Elizabeth Edwards has breast cancer. I guess it was treated some time ago, but came back. This leads to the belief that her particular condition is uncurable.

The embarrassing part of news has been the Conservative reaction. All over talk radio and the blogosphere everyone is asking the same question: Will the Edwards make this a campaign issue?

Let me be the first Conservative to go on record by saying: who cares?

I fully expect the Edwards to make this a campaign issue. His wife has just been told she has a painful, incurable disease. In a nation where the Congress gives grant money to doctors and scientists seeking cures you can be dang sure it will be a campaign issue. How can anyone hold that against the Edwards.

The whining from the right is embarrassing. It's one thing if pundits were reacting to things the Edwards were saying, this is a pre-emptive self pity party.

Honestly, Edwards biggest obstacle at present is Hillary Clinton - he's still got to beat her. And if Clinton ends up on the ropes, there is still Barrack Obama. He's got to do all of this before he gets to a national election.

So with all this in mind my fellow Conservatives do me a favor and STOP COMPLAINING. Sometimes you just have to roll with the punches and frankly, this time it's a bunch of rabbit punches this time.

 

It seems that the Iranians have seized fifteen British Marines after the Brits carried out a routine inspection of an Iranian merchant vessel in the Shatt al-Arab waterway a corridor known for smugglers. According to reports, the British soldiers had finished their inspection when they were surrounded by six Iranian gun boats. This was the last time these people were seen publically but it's believed that they were taken to Iran. According to the Iranian News Service the soldiers had confessed to "invading" Iranian territory. The next day the same news service announced that the soldiers would be put on trial for spying, a crime punishable by death - but only if it could be proven that the Brits had knowingly entered Iranian territory. Since there are already "confessions" these guys could be in big trouble.

One of the interesting things about this incident is that never once in any of the stories from the unbiased, non partisan news that I've seen has the word "hostage" been used. Never once has the the suspicion of torture been brought up. Three years ago in Oct of 2004, Iran seized British troops in a similar incident. When released, those troops talked of mock executions and being blindfolded - things that are illegal under the Geneva Convention. And in that case, not all of the soldiers made it home.

Thus it's not surprising at all the leftists are looking at the Western account with suspicion. Iran is talking like Western liberals by dubbing the British "insurgents". This is playing well to the usual band of Bush hating morons. The great liberal philosopher Rosie O'Donnell has already suggested that this could be a contrived incident to foster a war with Iran. Cindy Sheehan and Sean Penn haven't been given microphones yet, but they'll probably say something similar. Maybe the English Government does have a history of lying, but it's not nearly as bad as the Iranian history of falsehoods. But who are leftists going to believe?

But unlike the Gulf of Tonkin ordeal, the Iranians haven't run away. In fact if it's a set up they've taken the bait and whole fishing pole along with it. Iran could end this incident very quickly by simply returning the troops and publically issuing a warning that they wouldn't do it again. At a time when Iran has proudly stated publically (before certain non western audiences) it's working on a nuke and will share the technology with terrorist groups, this is a very serious situation. The Brits didn't even find anything on the ship they searched.

Iran could end this situation very easily, but they're playing a very dangerous game of chicken. There has been talk of the US attacking Iran for years. Bush even included it in his "axis of evil". If that's true, why give Western powers the justification for an attack? You can stand up for yourself without turning the situation deadly.

 

How can the film "300" be anti Iranian? I haven't actually seen the movie but from what I'm told it is based on the Battle of Thermopylae, a battle that the Persian Empire won. If anything you'd think that the Iranians would love the movie.

Who were the Spartans of history? They were a people renouned for their violent and militaristic ways. They were a pagan people who tended to favor (unsurprisingly) the god of War. There is also a debate amongst historians over whether these men practiced homosexuality while on the campaign trail.

And the Greeks in general were a series of small states that often refused to work together. It was a pennisula of petty kings and Democracy known for its over reactions to world events. These states were also known for their reliance on paganism and devulges into the occult with such practices as going to Seers and Prophets. But what got the Persians mad was the Greek meddling in Persian politics. Even though all the world condemned the actions of Sparta and Athens and a couple of other rogue states, the Greeks still didn't back down.

Wouldn't all of this line up with an Islamic view of the West (and especially the United States) in the modern day? Decadent, violent, worshipping evil gods, getting involved in dark forces inspired by the Devil, unreasonable, getting involved in places where they shouldn't despite the world telling them they're in the wrong - these seem to be Iran's critique of modern life in the US from where I'm sitting.

