We're fighting a shadow war and it doesn't help when know it all reporters go in and tip off the people we're fighting.

Enter "The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development" - a "charity" organization that is suspected of having ties to terrorist groups. In late 2001 (after 9-11) the FBI obtained a warrant to search the offices of the "charity". New York Times reporter Philip Shenon learned of the warrant and went to The Holy Land Foundation for an interview about the upcoming search.

Well gee, if you had illegal stuff and you knew the Feds were coming to your house with a warrant, what would you do?

Don't libs understand? There are people out there that want to kill us. They want to kill us because we're westerners - that's all they need to know. And a lot of journalists, college professors, artists and elitists in our government seem to look at that as a casual joke. John Edwards even said it: "The war on terror is a bumper sticker war".

They don't care if you're liberal or conservative. Communist, Democrat, Republican, Nazi, Anarchist, American Monarch makes no difference to them. They don't care if you believe in global warming or where you went to school or what you think of the movie "Sicko" or if you like "American Idol" or if you think the Palestinians are getting a raw deal or any other reason outside of possibly joining the religion of Islam (but even then I still have my doubts.)

But this is why left wing journalists and aid workers are always stunned when they're targeted for terrorism. They think that their "America screws everybody" philosophy will protect them.

Now couple this with the fact that these Muslim Zealots do NOT share our ideas of tolerance and acceptance. We might welcome them here with open arms, but the feeling is not necessarily mutual. This is not paranoia on my part either. It's a fact. Just ask the Brits about it (after all the bombings last July.) Just ask the French after all the riots and burnings a little over a year ago. Just ask the Danish journalists now receiving death threats for daring to comment on the religion of Islam. Ask the families of the Korean Missionaries in Afghanistan who were taken hostage last week and murdered.

Yes I know the dangers that a government with unchecked power poses to the people it governs. You don't have to tell me. It's funny to me that the left who wants the government to know how much money you make, where you spend it, whether or not you own a gun, who your friends are (lest is go against their "diversity" models), what kind of car you drive, what kind of health problems you have, etc are upset that the government might be listening to FOREIGN NONCITIZEN operatives who are talking on the phone.

Question: how are we going to stop this crap? Does any big lib have a better idea? For over fifty years we've tried the liberal way of dealing with these people: sending these people money, food, doctors and medicine. We've earnestly tried being nice to these people. All we've gotten in return is bitterness, violence, hatred, suicide bombers and bullying tactics.

Look at Somalia - our only crime was attempting to feed the starving people there. We were on a mission of peace. We didn't strike back at our attackers over there. And it turned in to a disaster. It gave a young militiaman Osama bin Ladin the inspiration to attack the US.

I ask again: does anyone have a better idea? A real idea? A real solution? So far the only other idea I've seen is for Hollywood, prominent journalists and know it all college professors to pathetically apologize to these people - which only emboldens the enemy cause now we've admitted wrong doing.

The response is very clear: apology not accepted.

I don't want to live in a world like this. But if I'm forced to choose, I would rather live in a peaceful pseudo police state than a free society where terror acts that kill my family and friends on a semi regular basis. Neither of those societies are free - yet they seem to be our only options. Besides under liberal, left wing politicians have already set up a pseudo police state. Right now at Pace University a student is having action taken against him for the "hate crime" of shoving a Koran in the toilet. Yet I can shove a cross in a jar of p!ss and have it called "art".

There's the left's "free" society.

I'm perfectly happy to live and let live. I could spend the rest of my life in coexistence with Muslim neighbors.

But too many of them aren't going to have it that way. I'm not the aggressor here. Non citizens don't have the same rights as we do under our Constitution (nor should they). I don't have a problem with warrantless wire taps of non citizens.

The most important news about Hillary Clinton's run for President is also the one that seems to get the least attention. It seems that good lady has been pressing for detailed plans about a possible US pullout of Iraq. Just this week, she went so far as to send a letter to her supporters.

"More than 150,000 of our brave men and women are in a war zone, and Dick Cheney doesn't think Congress should know about how we are planning to bring them home." Her mass email shouts.

This is a very interesting reaction coming from a woman who is very guarded about her privacy, especially when it comes to her work in the Government.

