The '08 elections are really far out but it hasn't stopped the media from hyping it all over the place. The left is getting Hillary Clinton. They're stuck with her. Despite all the excitement over Barrack Obama. But even if he did have a chance, Dems would have to pick between big lefty number 1, big lefty number 2, big lefty number 3, big lefty number 4, etc. The only difference between any of these candidates is what demographically oppressed group they represent.

Oh joy. A fist full of terrible ideas but at least the left can walk around and tell everyone that they don't discriminate on the basis of race (unless you're white) or gender (unless you're male.)

On the right it's almost equally as bad. The current favorite is the "maverick" John McCain. (Whereas people on the left who vote Conservative every so often are crazy, people on the right like McCain who support the Liberal agenda more often than not are courageous, mavericks and just what the Conservatives need.)

McCain is in favor of amnesty for invaders and banning free speech (aka silencing his political opposition). He's also in favor of activist left wing judges, setting up the "gang of 14" to oppose conservative judges. Most polls that I've looked at verify that Conservatives are overwhelmingly in favor of the opposite of all the above. This makes him a dog amongst most Conservative groups and a hero of the media and Liberals all hoping he'll win the nomination in '08. Not that lefties are going to vote for him, it just means that even if they lose the individual at the helm will be someone advancing their views.

McCain hasn't won the nomination yet. First he has to tackle other nominees among them, Mitt Romney from Massachusetts. What's Romney's big Conservative issue? Socialized medicine. He's in favor of it. Funny when you consider most conservatives are opposed to big government anything. So voters will have to choose between the Socialized Medicine of Romney and the Socialized Medicine of Clinton. If you're opposed to government health care, you're out in cold I guess. You'll have another choice in this decision: do you want to vote for Romney and be (in Hillary's case) a sexist or (in Barrack's case) a racist or (in Romney's case) a religious bigot?

Then there is former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani best know for his tenure during 9-11. Unfortunately, most people know little about this RINO outside of that. Rudy's record on suing gun companies for the violence in New York. His ideas on immigration also suggest that he too would be in favor of amnesty for illegals and many other things Conservatives will find troublesome.

How sad that moderates are the only thing that the right can muster to throw up against the hardcore left. Cracking down on aliens, security, judges who interprete the Constitution instead of writing their own laws are winning issues amongst Conservatives. So naturally, everyone is running from them.

Back in the 1920's and 30's the technology of radio began changing the American landscape. "Broadcasters" (a term coined after farmers throwing seeds in their fields) began to create programming for leisure pursuits. Like today, it was mostly music at first. But later it went on to include news and various shows.

But there was trouble on the horizon. Fights broke out between the competing radio stations. Broadcasters would sometimes change frequencies without telling anyone or turn up their power, drowning out other signals. As the radio wars got worse, the government stepped in and set up the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). They justified this move by rationalizing that the radio frequencies encircling the earth were public property. (The closest parallel to this would be to argue that demonstrations often use public parks and sidewalks, thus you'd need a license before marching.)

The FCC was given regulatory powers including the power to give licenses, dictate how powerful signals could be and grant call letters.

But the question came up: what if someone bought out all of the radio stations? Couldn't these people control the debate by deciding what would be presented on their stations and what wouldn't? This was a great concern to people who could still remember Teddy Roosevelt the great trust buster.

Enter "The Fairness Doctrine", a regulation set up to "present both sides of the argument". The doctrine simply stated that in any discussion of political issues, the other side had to be presented with equal time. There was a limit to how many stations/newspapers a company could own. (Note that journalists and news agencies were exempt from these restrictions.)

In a world where there were only handfull of  real outlets of discussion either on the radio airwaves/television airwaves this seemed like a good idea. Unfortunately "the Fairness Doctrine" only succeeded in shutting down debate all together. There are more than two sides in almost any debate and it's impossible to dedicate time to all of those involved. The quickest way to get the FCC off your back was to not say anything at all.

As time went on, new avenues opened up in the world of broadcasting. FM radio was invented. So were UHF and cable television channels. It took it some forty years but eventually this broke up everything until by 1986, Ronald Reagan did away with "the Fairness Doctrine." AM channels were getting killed anyway by music only stations that sounded better on stereo FM. Cable stations were providing more sources of information than just the "big three networks" all put together.