And the Persians of this story? The Persians had a sophisticated Empire. They had a better system of government and areas under their management were stable and peaceful. It is believed that the Persians practiced Mithraism which is a proto type of Christianity and Islam. So even before their was a prophet, the Iranians were already moving in the right direction.

And when the uppity Greek States messed with Persia (just like today) the king set out to restore the balance. Xerxes gave the West a chance to back down, but the typical unreasonable Westerners refused. Thus they moved in to pacify the situation. In the end, the Spartans defending Thermopylae all laid dead. Their bodies were ground beneath the heels of the victorious Persian army. A fitting end for the decadent, greedy and chaotic disbelievers.

Now some Iranians in the modern day have complained about the portrayal of both sides in the movie "300". But what do they expect? Of course the United States is going to make a bunch of decadent, immoral Homosexuals look cool and sympathetic. Just like we'll make anyone who stands up for what's right look like filthy animals. This is just in our nature so I don't see the problem Iran has with the movie. This should just be par for the course.

 

Wow - what a crappy bunch of choices on the Conservative side for president. I'm sorry, none of these losers could inspire me to walk out of burning building much less vote for them. And all the pundits and all their guesses are wrong. They're hitting all around the answer to why no one can get a Conservative movement going, but they haven't hit it yet.

It basically boils down to WHY WON'T ANY OF THEM FIGHT FOR ANYTHING? The spirit of standing up for their beliefs is what won Ann Coulter so much praise from the Conservative base just a month ago. A lot of people feel like we're taking this lying down and we're tired of it. So many on the Republican side seem all too eager to sell what they say are their beliefs for some invites to the cool parties and 30 seconds of praise on CNN.  Not the least of which is John McCain. Note how many of the Republican candidates are from the Northeast? That's a big red flag - you don't win in New England unless you drop your ideas under pressure and none of these guys have even come close to demonstrating that they're fighters.

How do you think you can inspire me? So what if you're pro life - Hillary Clinton will call you a sexist and you'll back down. So what if you want to win the war on terror - Cindy Sheehan and her bunch will make one speech and you'll run for the tall grass. Your ideology is meaningless unless you're going to stand up and defend it. So what if you're for tax cuts, the left will just ask you to turn around, drop your pants and grab the ankles and you'll do it.

What's truly pathetic is that I know you guys *can* fight. You showed us this last year during the immigration debate. I've never seen one party stand up to its base and tell us off so forcefully. We told you we didn't want amnesty and you extended the middle finger and told us you'd do whatever you felt like doing. And then there was the William Jefferson scandal. You know that Democrat from New Orleans who took all that bribe money and the FBI got a warrant to search his office? I've never seen a bunch of people so willing to defend their political rivals - especially against their own base.

So here we are six months later and you're rolling over for them. We have the attorney non issue. Dems are going crazy over something that is not a violation of any law, not a violation of any ethic and something that historically Dems themselves have done and no Conservative leader inside the beltway has done anything to fight it. What's even worst is the number of you joining Liberal Democrats in pressuring Gonzales to quit - he did nothing wrong. (Well we can't get media coverage.) That is crap. If you stood up and fought the media would come and the headlines would all be the same "So and so stands up for corruption." You worry that that will look bad to middle America? What about your base? Middle America isn't going to remember this at election time, but the Conservative movement will. 

Why didn't any of you defend Libby? He was convicted because he couldn't remember anything. If that's a crime, then Hillary Clinton should be behind bars as well. But none of you even tried to defend him. Libby's not even the guy who leaked Plame's name. He was put on a liberal partisan railroad. Meanwhile just a couple of months ago Sandy Berger took official records off government property and hid them at a construction site in an attempt to thwart an investigation. Berger did something wrong and illegal. Where the hell were all of you when all of this was going on? I would expect the left not to mention anything cause they're getting caught dirty, but for the Conservatives to stand around and let it slip?

You choose to go in to politics. You choose to put yourself in the spotlight. Stop whining about it now. Are you going to stand up for what you believe in or not? Of course they're going to call you names, they're your political rivals. They're not your friends and will never treat you as such (unless they're trying to get something.) Forget it now. But the base will notice and this is what you need to jazz up if you're going to win *anything* in the next few years.  If someone actually goes out there, espouses a right wing viewpoint AND STANDS UP FOR IT AMID CRITICISM we'll have a front runner. In the meantime, have fun trying to out libs the libs. It'll never work, you'll never win and I'm stunned that you haven't learned this yet.

