"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance

 and a people who mean to be their own governors

 must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Sheehan Has Had Her Say

"You get that evil maniac out here, cuz a Gold Star Mother, somebody who's blood is on his hands, has some questions for him."

Cindy’s Sheehan’s questions: "I want to ask the president, why did he kill my son?" Sheehan told reporters. "He said my son died in a noble cause, and I want to ask him what that noble cause is."

Cindy Sheehan knows the answers to her questions as she wrote: All of Casey’s commendations say that he was killed in the “GWOT” the Global War on Terrorism.

In our post, Not In My Name, we answered a reader's comment with this:

It's been nonstop Cindy Sheehan in the media. Name one person that represents the opposite point of view? You can’t and that’s our point. Cindy Sheehan speaks for disaffected, far left groups in the United States and not for the vast majority of Americans or military families. We are not listening to “all” the voices, we are being forced to listen to one kook as if she had some sort of special right to be heard.
A reader responded:

Kook? That's just disrespectful. You can disagree with her without resorting to name-calling.
Cindy Sheehan seems completely incapable of disagreeing without name-calling or being respectful of anyone that doesn’t agree with her. However, our referring to Sheehan as a kook was not name-calling; it was descriptive of her rhetoric and behavior. The word kook is defined as someone regarded as eccentric or crazy and standing out from a group. Sheehan fits that definition to a “T”.

Just a sampling of what we are referring to below, starting with a quote from Common Dreams, Breaking News and Views for the Progressive Community.

Cindy Sheehan on the Clinton Administration:

During the Clinton regime the US-UN led sanctions against Iraq and the weekly bombing raids killed tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq. Many of them were children, but since one of her children didn’t have to be sacrificed to the homicidal war machine, Madeline Albright, thinks the slaughter during the “halcyon” Clinton years was “worth it.” More lies.
We could stop with that outrageous statement, but some may need additional examples, so here you go:

Cindy Sheehan on President Bush:

"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"

Sheehan has called President Bush "that filth-spewer and warmonger."

Cindy Sheehan on the United States:

Veterans for Peace Convention: When I was growing up, it was Communists'. Now it's Terrorists'. So you always have to have somebody to fight and be afraid of, so the war machine can build more bombs, guns, and bullets and everything.

Sheehan said at a peace rally in April: "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started" and "the killing has gone on unabated for over 200 years".

Sheehan said “this country is not worth dying for “and called the U.S. government a "morally repugnant system."

"Thank God for the Internet, or we wouldn't know anything, and we would already be a fascist state," Sheehan said. "Our government is run by one party, every level, and the mainstream media is a propaganda tool for the government."

Cindy Sheehan on Afghanistan:

MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

MATTHEWS: But that's where they were being harbored. That's where they were headquartered. Shouldn't we go after their headquarters? Doesn't that make sense?

SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. ... But I'm seeing that we're sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn't the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we're looking for a select group of people in that country?

So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we're obviously not having any success in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose and that's who they told us was responsible for 9/11.
Cindy Sheehan on Iraq:

And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for. And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say, bullshit.

You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East..

You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine.
Cindy Sheehan on Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Cindy Sheehan speaking at a Francisco State University rally in April for a lawyer convicted of aiding Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the terrorist connected with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.:

What they’re saying, too, is like, it’s okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But Iran or Syria better not get nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the United States to have nuclear weapons. It’s okay for the countries that we say it’s okay for. We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now. It’s okay for them to have them, but Iran or Syria can’t have them. It’s okay for Israel to occupy Palestine, but it’s – yeah – and it’s okay for Iraq to occupy – I mean, for the United States to occupy Iraq, but it’s not okay for Syria to be in Lebanon. They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites!
Cindy Sheehan also said:

I got an email the other day and it said, "Cindy, if you didn't use so much profanity there's people on the fence' that get offended"

And you know what I said? "You know what? You know what, god-damn-it? How, in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence'?"

"If you fall on the side that is pro-George, and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."

