Recently a George Washington University student filed a police report that she had come back to her dorm room only to discover Nazi Swastikas drawn on the door. A police investigation revealed that the student herself was responsible for the offending graffiti.

This incident is just one in a long list of phony charges about racial strife primarily on college campi, but other places as well. From the Duke Lacrosse team to nooses at Columbia University, fake racial problems are the style of the day.

And despite the fact that there have been so many fake racial crimes in recent days, the press, civil rights activists and other "open minded", "non judgemental" types that always have the same reaction regardless of the (lack of) evidence presented: all white people are racist and capable of this (as if that's not a racist statement itself).

Insultingly when a lot of these "hate" crimes are discovered to be what they are, all charges are dropped. Of course, when a group of black men were roughly treated by police after Natalie Holloway disappeared and then released after there was found to be no evidence civil rights activists wanted an apology (and more.)  

But the point is simple: these phony allegations are hate crimes in and of themselves. Like the Nazis or Lenin's Communist Horde or the KKK at the turn of the 20th century we have political movements attempting to foster hatred against a scapegoat for political gain. And in a lot of cases modern libs are using the same rationalizations that prompted the Nazis and Communists against the Jews: namely money and class. Since the Jews had the money, controlled the banks, were in charge of credit institutions, etc. it was rationalized that they were responsible for the suffering of the common people in Germany/Russia.

Today political correctness teaches that white people are responsible for all the evils on earth. Every single sin from slavery to global warming can be traced back to some white male somewhere. Libs have even come up with a great name for it: "white male privilege". Most libs who walk around complaining about "white male privilege" are not white or male so I can't help but wonder how they know their buzz phrase holds any water. They tend to use TV and movies as their evidence. True these same TV and movies show only negative stereotypes about minorities and women, but I'm sure they got the white male down accurately.

The irony is multifaceted. We're not allowed to screen Muslims at airports, lest they feel discriminated against. So we have to randomly search everyone. We're not allowed to racial profile blacks lest they feel the hand of intolerance. We have to profile everyone. But a noose hangs from a tree somewhere and we go round up all the white men.

Studies show that Muslims are more likely to commit acts of terror and blacks are more likely to commit crime and we told to ignore these "racist" studies. But studies showing that whites are prejudiced are accepted unquestioningly as gospel. Moreover we make laws based on such racist studies.

Since white people won't hire black people, we're going to make a law requiring them too. Since white college boards won't let black people in, we'll make a law requiring them too. (Nevermind the fact that all business owners, people on college boards and police are just assumed to be white.)

Racism is racism. Discrimination is discrimination. It's very interesting that the people who claim to be fighting these things are some of their biggest backers. Just as it's interesting that the "open minded, non judgemental" people who propagate these myths won't listen to this column.

About a month ago I was telling everyone that Hillary would be the next president of the United States.

Today I'm not so sure.

Truth be told, Hillary is a weak candidate on shakey ground - just listen to her. On one side I'm supposed to believe that she's one of the smartest leaders in our country. That said, she wants us to believe that she was tricked in to endorsing a war with Iraq by George Bush (who is supposed to be one of the stupidest leaders in our country.)

On one side I'm supposed to believe that Hillary had nothing to do with the Healthcare plan when it was proposed back in 1994. But if you use your memory (or do any research in to the subject) you'll notice that she lead the Health Care "task force".

On one side she portrays her experience as a co president in her husband's administration. On the other hand she had nothing to do with it.

And now in the latest news trickling out I'm supposed to believe that Hillary is opposed to giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, unless we're trying to get an accurate count of how many are in the state of New York, only then we're not going to let them on our roads - but it's all Bush's fault.

To paraphrase the words of Barrack Obama, "I can't tell if she's for it or against it."

In fact if you listen/read the transcripts of the last debate Hillary's only solid message is "It's all Bush's fault." Too bad Bush isn't running in 2008 or this might make a good campaign slogan. Definitely win her the support of the kook left wing blogosphere anyway.

But the truth is that she's got all kinds of bad baggage from unusual fund raising practices that covers everything from taking thousand dollars in contributions from dishwashers, hundreds of thousands of dollar contributions from people living on welfare and big money from infants and toddlers.

Moreover she is holding documents about her and Bill's first two terms in office. Our media can get military plans and secrets using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) but we can't get the chronicals of a failing administration using the same types of "Sunshine Laws".

Even if the records do slide out, Clinton will just get Sandy Berger to destroy any forms that indicate criminal wrongdoing. He was found guilty of destroying classified documents to cover for the Clintons you know. And he was rewarded by being rehired by Hillary.

But conservatives have been pointing out stuff like this for years only to be ignored by the unbiased, non partisan press. But none of the above has even tickled the curiousity of Journalists. I notice that media types are keenly interested in investigating the theory that Bush knew about 9-11 despite that there is no evidence. But the dirty dealings of the Clintons get a pass despite mountain of evidence.

Well it's starting to crack apart. The Main Stream Media (MSM) is starting to take another look at the Clintons. And although the MSM never takes sides I can almost guarentee that it's because the Clinton machine is starting to target other Democrats - especially the other presidential candidates.

Obama, Edwards, Dodd and others love it when they get passes and softballs when arguing with conservative critics. But when Saint Hillary gets dodges at their expense, they get mad. Or I at least assume that these guys are serious about their runs for the highest office in the land and they're being played for chumps by the Camp Hillary and the media.

But something interesting is starting to happen: journalists actually are starting to look in to some of the curious things Clinton is doing. 