 So what is the stink over Bush firing eight attorneys now? He only fired eight, this means the rest are a bunch of Clinton hold overs. In my opinion Bush should have fired them all *the same way Bill Clinton did.* (Yeah, but there is a scandal...) There is no scandal here.(But they were investigating corruption of Republican officials which is blantantly partisan.) Well nine months ago you were telling us that the FBI couldn't investigate elected Democrat officials, so why is it that attorneys can?

Yeah, you remember that incident right? Seems that Representative William Jefferson (Democrat New Orleans) was being investigated for taking bribe money. The Feds wanted to search his office, but Congress threw a hissy fit at the time saying they were immune to such things even as it was revealed that while the city of New Orleans fell in to chaos, Jefferson was using army rescue vehicles to go to his house and hide the evidence. Interesting the change of heart now.

Bush did nothing wrong. Gonzales did nothing wrong. If it's a crime for a President to fire 8 people that work for him, then Clinton's firing of 93 is more than 10 times worst. And those 93 people were working on everything from corruption in high office to charges of racism. You can bet that the first Lib President who gets into office after Bush will can attorneys that don't tow the liberal line and no one will say anything.

I can't believe that lefties get so self righteous about no laws being broken when there are tons of real laws being broken all the time - overwhelmingly by them.

 

"Mustard Gas" is a blanket term used for several different types of poison gas. A good number of these gases are surprisingly non lethal. But don't make the mistake of thinking their effects are pleasant either. Just about all Mustard Gases are blistering agents causing welts on the skin. If if you inhale the gas, you get welts on the inside. If the gas gets in your eyes, well you can guess what happens. And being as that it damages the body gas maskes won't do much to protect you.

Mustard Gases were first unleashed in WW1. According to legend the first successful battlefield use was so successful the Germans didn't have time to capitalize on the victory. The first casualties of this attack didn't die immediately. It took them 4 to 5 weeks of vomiting, bleeding out every hole in the body and going blind before they were freed from the effects. Of course, the Germans used a highly concentrated form designed to kill rather than just maim.

And the beautiful part (?) of poison gas is that it could be attached to ordinary ammo: mortar rounds, missiles and other projectiles. That way if you miss your target the gas will still get them. It's a really ugly way of fighting a war. It's so terrible that even twenty years after WW1 a nation listening to a Halloween radio show of Martians invading the Earth and unleashing clouds of poison gas caused a panic. It's also why a lot of nations have banned the manufacture and use of such weapons.

One thing a lot of battlefield reports leave out though is the "collateral damage". At the mercy of the wind, the deadly cloud can go anywhere - even leaving the battlefield and going in to civilian places. We'll never really know how many innocent people were effected by Mustard Gas in WW1. We'll never have an accurate count of the animal population that was devastated either. From the pooh bear looking for honey to the mother bird bringing worms back to her chicks.

Why is all of this important? Because last Friday terrorists in Iraq detonated three "Chloride Bombs". The detonation affected an estimated 350 Iraqis (most of them civilians) and 6 US soldiers. Most newspaper accounts cite that there were only a couple of deaths involved in the attack. What they're not saying is that the survivors will live with injuries from the attack for the rest of their lives.

How can the media be unbiased when they won't even call it what it is: Mustard Gas, a weapon of mass destruction or an over reaction. It's sadly not surprising that the media who ran tons of cover stories just six months ago over *rumored* Israeli use of illegal cluster bombs won't dedicate a single minute to *real* use of illegal chemical weapons. As I said these are WMDs. They're being used in terrorist attacks. So the question becomes: where is this stuff coming from? If Saddam had no Mustard Gas then where are these people getting it? And where is it being manufactured? Why is one of the most important stories of current moment being almost totally ignored? If the use of cluster bombs is illegal and should be condemned, then why not illegal mustard gas?

