Rush Limbaugh is in trouble again. This time while talking to a caller he referenced what he dubbed a "phony soldier".

This incident has created a fire storm in the media. Immediately commentators all over television began condemning Limbaugh. The group MediaMatters.Org slammed Rush mercilessly. It got so much traction that it actually made it to the Congress of the United States where various elected officials made motions to condemn what Rush said.

The rest of the story: Limbaugh was talking about a "soldier" named Jesse Macbeth who chronicled horrible abuses of Iraqi civilians while on his tour in that nation. Well it turns out that Macbeth was only a soldier for 44 days before washing out in Boot Camp long before being assigned to the combat role that he claimed to have in his blog.

But don't look for a lot of media corrections and clarifications on this. Journalists say they're unbiased and non partisan - but watching some of the things they've done and said in the past year one can't help but wonder.

It was almost a year ago that Israel invaded Lebanon? And suddenly our media outlets were flooded with pictures of blown up buildings with a teddy bear laying out front or an old woman crying?...the same teddy bear/old woman in every single pic no matter how far away each spot was from each other?

You'd think that would have been a big headline, but no. Journalists have more important things to report on than the lies and distortions of their peers.

Remember March 2, 2007 when Bill Maher stated while talking about Dick Cheney

"I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact."

If you don't remember the comment, that's okay. Most people don't. More people remember

Ann Coulter's reference to that comment:

"if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

To this day Coulter is still hounded by non partisan media types about this statement. Even when Ann reminds her inquisitors (like Chris Mathews) of the contexts they ignore what Maher said and continue to pound her.

So either journalists are stupid or they're patently biased. You can suggest that certain people (namely the ones we disagree with) should be killed but don't you dare make similar suggestions about our guys.

Don't get me wrong at all. The media is free to write and say anything they want. What aggravates me is that despite of how obviously one sided they are about it they continue to claim otherwise. How stupid do you think we are?

And sometimes they can't even get the facts straight in stories that seem simple. Do a google search for "Jena 6" and you'll get several stories...all featuring slightly different facts about the same incident. Some of the stories say that the white victim (Justin Barker) was taken to the hospital. Others say he wasn't. Some of the stories claim that Barker pulled a gun. Others say that the gun was a separate incident a few days later (or earlier).

All of the stories agree (though they might not say it): there is still racism amongst whites and only the whites in the old south. All of the stories mention "history of Jim Crow" and the "all white jury" that convicted Mychal Bell. All of the stories mention the segregation of the 1950's.

Only one of the stories (the one on wikipedia) mentions that the Jena 6 beat Barker to unconsciousness. None of the stories note that the six *continued* to beat Barker after he fell unconscious. None of the stories mention that Mychal Bell has a history of violence. None of the stories think it's worth noting that Justin Barker had nothing to do with the "Noose Incident" that began the racial unrest.

So what are we supposed to think when we read/watch a single report on the Jena Six? Most people aren't going to read and compare all the media stories to see all the inconsistencies
in all the various versions of these reports?

It's obvious: that minorities are getting screwed by an evil white racist system. Only a person with no life like myself is going to uncover all the distortions being put out there like it's really news.

It's so strange to me. Right now all over the world people are struggling putting their lives on the line for freedom of speech and press. These people are tired of getting the one sided take on the news. And here in the United States we have free speech and press and still pretty much only get one take on the news. When another voice does come out, left wing politicians suggest that these different takes be "balanced" out with the same old crap from the major outlets (see talk radio.)

How sad is that?

I demand my right to speak at Columbia University. (Well you need an organization to sponsor you...) No I'm afraid I don't. You just said it was a "right" - I don't need permission to exercise my Constitutional rights. Granted I might need to go on record when I'd like to speak and for how long, but I'm willing to do that.

Columbia is proud that they invited Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak there, lecturing all of us who disagree with a smug "well it's a free speech thing" as their retort.

I'm not a lawyer but I do know there is not a single federal court (liberal, conservative or otherwise) that has ever stated that advocating a violent overthrow of the government is protected speech. Ahmadinejad has and his regime have called for violence and outright attacks of the US many times over. The guy even had a military parade the day before he came here bringing out his latest missiles and gave a speech stating in part that Israel should be wiped off the map.