But whatever side you fall on, quit being on the fence. The opposite of good is not evil, it's apathy. And we have to get this country off their butts, and we have to get the choir singing.
On that we can agree. We’re off the fence and singing – you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about Cindy Sheehan. To quote Howard Dean: "You sit down! You had your say, and now I'm going to have my say."


At 6:08 PM, Blogger Sam said...

I'll be honest with you - I find this entire post to be filled with complete minutia. Cindy Sheehan is a single woman who's receiving attention right now, and is being used by some people (I'm not so sure you aren't one) as evidence that all people who oppose this war are "kooks" or just don't get it.

I mentioned in a post this morning on jerseyperspective.blogspot.com that Sheehan's ignorance on other geopolitical issues (Bosnia, Israel, etc...) have little bearing on the validity of her claims on Iraq. But what's more important is that 54% - more than half - of all Americans don't think this war was worth it. She's just one of those millions and millions and millions of people.

Attack her all you want. But I'm not sure what makes you think that since she's wild, over the top, and a little misinformed, all oposition to the war is without basis. The logic there is badly flawed

At 7:03 PM, Anonymous SloppyDawg said...

The word "kook" may be as you described it, but it is nonetheless derogatory. I know you're smarter than having to stoop to name-calling. But that's the present administration's modus operandi, isn't it? If you're against us, then we'll smear you.

Right now, it's the right wing keeping this story alive, not Cindy Sheehan.

And in the point I stated before (and you've chosen to ignore), Sheehan has as much right to speak on this as Debra Burlingame has to speak on the 9/11 Memorial.

At 7:31 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...

Let’s see if we have this right. Cindy Sheehan is permitted to smear two Presidents, the purpose of the GWOT and the United States in general. We on the other hand are not allowed to point out Sheehan’s a kook. Is it possible to smear with the truth?

As far as we can tell the modus operandi, "If you're against us, then we'll smear you", is employed largely by the left. Cindy Sheehan is a poster child of the left, unless MoveOn.org has fallen out of favor with the liberal or “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party.

If Debra Burlingame had been afforded as much time in the media as Sheehan, then you might have a point. She hasn’t and you don’t.

At 8:17 PM, Blogger Mr. Snitch said...

"Right now, it's the right wing keeping this story alive, not Cindy Sheehan."

What a baseless claim. The Jersey Journal ran a sympathetic "Mr. Bush, meet with Cindy Sheehan" editorial just yesterday. Beyond that, there are any number of Sheehan-sympathetic blogs generating commentary every day.

At 8:23 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...

Thanks for being honest with us. Again, you missed our point. The media have been non-stop Cindy Sheehan and we believe for no good reason, other than to breathe life into an “anti-war movement.” We didn’t attack her; we said she’s a kook. You seem to agree, “since she's wild, over the top, and a little misinformed”. However, we believe she is a very misinformed woman that has been given a big megaphone to misinform others.

We happen to be against the war too. The war the islamofacists are waging against us. If you can figure out a way to get the terrorist groups and their sponsors to stop, great. Let us know when you have a strategy worked out to make that happen, until then we’ll stick with the strategy laid out by the President and approved by the Congress for the Global War on Terrorism.

At 8:38 PM, Blogger Sam said...


Correct me if I read your post wrong, but I assumed that your labeling Sheehan a kook was not meant in a friendly way. Of course I think she's a little bit off her rocker. But besides my willingness to cut her some slack as a result of her loss, I also don't see her as being incredibly important to the real story here.

Don't you guys see that Sheehan is merely a figure behind a much larger movement? The reason she is getting attention is that a majority of Americans are against this war (in Iraq) and her protest has, in the past 12 days, come to stand at the front of the movement.

I wish you'd respond to the poll numbers that Gallup is reporting, showing that 54% of Americans are against the Iraq War. If those numbers are correct, it's not the anti-war movement that needs life breathed into it.

At 8:51 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...

Gallup is not reporting 54% of Americans are against the Iraq War.