Forteen years ago, Hillary Clinton put together a "task force" of over 500 people. This body was defined as an "advisory council" to the President - who was of course her husband. Not surprisingly, she saw no ethics problems with working on political agendas while sleeping with one of the people in charge. But more disturbing than this, she saw no need to tell the American people the details of what her and her gang were doing.

Her "task force" met in secret. Three groups of doctors and concerned citizens requested to be allowed in to the meetings citing the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 which states that anyone who advises the President regardless of their definition in American law is to fall under open public scrutiny. Not surprisingly, the administration refused stating that FACA was never meant to apply to the first Lady even though the law specifically states that it applies to people acting in pretty much any capacity.

Insulted the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the American Council for Health Care Reform, and the National Legal and Policy Center all sued. The White House response amounted to the usual self righteous indignation - claiming FACA was unconstitutional. And liberal pundits came out in force as well.

Susan Trausch of the Boston Globe stated, "Very few of us give a fat rat about the technicalities of a 1972 law regulating task force meetings. We do not care is she is operating as a federal employee, a private citizen, the president's wife, or all three. We just want a break on our health insurance."

Imagine *any* Conservative pundit (outside of radio and a few blogs) saying this today about the war on terror?

But I digress. Judge Lamberth eventually ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. On March 26, 1993 the White House finally released the list of all 511 people on the task force. All 511 were said to be government employees. Furthermore, the meetings would have to be opened up. A little over 20 days later, the task force was disbanded. Two weeks later, the Washington Post received a leak that the White House was shredding the records of the Task Force. Understandably the angry Judge Lamberth ordered that the documents be preserved, but by that time it was too late. Most of the important information had already been lost.

The point of all that everyone should keep this in mind as they watch the Democrats go out and reiterate their talking points - especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Anyone who pays attention to left wing hypocracy knows that they don't follow their own rules. Look at the number of investigations brought against the current administration by left wing groups. Look at all the national secrets cheerfully reported on the front page by left wing media outlets. These are the exact same people who yawn at all the cover ups and shifty dealings of Clinton and her husband. The task force is just one of a thousand examples of the truth being buried. Hillary Clinton even locked her Wellesley senior thesis placed under “lock and key.” (Washington Times 7/13/1999)

So one can't help but wonder what she's hiding. What is it that the press *won't* tell us? Are we really supposed to believe that any potentially embarrassing information is out there because some reporter actually dug up the truth as opposed to having it spoon fed to them by Clinton Inc?

http://www.nlpc.org/hctf/tfl-09.htm

You just can't escape the annoying antics of skanks of modern day. A short while ago Paris Hilton dominated the news after being sent to jail for a DUI charge. Now it's Lindsey Lohan who was arrested for wrecking her car while driving drunk and having a bag of cocaine in her pocket.

(After she was taken in, she slightly altered her story and claimed that the black guys who were in the back seat were actually driving. No one believes this story, but it is an aggravating foot note.)

So far these idiots have been very lucky. No one has yet been physically hurt by any of these classless floozies. Not even when Nicole Richie drove the wrong way on the interstate was she was on a chemical induced trip.

More annoying still is the army of lawyers, friends, sycophants and family that defend these people. Often these people portray Lohan, Hilton, Richie and others as victims of the system that just hates their success and so on.

But it's just a matter of time until one of these morons drives over a little kid. Even if one of these people did this, their support team would continue to back them up.

It's maddening. Is there no line these women can cross with certain people? These women should be embarrassed for themselves. Not even lefties will defend them.

Liberals: we're talking about people who defend terrorists, thugs and dictators but won't say a word to defend Lohan.

It's bad when the left won't finds you embarrassing. These women should take a hint.

Jetblue last week pulled out of sponsoring the "Yearly Kos" convention in Chicago this year.

No, I'm not kidding. It sounds like a joke, but I'm serious.

Here we have a big, greedy corporation who is only interested in earning big profits contributing money to an extreme left wing organization that (despite kicking Cindy Sheehan off for not supporting Democrats) includes many corporation hating communists and socialists.

The only thing that would make this more stunning would be if the Kos sponsor was a tobacco/oil company/Walmart. Airline companies are some of the worst types of corporations in terms of screwing their consumers: lots of paperwork, overpriced tickets, long lines, refusing to give refunds the list goes on. And of the airlines, JetBlue is one of the worst. Just in the past couple of months there have been several stories about JetBlue leaving their passagers trapped in the flying sardine cans they call planes for hours on end on the tarmac.