I figure if violent, trash talking tyrant would be welcomed by a bunch of peaceniks - I should be hailed as a hero when I go to speak.

Funny that a foreign dictator who wants violence against innocent people and an end to the US government (and the institutions of principles like freedom of speech) is welcome on Columbia campus and a bunch of people who want to serve our government and protect the institutions of freedom (namely the ROTC) are not. I guess soldiers don't have a right to speak, assemble or have an opinion. Somehow I'm guessing that if they found a soldier that had serious problems with the War on Terror and the Bush administration's policies on it would also be welcome on Columbia campus.

But I digress. Back to my original point I'm demanding my right to speak. (Well what are you going to say? We're not going to let you get up there and say a bunch of hateful things.)

#1 - I have free speech - it doesn't matter what I'm going to say. Free speech = free speech.

#2 - Hate speech...you mean like openly doubting that Hitler put 12 million people (half of them Jewish) to death simply for being who they were? And didn't that hate filled line about "we need to do more research about what really happened in Europe" (I paraphrase) get an applause?

Hate speech...you mean like stating "there are no homosexuals in Iran" a line that got quite a bit of applause with a sprinkle of booing?

Or do you mean like *gasp* being pro-life and talking about how millions of innocent people are killed every year? Or the hate filled suggestion that we actually control who comes through the US border? Would those things get my mic cut?

The great minds at places like Columbia can demonstrate how Garfield comic strips further racism. "Brilliant" people can write long essays about how the Bush administration pulled off 9-11 despite there being no evidence. And yet they can't see how stupid their actions of inviting Ahmadinejad make them look.

I believe the KKK has a right to speak and assemble peacefully in the United States. The KKK can believe, write and think whatever they want too. That said, I would never invite the current Grand Dragon to my house to speak. If nothing else, it makes it look like I endorse their philosophy (or is that a far fetched conclusion?)

By inviting the Iranian dictator to speak, you're making him look like what he says carries weight. And for you to sit here and argue that "it's a free speech issue" makes you look vacant. Ahmadinejad can go talk out on the sidewalk if he wants.

But back to my original point: I demand the floor at Columbia. If it's good enough for a middle eastern terrorist sympathizer, then it should be good enough for me.

So when can I expect my invite?

While listening to the Rush Limbaugh show today (as all angry white guys waiting for their marching orders do), Limbaugh had the most interesting piece of audio. It's David Shuster from MSNBC interviewing Marsha Blackburn about the MoveOn.Org ads in the New York Times. The two had the following exchange about Rush referencing one of his callers referring to Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel as "Betrayus":

SHUSTER:  Where was the outrage when Rush Limbaugh said this about Republican Senator Chuck Hagel over one of the senators' stances on Iraq.  Limbaugh said, "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska. We got General Petraeus, and we got Senator Betray Us, new name for Senator Hagel."

BLACKBURN:  What I want to do is talk about the New York Times, and probably Rush Limbaugh could have gotten by without saying that.

SHUSTER:  Could have gotten by?  It was wrong, wasn't it?

BLACKBURN:  He was referencing what a caller said, and --

SHUSTER:  Right, but it was wrong for a caller or from Rush Limbaugh to call Chuck Hagel Senator Betray Us, right?

BLACKBURN: But Rush Limbaugh did not go in and buy an ad and place it with the New York Times and get a special preferred rate.

SHUSTER:  So there's a difference between buying an ad in the New York Times and Rush Limbaugh hearing something that he likes to hear from one of his viewers and repeating it on the air? What's the distinction? Why is there a distinction?
 
Marsha Blackburn was obviously taken aback by the question. Here's what she should have said:

"....you honestly don't know the difference? You need me to explain this too you? Which journalism school did you go to again? Cause I know 3rd graders that can see the difference. Are you smarter than a fifth grader? I'm guessing not.

I can't believe that you, as a nationally syndicated host are asking me such a stupid question. What is your demographic, the comatose?

Okay, I'll explain it too you (and please try not to drool on yourself.) MoveOn.Org bought ad space *at a discounted rate* in the New York Times, a media outlet that *claims* to be unbiased and non partisan (much like yourself). It's not so much what the ad *said* but the treatment that MoveOn was given.