Already the feminists are splitting on Hillary. A lot of feminists are falling back on the same tired arguments that "The boys are attacking the girl". But other feminists are starting to argue that Hillary is under attack for being the front runner. Even Hillary herself has forwarded this notion - even as she talks about being a good mother/housewife. But this hasn't stopped people like Nancy Pelosi are chidding the ex first lady for "playing the gender card". 

Funny - I disagree ideologically with Clinton but my not voting for her makes me a "sexist". Feminists won't vote for Hillary even though they share her ideology and that makes them, not sexists but good voters? How's that for twisted?

The bottom line is that the gaps and cracks and weaknesses are now being looked at by a handful of people in the press and the other candidates. And even though no one is really going to truly go for the jugular when it comes to Clinton, it is a bit refreshing to have everything I've been saying up to this point given some veracity.

Maybe Hillary will start to face other hard questions - if not from CNN then maybe from the other primary candidates.

Welcome to the right wing conspiracy guys!

Maybe someone will even ask her when we're finally going to give up on Kosovo (her husband's forgotten war.)

I hate labor unions. They have a purpose I suppose, protecting the little guy from the company. The real problem with labor unions though is who is protecting me from the union?

In fact most unions have the game rigged so that you need them a heck of a lot more than they need you. Pretty sweet deal for them - setting up their own little monopoly on labor in a particular field.

But all this said, I'm going to go on record as siding with the Writer's Guild of America (WGA) against the Hollywood Studios.

Partially this is a kiss up - people who don't support the union tend to get blacklisted and *never* work anywhere ever again. Being a screen writer myself, this would obviously be a
bad thing. (As I said, who's protecting me from the union?)

But mostly I'm supporting the WGA because I think they're right.

I've worked in a lot of businesses in my time but none have ever been as cut throat and backstabbing as screenwriting. In my short tenure in the 'biz' I can't believe some of the rotten, mean things I've seen so far. A lot of script "contests" are actually idea collection scams for established writers. Some writers like to "collaborate" with other writers (only they're really stealing your contacts.) Nefarious production people changing two lines of your script so that they can give themselves a coauthorship credit.

In fact some aspects of screenwriting are more miserable than others. Most people will never have to endure some of the degradations that a screenwriter will go through. Odds are that when you sell a script, the first thing the new owner will do is have it entirely rewritten. Most people I know get mad when their work is questioned/corrected. We learned long ago that this would be a staple of our business.

Fortunately this is one place where the guild actually protects its people. The *first* rewrite is to be done by the actual person who wrote it. Other rewrites don't have to be.

Other things that you can look forward to are: last minute changes, requests for miracle working and being treated like a toilet seat by producers, directors and actors.

And probably the biggest put down of all: being unknown outside of Hollywood circles. Who wrote "Casablanca"? Who wrote "Titanic"? Who wrote "The Godfather"? Most people can identify the actors and possibly even the directors of said movies. But only a scant few could tell me who wrote them.

So as a screenwriter, you can also expect being almost unknown. In an industry that is all about glitz and glamour and being known, you'll have to settle with obscurity.

But none of these things are what the strike is all about. What this strike is about is how writers will be paid in the cyber age. Right now every time you watch a movie in the theater or at the video store, the screenwriter gets a small royalty.

But new technology has made it possible for internet downloads and DVD sales - things that the writers are all but cut out of. And every day technology changes just a tiny bit more.

So the bottom line is that the studios are charging the same (overinflated) prices while paying less overhead.

Screenwriters are just wanting the fruit of their labor. Scripts take a long time to write and create. A good script can take years to put together. But it only takes a few seconds for someone to decide they want to steal it (and do so.)

The writers are just protecting themselves and their work.

In the wake of these debates, I don't know who to feel more sorry for: the Democrats who are still act like they have a choice of candidates, the Republicans who actually think they might win, the media for being too arrogant to see how stupid they look to everybody who's conscious or the American public who is probably going to get a screw job when the Hell B***h Hillary assumes office in '09.

Of course this is a piece about Hillary - that's all anyone in the media can seem to talk about. But unlike other articles, this won't be a puff piece about how romantic Bill is and how clever the Clintons are at lying.

You really think the press is status quo/fair? Oh come on. The Hillary campaign has raised millions and millions and millions of dollars - mostly from Chinese immigrants now serving as dishwashers. And despite receiving an 800k check from a family living on welfare, journalists don't find the story investigation worthy.

Moreover - Hillary takes credit for setting up "charity" organizations like MoveOn.Org, Media Matters for America and other groups that only contribute to left wing causes. I guess they need to feed starving working class joes like Barack Obama and John Edwards. (Of course, any time a minister stands up in a church to talk about abortion or homosexuality, here comes the FEC/IRS gestapo.)

The Clintons were, by far one of the most corrupt administrations in American history. (Having a degree in History I have studied this quite a bit.) Bill sold our nuclear tech to the Red Chinese, gave the North Koreans everything they need to make a nuclear bomb (tech which they are now sharing with the Syrians), let Osama bin Laden go (even after declaring a war on terror), raised taxes, made us the world's personal b*tch and so on. Oh and did I mention lying under oath?

As for Hillary herself - she's listened to secret tapes made of critics, gathered FBI files on political rivals, locked away her college papers so they can't be reviewed by anyone - again and so on.

So as you can see, I'm opposed to Clinton cause she's a woman and I fear a strong female. Uh huh, right. But I digress.

Libs chased Nixon out of office for stuff like this? It's good to know that in 2007 listening in on political rivals is okay...just not listening in on terrorists plotting to make strikes against the innocent people in this country. (Talk about having your priorities out of wack.)

