Huckabee: Liberals' Dream, Conservatives' Worst Nightmare

Ann Coulter has written yet another fabulous column, this one about the dilemma presented to conservatives by the seeming popularity of Mike Huckabee. Personally, I've never been a fan of Huckabee - it's been quite obvious to me that there are other candidates on the Republican side who are both more qualified and more conservative. As Huckabee continues to stick his foot in his mouth, however, it amazes me that his popularity has yet to wane.

Huckabee has run largely on his image as a Christian conservative...but that's all it is: image. He may be a Christian; I'm not going to judge his religion (though it is worth pointing out that seemingly every time Huckabee opens his mouth on religious issues he promptly sticks his foot in it). However, conservative he definitely is not. Huckabee has come down on the side of liberalism on everything from taxes to big government to the Supreme Court's decision that sodomy is a Constitutionally protected right...and when it comes to illegal immigration, Huckabee is every Democrat's dream.

Personally, I'd rather vote for Hillary than Huckabee - at least Hillary is open and transparent about her desire to turn the US into a socialist state, and her feeble attempts at religiosity on the campaign trail fall flat enough to merit a chuckle or two...but if the election comes down to Hillary vs. Huckabee, I'm definitely going third-party.

Huckabee is not what the Republican party needs, and he definitely is not a conservative candidate. The Republicans need to get a clue: Giuliani is failing in Iowa for a reason: he isn't conservative enough. Huckabee has remained strong in the polls for a reason: the media is his friend (go figure: the lib media will befriend a lib Republican).

As the primary season edges ever closer, it is important for voters to stop listening to what the media is feeding them and start looking into what the candidates actually stand for. Huckabee is a liberal who is trying to use his religious views to mask himself as a conservative. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear should be able to see through Huckabee quite easily: he's the wrong choice for conservatives, the wrong choice for Republicans, and the wrong choice for America.

RIAA: Recording Industry Taking It Too Far

The RIAA has been aggressively trying to curtail the illegal downloading of music for some time now, and with the success of paid-download services such as iTunes, it seems that they have at least met with some measure of success in their pursuit. Personally, I see nothing wrong with that: there is such a thing as intellectual property, and recording artists should be paid for their work (even though the vast majority of today's music is produced by talentless "musicians" and isn't really worth all that much).

Now, however, the RIAA has taken it too far. The industry has filed suit against a Scotsdale, AZ man for transferring music from his CDs onto his computer. Personally, I think this is hogwash: the industry won their suits against people downloading music illegally, and now they're trying to double their money: get people to buy their CDs, and then force people to pay to download mp3s to use on their iPods or mp3 players.

Once I've paid for a CD, it is my property. I should be able to transfer it however I wish, be it to computer, tape, or even vinyl if I so desire. By taking this step, the RIAA has lost any modicum of support I may have given them in their pursuit to curtail illegal downloading, because now their true purpose has come through: it's all about greed.

I'm not all that familiar with copyright laws, but personally, I don't think the RIAA has a legal leg to stand on in this case...and if, by some bizarre chance of luck the RIAA wins its suit, I think a little civil disobedience is in order, and we should bring back the days of illegal file-sharing networks.

Noonan Sizes Up The Campaign

Peggy Noonan has written an excellent column this week sizing up the presidential primary this far, and offering some great insight into each candidate.  Noonan's slogan should ring true for each and every American who believes in their nation: Reasonable Person for President.

According to Noonan, the candidates who are both reasonable and experienced are: Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, and Bill Richardson.  Noonan classifies Barack Obama as a reasonable candidate, but lacking in the experience needed to be a good president - too much potential for the young politician to treat the presidency as a stage for political theater.

Hillary Clinton won the distinction of being classified as unreasonable, and personally, I agree with her assessment.  During his presidency, Bill Clinton showed himself to be a political opportunist, triangulating on issues, playing on opinion polls to do whatever would make him most popular at time.  Hillary, during her time as First Lady, Senator from New York, and her current presidential campaign, has shown quite clearly that she is willing to do the same, playing both sides against whatever will be most advantageous for her quest for political power.  

The positive side to this is that as the campaign drags on, more and more Americans can see her opportunism for what it is.  

The drawback is that this seems to draw Democrats to Obama, whose youthful charisma makes him look like a very good choice.

As I see it, the problem with this campaign is twofold: it has drawn on way too long, to the point that many people are just sick and tired of it, and the campaign has largely become media-driven, with the news media choosing who will be the frontrunners and who will remain obsolete.  This still does not prevent any given candidate from surging in the polls or from shoving a foot down their throat, but giving the media this kind of power in a presidential campaign is inherently dangerous, especially considering how polarized the media is - even the supposedly conservative Fox News Channel has been found to be left-of-center, and the media's leftist bias definitely effects which candidates get reported on more often.

Of all of the candidates that are out there, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson still look like the best choices to me...and while conservative candidates don't seem to do very well in the polls, I'm still holding out hope that the voters will know better than to continue America's march to the left.  Many Republicans have grown tired of seeing their party become more and more liberal - the problem is that a conservative party has not yet risen far enough to effectively oppose the Democrats.  All is not lost, though: I have faith that the American people will not give in to the appeal of leftist bribery politics that feed the power-hungry but do little to advance our nation.

Merry Christmas!

Hope you're having a great Christmas!!!

Religion and Politics: A Disgusting Combination

As Christmas approaches, the presidential campaign has taken a rather repulsive turn: each candidate is trying to out-Christian the others.

Huckabee, the former Baptist minister, has the appearance of a Christian, but his behavior during the campaign has (in my opinion) shown him to be divisive and judgmental, trying to make grandiose statements about who may or may not be Christian enough to be president. Romney seems the most sincere about his faith - most Mormons I've known are very good people, even the bad Mormons. In my opinion, this is a huge point in Romney's favor, even if I don't agree with all of his policies.

Obama and Hilary have joined the fray, as well, with Obama producing a commercial geared solely toward portraying him as a strong family man (which he may be - as a conservative, I haven't payed much attention to his campaign). Hilary's new Christmas campaign commercial accentuates her willingness to bribe Americans for their votes via welfare & government-provided health care, but she has made a point to give speeches in churches...as if giving a speech in a church could somehow prove how Christian she is.

Fred Thompson looks like a very good candidate to me - I've been very impressed by him every time I've heard him interviewed...but unfortunately his campaign has been pretty stagnant.


Two things disgust me about this current campaign: politicians playing the religion game, putting on a veneer of spirituality in order to woo voters, and campaigns playing the minority game in order to win sympathy from the minority voting bloc.

Educated voters should not be impressed when candidates wear their religiosity on their sleeves, because most of the time it's nothing but a hoodwink: politicians playing the field to coerce ignorant people into voting for them. The minority game is the same scam: elect Hilary because she's a woman, elect Obama because he's black...but who cares about the fact that their policies would effectively ruin the nation's economy and send us spiraling into a liberal fascist state, with enforced equality: all citizens equally poor and oppressed.

Reid's Flip-Flop

Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader and liberal wacko extraordinaire has now officially reversed his position on the Iraq troop surge (now let's count the days until he changes positions yet again).

Earlier this year, in April, to be exact, Reid denounced the surge, saying that it would never work. Reid also publicly stated that the surge was a failure...before all of the troops had even been able to reach Iraq.

Now Reid has reversed his position...because maybe the troop surge wasn't such a bad idea, after all.

From News Hour with Jim Lehrer:

The president said, "Let's send some more troops over there, and that will give the Iraqis the time to take care of themselves." We sent other troops over there, and there are a lot of reasons the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that.

Ever the partisan, Reid's admission was colored with denunciations of President Bush and proselytizing for liberal spending programs...but for someone as partisan as Harry Reid, even a partial reversal is extremely significant.