But I feel reassured. Since you demand that I explain this too you, I have to assume that you're retarded and not just a partisan hack trying to force your left wing agenda on everybody."

I demand my right to free speech. This is what Columbia gave Ahmadinejad correct? Well I think it's only fitting that I get to speak too.

What do you mean "no"? You're going to deny me a right that you give to a tyrannical dictator that has openly stated that he wants to arm terrrorists with nukes and wipe Israel off the map?

Oh I get it - Ahmadinejad is spreading a message of love, whereas I might discuss being pro-life, stopping terrorists, controlling our borders and other "hateful" subjects. Got it. I guess we should all be happy that the Iranian leader didn't encourage anyone to join the US military or he would have had his mic cut immediately (since the ROTC has no right to speak at Columubia.)

Maybe they'd deny me my Constitutionally protected right to speak because I'm not "important". It's ironic to think that an Ivy league school that cares so much about the poor and the downtrodden (like myself) would oppress us in such a fashion in favor of the rich, the powerful and the elite. I'm sure these big libs feel really bad about that (not).

I guess Columbia could argue that being a private institution, they are not necessarily bound by the Constitution. But this would be akin to admitting that they gave Ahmadinejad a platform/forum/chance to humiliate the United States.

Seriously though: what did they think he would say? We're talking about a man who (before his trip to the US) held a military parade where he denounced the United States. Columbia (whatever they thought they were doing) essentially gave the Tyrant another tool of propaganda. Already the foreign news agency (which left wing organizations in this country say are more accurate than our own) are already reporting that Ahmadinejad is being received with standing ovations. If there is anything that demonstrates how crappy and lie ridden the foreign media is, it's now. But don't worry - this incident won't change the minds of the holier than thou, smartest people in this country that populate places like Columbia.

I'd also like to point out that Columbia greedily sucks down large government grants to "educate" the wealthy elite making up its student body  (meanwhile poor kids go to failing schools strapped for cash.) So much for caring about the poor eh?

So Iranian leader Ahmadinejad is going to speak at Columbia University. And the usual suspects are calling this "free speech". And I'm betting that the peaceniks on the left will flock to see it in spite of the fact that the thug is working to get nukes and has promised to give the technology to their terrorist friends when they figure out how it works.

Yeah I know - all those charges are false. They're just made up by propagandists from Haliburton and the Bush administration to make money and oppress minorities. The Iranian leader has tan skin and is a member of a minority religion here in the United States - so he's obviously just a victim.

The left is going to eat this guy up. On the eve of coming here, he's spouting all kinds of Democrat talking points: from not caring about Katrina victims to natinationalizing health care. As typical, the libs aren't nervous to hear one of the biggest troublemakers in the world agrees with them. In fact libs seem to take comfort in this fact.

Anyone else see the double standard? When a third world warlord comes here giving left wing talking points we're supposed to listen. When a racist white supremacy group gives support to a right wing cause (like say Illegal Immigration), conservatives are supposed to be shamed and dropped their position.

So Columbia is backing up "free speech" eh? There are tons of controversial people here in the United States that never seem to get invited speak at there. Would they invite a pro life speaker to talk there? How about someone who supports Bush and spying? How about someone who is opposed to Affirmative Action?

Somehow I don't think so. Those speakers are "hateful."

Columbia University is an Ivy league school. Like most Universities, it is a private institution that sucks up tons of government grants every year. And every year it rejects thousands of good, honest, hard working American students. People who are trying to better themselves. These are the same people giving that tax money that Columbia so eagerly sucks up. Some of these people are poor and have no rich relatives to grease the right palms insuring that they'll get in. These people will never get on to Columbia campus, much less be invited to speak there at a large forum. In fact, despite the fact that Columbia is lecturing us all on "free speech" I do believe the Ahmadinejad's lecture is closed to the public. So he has the right to speak, but the rest of us peons have no right to hear even if we're paying for what's being said. That seems unjust.

And the University stands by its decision.

And what do they think Ahmadinejad going to say? We're talking about a man who held a military parade showing off his new weapons, including a missile he proudly claims can hit Israel - a state he admits he wants gone. You think that would upset peaceniks here in the United States - but instead they'll be flocking to see this guy. I'm sure that there is more than one unbiased, non partisan left wing professor that will require their students to go and see this guy (and test them on what he says.)

