Danny Glover is getting 17.8 million dollars American from Hugo Chavez to make a movie about the slave revolt in Haiti. The stipulation from Chavez is that Glover has to make it as anti-American/anti-Western as he possibly can. Which leads one to ask the question: How do we tell this from any other film coming out of Hollywood in the modern day? Most big films in recent times highlight their hatred for everything Western from kids movies discussing our destruction of the environment to dramas about soldiers being sent/killed in Iraq. But don't worry, Glover's readiness to do a movie showing the evils of the United States doesn't make him unpatriotic. Indeed making a movie about how evil and rotten America and Americans are shows what a great patriot he is.

This news parallels nicely with the news of the Cannes film festival going on in France right. The jewels of these awards are chalk with anti-Western/anti-American ideals. Michael Moore's new "documentary" got a standing ovation. Of course if his new "documentary" is anything like his old "documentaries" there are exaggerations of details and important facts left out to make Moore's left wing conclusions look better. Naturally this isn't done to further political agendas. Need I remind you that the Nazis were masters of "documentary" film making? How stupid do the elites of the world think we are? Note that although "Sicko" is a critique of the US HMO system, Moore trades HMO stock. But if lefties taught me anything it's that it is okay to live high on the hog as long as you're doing to the work of "the people".

Just take Leonardo DiCaprio for instance. His new film "The Eleventh Hour" is a sound warning about what will happen unless human beings cut back on energy usuage right now. Of course, this didn't discourage him from using a small, gas guzzling jet to get to Cannes - but take heart, it wasn't *his* private gas guzzling jet and they lost his luggage. So it's all okay. The CO2 from his trip will be hardly noticeable. DiCaprio even took umbrage at being asked the question.

"It's finding another way to convolute the issue and argue about semantics and things that ultimately don't matter," said DiCaprio.
"Look at the message. ... Isn't that the larger story?"

I guess in lefty land it is. After all, liberal elitists are constantly wanting to make rules that don't apply to them. But from where I'm sitting and what I've been told it's up to *ALL* of us to stop environmental destruction and that means that we *ALL* cut back. Not just the poor class working slobs.

But hypocracy is nothing new - especially for unbiased, non partisan left wing film makers. It seems that Cannes itself is in a bit of hot water for not having selected any films from Africa to compete at the festival in over a decade. Now I'm sure that our media has much more things to cover than the gaping holes left wing practices (just like only certain hand picked information ever seems to get in to Michael Moore films.) But that's okay. The real issue here is the larger story of racism in our society. What a handful of people do ultimately doesn't matter.

This amnesty bill stinks. How do I know? It's being praised by every RINO including John McCain. It's also being praised by the President of the United States - not this this will win him any friends amongst the left. Bush will still be demonized by open minded leftists.

How stupid do these people think we are? Illegal immigrants aren't willing to follow the law as it's written now. So Congress tells us they can't force illegals to follow the old lax law, how on earth do they think they're going to make anyone follow the new harsh law? This same Congress keeps telling us that it is impossible to enforce the old law because illegal immigrants hide. What a pathetic excuse. From my experience, most law breakers attempt to hide their activies. Since we can't find serial killers and tax evaders I guess we should give up and grant them amnesty too.

I'm truly floored by this. There isn't a poll anywhere that show that any group of Americans is in favor of this, including immigrants. So how is it that this bill is getting railroaded through? Aren't our officials supposed to be responding to us? So where is this crap coming from?

This bill is 700 pages long. Most people (including most politicians in Washington) haven't read it. Two details that we've been told is are in it are a punishment forcing people who are here illegally to pay a 5000 dollar fine and the head of the household is forced to return to their nation of origin for 8-13 years. Of course the ink of the signatures won't even be dry on this piece of crap and various liberal groups will be complaining that 5000 dollars is too much. Most of the border hoppers now make up unskilled labor - how are they supposed to come up with 5000 bucks? Do you really expect these people to now come forward and turn themselves in?

This bill screws middle America. These illegal immigrants have no respect for our laws are going to get Social Security that they've never paid in too. They're going to get access to education that they've never paid for. They'll included in "Affirmative Action" laws - laws meant to compensate for past US actions that these people as immigrants have never suffered from. These people will also swell our welfare and food stamp rolls. Middle America will be handed this massive bill and get nothing for it.

