“Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”

This is actually a good question. It actually sounds like something one of my feminist professors would have asked in one of their patriotic rants about how much Americans and our culture suck.

But the question actually came from Talk Radio Host Rush Limbaugh and thus it’s regarded as anti-feminist and anti-woman by people who didn’t hear his entire monologue on the subject. The lesson here is clear: depending on who you are (and how you vote) you can get away with saying certain things. If you’re white and male there isn’t much you can say without getting yelled at – and that’s not racist, sexist or homophobic on the part of the Politically Correct (didn’t you read their book explaining why it’s not?)

But Limbaugh brings up an excellent point: our culture is obsessed with looks. Not just on women either. About fifty years ago Nixon lost an election to Kennedy after a debate where a sweating Nixon (who claimed to have a cold) squirmed under questioning while his opponent across the aisle looked confident. I guess it’s a natural byproduct of being able to send pictures from one coast to the other in a matter of seconds and having a population with enough wealth and privilege to see those pictures the minute they get transmitted.

And women who tend to care more about the way they look than men often have a harder time. The funny part is that women tend to be harder on the way women look than men. Remember what feminists said about Paula Jones? These were women attacking another woman on the basis of looks. Feminists also like to attack Dr. Laura on the basis of how she dresses as well. Rush even said all of this himself:

“There is this thing in this country that, as you age -- and this is particularly, you know, women are hardest hit on this, and particularly in Hollywood -- America loses interest in you, and we know this is true because we constantly hear from aging actresses, who lament that they can't get decent roles anymore, other than in supporting roles that will not lead to any direct impact, yay or nay, in the box office. “

So its semi bizarre to me that he is in trouble for what he says. If anything libs and Hillary supporters should be happy that Limbaugh brought this up cause he was actually defending their candidate on this front. So you’d think they’d be praising him.

But I’ve noticed that “open minded” people on the American left seldomly listen…

Like most things in politics, there are at least two interesting things going on right now that expose the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the American Left.

The first thing is U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. is pushing for a hearing on whether or not the destruction of CIA tapes of torture against Al Qaeda operatives in 2005 was legal. The CIA and the NSA both maintain that the judge has no authority in the matter. Never the less, Kennedy has scheduled an inquiry anyway.

Of course this is a staple of left wing blogs and activists with their sites bubbling with activity about how our government needs to be open to the people and how citizens have a “right to know” about what our government is doing.

Right or wrong our government has been doing this type of thing for years and the libs never cared. Their outrage is truly selective in this arena. They hate Bush and they think they have an issue that they can take him out on.

Don’t believe me? Check out issue number two: At least 2600 pages of material are *still* being held by the Clinton administration despite several Freedom of Information inquiries. And all the left is doing with this story is either ignoring it or defending it.

Naturally Bill denies having anything to do with the hold up even though the hang up can be traced right back to him. And Hillary also claims she can’t do anything about it. Funny to think that she is promising to do all these grandiose things even as she admits that she can’t even get simple things moved.

But the interesting thing about the Clinton case is how much it parallels the CIA case. Some of these records come from 1994 the time when the Clintons were trying to force their brand of socialized medicine on us. At the time a citizens group sued under sunshine laws to be allowed to sit in on the meetings. The White House refused. A federal judge sided with the group. No sooner than the ruling been handed down than the White House claimed that they had disbanded the task force AND DESTROYED THE RECORDS OF THE PRECEEDINGS.

So there you have it: In liberal land destroying things in the interest of national security is wrong. Destroying things to keep big libs in office is okay. What the CIA is doing to protect our country and ferret out our enemies is worthy of the front page of the New York Times. What the Clintons are hiding about what they did when they were in office is none of our business. The CIA are a bunch of monsters for trying to figure out what hostile foreigners are trying to do kill us should be condemned. The Clintons are innocent of any wrong doing and their lies, distortions and cover ups prove that they’re worthy of another four years in office.

How bizarre is that?

There’s a generational split between libs? It seems that that is the conclusion of political commentators like The New York Times and Rush Limbaugh when they look at the presidential race on the Democrat side. I guess it’s the aging Baby Boomers who support Hillary versus the young Gen X/Gen Yer’s who support Obama.

I guess I don’t pay attention to ‘who’ nearly as much as I pay attention to ‘why.’ My business teacher called it “Monopolistic Competition” – that is, it’s all the same junk in different packages. Much like breakfast cereal, left wing idiocy is left wing idiocy is left wing idiocy. The only difference is the obnoxious cartoon character trying to shovel it down my throat. The only real difference between Obama and Clinton and Edwards and Biden and whoever else the libs throw up is pretty much a matter of degrees. Thus it’s kind of interesting to me that this observation of generation is being made.

I’m talking strictly about the presidential race when I say I can’t see a generational split. I have noticed a time wall between lefties in other areas – especially in places like universities, journalism, Hollywood and other places where libs flock. Here oldsters amongst the left reign supreme. They’ve been working on it all their lives after all.

I always thought it was funny when my professors would stand up and tell us to go “fight the man”, “question everything” and “don’t accept what they tell you.” Course our professors were “the man” and “the power” that we decided to fight.