Question: What will Columbia do if several angry students charge the stage? Will they try to stop the students? Have security take them out? Almost a year ago speakers from the Minutemen had their speech interrupted when angry students stormed the stage. University officials defended themselves by stating "it's not our responsibility to defend their free speech" or some nonsense like that. Be interesting to see if Ahmadinejad is worth defending or not.

The people at Columbia think they're some of the smartest people in the United States yet they're letting hostile foreign leaders play them like a fiddle. No wonder al Quada, North Korea, the Iranians and others have no respect for us.

Oh god, here we go again. Another racial incident packaged especially so that the unbiased, non partisans that work in the hallowed halls of journalism can show whites in the United States how racist we all are.

Of course the journalists themselves, college professors, students who vote left wing and other white liberals are excluded from the charge of "racism".

Enter Jena Louisiana which from what I understand is the backwoods. I guess (bare in mind that since left wing bloggers have gotten involved with their hysteria, getting any details of the case is near impossible) that there was a tree at Jena High School that traditionally only whites were allowed to sit under. A group of black students last fall asked administrators if they too could also sit under the tree. School Admin told them they could sit anywhere they wanted and these students did just that.

The next day, three nooses in school colors appeared hanging from the tree - apparently one for each black student that sat there.

There can be no denying that this was an attempt to intimidate and bully each other. The students responsible were found and suspended for a few days.

But the black community in Jena was still outraged. This punishment wasn't enough. They
wanted these students arrested for "hate speech" I guess. (If you haven't noticed, students have the freedom to say/print anything they want to as long as it falls withing liberal PC parameters.)

Anyway this was the beginning of a long series of events mostly trivial in nature. A few black students weren't invited to a party, someone tried to burn the school down (the culprit hasn't been identified) and so on and so forth.

It all culminated in an incident last Dec. in an incident where 6 black guys beat a white guy. Apparently, they beat him up pretty bad. That's the only thing anyone can really say for sure. Some reports say that the white guy pulled a gun - but other sources say no weapon was involved.

The "Jena Six" (i.e. the black guys) as they come to be called, were originally charged with assault, but this was later changed to attempted second degree murder.

Naturally this has sparked outrage. To be sure, attempted murder charge seems a bit harsh - but we had no idea what was said between the blacks and the white involved. Make no mistakes, this was a racial incident and odds are that racial epiteths were thrown on both sides. It's ironic to think now that the same black community that decryed how little was done with the whites involved in the noose incident seem to want the system to go easy on their guys.

I got news for you: racism is a two way street and although the fine details have been clouded,
there was a race crime committed on a white by a group of blacks. There is no denying that a hate crime has been committed here.

Naturally - since it's a black on white hate crime it's considered excusable. After all (critics keep telling us) whites started it by hanging nooses.

So there you have it: two wrongs make a right. A hate crime committed against a black is a horrible thing, whereas a crime committed against a white is understandable. Thus not all hate crimes are equal. Which is interesting, cause they keep telling us they want to be treated "equally" (as long as we remember they're victims of whitey's system).

And of course, the NAACP (a group set up by blacks to focus exclusively on black interests) is going to run down there to march against racism without ever seeing the irony. Perhaps the black racist NAACP should march against itself to stamp out the racism of their organization.

But I digress. There is no doubt that racism is still alive and well. Just the knee jerk reaction that "whites from the south did this" is a racial prejudice. But since it keeps the civil rights groups in power - we'll keep that one around. And the same with the prejudice that blacks are oppressed - especially in the south. We'll keep that one around too.

From the rattling in the Hillary camp, we're in *BIG* trouble. Not just conservatives, but all of us.

I'm of course talking about Hillary Care which she so nicely unveiled for us all just a few days ago. The woman is so certain she's going to win the next election that she's actually telling us exactly what she has planned when she takes the office.

But it goes further. It would be one thing if she told us she planned on resurrecting the bogus piece of crap, but she's gone so far as to give us the intimate details.

We'll be required to prove that we have insure before being able to get a job? I need money to get insurance. I need a job to get money. How am I supposed to get in to this iron ring? (Well the government will step in and help.) Great - I'll be *required* to accept the helping hand of government.