This ushered in the era of talk radio and the rise of Conservative talk. Hosts from coast to coast quickly began to take over the radio dials providing lots of op eds. Liberal hosts tended to go extinct. Television networks began to find their numbers slipping, especially in their nightly newscasts to cable outlets.

The nineties saw the rise of "Fox News" and the internet. For the first time in history the American public was completely overwhelmed by information. You can get almost anything you need at any time day or night with a couple of mouse clicks.

The problem was that people stopped listening/watching liberal shows and hosts. Newspapers and news magazines began to die due to lack of readership. Hollywood films pumping out left wing propaganda began to bomb at theaters nation wide. The left wing point of view wasn't getting out anymore.

But Liberals couldn't do anything about it accept complain since Republicans controlled both houses of congress. But that all changed in 2006 with the election of a new Democratic lead Congress. They haven't even been in power a month and they're already rolling out several ideas to bring back the days of yester year when they had unquestioned control of all the flows of information. One of their centerpieces is the reinstallment of "The Fairness Doctrine".

It's funny to think that the same leftists that look with suspicion whenever "big oil men" are appointed to the Energy Department are firmly convinced that the news industry that votes 90% left wing in every election can present "both sides" fairly. But that aside, the left can't agree over *why* to bring the doctrine.

The first school is angry about "bias" on radio/television. Their idea is to end things like Fox News and Conservative Talk radio (since their side can't compete.) Air America went down the toilet (even after embezzling money from disadvantaged inner city kids to try to keep themselves afloat.) They argue that these things are actually propaganda from the right (disguised as factual shows) that are spreading disinformation.

The problem with this first school is that freedom of speech means that people have a right to talk, discuss and decide for themselves what they want to believe. The Government (under the guise of "The Fairness Doctrine") would stamp on free speech by denying people the right to say everything they want too. It would also put in the requirement that people in media outlets would have to say things they don't necessarily want too. This is the first step towards tyranny. It also hinges on the assumption that the listener is too stupid to decide for themselves. In a world where there are thousands of sources of information, you have to trust in the people.

The second school in favor of a new doctrine are the people who argue just the opposite: that there are too many media outlets and the stupid people on the street can't decide what to believe. Thus it's up to the government to step in and filter the information from people.

Obviously again, this would be an attack on freedom of thought. People need to be trusted to decide for themselves what to believe. It's interesting to note that these two left wing arguments actually counter each other - but that's what we come to expect from people who think they know better than the rest of us.

It's bad enough that the holier than thou amongst us believe they should be deciding what we see and read on the airwaves, but their plan is more insideous than that. They also want to encroach on the internet and the blogosphere - attaching nice words "lobbying reform" to bills that would regulate what is said on the internet. I would expect anyone with a quality first grade education to see how that is a violation of free speech and press. Thank god the left controls the schools and is dumbing down education or they'd all be kicked out of office.

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to things that used the public airwaves. It *never* applied to newspapers. Nor does it apply to private enterprises like the internet. No one needs a license to blog (yet.) But make no bones about it - that will be a stepping stone down the road.

I believe that Free Speech is just that: free. Unregulated, no license required, no government agency oversight, no laws telling me what can and cannot be said, but actually free. The minute you put ANY kind of "but" in there, you no longer have free speech. It's shocking that so many people do want to put "but"s in there and still call it free.

Cindy Sheehan was on Sean Hannity yesterday repeating her tired message of talking to our enemies. Especially people like the Iranians, the North Koreans, al Quada, etc.

The fact that we *have* been talking to these people sails over her head. They're not interested in peace. ("Yeah well, if Bush wasn't saber rattling these people would be talking to us.") Need I remind you that the present tyranny in Iran began under Carter? North Korea went nuclear back in 1994 when then President Clinton gave them everything they needed to build a bomb?