Hollywood and journalism are just as bad. How many more times are they going to compare military action in Iraq to Vietnam? The US pulled out of Nam the year I was born. Most people my age don’t have the same memories about Nam. In fact, most of us don’t remember Nam at all cause we were too young. Yet every movie tries to draw a parallel between the two. Seems like just about every movie being pumped out in the modern day features US soldiers killing and torturing innocents and then trying to cover it up (just like in Nam.)

Then come the movies that are actually about the 60’s and how great those times were. It was a world where people actually wanted to make a difference for the better - unlike today where a selfish younger generation just wants to sit around and smoke pot. I mean, they smoked pot back in the 60’s, but they were making a difference – unlike today where they just have a drunken orgy. And the pot was better back then too anyway.

Journalistically nothing was worse than Nixon rigging the election. Not even Clinton giving North Korea everything they need to make a nuclear missile. Not even 9-11 which they took off the rotation topics as soon as they could (it’ll just breed anger you know.) In reality we all know what’s going on: these geezers made their names on the Nixon Scandal and now that they have nice jobs where they sit at desks all day, they don’t want to go out and put footwork in to getting the story. But on the other hand, they’re not going to risk losing their job to some up and comer by treating the modern subject matter as serious either. There is job security to consider.

So basically you have a bunch of dinosaurs at the top who vainly don’t want to admit to anyone (especially themselves) that they’re aging. They would rather be wrong than admit that they’re old. And underneath these people is a bunch of idiots who naively believe the crap they say. The people who constantly tell us to “think for ourselves” never take their own advice.

These younger people lap up all the luke warm mush that the older generation throws out there. This is why left wing rhetoric hasn’t changed in forty years. This is why libs still cite studies from the 60’s as if they’re new. This is why there was a “Woodstock 2” and “Woodstock 3” – because young libs want to be like old libs.

Personally I find this all pathetic. Moreover, it makes it hard for me to tell the difference between lefties when I’m looking at them from a distance. Therefore when I see a group of Obama voters and a group of Clinton voters I can’t tell the difference. I’ll just have to take your word for it that it is there.

I’m not a vegetarian, but I would be if I could afford it – in both time and money. Call me soft hearted - there’s worst things I’ve been called. It does make me feel bad that an animal has to live in rotten conditions so that I can eat. I make an exception for chickens and turkeys – two animals that would probably go extinct if humans didn’t raise them. We’re talking about a couple of birds so dumb that they drown staring up at the rain after all.

That said though, the most horrid thing in my opinion is the live food that you have to kill and cook yourself. And the most tragic thing by far is the plight of the lobster.

Okay – so these creatures aren’t cute, fuzzy or something you’d want to snuggle like a cat or a dog. Ecologically they perform an important function of eating all the garbage at the bottom of the ocean. They’re kind of like a big cockroach. But that doesn’t mitigate the inhumanity that these animals endure in the process of being prepared for food.

Firstly consider that these shellfish are caught and for the most part kidnapped from their native environment and put in to a tiny tank with their claws rubber banded so as they can’t defend themselves. (I don’t know how many lobster farms there are, but I’m guessing there are a few.) Can’t really blame them for being upset can we? It’s pretty much a given that even the simplest of animals feel fear. This is why spiders and roaches run when you try to squish them.  So I can’t even imagine what the poor lobster in the tank at the grocery store/restaurant is going through.

It wasn’t until a couple of years ago that a friend of mine from Maine pointed out something that made my skin crawl: lobsters lose freshness almost immediately uponst dying. Therefore you toss them in to a pot of water and boil them to insure the best taste. Now I’d seen this in movies and television before, but my friend had to relate to me how the lobsters often start thumping on the side of the pot in a vain attempt to escape their gruesome fate.

Even if I was starving on a desert island with nothing else to eat I don’t think I could do that. I would kill the lobster first and then cook it. The idea that anyone in 2007 America with a grocery store on every corner could still eat lobster like this makes me question humanity.

More bizarre still is that lobster is considered a delicacy. You can buy a lot of food for the price of a single lobster. Add in the fact that there is not enough food on the tiny creature to fill me up and amount of work it takes getting that tiny bit of meat out of the  stinking shell and it’s just not worth it. Now consider most people don’t eat the lobster plain – they have to dip it in unhealthy melted butter.

Makes my stomach churn. But at least the high price would help preserve them right? Wrong.

Enter ‘Long John Silver’ the seafood restaurant that enables you to get cheap food on the run. Their new product: lobster bites a bite sized, batter dipped, deep lard fried artery clogger that you can smear with ketchup so you don’t have to taste it….which makes me wonder why you’d even bother eating lobster as opposed to say, a potato since it all tastes like tomato sauce anyway.

I’m sorry – I just don’t see the point of any of this. It’s quite ironic to think that a symbol of elegance in our society is the ability to eat what is basically an aquatic, junk munching, overgrown insect.

I disagree with every Democratic candidate for president that I’ve seen. The front runners are all big government, social/communist wannabes. They’re all planning on taking as much freedom and resources from the ‘common people’ as they can get. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are two of the most arrogant, self righteous people in the present campaign. Barrack Obama acts luke warm and clueless. And when you move away from these front runners, it only gets more radical and scary. Dennis Kucinich thinks *everything* should be regulated no matter how many times the Constitution says he can’t.

