I swore I'd never write about Rosie again, but I feel prompted too.

Rosie O'Donnell is a terrible mother. It's one thing if she wants to be an anti-war wacko. It's quite another if she wants to exploit her children.

On June 26th Rosie put up a picture of her daughter Vivi (age 5) wearing a bandoleer of bullets around her chest. The kid seems to be decked out with a head wrap and what appears to be a robe. She looks like a little terrorist in training.

It's asinine on so many levels. First of all, Rosie's a big anti gun nut - where on earth did she find a bandoleer of bullets (even if they're fake)? The bullets in question are gigantic. It is definitely the accessory of a large, automatic assault rifle. I haven't seen a children's toy like that and even if there was, would Rosie actually buy it for her kids? I thought she was a big liberal peacenik.

Secondly little Vivi looks like a terrorist. I guess the lesson is "Violence is okay if you're killing Jews and Americans." I can't even begin to imagine the psychological damage to her daughter. How long did they let this little kid run around like this snapping pictures of her the whole time? What did they tell little Vivi as they were doing it? "Well mommy needs to prostitute you for left wing causes."?

Thirdly aren't you endangering your child? Rosie has a following of wackos and now every single one of them knows what her kid looks like. Have you read what some of your nutzoid followers are writing? It should bother you. Have you no concern for the well being of your child?

What the hell is your stupid message anyway? "The world is a violent place it's somehow all the Conservatives fault."? What an idiot. If you want to talk about the goodness and virtues of terrorism that's fine, but bringing your kid in  to it?

For the libs out there: Stop focusing on the politics and consider the psychology of the kid involved please. But of course, "the people" are always just a tool for you. "The Children" are just a means to an end of putting yourselves in charge.

I can't even begin to imagine how screwed up this kid is. Child Protective Services should be called in...of course, Rosie is a rich white woman with tons of high priced lawyers at her beck and call and friends in high places. So nothing will be done. If this was some kid from the hood or a kid of poor Muslim immigrants CPS would be right there. Yay! The system continues to fail with people like Rosie decrying the "unfairness" even as they reap the benefits themselves. Ironic that people like Rosie are their own biggest criminals.

Rosie and her ilk need serious help. It's okay though, Rosie will ride the wave of controversy to another million dollar contract - and they'll call it "justice"....

So the cloture vote has won - 64 to 35. It's being hailed as a great blow to talk radio.

Question: Does this mean we still need the Fairness Doctrine?

We've just demonstrated that talk radio no matter how much pressure they put on people doesn't always get its way. This would seem to indicate that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary - right?

Wrong. Liberal Democrats will still push for it. Radio goes out over the public airwaves and thus, we can determine what's said there...course, television and cable also go out over the public airwaves, but don't look for any pushes to balance Keith Olberman, CNN, MSNBC, CBS or other left wing mouthpieces any more than you can look for a push for a conservative show to play opposite "The Daily Show". Left wing PBS is safe from the push for "Fairness".

Furthermore I keep coming back to this important point: when are we going to balance out left wing schools? They might not go out over the public airwaves, but most of them take government money. Even a lot of private schools take grants and other subsidies.

Course where I come from, the government paying to influence public opinion is called "propaganda" but since that's such an ugly word, we're going to call it "balance".

Look the first amendment's speech clause is a safeguard against what people like Diane Feinstein are proposing. It doesn't matter if the politicians don't like what's being said - that's the point of Free Speech. These people are free to go out and attempt to sell their ideas to people as well, but there is to be NO government intrusion. That is the point. It doesn't matter if liberal politicians and left wing special interest groups like it or not.

It doesn't matter what arguments lefties present. The Constitution is very clear on this matter. Is this going to be a hollow exercise or not?

Congresses approval ratings are at an all time low. Doesn't matter if you're on the right, the left or in the middle, odds are you're not happy about what Congress is doing right now. Interestingly the media doesn't consider this scream worthy like when the President's poll numbers go down. It's okay though, I'm sure that the lack of coverage over Congress' numbers have nothing to do with politics.

But why are legislative branches numbers so low? Personally I think it's because there are so many issues smashing together at the same time.

When is this immigration bill going to die and stay dead? Just about every poll shows that Americans (especially legal immigrants) are opposed to the amnesty bill that is being hammered through. That said, guess which polls get cited whenever a Congressperson/Senator/News Story comes out?