Anyway, we have been talking to these people...for a long, long time. Despite all of our talking these people continue to make threats and oppress everyone who gets in their way. North Korea and Iran are both trying to make nuclear weapons. Peaceniks demanding disarming the west are among some of the greatest supporters of tyrannical states going nuclear. The Russians (who publically demand the world talk to Iran) is supplying the Iranians with radioactive materials. Just last week, they sold missiles to Tehran. Another state, Germany is doing something similiar to the Russians: they sold enrichment materials to the Islamists in Iran.

I'll say it again: Iran is not interested in peace. If they were, they wouldn't back the terrorist organization of Hezbollah, an organization that attempts to kill everyone that it disagrees with be they civilian or soldier, be they man, woman or child. (It's not just the United States that's declared them a terrorist organization either - so has Canada and the Netherlands.)

So with all of this in mind, I want to issue the following challenge to the left: So sure you can make a lasting peace with people who disagree with you, then prove it - convince me that you're right. It should be pretty easy. I'm not sponsoring terrorist groups, trying to build nuclear weapons and making threats against my geographic neighbors. ("But you're totally irrational. We can never convince you.") So you admit that there are people who are completely unreasonable and you expect to talk the Iranians in to peace? If you really think you can talk your way to peace at the world level, surely you can sell me on your way of doing it. Should be pretty easy. But I'll tell you know, when you begin trashing the United States, talking down to me, calling me greedy and decadent might score you lots of points when talking to hate filled Islamofascists, but it isn't going to curry any favor with me.

For those of you who have been living in a cave on Mars for the past couple of months, Nancy Pelosi is the new Speaker of the House. She's the first female speaker in American history. Our unbiased, non partisan media is making quite a fanfair pointing out (among other things) that this makes a woman third in line for the President. True, they didn't throw this big a party when Colin Powell was made the first black Secretary of State (and second in line for the President) or when Condoleezza Rice was made the first black female in charge of the NSA. But far be it from me to point out liberalism in the press. (Libs are always pointing out racism in American culture, perhaps white journalists are just following through on something we already know is true.)

So what makes Pelosi so qualified? Interestingly, Feminists have forwarded the fact that Madam Pelosi is a mother - the one job most despised by the left. Motherhood is the symbol of male oppression: a woman who is defined only by her sexuality and forced to remain at home in an unfulfilling existence. Nevermind the fact that's offensive that Madam Pelosi would sit on her roost looking down on us all like spoiled children who have misbehaved. But libs enjoy stuff like that (as long as they're the 'parents' in this twisted relationship.)

Fortunately, Libs have redefined "mother" for us. The Left wing "mother" is a woman who 'don't need no man'. She's a single woman who's kids have an excellent chance to be on drugs, doesn't do as well in school, more likely to break the law, more likely to join gangs and so on. So I guess it makes sense that Pelosi is pushing to let the government to give us drugs, is dumbing down education, is funding attourneys who will let us ignore laws on immigration, etc. Can I have my party hat now?

But there is a scary side to Liberal motherhood. A side that believes destroying their children is okay (especially if said child is unborn). We're the only animal on the face of the earth that believes this is okay - even the mother cobra will defend her clutch. If a venomous reptile feels this way, what are we to think of Left wing women and their philosophy on motherhood? Left wing women are also encouraged to put their children aside in favor of their jobs. So Pelosi will go back to ignoring the children she bounced on her knee as soon as it's no longer scoring her political points. But we all knew this was going to happen anyway. Everything in the Lefty universe is about photo ops and political accessories (much like lefty single mothers who demand education, welfare, healthcare, housing and food "for their children"). The irony is that with so much going on in their lives, they tend not to have any time for their kids.

Sorry, I really don't need another mother (especially one that is so careless.)

The New Democratic Congress hasn't even taken over yet and they're already planning at grabbing free speech from the American people. After all my studies in American history, I've never seen such a draconian attempt by a Congress to silence their critics. Not even the Sedition Act of the 1790's went this far.

Like every Liberal act, it has a nice name. Unliked most liberal acts, "Civil Rights" isn't included in the title. It's actually called "Pelosi’s Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006". (At least she put her name on it so we all know who to blame.)

What does the law do? It requires organizations that ask citizens to contact governing officials to register with the government and submit quarterly reports. Said reports must include the names of group members, who they urged citizens to contact, what the issues were that were discussed, how much money was spent and so on. In edition, it broadens the definition of a "lobbyist" to include anyone who contacts their Congresspeople for any political reason.