And through it all, isn't it fascinating that none of the above seems to garner any interest with our "unbiased, non partisan" press corp? Nah - they're all focused on Larry Craig (as if anyone cares about that.)

On the other side, it's kind of funny to watch now as the Democrat presidential candidates slowly come to the conclusion that they're just worthless cogs in the machine now. We told them that the Clintons are darlings of the press and can get away with everything they want. Most of them responded by threatening right wing media outlets with government regulations. Now they're starting to realize that we might be on to something as the media drools over the chosen one.

Tonight's Democratic debate featured a "pile on" of everyone vs. Clinton - with Hillary nailing herself to the cross of "it's all a right wing plot and they all hate me" as usual.

But if you watch the debates, you won't see anything new. Everything the all but coronated queen bee is proposing is right out of 1994: massive tax hikes, giving terrorist organizations everything they want, nationalizing healthcare and putting everyone in the lower/middle class under their heel. The only difference now is that there are no strong conservative leaders directing a groundswell. In 1994, we had Newt Gingrich - a guy who went out and actually fought for what he believed in.

Now the best we have on the conservative side is wishy washy, squealing little guys who'll sell us out for 30 seconds of puff on Hardball.

Yeah I guess a lot can happen in a year - but if all factors remain like they are now, it's going to be a very long next five years.

There is an ill wind blowing out of the south. Hugo Chavez is reinforcing his tyrannical dictatorship in Venezuela. Student demonstrators gathered in the streets a few days ago to protest an expected vote in their nation's parliment that would repeal the term limits for the President. For you libs slow on the uptake, that means that Chavez would be President until he dies.

The people who are terrified that Bush might not step down in '08 stand on the sidelines and cheer on Chavez.

But this is just one thing that leftists don't ever seem to have a problem with when it comes to Communist Dictators in other nations. They have nothing but glowing support for people like Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro (each of which only had one election ever during their respective tenures.) Saddam got 100% of the vote and it was called "fair" by libs the world over.

Of course, I've never seen an election where someone wins with 100% of the vote - not even in districts where politicians run unopposed. There is almost always someone who writes in a joke or just leaves it blank.

Truth be told, Chavez's last election in 2004 saw him win 59% of vote. Jimmy Carter certified the vote as "fair". Of course there was widespread reports in various Venezuelan media outlets (before Chavez decided to close them anyway) of election rigging - everything from fixed voting machines to Hugo's granting of citizenship to millions of foreigners on the eve of the election.

Exit polls (which always tell the truth here in the United States - especially when they show an Al Gore/John Kerry victory) indicated that the polling numbers should have been reversed - with 59% against Chavez. Scattered media reports indicate that oppositional polling leaders tended to disappear or be fired during Hugo's re-election party.

Moreover Chavez has faced not one, but two attempted coup's while in office. He wants to write this off as just an attempt by the CIA to undermine his regime. The thing is that the people who started the fight weren't a bunch of foreign mercenaries from Columbia - they were citizens of Venezuela who were risking their lives and families and livelyhoods to stop what they saw was happening.

To draw a comparison, for all their blubbering and moaning about how awful life under Bush is in the United States the radical left has yet to try to start an actual revolution. Much less two. (It was these coups that Chavez used to justify the shutting down of an oppositional television station in Caracas earlier this year.)

Does this sound like a popular leader who carries 60% of the vote?

I'll give liberals the benefit of the doubt though. I'm guessing that most of them know Chavez is a Communist/Socialist who is opposed to the war in Iraq and therefore an ally to them. Because if they do know Chavez's record, I would have to call the complete hypocrites.

Chavez is making alliances with the Syrians and other warmongers. He's already threatening to use force against (not just the United States) but his neighbors like Guiana which he insists is actually a part of Venezuela. He's meddling in Latin American politics - from Honduras to Mexico. He's setting himself up to be "President" for life. He's stamping out free speech and press everywhere. I'm willing to bet with a little digging, we'd discover that he tortures and executes prisoners without trials or humanity. He also refused to let in international observers during the election of '04 - with the exception of Carter's bunch. (Carter is the guy who gave us present day Iran and a Nuclear armed North Korea, so Chavez knows a chump when he sees one.)

None of this stuff is coming from the "status quo" media of the United States. All of this I'm citing is coming from foreign media sources (most notably the BBC.)

And despite all of this, Hugo remains a hero of the American left. Left wing leaders and spokespeople from Cindy Sheehan to Sean Penn have run down there to get their pictures taken with him. Danny Glover even wants to make a movie about Chavez.
 

I believe that people have a right to live free. I believe that people have a right to say and write things they believe in without fear that the government is going to take action against them. There is nothing going in Venezeula that would further any of these things.

We're watching yet another tyrannical dictatorship unfold. Why doesn't the left care?

Hillary Clinton may well go down in history - not because she's the first possible woman candidate, but because she'll be the first candidate in American history to win promising to raise taxes as high as they'll go and putting the government in charge of everything.

It's really strange to think that a nation that traces its roots to a revolt against high taxes is now going to put a bunch tax oppressors in charge. The American colonists groaned under inflated taxes (on everything), lack of free trade and government regulation of speech/press (via the stamp act - which was also a tax.)

This is pretty much the Democrat platform for 2008. Hillary the front runner supports Chuck Rangel's tax hike. She hates free trade. Hillary supports "the fairness doctrine" - a nice way of saying "government regulated speech." And although Madam Clinton publically denounces Bush's wire tapping of terrorist suspects, she sees nothing wrong with listening via wire taps on political opponents (see "Her Way" by Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth.)  Didn't libs chase Nixon out of office for stuff like this? And today it doesn't bother them?