But then maybe it makes perfect sense. Government agencies are known for treating people like crap, long lines, overprices for what you get, stacks of paperwork and so on.

From the Kos side, I'll say it again - why they want a corporate sponsor is beyond me. Shouldn't these people just have their convention in the park free from the bonds of evil money? Naturally Kossacks (as they dub themselves) hate money cause it corrupts the government and takes the power out of the hands of the people and puts it in the hands of special interest groups. That's why Daily Kos spends so much time raising millions of dollars for candidates and causes (not that that makes them a special interest.)

Now they're faced with the prospect of having to pay some of the convention bill themselves and they're having a hissy fit. No one should be surprised by this. The left is great at spending everyone else's money (just look at their tax policies.)

Bill O'Reilly is the one who grilled JetBlue CEO Dave Barger about sponsoring Kos. This interview is what is credited with the withdrawl of sponsorship - but O'Reilly brought up many good points in the interview.

Kos is a Hate site. I know. I have a Kos account. I both lurk and post there from time to time. I remember when Dick Cheney was targeted with a terrorist bomb in Afghanistan. There were several diaries lamenting the fact that the terrorists missed. How rotten is that that? There were diaries when Tony Snow was in the hospital expressing hope that his cancer had returned. I've read hateful things on Kos about Jews that Nazis would consider extreme.

And these are not just blogs by a few. These blogs made the "top ten reads" on the front page - meaning that several people had recommended them for reading by others. Strange to think that a lot of these people wanted Don Imus' sponsors to back because they thought his "nappy headed hos" comment was over the line.

In fact, Kos is one of the most intolerant and nasty places I've ever posted. I can't believe some of the hatefilled comments I've read there. Attacks on character are a staple of most posters. Despite how much they all brag about how accepting they are, I've read some truly cutting things about gays, Mormons, Jews, whites and men that I've ever seen.

Let Kossacks pay for their own convention. Markos is making a pretty penny taking donations from poor, blue collar working slobs like Michael Moore. Surely they can afford to put on their own party. Jet Blue did the right thing by backing out.

How many ways can you rephrase the same question? How many ways can you retwist the answers? This was all on display last night in the first ever CNN YouTube debates.

Don't get me wrong, on one hand this demonstrates the greatness of our society - that people from all over the world can now ask the candidates questions and get answers immediately. But on the other side, most of the questions were empty headed, sycophantic pandering. It was almost more pathetic than when "unbiased" journalists ask softball questions.

And remember it's CNN. The retirement home of high ranking Clinton flunkies like James Carvel. It's okay though, I've been assured by lefties that he never lets politics get in the way of honest reporting.

That said - let's face it, most of the people who participated last night were Democrats - and the majority of them libs so extreme they'd make Kossacks blush. They want taxes raised, out of Iraq, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.

So today as we go through the "highlights", the story becomes who slipped up and dropped the lib message during their answer?

The bottom line is who really cares outside of pundit shows who need something to talk about? Is there any doubt that electing any of these candidates is not going to lead to more socialism and big, more intrusive government? Is there any doubt that you Dems are stuck with Hillary? She wouldn't be running if the nominatin wasn't in the bag.

Do all the "youtube debates" you want, that's not going to change.

I'm going to try to hold the bile down as I write this. I might not have any luck and have to end this early though.

That said, ideologically Cindy Sheehan is wrong. I'm not going to sit here and apologize first because her son died. She loves to wave around the death of Casey. She brings it up in EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC STATEMENT SHE MAKES. How does the death of her son prove that taxes need to be raised? How does the death of her son prove that the government should be in charge of health care? How does the death of her son make her right on any stupid issue she's come out in favor of? The death of her son doesn't even prove that the war in Iraq is wrong.

Okay - I'm sorry you're wrong (and not smart enough to see it.)

But just because this woman is an idiot that doesn't mean it's okay for the left to take advantage of the woman (which is exactly what they did.) According to the biographies I'm reading, the woman was born in 1957 and her life started in 2004 with the death of her son. How strange that a modern day figure has absolutely no notes on her past anywhere. Although it's not noted anywhere I can find, I do believe that Sheehan was featured in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11". A very strange credit in the Internet Movie Database would seem to confirm this. Although it gives a short bio of Sheehan there, it lists no acting credits at all.