Despite my ideological differences with all the people above, the left has me pegged as to why I don’t support the liberal front runners Clinton and Obama: I’m a racist/sexist. (Note that lefties who are opposed to Mitt Romney aren’t religious bigots. So I guess not all “isms” are created equal unless it’s a Muslim that’s getting screwed, because Obama is half Islamic too and not voting for him even though he embraces Christianity also makes you a religious bigot.)

So the same types of people who tell me that inviting Iranian tyrant Ahmadinejad to speak at Ivy league schools does *not* amount to an endorsement of him and we should keep an ‘open mind’ as he gives a speech denying homosexuals live in Iran can’t see what my problems are with the liberal left? How strange is that?

I’m not a racist and I’m not a sexist either. I disagree with Clinton and Obama despite their minority status. Liberals just want to try to cow me in to supporting their guys by calling me names.

If anything libs are racist and sexist. As I already stated: the only differences between Obama and Clinton are from where I’m standing, cosmetic. One is female. The other is male. One is white. The other is black.

So when faced with two of the same thing with only superficial differences dividing the two, isn’t that when racism/sexism comes to play? More simply put, aren’t Hillary supporters racist? After all – there is no real difference between Obama’s platform and Hillary’s. So Hillary supporters are choosing Hillary because she’s white, right? And Obama’s supporters are choosing him because he’s a man, right?

So there you have it, racism and sexism is alive and well amongst the American left.

Jaime Leigh Jones (or is it Daigle?) I guess I’m calling you out. Despite your story of horror, you don’t act like a rape victim. For one, most rape victims don’t want to talk about it. And I notice you’re talking EVERYWHERE. Then even after coming forward, most rape victims want to remain unknown. Not only are you out there loud and proud with your name, your pictures are EVERYWHERE.

Then there are parts of your story I have a hard time believing. Let’s go through your blog one step at a time (or at least the blog presented on your website: http://www.jamiesfoundation.org/index.htm). Firstly I assume that this blog has been edited? A lot of it is pretty short. I’m wondering what you took out/changed. Are these dates accurate? Or are they your best guesses? I’m just curious.

Okay – so the first few entries talks about getting hired and why you were excited. Now according to your website, I have to ask how you got a job (in the IT department none the less) at a giant company right out of high school with no prior experience or training. I have a lot of friends that work in IT. Most of them are hamstrung by the fact that they don’t have any formal degrees hanging on their walls. From what I’ve seen, IT is just as hard as any other career to move around in.

You then go on to talk about how you feel patriotic and blah, blah, blah. This is what makes me think you wrote this in retrospect. I would imagine that anyone taking a job for the first time anywhere would be talking about what they would be doing and how much money they would be making more than anything else. Your little speech about loving your country reminds me of the hate mail I get where they say “I’m a conservative and always voted Republican UNTIL NOW.” I find their stories a little hard to believe too.

But I digress. Basically your blog goes on to state that after about a year and a half of training you were off to Iraq. Naturally that year and a half is excluded from your blog, but okay. According to you, you spent four days there bunking in an all male dorm before being drugged and raped.

First of all, you were drinking under age. Texas law says you can’t drink until you’re at least 21 right? And I’m thinking that the “green zone” falls under some kind of American law or your sexual harassment charges would completely baseless. Then according to your story, they drugged you and BRUTALLY beat you while you were unconscious. They beat you so badly that your fake breasts were misshapen when you got up.

I’m sorry it’s a little strange to me. Logically it would seem that a rapist would beat up someone who was struggling. Since you claim to have been passed out, this would seem unnecessary. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But this still leaves the question: why did they beat you so brutally? People don’t do things without a reason. Did you make these guys mad or something? Were these American men? Or Iraqi? How many people were bunking in this place? You make it sound like a good number – why didn’t someone else do something?

It’s very interesting to me that you just leave the conclusion that all the guys you were working with were complete animals. I have a very hard time believing this. Seems like someone would have done something. You’re asking me to believe the absolute worst in people – a lot of people.

You then went to the hospital and were checked out by a doctor. After the doctor visit they locked you in a “container” with no food, water, etc. Then after an unspecified amount of time, you managed to make friends with a guard and used his cell phone to call your father. Your father then called Congressman Ted Poe. You returned to the United States but the records of your hospitalization were lost. Later they resurfaced and were sent to the State Department where they were lost again.

I’m sorry, I remember about a year ago another government cover up in a rape trial. That one dealt with a Duke Lacrosse team – but again I digress.

Your story fits the left wing template so nicely. TOO nicely. We have the evil corporation of Halliburton (who started the war in Iraq just to make money) and their subsidiary KBR (who started the California fires to make money) are over in Iraq oppressing women and minorities and when they get caught, the evil racist, sexist, homophobic US government covers up for them.

Uh huh.

But I don’t believe the worst in people. I also have a hard time believing that our State department which has done nothing but try to undermine the administration over the last six years with leaks and outright attempts to influence elections for leftists would now sit on your case.

Your feminist rhetoric does not help your case either. A “prejudice” (like racism, sexism and homophobia) is a belief about someone based on those characteristics. So why does a website that claims to want to end all of those things say the following:

“We still live in a male dominated society in which organizations and men control most power. Rape is a crime of dominance, so in this perspective the domineering individual would be vengeful towards the victim.”