Senator Lott appearing on the evilest of all places (Fox News) on Fox News Sunday reiterated his support for the bill (even though Fox News only plays the Conservative side of anything) while he was appearing with Diane Feinstein. He went on to chide stupid Americans for not understanding how "tough" the bill is and how much it cracks down on border hoppers.

The problem is we don't believe you Senator. Here our media keeps bringing us all kinds of footage of what they tell us are illegal aliens protesting and marching everywhere - and the cameras sweep past police and ICE agents filing their fingernails while telling us they can't do anything. If you won't even try to enforce the old, lax bill then we have NO confidence that you'll enforce this new bill no matter how tough it is.

They keep telling us they can't find illegals in our society - but someone figured out that there are 12 million here. They should hire that guy to enforce our immigration laws. You know, most criminals be they speeders, murderers, smugglers or whoever hide from law enforcement. In fact, the two most disgusting types of criminals in the eyes of Congress (people who won't pay their taxes and people who run campaign ads during elections) are to be hunted to the ends of the earth without mercy. Tax evaders owe the Government money and no amount of hiding is going to win amnesty for these people.

No one is sure if McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform applies to the internet. But to play it safe, law enforcement is going to crack down on these people anyway despite the fact that it's almost impossible to find anyone on the net. Moral of the story is that if it bothered our elected officials, it would be a problem worthy of getting serious on.

Even their response to their critics on this issue exposes their arrogance. Since they can't get the bill past Trent Lott, Barbara Boxer and others are complaining that "talk radio" is defeating their efforts. How DARE the people express their opinions over the public airwaves. I guess it goes without saying that television, film, newspapers and major universities are all in favor of the legislation since no one in Congress is complaining about these outlets. Never mind that the Constitution is *very* clear on this issue - Congress shall pass NO LAW limiting speech. Even the most closed political philosophers agree that the the free speech clause in the United States deals with political topics which Immigration is.

It should surprise no one that I listen to a good chunk of talk radio (I have listened to Air America btw) and every show I hear takes phone calls. And not all of those phone calls are glowing sycophantic butt kissing. A lot of hosts love to take calls from people who disagree. It makes the show much more interesting. Moreover I have heard some hosts speak praise about the immigration bill: Roger Hedgecock and Michael Medved are two.

The idea that talk radio has an audience just sitting around taking their marching orders is insane. True, some hosts give out phone numbers to members of Congress in order to effect policy - but #1) no one is being forced to make the calls and #2) no elected official should be upset when they hear from the voters. Do these people work for us or not? If it's just a bunch of fringe kooks, then you can easily write these people off without fear. Since this bothers so many members of Congress, then my only conclusion is that this bill is unfavorable.

So instead of scrapping the bill, their solution is to silence the people. How is that for twisted logic? The people are supposed to talk about politics in our system, that's what makes the machine work. Our government isn't supposed to regulate political speech for ANY reason. Speech is supposed to be free. If people are "misinformed" about immigration and it's a problem that needs a government fix, are we also going to clean up the "misinformation" about global warming (cause there is a lot of it)? Answer: no. Global Warming nuts vote left wing, so they'll be left untouched.

Who would have thought that illegal aliens would have brought so many issues to a head?

So Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton are rumored to want to "reign in" right wing radio. They're quoted as saying there needs to be a "legislative fix" for the one outlet of the media not solidly in the hands of wacko leftists.

For most of us, this story is completely believable even though both Senators are now denying it. Hillary Clinton back in the 90's blamed a "vast right wing conspiracy" (which included talk radio) for the failures of her husband. (Of course, if talk radio was so powerful we can't help but wonder how President Clinton and her husband got elected twice and how St. Hillary won two terms as a Senator from New York.) Wasn't it just last fall that the "honorable" Senator from New York tried to bully ABC from running a movie about her husband failed to get terrorists when they had the chance? Her and her friends in Congress were rather open about their threats to "investigate" ABC. She also lied to the people of New York when she told them she would serve her terms as Senator without seeking the Presidency, so her retraction now is a joke.

Senator Boxer is a double talker with an almost equally filthy past. Just a few months ago there was a story about how she was using her position in the Senate to get high priced government contracts for her husband's companies. Naturally the unbiased, non partisan press didn't feel that particular story was worth any heavy reporting outside of AM talk - which is one of the reasons they're focused solely on talk radio. Cause the regular press gives them passes.

People from Enron and Haliburton are demonized when it's even sort of hinted that something like what Boxer did happened.