Thus Sheehan just emerged out of thin air. She walks around talking about how her son died in war in Iraq - but so what? Thousands of mothers and fathers have lost their kids Iraq. Why did Sheehan rise to the top to become a celebrity?

The short answer is that she's a left wing construct. Libs saw a woman who is obviously insane with grief and instead of dropping the money to get the woman a shrink, they spent it giving her a platform to make a circus of herself. How in the hell does a woman who lists her occupation as "Housewife" have millions of dollars to organize protests, buy five acres of land in Texas for thousands of dollars and party with Movie Stars? How does a nobody get a book deal, her own stage play and a movie deal?

Answer: she's a useful idiot. Much like that girl in high school that all the football players had sex with - she wasn't popular, they just knew they could put her on display and she'd go along with it.

And thus is Cindy Sheehan. As long as the left had someone out there willing to embarrass themselves life was good - especially since the left was out of power. Someone had to go out there and say the things libs think but would never dare say (like the war in Iraq is really a war for Israel.)

But now there's a problem: Democrats and Libs are back in power. Now instead of being a face of the movement, Sheehan is more like the embarrassing aunt. They don't want Sheehan to say what they all think anymore (lest it ruin their chances in the next election.)

Case and point: on July 3, 2007 Sheehan announced that if Pelosi doesn't draw up articles of impeachment by the end of July, she would run against her in the next election.

And the firestorm began. So far, Sheehan has been "Warned" about posting on the lefty site DailyKos. Apparently Kos is (now) a Democrat Hack site that only supports Dems. Funny, cause I remember Lieberman about this time last year, was Kos' public enemy #1 since he supported the war. It seems like I also remember the Kossacks supporting Sheehan's speeches to the Communists, the Socialists, the Venezuelans who support Hugo Chavez, etc. Frankenstein's monster is free to rampage the peasant village, just don't let her back in when she runs back to the castle.

So the moral of the story is "Threaten OUR power and you're out." I can't help but feel sorry for the woman. She's too intellectually vacant to see what they were doing. This makes even madder at the left. But I'm not surprised. Their power means everything to them - and people are just tools to an end like any other rotten movement.

The Nazis had their "Night of the Long Knives" where they massacred all their radicals. Seems that the left is having theirs as well.

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have been captured on audio/video discussing "limiting" debate to "serious" candidates.

This has outraged the Kucinich who lambasted Edwards.

"This is a serious matter and I'm calling him on it," Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in a telephone interview Friday. "Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity."

It's truly ironic that Kucinich, Mr. "We need the Fairness Doctrine" would be angry that the powers that be are looking to limit his time on air. In typical left wing fashion, speech limits are good for the common man, but not for important aristocrat wannabes like himself.

Edwards tried to work damage control on the incident stating that what he was really thinking was that he wanted the candidates split in to four groups and then chosen at random.

Of course, this sounds like a fair system to me and a way to bring balance to their solid left wing agenda. Truth be told, all these Liberal Dems sound the same to me anyway.

But Kucinich called it "disturbing" and then suggested a debate between him, Clinton and Edwards. So they're going to have a debate about why they should exclude people by excluding most of the candidates from the debate. Makes sense to me.

But then the left has always championed free speech - just ask Cindy Sheehan who was kicked off DailyKos earlier this week for daring to run against the Queen Bee Pelosi. Supposedly Kos is a site which supports Democratic Candidates only which is probably a shock to Joe Lieberman who was public enemy number one on Kos as he ran for re election last year. It should also be noted that there is no mention of a particular party affiliation in their "What this Site's About" page.

We on the right have known what these people are about for a long time: preserving the right to freedom of speech as long as it doesn't offend anyone, doesn't violate any "hate speech" codes, is supported by a majority of liberals, isn't too religious in nature (unless the religion is Islam) and is actually legal to say in the place where you're saying it.

I told you that once you can ban one person won't take long before it becomes open season on everyone who disagrees. It's nice to see libs finally trying to silence each other.

Seems like every election year gets a name from lefties. It used to be "The Year of the Woman." Two thousand and eight is turning out to be the year of "The Year of the Feminist Mom".