Have you bothered to read what Gallup is reporting? Here's the link - Gallup Poll Focus on Iraq - August 16, 2005

At 9:08 PM, Blogger Sam said...

I apologize if I wasn't precise enough.

The numbers: 56% say things are going badly. (Gallup - http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=10024&pg=1)
54% say it was a mistake to go in. (Gallup, with CNN and USA Today - http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2005-08-08-august-poll.htm#iraq)

At 9:35 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...


What is your point based upon what 481 people had to say on the wisdom of going into Iraq? This week x% think it was a mistake. We don't know why they think it was a mistake or what they would have preferred the country do instead.

We think going into Afghanistan and Iraq were strategic military actions in the GWOT and were not a mistake.

Now what's your plan for the GWOT?

At 9:51 PM, Blogger Sam said...

I guess my point is that even though asking all 300 million Americans what they think of the War in Iraq is the only way to completely take the pulse of the country, we have come to accept these samples of the population as representative of the whole. You have cited polls in the past, as have most bloggers and news organizations. I think it would be unfair to single out this poll and suggest that it may not represent the sentiment of the American people when you have relied on polls to support other points in the past.

At 10:20 PM, Anonymous Jim - PRS said...

Her fifteen minutes will be up in Early September when the press's attention will turn to the Borking of Judge Roberts by the kooks in the Senate.

At 10:56 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...

Let's say the poll is 100% accurate and it reflects the views of the American people On Operation Iraqi Freedom this week, month or year – take your pick Two years ago (7-03) 72% didn’t think it was mistake and a year ago (8-23) 50 % didn’t think it was a mistake. What do you do with that information? Do you expect the President or the military to conduct a war based upon poll numbers?

At 7:55 AM, Blogger Sam said...


No, I don't expect military planners to change their tactics based on reports issued by Gallup or Zogby. That would be foolish.

But one would expect that President Bush, in the face of these poll numbers and an undeniable rise in the number of questions being raised about the war, would come out and make a serious, honest speech about this war effort. Where is it going? Why does it seem to be going so poorly? What is he - the President - doing to make sure our casualties and our time spent there are minimized?

Beyond his repeating of cliches and platitudes, I don't think anyone could honestly assert that President Bush has answered these questions. I'd expect him to change his strategy in the public relations of this war. It's not that everyone has to be happy with how things are going, but if he thinks the public is being misled, let's see him make the upfront case for this war that he really hasn't ever made.

At 8:03 AM, Blogger Jack said...


Let's put it this way: if you believed that a war was unjust, and that people were dying for no good reason, would you oppose it? Even if the president supported it?

Let me emphasize, I don't want to hear about your stance on the Iraq war. The point that Sam is making is that MANY people feel that people are dying in a meaningless war. They believe that this is NOT stopping terrorism or benefitting anyone.

Now, you might think the Iraq war is great and is working etc. but it's absolutely absurd to characterize people who are calling for an end to the war, especially those who have an immediate investment in the war (a kid for instance), as far left kooks or conspirators or whatever paranoid theory you were proposing.

If you had a kid in Iraq, and you thought that he was being used for politics, and that he wasn't accomplishing anything by being over there, maybe you would think more about protesting.

By the way, presidents get smeared, it's part of the job requirement. If soldiers can forfeit their right to life, presidents can certainly be obliged to take some criticism.

- Jersey Perspective

At 11:23 AM, Anonymous spongeworthy said...

That's just assinine. You've got the media lionizing a nutcase who's dreadfully full of shit and incredibly happy to share it and you wonder why poll numbers don't look good?

Did it occur to you that people may have their opinion skewed by the media's perception or presentation of this war? If such a thing is posible, then how can you support spreading more bad information?

The media seems thrilled to throw more publicity at some woman who thinks "It's about the Jews!" Do you think it's about the Jews? Is it possible that same media might believe it's about the Jews or that the media is just happy to get that out whether they believe it or not? All dissent being patriotic or something, right?