Just assuming things about our society and men. How nice is that? And how sexist. Thank god a bunch of women thought this up or we could sue you for sexual discrimination. What would happen if I just ASSUMED that all feminists make up stories about their experiences to force their political agendas on everyone.

And you do have an agenda for us, don’t you Jaime? Despite being “scarred for life” your smiling awful big in all of your pictures. You named your Foundation after yourself. Why you even wrote a book about it that you’re now looking to get published. Even optioned out your movie rights. Hell you’ve done everything but send your pictures to Playboy for their “Girls of the Illegal Occupation” issue.

Your entire board of directors is composed of left wing hacks. Most of the links to news stories about your plight are left wing media outlets (such as Feminist News sites and Democracy Now.) I see the New York Times yanked its story – or at least I can’t find it.

The most interesting part of your story are the people who are now giving you real traction in your plight: ABC News. Why is that interesting? Because if my memory serves me right that was the outlet that Lisa Meyers was working for about ten years ago when she worked her butt off to get an interview with Juanita Broaddrick. Even though Broaddrick never  wrote a book, never optioned her screenplay, never went to parties with celebrities, I’m sure a big feminist like yourself remembers her. She was the woman who accused Bill Clinton of brutally raping her while he was governor of Arkansas.

In spite of her story (and the many months that Lisa Meyers spent having to talk Juanita in to an interview), the unbiased, non partisan ABC didn’t dedicate a single second of news time to Juanita’s story (or at least none that I saw.) And in spite of her awful story of horror, not a single feminist group rallied to her support. Instead said groups circled the wagons around her oppressor. Isn’t that interesting?

Maybe I’m being too hard. Maybe you really were gang raped in the way you said. But your story is awful suspicious.  

I have a question. Being as our society is simply a racist, sexist, homophobic contraption set up simply to hold down people who aren’t white, Christian, male, straight and conservative, why do I live so poorly?

Case and point: Housing Foreclosures.

I don’t own a house. I rent. I can’t afford a house payment. Despite our government defining me as “middle class” (in fact, just a hair below the “rich” line) I accept these things as a given.

But now I’m reading reports that people who poorer than I am do own their houses. I guess our racist government passed laws requiring banks and other institutions give these people loans. And thus these loans were put under the requirements of “ARMs” (Adjustable Rate Mortgage).

What does that mean? It means that if interest rates go up, so does your house payment. And so in an attempt to prove what an open minded, non racist society we are we started handing these things out.  

Well what happened? The government continued to overspend. It continued to dump money in to the system. There is too much US money out there. So the federal reserve did what it always does: raises interest rates. Thus all these people with ARMs who couldn’t afford the loans to begin with saw their house payments go through the roof.

So now comes the parade of victims – people going up to government to bemoan the fact that they made awful choices. And here come the politicians lecturing us all on what a racist, hate filled society we are because the poor are suffering.

Well gee, they’re suffering because they’re living a lifestyle I as a middle classer can’t afford. It’s nice that the irresponsible amongst us continue to be portrayed as victims even after they make stupid decisions. And it’s not because they made stupid decisions that they’re suffering, it’s because of some secret plot to screw them.

So instead of letting the wheels of business turn and having a bunch of foreclosures happen, our government is stepping in (again). Bush has tried to ride the middle by suggesting that interest rates on home loans be frozen which has caught him in the middle of the fight with Libs leveling charges of “big business screwing the little guy” and Conservatives angry that the government’s bailing out people who make stupid decisions.

And now we learn that a lot of these people complaining are immigrants, and the part that is left unsaid is that a lot of these people are in the country illegally. We’ve already heard many, many stories about government programs helping out people who don’t contribute to the system. So just like welfare, social security, food stamps, the school system and too many colleges and universities, I’m going to be looked at to pull the freight for people who do nothing. And if I complain, it just shows what a racist, sexist, homophobe I am even though these people are living a better life than I am.

The left is going to come and demand that pay for the houses I already said I couldn’t afford. And if I refuse to pay, I’ll be the one the government will take action against. What a country.

And of course, all this new government spending is only going to inflate the dollar further requiring interest rates to go even higher exasperating the problem. I guess we could freeze interest rates but the dollar is already at historic lows. Organizations like OPEC are considering dropping the dollar as its currency.

Yes – the whole thing is an iron ring brought to you primarily by people who spent more time reading Marx in the 60’s than business text books. And this is why we have the problem now.

So with this all said, I have a question: If we’re such a racist, sexist, homophobic society where the minority are constantly getting screwed, why is it that I as a white man am living at a level lower than “poor”, brown skinned immigrants?

This is so bizarre to watch: as the French leader Sarkozy was out globe hopping people all over France started rioting. But the riots are over different things. One could almost argue that the rioters are diametrically opposed - note that one is a "strike" and the other is a "riot".

First the "big news" that the unbiased, non partisan media thought worthy of putting up as a lead story almost everywhere: French transportation workers went on "strike" to protest badly needed reforms in the state pension program.

