. I don't want to live within boundaries. To me it is simply not understandable.

For the record, here's what I believe:

• Yes, Americans really did set foot upon the moon six times.
• Yes, Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy.
• And Yes, the World Trade Center towers (as well as a wedge of the Pentagon) were struck by planes high jacked by Islamofascist terrorists resulting in their destruction.

I'm undecided about the Lock Ness Monster, the U.S.S. Pueblo, and K-129.

Cost of Illegal Aliens: $2.2 Trillion

So says World Net Daily in a review of a new Heritage Foundation report, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer". From the WND article:

Someone has finally fixed an approximate taxpayer cost of between 12 million and 15 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S.

A new study by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector found a household headed by an individual without a high school education, including about two-thirds of illegal aliens, costs U.S. taxpayers more than $32,000 in federal, state and local benefits. That same family contributes an average of $9,000 a year in taxes, resulting in a net tax burden of $22,449 each year.

Over the course of the household's lifetime that tax burden translates to $1.1 million.

If the lower figure of 12 million illegal aliens is used for estimation purposes, the total tax burden translates to $2.2 trillion.

Let's see, how much is our national debt? And what would be a great way to get rid of some of it?

What would Winston do?

Probably this.


From Freedom Dogs.

He'd be crying not just because of the actions (or lack thereof) of the British government, but also because of the behaviour of the soldiers in question (the "Frightened Fifteen"), which has been called ...

"the most disgusting, disreputable, dishonorable performance I can remember in more than 40 years"

by one recipient of the Medal of Honor. Like I said, we may never win another war. (Yes, I know. Different country. But we've both been hobbled by liberalism, they more so than us at the moment.)

And the award for "Best Economic Expansion" goes to...

In an article I found while perusing the Drudge Report this morning, spokesmen for both the Bush and Clinton administrations are trying to claim the title of "Best Economic Expansion by an American Economy". Thankfully, the responsible journalist got a third party view from Larry Kudlow. Here's his spot-on summation.

Kudlow said neither Bush nor Clinton have fundamentally transformed the U.S. economy in the way that former President Reagan did a quarter century ago. He credited Reagan's economic reforms for growth in the Gross Domestic Product in 93 of the last 98 quarters.

"Since the early Reagan years, we have had 25 years of virtually uninterrupted prosperity," Kudlow said. "Because of the Reagan reforms - the deregulation, the lower taxes, the disinflation - we have transformed the economy from a top-down, government-run operation into a free market, capitalist economy with durability and resilience."

Yet another win for the Gipper.

John Paul Stevens, Climatologist Extraordinaire

World renowned climatologist John Paul Stevens (who, in his spare time, pretends to be a knowledgeable jurist on the United States Supreme Court) wrote the majority opinion in the Massachusetts vs. EPA case, announced April 4. Here's his first sentence:

A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, he began with a lie, and continued downhill to its ridiculous conclusion. Therefore, the EPA must now regulate so-called greenhouse gasses emitted from new motor vehicles since, in this instance, failure to do so has supposedly resulted in an eroding of shore line in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (I'm not making this up, even though this particular logic train fell off its tracks miles ago.)

Of course, motor vehicles are not the largest source of greenhouse gasses. No, that distinction belongs to cow flatulence. (I'm not making this up either. Check out the link.) So, my question is: where is the call from the loony Eco-Bozos demanding that all cows be killed in Massachusetts and its neighboring states? Or, for that matter, all cows on the east coast? Wouldn't that make sense? If cow flatulence is the leading source of greenhouse gasses, and greenhouse gasses are eroding the Massachusetts shore line, then kill all the cows. No more shore line erosion.

Wake me when they get their logic train back on its tracks.

He is risen!

Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.

He asked them, "What are you discussing together as you walk along?"

They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, "Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?"

"What things?" he asked.

"About Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see."

He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them.

When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

— John 24:13-35

He is risen, indeed!

Please pray for PlayWriterGirl

Our dear, prolific friend, PlayWriterGirl, is going through chemotherapy to fight cancer. Please pray for her and her family. You can follow her progress at her second (ahem) blog, Chemo Girl Speaks Out, a daily update of life before, during, and after chemo.

Heal me, O LORD, and I will be healed;
save me and I will be saved,
for You are the one I praise.

— Jeremiah 17:14

"Bug Eyes" does Damascus

In a move perfectly fitting a formerly power-starved and newly minted liberal leader, Bug Eyes Pelosi decided to personally deliver a message of peace to the Middle East. Unfortunately for her, not all journalists fit the press-release-regurgitating, mind-numbed-robot mold to which US journalists aspire. (And I use the term "US journalists" in the lightest of senses.)

Here's what one observer wrote about Speaker Pelosi's "declaration of peace" faux pas:

Although Pelosi proudly marched into her meeting with Syrian President Assad and boldly announced a new peace message from Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the Speaker's diplomatic triumph was lacking in one vital detail:

It was simply not true!

Indeed, Olmert's office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that contradicted Speaker Pelosi's claim.

In other words, America's most powerful woman is incapable of grasping and accurately communicating a simple message.

Bottom line: Absolutely nothing has changed in Israel and nothing will change in Syria just because a meddling old woman with dementia and botox poisoning has decided to save the world with "granny diplomacy."

Rock on Bug Eyes. Keep making a fool of yourself. As it turns out, the trip hasn't been a total flop. There's one group that's fallen head over heels for Bug Eyes: the Terrorists.

One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker's Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East.

Pelosi's visit was opposed by President Bush, who called Syria a "state sponsor of terror."

"Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleeza) Rice," said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. "If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. ... I hope she wins the next elections."

Sounds like she should hit up Al-Batch for campaign contributions . . . or legal defense fund contributions. You see, it's very likely that Bug Eyes has violated the Logan Act.

UPDATE - Here's a more detailed Logan Act violation explanation from Opinion Journal.

What happens in Vegas...

So the Mrs. and I celebrated our eleventh anniversary.

We saw this


this


this


and this


among other things. And we don't need to go back for a good, long while.

But, I must say, the "food" was outstanding. If you know what I mean.

And I think you do.

Just one question

Well, I have been away for (another) while. I have posts to make on Global Warming, Abortion, two Book Reviews, and many others. I have been on a lovely vacation with Mrs. Light Bulb. My son has made me a beamingly proud father and a lachrymose puddle both at once. A dear friend is battling cancer. A family financial goal is within striking distance.

Lots to blog about. I will strive to post more consistently. But before I do that, I have one burning, soul-searching question for you.





Why in the whole wide world has Sanjaya not been voted off?