This all comes out at a time when people like Dennis Kucinch, Think Progress and other groups are pushing for "fairness" on the airwaves. Although all these people are completely non partisan and not agenda driven, I still can't help but wonder why the regular media, Hollywood and our college/university systems don't concern them - after all these places are controlled by partisans (notably left wing partisans).

Left wing twits keep telling me that you can't yell fire in a crowded elevator - but you can yell about how America deserved the terrorist attack on 9-11, demand American flags be pulled down, charge the Bush administration with racism in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and many other offensive things with impunity. I guess it only counts if some lefty gets their feelings hurt. The rest of us have to suck it up.

Why are you lefties so pissed off anyway? You control the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, The LA Times, The Boston Globe, all of Hollywood, most rock stars, etc and you're still not satisfied. So naturally your reaction is to trample the Constitution and all it's protections against the government regulating speech while all the time calling it free speech. Demonstrating just how truly stupid liberals really are - and just how stupid they think the rest of us are...

Headline today: Journalists contribute overwhelmingly to Liberal Democrats. As if I needed a study to tell me this. Let's give a big round of applause for all the time, money and energy that was wasted in a study giving results that everyone (outside of elitist lefties) already know.

Aw but the study only showed that mostly non-political reporters contributed to Dems. Yeah you're right - I'd never guess in a million years that Larry King, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Katie Couric, Keith Olberman, Chris Mathews and others support liberal causes - how stupid do you really think I am?

Just in the past couple of months the New York Times relegated a plot to blow up Kennedy International Airport to page thirty. A few years ago the NYT skipped a story about the new elections in Iraq. And this is just a couple of stories I remember off the cuff from one major paper. I'm sure that a little digging would reveal similar actions across a wide spectrum of news outlets.

The truth is major journalists don't have to necessarily contribute money. They can parse stories, sit on important stories or blow other stories completely out of proportion and decide what the lead story is going to be to effect elections. Example: most stories about Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are glowing. About a month ago Barrack while speaking in to a group mistated the number of deaths in a devastating tornado. It was quickly forgotten. Contrast that with a few years back when Bush couldn't remember the names of a couple of world leaders - the press didn't forget that. The press has the power to make anyone look good or bad depending on how they choose to do it. Granted sometimes it backfires, but it usually doesn't. I ask again: What did Scooter Libby do? Won't anyone in the press core go in to that? No? Why not? (Cause he's a member of the evil Bush administration.)

It just reveals more stupidity in left wing philosophy. Can't trust "big oil" to work on energy policy because they'd only work to further their own interest. But we can trust a bunch of left wing journalists to bring us "unbiased, non partisan" news. They're not fooling anyone, they're just insulting us all - which is part of the problem. How long can you talk down to your clientele before they get mad and walk out on you? Sagging sales and low ratings would indicate we've reached that point. Naturally journalists blame their audience (which they believe are all stupid) instead of working on their product. ("We can't help the news, we just report it.") Cool, don't take my advice. I'd love to see you all disappear.

There is an interesting sidebar to all of this: the "Think Progress" web site has done a study that shows that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. And since they're a liberal group, we can trust them and their study. Naturally their suggested fix is usurp free speech and subvert the Constitution and force a bunch of liberal programming to "balance" the radio.

With this new report out will they demand Conservative equal time in the television news media? (Answer: no.) With all the studies that show college professors being overly liberal will this Think Progress group demand more conservative opinion at Universities? After all, I can turn off the radio but most of my reading at college was mandatory. (Again Answer: no.) With all the studies about Hollywood and how left wing they are and all the actors and actresses supporting big lefty causes, will Think Progress demand more conservative voices there? (Answer: no.)

Just like the other unbiased, non partisans that make up the left wing - they're agenda driven and tell us otherwise.

Wow - Gaza has fallen in to chaos (again.) Naturally it's the United States' fault. If we would offer more money to these people who want to kill us and destroy our way of life, then everything would be fine. But we're too greedy, racist and so on and so forth.

Yeah I don't understand these people (and that's a crime.) True they don't understand me, but that's okay. According to them our society is evil. Interesting that for me to call their lifestyle evil is a crime, but for them to call my lifestyle evil is accurate observation.

Can't criticise Islam which is the excuse that Hamas is using for it's actions because that would be "racist" even though Islam isn't a race. Don't worry, that's not going to stop them from attacking Christianity as a violent religion (ever heard of the Crusades?) Those moldy middle age invasions justify everything these people do: from terrorist actions in Israel to destruction of Hindu temples in India...what India has to do with Israel and Christianity I have no idea - and that only reinforces the point that I shouldn't comment on things I don't understand.