As usual, the liberal elites at the top want to portray themselves as blue collar working slobs struggling to make ends meet despite living a better life than most of the people around them. I'm always amazed that holier than thou left wingers on the government payroll are always demanding pay raises, perks, more time off, etc - but that never makes them "greedy".

This upper crust has embedded themselves firmly and control a lot of the government despite the "conservative" leadership of it's current administration.

But this beast needs to feed and looks to the people who are outside of it for its sustenance: namely the young. This begs the question "How much can the government take before these people start saying 'no'?"

And of course this liberal upper crust has the support of the rest of the liberal upper crust at the Universities, the newspapers and goverment agencies. The other story isn't deemed worth reporting by major media outlets: the ghetto areas are "rioting". And by "riot", I mean "riot" - as in there is violence.

But even as the backwater channels cover this second story, they continue to put it in Communist/Socialist terms: The people of the ghetto are poor. The people of the ghetto are oppressed racially. The people of the ghetto can't get government assistance they need thanks to evil conservatives like Sarkozy.

I'll give you that these people are poor - but there is a reason this: these people are North African immigrants that have not assimilated. Would you hire someone to program a computer that didn't know any programming languages? Of course not, they're not qualified for the job. So would you hire someone who can't speak a word of French in a mostly French speaking nation to do something like wait on tables? Again no - these people aren't qualified for the position.

As for the other parts: I thought racism didn't exist in France. At least, that's what American lefties have been telling me for years. So what's up with this "racial discrimination" problem now?

The French are starting to think that they have a problem. The ghetto areas are starting to get dangerous. About a year ago France burned and rioters were using crowbars and baseball bats. This time the rioters were using guns and homemade bazookas (interesting considering I thought guns were illegal in France too).

France is going to have to take a serious look at what's going on. The next problem is that they can't. They've been buying Marxist philosophy for too long. Whereas you can buy off French strikers with more money and a shorter work week, the promise of government benefits for the ghettos is just empty rhetoric. As I already pointed out: These ghetto people are from North Africa and even after a couple of generations in France they can't speak French, they don't share the culture and they don't think of themselves as Frenchmen. A lot of these "angry youths" as the media likes to call them lest they be charged racist, are radical Muslims. It's not that these people don't have access to things, it's that they don't want them.

This fits a scary pattern of Islamic conquest in other places like India and Israel: move in, demand to run the place you invaded and declare everything just outside your boundary "sacred" to Islam so you can set up for expansion. These immigrants have already begun dubbing ghetto areas around places like Paris "occupied territory" as if its theirs.

Unfortunately Marxist philosophy can't accept the fact that people can be motivated by things other than money (like say religion). A lot of liberal elites can't accept the fact that the people are being motivated and finding comfort in the Koran. So the French continue to make promises of government programs as if they can buy these people off.

But it's not working. But it looks like it is as the riots calm down for a little while - but it's not due to the promises of the French so much as the rioters getting bored and going home.

France is in for serious trouble - and it's a lot closer than anyone may care to claim. Radicals at both ends are taking to the streets. It's only a matter of time until the two begin to smack head on as poor starving Communist millionaires smack head on in to truly poor starving Wahabbists.

....these are the people running our country, reporting our news, disseminating our ideologies and teaching at our finest Universities and schools?

I'm not talking about the Republican candidates - I'm talking about CNN, the Democratic party, Hollywood and professors from the Hallowed Halls of Academia.

On one hand they want to tell us they're the smartest and most intellectually open in our society. On the other hand everyone tricks and fools them.

Tonight is truly one of the crowning jewels going in to the court jester's hat: it seems that Keith Kerr a retiree from the US military who submitted a (rambling, long winded) question about gays in the military actually works for Hillary Clinton.

Wow - we're so (not) surprised. Only the people at CNN are. Yeah, I'm so sure that this guy not only getting a video copy of his question in but also getting handed the microphone to ask his question live was just a coincidence.

From what I've seen conservatives have never been in favor of gays openly in the military. Shouldn't this guy be asking Hillary Clinton is *she* is going to let gays in the military? After all, it was her husband who promised to let them in only to reverse himself and install "Don't Ask/Don't Tell". But he'd never get through the security guards with this question at the Democratic debate. Clinton is very tight about screening questions ever since her "I'm in favor of giving driver's licenses to illegals, but I'm against it too" answer at that Oct debate.

But I guess this guy just outsmarted CNN...which doesn't seem real hard to do anymore. Especially if it might make libs look good...not that I'm accusing them of bias.

But it sure is interesting that they always treat stories dealing with fake soldiers, unsubstantiated rumors about US military attrocities and questionable reports about global warming so seriously that they don't even think it worth looking in to the details.

And every time it happens, they smile gleefully and tell us what idiots they are. It's no wonder that no one trusts them anymore: they fall for everything.

Does *anyone* on the conservative side even care about gays in the military anyway? This is such a patently a left wing issue. Be like asking Democratic candidates how often they go hunting and fishing.

In fact I was listening to someone who made a really good point: did ANY seriously conservative topic get discussed at all? This was supposed to be a debate to decide who would carry the Republican nomination. I'm glad leftists will be making the decision for us.

Personally I would like to know if they're going to cut overinflated taxes, halt the over reach of government, will stand up to whining environmentalists, will protect the rights of average Americans from the UN, preserve the Constitutional rights of gun owners and people who question liberal philosophy in speech and print. None of these questions even came up, did they? If so I didn't see it. 