Meanwhile the rich, white liberal elitists will get a cheap labor source. These lefties need unskilled workers to pick grapes on their vineyards and clean their houses. Contrary to popular buzz phrases, Americans will do these job but not for nickel an hour that greedy, money grubbing liberals are willing to pay. Someone has scrub the ivory towers of our liberal universities to keep them shinning and the million dollar budgets of most colleges there is apparently no money to pay the janitors.

Lot's of people will read this and call me a racist. Racism is the belief that one race is inherently supieror to another. How do tougher immigration laws make us racist? Did I ever once in the statements above point out any specific race/ethnicity? There are illegals from all over the world. Now the Hispanics are the face of the illegal immigration movement - but they have chosen that for themselves. These Hispanic groups comprised of illegals have demanded that we change our laws to accommodate them. They have demanded that we adopt their language. They have demanded that we adopt their customs. They have demanded that we give them entitlements even as they disrespect us and our way of life. And anyone who questions any of this is called a racist? What gall is that?

I have no problem with immigrants who want to come here and be Americans. But we're catering to a bunch of people who want to come here create mini tracts of their homelands. They're not interested in joining our culture and our community. If they were they would start out by OBEYING AND RESPECTING OUR LAWS. They have no problem demanding that the law be applied when they get something out of it (like government housing, government assistance in for college, etc.)? They want to ignore the laws they don't like and follow only the ones that they do. What a slap to the face for everyone, especially the people who struggled to come to our nation legally.

We shouldn't be rewarding these people for breaking the law - especially when it's nothing but a bold face attempt to get liberal Democrat voters.

Good bye Jerry Falwell. I'm sorry to see you pass, especially at only what is defined as a middle age. There are very few people I would be happy to see pass over, yourself included.

It's very cold to see so many gloat your passing. Especially when it's over something as trivial as politics. The lots of people all over the left wing blogosphere have been excitely throwing parties. Some of the comments I've read have curled my hair. Moreover, it would be one thing if it was just a handful of kooks - but the number of sick wackos in off the scale.

Anyone remember a few months ago when Tony Snow was told that his cancer came back? The same bunch of bastards were happy back then.

I'm floored by what is the intellectual vacancy of Liberals. These are the people say they care about the welfare of others. These are the people who say they sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. They should amend themselves to say that they care about the pain and suffering of people that agree with them.

The same group of buttheads who lay in to you for being "insensitive" to Cindy Sheehan when you comment on her latest empty headed rant about how we should socialize medicine ("don't you know her son died in Iraq?") are the same monsters partying over the death of Falwell.

I'm truly curious about you leftists. Does your pro choice vote really negate your boorishness? Do your beliefs about socializing medicine really make you more altruistic when you say such awful things about people who disagree with you? Do you really care about preserving the environment for the poor or have you just found a way to cash in? For all your talk of altruism I sure don't see it right now.

I know what you're thinking: Jerry Falwell deserves it because he said some terrible things. At times he made statements about people that were really rotten. But if these are such horrible things that shouldn't ever be forgiven - why should any of us let you off the hook?

I doubt I would have gotten along with Jerry Falwell. He was always considered one of the leaders of the "Religious Right" which I'm not a member of. To hang with me, he would have come to the strip club for a beer. But I still take no joy in his death.

Where are you Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Last week the radio shock jocks Opie and Anthony along with their guest "Homeless Charlie" made light of the idea of raping Condoleezza Rice. You think that Jackson and Sharpton would be all over an incident about some white guys (what color is "Homeless Charlie"?) pondering the rape of a black woman. A woman that appears in her pictures to have nappy hair and treat her like a ho.

A little over a year ago Jesse Jackson wrote:

"The history of white men and black women – the special fantasies and realities of exploitation – goes back to the nation’s beginning and the arrival of slaves from Africa."

You'd think he'd step up to the plate now to defend Rice. And on the heels of Don Imus being fired, you'd think that Al Sharpton would be all over this. But no, there is a strange silence. Most surprising of all in this case though: you'd think that CBS radio would dump Opie and Anthony over the comments. True, the comments were made on XM and probably not stated over CBS' public airwaves, but you'd still think that in the quest for continued racial fairness CBS would punish the duo.

So what conclusion are we to draw here? Why is it okay for a couple of stupid white boys to joke about forcing themselves on a successful black woman?