What is the end result of all this socialism? They're destroying the American dream. You know, that romantic idea of the United States  where if you work hard you can become wealthy and prosperous. It's the dream that still brings people here.

But Dems and libs are putting artificial walls between the middle/lower classes and the rich/upper class. By punishing people on the way up, they're basically holding people down. Someone on the verge of making it is going to have a much tougher time overcoming the inflated taxes and excessive red tape than someone who is already there.

And isn't it interesting that the people who making all of these assertions happen to be already there? Congress is composed almost entirely of millionaires. Wealthy elitists who find the idea of paying for their own campaigns to be offensive (thus they look to lower/middle classes for their re election money.)

Like the kid demanding money from their parents cause they don't want to spend their allowance - these elites look at the lower classes as a bottomless hole.

I guess I would be considered "middle" class (even though it sure doesn't feel that way.) And yet every time there is a tax hike on "the rich" I see my rates skyrocket. Not only I am overtaxed, I'm constantly being lectured on how the Federal/State/Local government doesn't have enough money. Thus they're raising fees, raising tolls, going to start charging for this, going to start charging for that, etc.

Now - despite the fact that we're going broke, we're going to give non paying illegals all kinds of stuff, build bridges to no where, pay for art work that both attacks my principles and I'll never see. Course my personal favorite is Hillary's pet Woodstock Museum which she wants to dump one million dollars in too ( not for her aging, dinosaur liberal base but "for the children" I'm sure.)

And just this week, Pelosi is pushing for a shorter Congressional work week...so they'll spend less time having to look busy. Like college professors, they're grossly overpaid for the nothing they do. But I digress.

The bottom line is that the libs are going to create the system they claim to oppose once again: where a pot smoking, rich, decadent class of elitists rule over the peons. And of course, lame lefties will call it a "free and fair" society. Watch how they drool over Castro's Cuba, Chavez's Venzuela, etc.

The last thing this country needs is more socialists/communists - much less another Clinton presidency.

*************************************************

Quotes from Al Queda Letters

(Below is a translation of part of the captured letters from Al Queda)

My People,

As you are aware, the war against the racist, sexist, homophobic Great Satan is not going well. It appears that they are too good at making martyrs and we do not have enough people to make a lasting struggle against them. Therefore we have to heighten our efforts on "Plan B."

Our allies in the United States lost the last major election only one year ago. Fortunately, our operatives living in America haven't lost hope. I'm proud to say that only one month ago did the great heroes of our people march on their capital demanding that their government surrender to us. But we need to do more.

It is imperative that Hiliary Clinton win in 2008. Therefore, we must begin worldwide fundraising for her campaign. Although the United States has several laws governing how campaign money is to be raised and spent we have discovered that this only applies to candidates that obey the law and since Clinton does not, it should be no problem.

Thus my people, go get campaign money any way you can: sell drugs, steal it, it does not matter. As long as it goes to left wing candidates, god will forgive your otherwise unholy actions.

Only then can we bring peace, love and open minded tolerance to the world at large. DEATH TO ALL AMERICANS!

Sincerely,

Osama bin Ladin

**************************************************
-http://www.redstate.com/story/2005/10/12/125850/42

I was booted by a mod named Krempasky who stated the following:

"This is pretty boneheaded and offensive diary. I'm only leaving it here to let others see what'll get your arse booted out of RedState. Smears like this, for instance."

He locked my account and left my post up so that I could be condemned by flamers without being able to respond. How nice of the smirking little pencil neck to do.

But let's let a few years go by. It's now Oct of 2007 and check it out from WND November 2, 2006:

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege. "

-http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

Reuters story from Nov 10, 2006 notes:

The Democrats' victory at U.S. Congressional elections on Tuesday were a step in the right direction, the (al Qaeda) speaker said.

And from December 22, 2006 ABC:

"Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists."

-http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html

Furthermore I would like to point out that in the years since I wrote my "boneheaded" diary, Rush Limbaugh and others have often joked about al Queda backing Democrats.

So my question now that you can see things in retrospect, was I cutting edge? Or just offensive?

I doubt you'd throw Rush off your site. Bite me losers!

A new talking point has emerged from the Democrats. Namely that Hillary is great because she stuck with her rounder husband. I can't believe all the places this is coming up.

As usual, the typical band of stupid libs are walking around with that arrogant halo lecturing all the rest of us about the "family values" held by Conservatives.

Apparently I'm supposed to vote for her because she's married and has been married for many years. And if I don't vote for her, I'm a hypocrite. (Just like if I don't vote for Barrack Obama I'm a racist.)

Who are they kidding? The left hates "family values". The Vice Presidential candidate back in 1992 (who was running on the Clinton ticket) even said it: "I'm sick and tired of 'family values'." or something along that line. But now they're embracing it and I'm supposed to too.

I fail to understand how they can get away with twisting everything. Shouldn't the gay community be pissed off? Whatever happened to Hillary's "it takes a village to raise a child"? I thought "family" was to be redefined in to whatever they thought it should be? So they're what, admitting we're right now?

Isn't this sudden change of heart interesting? It seems that Hillary believes that the kooks she has shored up right now (the gays and others who want to reshape the word 'family') aren't enough to get her elected. Now she has to change her stripes yet again to try to appeal to at least the center line of the voting body. The Hillary campaign needs your support and she'll happily sell out her extreme fringe base to get that support.