How can the "smartest" amongst us put on such a crummy, luke warm exercise in stupidity?

So the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has finally gotten done "editing" a report on Global Warming that came last Spring. It’s curious as to why they felt they needed to “edit” the report, rather than just releasing the document and letting it speak for itself.

The conclusions that they came too are even less surprising: humans are polluting the Earth and we’re all doomed if we don’t put them in charge right now.

That’s right – just like any other advertiser, if we don’t buy the IPCC line and do buy it right now we’re all doomed. But personally I’ve never believed a telemarketer who told me that I need a product or service right now or my life would be incomplete. So I’m not about to believe that the UN needs to be in charge based on their own work.  Do I need to remind you this is the same outfit that over stated the AIDS epidemic, violated their own trade embargo during the “Oil for Food” years of Iraq and can’t even fix otherwise simple problems like ending nuclear proliferation.

Of course libs – some of the exact same people who look at 9-11 and smell a George Bush/Israeli plot to bring down the Muslim middle East are all excited about this and buy it hook, line and sinker.

Naturally I’m skeptical. For starters there is no evidence of Global Warming. Zip. Zero. Nada. None. For every shrinking glacier, there’s one that’s growing. For every place going through a heat wave, there is a place going through a chill. None of the computer models that they’ve put together so far have panned out. Supposedly places like England and Mexico are supposed to turn in to giant deserts. Instead both places are flooding. Right now, Argentina is stuck in the “Winter that won’t End” with some of the coldest temperatures on record for Nov. Last June saw late winter storms in Wyoming and Sweden. A year ago Russian scientists were predicting the coming of a new ice age as they shivered through one of Europe’s coldest winters on record.

The warmest period in human history was during the middle ages. Warm weather allowed the Vikings to find the continent of North America (and colonize it). It also allowed for farming in Scotland – something that can’t be done today even with our modern technology.

Al Gore’s movie is full of errors. A British court ruled just a few weeks ago that eleven inaccuracies had to be pointed out before showing his film to school children…and that’s just what the court is requiring be pointed out. He keeps throwing around the word “consensus” like that makes him right. I remember science class in school. Sometimes we’d all come to the same conclusion in our homework only to find out the answer was wrong. The teacher didn’t change it to make us right – the teacher flunked us as we deserved.

Then there is problems with the theory of warming itself. According Global Warming theory, the deserts will grow as the globe gets hotter. This is the flawed thinking of the ill informed. They’re confusing a heat wave with a drought. Though they often go hand in hand the two are very different things. Follow me here: heat causes evaporation, evaporation causes humidity and clouds, once the atmosphere becomes saturated it rains. Thus more heat equal MORE rain doesn’t it?

Carbon Dioxide doesn’t change the way the wind blows any more than an oil spill changes the way a river runs. There are other forces at work – the turning of the earth and gravity for example.

Geologically speaking humans don’t put that much CO2 in the air anyway - just 3.4%. The other 96% comes from natural sources. One volcano can spit out more CO2 in the course of a single eruption than all human activity in throughout history put together. The oceans produce our Oxygen and suck up the CO2.

But I’ll play this game with you. Let’s assume that Global Warming is happening. You’re going to have a hard time pinning it on humans. Geologic history is a patch work of warming and cooling.

And what are the IPCC’s fixes for Global Warming? How are they purposing to stop it? The first thing they’re going to do is raise taxes as if we can buy it off and have it go attack another planet. Ostensibly this money will go to poor “developing” nations (but the UN is so corrupt, I’m thinking it will go other places.)

So are these “developing” nations going to use it to modernize? Environmentalists hate modernization. In order to save the environment, starving third world citizens will have to stay starving.

Technology is what allows millions of people to live on the globe. This is why it took six thousand years to create a population of billions. The reason we grow so much food is because we no longer have to feed the ox that pulls the plow. Gas powered tractors don’t eat a portion of the grain and corn. Irrigation allows us to bring water to arid places that can’t otherwise support plants. Pesticides insure that the plants won’t be eaten before it gets to the human table. And fertilizer causes the plants to grow bigger and healthier than at any other time in history.

But all of these things change the environment. Land has to be cleared for farming use. Rivers have to be dammed for their water. Chemical pesticides and fertilizer run free throughout the land. And tractors emit CO2 – and that’s not including the truck that drives the food to the cities.

The end result is a punishing of the first world while letting the third celebrate environmental destruction. The Kyoto Accords (which the IPCC thinks should be mandated everywhere) lists giant polluters like China and India as “developing” meaning that they can spit out as much poison as they want to with impunity…and “modernizing” will compound the problem as their population gets bigger, requiring more food and so on and so forth.

But that’s not the only fix they have in store for us. I’m sure that another power they will see to give themselves is the power to silence those that disagree with them, their theory and their methods. We’re already seeing this – from Al Gore suggesting that the media not cover those who question global warming to various European countries considering laws against “Global Warming Deniers”. And they’re so full of their own self righteousness that they’ll continue to call their censorship free speech – the same way that Islamists insist laws against cartoons of their prophet are in the spirit of free speech.