We all know the answer: politics. Condoleezza Rice is a member of the Bush administration. Her connection to the administration for all intents and purposes makes her public enemy number one. So you can use all kinds of racial slurs and make all kinds of disgusting suggestions about her and get away with it. The only punishment XM gave Opie and Anthony was a 30 day suspension *with pay*. Wow, I call that a "vacation". And CBS won't do anything at all. Gotta love the selective anger. It's sad to think that some people are shielded as Sacred Cows simply due to politics.

And I know what you're thinking: Do I believe Opie and Anthony should be kicked off the air? Answer: No, of course not. I didn't think that Imus should have been kicked off the air either. Nor should have JV and Elvis. (Making fun of the way people pronounce things? Who hasn't done that? There are dialects from all over the United States. Who hasn't heard a comedian making fun of a red neck/northern easterner/Brooklyn or other accent?) Would I be offended if jokes about white people were made by radio shock jokes and other media types? They make jokes about white people all the time in various media outlets. Despite this, no one ever gets fired for racist jokes against the light skinned. So my opinion in that respect doesn't matter.

We need to make the rules consistant regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or politics.

Ah here we go again. Six terrorists have been captured when they attempted to buy guns so as to shoot as many soldiers as they could at Fort Dix New Jersey.

I call them "terrorists". Most other people in the media don't (that's "racist" and "bigoted".) I guess all the Jihadist propaganda they found at these guys' home which included videos of Osama himself, was just a coincidence. The fact that all of these immigrants (three of which were illegal) identify themselves as Muslims is unnoteworthy. In fact, doing so breaches the unwritten rules of Political Correctness.

The fact that these creeps wanted to kill us only because we're Americans shows what equalitarians they are. Again the fact that they're using violent means to try to force everyone around them to adopt a distinctly Arabic lifestyle, with a distinctly Arabic religion and a distinctly Arabic culture shows how tolerant they are. The real racism is only on the part of the people trying to stop these thugs.

The truly amazing part to me is where all of this started. Of the six men, four of them are Albanians. You know, from Albania...that country that was being attacked by Serbia? You remember Serbia: it was the nation that the greatest leader of the modern times (Bill Clinton) bombed the living crap out of. He taught us all that slaughtering civilians is okay as long as #1) they're white Christians and #2) there are no Americans killed in battle. Boy that "police action" won us a lot of friends, now didn't it? And by the way, when is some unbiased, non partisan journalist going to ask Hillary if she's going to pull us out of Kosovo? We're supposed to be out of Iraq before she takes office - but we've been in the Balkans for almost ten years. There is no government there. There is tons of violence. So when are we pulling out?

Thanks to Mrs. Bill Clinton there are quite a few Albanian Jihadists here brought here under the Clinton refugee program. (Too bad it wasn't good enough for Elian Gonzales.) And any attempt to stop these people is the cardinal sin of "racism". Talk about blaming the victim.

Yeah I know, I'm a racist. I'm an American - you could say narrow minded intolerance is inherent in my race and still think of yourself as open minded.

So PBS is doing a special called "Mormons" that examines race and sexual orientation in the LDS church. Hm...what do you think that conclusion will be? I'm guessing that since we're looking at people who lived in a pre PC world, we'll all be pissed off at the LDS over their historic discriminatory race/homosexual practices by the time the last few minutes of the film go by.

I got news for you, almost everyone had their prejudices one hundred years ago - even the Communists, Baptists, Jews, non white people, etc. Should we also look down on these people for living in log cabins and riding horses as well?

But that's not the only media production about the Mormons coming out this summer. The film "September Dawn" will be out in June. This piece is a dramatic retelling of the "Mountain Meadows Massacre" an incident where Mormon fanatics killed a group of settlers moving through the Utah territory and blaming it on the Indians living in the area. The movie poster talks of "...the reputation of one of this nation's mightiest religious figures has been preserved and protected. Until now." hinting that it will be an indictment Brigham Young for supposedly ordering the attack.

In reality, there is no real evidence that Young did order the attack. If the man were alive today, he could sue the production company for libel.

But the question comes up: why all this sudden interest in the LDS Church? The media would have us believe that it's all coicidence. Uh, huh - right. Libs would have us believe that everything in media happens by accident (accept for things on Fox News and ABC's "Path to 9-11".) The real reason can be summed up in two words - Mitt Romney. He's the Republican Presidential Candidate who used to be the Governor from Ma. The unbiased, non partisans that make up the press core are going to make sure they have some insurance should Romney ever become the Republican front runner.