The woman's a nutter. There's informed dissent and there's this wackjob, and the media doesn't care which is which as long as it fits the story they want to present.

This shit is dangerous and it's sick. It's a sick society that encourages this stuff and sick people who defend it when it becomes dishonest.

At 12:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think we show hold a Vigil outside Ted Kennedy's house and ask to speak with him about Mary Jo Kapechne.

At 2:49 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...


Who are these people raising questions about the Global War On Terrorism? The same people that raised questions about operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan? Four days into that military operation the President was being asked if he had led the U.S. into a quagmire. Eight days into Operation Iraqi Freedom, the usual suspects said the military was bogged down and the Vietnam analogies began. Eighteen days later, the U.S. overthrew Saddam Hussein.

The same people that opposed the President’s strategy for the GOWT then, oppose it now. Many Democrats along with the majority of the media have been negative from the start. What a surprise. The President has been asked and answered the same questions over and over. You apparently don’t like his answers. The President made his upfront case and has continued to make his case. We understand it, you apparently do not.

You say the operation in Iraq is going “poorly”, compared to what? As compared to how the enemy is doing? As compared to how other countries have done under similar circumstances? Or is it going poorly based upon what opportunists in the Democratic Party and they media are trying to drum into everyone’s head?

Could Operation Iraqi Freedom have gone better, maybe. Could things have gone worse, could be. Wars and battles are not waged with complete knowledge and people make mistakes. In retrospect military leaders may wished they had done some things differently – but big picture and on balance the strategy may well prove brilliant. Just as Reagan’s strategy in dealing with the Soviet Union proved to be.

Now beyond your anti-Bush and anti-war clichés and platitudes what is your point? You offer criticism without an alternative. If you were the President, what actions would you have taken after 9-11? And please don’t tell us what you wouldn’t have done, tell us what you would have done and why.

At 3:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I still think we should go to Ted Kennedy's house.

At 3:11 PM, Blogger Sam said...


Afghanistan was the right war, and at the right time. Criticism of it was minimal.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a war that had weak reasoning behind it and was almost doomed from the start. People on all sides questioned whether there was an "exit strategy" in place, and military planners have since come out and said that they were never sure there was one.

What would I have done after the invasion of Afghanistan? I would have secured the government put in place, as has been done, and supported the expansion of liberties that President Bush and his administration supported (education, free speech, suffrage, etc...).

Iraq was where we went wrong. If I were President Bush, I would have gotten more directly involved in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, which is the most tangible root cause of Islamic extremism (differences in ideology aside). Instead of just supporting a two-state solution, Bush should have intervened and made that roadmap lead somewhere. The pullout this week may lead, in the long run, to a resumption of talks. But if the peace process had been pushed along by the President, the geopolitical situation that motivates extremist sentiment the most would be less of a situation. Sure that would be hard, but as we all know, fighting the War on Terror is hard work.

At 4:20 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...


Let us begin by reminding you our original post was about Cindy Sheehan, her actions and her remarks. We think she’s a kook. Cindy Sheehan had a son, Casey who enlisted in the service and re-enlisted after the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. We will assume he knew what he was doing when he made his decision and that he did not believe we was being “used for politics”. He gave his life for his country and for that we will forever be in his debt.

His mother’s actions on the hand we believe have everything to do with politics. We also hope Sheehan knew what she was doing before she enlisted with the group that now surrounds her. Her son viewed service in Iraq one way and she views it another way.

Now, we have not “characterized people who are calling for an end to the war, especially those who have an immediate investment in the war (a kid for instance), as far left kooks or conspirators or whatever paranoid theory you were proposing.” We again remind you we called Cindy Sheehan a kook, period. Do you agree with the things Cindy Sheehan has said - some of them, all of them, none of them? And BTW, when did we propose a “paranoid theory” and “conspirators”?

You wrote –“Let me emphasize, I don't want to hear about your stance on the Iraq war.” Well, whose opinion would you like us to espouse,yours? Cindy Sheehan's?