But there is still more from the IPCC. They’re going to anoint themselves the judges of how resources can be used and by whom and how much – as if it’s theirs to assign. How arrogant is that?

It’s really nice of these guys to put together a study that concludes you should be in charge. It’s a lot like when that nice used car salesman puts together a study showing that I need to buy his car or when that nice businessman puts together a study showing that I need to invest in his idea. The only difference here is the arrogance being demonstrated and how stupid and blind the left is for falling for it.

And for my critics – did I say that we should pollute the planet? No, I didn’t. Did I say we should hunt all the creatures of the Earth to extinction? No, I didn’t. Did I say that would should put smoke in the air and pour chemicals into the rivers and oceans? No, I didn’t. Did I say we should throw our junk everywhere? No, I didn’t.

Lastly - Did I say Global Warming isn’t happening? No, I didn’t. I said there is no evidence of it because there isn’t.

To our Native American friends this Thanksgiving: get over yourselves. I'm sick and tired of being lectured too by you self righteous bigots. Yeah we've all heard the simplified version of PC history where evil Europeans came here, found a peaceful people living in a paradise, sold them guns and liquor, introduced them to slavery, stole their land, massacred them using war and disease and so on and so forth.

You know, Native Americans (or as I call them "Indians") did terrible things in "500 years of oppression" too. Indians in the United States got off on playing the European powers off each other. There were a lot of tribes that were violently opposed to the white man (or as they should be called, "European Americans".) Some of these tribes are still honored today with statues and even towns named after them.

Ever heard of "Baton Rouge Louisiana"? It's French for "Red Stick" after the tribe of Creeks that massacred all whites who dared enter their land. The Red Sticks went on rampages where they burned crops, scalped the innocent, massacred women and children and did a bunch of other things patriotic libs tell us that only white people in the Marines stationed in Iraq do. But since Indians have brown skin, practice a minority religion and are considered to have lost, we'll forgive them.

It's a myth that most Americans wanted to wipe out the Indians. Constantly through all the wars between the government and the various tribes there were many people who were sympathic to the Indians. A lot of Americans compared Indian leaders to George Washington: a ragtag band standing up to a united, powerful force. If it was supposed to be a put down, they would have compared them to King George of England.

Thanksgiving is an American holiday. It's all inclusive. The first Thanksgiving was open to all regardless of race or ethnicity. The Indians at the time showed up too. They were welcomed with open arms. It was a second in a violent time where everyone actually got along. Isn't that worth celebrating?

I know what libs and Indians are thinking as they read this: another white guy defending his racist history and way of life. Another white man making excuses for his prejudices and justifying his stereotypes, right?

Well let me tell you a story about a man named Homer. Home lived his average normal life in Louisiana around the turn of the 1900's. But all was not well. Louisiana had just passed a law requiring that blacks (which included Mexicans, Indians, Asians and Blacks) be separated from whites.

Homer went to get on the bus one day and told the driver, "My great grandmother was black, making me one eighth black. Should I sit at the front or the back?" The driver made him sit at the back. Homer Plessy sued - took his challenge all the way to the Supreme Court and lost in the landmark "Plessy vs. Ferguson" case. In that ruling the court affirmed the practice of segregation. Unfortunately for Homer Plessy, he was too black for society.

How ironic it would be that today Plessy is too white for Affirmative Action laws. Not judging by skin color indeed.

Why is this story important and why am I telling it? Because my great grandmother was an Indian. I'm one eighth Indian.

(Yeah well, you've had it easy cause you look white.) What were you just saying about not judging by skin color and ethnicity?

Yeah - your own rules never apply to you.

Happy Thanksgiving all.

The Second Amendment might be going on trial at the Supreme Court. It seems that Congress passed a law banning guns in Washington D.C. (though you'd never know it by the violent crime rates.)

Here is what the Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. You can't get much more clear than that. But leave it to a bunch of political hacks to try.

District of Columbia Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is that act that was struck down in a 2 to 1 ruling in the D.C. circuit court. The provision in question made it illegal to own side arms in the District of Columbia.

Obviously this is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. The Congress of the United States passed a law that violates the supreme law of the land. There is absolutely no question about it.

It's rather offensive that this even had to go to court to begin with. Surely politicians with even the most meager education can read the Second amendment and figure out what it says.

This is scary on many, many levels. I've often joked that I was waiting for some judge somewhere to begin declaring parts of the Constitution unconstitutional. I just never thought it would be so close.

Despite the criticism of the left when the war on terror began, Bush emphasized the need for allies. Especially amongst "Islamic Republics" dotting the middle east. A key state in the war is Pakistan which shares a border with the (at the time) Taliban run state of Afghanistan.

Naturally when the fighting started Afghans began making runs for the border and President Gen. Pervez Musharraf halted them there. But as time went on Pakistan policy changed, the border was opened and Afghans were let in.

The United States warned Pakistan that members of the Taliban and al Quada were hiding amongst the refugees. Musharraf echoing western liberal rhetoric refused to do anything. The reports of the US military targeting civilians are always true right? Besides - Musharraf is a Muslim, they're Muslims, we're all going to get along here. These refugees are just looking for peace and quiet right?