Thus Leftists can walk around and tell everyone they're cracking down on lobbying. But this would be like instituting police reform by passing a law that tightens regulations on security personnel at the mall.

It's more insulting when you hear lunatic leftists defend their grab on free speech. They'll give you all kinds of grandiose reasons about wanting to streamline taxes and the desire to monitor political activity inside the US.

There is no change for big money corporations, million dollar lawyers and other large cash groups that try to influence Congress. (Apparently Congresspeople need lots of money if they want to look out for the little guy.)

The framers of the Constitution wanted a government that people could, not only get involved in but actively seek to change. Otherwise they would never have put freedom of speech, press and petition in the first amendment. Even anonymous messages are covered under the first amendment. The author/speaker has free speech/press just like everyone else. Indeed, some times the anonymous speaker has the greatest volume.

There is a good chance this legislation will pass. The law will punish anyone that tries to redress the Government. It will reign in the citizens that act out of line and refuse to tow the liberal line. Best of all, it will take freedom away from the people cause there is nothing more offensive to the leftist than a free people.

It's a new year and a lot of us feel like we're starting with a clean slate. Nothing wrong with that. Personally I feel like I'm starting with a clean slate as well. So let me start by asking so many of you to stop hammering me in to stereotypical roles.

For beginners, stop writing me complaining about what a terrible "journalist" I am. Don't put me in their ranks. I'm not a squealing, crying, simple minded little lefty who thinks you're too stupid to make up your own mind. I'm not going to sit here and apologize for Muslim terrorists killing innocent people. Nor will I sit here and grant glowing praise to liberals trying to steal the freedom of everyone around them.

I'm also not going to present the other side of the argument. Why on earth would I try to sell you on an idea that I don't believe? This is a throwback to "The Fairness Doctrine" an unconstitutional regulation done by the FCC to force the three (and only three) broadcast stations back in the 30's to discuss more than one side of the political debate. (Can you say "retraction of Free Speech"?) The Fairness Doctrine was killed under Reagan when Cable exploded on to the scene. In a day and age where the Internet brings us every type of information you want, the Fairness Doctrine needs to remain buried. The history lesson aside, the Fairness Doctrine *never* applied to print media. If you don't like my columns feel free to write your own.

Stop prejudicing me for being from Nebraska. If the libs really are so open minded, non judgemental and never look at things like skin color and the ethnicity of people why do I get so many letters saying "You people from Nebraska..." Don't forget, the Leftist Icon Malcom X was from Nebraska. (He didn't live there his whole life.) What did I just say about stereotyping people? Cause I haven't lived in Nebraska my entire life either. In fact, I've spent less than 30% of my life living in Nebraska. And while I lived there, I knew outspoken Communists and Anarchists. I knew Republicans and Democrats. I knew Nazis and Black Nationalists. I knew Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Witches, Christians, people who (literally) worship the DNA of our bodies, agnostics and outright athiests. I knew black people, white people, mexican people, illegal aliens, German legal aliens, Russian legal aliens, etc.

Stop challenging my credentials. I got a Bachelor of Science of History from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln in 1998. I studied a wide variety of literature spanning the ages and the world at large. In fact, I dedicated quite a bit of time and energy to it. I have done my homework on this subject. It's fine if you want to take issue with something *and provide sources* that I can read myself. But stop writing me just ranting in general. But expect me to sneer at the paper thin pamphlets you've been handed at your local Mosque/Rainbow Coalition Office/Communist Headquarters/etc.

"The History books are written by the victors." I don't believe this for several reasons. Am I to believe that the Nazis and the Confederacy of the United States were agencies of good? With that in mind, shouldn't we also be taking a more critical eye at all the various Muslim empires that I'm told were great (because they wrote books saying they were great)? Sometimes the history books are written by the side that is actually literate (Roman conquest of the Celts, Europe's struggle against the Vikings, China's struggle against the Western Barbarians, American Indian's struggle with the European powers, etc).