Let's put it this way: We believe the islamofacists are waging an unjust war and they are killing people for no good reason. We also believe the actions by the United States and other countries to oppose those that have declared war on us to be logical and in the best interests of this country and theirs. We thank God, for the Casey Sheehan’s who understood the stakes, believed in the Iraqi mission and fought for their country. It is people like Casey Sheehan that make it possible for the Cindy Sheehan’s to say whatever they wish, even if they are kooks.

At 6:21 PM, Blogger Jack said...

My point was that the argument wasn't about whether the war was right or not. I did not give my opinion on the war, and I wasn't asking for yours.

I'm simply saying that even if I strongly support a war and believe it will lead to good, not evil, I will never characterize somebody who is in favor of bringing the troops home as "somebody against the GWOT". Many people who are against the war simply believe that more lives are being lost than saved.

You might feel differently, but if you thought more lives would be lost than saved in a war, would you support it?

Again, I don't need to hear arguments for the war or against. I'm simply saying that somebody who is against the war because they "think people are unnecessarily dying" are not leftists, they're moralists.

- Jersey Perspective

At 6:41 PM, Blogger Enlighten said...


What do you mean by “more lives are being lost than saved”? How does one make that calculation? Were more lives lost than saved in the American Revolution, the Civil War, WW I, WW II, Korea, etc.?

At 11:09 AM, Blogger Mr. Snitch said...

You know, Anonymous old buddy, you keep talking about camping out at Teddy's as if he has a full refrigerator just waiting for you to stop by and raid it. Now I understand why you might assume the fridge is stocked, and that might even be the case. But what makes you think Ted lets anyone near it? Put it this way - if Ted had been driving his fridge over that bridge, it would still be alive today.

On the other hand, our President was recently proven to be fat-free. Now I'd bet that's a fridge that's not being patrolled the way Sylvester patrols Tweety's birdcage. That's why everyone on the far left is camping out on Bush's doorstep, and would never dream of disturbing Ted's beauty sleep. Say what you will, they know where to hang for a handout.


Post a Comment

<< Home

 Contact Us

  • Email Us
  • Blog Roll Us!



  • Atom Feed
  • Bloglines
  • Feedburner
  • Feedster
  • Add to Google
  • Add to My MSN
  • Add to My Yahoo
  • News Is Free

    Recent Posts

  • Corzine: Everywhere But New Jersey
  • Not In My Name
  • Who Knew?
  • Not That I Think You’re A Liar, But...
  • More Overload
  • Outrage Overload
  • That Was Then, This Is Now
  • A Right Thinking Girl
  • Educated At Yale and Harvard
  • Jon Corzine’s Campaign Against Working Families


  • November 2004
  • December 2004
  • January 2005
  • February 2005
  • March 2005
  • April 2005
  • May 2005
  • June 2005
  • July 2005
  • August 2005
  • September 2005
  • October 2005
  • November 2005
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • April 2008
  • November 2008
  • January 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • February 2012

    Online Journals

  • National Review

  • Opinion Journal

  • Real Clear Politics

  • Weekly Standard

  • Blog Roll

  • A Blog For All
  • Althouse
  • Ankle Biting Pundits
  • Barista of Bloomfield Avenue
  • Betsy's Page
  • Blue Crab Boulevard
  • Blogs For Condi
  • Bob the Corgi
  • Brainster's Blog
  • BuzzMachine
  • Captain's Quarter's
  • Cinnaman
  • Coalition of the Swilling
  • CWA-NJ
  • Dino's Forum
  • Daily Mail
  • Don Surber
  • DynamoBuzz
  • eCache
  • Exit 4
  • Fausta's Blog
  • GOP Bloggers
  • Instapundit
  • Joe's Journal
  • Kate Spot
  • Kausfiles.com
  • Little Green Footballs
  • Michelle Malkin
  • More Mnmouth Musings
  • Parkway Rest Stop
  • Patrick Ruffini
  • Polipundit
  • Power Line
  • Right Wing News
  • Roger L. Simon
  • The Blue State Conservatives
  • Riehl World View
  • Red Jersey
  • Right, Wing-Nut!
  • Sid in the City
  • Tiger Hawk
  • The Truth Laid Bear
  • Tim Blair
  • Wizbang