Personally, I think Feminists would stink since they sneer at the idea of motherhood outside of the fact that it might get them things like free college, free housing and dates. Feminists defend abortion so you can see what they think of children and motherhood in general.

In the left wing feminist mind, kids are just political means to an end. Just a few weeks ago the liberal (probably describe herself as a feminist) Rosie put up pictures of her five year old daughter Vivi dressed as Islamic terrorist complete with a bandoleer of bullets around her chest. Personally I think CPS should have been called in, but that's not the point of this piece. Rosie isn't running for office and there are two rotten mothers that are (and are going to crash.)

The two are: Nancy Pelosi and Cindy Sheehan. The year 2006 put the Queen Bee Pelosi in charge. And envious eyes glared when the Queen took the center of the hive, put her grandchildren on her lap and made some stupid speech about how women are supieror because they have children (even if nannies raise said offspring.)

And the left and the unbiased, non partisan media orgasmed as the it looked like the age of Bush was ending.

So here we are six months later and the extremists on the left (the guys who give millions of dollars to candidates and organizations in an attempt to get the "big money" out of politics) aren't happy with the work of the Queen Bee. Thus there are now contenders for the throne (which is funny, because according to feminists women are non competitive unlike barbaric men.)

Enter Cindy Sheehan who's son Casey died in Iraq (for those of you who have been living on Mars the past six years.) Pelosi isn't moving fast enough for Cindy. Thus, Cindy has announced that she will run for Pelosi's House seat if Impeachment Articles aren't presented by July 23rd.

Forget everything you hear from the left about free speech, government returning to the little guy and so on. Now that one of their own is under assault from one of their own, you're going to see just how nasty the libs can be. Already the Left wing blogosphere is on fire with messages "Don't run Cindy".

Don't get me wrong, Sheehan doesn't have a bat's chance in Hell of winning. But that's never the point with the left. The point is that someone actually *dared* to question the way they run things. The worst place for any poor sap to be is between a lib and what that lib thinks is their god given power. Thus Sheehan is only going to be stung to death by 10,000 little socialist worker bees.

That said, from where I sit this might actually be fun to watch to the libs eat one of their own. It's going to be fun to watch as Sheehan's eyes widen in horror as once friendly journalists start asking hard questions instead of the usual softballs.

This might provide a momentary distraction in '08 - so let's all hope the bad mothers run...

Yay - so Michael Moore thinks we should convert to a Cuban style of Health Care system (even though he freely admits that Cuba's system is worse than the US'.) Yeah, yeah, yeah - its' all America's fault. According to Moore, we're with holding drugs and equipment from the Cubans. Of course, all our drugs and equipment come from outside the United States.

So as you can tell, it's not the Communist government failing in Cuba, it's a plot from Americans. I guess this is why Castro flies to Spain every time he needs major surgery.

Castro is a typical lefty - it's okay for the peasants, but not good enough for him. Congress is always very careful to tailor laws so that said laws don't apply to them. Social Security is a good example. The Civil Rights act (which didn't effect Congress until 1994 when the Republicans took over) is another. Moore has an attrocious record when it comes to hiring minorities, so he'd know what I'm talking about.

So we get stuck with a crappy, bankrupt, overworked system and limo libs like Moore continue to fly to Europe for private care. We're talking about the Government here. You ever stand in line at the DMV? Imagine sitting in that line when you're vomiting blood having to wait your turn behind the guy who wants a sex change operation.

And yes, we will be paying for sex change operations. All we need is one activist judge (of the hundreds available) to decide we shouldn't "discriminate" against these people. (And there is the teenage girls who want breast implants and let's not forget the ones that want abortions. These people have "rights" you know...)

And this is before illegal aliens get involved. Judges have already said that aliens have a "right" to government housing, government schools and so on. Think social medicine will be any different?

Our government can't be trusted to do anything: social security, welfare, medicare - even our roads stink. How many millions of dollars are being poured in to the broken, overinflated, inefficient systems every year?

The real reason our health care sucks is because people like Moore got involved to begin with. Wasn't it a young Ted Kennedy back in the 70's that decided we had a health care crisis and wrote the original HMO legislation? He's only had 30 years of failure, why not let him expand on it? 