Does the left still consider these people to be patriots on par with American Revolutionary leaders? When American soldiers in the Revolution "broke the rules" of warfare they attacked on Christmas, fought from cover and targeted enemy officers. When our current enemy "breaks the rules" of warfare they use illegal weapons, hide amongst civilians and target them when ready. American Revolutionaries tried to gain popular support amongst civilians by trying to appeal to people's sense of reason. Iraqi Terrorists try to gain power by targeting people who might disagree and bullying those people in to line. The differences are so stark if only someone out (outside of myself) there would give it some anaylsis.

 

 

Friday March 9, 2007 the Democratic party officially backed out of a televised debate to be presented by Fox News Channel in Nevada next Aug. Though there are many conflicting stories, the biggest theory is that the Left wing blogosphere demanded the pull out because Fox news is "too right wing".

That's really stupid of them. You'd think that the hardcore left would be celebrating its chance to bring another point of view to the mind numbed masses. There one chance to bring the kind of "balance" to a network they hate and libs throw it out. One could argue that Fox might be setting these people up to make them look bad, but wouldn't that just serve as more evidence of how rotten Fox News is?

Fox is probably the most watched of all the cable news channels. What kind of dirty tricks could Fox pull? Attempting something sneaky in the middle of the Democratic debate would be like trying to rob a bank on live television. Everybody would see what Fox was doing and call them on it. But let's assume the network did try something stupid, wouldn't it be great to expose Fox what you think it is?

That aside, if Dems and Libs really believe their ideas are solid they wouldn't mind talking about them anywhere. Dennis Kucinich has already said this much:

“I’m prepared to discuss the war, health care, trade, or any other issue anytime, anywhere, with any audience, answering any question from any media. And any candidate who won’t shouldn’t be President of the United States.”

-Kucinich's blog

And he's right. If you really believe in something then there are no "tough" questions. Thus it would be impossible for Fox to set them up.

But let's assume for a second that Dems went on Fox and the absolute worst possible thing happened. Don't you think that all the candidates would team up to defend themselves? They might be competing for the Democrat Presidential nomination, but there is no way they're all going to sit there and watch their entire side get trashed without doing anything. They'll circle the wagons for each other.

I think the Democrat pullout of the Fox debate sucks on a couple of levels. Firstly because I'm from Nevada and it's kind of a swipe at us (a little state.) Secondly because I watch Fox and was kind of looking forward to the debate.

If I was Roger Ailes, I'd sue for breach of contract.

 

On Friday March 2, after being introduced by Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, Ann Coulter walked to the microphone and uttered the phrase that would shake the political world.

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards."

The quote is an obvious joke and a comment on our times. It's even funnier considering how many outraged people now want to send Ann Coulter to rehab for daring to say it. Her comment also held political implications bringing up issues of the first amendment and freedom of speech as well as questioning the integrity of John Edwards himself.

Of course the usual gang of pot smoking, empty headed morons who wouldn't know a thought if it ran over them with a car were outraged. This is "hate speech." These are the same people who have no problem with university professors calling for the death of Americans simply because they are Americans. Good thing I'm here to bring sunshine onto their hypocritical stances once again. You see, there is another medium that has been using the word "faggot" for a long time now. Several years in fact.

Enter the show "South Park." Just a few years ago there was an episode called "Follow that Egg" (first aired Nov. 2nd, 2005) in which a jealous Mrs. Garrison had the following exchange with her gay ex lover Mr. Slave:

Mr. Slave: Mr. Garrison, there's something you should know. Al and I are getting married.
Mrs. Garrison: Married?
Big Gay Al: Yes.
Mrs. Garrison: You can't get married! You're faggots!

Later while trying to get a crowd worked in to a frenzy, Mrs. Garrison says the following:

Mrs. Garrison: Appeal to the governor? Oh, come on! Where's your balls? F*g drag!

From the episode "Mr. Garrison's fancy new vagina" (first aired March 9, 2005) come the following gems:

Mrs. Garrison: I'd rather be a woman who can't have periods than a f*g.

From the show called "South Park is totally gay" (first aired Oct 22, 2003) come the following quotes:

Cartman: Yeah, don't be such a f*g, dude!
and

Craig: You'll never be as metro-sexual as us! C'mon fags!

All these episodes came out years before Ann made her joke and the left was silent. No calls for boycotts. No demands for apologies. No crude comparisons to dictators and lunatics. Just utter silence. Why? There is no difference between what Ann did and what "South Park" does. Both make jokes of a political nature. You can't even argue that "South Park" only makes gay jokes at the expense of fictional characters. In the episode "Trapped in a Closet" (which first premiered Nov 16, 2005) several people including Tom Cruise and John Travolta literally become trapped in a closet and refuse to come out.