I don't understand what prompted Hitler to gas 12 million people either - and it would be wrong for me to call it evil since I don't understand it.

I say we just let these people duke it out and massacre each other. But that would be unfair (as if there has ever been a fair fight.) The Palestinians are under equiped and the Israelis are best armies in the world. Doesn't matter that the Palestians are the one instigating the fighting. It would be completely unfair for Israel to just wipe them out. Best that they just live with constant overhanging threat of terrorist actions.

Looking back at history, I think the Romans had a good idea. You want war? Fine you'll get it - and once every man, woman and child lay dead in the ruins there was no one left that wanted to fight. But that would be unfair because there would be a winner...as opposed to the "fairness" of innocent people being terrorized and killed for things that happened long before their birth. Being killed for reasons they may not care about.

The nation of Israel is 70ish years old. Most people on this planet weren't around when it was set up. Some of the people who were around at it's birth were just babes themselves at its inception. My point is GET OVER IT.

At some point you have to decide whether you want to make the best of a bad situation or sit around crying about it. The people who make the best go on and some become quite prosperous. The ones who sit around crying about it will only end up sinking into a pool of their own misery. You can have a meaningful life with the existence of Israel there - I know because millions of people are doing it every day.

I'm sorry - how is chaos in Gaza my fault again? How is it my government's fault? If we have such great control over the people there why is terrorism such a problem? If we can control the people in Gaza and the West Bank, why is there such violence against the people so accused of licking up too the Israelis? You obviously have some form of self determination.

Aw - Michael Moore's film has been dumped out on to the web, meaning that anyone can now watch it for free. (Personally, I think that even at free it's still a rip off but I digress.)

Well from what I'm reading this has Moore and Weinstein his distribution company. They're going to lose millions of dollars. One can't help but savor the irony of a group of people with socialist/communist sympathies decrying their loss of profit. You'd think that they would have put the film out on net unprompted for free so that the working poor could have access to the material (and then decry the world that the working poor can't afford computers to see the movie). After all, Moore is the guy who took all those people to Cuba to prove how great the socialized medicine down there is compared to the greedy, inept US system. Cubans get their awesome medical care for free, so why doesn't the same theory apply to Moore's films? Doesn't he condemn our healthcare industry for sucking up millions of dollars?

But no in typical hypocritical elitist fashion it's a crime when *they* lose money. *They* need the cash to get their message out (whereas the rest of us are just greedy and will spend the money on the wrong things anyway.) Apparently you're allowed to eat steak and lobster and drive around in Limos when you're doing the work of "the people."

It reminds me of one of the text books I had as required reading back in college. It openly praised the glory of Marxism even mentioning Karl by name. The book kept citing a web site as a source. Imagine my shock when I discovered the web site was a pay site. Again you'd think that they'd want "the poor" to have access to the material. But no, these commies want compensation for the work they put in (how snide of them.)

So whereas the rest of us are all supposed to work for free, they want to maintain their high calibur lifestyle - but do we expect any different from them?

The real reason we're up to our elbows in people who won't respect our citizenship laws is because greedy rich people don't want to pay a decent wage. (Of course, only a racist would criticise them, but I digress.) Thus it is after spending the last year being lectured too about the jobs illegals will do that Americans won't, I'd like to some suggestions about what kind of work I'd like to see illegals do in our society.

1) Liberal Political Leader - If our nation is going to be destroyed from within, wouldn't it be nice if the people doing it weren't products of the fruits of American idealism? Nothing makes me sicker than when some politician somewhere starts complaining that people can't make it in our society - they obviously did. At least with an illegal I can always say "of course they'd say that, they aren't from here."

Moreover maybe living on a budget of a nickel an hour these people would have some ways of streamlining our budget and maybe lowering taxes. I bet they could rebuild New Orleans for less than the millions we're sending down there presently (and still being told how it's not enough.)

2) Hollywood Producer/Director/Actor - Since these people constantly lecture us on the plight of the downtrodden minorities, surely they wouldn't be opposed to stepping down so that some of these aliens could step up? Besides, the only things more bloated than the Federal budget are some movie budgets - and it's often hard to decide which gives more crappy performance.  Either way, both could be done better, faster and cheaper by illegal labor. Maybe it would finally cost less than 30 bucks for one person to go to a matinee. At least they'd be smart enough not to try to sell a propaganda piece as a "documentary".