But I digress. Back to my original point: who gives their entire game plan to their opponent in any competition? They'd either be grossly arrogant, amazingly stupid or both. Usually you float a trial balloon like "I want healthcare for all Americans" and then let the thinktanks speculate all over television as to what the plan would entail. You don't tell them exactly what you're going to do.

Another stunning thing about this: back in early 90's when she worked on the original plan (which we're now expected to believe was all Bill's idea) she did it all in secret. The public wasn't allowed in - despite all the Sunshine Laws that libs have pushed through over the years. When a judge forced her to reveal who was working for her and what they were doing, Hillary had all the documents of their findings destroyed. In the year 2007, we know more about what's going on in Guantanamo Bay than we knew about what was going on in Hillary's Healthcare meetings. But I digress again.

So why is a woman who is so obsessed with secrecy that she even has her college papers and records under lock and key now giving us the details of her plan?

Someone really needs to start trying to get to the bottom of this. As far as I'm concerned, Hillary has just announced that she plans on detonating a nuke near Denver Colorado when ascends to the White House. And now everyone is discussing exactly where that bomb might be placed - but I'm still stuck back on the idea that she wants to drop a bomb.

I thought the left wanted the "big money" and "special interests" out of politics. Isn't that why they embraced the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act?

So why are all these libs out raising millions of dollars for millionaires. I guess it would be a shame if these rich people running for office actually had to spend their own money to do so.

Nice to know that them and their backers feel the pain of the working people. Recently Oprah Winfrey had a huge "Black People Can't Make It In America" fundraiser for Barrack Obama where they raised millions. This is the same Winfrey who did a "funny" skit on her show a year ago highlighting how she couldn't remember how to put gas in her car. Oprah and her friend struggled to find the cap, push the button on pump and debated over which number was showed the gallons put in and which number was the price of a fuel. Oprah admitted not having put gas in her car since 1988.

Doesn't that put her out of touch with just about everybody? I would expect most millionaires to at least know how to put gas in their car. Yet this woman who struggles with it feels our pain?

From just a light tracking of the left wing Democrat antiwar fund raising site Daily Kos it would appear that Edwards is the favorite over there. I can't help but wonder why a website that constantly bemoans how the poor working class can't get anywhere is interested in raising money for a millionaire. Again it would be a shame if this guy had to put his own money on the line for his re-elect bid.

And in news that's not worth mentioning, Hillary Clinton is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from Chinese immigrants living on welfare. Despite this, no one in our unbiased, non partisan media is even the slightest bit curious about where a bunch of people living on food stamps is getting these giant chunks of money to give to Clinton. Hillary and her wife have a long history of taking illegal campaign contributions from Chinamen who are hostile to the US, but I'm sure this current story is really nothing.

It's bad when these people expect us to pay for their miserable runs. But it's downright horrible when you consider what we're getting for it.

At every fundraiser these people go out and highlight their failures and tell us how stupid they are. According to them, Bush tricked them in to going into Iraq. Isn't it their job to go through all the facts first? Isn't it their job to sift through all the information? My boss at work wouldn't buy this excuse - so it confounds me that these people actually have people chomping at the bit to vote for them.

If Bush tricked them, then what are we supposed to think when they go to talk to people who truly are trying to trick us (like al Quada, the Iranians, etc)? The Syrians already have the Democratic Congressional leadership in their pocket. Pelosi assures us that the Syrians are peaceful - but as I already said, she is one who claims Bush tricked her.

So how is that? You guys on the left are truly unbelievable. You claim to care about the poor but you support millionaires who are out of touch. You claim to want the "big money" and "special interests" out of politics, but your side is run by those two things. You claim to want "honesty in government" but your lead candidate is guilty of taking illegal money - illegal even under the old laws. You want to tell me that Bush is a dunce - but your guys all tell me that they were tricked by the President.

You guys claim to be the smartest people in the United States...but of course, your stupid actions speak louder than your screeching words...

Oh no! Kansas City is in quite a pickle. It seems that the Minuteman Organization wants to have a meeting there. Naturally this has the usual ban of left wing yahoos in a tizzy screaming their same tired rhetoric about how minorities can't get anything from the powers that be in the United States.