Stop writing me letters saying things like "All you Christians just so prejudiced." I'm not a Christian. I'm also not a Jew. As far as I'm concerned my religion isn't the issue of most of my columns (unless I make it the issue.) Although they often overlap, it is possible for religion to be independent of political ideology. Not every Christian is a Conservative Republican voter. Not every Jew is a Liberal Democrat. This doesn't make these people any less Christian/Jewish any more than it makes them any less Republican/Democrat.

I'm not a warmonger, but there are people out there intent on hurting the citizens of our nation that must be stopped. I'm not in favor of polluting the environment, but I haven't seen anything that would convince me that Global Warming is actually happening. I'm not in favor of discrimination on any grounds, which is why I'm opposed to Affirmative Action (a practice that discriminates against white people.) I don't believe in animal rights, but I don't torture my house pets and wildlife that live around me.
 
You leftists really need to open your minds to a wider point of view.

 

So six imams flying on US Airways flight 300 are trying to sue for being kicked off their flight. According the stories of the imams, they were dressed in typical Muslim garb and three of the six men prayed before getting on the flight. "Islamophobia" is what got them kicked off. Americans just hate religious minorities (and people with dark skin shades) and that's why there is this miscarriage of justice.

What the Islamists won't tell you is that once on the flight the "flying imams" immediately took positions in front of all the emergency exits. They asked for seat belt extensions (although none of them were overweight.) They discussed Osama bin Laden and his great work openly.

This is all bad enough, but the fact that *anyone* would take these people seriously is insane - and yet, that is exactly what is happening.

These guys were acting suspicious. If you look down a dark alley and see several tough looking guys playing with knives at the end of it, would you walk down it? Remember: we shouldn't stereotype and judge people on the basis of anything anymore. We need to work to get rid of "-phobia"s.

What is a "-phobia"? It's basically criticising/questioning/assuming something about whatever is in front of the word "phobia". Thus in the example above, questioning the actions of someone in Muslim garb talking about the joys of jihad and wars against the non believer while sitting on an airplane in a post 9-11 world is "Islamophobia".

We're not supposed to judge people on the basis of culture.

That said, I'm boggled that there is no concept of "Americanophobia". You think that just assuming that Americans don't like minorities (religious or otherwise) would mark of it. But no, liberals would scoff at an idea like "Americanophobia". The same people who are looking for George Bush's gestapo in every area of our lives can't wrap their minds around something so obvious that's permeating everything. Our media (of all things) attacks us for being shallow. College Professors (who produce nothing and live on government grants) accuse Americans of being greedy. Rock stars and Hollywood actors accuse us of being decadent. And it's not just in this country either: China, Iran, Somalia, North Korea accuse us of being aggressive. And leftists everywhere criticise everything we do.

If we are truly going to combat "-phobia"s we need to stop "-phobia"ising ourselves.

Any time I even question the draft, I get all kinds of hateful comments from leftists demanding to know when I'm going to join the military. Nice of you to judge me in such a way without even knowing me.

If we need a draft so badly, then I'll reverse the question: "When are you going to join the military?" *Your* leaders are telling you there is a problem: we don't have enough troops. So when are *you* going to sign up?

You can approach it in typical left wing fashion, namely having a sit in at the recruiting office until they open the doors for you to sign up. You can get unbiased, non partisan rock stars like Green Day and U2 to have concerts promoting the sign up. Big stars like George Clooney and Woody Harrelson can stand up and make speeches before signing up themselves. And you can talk Cindy Sheehan (who's son died in Iraq for those of you who have been flying to Mars over the past few years) can sign on as well. You can even invite military recruiters in to high schools and colleges. Maybe Chelsea Clinton can lead the way (in preparation for her mom's 2008 presidential campaign) and sign up for a combat position.

Just think, once you're in the military you'd be in prime position to show us just how evil the military is. You can gun down civilians. You can rape innocent women and children. You can smile for the cameras snapping pics of you torturing prisoners. You can insert yourselves in position of military leadership and guarentee that minorities are under equiped and take the most casualties (to show how racist the military is.)

Come on, you guys are opposed to all this stuff - why not show us why? That's the point of you draft support anyway right? To show us how terrible the military (and war) is?  