But if this isn't enough for the hypocrites on the left, I call their attention to "Rolling Stone Magazine" March 22, 2007 issue (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/south_park_still_sick_still_wrong/page/1) that features an interview with "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker. In it both Stone and Parker loudly tout their thoughts about lefties.

"...while soldiers and policemen protect me so I can say things like 'fudge-packing faggot' on my television show,..."

-Matt Stone

"...to go up to a tattooed, pierced vegan and say, 'Whatever, you tattooed faggot, you're a pierced faggot and whatever.' '' He looks very pleased with himself. "That's hardcore."

-Trey Parker

So admit it: you hate Ann Coulter and that's the only reason you're mad now. Just admit it, if nothing else to yourselves. If it's okay that "South Park" said it two years ago, then it should be okay to say it today. And if it's not okay to say it today, then where is your outrage over Parker and Stone?

 

Most people who read the news heard about Ann Coulter at CPAC last week. I guess she went to the microphone and joked "I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word faggot, you have to go to rehab." Naturally the "Conservatives" at the meeting couldn't distance themselves from Coulter fast enough - her words were called "inappropriate" and it was suggested she shouldn't have said it.

But this reflects the problems with the modern Conservative movement. It's bad enough the unbiased, non partisan, activist left wing press jumps all over true Conservatives - we don't need a pathetic washouts who call themselves Conservatives helping the left out. Someone else made a crude joke on Friday: Bill Maher when talking about the assassination attempt on Cheney stated "I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact." Maher also questioned why comments supporting the attempt on Cheney's life were taken down from the Huffington post.

Now which incident is getting more coverage? What do you think would have happened if Ann had joked that someone should kill Edwards? But Maher wasn't the only case ignored. There is no doubt that if Maher's comments ever did become big news, Libs would simply dismiss it as "free speech".

Assistant Professor Julio Pino at Kent State University has a blog called "Global War". In his blog, he hails an Islamic victory worldwide against the "Crusaders". In his own words he describes his agenda ""We are a jihadist news service, and provide battle dispatches, training manuals, and jihad videos to our brothers worldwide. All we want is to get Allah’s pleasure. We will write ‘Jihad’ across our foreheads, and the stars. The angels will carry our message throughout the world."

Not surprisingly Kent State refuses to take any responsibility for the hate being pumped out by Pino. After all the University argues, Pino has "free speech." The Libs circled the wagons again to defend this guy. Again the MSM felt this was not worth mentioning.

Now let's go back three weeks ago to the Edwards for President campaign itself. They had hired two bloggers by the names of Melissa McEwan and Amanda Marcotte. These two women are feminists who attacked Catholic dogma. The Edwards campaign REFUSED to take any action any the women at all, deciding instead to give them a "fair shake". Edwards himself stated "We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked."

The bottom line is that the left is actually willing to fight for what it believes in. And real conservatives are also willing to fight for what they believe in, which is why none of the current presidential candidates can get any traction with the base. People like John McCain are willing to sell us out so they can be invited to all the best parties - which is sickening. Arnold Swartzenegger ran as a conservative - so why is he pandering to the left now? North Easterners Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are really the front runners? These guys were elected in Lib country - how can they possibly even come close to what a real conservative is?

Why did Republicans get voted out last Nov? Because they sold out their base. Republicans fought for amnesty for illegals, federalized airline inspectors, implemented massive new spending policies, banned speech in the form of McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform and a host of other big left wing issues.

Ann Coulter's statement was a swipe at Political Correctness - a doctrine that is wrong. A doctrine that violates freedom of speech. A doctrine that is itself a political issue. People like me and Ann have been saying for 15 years that Political Correctness is wrong and no one listened. Politicians passed laws institutionalizing Political Correctness in the form of "Hate Speech" and people like me and Ann argued that it was wrong. So 15 years later, Ann is drawing attention to something that needs to be changed. PC has gone too far. It might have started out as an innocent attempt to treat people with dignity, but it's become a way for Liberals to silence debate and we're seeing that with Coulter right now.

So instead of giving in to the leftist agenda, we should be fighting on Coulter's behalf. Geez - the left defends Pino's calls for a jihad. So what's wrong with what Ann said?