The point here is do you really want morons like Michael Moore who pump out propaganda thinnly disguised as "documentaries" creating our health care system?

Sadly too many think "yes"...

So Dems are going to have a "Gay Debate". How nice for them. John Edwards should do well - he preens himself with thousand dollar haircuts and fancy expensive clothes like a lot of flamers I know. Hillary Clinton with her "lesbian" act will probably score big points too. And then there's Barrack Obama - he's a minority, homosexuals are a minority. What more needs to be said?

But on a more serious note, here are some questions that need to be asked by the unbiased, non partisan, centrist American media (but won't be lest they damage Democrat chances at winning. We'll save the hard, embarrassing ambushes for Ann Coulter and other people who aren't trying to get in to power positions and change the legal landscape of our country.)

For the Group:

#1) We all pretty much agree that sexuality is a private lifestyle choice. Do you agree with Democratic blogs and operatives "outing" gay Republicans last year?

#2) Mark Foley was involved in a "scandal" with a seventeen year old page that he never met. Was it right to bash Foley just for the sake of winning an election?

#3) Why is being called a "faggot" considered more hateful than being called "an angry white male", "a nazi", "a homophobe", etc?

#4) You're all Democrats - don't you feel bad about taking the Congress by gay bashing Republicans last year?

#5) There are people out there actively trying to kill us and destroy our way of life - why are talking about this?

Hillary:

#1) You've said several times that you're opposed to homosexual marriage. Of course, you've said almost as many times that you weren't going to run for President. How can you lie so easily and with a straight face?

2#) Hillary, in light of your husband screwing everybody that moves (especially the people who work for him) what do you think of the Mark Foley case?

Barrack:

#1) You've been more open about your Islamic heritage. But Islam condemns homosexual behavior: "whenever a male mount another male, the throne of God trembles". Some Islamic nations have gone so far as to behead homosexuals. How do you respond to this?

In the end, the answers to the questions are meaningless. Just like the "Live Earth" concerts last weekend it's all about saying the right thing. Actually *doing* the right thing is secondary (...sorry, in most cases tertiary.)

This "debate" is just more pandering and will amount to absolutely nothing.

I know it's a little late, but I have to say it's weird to see libs saying *anything* good about the United States. But they always seem to come out gnashing their teeth on July 4th to talk about how great they think our system is. Truth be told though, the American Revolution was fought against everything Lefties love.

Taxes: The primary fight was over taxes - how high they were and who was paying them. There was a tea tax, an import tax, an export tax, a sugar tax, a glass tax and a paper tax. In fact, it seemed that every time King George found another intern hiding behind the drapes the taxes went up.

Hand in hand with this was a parliment that wouldn't listen. Much like the Amnesty Act trying to be pounded through Congress today, the English parliment decided it would do whatever it wanted regardless of what those lousy colonist little people thought.

Free Trade: The colonists wanted to trade everyone. But this didn't jive with the Crown or the Parliment or the labor unions in England demanding that the colonists live with inferior products. Thus England passed "The Navigation Acts" dictating where ships could and could not go. They were seeking energy independence! And they wanted to keep their wealth within their boundaries via Mercantilism.

The result was that many of the founders became smugglers. Flat out rejecting a lot of English laws.

"The Fairness Doctrine": Naturally all these unpopular laws lead to protests. So to add "fairness and balance" to the debate, the Parliment levied a "Stamp Act". All paper was to have the stamp or be seized as contraband. Naturally, this wasn't done so much as to punish those who disagree with the powers that be, but to bring "civility" to the argument. This act specifically targeted the colonists (the same way "the Fairness Doctrine" will only target radio.)

Gun Control: On the eve of the American Revolution, it was becoming more and more apparent that hostilities would probably break out. So the good pacifist libs decided the best course of action would be to summarily disarm the Colonists. Since the colonists wouldn't willingly hand over their weapons, the British military in Boston marched off into the countryside. They were greeted by several angry citizens who were private gun owners at a small town called Lexington. Thus the Brits did what every good liberal pacifist would do in that situation: they opened fire.