If you lefties really do we're short troops then why are you throwing military recruiters OFF college campi? (Because we're opposed to war.) Then why do you support a draft?

We know the reason, it's politics. It's the only way your stupid argument makes any sense....

Republican Representative Virgil Goode is in trouble. It turns out he wrote a letter of concern about Islamic immigration to the United States. He's basically afraid that the US may eventually turn in to an Islamic state.
This is a very real fear. Right now Europe is suffering from a large minority of Muslim people from North Africa. Parts of France have been dubbed "occupied terroritory" by the immigrants who live there and resent French rule. Germans are debating whether or not they can perform a play by Mozart which features the head of Mohammed at one point. And England has finally given in to pressure and let the Islamists set up their own system of courts.

Wahhabists all over the Islamic world have made no secret that they want convert the whole world to their brand of Islam. In our politically correct world, we're not supposed to look at who anyone is or what they're saying. Otherwise six Islamic Imams who get on a plane, begin talking of their admiration for Osama bin Laden, request seat belt extensions when they don't need them and change seats to put themselves at key locations on the plane wouldn't even have a case. The fact that anyone would take these people seriously is exactly what I'm talking about.

Immigration has always been a controversial issue since before the founding of the country. The difference between today and say 100 years ago is the mentality of the immigrants in question. Most immigrants who come here historically genuinely wanted to assimilate in to American culture. True they brought their own customs along the way, but the immigrants of old were fleeing the oppression and tyranny of their homelands.

Today immigrants come to our nation intent on keeping their own customs and culture. Especially the Muslim ones. Again, look at Europe. The immigrants over there have made no secret at all that they don't want to assimilate. They accuse western culture of being greedy and decadent. They refuse to speak the language of the natives. They reject the customs of their adopted homes. Thus one has to ask, why did they come here?

Some people who are reading this piece are now calling me a racist or an "Islamophobe". Thank you for doing that - you are illustrating my point. We need to start looking at people who want to immigrate here and what they're saying and what they're doing. There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect one's culture, that's what a lot of the Islamist immigrants are doing by rejecting the culture of their adopted homelands! But if you don't like our culture, why come here (other than to make trouble)? And why is a discussion of how a group of people (a *minority* group of people) is attempting to change our culture considered a taboo topic?

 

This is the conclusion of a Southhampton University (England) study of IQ tests and eating habits. According to the research, vegetarians have an average of 5 IQ more points than their meat eating counterparts then went on to praise the healthier lifestyle.

Nonjudgemental leftists quickly jumped all over the news, proudly announcing that they had known this all along. Their glows of superiority shown more brightly, their noses raised another half inch in the air and their friends at the coffee shop paused the discussion of John Kerry's influence on neo Marxist philosophy to revel in their own greatness.

Of course, liberals have been telling us that IQ tests are worthless because blacks don't perform as well on them but I'll try not to say the word "racism". I'll just let us all think it loudly.

A healthier lifestyle? It's a good thing that these IQ tests didn't come with drug tests - cause I've only met one vegetarian that didn't have a drug problem of some type (and in a lot of cases, more than one drug problem.)

I'll also try to leave out the most famous vegetarian that comes to mind: Adolph Hitler. The little man from Germany would definitely prop up the validity of this test - he came from humble origins and rose to the leader of Germany. Like most liberal vegetarians of today, Hitler was an artist who spent a lot of his early years starving. Once he became Furher, he enacted radical measures that socialized medicine, legalized euthanisia and abortion, gun control, aggressive recycling programs, conservation initiatives and several other things that leftists hate...oh wait, liberals love all those ideas.

But we're not like Hitler - he wasn't a pothead, right? No, Hitler was a speed freak and I have met vegetarians on meth.  

Well my point is that vegetarianism doesn't make you want to kill 12 million people (as long as said people are already born...and at least older than 3 months and not an inconvenience to living next of kin.) My point is that vegetarianism (and liberalism) are signs of narcissistic egomania and one only needs to visit lefty websites and look at the reaction to stories like this one to see it played out. 