3) Journalists - How many millions do these people get paid to do the crappy jobs they do? Endless coverage of Paris Hilton with the occasional "America Sucks" story sprinkled in? Give me a break. How much talent does it take to be a journalist anyway? From what I can tell the only real qualifications in the modern day are a) hating the Bush Administration, b) hating the United States and c) thinking you're better than everyone else. I'm sure the illegals flooding our nation would happily adapt to this line of thinking for a tenth of what we're paying now.

4) College Professors - Ah, but aliens might not have the training to teach subjects like Math and Science you say? Well from what I've heard most Math and Science professors spend more time unbiasedly trashing Conservative opinions than they do teaching. A bunch of illegals might actually try teaching the subject they're in charge of. The symbolism here is doubly good as illegals are promoted over legal alien teacher aides.

As the old saying goes, it's always funny when it happens to the other guy. Like to see what happens when it effects to brain dead lefties.

It seems that the left is attempting censorship again. Naturally they're not calling it that, thus they can skirt their own definitions of banning speech. And no one should be surprised either, it was the left that brought us laws against "hate speech".

The particular incident in question deals with AM 610 in Broward County Florida. Presently the station serves as the flagship for weather warnings in the area. Whenever the National Weather Service issues a caution, they call AM 610 (who then calls all the other stations.)

The problem is that AM 610 is a talk station that dares to carry Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Democrat hack Stacy Ritter (who is the Commissioner down there) stated openly that she didn't want to support a station that doesn't reflect the politics of the surrounding area.

"They have every right to speak, but we don't have to do business with them." she said.

I'm sorry but I see this as a step towards censorship. Here we have a member of the government actually coming out and stating that the politics of a local business are wrong and proposing blacklisting them.

It will be interesting to watch this summer as Michael Moore's new movie "Sicko" gets released to watch the Stacy Ritters of the world complain of "censorship" as theater owners don't want to run the movie (despite the fact that theater owners are private citizens as opposed to government representatives.)

Remember the whinning over "Fahrenheit 9-11"? Everything was said to be censorship: from only a few theaters running the movie to no one showing up to watch it. Nevermind the fact that you could go see it if you actually wanted too. Just think what would have happened if a bunch of County officials anywhere got together and stated publically they wouldn't go see the movie because they hate the politics. You'd see lawsuits.

But it just goes to show that the rules never apply to liberals. There's always some reason it doesn't apply to them.

And you can't trust corporations because they too lie to cover up their poor business practices. Again any reference materials from these people is to be viewed with suspicion. They have an agenda after all.

But amazingly enough, you can trust people like Al Gore and Michael Moore when they make "documentaries". These people are motivated by the goodness of their hearts and only want the best for their fellow man. They would *never* allow politics to influence their film making, even if the films in question deal with their personal pet causes. And naturally Gore and Moore are going to clean up at award shows where unbiased, non partisan judges view things in a neutral fashion.

Uh huh - how stupid are you? Ever since the invent of mass media people have known of the power to influence and control the thoughts and ideas of the masses. This was perfected during the 1920's and 1930's when the Russians and Nazi Germans rewrote large tracts of history to make themselves look better. The weaknesses of these pieces is pretty obvious to the modern mind when the materials start referencing dated events and ideas.

But in the modern day these "documentaries" play to a receptive audience that wants to believe. Thus it seems every liberal idiot that writes me starts waving and citing these pieces of garbage.

Here's the thing though: I can't believe that anyone can possibly be that stupid. It's one thing if you want to watch this stuff and internalize it to reinforce your own beliefs, but to actually use it as a source? I don't think so. Better that you go to the sources these films use - course then you have the problem of finding the sources in the bibliography (which might scare you when you see what all was left out.)

Sadly though some people really are that lame.

Paris Hilton would be the ultimate liberal icon if she would just give money to the right causes. She certain fits the profile of those who are better than the rest of us politically: rich, silver spoon in her mouth, walking around with a holier than thou halo, glowing with the knowledge that the rules are for the common people (not her.) Typical lib attitude. We all know that if she actually was political, she'd be a leftist.

