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.

Leave NCLB Behind

President Bush today voiced his intention to renew the No Child Left Behind Act, stating that

"No Child Left Behind is helping replace a culture of low expectations... As a result, the achievement gap is beginning to narrow.... There is more work to be done. So long as there is an achievement gap, we have more to do."

The truth is, about all No Child Left Behind has done is to institute a culture of increased bureaucracy - something our already bloated public education system definitely doesn't need any more of.

The problem with NCLB is that it tries to fix the education system through more testing...but our education system doesn't need more testing; what it needs is less regulation. Using standardized testing to reform the public education system is a grand case of failing to see the trees for the forest. If you stand back at a distance and look at the education system, NCLB looks great...but the truth is, NCLB is wreaking havoc at the classroom level, tying teachers' hands, forcing them to teach to the test, but preventing them from truly teaching their students. The further failing of NCLB is that it puts the responsibility for students' education squarely on the shoulders of public school teachers. The truth is, the most effective venue for a child's education is in the home: teachers introduce the concepts, but without reinforcement at home, it doesn't matter how hard teacher try, they will be ineffective. With this kind of legislation, it's no wonder that music and PE are being cut out of our schools: teachers not only have to introduce the concepts during school time, but they're forced to have students do what should be homework in class.

And all of that doesn't even include the amount of bureaucracy that NCLB adds to the public education system...at all levels. The federal government now gets more bureaucrats to impose further standards on teachers. The state governments now get more bureaucrats to impose even more standards and standardized tests on teachers. The local governments and school districts have to hire more bureaucrats to ensure that teachers are incorporating all of the district, state, and federal standards into their classroom teaching. The truth is, NCLB is leaving teachers behind: instead of doing whatever is necessary to teach students, they are regulated into teaching to the test.

President Bush is out there touting a narrowing in "the achievement gap." My question is this: is the achievement gap narrowing because low students are improving, or because high students aren't being educated properly? My suspicion, based on what I've seen happening in our public schools, is that it's the latter.