The left should be outraged by this new (discriminatory) tone. Instead they can't celebrate the new philosophy hard enough - even Feminists who "don't need no man" to survive.

And they're doing this all to try to defeat Rudy Giuliani (maybe Fred Thompson) who have divorces in their past. Woop dee doo.

If this is the best attack they've got conservatives might not be in as much trouble as they seem to be in 2008.

Looking over the current crop of Republican candidates, I'm trying to decide which of my ideologies I value the least. I guess I could vote for Rudy Giuliani and sell out my belief in the people's right to own guns. Or I could vote for Mitt Romney and get the proto Hillary Care that he's proposing. Or maybe I could vote for McCain and welcome in every hostile foreigner that wants in.

The funny part is that if any of these people get elected odds are I'll end up selling out ALL of my ideologies.

Seriously though. George Bush has spent the last seven years trying to bring a "new tone" to Washington. And that "new tone" is try to make friends out of the rabid, uncompromising left wing. And thus Bush has given them all kinds of things in an attempt to make friends. He let Ted Kennedy write the Education bill back in the early days. Bush signed the precious "Campaign Finance Reform" law that the Left (and John McCain) demanded and now ignore. He Unionized baggage screeners to create a brand new liberal voting block for Democrats. He didn't fire ALL of the Federal lawyers when he took office (like Bill Clinton did). And of course, he has pushed relentlessly for Amnesty for Illegals.

Now has any of this attempt at bridge building worked? No it hasn't. In fact, I'm sure that my lib readers are sneering as they read this and giving cute retorts to their computer screens.

So the lesson is clear - who cares what libs think? If you get elected by the conservative base, you go out and fight for your conservative ideas. And you squish anyone who gets in your way.

The real reason the Republican is not excited is because none of the current crop of candidates acts like they're going to fight for us. The front runner is from New York City for god's sake. The ONLY people who get elected in NYC are left of center at best. Other tough talking candidates were met with a great deal of fanfare and excitement only to turn around, drop all their ideas for the sake of "compromise" (see the Gubinator in California.)

I guess some would argue that Republicans are fighting, it's just the media that won't tell us about it - but I don't buy this. Remember the Amnesty fight? I've never seen a group of people fight so hard AGAINST THEIR OWN BASE. It was a massive struggle that continues to this day. Even as recently a few weeks ago Congress is still trying to get amnesty slipped by.

The real reason for the loss in '06 is that the Republicans cannibalized themselves. It's not like they didn't know Amnesty was unpopular - some Republicans went back to their home districts to find themselves suddenly running in tight primaries. Campaign contributions to the party went down the toilet.

If only they had fought this hard for tax cuts! If only they had battled this ardently for school choice or the social security overhaul!

Instead they rolled over and died at the first sign of Democrat resistance.

I'm still flabbergasted as to why they didn't go after Democrat Representative William Jefferson of New Orleans. You remember him, he's the guy who used military vehicles in the Katrina aftermath to go pick up his bribe money from his house. The FBI had a warrant to search the guy's office cause he was dirty. But the Republicans *circled the wagons around this guy.* Part of their defense was due to the fact that they wanted to play nice with their coworkers on the left side of building.

But it didn't win them any friends there either did it?

The Republican party was founded on the principle of NOT compromising with political enemies. Abraham Lincoln once said that they had compromised and compromised and compromised with the slave states - yet the slave states were still not happy (thus no more compromise). I think we need more of this today.

I'm sorry once again I don't understand things. On one side, George Bush is a cowboy invading other countries unilaterally without help from anyone else. And now suddenly we discover that (as a matter of fact) we do have at least one ally: Turkey.

And suddenly it's really, really, really important to condemn the actions of the Ottoman Empire and their genocide of the Armenians. Which is an event that happened almost 100 years ago during WW1.

Up to this point, libs have been telling me (rather loudly) that Islam is a religion of peace. A religion that respects other cultures and other people and other beliefs. So where is this genocide stuff coming from?

A quick jaunt in to history reveals that during WW1, the Ottoman Empire was overrun with the movement of the "Young Turks" - a political party that was rooted in (surprise, surprise) radical Islam. They hated other religions such as the Christianity practiced by the Armenians. So they began a systematic "cleansing" of their lands. (Some historians speculate that these actions inspired Hitler. But that is another topic.) The US Congress has twice condemned this "cleansing".

But that was 100 years ago. Today Turkey is very important to our actions in Iraq. For starters, a lot of our supply lines go through the nation. The next problem is border disputes. The Kurds in Northern Iraq have never got along with the Turks. Kurdish insurgents like to go north, stir up trouble then race back across the border.

The irony is multileveled. The Kurdish North Iraq is the most stable in the country. But not if Turkey makes good on its threat to chase the Kurd militia back to Iraq. There are roughly 60 k Turkish troops awaiting orders to move in to Iraq.

If Bush is a Cowboy for taking actions against the enemies of the United States, what do we call a group of people who are determined to run off our allies?

The House (read Nancy Pelosi) is the one really pushing this. If you remember correctly, this is the same Feminist broad who (here in the US) demands men (and religious types) "keep their laws off my body" but then happily goes to the fundamentalist state of Syria to get smiling pictures of herself in a burka.

So there you have it: Democrats hate the people who are on our side and love the people who are fighting against us. I remind you that Syria is a state that loves terrorists. In fact, Syria is even guilty of the same kind of invasions that the libs are protesting in the streets here in the US. Was it not Syria that occupied Lebanon for 20 years and even now after pulling out is still messing with the internal structure of that state?