  • Sid in the City

    Majority Accountability Project


    New Jersey Blogs


  • 11th and Washington

  • A Blog For All
  • A Planet Where Apes Evolved From Man?!?
  • Armies of Liberation
  • Atlantic Highland Muse
  • Attack of the 15.24 Mete

  • Barista of Bloomfield Avenue
  • BeLow Me
  • Big Windbag
  • Blanton's and Ashton's
  • Blue State Conservatives
  • Burning Feathers
  • BuzzMachine

  • Clifton Blogs
  • Coalition of the Swilling
  • Cobweb Studios
  • CoffeeGrounds
  • Constitutional Conservative
  • Confessions of a Jersey Goddess
  • Corzine Watch
  • Crazy Jackie
  • Cresting Acrocorinthus
  • Cripes, Suzette!

  • Daniella's Misadventures
  • Did I Say That Out Loud
  • Dojo Mojo
  • Dossy's Blog
  • Down the Shore
  • DynamoBuzz

  • eCache
  • Enlighten-NewJersey
  • Eye On Hoboken
  • Exit 4
  • Exit Zero
  • Extreme-Psychosis

  • Fausta's Blog
  • Fausti's Book Quest
  • Fractals of Change
  • Frenchtown NJ Blog

  • GiggleChick
  • Gregg Gethard's Amazing Personal Journey
  • goethe re scape

  • Hoboken Rock City

  • IamBillPower
  • If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawn-mower
  • Imaginary Therapy
  • Inadmissible Evidence

  • Jersey Beat
  • Jersey Perspective
  • Jersey Side
  • Jersey Style
  • Jersey Writers
  • Joe's Journal

  • Karl's Corner
  • Kate Spot

  • Laughing At The Pieces
  • Likelihood of Confusion
  • Liss Is More

  • Mamacita
  • Mary's Lame Attempt at Fame
  • Media in Trouble
  • Michael Carroll
  • Mister Snitch!
  • MucknMire
  • My Life as a Rabid Blog
  • My New Jersey

  • New Jersey Eminent Domain Law
  • NJ Conservative
  • NJ Fiscal Folly
  • New Jersey For Change
  • New Jersey Weblogs
  • NJ Spoken Word
  • Northeast Corridor

  • Parkway Rest Stop
  • Philly2Hoboken.com
  • Poetic Leanings
  • Poor Impulse Control
  • Professor Kim's News Notes
  • Property Tax NJ

  • Rain Angel
  • Riehl World View

  • Shamrocketship
  • Shipwrecks
  • SloppyDawg
  • Sluggo Needs a Nap
  • SmadaNeK
  • Static Silence

  • Tami,The One True
  • Tammany on the Hudson
  • Tequila Shots For The Soul
  • The Art of Getting By
  • The Center of New Jersey Life
  • The Daily Fry
  • The Duc Pond
  • The Jersey Shore Real Estate Bubble
  • The Joy of Soup
  • The Mark(ings) of Zorro
  • The New Wisdom
  • The Nightfly
  • The Opinion Mill
  • The Pink Panther
  • The Political Dogs
  • The Rix Mix
  • This Full House
  • Tiger Hawk
  • Tomato Nation
  • Toxiclabrat
  • Twisty

  • Unbillable Hours
  • Usdin.Net

  • Where Is The Remote
  • Wine Goddess

  • Xpatriated Texan

  • Links

  • NJ Governor
  • NJ Legislature
  • Bob Menendez Information

  • Blog Rings

  • Blog Explosion
  • Blog Directory
  • Blogsnow
  • Blogwise
  • Blogstreet
  • Blogshares
  • Blogarama
  • Blog Digger
  • Daypop
  • Globe of Blogs
  • Blog Search Engine

  • Ecosystem Status

  • Who Links Here