 

 

Scientists have stated that life begins at conception. Therefore the debate is over, abortion is murder. So the question now becomes what are we going to do about this epidemic? Hitler killed 12 million innocent people and it was dubbed a 'holocaust'. So far it is estimated that over 44 million innocent people have been ruthlessly murdered since abortion became legal in 1973 in the United States alone.

More dehumanizing still, these victims of the surgeon's knife aren't even given death certificates. Like the slaves in the Antebellum South, victims of abortion are so devalued that we're not even keeping track of how many are dying at our convenience. There are no death certificates for our fellow citiznes. I guess not keeping an actual running count makes it more palatable. Like devastating wars thousands of miles away since we can't see it, it must not be happening. Ignoring the problem will make it go away.

And what is the average profile of this legalized form of murder? The libs keep telling us that we're a racist nation and they plan on keeping it that way. It is estimated that for every white baby there are three black ones killed. This ratio is almost as high as the number of white inmates to black when it comes to the death penalty.

Worst still is "Partial Birth Abortion" (which is supposed to be "a certain late term abortion" to make it sound nicer - just like calling "genocide" "ethnic cleansing.") Since most states call a baby a baby only when the child takes its first breath, partial birth abortion skirts the law by not giving the child the chance. What happens is as the baby starts to crown, the surgeon takes a scalpel and cuts open the baby's head. Then they take what is a glorified vacuum cleaner and suck out the baby's brain. This causes the head to collapse and makes birth easier.

Moviemakers in Hollywood couldn't create a more gorey scene and it's happening every day, closer than you might think.

Now racist, intolerant, murderous pro deathers argue that a woman should "have a right to choose" as if the pregnant woman is the only person involved in the situation. They forget the father who has no legal way of stopping the mother of his would be child. He can't force her to be a mother, but she can force him to be a father if she carries the baby to term - and this gross double standard is called "equality". They also forget the insurance companies - which in some states are required to pay for abortions driving up insurance costs on the rest of us. They forget the families: the would be grandparents, uncles and aunts, brothers and sisters.

The pro death movement is a bunch of holocaust deniers. They should be put on trial for crimes against humanity for allowing such terrible things.

The column above is pretty harsh isn't it? So I have a question: how many more columns am I going to have to read that written like this about global warming? Statements about "the debate is over" and then using a bunch of speculatative numbers to back up their argument? I would never truly suggest that the other side of the debate be silenced. They have freedom of speech and press too. So don't do it to me, okay?

 

March 17th (one of my favorite days of the year, St Patrick's Day) this year will feature yet another anti war demonstration in Washington DC. Nothing special about that. And this demonstration will feature the usual cast of tired characters: ancient hippies trying to cling to their fading youth, movie stars trying desperately to rekindle their smoldering careers, college kids looking for free drugs and the Union rent-a-mobs to swell the ranks the ranks of protesters in an attempt to make them look bigger than they are. This protest will be a march around Washington, passing by some of the monuments to the wars our nation has fought and then up to the capitol.

Okay, that's fine by me. These people have a right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and so on. No big deal.

But this protest will feature something different: a counter protest. A veteran's group called "A Gathering of Eagles" has announced that they will be on hand at various war monuments to make sure that nothing gets vandalized. After all the reports of peaceniks spraying paint on the White House steps, spitting on Iraq war vets and various other nefarious things I can't imagine why a bunch of vets would want to do this.

Anyway, the left is horrified that someone would dare show up to counter protest them. I personally think what the left is really scared of is the backlash against them. You see, whereas the peaceniks are mostly there to party and take free hits from the bong, "A Gathering of Eagles" is there out of genuine anger. I'll never forget the 2000 election fiasco and the angry protesters showing up at the doorsteps to the election office to prevent the Dems from giving themselves the vote. It was the first time I've ever heard left wing politicians suggesting the crowd shouldn't be listened too. Usually big lefties have tears in their eyes as they point to the assembled mass and say "all these people are here, we should do what they say."

Same thing here. The left thinks they should own the protest lines. Other people shouldn't be allowed to speak against them: that's "hateful".

So as a conservative this is really fun to watch. It would be great if the counter protest turned out to be larger than the actual protest.

 

I don't believe what I'm reading. Of course, nothing should surprise me 
anymore the fact that some things still do is a sign that I still have faith 
in our system at all.