I guess it's okay to do rotten things if you're a brown skinned minority. After all, Ahmadinejad said things at Columbia and the libs cheered. If a white Christian guy had said it Congress would be threatening to cut funding to the school.

But I'm not questioning their patriotism, their ethics, their common sense, their logic. I learned long ago libs don't have any of those things...

Gore won the Nobel Prize - was anyone really surprised? I fail to see what Global Warming has to do with promoting peace though. Yeah I'm sure a few on the left could explain it in a round about way claiming "hot temperatures make hot heads" or some nonsense like that.

If you tell them that Islam is a religion rooted in violence, the libs will argue with you (despite all the evidence that yes, Islam and bloodshed seem to go hand in hand.) But these same people can see a link between peace and hot weather.

I guess none of us should really be surprised. After all, there is no real evidence of global warming. That's why the libs are so desperate for "consensus science". Of course, that doesn't cover the mistakes and outright lies of the Greens. Isn't it interesting that on the eve of Gore's win a judge in the UK ruled that the movie " An Inconvenient Truth" have a disclaimer before being shown to school children. Among the falsehoods is the claim that Global Warming caused Katrina (as opposed to 100 years of liberal Democrat mismanagement of New Orleans.) That one has to be the most stinging though, since " An Inconvenient Truth" features a picture of Katrina on the movie box.

But I'm digressing. If you want to win the Nobel Prize all you have to be is #1) A Bush Hater, #2) White, #3) Rich and #4) Espouse a left wing dogma.

Oh you don't think so? Take a look at past winners: Jimmy Carter, Yassir Arafat, Koffi Annon - Koffi Annon, the guy who while in charge of the UN knowingly broke the UN's own trade embargo on Iraq making millions of dollars while Iraqi civilians died of starvation and sickness is a Nobel Prize winner.

I also notice that a lot of the Literary winners always seem to write about left wing interests: How racist, sexist, homophobic Western society is. How the working people are constantly getting screwed by the rich. Isn't it interesting that a lot of these particular winners tend to be white, from well to do families and have good jobs at Universities where they're overpaid for the nothing they produce?

Yeah I know - you're not a part of the problem because you care. I'm just a bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobe that you're attacking.

The libs tell us that war is caused by poor people trying to make a better lot for themselves. War is about the "disenfranchised" trying to cast off the shackles of oppression from the evil white man.

Question: how is Gore's Global Warming going to help any of this?

People in India and China are starving because there is not enough food. The way to produce more food is to modernize: use tractors, elaborate irrigation methods, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. Every single one of these things Gore is opposed to because it will alter the environment. Furthermore, Gore (and the IPCC) are basically a bunch of white guys using their power and authority to tell a bunch of brown people how to live. It might not be "colonization", but it's still status quo of colonization dragging on.

Next year instead of screwing around, they should give the Nobel Prize to a man who really deserves it, a man who is peaceful and stands up for the oppressed lower classes: Osama bin Laden.

Osama has it all: brown skin, minority status, hates the United States. He's perfect.

Maybe next year (maybe.)

The war on Terror is a silent war. There aren't large armies moving across battlefields like in wars of years past. Despite this the strategy of war remains the same: destroy the enemy army by either costing them huge losses of man power and equipment or by completely demoralizing them or both.

We're fighting terrorists. Terrorists are people who will only strike when the odds are completely in their favor. That's why they strike civilians hiding amongst non combatants and using the invisibility they're afforded to kill innocent people.

The terrorists know they can't beat us in a stand up fight. They don't have the equipment or the numbers to survive on a battlefield against us. So they're focusing on demoralizing us.

And our media in the West is doing everything in their power to help the enemy by demoralizing the American people.

Two big examples over the past few weeks are Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia and the attack on Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldier" comment.

Inviting Iranian Tyrant and terrorist sympathizer Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University was truly one of the dumbest things academia has done in recent years. The University thought they were being oh so clever by taking the chance to make fun of dictator to his face.

But in reality all they really did was give him the appearance of legitimacy. The foreign news corp. picked up the story and spun it in the usual fashion - showing pictures of smiling students and reporting on "standing ovations".

Ahmadinejad was applauded when he openly questioned Bush's hand in 9-11. He was applauded when he questioned and cast doubt on whether or not the holocaust happened. He was even applauded when he talked about how there were no gays in Iran. Think about that - the same student body that charged the stage and forced the Minutemen to stop talking because immigration restrictions are "hate speech" and "discriminatory" were entertained by Ahmadinejad.

The second big thing is that the soldier Jesse MacBeth - a man who posted a blog about his role in the US military, where he helped his units in Afghanistan and Iraq massacre women and children only to then hang the bodies from the rafters of Mosques was found guilty of making up stories. In truth, MacBeth served 44 days in boot camp before washing out. He is going to serve 5 months in jail and 3 years of probation.

But his damage is going to ripple for years. His stories were translated in to Arabic where they spread like wildfire. His story is just what al Quada and other Islamofascist groups need to make their case.

The only thing that would dispel these falsehoods is the truth - but the Islamic media isn't going to report the truth. Hell, the American media won't even report the truth. In fact, they're fighting anyone who is trying to get the truth out. Look at how they're treating Rush.

Was Jesse Macbeth condemned on the Senate floor for damaging our war effort? No. Was Columbia threatened with possible legal actions to "balance" the debate? No. Are the motives of either of these two people being questioned at any turn? No.