Apparently they forgot about Affirmative Action, Imus getting kicked off the air, etc.

It's really ironic to think that a group set up exclusively for blacks and black interests and a group set up exclusively for latinos and latino interests are accusing anyone of racism. The fact that the Kansas City City Council is trying to come up with a way of stopping the meeting demonstrates exactly how powerless said groups are.

I thought left wing groups wanted to "return the power to the people." Apparently not if "the people" disagree. Americans want a crackdown on the tidal wave of illegals forcing their way in to this country ever day. Every single poll has a majority favoring getting tough. Even those "unbiased, non partisan" polls with loaded questions asking us if illegals should be sent home to die horrible agonizing deaths come back with a majority in favor sending them home.

Sorry - I don't know how they do things in "the old country" but in the United States people have a right to speak, a right to assemble and a right to redress their government to make changes that are needed. Not just a bunch of big money, far left wing backed special interest groups. Maybe if you actually took the citizenship test (which includes basic information about our Constitution) you'd know that.

I'm happy that a small, powerful few are so excited to sell our freedoms in the name of Political Correctness.

I can't believe what I saw yesterday from our 'leaders' in Congress.

Four star General David Petraeus was brought in ostensibly to answer questions and file a report to Congress about the progress being made in Iraq. I say 'ostensibly' because forty five minutes in, the General still hadn't said anything. This isn't because of anything Petraeus was doing, it was because various Congress people (overwhelmingly from the Democrat side of the aisle) wouldn't let the man speak.

It's really funny. Up to this point, Congress has been trying to convince us that they are really stupid and gullible: they brag about how they were tricked in to going to war by Bush. (Thus try to convince us all that they're stupid or incompetant or both.) But after yesterday, I don't see how anyone from the Bush administration would have gotten a word in edgewise to lie to them.

Wasn't it Congress that wrote the law that required the President to make a report about the progress going on in Iraq? And now Congress fears the report is "partisan" since it's coming from the Executive branch.

Of course their interpretation of any such report wouldn't be partisan or political - even if they're using it in their various re-election bids.

Bare in mind that most of the complaints about the report being tainted come from the left side of the hall: a bunch of people who in recent years are taking more and more of their advice from left wing "netroots". Groups that boast about how non political and middle of the road they are even as they advance a far left wing agenda. Places like MoveOn.org, DailyKos, Code Pink, ACORN and others.

Yep, General Petraeus is biased because he's career military and he'll just say how well everything is going. Yep, can't trust people who have worked in the oil industry all their life either cause they'll just say anything to preserve their profit margin. These people are just not good sources of information.

But you can trust people like the left wing activist Michael Moore - he'd never lie or distort information to win an election. And you can trust a lifelong politian like Al Gore on Environmental issues even though he built his career on such ideas.

Isn't it possible that there really is something good being done in Iraq? And why aren't left wingers accused of being closed minded when they're slamming a report that hasn't even been released? They brag about how "open minded" they are. And being "open minded" means they're at least willing to listen. They keep bragging about how they "look at the grey", so why is it that in the War on Terror they only see the black actions of the United States? And why are they too pathetic and stupid to see the intellectual bankruptcy of their own boasts?

They should really (at least) try to listen to other people, they just might learn something.

For those who missed it, Whoopi Goldberg (the new host of "The View") began her tenure by opening the subject of Michael Vick and giving a excuse for his dog fighting...which she stresses isn't an excuse.

Of course, if she wasn't trying to excuse his behavior you can't help but wonder why she even brought it up.

Anyway she said something to the effect that this is black southern culture and, falling back to Political Correctness looking down on any dark/tan skinned cultures is bad. So taking her non-excuse out to it's logical conclusion Vick is a victim of judgemental, oppressive, overbearing white law.

I'm interested to know if her argument works the other way. Civil Rights leaders have been saying for years that discrimination is a part of white southern culture. But for some reason, that's supposed to be banned by law.

Don't give me this crap about "it's just dogs" and since no human being gets hurt it's okay.