The truth is that the troop surge has been a great success. The situation in Iraq has never been perfect - not even close...but since the surge, troop deaths are down, civilian deaths are down, and real progress is being made - so much progress that even Harry Reid has to admit that the surge has been a good thing.

Maybe Liberalism Really Is A Mental Disorder...

A recent Gallup poll shows that, across the board, Republicans report much better mental health than independents or Democrats.

The survey, conducted over the last four years, shows that no matter the demographic break-down, Republicans report that their mental health is "excellent" or "good" in higher numbers than the Dems. Maybe this explains all of the whining and crying whenever a Republican wins an election or a conservative bill is passed by legislators...it also reminds me of a story after the 2004 Presidential election about large numbers of liberals seeking counseling for post-election depression. After the '06 election, there was no mention of conservatives running to their shrinks because the Republicans lost their congressional majority...so this, combined with the Gallup poll, leaves only one logical conclusion: Republicans are just more sane than Democrats.

As the Republican party moves farther and farther to the Left, though, I wonder just how long this trend will last......

This Is The Peaceful Religion

This story has been developing over the last few days, but it has now taken a most bizarre (yet predictable) turn:

A British teacher who was working in the Sudan was arrested not long ago on charges of insulting Islam. Her crime: she allowed the students working in her classroom to name a teddy bear, and the name they chose was "Mohammed." As it turns out, one of the students in her class was named Mohammed, and the class decided to name the bear after him. Unfortunately for Gillian Gibbons, however, this fact makes no difference to the Islamofascists in the Sudan.

Gibbons has been sentenced to 15 days in jail and subsequent deportation, but that is not enough for the radicals, who took to the streets in protest, saying that Gibbons should be killed. This is the true nature of Islam: complete intolerance. Why the liberals defend this religion is beyond me. First it was riots over cartoons, now it's mobs protesting over an elementary school class naming a teddy bear. Gibbons has been moved to a secret location by the Sudanese government in order to protect her from the mob.

Oh, and for all of the liberal wackos out there who say that Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam, try going to Vatican City or any evangelical Protestant church with a teddy bear named "Jesus," and see if you get the same results as Gibbons (who, as it turns out, may have just been the victim of a "vindictive school secretary").

My guess is, we won't see any uprising of moderate Muslims in Europe and the U.S. denouncing the actions of their fascist brethren. CAIR and similar organizations are all too willing to defend the actions of Imams acting like terrorists on a US airliner, but they don't really want to improve "American-Islamic relations." They want the kind of Islamic law that is practiced in the Sudan to come here. Anyone with any modicum of common sense should be able to see that Islam is dangerous...Muslims in the Middle East are always providing us with new examples.

Ain't Democracy Great?

Hugo Chavez, hero of the Left (aka the Democrat party), has declared that anyone who would vote against his proposed constitutional changes is a "traitor." Perhaps this is why the Democrats like Chavez so much: he stands so strongly for Democracy.

Chavez's proposed changes would remove term limits for the office of president in Venezuela, essentially opening the doors for him to become dictator-for-life.

Maybe this is why so many liberals support him: he's a hard-line Communist dictator...and for some unknowable reason, liberal elitists just love that in a foreign politician.

Liberals love to point at the Right and scream "hypocrite!" at the top of their lungs, but the Democrat party (as ironically named as it is), is more willing to support the dictator of Venezuela then they are to support the democratically elected president of their own nation...this shows their own hypocrisy: they claim to stand up for the common man, all the while doing nothing more than seeking as much power as they can get their hot little hands on.

The truth is that despite the name of their party and all of their platitudes, when liberals see Hugo Chavez, they see a dream to which they can aspire. Chavez, in all of his oppressive tyranny, is the left's role model, and they'd like nothing more than to do away with term limits for any leftist president, senator, or congressman, and consolidate their rule over the United States for the rest of the nation's existence.

That is the Left's dark secret, the one thing they don't want the general populace to catch on to.

Last Time It Was Vote or Die...Now It's Vote or iPod?!?

A survey taken at NYU found that 2/3 of students would trade their vote in the next presidential election for a year's tuition. Frankly, given today's tuition prices, that's not all that surprising.

20% said they'd trade their vote for an iPod Touch.

66% said they'd trade their vote for a free ride at NYU.

Half said they'd trade their vote for $1 million.

This is very interesting, considering that 70.5% of those surveyed said that they believe their vote counts...including 70% of those who said they'd trade their vote for tuition.

My question is this: if you really do believe that your vote counts...why would you sell it? The franchise is either vitally important or totally unimportant. There is no middle ground.

But, then, as one student put it: "It's easy to convince myself that my vote doesn't count...after all, I'm from New York, which will always be a blue state." An interesting point, but irrelevant. After all, if all conservatives in blue states just stayed home, there would never be a prayer of eventually reforming those blue states into places where common sense actually exists. There would be no counter-vote to show liberal politicians that they should tread lightly.

As another student put it: "I would be reversing history — a lot of people fought so that every citizen could be enfranchised." Your vote makes every soldier's death throughout the history of this great nation matter.

And finally, the tour de force: "Anyone who'd sell his lifelong right to vote should be deported." After all, millions of people try to immigrate to the United States every year, with the dream of becoming citizens. They work hard so that someday they or their children will eventually have the right to be called Americans and participate in the process that makes the United States the freest nation on the globe. If you're willing to throw that right away, then it's a right you don't deserve, because it's a right that's been bought and paid for with the blood of heroes.

Is This The Best The Left Has To Offer?

Rosie O'Donnell has been hired to host her own talk show on MSNBC. Apparently, MSNBC is under the impression that Bush-bashing gets ratings. When it comes to MSNBC, however, they need all the help they can get on the ratings front, so more power to them.

However, I think that the hiring of Rosie as a political commentator brings up an interesting issue: who are the primary spokespeople for the Left? Conservative talk radio grew to the heights that it has reached through people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham: for the most part, normal people who got into radio. Limbaugh and Beck started out in the radio business as disk jockeys. Later on in life they became talk radio personalities, expressing their conservative political views to millions of listeners daily. Laura Ingraham worked as a speechwriter for the Reagan Administration, and then clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas before getting into radio.

When Air America was formed in an attempt to combat the conservative dominance of talk radio, their two big-name headliners were Al Franken and Jeaneane Garofalo...two comedians with questionable talent who were only propelled into fame by their not-quite-humorous stints on Saturday Night Live. Jerry Springer also served a stint on Air America.

My question is this: am I the only one who sees the significance of this trend? The Right's big media names are thinkers and capitalists who worked hard to achieve success. The Left's big media names are three comedians and the host of a trash talk show. Of course, Air America was only a big name for a short while...then Franken, Garofalo and Springer eventually left the network due to the fact that it was a huge flop, both in ratings and revenues, and for the most part, Air America has fallen to relative obscurity.

Now, MSNBC is hiring Rosie O'Donnell, yet another comedian, as a leftist political commentator. But Rosie isn't just another lefty comedian...she's a leftist freak, one of the 9/11 truthers who believe that the WTC towers were brought down by the Bush administration. The fact that she serves as one of the Left's leading media spokespeople speaks volumes in and of itself.



Personally, I think this is a good thing. Let Rosie have her own show. Let her spread her lies and hate...let the nation see just what a freak she is. If this is the best the Left can give us, we'll take it gladly, because while Rosie the comedian isn't all that funny, Rosie the political commentator is worth quite a few laughs.

Media Matters' Hypocricy

Pat Robertson announced this week that he is endorsing Rudy Giuliani for president.

In an ironic turn of events, Media Matters is attacking MSNBC for failing to attack Robertson in their coverage of his endorsement.