There is no question at all that the American media is Mormon bashing. Are we going to see PBS specials about the way that Islamists treat homosexuals and minorities? (I know the Iranians tend to behead those found guilty of sodomy.) Wouldn't it be prudent to do so? One of the Democrat front runners (Barrack Obama) is half Islamic. In fact, tracing Obama's lineage on his father's (read his black side) leads to a history of slave ownership.

No we can't talk about Islam, they're a minority religion....of course so are the Mormons. Ah but Muslims have faced historic discrimination in the United States...and so have the Mormons. In fact, the Mormons faced such horrible discrimination that in the 1800's they actually left the country and went to Mexico. (One Mexican American war later, the Mormons found their Utah territory back in the US.) Despite all the whinning of Islamists in the modern day, they're still flocking to our nation in droves. Ah but the Mormons practice(d) polygamy. The LDS no longer endorses multiple marriages. Yeah, you can find a few radical hold outs in rural areas but for the most part they don't do that anymore. Contrast this with Muslims for whom Polygamy is a standard practice. Also marrying girls as young as 12 is commonplace.

For any lefties yelling at me right now I have to turn your own minority litmus test back around on you: How many Mormons do you know? If the answer is zero, then I guess it's safe to say #1) you're a bigot and #2) you have no idea what you're talking about so shut up.

As for myself, I do know Mormons. I do talk to them. I spent part of my childhood living in Utah - and guess what, Mormons are just like everyone else. They can haughty, arrogant, ignorant, judgemental and unaccepting. But so are some of the Muslims, pagans, witches, blacks, whites, asians, Hispanics, homosexuals, Buddhists, Baptists, Jews, Germans, Irishmen, farmers, college professors, Communists, Anarchists, Republicans, Democrats, Liberatarians and everyone else I know. Making a movies and television shows highlighting the failings (as I've been lectured by libs on so many times) is discrimination. And being as Mormons are a minority religion it's the worst kind of discrimination in the leftist mind, or it would be if the LDS congregation wasn't overwhelmingly white. Or couldn't trace their ideology back to Christ.

If it's discrimination and prejudice, then it's discrimination and prejudice. The liberals who make up our media would *never* condemn Muslims the same way they condemn Christian sects. In fact, just recently Mr. Fair Speech himself Al Sharpton said that "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation." If that's not enough, a little over a year ago the Press Corp in the United States refused to publish the controversial Mohammed cartoons smugly telling us about "the responsibilities of speech." At the same time Madonna was hanging herself on a cross in a mock of Christianity. That was defended as "art". If we're going to critically examine Romney's philosophy then it should also be prudent to look at Obama's twisted upbringing. But we're not going to do that, that would be prejudiced of us....

Congratulations to France’s newest President Sarkozy. Although the media is calling you a “Conservative” being as you’re from France and the news agency call McCain a Conservative, I can’t help but wonder how far to the right you really sit. If you’re of the typical European right winger stripe, you’re a Trostskist and you’re real crime is that you’re not in line with the hard core Stalinists that make up your population.

Of course his opposition immediately began rioting after his victory was announced. Apparently they think Iraq is too violent a place (and France is not.) One can’t help but wonder if these rioters are the same “angry youths” who took their violence to the streets a little over a year ago. It’s bizarre that those riots weren’t deemed worth reporting and these new riots are – not that I’m accusing the media of being agenda driven propagandists.  But it sure is funny the stories that are suddenly thrown up as problems the minute a right winger gets in to office anywhere.

That said, I don’t envy the new President. Sarkozy sure has his work cut out for him: a bloated, socialist state that can no longer support itself. The people living on the fat of the hog are numerous and hold lots of political power. They’re not going to want any of their precious benefits cut off even if it means that the people in the lower classes are going to have to suffer to do it. And the only people who don’t see that are the Communist elites composing the think tanks of that floundering nation. They need to reread the section of the Manifesto where Marx talks about the wealthy doing whatever they can to maintain their power.

And if taxes and oppressive socialism isn’t bad enough, you have to factor in a horrible immigration problem. Again, I don’t know if these new riots are being sponsored by the same “angry youths” who rioted a year ago, but both problems need to be addressed. Of course, pointing out that these “angry youths” all come from the same geographic area, speak roughly the same languages and practice the same peaceful religion that requires them to pray in the direction of Mecca five times a day is “racist”. And suggesting that they lay off the antisocial violence in the streets is unfair “discrimination”. (Does this sound at all familiar to my American readers?) So if Sarkozy can’t even talk about the problem one can only wonder how he’s supposed to do anything to try to fix it.