The problem with Paris is that she failed to spread the love. Had she given a couple mil to the Hillary for Empress campaign she'd be a free woman today. All Hilton did was was drive under the influence. Compare that to Representative William Jefferson (Democrat La) who was caught red handed taking bribe money. He was punished by being taken off the Weighs and Means Committee (and reassigned to the Homeland Security Committee.) Compare this to the case of Diana Feinstein who wrote legislation insuring that her hubby's businesses would get excess compensation in government contracts. Or millionaire liberal House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who uses non union labor (while courting the labor unions) and uses illegal alien workers on her vineyard.

See, these people all vote the right way and give money to the correct causes. Liberals love lawbreakers - be they people intending to kill as many Americans as they can or people who hop our border illegally. Yep, the law is just too tough on their favorite politically correct demographics.

Now there is an idea, Paris Hilton should embrace Feminism. She is the ideal model for a feminist after all: a woman who is secure with her body and her sexuality, oppressed by backwards, archaic, oppressive patriarchal laws designed to oppress the fairer sex. Laws like driving under the influence, driving on a suspended license, disobeying court orders, etc. Weren't these just put here to punish minorities? A lot of illegal immigrants sure seem to think so.

Furthermore Hilton could educate us all on the use condems and other various materials. She could come out and show us that living with an STD shouldn't stigmatise someone. Maybe she could even get a spokeswoman position with her abortion clinic and show us that it's okay.

Okay I'm being mean now. But let's face it, the million dollar princess kind of deserves it. She was caught at least twice driving under the influence - which is a crime. After being sentenced, she was photographed by a hundred journalists driving around town even though her license was suspended. Talk about a spoiled brat. Most "common" people caught in this fashion *would* be sent to jail. So she's being treated like the rest of us and acting like she's Jesus carrying the cross to her execution.

So why do so many people dislike her? Do I need to recount the reasons? Okay - she's been given a recording contract despite the fact that she can't sing worth crap. There are millions of people clamoring to just five minutes in front of a record executive to show how good they are (and some of these people really are that good). Yet this woman with no talent gets a shot?

The woman has been given acting roles in movies and her own tv show - despite her awful acting. Again, there are millions of people who want to be actors and actresses (some of them really good) and this woman who would make a low grade porn queen gets chance? What kind of a slap in the face is that?

The woman is on tons of drugs and alcohol. She whines about how depressed she is. She takes actions in defiance of the law. She can use her money, her influence and her connections to live the life most people only dream about. And yet she's a worthless mess. No one would even know who she was had she not be born a Hilton. And she's wasting it. Most of the people I know are working our asses off for what feels like nothing and this loser gets a pass?

Believe it or not, I do feel a pang of sympathy for Hilton (and it seems I'm the only one who does.) Not because I think she's been shafted by the system (cause she's getting the same treatment most of the rest of us would get) but because she's a pathetic mess. Here she is in court crying her eyes out, screaming for her mommy, her lawyer, her shrink and others in one of the most pathetic scenes I've ever seen in my life (and it was caught by a thousand media types.) Talk about someone who needs to grow up...

So Scooter Libby has been found guilty and sentenced to thirty months in prison. Leaves me wondering what he did wrong. Most libs talking about it bring up Valerie Plame being outed as a CIA agent. The problem is that Libby didn't leak her name. The guy who did (Richard Armitage) is still walking free having been charged with nothing.

Now let's compare this case to Alberto Gonzales, another guy who has broken no laws and done nothing wrong. The left is demanding Gonzales' head for the "firings" of eight US attourneys. Please note that a lot of these "firings" actually had their terms in office expire without being asked to renew their terms, but this doesn't matter to the left wing partisan hacks in our media and Congress who state that the evil here is someone daring to play politics in the arena of politics. These same big leftists give Valerie Plame's husband Joe Wilson a pass even though he's charged with lying and manipulating our government in his trip to Niger in his quest to find "yellow cake" uranium.

The lesson: politics are okay if you're a big lib.

Don't believe me? Let's contrast this with the case of Sandy Berger. He was found guilty of taking (that means he did it) classified documents from the Department of Justice. He admitted stuffing said documents down his pants to take them out of office (which is AGAINST THE LAW) so as to hide them from an investigation. He later destroyed the documents - again in violation of the law. I repeat, he was found guilty meaning he did it. His punishment for this? A ten thousand dollar fine and losing his law license (which he'll have back just in time to be reappointed to the post in '08 when Hillary takes office.)

Contrast that with liberal Democratic District Attourney Mike Nifong, the rogue prosecutor from North Carolina. He was ready to bring the full punishment of the law crashing down on three Lacrosse players at Duke University despite the fact that there was absolutely no evidence of their crime at all. But it was an election year in a district with a high black population - but I'm sure that politics had nothing to do with his wrongful persecution.