Robertson has been controversial in the past, but this attempt by Media Matters really is ludicrous. Here is a case of a major media organization, MSNBC, reporting the news. They were kinder to Robertson than I would expect, which is probably what got Media Matters' panties in a bunch.

This is the thing about modern liberalism: Fox News has been shown to be a bit to the right of CNN, but still to the left of the mainstream...yet liberals continue to attack them as some kind of a fascist propaganda wing of the Bush administration (this has been shown to be untrue time and time again). Then, when another leftist news organization fails to engage in smear tactics, the left yet again makes a fuss...because heaven forbid the mainstream media might actually be kind to a conservative.

GI Joe: It's just a movie based on a cartoon based on an action figure, right?

Wrong.

Glenn Beck has come under attack in the lefty blogosphere over his comments about the upcoming GI Joe movie, where Hollywood takes an American icon and turns him into an international travesty. The reports started with Media Matters and spread from there (because, rather than actually listening to conservatives, liberals just get on Media Matters' web site & parrot whatever they say).

The most interesting of these attacks that I could find came from The Huffington Post which, ironically enough, has a page dedicated to attacking Glenn Beck (which it calls "Beckwatch").

The liberal argument: it's just a movie.

And once again, the left, in reducing itself to mindless attacks, misses the whole point.

As an avid listener to Glenn Beck's radio program, I heard Beck's argument from his own mouth. He's not just talking about this movie. He's talking about the amount of anti-American propaganda coming out of Hollywood that is marketed to our children. The examples that he points out: Superman Returns, where "Truth, Justice and The American Way" was intentionally changed to "Truth, Justice...all that stuff" because the producers of the film didn't think it would be right to promote "The American Way" (despite the fact that America, despite liberals' aspirations, is still the freest, most honorable nation on the planet). Next example: Happy Feet, which was basically global warming propaganda with a pro-UN message thrown in for good measure. Now, Government Issue Joe, the Real American Hero is being turned into the "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity." Why? Because movie producers are embarrassed of the nation that gives them the freedom to succeed like they have thus far.

Americans are tired of message movies. This is one of the main reasons that box-office figures have been down lately. Unfortunately, Hollywood just doesn't get it...they keep on churning out message movies. This is why the vast majority of my movie collection consists of films made before 1980.



There is another report out about Glenn Beck today, this one from the New York Times, criticizing Beck for his new multi-million-dollar contract ($50 million over 5 years). Beck presents himself as an average guy, but according to the New York Times, this contract makes that claim null and void.

I've listened to Glenn Beck's program for a long time...I started listening shortly after he went national back in 2001. The truth is, Glenn Beck is an average guy...he's an average guy who dreamed of getting into radio, got into the radio business very young, got successful, had some hard times, and then changed his life and turned it into a massive success. He runs his own company, does a daily radio program and a daily TV show on Headline News, and produces a monthly magazine. Beck has earned his success, and he is a testament to the greatness of America, where a regular schlub can work hard, make a success of himself, and eventually land a $50 million contract.

Musharraf: Just What Is Going On?

Pakistan has been under martial law for about a week now, thanks to its president, Pervez Musharraf. It's unclear just what, exactly, is going on in Pakistan, but Musharraf declared a state of emergency last week and instituted martial law, citing a rise in Islamic extremism and its effect on the judiciary. The fact that the Pakistani judiciary was investigating the validity of Musharraf's election had no bearing on the declaration, I'm sure.

As someone who takes a rather dim view on Islamic extremism, I was initially willing to give Musharraf the benefit of the doubt...but as time goes on, it's looking more and more like President Musharraf is merely trying to secure his power, with or without the people's consent. Apparently, Musharraf promised that elections would be held by mid-January, and that he would step down as chief of Pakistan's army (he used to be known as General Musharraf). Now, Musharraf has buckled down on protesters, and it looks like elections could be delayed by up to a year.

Whether Musharraf will actually live up to his promises has yet to be seen...but the longer the situation goes on in Pakistan, the more it looks like Musharraf is just trying to set himself up as a dictator.

Banning Smoking At Home?

That's where things are heading. Apparently, there are many cities in California that have banned smoking in apartments. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with this: I am not a smoker, and I don't enjoy breathing cigarette smoke.

But this speaks to a bigger issue.

California has already outlawed smoking in bars & restaurants. Other states have jumped on this bandwagon, and some areas are further looking to ban smoking in cars. If banning smoking in apartments becomes the next big thing, in a natural progression, the next step will either be banning smoking altogether, or just having a collection of laws that amount to the same thing (yes, smoking is still legal...you just can't do it indoors or outside. Anywhere else is fine).


For one thing, banning things has a pretty bad record in America...just take a look at prohibition. For another thing, Americans don't need a "mother" government telling everyone what they can and cannot do (it didn't work for "mother Russia," either).

The people of America need to stop buying into these stupid liberal arguments based on emotion rather than logic. If there is enough of a demand for "smoke-free" housing, then apartment managers should designate certain of their apartment complexes as "smoke-free." The fact that this isn't happening speaks to the fact that the demand just isn't high enough.

The government needs to step back and let the market work...but that isn't going to happen as long as the people keep buying in to liberal lies about how the government can make life better for everyone. Governments never make nations great. People do. Let the people make their own decisions.

One more thing: the government imposes taxes on cigarettes to pay for various social programs (this is especially true here in California). Then, the government continues to ban smoking in certain areas. Sooner or later, smoking will be banned altogether, either in an up-front law banning smoking altogether, or in a large, convoluted collection of laws making it illegal to smoke anywhere. So, if smoking is illegal, how will they pay for their social programs? They'll have to raise money for them somewhere else, which means that each and every person who cheered the tax increases on cigarettes because they don't support smoking will end up having to carry the tax burden that cigarette taxes carried for so long.

Hilary Clinton: The Worst Thing Since Sliced Bread

The repercussions over this past week's Democrat presidential debate continue...and Hilary Clinton has proven to the world that she would make one of the worst presidents in US history.

The basic gist of Hilary's screw-up revolves around Chris Matthew's question about the recent New York program involving allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. Upon asking the question, Hilary's first response was to endorse the idea...and then, within two minutes of her first response, she backtracked, denouncing the program.

Hilary Clinton has tried very hard to be "all things to all people," basically vascillating back and forth on several issues, the most worrisome of which include illegal immigration and the War on Terror.

There have been further questions over documents pertaining to Hilary's tenure as First Lady, which have been sealed in her husband's presidential library. It's been confirmed that over 3 million documents pertaining to Hilary's health care plan are still sealed.

Hilary's defense for all of the opposition to her: she's being ganged up on because she's a woman. This, more than anything, shows just how bad of a president Hilary would make. Hilary has breezed through the primary process thus far, but as soon as her opponents start turning up the heat, she tries to use her gender as a shield. This is just what we need in a president: as soon as Ahmadinijad, Putin, Chavez, or Kim Jong Il start attacking her, her defense will be to accuse them of being meanies - bullies ganging up on the girl.

Ironically, that may just be the one thing that would inspire the UN to real action: whining and complaining by a Clinton.

Deficit Spending Greater Moral Issue than Abortion?

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has been quoted as saying that deficit spending is a greater moral issue than abortion, because it will leave non-aborted US citizens to pay off their parents' debt.

According to Coburn, "[President Bush] hasn’t been the ideal president when it comes to limited federal spending." Talk about the greatest understatement of the past seven years. President Bush has been absolutely horrible when it comes to limiting government spending...but one reason for this is because he hasn't vetoed the horrific spending bills sent to him by Congress, which continues to indulge in massive pork-barrel spending despite protestations and calls for increased "transparency" by several members.