No human being gets hurt when a cross gets burned. No human being gets hurt when racial epithets are hurled. And yet there are laws against those things, laws backed by people like Whoopi. Despite the fact that whites invented the word "n*gger". That word is more a part of white culture than it is black: after all, whites were putting you down long before you thought of putting yourself down. And yet it's not okay for me to say.

Michael Vick broke the law. He admitted it. Now he deserves the consequences. Don't give me this crap about "it's a cultural thing" and "this is just whites taking down a successful black man." You're being held to the same standard with which you hold others. If it's okay to use the government and the law to change parts of a culture you don't like, then it is okay to use the government and the law to change parts of other cultures we don't like.

So stop making (non)excuses, it makes you all sound pathetic.

Do you know what Racism is? What it *really* is? It seems that most people don't or they wouldn't be throwing that charge around so carelessly.

Racism is the basic belief that one race (usually your own) is better than all the others. This usually goes hand in hand with Racial Prejudice which is assuming that people have characteristics based on their race.

Note that it is very possible to have racial prejudices about a race you consider to be superior. For example: the Nazis were in the process of creating a "Master Race" which was going to be blond haired, blued eyed, more intelligent - in other words, it would be the German race.

With this in mind enter Elvira Arellano a woman who is guilty of breaking US immigration laws and providing a false Social Security number when attempting to gain employment. Last week she was arrested outside a Church and deported.

Naturally her supporters are screaming "racism." They even make the news with quotes like "we're tired of white racist society discriminating against us."

Of course, just assuming that whites are racist and out to get you is a racist prejudice on your part isn't it? You're making judgements based on skin color are you not? We do send illegal alien people with light skin tones back when we catch them, not just you guys. It's also offensive. I would *never* be featured on the news shouting "Why can't these Mexicans obey our laws?" Their statement is considered an accurate observation about our society. My statement would be racist and out of bounds.

You see, illegal aliens come from everywhere but you'd never know it watching a pro illegal rally where the only flags I ever see are Mexican. I take that back, sometimes I see a US flag upside down or being thrown on the grill before the cheering masses.

There is nothing wrong with pride in your ethnicity and country...unless you're a white American in which case it's (literally) a crime. People flooding our borders sure have enough racial hybris - don't even think they have to obey our laws. Who's really the victim of Racial Prejudice and Discrimination here?

But it's not isolated to the Hispanics. Just look at the Michael Vick case.

In the early days a lot of black leaders and spokespeople claimed that this was just an attempt to bring down a successful black man. Yeah it has nothing to do with the cruel way in which the animals were being treated - it's just racism.

Originally Vick claimed that he knew nothing about the dogs on his property...and then they found a net site advertising Vick's "Dog Kennel". So he lied. Now he's plead guilty - so he did it. He broke several laws. For those of you unfamiliar with case, Vick and his friends would routinely hang dogs not performing well from trees. They electrocuted several to death. They shot others. And in an attempt to breed a better dog, they chained a female in heat to the ground and let all the male dogs fight for the ability to mate. He kept all his dogs on chains just out of reach of food and each other to make them more vicious.

Yeah you're right - I doubt PETA would be protesting if Vick was white. Uh huh - right, got it. I work with a black guy who is a dog lover and he's disgusted by the Vick case.

So I have to ask in both of these cases: where is the racism? None of these laws listed above are "racist". None of these laws say "and if a hispanic is caught in the US illegally..." or "if a black guy is found guilty of dog fighting..." The laws that do that are called "Affirmative Action Laws". But that's another column.

I'm sorry I fail to see the racism in law enforcement in either of these cases. But I see a lot of racism against whites coming from the other side. If we're such a racist land holding down minorities why do Hispanics want to come here? If we're such a racist society that can't stand to see a black guy get ahead, then how did Vick even make it in to the pros?

It seems like everything that minority groups disagree with anymore is "racist".

On a July 5th broadcast, Michael Savage while talking about a bunch of protesters going on hunger strike: "I would say, let them fast until they starve to death."

Naturally this has started a firestorm in blue areas - most noteably San Francisco, a city that is considering passing city ordinances to use Tax Payer money to help illegals pay for green cards and the citizenship forms. Activists quickly latched on to protest Savage for his "racist comments".