Instead Congress is mumbling that they might take action against people trying to get the truth about these people out. Liberal Congress people are pushing for the renewal of "the Fairness Doctrine". Of course, it's not an attack on free speech - no. They like to think of it as "balancing" the debate. But don't worry, their left wing friends at Columbia won't have to worry about their speech being "balanced". There will be no Conservative response to Ahmadinejad (that would be "hateful" as if doubting the holocaust is "loving".) There will be no "truth in news" laws requiring that media outlets who once touted MacBeth's falsehoods make just a big a case retracting the stories.

You're right, the problem is people giving us opinions we don't like on AM radio bands.

Being as it is October, I've invited some friends over for a German celebration. We're going to have some bratwurst, sour kraut and beer. Maybe I'll introduce them to some of the Nordic gods and goddesses sitting on my altar. Being half German, I have to say I'm very proud of my heritage.

Question: have my friends "stolen" my culture by coming over?

No. Of course not.

Question: do my friends have to understand the meanings of the food and drink and various rituals at my party?

Again no, of course not.

The Octoberfest is a German tradition. It's basically a big party. Do people really need to know the history, importance and background of the Octoberfest celebration to partake in it?

No.

So why do so many witches and neopagans hold such a purist view when it comes to religion? Does it really matter where something comes from? Or what significance it has in a particular culture? Isn't it more important what it means now to us in our culture?

Religion is a part of culture and culture by definition is constantly changing. Just consider: where were you 10 years ago? What did you look like? How did you dress? What hairstyle did you have? What kind of car did you drive? Where did you live? How about twenty years ago? Thirty years ago? I'm guessing that most of you have changed quite a bit.

And not just for us as individuals. Things in general have changed a lot over the past thirty years - just like things have been changing since the beginning of time. Just because you can pass over thirty years in a single sentence of a history book doesn't mean that the people during that era were stagnant and completely uniform. New generations bring new things and ideas. They change and reinterpret old ways of doing things as well as adding new ways and ideas.

And the realm of religion is no exception.

Most religions pagan, Judeo, Christian or otherwise used to practice some kind of animal sacrifice at some point in their history. Some religions (again pagan, Judeo, Christian and otherwise) even included human sacrifices. Bloody sacrifice is only one thing to be noted. Old religions (including a lot of pagan religions) often mixed their teachings with politics, sponsored slavery, upheld the ideas of racial/gender inequalities and other practices we abhor today. Should these practices be brought back to keep the religion pure?

I don't think so. Should we try to understand or note that these practices were done? I suppose - but in very few cases does it have any baring on the present. A lot of the old customs and religious practices were for hunting and farming. Few of us today are hunters or farmers. If a religion is going to be tangible, it should fit in to our lives as individuals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested to know where these things come from and what they mean. But I don't think it's a requirement for a person to be a "true" witch or pagan. And for ancient pagans worldwide it didn't necessarily matter either. Bachus, Dionysis and Cernunnos are all gods of wine (among other things) found in the Roman world. Although they shared similar identities, they were very different from one another. There were different stories, myths and legends dealing with each of them. There were also different styles of worship. Some of these differences were pragmatic in nature. The types of grapes that grow in Italy are a little different than the ones grown in Greece or France. But the Roman travelers treated them as all the same. The deities were close enough to each other.

It's not just a European idea either. You see similar things in the Aztec world. The winged serpent Queztacoatl was a god of peace *in Tenochtitlan*. In other parts of central America he was even bloodier than a lot of the local deities.

Should it be held against the present day followers of Queztacoatl don't conduct human sacrifice? Is all the meaning lost in the worship of Queztacoatl today because modern believers don't know how the original sacrifices were treated and dispatched?

I could tell you the logic and beliefs behind these practices - but they don't matter. The only thing that does is what the feathered serpent means to us today.

And I don't have to trace my genetic/cultural lineage back to the Aztec people to count Queztacoatl amongst the gods in my pantheon either. I can't help my skin color or my heritage or how I was raised. The goddess has one thousand faces - is it a sin that I can only worship her with one at a time?

The bottom line is that it is more important to understand why *you* believe and do the things that *you* find prudent. It's not as important why others do and act and believe what they do. This is one of the big problems that I have with "organized" religions - they try to tell you what to believe and what to think and how to act. Sometimes those things don't work for me. Often these people can't answer all of my questions because the questions aren't supposed to be asked. You're just supposed to accept that this is the way (and usually it's the only way.)

There is yet another point here. As I stated before, a lot of religions like to mix with politics. This has allowed arguably some of the worst atrocities in human history. The Inquisition is probably the best known of these endeavors, but there are others and not all of them have their roots in Christianity. Organizations such as the Inquisition are masters of violence, bullying, censoring and outright destruction of other religions. A lot of traditions and lore are now lost to us thanks to the efforts of these conquerors.

So even if we wanted to know the ancient wisdom we couldn't find it - much less put meaning to it. Thus we're left to the best guesses of researchers and vague clues in the records of the victors.

Sometimes the devout themselves do things that bury the secrets. There have been many mystery cults throughout the years. There is also the prejudices of various priests and priestesses. The biggest example here are the Druids - a lot of whom believed that writing down religious ideas, stories and rituals took the magic out of it. And even today there are cults and groups that only allow members and initiates to partake in the worship.

The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with eclecticism. If it works for you then it's okay. I don't believe there is truly any wrong way to worship the goddess if your heart is in it.

It is arrogant and elitist of coven witches to trash the eclectics as "lazy" or somehow less. I've met a lot of conveners who weren't real disciplined. I've also met a lot of conveners who seemed more interested in using their authority to get each other in to the sack than being devoted to anything. I'm not saying that covens are all bad - I'm just pointing out that a group doesn't necessarily make better religion.