Personally, I don't think that deficit spending is a greater sin than abortion...murder will always out-weigh financial over-extension in my book, but Coburn does have a good point: our government has more power and spends more money today than it ever has, and this spending has been increasingly irresponsible in light of the threats that our nation faces (and each and every Democrat presidential candidate wants to raise taxes and further increase spending!). We face many external threats: Islam0-fascist terrorism, Chinese and Venezuelan communism, belligerence by Russia, the Iranian nuclear program...the list goes on. But even the combination of these threats cannot defeat America unless we first defeat ourselves.

The US has been in moral decline for decades. The Cold War has moved to an internal conflict as the Democrat party threatens to make the US a socialist state. Political correctness threatens to shut down freedom of speech, and even freedom of thought in the US. The environmentalist movement seeks to send the US back to the days of the caveman. Religion and the moral values that go with it are constantly under attack (unless that religion seeks to denigrate and/or destroy the US, in which case it is celebrated). Our politicians are oblivious to the will of the people, choosing instead to stand up for special interest groups, selling US sovereignty up the river. Even as outside threats align to destroy the US, the threats from within our nation are combining, bringing about the eventual destruction of the freest nation on planet Earth. The people of the United States of America must wake up, or the destruction of this great nation will be on our doorstep before we know it.

Senator Coburn was right about one thing: "If we have only 11 percent support, are we a legitimate government? The 11 percent who have confidence in us, what hole are they in?” Congress has an 11% approval rating for a reason: they are an illegitimate government that refuses to conform to the will of the people. They have ignored the wishes of their constituents, whether Left or Right, and have only sought to advance their own self-interest: their quest for continued power.

The House of Representatives recently announced that it is shortening its work week to 4 days. While on the one hand this bespeaks the laziness of Congress (the Democrats, who have accomplished nothing since their takeover in 2006, ran on the promise to work harder to pass meaningful legislation), I cannot shake the thought that the less time Congress spends making law, the better. The modern Congress has proven to be a disaster, and my personal opinion is that they should meet only long enough to pass that legislation that is absolutely essential...one or two days per year should do it.

Our government is out of control, and it needs to be reigned in. Spending needs to be cut, and Congress needs to be restricted to its Constitutional limitations. The people need to send a clear message to our politicians in 2008 by electing true conservatives to Congress.

Racist "Diversity" Program Defeated in Delaware

Last week, stories began emerging about a program on the campus of the University of Delaware. The program required that all students living on-campus be subjected to indoctrination.

Under the program, students are required to acknowledge that:

1. All white people are racist.
2. It is impossible for any minority to be racist, because they don't have a racially biased system to back up their beliefs.
3. Reverse racism is a term used by racists who are in denial.
4. Non-racist: a non-term.
5. Racism and white supremacy are synonymous.

The actual text of the "Diversity Facilitation Training" goes on and on for 14 pages, and reads like something written by The Black Panthers. This is racism: anti-white racism, and it's been thrust upon students at the University of Delaware. It is an attempt at ideological indoctrination, suppressing freedom of thought.

Thanks to the vigilance of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the program has been suspended. The fact that the program has been widely reported on in conservative talk radio probably helped as well, but the publicity originated with FIRE, and FIRE is to be thanked for keeping the University of Delaware accountable for this blatant attempt at racist indoctrination.

This program goes to show just how empty the left's cries of tolerance truly are: tolerance only extends to those radical views held by the left. If it's good news for whitey, the left doesn't like it. If it engenders hatred for the United States or Christianity or the white race in general, then the left is okay with it (until they get called on it).

All of this begs the question: why was a program like this started in the first place?

For some reason, liberals cannot get past the 1950s. They seem to be stuck with the idea that the entire nation is divided by race and that, given the chance, white people will rise up and re-institute segregation (or maybe even slavery) because we all hate minorities so much.

The truth is that the US has taken great strides forward when it comes to racism. No, America's not perfect, but race relations in the US are much better off than liberals let on. When it comes down to it, America's main problem with race relations comes from the Left: any time the smallest action may potentially be perceived as racist, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton jump all over it, screaming "RACISM!!!" False allegations of racism are so abundant on the left that
in the end, all they do is cheapen the cries of true racism. People of all races have been trying to fight racism for decades, but throwing 50-year-old sins back in the faces of today's white people will not help anyone.

Unfortunately, this is where leftist politically-correct "tolerance" is taking us: we will be so tolerant a society that there will be no freedom of speech, no freedom of action, and no freedom of thought that does not conform to the left's template.

Thank goodness the Left lost this battle...and may they lose many more in the future.

GI Joe: The International Hero?

The first step: in the latest Superman movie, it was no longer "Truth, Justice and the American Way." Instead, it was "Truth, Justice...and all that stuff." Why? Because Hollywood is embarrassed to be American. They don't believe that the United States stands for truth and justice anymore, and they're the ones making the movies.

Now Hollywood is looking into making a GI Joe movie...with GI JOE standing for "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity." Instead of being "the Real American Hero," GI Joe will operate out of Brussels, or if out of America, they will be answerable to the United Nations.

The truth is that international military forces have a meager record of operations...the UN has accomplished nothing militarily, and even their humanitarian operations have largely been shameful affairs.

What is wrong with Americans being proud of America? Superman was a real American hero, raised by farmers in Kansas. GI Joe figurines were based on American soldiers, many of them astronauts, presidents, and Medal of Honor recipients. GI Joe is an American tradition that celebrates the honor and nobility of the American soldier. There is no reason to change that. No matter how much the press loves to inflate stories like what happened at Abu Garaib, those types of incidents are in the vast minority among our soldiers. The average American soldier is brave, honorable, and should be honored by each and every red-blooded American.

I'm beginning to think that it's time for real Americans to start boycotting the garbage coming out of Hollywood. Despite the fact that their movies continue to do poorly at the box office, Hollywood continues to release movies filled with their own political message - everything from children's movies like Happy Feet (which at its core was about glorifying the UN while pushing an environmentalist agenda) to slipping political agenda messages into otherwise enjoyable films, to out-and-out propaganda films either presenting an anti-war message, presenting America as a corrupt tyranny, or denouncing capitalism. The recent film The Kingdom, which I almost went to see in theaters because the previews looked good, had at its core the message that our government is no better than Islamo-fascist terrorist scum. At one point in our history, that kind of propaganda would be considered treasonous. Part of me longs for those days.

The truth is, Hollywood doesn't like real America. They think there's something wrong with people who love their country and think the US is an honorable nation. Little by little, they're trying to propagandize Americans, bringing Americans around to their twisted point of view.

Personally, I'm going to keep tabs on this GI Joe film. If they keep GI Joe as a tool of international interests, not only will I skip the film, but I'll tell all of my friends that they shouldn't go (frankly, I may just skip this one altogether, just to protest the initial idea). Hollywood sees itself as anti-establishmentarian. Well, it's time that we normal people started fighting the Hollywood establishment. Sometimes, bucking tradition can be a good thing, but there is a line. It is possible to go to far. And Hollywood crosses that line just about every time a new film is released. There's no reason we should put up with it.

***This post from The Sniper has a lot more in-depth history of GI Joe, and just why this film is worth America's contempt.

Reid Blames Fires on Global Warming...And He's Right!

After his record in the recently-resolved Limbaugh smear letter fiasco, you'd think Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would keep his mouth shut & stay under the radar for a little while...but no such luck.

Today, Reid told reporters that "one of the reasons we have the fires in California is global warming." When pressed on the matter, he kind of backed down from his assertion, essentially saying that global warming was one of many causes.

I have to say that I would agree with Harry Reid if only he added one word to his statement: "one of the reasons we have the fires in California is global warming hysteria."