It seems that a Republican Club at New York University recently had an event 
where people were invited to play a game called "Find the Illegal 
Immigrant". Attendees were given name tags and then had to find the person 
with "illegal alien" written on their badge. As you can imagine, a place of 
tolerance and openess like a New York college isn't going to put up with 
this type of thing. It's caused a stink nation wide. Just this week, this 
incident began to shake the halls of Congress.

Ramona Martinez (Chairwoman of the DNC Hispanic Caucas) and Howard Dean have 
sent an angry letter to the RNC demanding the Campus group be punished. 
"These dispicable tactics have no place in our public discourse or on our 
college camp[i]," the letter fumes. Funny cause last time I looked, 
Americans still had freedom of speech and expression. I guess tolerance has 
no place for those who disagree.

The biggest problem Libs have with this activity seems to stem from the 
charge of "racism". This is interesting considering that there are illegal 
aliens from every section of the world, who speak every language, practice 
every religion and have every culture. The second funny part is I can't help 
but wonder how many blacks, whites and asians make up the DNC Hispanic 
caucus.

I'm sorry if talking about illegal immigration makes aliens feel bad - IT 
SHOULD. The number of laws broken by the NYU Republican club = 0. The number 
of laws broken by illegal aliens = at least 1.

A lot of Libs have called me a "nationalist" on this issue (as if 
Nationalism is a bad thing.) You know what "nationalism" is? It's going to 
another country (uninvited), violating the laws of that country, so filled 
with your own hybris in your own culture that you refuse to join those 
people in their culture and mooch off their system. All illegals want is 
live off of us like parasites. They want all the goodies that come with 
being an American with none of the responsibilities. Moreover, they don't 
want to be called bad for it. Not only are they to rape us, we're supposed 
to give up our Constitutional freedoms for the sake of their egos.

The students at NYU should be getting medals, not condemned. They've done 
what protests and elections couldn't: they've opened up a SERIOUS dialogue 
about the problem. Almost a year ago this debate heated up when Bush pushed 
for legislation that would grant amnesty for illegal aliens in our borders. 
The public was angry in every single poll. Even amongst immigrants the 
numbers demonstrated the people were against the idea. Republican leaders at 
the time gave a huge middle finger to all of these people (leading to a 
defeat in Nov.)

Despite this, Congress didn't seem to get the message.  It's staggering to 
think that our government, the people who make and enforce the laws don't 
think the law is serious. If there is a group of people who don't like it 
and said group could be big enough to effect an election, then the law means 
nothing. There are a lot of laws I don't like. Should a bunch of people get 
together and decide we're not going to do it anymore?

More frightening still is that the Left is always pushing for new laws: from 
health care to the environment. Am I to believe that some time in the future 
if a protected group decides they don't want to follow those laws then they 
will get their way?

It's just completely unbelievable.

 

Libs think (Spring 2007 update)

I do this every now and then. Time to update the list.

Libs think:

1) The Terrorists were framed.

2) Saddam Hussein was innocent.

3) Tookie Williams was innocent.

4) If brought before a World Court composed of leading Peaceniks, Socialists, Communists and environmentalists Bush would get a fair trial.

5) The best way to protect our nation from foreigners who would do it harm is to give said foreigners rights, privileges and protections above and beyond what law abiding US citizens get (administered by million dollar lawyers working pro bono most law abiding citizens could never hire.)

6) The real reason terrorists hate us is because of global warming and our failure to pass gay marriage.

7) Al Quada was formed by a coalition of religions angry that Bush won in 2000.

8) The FBI is completely untrustworthy (except the reports detailing abuses at Guantanamo Bay).

9) Not voting for/hiring someone because they're black/a woman/gay is discrimination.

10) Not voting for/hiring someone because they're a straight, white male is equalitarian.

11) Spending more money than any other nation at any time in history in an education system that produces students that can't even read and write proves that we're not spending enough on education.

12) The government owns everything, we're just borrowing it for now.

13) #12 is not Socialism.

14) People that can't even fix potholes in roads can trusted with our healthcare.

15) Our military should be subject to world courts and (in the case of Iraq) put on trial for war crimes against humanity. Furthermore soldiers should be kicked off high school and college campi.

16) #15 proves they support the troops.

17) "P*ss Christ" should be supported as free speech.

18) Pictures of the Prophet Mohammed shouldn't be allowed because it's a hateful, irresponsible use of speech.

19)"Democracy Now" is fair and balanced.