Terrorist Sponsors: During the campaigns of Western New York and Pennsylvania, the British tried to break American spirit by whipping the Native tan skinned people on the border in to a frenzy. Using anti American rhetoric (similar to Hollywood's messages to Islamofascists) they got the tribes to organize and then exterminate innocent, unarmed Americans living on the frontier. These Natives wiped out everybody, burning villages and scalping everyone in their path. The Brits supplied these marauders weapons for their efforts.

I'm sure that most libs reading this last passage are laughing and smiling. After all, no one they know personally got killed in those raids. You can't fault them for that though, there were plenty more white skinned, Christian people where those came from.

What pisses leftists off is the colonists responded using the exact same tactics. An army was put together and then divided in half. The first half hunted down the Indians and wiped them out. The second attacked the Indian villages using the same tactics that the Indians had used on the whites.

The lesson here is the same as the lesson today: it's only a crime when light skinned westerners do it. When tan/dark skinned people do it we need to "understand their anger."

So there you have it - the libs hate the 4th of July. So every time you see one stand up to give an Independence Day speech, just remember that deep down inside they're throwing up in disgust. The Founders didn't do one thing modern libs would approve of.

I have a problem in that I think taxes are too high. So I got a brilliant idea - I'll throw a party.

Anyone else find the above statement absurd? I fail to see how getting drunk at a party is going to solve my tax burdens. So how is it going to solve a problem like "global warming"?

Al Gore's big idea is to have concerts on all of the continents at the same time: Sydney, Australia; London, England; Kyoto, Japan; Johannesburg, South Africa; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Washington DC in the US. Oh and there will be a concert in Antarctica for the first time ever. It's winter in Antarctica - but I'm sure these activists won't mind the cold (which they tell me isn't as cold as it used to be thanks to global warming.)

The point here is: how is a stupid concert going to do *anything* to help fix global warming, pollution or anything else? These rock stars are going to fly to these locations in private jets, drive around in limos, burn up tons of energy for their lights, their instruments, their amps, pollute the air with all the smoke from their pyrotechnics and so on. And the people going to these shows are trample the grass and toss their trash everywhere. The people at the concerts will pollute the air smoking cigarettes (and other various substances).

So how does this stupid concert help anyway? (It's raising awareness.) Yeah you're right, most people in populated centers like London, Kyoto and Washington DC have NEVER heard of global warming. We have never seen it in movies, television, radio, schools, politicians, newspapers, internet and so on. I suppose I'd be prone to believe that there are people living in the backwoods of Africa, South America and India that have never been presented with the theory of global warming - but I notice none of the concert locations are in these ill informed places.

So since these concerts are wasteful and won't do anything to fix the problem it claims to address one has to wonder: what is the real meat of these concerts (insult to the vegans intended)? Answer: to make rich elitist snobs feel like they're doing something. It gives them a chance to justify their decadent lifestyles and make them feel better about themselves. Now I'm not just getting drunk, I'm getting drunk for the Earth (where do I toss the beer cans?) I'm not just getting stoned, I'm getting stoned for the Earth. I'm not just having sex, I'm having sex for the Earth.

The fact that these concerts don't do anything to actually solve a problem is secondary.

Question: Aren't the poor the ones who are going to be most hurt by environmental destruction? So why aren't you inviting some of these people to your concerts? Why aren't any of these concerts being held in areas that are destitute? Why is it that I feel the only poor people who will get in to this concert will be sweeping the trash up after the last band leaves the stage?

Are they sending the money to charity? The real question is *how much* are they sending to charity? What about concessions sales? Tee shirt sales? How much are these bands making on this concert? I've never met a lib that did anything for free - so obviously they're getting something for their efforts.

Even if they do send the money to charity or whatever is really going to help the problem? I get the feeling that less than a week after these concerts we'll continue to be told that global warming is happening faster, its effects will be more devastating than we originally thought and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Hell, they're telling us this right now and we haven't even had "Live Earth" yet, so what good will this do?

Morale of the story is that "Live Earth" is a pile of crap. It won't help anything and won't change anything. It won't even make any of the people participating feel better about anything.

So why even go through the motions?

There were a series of coordinated terrorist strikes in the UK last week and my only real thought is: "Oh god, here we go again."

I'm not talking about terrorists, I'm talking about left wing apologists. Here we go again with the typical holier than thou boneheads espousing their typical bonehead theories about how Westerners are totally responsible for actions of radicals who want to kill us. It's rather insulting to think that 3000 people in the World Trade Center had it coming, but Daniel Pearl was a victim. I'm sure the fact that Pearl was a journalist has nothing to do with those media conclusions.