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm 

It's really nice of so many of you to paint me as a Cobra Commander type from the cartoon GI Joe. (For those of you with sensitive, compassionate parents who wouldn't let you watch "GI Joe" growing up cause it would have glorified American exceptionalism, the military and good struggling over evil, Cobra Commander was the faceless enemy who was constantly trying to take over the world with huge arms build ups simply because he relishes death and conflict.) Leftists always say they look at the gray in everything, so it's interesting that I'm being fitted with this narrow minded stereotypes.

What on Earth makes you think I like pain, suffering, death and war? What on Earth makes you think I enjoy conflict? I don't like starting fights. Most of the people I know don't like starting fights either. I said "most. Unfortunately there are aggressive people in this world who threaten peace and these people need to be dealt with.

What exactly is peace? Here is my personal definition: the freedom to live our lives without threats of violence or government action taken against us. It's easy for most Americans to ignore the traumas of the world. The lifestyle of the average citizen gives them the luxury of not paying attention to things going on.

But the world is getting smaller. Gone are the days when the oceans stopped bad people from coming here and doing us harm. 9-11 was a very upsetting experience for most of us. It demonstrated that these people are all to willing to come over here and attempt to bully us into not living our lives the way we deem fit. They're disturbing our peace.

I am *not* going to be bullied in to silence, changing my life or converting to another religion. When you start pushing against those things get ready for me to push back. Americans only seem to see two ways of doing things.

The liberal model is being followed in Europe right now. The Europeans are giving up parts of their lives to appease radical Islamists. Parts of France have been dubbed "occupied territories". The English have established Muslim courts. Other parts of Europe are considering laws against the criticism of Islam.

Anyone who has ever dealt with a bully knows that the last thing you do is give them what they want. They only breeds new, more outrageous demands. It is not a road to anything I would consider peace. So what alternative do we have?

That phrase doesn't offend me. We live in a nation that is 80% Christian from what I'm told. It's only natural that most people at this time of year would wish me a "Merry Christmas". 

What surprises most people is when I tell them that I'm not included in the 80%. (Although we never stereotype people and judge them all as individuals, we all know that only Christians are Conservative. Couple this with the fact that my bio says I'm from Nebraska.) Thus I'm supposed to be outraged when I'm wished a "Merry Christmas". But honestly it's something that I've grown up with. Only in recent times has it been deemed offensive. Maybe I'm just old school. 

Some argue that schools and government places celebrating Christmas is an endorsement of religion. Personally I see it as another day off (at worst.) As long as I'm not being required to pray to the Christian god, it's okay by me.  I have my own winter rituals that I observe and as long as no one stops me legally, it's all good. And over the years I have been denied jobs, shunned publically and cussed out of my religious choice. 

But that is all beside the point. "The War on Christmas" is silly. Christians think that the "Christ" is being taken out of the Holiday. Left wing activists at the ACLU think "Christ" is being too deeply injected. Like most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

In the meantime, Merry Christmas.

The empty headed Leonardo Dicaprio has a new movie out called "Blood Diamond" which is (in the opinion of equally empty headed American left) the one of the most exciting films of winter. It has gotten the entire left wing establishment thinking about where their diamonds come from and how they're dug up out of the dirt. 

I haven't seen the movie, but reports say that the film deals with the discovery of the largest diamond in history. The problem is that it was dug up by child slaves and is being sold to fund an evil rebel group.

Thus every big lefties everywhere (especially amongst Hollywood) ran to microphones to brag how their diamonds aren't so called "conflict diamonds" and they have the papers to prove it. 

What kind of a joke is that? Talk about out of touch with blue collar working types. I don't know *anyone* personally that has a diamond collection.  Most of the diamonds that me and my friends have bought over the years wouldn't be worthy of a pet collar for most of these Hollywood types in the Media. Wow - they care so much. Of course, it's an empty meaningless type of care. Lefties are all environmentalists, doesn't it disturb them that human beings are raping the environment to get these precious stones? Lefties are all about fighting the greed and materialism - so why do so many of them have diamond collections? 

Most diamonds come from Africa, a continent known for it's brutal dictators and tyrants, lack of human rights, state sponsored genocides, state sponsored tortures, tribal warfare, religious warfare and the list goes on. Just at a brief glance, I'd favor the rebel groups in a lot of these fights or at least expect the rebs not to be any worst than the ruling power that already there. 