20) Forcing climatologists, meteorologists and weathermen to embrace Global Warming *is* the tolerant thing to do.

21) Being "open minded" means not listening.

22) "Tolerance" means banning everything you disagree with.

23) "Bipartisanship" means everyone agreeing with them.

24) The best way to solve California's electricity problem is to get rid of all coal burning power plants.

25) Protecting American Culture is racist.

26) Protecting the culture of immigrants is equalitarian.

27) If we ban war, wars will stop.

28) International law should trump the Constitution.

29) The US having nukes is a threat to world peace.

30) The Iranians having nukes will enhance world peace.

31) Don't judge people: especially minorities who we all know are victims.

32) Don't judge people: especially white men who we all know have had everything handed to them.

33) The best way to enhance free speech is for the government to step in and regulate it.

 

The Pentagon has decided to crack down on soldiers who are speaking out. Officials have sent out warnings to personal that criticism against (in particular) the president will not be tolerated. Arguing that civilian power is higher than military, the Pentagon has barred the use of "contemptuous" language against the president of the United States. In fact, a memo sent to members of the Air Force actually warning that "insulting, rude or disdainful" speech/writing about the president is against military code.

This is not surprising response considering all the soldiers that are now darlings of the left from Ehren Watada who is in a trial for insubordination to military personnel who appeared on a recent episode of "60 Minutes" denouncing the war. These modern martyrs find themselves becoming instant media sensations by the unbiased, non partisan mainstream media – which isn’t a surprise either.

What is surprising is the Pentagon’s crackdown reference in the first paragraph was from 1998 in response to growing cynicism by soldiers to then President Bill Clinton. The libs didn’t think it was cute back then. There were no television cameras to talk to people like Marine Major Shane Sellers. There were no grinning info babes demanding to talk to Army Colonel John Baer. In fact, most leftists at the time were telling us how soldiers should keep their mouths shut. They were happy when the (at the time) Marine deputy commandant General Terrence Drake advised Marine generals to stay out of the debate over Clinton. One Socialist online paper even put it:

"There can be no doubt that the ongoing assault on Clinton by his right-wing opponents, culminating in the Lewinsky scandal, has emboldened those elements within the military who consider Clinton's foreign policy insufficiently aggressive."
-http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/pen-o21.shtml

Most disturbing to the Clintonistas of 1998, soldiers had actually started an online petition to get Saint Clinton impeached. By all accounts this was deemed illegal, unethical and punishable by the echelons of military command at the time. According to the "60 Minutes" story "Dissension in the ranks" soldiers have started a petition to get out of Iraq. It will be interesting to watch the contrast.

I’m still stunned that liberal Dems are suddenly interested in the opinion our troops. Wouldn’t the best way for someone to get their opinion out in a Republic like ours is to vote? I guess it’s too bad that leftist closed down voting booths at military bases outside the country. Thus if you want to vote and you’re a soldier, you have to vote absentee – but wait, a lot of army mail comes without postmarks. So any unmarked ballot arriving after the election should be thrown out right? This is what Al Gore did when he was trying to win the presidency in Florida. I guess the military didn’t matter then.

In the wake of this action, Republicans in Congress introduced legislation to reopen military voting booths. But the usual cast of Lefty characters in Congress insured that the debate would go on right up till the Congress would close its voting year.

Too bad soldiers just like the poor – you’ll have to take another hit for Team Socialist.

 

 

Bipartisanship - what a wonderful word. We all come together and sing kumbaya around the campfire while taking hits from a fatty. Libs often complain that the United States was founded on us all coming together and that's the way the system is supposed to work (if it weren't for those damn Conservatives.)

But then the left defines everything in terms of themselves. Thus "bipartisanship" means "agreeing with them." Thus the Iraq Study Group was "bipartisan" even though there was nothing Conservative in it. Flip side, Joe Lieberman is a partisan hack when it comes to the war in Iraq.

But the truth is the founding fathers never envisioned a nation where everyone gets along. This is why they put things in the Constitution like Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion - they fully expected someone to try to railroad political opposition. This is why they put checks on powers of each branch of government. That way the people could stop unpopular ideas.

But that aside, the left needs people to agree with them to win anything. They're wrong on every issue in every poll. Most people are pro life. Most people are pro gun. Most people want tougher immigration laws.

Thank god the will of the people never matters to big libs. :)