Already pollsters are running around asking Muslims if there is any "anti Islamic" backlash, if they're afraid of backlash, etc. Any large percentages are taken as proof that Westerners really are as racist and intolerant as everyone thinks we are. The burden is on us to fix the problem.

Talk about blaming the victim. Contrast this with how the media treats any and every story about Abu Grab or other mean things Westerners do to middle easterners. The first thing journalists do is run to Islamic Republics and ask them what they think of us.

Thus you get this weird twist where looking at Islamists funny justifies their terrorist actions and our attempt to stop them is "over reacting".

Has political correctness really turned us in to such idiots? For a lot of us the sad answer is "yes". The same people who have absolutely no problem at all with Affirmative Action (a racist policy built in to our laws) because of "white privilege" are the same people opposed  to looking at the shared religion of terrorists in the West. Did I say that Muslims are the only ones who commit terrorist actions in the United States and Britain? No I did not. But whereas our law enforcement officials can watch white Neo Nazi groups with no one even complaining, Muslims are treated as if they have a special protection.

Does every Muslim support terrorism? The answer is no - but that shouldn't stop us from trying to find the ones that do. I still find it interesting - polls saying that Islamists don't trust the United States are waved around as big problems that need to be fixed while polls saying that most Islamists world wide are sympathic to terrorists are to be ignored as "racist".

We have a very serious problem here. There are people who are trying to kill civilians in the West simply because they're westerners. We have been getting lucky so far - a lot of their plots are being foiled or are just unsuccessful. But eventually, these people are going to succeed. The Lefty idea of running to these people and telling them how sorry we are and then trying to buy them off with money like they're some kind of voting block isn't working.

As typical though, big libs don't care. It's only a problem when it happens to them (again just look at how they Daniel Pearl as opposed to everyone else who's been a victim of terror.)

Farfour is dead. The loveable little Palestinian rat who taught children 3-7 (and liberals of all ages) the joys of killing Americans and Israelis for Jihad is gone. He was beat to death by a greedy Jewish banker who wanted to buy his land. One of Farfour's little helper children broke the news in a sad retelling of the story.

You know, Hollywood and our media could learn a thing or two about open minded tolerance for others and fair depictions of racial and ethnic groups from Palestinian TV. But I digress.The real point here is that there is an opening for a host on Mickey Mouse Terrorist TV. May I recommend Rosie O'Donnell to fill the hole?

Let's face it if there is anything that Rosie loves more than kids, it's terrorists. Rosie used to be a staple on Nick - hosting their Kids Choice Awards and what not. And in her off time she's spoken highly of IslamoFascists - reminding us all that they're mothers too, that they're just like the founding fathers of the United States and so on and so forth. Recently O'Donnell posted a picture of her daughter Vivi with a bandoleer of bullets around her chest and a burka on her web site. This could be a win-win for everyone involved. Terrorists would finally have a spokeswoman and O'Donnell could teach us all the joys of Jihad.

True, I doubt that TV Palestine could offer Rosie the paltry millions of dollars O'Donnell would demand - but when they explain to her it's for the kids she might go along with it.

Never hurts to ask eh?

For those of you who had better things to do, the Democrats had one of their moron debates tonight. I guess the focus of this one was race relations. Since the Supreme Court just said that schools can't discriminate against people on the basis of race (even if they're white and deserve it), this seems to make sense.

Dems have been walking around patting themselves on the back for having the "guts" to put up a black candidate. This just goes to show that the Democrats (just like the racist they decry) aren't serious about the plights of minorities. Since we all know that white people won't vote for darker skinned candidates, they should give Barrack Obama a hundred thousand vote head start in their primary. They can call this "Affirmative Voting". It would serve as a great lesson in tolerance and allow them to lead by example when it comes to Affirmative Action. If it's good enough for John Q. Sixpack trying to get in to college, a good job or some other important position - it should be good enough for empty headed libs.

Really though - how committed to oppressed minorities can they be if they don't take the intiative here? Is a couple hundred thousand votes really going to matter when Mr. Ears gets slammed by the Hillary Train?

I don't think so.