Contrast that case with the case of William "Cold Cash" Jefferson. This is the guy who the FBI caught red handed taking bribes. They got witnesses and video of Jefferson doing what they accuse him of. But you guessed it, libs are taking a defensive stance for this guy. The first thing they did was accuse the FBI of breaching the separation of powers clause of the Constitution because the Feds dared to get a warrant and search Jefferson's office. (A strange charge from a bunch of people who are demanding constant military updates from the Executive branch.) Now the argument is turning in to "the people of New Orleans will suffer if their Congressman is removed." Another strange defense for a guy who took military vehicles during the Katrina evacuation to pick up the bribe money he had stored in his freezer. Yes, while the people in his district were suffering he was hampering the rescue efforts just so Jefferson could hide the evidence of his wrongdoings.

Now look at the case of about an *estimated* 12 million (meaning that it is more likely about 20-30 million) illegal aliens living in our borders who liberal politicians are demanding amnesty for. The theory is that it's too tough to find these people so it's better that we just forgive them, as if everyone who breaks the law is easy to track down. Are we going to grant amnesty to tax evaders as well? These people are also hiding from law enforcement. Nope - you owe our government tax dollars and you'll be hunted like a dog to the ends of the earth. But a loyal liberal voting base is to be forgiven.

The point of all of this is that the law only applies to certain people. The left isn't even trying to hide hide their motivations for passing certain legislation anymore. Just look at "The Fairness Doctrine". They'll tell (with smiles on their faces) that it is aimed at conservative talk radio. All the liberal shows on television and liberal films from Hollywood are going to be ignored. So the real crime is daring to think outside the liberal box. Thus you can be guilty of crimes without ever breaking the law (like what happened to Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales.)

Libs will use double speak and twisted logic to explain why certain people get excessively hammered by law enforcement and why their guys always walk away free - but we all know the truth now don't we?

Linda Chavez you're a racist idiot. Your latest column proves it.

"Some people just don't like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans."

Okay - making a gross generalization about Hispanics, Latinos and other people south of the border is racist. So what about making gross generalizations about people *north* of the border (for example, suggesting that they 'just don't like Mexicans'?) Oh right, whites aren't really a race and even if they were they have it coming so racial prejudice against them doesn't hurt anything.

I'm sorry, I really have to disagree. You see we're talking about *ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS*. That could be people from anywhere. A lot of Conservatives I know are talking about radical middle eastern Muslims coming through the otherwise porous border. If we have a desire to discriminate, it's against people who want to come here with the intention of harming us.

Not that matters to you and self righteous friends. Only hybris in your heritage brings you to the arrogant conclusion that you're being singled out.

Of course we argue with Latino groups over immigration policy: Latino groups have made themselves the face of the immigration debate. And by far and large you're getting your way. Most of Congress and the President wants to give you what you want. It's only a minority killing this stuff in committees that prevents it from becoming law.

Our government is supposed to follow the will of the majority. There isn't a poll around (push or otherwise) that has a majority of Americans favoring lax immigration policy. Some of the highest numbers opposed to weak immigration laws are amongst legal immigrants themselves. And you think our government is giving illegals a raw deal? You're a part of the government.

We have a population of people coming here - a minority population (that means you're outnumbered). You have come here uninvited. You demand that we speak your language. You demand that we change our schools to teach what you think is important. You want access to all the laws you like: welfare, housing subsidies, college subsidies, social security and so on. You think the laws you don't like shouldn't apply: immigration laws, auto registrations, tax laws, and so on. You're bringing strange diseases all but unknown with you. Some of you are murderers, rapists and other violent offenders. Our elected officials are attempting to give you what you want *and I'm the racist?!*

Latinos (and I'm going to address them, because Linda Chavez who wrote this mentioned them specifically) have no interest in merging their culture with ours. THEY are the real racists. If they weren't, they would at least learn our language. Latinos have demonstrated through their actions and deeds that they have no interest in becoming Americans. All they want is our money. Why else would they come here? They're using us and demand that we kiss their butts.

The Germans in World War 2 crossed many political boundaries illegally, demanded that the people there speak German and adopt German customs and ways. Were the people resisting the Nazis racists?