How on earth is what Savage said "racist"? And is this really the way get political change in America today? It used to be that you'd have to explain yourself and try to talk a majority in to agreeing with you. But in the modern day, you win at politics by acting like a bratty child who's going to hold their breath till they get their way? No wonder terrorists have so many of us by the gonads. They tell us they're going to kill us if we do X. When we do X, we think it's our fault.

But avoiding responsibility is the staple of the left. How many times have we been lectured by libs that murderers aren't responsible for killing people (especially minority killers): society is.

Throwing a puerile temper tantrum isn't the way to institute change in our government. If you get involved in politics at all, you're also going to have to eventually face the realization that you're not going to win.

These people aren't going to starve to death and we all know it. "Hunger Strike" means they will only eat one meal a day. And from the pictures of most protesters I've seen, a great many of them could stand to lose some extra pounds anyway.

Furthermore, it is prudent to ask what San Francisco's city council did about Bill Maher. Have they considered dumping "Politically Incorrect" since Maher suggested that Chenney should have been killed in a terrorist strike? That's kind of hateful don't you think?

I know that a lot of the fringe Kossacks and posters at the Huffington Post are from San Francisco - how many of them chuckled when Tony Snow had a resurgance of cancer? So anger amongst some of these people is very selective.

I also have to ask if the opposite is true: am I off the hook because of action of these protesters? If I read news about immigrants getting away with it and get mad, can I burn a cross on the lawn of illegals and get away with it? Can I dress up in bed sheets with my friends and make threats against them? Is that my fault or the activists?

I don't think there is a lib in the world that would say "yes" - even the ones that believe in free speech would say something about silencing me.

If the left cares so much about people who are willingly starving themselves to force their agenda on people, I would suggest that Michael Savage fans should institute a hunger strike themselves. Be interesting to see the reaction to that in San Francisco.

Okay - so the New Republic has been featuring stories from "The Bagdad Diarist", a soldier in Iraq who is blogging the horrors of American soldiers on innocent Iraqis. Since leaking this guy's name wouldn't compromise our national security, the New Republic refused to give out any info on this guy. It took suspicious Conservative bloggers to track down who this guy is: Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

No sooner than his name was released, he confessed that he made everything up. The New Republic's response was typical of know it all left wing media types: oops our bad, now on to other news.

So there you have what's wrong in the US today, right wing commentators on the radio. Hopefully Congress will get right on their overhaul of freedom of speech and stop these awful hosts from beaming out what they'll freely tell us are their opinions and trying to influence politics their way.

Seriously though, when are politicians going to decide that Journalists need to be "balanced"? I know what you're thinking, Journalists have free press - but I figure that the channels of speech are a public form and as such the people should be able to regulate what goes out over them.

Yes our Constitution says that the Government (which is comprised of "the People") can't do that but in a world where McCain Feingold is okay, why not?

The New Republic is lying to us. If nothing else, they're guilty of fraud. They want to hide behind the fact that they didn't know this guy was making up stories. But isn't it their job to find out?

The media is biased. They had preformulated conclusions and they try to hammer every story in to those conclusions. (Wasn't it the Seattle Times news room that cheered when Rove resigned?) If there was an unknown blogger in Iraq writing that yes, there are WMDs and we helped move them last night, there is not a doubt in my mind that New Republic reporters would be digging in to the story (if they considered it worth mentioning at all.) Not only would they know everything about the author, everything that even seemed mildly suspicious would be taken in to account: from his father voting for Bush 41 to his Uncle that had a yard sign supporting Bush 43 in '04. Any story written would mention at least ten times that the source isn't necessarily reliable and the phrase "rumored too" would be featured in every other line.

I'd rather take one Al Franken reporting the news on his bogus radio show than ten New Republics. I know where Franken stands: he's a partisan hack and doesn't pretend to be anything other than. He doesn't insult me by trying to tell me that he's not trying to win in the political arena the way news reporters are.

I'm a hack too. I'm not reporting anything, I'm simply commenting on it.

The New Republic is guilty of fraud. What I wonder is if making up the news is a new thing or if they're just now getting caught in the modern day thanks to watch dogs on the internet.

But the left wing of this country isn't going to do anything about lying and deceiving news agencies cause these places help get them elected. And the stupid left wing voter will continue to use these frauds as sources of information.