Wrong. Now here we sit in 2007 and the mountainous provinces of Pakistan are seeing an increase in civil unrest fueled mainly by Islamic extremism. Shrines and holy sites that Muslims find offensive are coming under attack more and more.

So much for Islamic "brotherhood."

But it gets worst. Musharraf is a dictator who promised to step down both from the presidency and the military by this point. Well he's done neither and this is causing civil unrest in the population at large who are demanding elections immediately.

Now add in the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear state and we've got quite a problem.

Benazir Bhutto who used to be Prime Minister before being exiled, has returned to her home and is now leading opposition to Musharraf. But she has a history of friendly relations with the Taliban - even going so far as to send them military aid back in the 90's. Her policy on the terror backing group might have changed, but being as she's a hero of the left worldwide I'm not going to count on it.

Make no bones about it - any election in Pakistan is going to include people who like terrorists (or are terrorists.) Now I doubt they'll be dumb enough to actually run as a "Taliban" or an "al Queda" party. But it will still be there. Most polls from that area find ordinary citizens do sympathize with terrorists.

And make no bones about this: we're not going to let terrorists get their hands on nuclear weapons.

So there is the choice - back an evil that we know or back an evil that we don't know.

What a choice.

Cindy Sheehan where are you? It seems that the first Veteran's Day in several years has come and gone without you gracing the front page of every newspaper, magazine and cable news show and every reporter on the planet reminding me that your son died in Iraq.

Where are the pictures of you throwing yourself on your son's grave? Where are the pictures of you looking all self righteous as they drag you out of another peace protest (denying you of your "right" to be obnoxious and disruptive)? Where are all the celebrities and foreign tyrants who were racing to have their pictures taken with you?

Do you still have a movie in the works? Or did Susan Saradon drop you when you became unfashionable? Where is your play? Is it still being acted out to what (I was told) were sold out theaters? And how is your campaign for Representative from San Francisco going? Hm...now that I think about it, seems like you dropped off the face of the earth about three days after announcing you were running.

I'm not accusing the media of being biased, but it sure is interesting that six months ago you couldn't use a public restroom without it being a "statement" about the evils of the Bush administration. I can only assume that you've been hiding at home under the bed. Which is really strange when you think about it. I would assume that now that you're running against Nancy Pelosi you would be more politically active, not less. How odd is it that journalists no longer seem to find you interesting.

I notice that Code Pink is still around. Isn't that your outfit? If I remember correctly you were deeply entrenched with the rotting geezers that make up that group. Yet your face is oddly missing from the wrinkled, toothless, shower hungry crones that make up that fine organization. Weren't you at that "haunted house" in Washington DC just before Halloween? You didn't make it in to any of the pictures. You provided us with no quotes or sound bites from the Code Pink vandalism of Recruiting offices a few months ago.

DailyKos isn't lamenting your absence. I have yet to see a diary in the top ten that even mentions you when talking about the innocent people effected by the "illegal" war. Those diaries used to be a staple.

It's so odd that the urgency is gone. It's so odd that the anti war movement no longer has a face, a victim, a sacred cow that could go out and say anything that the critics aren't supposed to respond too. And it's really funny that the last few mentions of you in liberal blogs state the some of the very observations I've been making over the years. So I guess I was on to something.

Look on the up side Cindy, you had your run - enjoy it. At least you got some land in Crawford Texas...land that you bought under less than honest and truthful circumstances...land that you lied about when promised to build a park on in rememberance of your son...land that you are now trying to sell for two or three times what you paid for it. But that doesn't make you greedy any more than all your activism made you a media whore.

Wow I never thought I'd get to a part three of this, but here it is. Hillary's campaign is beginning to show weakness. Is this because of a right wing conspiracy and fifteen years of Rush Limbaugh's criticism?

No.

Is it because of all the Chinese funny money she's getting? From the 1000 dollar contributions from dishwashers to the 800k from a welfare family in California?

No.

Is it because of her obsession with privacy going so deep that she's locked up her college papers and rehired Sandy Berger - a guy who was found guilty of destroying documents? (And let's not forget her and Bill doing everything they can to keep us from getting documents from their first two terms in office.)

No.

Is it because Bush (the dumbest leader of modern times) tricked her (which leaves me wondering exactly how smart Hillary is) in to voting for an unpopular war that no one wants?

No.

Is it because she's going to nationalize healthcare, raise taxes and (despite not having enough money for any of the above) still earmarks money for campaign contributors and a Woodstock Museum?

No.

Is it because Hillary Clinton is an arrogant witch that looks down on us and hates it when "the little people" ask her questions she doesn't feel she has to answer?

Somewhat.

Believe it or not, a waitress and single mother named "Esterday" has done what none of the above could: hurt the Hillary campaign. How'd she do it? By uncovering something embarrassing?

Again no.

Hillary simply didn't tip her. It takes a village to raise a child, but I guess Hillary's not a part of that particular village. So it's okay.

Or is it - a lot of hay is being made over Hillary's snub. The media is really digging in to it, though I'm not sure why. My first guess would be that some in the press are starting to favor Obama or Edwards. Or perhaps the press really is getting bored and trying to stir things up.

Anyway - kudos to Esterday for doing something the "right wing conspiracy" couldn't.

Maybe we need new "Server Fairness" laws.