The truth: global warming did not start this fire. The fire was started by an arsonist, possibly more than one. It has been labeled by many news organizations as a "super fire." The reason the fire is so wild and uncontrollable is because environmental lobbyist groups blocked the Healthy Forest Initiative, which was designed expressly for the purpose of reducing the severity of forest fires. Under the Healthy Forest Initiative, underbrush would be regularly cleared out of forests just like the one burning in souther California, giving any forest fires less fuel to feed on and making it easier for firefighters to contain any fires. Environmentalist lobbying groups blocked the initiative's implementation in California, claiming that clearing out any plants would contribute to global warming.

Global warming alarmism didn't start this fire, but it has been a major contributor to the tragedy that the fire has become. Global warming alarmists prevented the Forest Service from properly managing the forests, and this "super fire" is the direct result of their alarmist actions.

My question for the global warming alarmists is this: how much more pollution has been caused by this wildfire due to your meddling than has supposedly been prevented by allowing the forests to grow unchecked?

When it comes to the environment, modern science knows a lot...but many things are still unknown. When it comes to global warming, we only know one thing: the earth is getting warmer. The truth is that we don't really know why, and now we have concrete evidence that rabid environmentalism doesn't help anything, and is in fact a very bad thing.

They're Conservative Now....But How About After The Election?

Republican presidential candidates held a presidential debate last night. Much of the debate centered around criticizing Hilary Clinton, but before they got to Hilary, they spent some time arguing over who is more conservative.

My problem is this: listening to them in the debate, all of the candidates sound good.

I know that Giuliani is too liberal on too many issues to earn my vote.

Romney, as the former governor of the liberal haven of Massachusetts gives me pause if for no other reason than he was elected in Massachusetts. I've heard many things from Romney that make me think he would be a good president - better than Giuliani, anyway (or anyone the Democrats are running).

Thompson looked good...then he actually entered the race, at which point it became hard to tell just what he stands for. He may make a good conservative candidate, but that has yet to be seen for sure.

I've heard some good things from McCain during the campaign that make me wish he were consistent enough to earn my vote. However, he co-sponsored the McCain Feingold Act, as well as the recently defeated immigration bill. I have a lot of respect for John McCain - it takes a lot of courage to go through what he went through in the Vietnam War...but his record just isn't conservative enough to earn my vote.

Duncan Hunter looks like the best candidate to me...the primary problem is that he's largely an unknown: he doesn't generate the type of press that big names like Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney do. Hunter has been consistently conservative on a range of issues, and I believe that he would make an excellent president.

Personally, I have a problem with what has been going on in the conservative camp. The candidates are trying to out-conservative each other, each trying to pass himself off as the most conservative candidate. Basically, they're trying to out-Reagan Reagan (whose name was mentioned multiple times during the debate).

Ronald Reagan was a man who stood for conservative values in the face of harsh criticism. He stood up for his beliefs, unafraid and unashamed to stand up for his beliefs. This is what America needs in a president.

But this election is not just about having a candidate who knows what he believes and will stand up for it. This election is about America's future, and just what course the nation will take. Will we become yet another bastion of socialism, a nanny state destined for failure, or will we stand up for the true value of the individual, knowing that the feel-good option is not always the right one...or will we opt for the status-quo of straddling the fence, halfway between what we need and what feels right?

I think Duncan Hunter is what America needs. He will stand up for conservative values in the face of criticism; he has shown this in the past. In order to successfully move forward, we need to look at the values and the policies that have made the United States the world's superpower. Socialism didn't get us to where we are today. The United States of America got to where it is today through what is known as the American spirit: the willingness to buckle down and work hard, knowing that through hard work and perseverance you can be successful.

September 11 Not That Bad???

Nobel laureate Doris Lessing stated in an interview with a Spanish newspaper:

"September 11 was terrible, but if one goes back over the history of the IRA, what happened to the Americans wasn't that terrible...Some Americans will think I'm crazy. Many people died, two prominent buildings fell, but it was neither as terrible nor as extraordinary as they think. They're a very naive people, or they pretend to be."

Her point: around 3,700 people died and thousands were maimed over 30 years by the IRA.

So, in England, 3,700 people died over 30 years. That's about 124 people per year for 30 years...tragic, but a non sequitir when you consider that murders in cities like New York and Los Angeles are typically in the range of 500-600 per year.

It's also important to note that the 9/11 attacks were not the only attacks perpetrated on the US by Al-Qaida. Al-Qaida has been attacking Americans for years, 9/11 being their largest and most successful attack. 9/11 was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back - the act that "woke the sleeping giant" (though some, myself included, would argue that when it comes to defeating Al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorists, the giant is still half asleep - the sleeping half primarily residing in the Democrat party).

The truth is that Doris Lessing is little more than an anti-war nut whose view are only considered worthy of reporting due to her status as a Nobel Prize winner.

This woman's remarks, when considered alongside the outrageous remarks of Nobel laureate Dr. James Watson that were reported on in the news media last week, make me wonder whether the Nobel committee should be vetting their nominees a bit more carefully before handing out the awards.

Straight From the Horse's Mouth: Randi Rhodes Started Mugging Rumor

According to Randi Rhodes herself, she was at an Irish pub watching football. She went outside to smoke a cigarette, and she fell (or was pushed or was bumped into). To explain her absence to Air America Radio, she sent her boss an email saying that "I had been mugged and that my teeth were smashed and that I needed to go to the dentist first thing."

Now, from what I've heard about Randi Rhodes, she's pretty notorious for being a heavy drinker...and from what she said: "I hadn't eaten anything all day." Add some heavy drinking to that, and you've got a pretty good recipe for a nasty fall.

On her show, she stated that "I don't know how or why the story grew into me being brutally beaten..."

How about the Left's paranoia? After all, most liberals seem to think that just because George W. Bush wants to listen to terrorists' phone conversations, he's going to bug their phones, as well.

There have been a few incidents of violence against Lefty talk radio, but all in all they have been few and far between. There have been death threats against Lefty talk radio hosts, but there are at least as many death threats against conservative talk show hosts.

Occam's Razor still applies: "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one." It's much more likely that Randi Rhodes had too much to drink on an empty stomach, and that this was the instigator of her fall than that she was attacked by the so-called "Right-wing hate machine."

All in all, it seems that this whole incident was a comedy of errors, with most of the fault laying with Randi Rhodes herself for providing Air America with so little information, along with John Elliot, for letting his imagination run more than a little too wild.

I'm In Love With Ann Coulter

(post title taken from the song by The Right Brothers)

I finished reading Ann Coulter's latest book the other day...needless to say, it was excellent. Not her best work, to be sure (that would be Godless), but still well worth the money.

Coulter is constantly under attack by the left. Nearly every time Coulter's name is mentioned, it's followed by phrases such as "gone too far" or "beyond the pale." She is commonly called a fascist, racist, anti-semite, and any other of various names that leftists can come up with.

The thing that I love about Ann Coulter is that she gets under liberals' skin. She combines facts with conservative ideology and a healthy dose of humor to produce some of the best material the Right has ever seen.

The answer to the question posed by Time Magazine (is she serious or just having fun?) is: both.

This is something many liberals have lost: it's possible to promote your ideology without taking yourself too seriously.
It's possible to engage in political debate and have fun doing it.

The one thing that draws me to conservatism is that it makes sense. Conservative positions require logical reasoning, where liberalism is ruled by emotion.


Just to show that she's not affected by liberal lies, smears, and name calling, her latest book (If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans) is a collection of the quotes that earned her the most ridicule from the Left.

The sad thing is, political correctness has so inundated our society that Coulter draws a lot of criticism from people on the Right, as well. These people need to stop listening to liberal lies about what is and isn't appropriate. They need to grow up and get a sense of humor. They need to turn their backs on the liberal doctrine of wussification and understand that if we listen to the liberal lies every time they say "gone too far" or "beyond the pale," liberalism will win. We cannot let the other side dictate just what is and is not appropriate. Conservatives need to stand up for conservatism, if for no other reason than that it is worth defending.