Yay! Another "racial" incident packaged exclusively for the unbiased, non partisan information with holding media.

I guess there was an incident with some security guards at Knight High School in Palmdale California on Friday September 18th. The event was actually caught on tape.

According to the four stories that come up on the internet, we know the following: a security guard pushed sixteen year old Pleajhai Mervin onto a table. According to the stories, Mervin's wrist was fractured during the scuffle (though there seems to be doubt about this part.) Birthday cake was thrown during the fight. A forteen year old (Joshua Lockett), his sixteen year old sister (Kenngela Lockett) and Latrisha Majors (Mervin's mother) were all arrested and taken in to custody. Kenngela claims to also have had her wrist broken.

And of course there is a myriad of unconfirmed rumors around the incident - that the guard used the "nappy headed" slur and so on.

The incident has gone far enough to get the Project Islamic Hope involved in a protest demanding the release of what they've dubbed the "Palmdale Four" in a direct attempt to parallel the "Jena Six". Najee Ali screeched "Children are being beaten and brutalized. Black students are being victimized."

This is pretty much all we know about the case. Yes breaking wrists does seem rather harsh - I'm really curious as to what brought on this reaction. Naturally our glorious media doesn't seem to think a description of what happened to cause a fight to break out is worth reporting. Nor is it important that we get the security guard's side of the story.

It's really interesting that they're making a big stink about the security guards being white. It's almost like they're racistly accusing all whites of being prejudiced. That's okay though just assuming all whites are racist isn't a crime. After all whites have a history of violence and abuse against people who don't look or share cultural values with them. White people are thoughtless, barbaric and just attakc people who don't look like them because that's what whites do right?

Of course, pointing out that the people involved are Muslim and Islam has a long history of violence and abuse against people who don't look or share cultural values with them *is* a crime. It's just not a double standard and there have been many books written as to why. *Gag*

So is there any hope that our media will get the facts of this case reported and I mean all the facts involved not just the one sided version of the special interests?

Didn't think so, but I thought I'd ask...

This Rush thing just keeps going. For those of you living in a box on Mars with your fingers in your ears Rush Limbaugh commented that the media only talks to "phony soldiers" when they are looking for statements that are negative about the war in Iraq.

Rush was referencing a story about Jesse Adam Macbeth which he had talked about earlier in his broadcast but didn't refresh the details at the time that he made the "phony soldiers" comment.

MacBeth was found guilty ~ meaning he did it ~ of writing fake blogs about attrocities him and his troop were doing to the civilians in Iraq. He became an over night hit with the left wing blogosphere. But the truth is that it turns out that MacBeth washed out of boot camp after 44 days. He never got to Iraq to help with the terrible acts he reported on. In fact, he even lied about his rank of corporal.

Anyway the story went to the unbiased, non partisan Media Matters for America dot Org (a group that gives overwhelmingly to left wing causes and Democrats in particular.) Lazy, mind numbed journalists then picked up the story and ran with it without ever once investigating.

So now with the Democrat Congress too weak to get any of their rotten ideas passed, they are taking the "safe" passage of condemning Limbaugh.

The secondary motive is to take the heat off the other unbiased, non partisan big money special interest group that (coicidentally) only gives to Democrats and left wing causes: MoveOn.Org. Libs charge Limbaugh with hypocracy since Rush ripped MoveOn for the General "Betrayus" ads.

Of course, anyone with a third grade education can tell you difference between someone who lied about being a soldier doing awful things and a bunch of obnoxious know-it-alls not wanting to listen.

But lefties and Dems in the back pocket of these million dollar special interests have to play ball or risk losing the money. (I thought McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform would clean all of this up and get nasty fights like this out of our government - but maybe they were only talking about partisan fighting and not nonpartisan fighting like the war being waged by these 501 groups.)

Here is the irony of this whole situation: the Congress is condemning Rush for trashing the troops? What have the Dems been doing for...well, the last forty years but trashing the troops? Do you realize that the same day all of this came to a head a judge has decided that Congressman Jack Murtha can be brought to court for claiming from the halls of Congress that said Marines had committed "cold-blooded murder and war crimes'' despite the fact that he had no evidence.

Wasn't it John Kerry who almost a year ago stated:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

A lot of soldiers are highly educated. True, it might not be no fancy book learning like butthead elitist college kids that support Kerry blindly, but it's often been said that life (and the experiences of life) is the best classroom. Best because it's hands on and not just theorical.
Talk about demoralizing the troops.

Or how about Democrat Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur who said:

"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."

Yeah our soldiers are terrorists and murderers and Osama bin Ladin is a hero. And Rush is the bad guy?

All these people I mentioned are sitting in office right now. And all these people I mentioned are in "safe" seats - meaning that they are all expected to be re-elected. Despite their insane statements and observations. Despite the fact that they have no evidence to back up any of their charges - unlike Rush who was talking about a guy who has been found guilty in a court of law.

Will the media fix this? Will our unbiased, non partisan press actually bring out the truth? Of course not. The media's job is to "balance" the points of view and even though one side of this case is built on lies and distortion it still has to be presented for "balance". Journalism isn't so much about reporting facts as it is balancing all points of view and treating them all equally, unless it's a "hateful" point of view such as loving the United States, being pro life, loving freedom, etc.

It sucks that in the year 2007 with the internet and other devices that can bring out the truth the lies and falsehoods of the libs and media is still treated as serious.