This is truly pathetic but so typical of limo libs. Next they'll be telling us that if we're going to buy islands, don't buy from Micronesia (they haven't signed Kyoto.)

Stop overanalysizing - it's just a joke.

To most people a compromise is an agreement. Two or more parties sit down and they each give up something for a greater agreement. Thus they end up with a part of what they want but not all of it. The misery/goodness is spread equally. 

Enter the Baker Report. It's been out two days and the left is celebrating. I haven't seen them this happy since the election of Bill Clinton and the Democrat Congress. Katie Couric was almost wetting her panties the other night in excitement. Lefty bloggers are going crazy with happiness.  

Thus I'm wondering what they gave up in the Baker Report. It was a 'compromise' right?  So what did the left give up? We all know that if they had given up something that's all we'd be hearing about in the unbiased MSM is how 'unreasonable' it was.

A better question is what did we get out of it? I would expect that 39 of the 79 articles in the report would be things that I (as a conservative) agree with. So how come I have yet to see anything I like? Why are conservative pundits oddly silent?

Cause we haven't gotten crap. We didn't get anything out of this "compromise" accept ignored. The people who were supposed to represent our side gave up our principles and sold us out. This was more of an embarrassing surrender than a compromise. If both sides are supposed to get something, why aren't I happy? 

Get ready for tons of gleeful talk of 'compromise' from the left. They'll tell us that now that we all agree, we go forward from here. The fact that this was a RECOMMENDATION will quickly be forgotten. The fact that we *don't* agree will be ignored. It will become the only way to handle the war in Iraq from here on in (since it mandates the liberal way of doing things.)  

Thus from this point in, conservatives will be viewed as the enemy by the political powers that be. Smug liberal political elitists will be quick to remind us that "now that we all agree" the only discussion left is how to implement their ideas.

This stupid Commission was brought to us by a Republican Congress who was supposed to be fighting for our values. The only upshot is that these idiots won't be there to betray us next year.

So leftists that want us to pull out of Iraq want us to redeploy to Dafar. I guess they've forgotten our great success in Mogadishu. In the leftist mind, the military is only to be used as moderators in fights. Interesting that the people who don't think we should impose our values on others are always the first ones to call in the troops to impose our wills on the third world.

Yeah we've all heard the stories of genocide and other attrocities. We heard all these stories before going in to Bosnia as well. I remember my fellow left wing college classmates (who cared more about others than any of the rest of us) tell me about Serbian death camps and torture methods. I remember one guy who told me on no uncertain terms that Serbs were forcing mothers to drink the blood of their children. Of course, the minute we get troops over there we find no death camps. Investigations of sites of "massacres" bared no evidence of any attrocities. Mass graves that were supposed to contain hundreds (if not thousands) of bodies of innocent women and children coughed up a few bodies of adult males. In short, we were lied too: by our president (Bill Clinton at the time), by the Europeans and by the people the Serbs were fighting.

The fact that not a single American died in Bosnia is waved around by the left as a giant victory flag as if the innocent Serbs killed in US action didn't matter. It's okay though, Serbs are white Christians: the enemy of Political Correctness.

Let's contrast this with Iraq. The first thing to point out is that there is a declaration of war. "Yeah, but it was built on a lie!" scream liberals. The two reasons that we went to Iraq were WMDs and connections to al Quada.

There is evidence that a lot of them were moved to Syria before the invasion. Remember the keys to terrorism are hideability and mobility. They're not going to show us what they have.

Al Quada ties are often the forgotten reason. Iraq did have ties to al Quada. They were supporting them with money. The only world trade center bomber not captured in 1994 fled to Iraq. Czech police monitored a meeting between a member of Al Quada and the Iraqi embassador in a cafe six months before 9-11. The list goes on.

So where in Bosnia there was no real reason to go, in Iraq we had a lot of reasons. And we have a lot of reasons to stay until Iraq is a stable government. It's both an odd and terrible idea to get involved in Dafar: a situation that has no strategic value at all.

But with the Dems controlling Congress, watch for the push...