When it comes to conservative icons, Ronald Reagan is king. He was the President for two terms, and he showed the world just what it means to stand for freedom and true conservative values. The world may never see such a high quality of man come out of Hollywood ever again.

The thing that draws people to Ann Coulter is that she is truly Reaganesque. Many Republicans try to sell themselves as Reaganesque on issues, but issues didn't make Reagan great. The thing that made Ronald Reagan the great man that he was was the fact that he was conservative through and through, and he wasn't afraid to stand up for his beliefs. He had deep faith, and he wasn't ashamed of it. He didn't buy into the liberal lies about "separation of church and state" meaning that religious people somehow shouldn't let their faith values effect how they vote. He wasn't willing to give evil a pass just because America doesn't have a spotless record.

Ann Coulter, like Ronald Reagan, is a not ashamed to be a conservative. She isn't afraid to call evil out for what it is. And she's not afraid to address liberal emotionalism bluntly and with wit.

The liberal doctrine of political correctness makes people tremble when they hear someone like Ann Coulter speak plainly about liberal hypocracy. And liberals truly are hypocrites: we only have one Ann Coulter, whose doses of truth spun with biting wit send liberals into temper tantrums, but liberals have dozens of people who are unafraid to spread hateful lies, smearing conservatives and trying to ruin their lives just because of political disagreements.

Any conservative who denounces Ann Coulter as being too harsh should be ashamed. The conservative movement needs more people like Ann Coulter, unafraid to speak their minds, unashamed of their beliefs, willing to stand up before an onslaught of liberal hate speech and tell it like it is. If we allow liberals, in the guise of political correctness, to dictate what we can and cannot say, we may as well kiss the United States of America, the freest nation on the planet, goodbye. America needs Ann Coulter to remind conservatives that liberal speech isn't the only form of speech protected under the First Amendment.

And any liberal that says that this comment has "gone too far," or that comment was "beyond the pale" should look at their own side of the aisle and see the hate speech emanating from their own party.

The Auction Has Ended...and Harry Tries to Take Credit???

The ebay auction for the Harry Reid smear letter has ended...with a winning bid of $2,100,100. This means that because of Rush Limbaugh's efforts, $4,200,200 will be donated to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation (and that's not counting donations made by people who couldn't afford to bid on the letter itself).

I stated in my post yesterday, and I still believe, that this move by Rush is one of the most brilliant political maneuvers of our time...and today, Harry Reid himself tried to take credit for it.

On the floor of the Senate today, Reid stated:

Earlier this month, I came to the floor discussing comments made by Rush Limbaugh. Following my remarks, more than 40 of my Senate colleagues and I cosigned a letter to the chairman of Clear Channel, Mark May, telling him that we wanted him to confer with Rush Limbaugh regarding the statements he made. I've since spoken to Mark May about this. Mark May in fact called me regarding this letter.

This week, Rush Limbaugh put the original copy of that letter up for auction on eBay. Mr. President, we didn't have time or we could have gotten every Democratic Senator to sign that letter. But he put the letter up for auction on eBay. And I think very, very constructively, let the proceeds of that to go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation. What is the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation? It provides scholarship assistance to children of Marines and federal law enforcement personnel whose parent dies in the line of duty, as well as health care assistance for disabled children of fallen troops. What could be a more worthwhile cause? And I think it's really good that this money on eBay is going to be raised for this purpose.

When I spoke to Mark May I think that he and I thought this would probably not raise much money, a letter by Democratic Senators complaining about something. This morning, the bid is more than two million on this. We've watched it during the week. It keeps going up and up and up, and there's only a little bit of time left on it. But it's certainly going to be more than two million. Never did we think that this letter would bring money of this nature. The cause, Madam President, extremely good.

Now, everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh and I don't agree on everything in life, and maybe that's kind of an understatement. But without qualification, Mark May, the owner of the network that has Rush Limbaugh, and Rush Limbaugh should know that this letter that they're auctioning is going to be something that raises money for a really worthwhile cause. I don't know what we could do more important than helping make sure that children of our fallen soldiers and police officers who have fallen in the line of duty have the opportunity for their children to have a good education. Think about this. More than $2 million, this is going to really help. And that's, again, an understatement. There's only a little bit of time left.

So I would ask those that are wanting to do more, that they can go to the Harry Reid, search -- actually go on say "Harry Reid letter," this will come up on eBay. I encourage anyone interested in this with the means to do so to consider bidding on this letter and contributing to this worthwhile cause. I strongly believe that when we can put our differences aside, even Harry Reid and Rush Limbaugh, we should do that and try to accomplish good things for the American people.
(emphasis added)

So, let's get this straight: earlier this month, Harry Reid, in response to a smear campaign perpetrated by a left-wing attack organization, sent a letter to Mark Mays in an attempt to intimidate Mays into restricting just what Rush will and will not be allowed to say on the air. This letter was signed by Reid and 40 other Democrat senators.

Basically, the Senate tried to censor Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen.

In an act of defiance specifically aimed at embarrassing Harry Reid, Mark Mays gave the original copy of the letter to Rush, who in turn auctioned it off for charity.

And then, Harry Reid stood on the floor of the Senate and made a pathetic attempt to wipe the egg off of his face and fry it into an omlette. The way Reid talks, you'd think his purpose of writing the letter in the first place was to raise money for charity, and Mays and Limbaugh played along with his scheme.

The truth is that this campaign by Reid has been a lie since the beginning: the original smear by Media Matters was a lie, Reid and other Senate Democrats perpetrated that lie, and Limbaugh, who has been in the right on this from the beginning, threw it back in their faces...Harry Reid did nothing more than attempt to censor Rush Limbaugh, and now Harry Reid has the audacity to try and take credit for Limbaugh's raising money for charity!

When I first heard Reid's comments (as I was listening to Rush this morning), my head almost blew clean off of my shoulders, I got so angry. Harry Reid and 40 other Senate Democrats tried to weasel their way around the First Amendment and restrict a citizen's right to free speech, all based on a lie. Rush unmasked their lie and auctioned off the letter as concrete proof that the smear was false, and now Harry Reid is acting as though it was his idea from the beginning.

I've always thought of Harry Reid as a liberal blowhard, but how he's exposed his true nature: not only is he a liberal blowhard, but he is a despicable human being. His presence as a member of the US Senate is a stain on our nation.

***UPDATE***
The lies continue: ABC News has credited the Democrats with raising the money for the charity. So now not only has the left lied about Rush's comments and Harry Reid insinuated that the auction was his idea, but ABC News is turning Harry Reid's insinuation into yet another lie.

What's more, they make no mention of the fact that Rush is matching the donation.

One of the greatest maneuvers of all time...

Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh took the letter sent from Harry Reid to Mark Mays, Rush's ClearChannel syndication partner, and put it on ebay for auction to the highest bidder. The letter was signed by 41 US Senators.

The letter was basically a denunciation of the out-of-context "phony soldier" remark, and a call for Mr. Mays to "publicly repudiate these comments." Obviously, Mr. Mays did not do so.

Rush decided to auction off the letter and donate the proceeds to charity (the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which provides support for the families of deceased military and law enforcement personell). He has also stated that he will match the donation with his own money.

As of now (10/18/2007, 10:10 PST), the bid is up to $2,000,200. That means that the total donation will be $4,000,400, with Rush donating over 2 million dollars out of his own pocket.

Rush has been a steadfast supporter of the troops for many years, and this just makes it clearer than ever that Rush Limbaugh is not the man that the Left says he is.

It's About Time

Finally, there is some plain talk on Capitol Hill.

Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) finally told the nation what Democrats really think of President Bush.