This makes me so happy. Rich elitists get get their slave labor. A low class bunch that will consistly put them back in office every election cycle. And that rich elitist bunch will happily sacrifice the middle class who will carry the tax burden for the new unskilled lower class. I can't wait till we socialize medicine.

Yeah, we're demanding radical solutions like a wall and military patrols of the border - can you blame us? We've been demanding something be done about illegal immigration for decades and all we've gotten is ignored. Now we need a real fix, not just a band aid on the massive laceration.

Scared? Gee - can you blame us? An estimated twelve million people can drag our government around by the gonads and get anything it wants. Most political scientists call this type of goverment an "Oligarchy" and it's known for it's terrible treatment of it's citizens. Any criticism of the new protected class gets you condemned publically.

I can't call you "lazy" without being derided as a racist. Why can you call me a "racist" without anything being said?

Hey look at that, there is a "Super Bug" spreading among the American poor. It seems that there is a strain of TB that is resistant to vaccines. Most Americans don't even know what tuberculosis is - we've done that good a job of getting rid of it over the years.

Of course, I'm sure that our friends on the left will tell us this is just another plot by the Bush Administration to kill people of color. Just socialize medicine and you can go back to acting like you care when you don't right?

I'm sure this outbreak has nothing to do with the MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS coming to this nation and not being kicked back out. A lot of these people are poor from the third world. These people aren't vaccinated under the laws of their old nations. Thus they come here and infect us.

And since there is no documentation we have no ideas who these people are, where they live and who we should quarantine. Thus of course this sickness is going to spread like wildfire. TB is a social disease that is highly contageous.

It's okay though. Getting horrible ravaging diseases is a small price to pay for the pathetic things these unskilled people do for us: picking vegetables, mowing lawns, etc. Too bad our laws don't let in more professionals: doctors, surgeons, dentists and so on. But this would favor "the rich".

But it's fine. Watching my family and friends get sick with awful diseases is okay as long as no one thinks that I'm a racist. (Cause we all know that only racists are opposed to illegal immigration.)

Glad to know that hard working Americans will soon be handed the bill for these people's medical expenses. These people who broke our laws, have more pull with our political leaders and basically have the entire system bending over and grabbing the ankles.

You know who I really feel sorry for though? Poor urban American citizens who live side by side with infected illegal aliens. But that's okay, they'll just have to take another hit for the Democrat's political machine...

Are Americans ready for a black president? This is the attempt that open minded leftists use to silence any criticism of Barrack Obama. It goes unsaid that anyone who dares vote against Barrack is a "racist" and if he loses his presidential bid, our nation is still racist.

They want to say the same thing about Hillary Clinton. "Are we ready for a woman president?" Hillary not getting elected just proves that we're a sexist society where gender can still hold you back. Of course, with a black man on one side and a woman on the other will we hear about how racist/sexist liberal voters are in primary where they have to choose between one or the other? The answer is no. It's good enough that libs throw these people up as tokens so they can make outrageous accusations.

And the flip question opens: Why aren't you a racist/sexist for voting against someone who is white or male? The answer to this comes back to basic liberal philosophy. They don't really believe in equality between anything, they just want to appoint themselves referee and keep score. They think that as ref, they should be above the game. The problem is that in our society everyone has to play.

Libs have been telling us our society is intolerant and unaccepting since the sixties. After forty plus years of attempted integration, our culture is still sorely devoid of chances for minorities and women. Leftists point out that there are still places that are white only (like exclusive country clubs) and places that are male only (like various organizations.) A forty year struggle to break in to these various things is far too long. The existance of these things demonstrates how rotten we are. People should be viewed as and treated equally regardless of skin color and gender. Okay, I'll go along with all of that.

Enter the Congressional Black Congress. This is a cliche that was formed in the late 60's by blacks, for blacks. Their stated purpose is to make sure that they get better government goodies than other races. They support the equalitarian idea of affirmative action (you know, those laws insure our equality by giving some of us special perks denied to others that don't have the same skin color?)

But they're not the only hypocrits. Enter the National Organization of Women (NOW). This organization was founded in 1966 with the stated purpose of equality between the sexes. But in 41 years they've never had a male president. Talk about an "old boys club". You'd think that as zealous about sexual equality as they are, they would have had at least one male lead them. But no, in typical left wing fashion their rules and regulations only apply to everyone else. They're excluded because women have a lower score than men and thus can get away with more. Too bad this isn't equality, it's just a group of pigs living like humans and calling it better.

I guess you'd have to be lib to understand.