Apparently, Stark got a little steamed with Republicans, who weren't willing to fall for the Democrats' next step toward socialism: the expansion of the SCHIP program.

From Stark:

"I'm just amazed that they can't figure out -- the Republicans are worried that they can't pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don't care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq."

"Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

So, according to Representative Stark, we're only in Iraq so that President Bush can get his jollies watching US troops "get their heads blown off?"

In the height of irony, there hasn't been much of any condemnation for Stark's comments from the Left. Thankfully, however, Republican leader John Boehner called Stark on it:

"Our troops in Iraq are fighting against al-Qaeda and other radical jihadists hellbent on killing the people we are sent here to represent. Congressman Stark's statement dishonors not only the Commander-in-Chief, but the thousands of courageous men and women of America's armed forces who believe in their mission and are putting their lives on the line for our freedom and security. Congressman Stark should retract his statement and apologize to the House, our Commander-in-Chief, and the families of our soldiers and commanders fighting terror overseas."

There's only one point that I disagree with Congressman Boehner on: after the shameful example that Pete Stark has made of himself, I think some form of seppuku (aka hari kari) would be much more appropriate.

Seriously, though, I think that more Democrats should stand up like Pete Stark, speak their minds and tell the people of America how they really feel; if Americans knew what most Democrat leaders truly believed, the only constituency left to vote for them would be the hate-filled anti-war commie wackos in Code Pink & International ANSWER (in other words, nine-tenths of the population of the San Francisco Bay area).

UPDATE***
Liberal wackos come to Stark's aid.

This is how liberals are: if conservatives either (1) makes the slightest misstep or (2) defends America's sovereignty and/or national security, they should be made to apologize (or thrown in jail, depending on the vitriol of the issue), but liberals can get away with saying whatever they want.

I'd bet good money that the same liberals who are defending Pete Stark are the ones who think Ann Coulter should be censored.

***UPDATE***

While it's pretty much impossible to get complete common sense out of a liberal, at least Nanci Pelosi has done something slightly encouraging by rebuking Pete Stark...it seems that her main concern was not the outrageousness of his statement, but the fact that it "distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand—providing health care for America's children."

Now if we could just get her to come to her senses on the whole socialism thing...

"The Terminator" Caves to the Gay Agenda

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed an education bill that will very likely change the face of California public schools. The bill, SB777, "bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices." What this bill could potentially result in is the banning of the words "mom," "dad," "husband" and "wife" from public schools, as well as any other words that define traditional gender roles.

From the article:

CCF noted that now on a banned list will be any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, materials that say people are born male or female (and not in between), sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes.

Further, homecoming kings now can be either male or female – as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify.

This is where our nation is headed: those holding to traditional values are being silenced through the use of "hate crimes" legislation, while any and every form of perversity is not only protected, but is encouraged. The side that claims to be the party of "tolerance" is promoting "tolerance" by making opposing viewpoints criminal.

This is all that liberalism has left: they cannot win arguments intellectually through logic, so their only recourse is to spread lies and hate, and to turn their opponent's very position into a "hate crime." This is not democracy, it is the road toward tyranny.

Another bill signed by Schwarzenegger, AB394, targets teachers for "anti-discrimination" training (in other words, liberal indoctrination).

Why? And Why Now?

The US Congress will quite possibly be voting on a non-binding resolution defining the Ottoman Empire's massacre of Armenians back in 1915 as an act of genocide. The House resolution has been pushed by majority leader Nancy Pelosi.

This, from the party that labeled President Bush as a diplomatic "miserable failure."

This resolution will solve nothing, and will, in fact, cause many a problem for the US military. It appears that the resolution is a response to Turkey's move toward taking military action in Iraq to put down Kurdish rebels. However, in a foreign policy sense, it is the textbook definition of a stupid bonehead maneuver.

President Bush has been trying to deal with the Turkey situation diplomatically, and this resolution will effectively undermine the administration's efforts, as well as damaging the US war effort in Iraq and possibly put our troops in greater danger - Turkey is a significant element of the US military supply chain into Iraq, and the Turkish government has stated that if this resolution is passed, that supply route will be closed.

As news about this resolution and Turkey's response has gotten out, liberal congressmen have moved to distance themselves from the resolution. It now looks like the resolution will not pass a Congressional vote. One has to ask, however: have the Dems moved away from this because it's wrong, or because they know there will be political backlash for their meddling in foreign policy?

UPDATE:
Well, Pelosi has apparently caved under pressure and is backing off from the Turkey resolution, probably because it had no chance of passing. Of course, if she had any sense at all she would've either proposed this resolution long ago, or sat on her hands and waited until Turkey, our ally in the war on terror, was not of such strategic importance.

Birth Control for Pre-Teens...What are We Coming To?

A school board in Maine is looking at a proposal that would allow a middle-school health center to prescribe birth control pills to students whose parents have given the health center consent to treat their children. What this means: children of ages 11-13 could have access to birth control pills with or without their parents' consent - parents must have signed consent to treat, but after that, services are considered confidential.

According to the report, only about 4% of students at the middle school reported being sexually active (which is about 4% too many!!!!). The real question, however, is this: will handing out birth control pills to students make that number more likely to decrease, or increase?

This is what liberals don't seem to understand about sex education: actions speak louder than words. (Most) Liberals say that kids shouldn't be having sex...and then they put mechanisms in place to make it easier for kids to have sex without having to deal with the consequences.

If a child of 11-13 years is sexually active, what he/she needs is a spanking, not birth control. Instead, liberals want to provide condoms and birth control pills to children, seemingly blind to the fact that this enables bad behavior. They knock "abstinence only" programs because they truly believe "kids are going to have sex anyway," then they do whatever they can to enable kids to have sex!!! Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone?

The truth is that liberals want to remove any vestige of morality from the act of having sex - even for children 11-13 years old. No-consequences sex is damaging to our society, especially in light of the fact that birth control pills and condoms are not 100% effective. What's more, the level of emotional intimacy involved in having sex is, quite simply, inappropriate for children. Why not let our kids be kids, instead of filling their heads with sex ed at this young of an age?

These kids don't need birth control pills, they need to be grounded and taught what inappropriate behavior is (preferably by their parents).

UPDATE:
The measure has carried: the Maine middle school will offer birth control "pills and patches" to its students. If they're offering the birth control patch, then this may be even more problematic: the last I heard, there was strong evidence that the birth control patch caused cancer...and the last thing we need (after giving kids birth control) is giving kids cancer.

Make a Note: This is Where We're Heading

According to a report in SKY News on Monday, an alarming number of people in England are doing their own dental work. This, in one of the idyllic havens of "free" health care.

As it turns out, the government covers part of the costs of dental care in England - the full cost is covered only for children and those on welfare. And apparently, being a dentist under the British national health care system isn't all that profitable - the number of dentists in the system has been declining, leading to increased costs. This (combined with the prohibitive tax rates already in England) is leading to people skipping out on dental work, or even trying to do it themselves.

The moral of the story: the market works. Government interventionism only screws things up, and leads to people resorting to pulling their own teeth, because the socialized health care system costs too much!

Absolutely Disgusting

As I was logging on to Blogger today, something caught my eye: the latest Blogger Buzz (aka "something I usually ignore altogether but caught my eye for some reason).

They are calling it the "Environmental Blog Roundup," and normally I would just ignore it as yet more global warming propaganda, but one particularly disgusting blog jumped out at me: the Rachel Carson Centennial Blog.

I have major problems with Rachel Carson. For anyone who doesn't know, Rachel Carson was a marine biologist/environmentalist who is given credit for helping to start the modern enviro-wacko movement.

Carson's defining work is a book called Silent Spring. In this book, she argues that pesticide use will inevitably lead to the deaths of animals, birds in particular, through a process called "bioaccumulation." DDT was in widespread use across the United States in an attempt to wipe out malaria. One of the side-effects of DDT was the weakening of the shells of birds' eggs. Carson argued that through bioaccumulation, birds would build up DDT in their systems, leaving their eggs constantly vulnerable to breakage, which would lead to the extinction of birds (hence the spring is silent).

The problem with Carson's premise: studies have showed that DDT does not accumulate in birds' systems. Use of DDT does temporarily weaken the shells of birds' eggs, but the problem does not persist over the long-term. In response to Carson's book, however (before these studies were completed), DDT was banned. When it comes to Rachel Carson, the most important question is this: how many people have died from malaria needlessly due to Rachel Carson's book?

Because of the ban on DDT in the US, the manufacture of DDT came to a screeching halt. US policy has worldwide effects, and the US's perception of DDT (and refusal to donate money for DDT use for malaria control in African nations...though the US would give money for other, less effective measures) has prevented effective malaria control in third-world nations across the globe. Since the publishing of Silent Spring, millions of people have died needlessly from mosquito-borne malaria.

Yes, we need to be responsible stewards of our environment...but what the enviro-wackos don't seem to understand (and haven't since Carson's day) is that overreacting based on false evidence (aka lies) helps no one.

For more information on this, I recommend the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science.

Randi Rhodes Attacked by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy...Or Not

Liberal talk radio host Randi Rhodes was injured Sunday night in what was at first alleged as a mugging. Apparently, Randi Rhodes hosts a show on Air America (I thought they went out of business, but apparently they're still around). Initially, there was no news other than that Rhodes had "experienced an unfortunate incident." However, John Elliot (another Air America host) apparently stated on his show that Rhodes had been mugged, and leapt to the conclusion that it must have been "an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own."

Talk about paranoia...and Elliot effectively spread the paranoia

Now it's being reported that Randi Rhodes was not mugged, she fell while walking her dog, injuring herself.

It's really interesting reading the Democratic Underground forum on this..."an unfortunate incident" soon turned into "a mugging," on untrue news from John Elliot...and soon after that it became "an attack" with accusations flying at everyone from Rush Limbaugh to the Bush administration. Some posters sounded like they were preparing to attack conservative talk show hosts in retaliation.

How about this: instead of trying to censor Rush Limbaugh for comments that he didn't make, why don't the leftist in our government do something about radio hosts on their own side (John Elliot) who seem to be all too willing to foment hatred by making baseless accusations?

Sounding Off on Limbaugh

It's a little late in the game, but I decided that it was time for me to finally sound off on my support for Rush Limbaugh.

Like waves against a cliff, liberals have tried to beat up on Rush Limbaugh over and over and over throughout his history in talk radio. Every time some left-wing media watchdog takes a Rush quote out of context, they jump all over it, and this is no exception.

When it became known that Rush was addicted to prescription painkillers (following a painful back surgery), Democrat leaders and leftist wackos called him a pothead. But, as one bumper sticker I saw said, "Even on drugs, Rush is still right." Even when addicted to painkillers, Rush continued his tradition of excellence in broadcasting. He managed to shake his addiction, and despite losing his hearing, he is going on, stronger than ever.

When Rush made comments about the possibility of Michael J. Fox foregoing medication for his Parkinson's in order to appear symptomatic in a Democrat's campaign commercial (as supported by the fact that Fox had admitted to doing this before), Left-wing media (aka "the drive-by media") jumped all over Limbaugh for weeks. They somehow forgot to mention that Rush had been corrected by a listener via email, and apologized to Fox at the beginning of the very next segment.

The current controversy is over the "phony soldiers" comment. The truth is this: leftist anti-war groups do put forward phony soldiers to preach against the war. The soldier in question (Jesse Macbeth) was a phony soldier - and he is currently serving out a jail sentence for falsifying DOD records.

This controversy came about because Media Matters (a liberal "media watchdog" organization with ties to George Soros and Hilary Clinton) took Limbaugh's discussion out of context. They say that Rush couldn't have been referring to Jesse Macbeth because Macbeth's name doesn't enter the conversation until a minute or two after Rush used the words "phony soldiers."

The truth (if anyone had actually listened to Rush, instead of getting all of their information through the Media Matters filter) is that Rush was talking about Jesse Macbeth. Any regular Rush listener knows that Rush does a "morning update" every morning - a segment about 2 minutes long that is aired before the start of Rush's program. In the morning update, Rush talked about Jesse Macbeth being an anti-war activist and a phony soldier. Any regular listener would be able to tell this very easily, having heard the morning update that morning (as I did), but the truth is that liberals out to smear Limbaugh rarely, if ever, care about the whole story (especially when the whole story shows that Rush is right).

More recently, there have been rumors floating around about how this smear campaign is just another step liberals are taking to try and revive the Fairness Doctrine - a law aimed at killing conservative talk radio. I haven't seen any real evidence of this, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

The truth on this issue is that Media Matters is a liberal smear organization fronting as a media watchdog. They've shown that they're not truly interested in presenting facts - they believe in the stereotypes that conservatives are racists, bigots, homophobes, and hate-mongers, and their entire organization revolves around taking conservatives out of context to try and "prove" that. The truth is that Rush Limbaugh has been a supporter of the US military for even longer than I've been a listener, and this controversy amounts to nothing more than yet another wave pounding against the cliff.

What's Happened to American Politics?

The '08 presidential campaign started earlier than any other presidential campaign in US history. Recently, it's been losing some steam, probably because most people are just plain tired of the political sniping and mud-slinging...and there's another year to go before the actual election.

But looking at the platitudes being put forward by today's candidates, it's a wonder just how far US politics has come.

As America began, debate was fierce, and the political process was heated. However, the debate was over which policies would be better for the nation, the assumption being that the candidate with the best ideas would win the most votes.

Today, US politics has been reduced to candidates offering bribes to the people in an attempt to buy votes: welfare, nationalized health care, social security entitlements, amnesty for illegal aliens - all designed to bribe people for votes. And the politicians who speak out against these measures are automatically villanized, depending on the issue: politicians who are against socialized health care "hate the poor." Those who are against social security "hate the elderly." Those who are against amnesty for illegals are "racists."

America's political process used to be about which candidate's ideas would most benefit the nation as a whole, but over time, it has become nothing more than a contest to see which politician can offer each American a larger bribe. The truly sad thing is that all too many Americans have bought into the entitlement mentality, believing that they truly are entitled to welfare, social security, and "free" health care, and that Mexican poor are entitled to come to America illegally and enjoy all of the rights and freedoms of US citizens. It isn't about what's right anymore, it's about what individuals can get from the government. And if this trend continues, the US will end up like the former Soviet Union: bankrupt, with citizens living in poverty because the government has to take so much of their money in taxes to pay for social programs.

Al Gore wins Peace Prize

Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to raise awareness on the issue of climate change. The argument from conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, is that with this move, the Nobel committee has lost all credibility. I would agree with Rush, except for one thing: the Nobel committee lost its credibility long ago: between Yasir Arafat and Jimmy Carter, the Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke for years now. In fact, Al Gore is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for the same reason he was given an Oscar: he's a liberal who is unafraid to bloviate endlessly about global warming.

The primary flaw behind Al Gore's awards are that his film was a sham, full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies about the nature of global warming. The news that Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is not as important as the news that an English court recently ruled that teachers showing Gore's movie to school children must give a disclaimer, explaining that the film contains inacuracies and partisan political views.

True conservatives can only hope that this English court's decision will introduce some logic into the global warming debate (which Gore refuses to engage in, citing "scientific consensus"), though that seems unlikely, as the mainstream TV and print media largely ignored the story coming out of England, yet have been praising Gore almost constantly since the Nobel Peace Prize announcement.