Liberals are liberals no matter where they are – be it France, Germany or Washington DC. And the goal of all liberals is to insert themselves in positions of power where they can tell people what to do free of criticism and completely untouchable by voters. So how much will Sarkozy actually be able to get done? Will he actually be able to do the things that need to be done to pull France out of the doldrums? I’m not going to hold my breath….

It seems like every day the radical environmentalists become more wacko and dangerous. One of their latest ideas is compare everyone who disagrees (or even takes a critical look at Global Warming) to Holocaust Deniers. That's really a nasty comment, but it hasn't taken them long to suggest that anyone who questions global warming be silenced/arrested for espousing their opinion. They rationalize that people who deny global warming are causing pain and suffering in their fellow human beings (especially the poor.) The global warming deniers are going to kill us all goes the chant, so why not quiet them?

The fact that this is an attack on free speech means nothing to self righteous lefties. To paraphrase the liberal UN, "Free Speech is to be preserved (with certain restrictions.)" I'm sorry but where I come from *any* restriction on speech negates the "free" part. Notice too that "certain restrictions" isn't defined. Who do you think a bunch of unbiased, non partisan lefty politicians are going to go after for people using their free speech rights irresponsibly? People who question global warming. People who ask too many good questions about Islam. People who dare take a critical look at Marxism. They're not going to stop anyone from racistly attacking Americans as violent. Nor will they stop any "artist" from defacing Christian symbols. But I digress.

The real question is: why is the left focusing on one group of people? Why should only people who question global warming to be punished? People have believed and argued all kinds of stupid things over the course of history. My grandmother went to her grave arguing that the moon landing had been faked. Even today, there are a bunch of stupid people who actually believe that 9-11 was a plot by the US government. Just think about how many people could be hurt/killed if these 9-11 conspiracy knuckleheads get their way. So why should only global warming critics be outlawed?

Because there is a political agenda tied to all of this. The far left is always looking for an untouchable speaker - someone or some group who could demand their agenda without being criticised. Silencing their rivals is a great way to reign supreme.

I don't care what you say, it's still an attack on free speech though. The minute you put any restriction in there, no matter how benign sounding it's no longer "free" no matter how you want to argue it.

The founders hated the aristocratic establishment. And for good reason - who wants to pay taxes to a government that doesn't serve you? The noble estates snatched away simple things like criticism of the way they did things and fair trials. The aristocrats also set up differing sets of laws: one for them and one for the peasant classes. One glance at such grievances reveals the wisdom of the founders.

Unfortunately as time has gone on our government has become so big that there are agencies sliding through the cracks. Especially when it's as obvious as our University system but it has.

If the recent shooting at Virginia Tech and the declaration of the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse team has revealed anything, it's that the lords and ladies of Collegiate manor have seen fit to free themselves of their power limitations laid out in our Constitution. Most colleges in the wake of VT pledged hard gun bans on campus as if the Second amendment doesn't exist there. But the increasing tax bills of millions of Americans every year would say otherwise. What college is without its precious speech code? What college dares to defy the inherent racial discrimination enshrined in "Affirmative Action"? More repulsive still is the fact that every year these economic lampreys and hagfish come complaining that they're not getting enough money.

What a great business for them. Every year they get more all while producing the same brain dead research no one will ever read (except their colleagues). If you want to have no boss, answer to no one and scream about how terrible you're being treated. If you're really lucky, you're also completely unfirable giving you the powers not even Don Imus is blessed with. (Tenure, who the hell thought that idea up? Next brilliant idea: giving nukes to Iran, that way we can avoid that whole "cold war" thing.) Hate Americans and love al Quada? Teach it and put it on the next test or make your class right a paper about it. We'll call it "balance". It's the perfect Lefty job.

But what happened to the Constitution in this blind spot? They are bound to it aren't they? Some would argue that there are private schools that don't have to hold to that standard. But even private schools can't help themselves from sucking up government grants. Ask any active on campus Christian group what you can and can't do with that money. When was the last time any of us got money with no strings attached? Why are the feudal lords and ladies off the hook?

Don't worry, even after this rant nothing will be really be done. The job of university system is to crank out good little Liberal Democrat voters. Until no longer do that, they'll be safe.

In 1987 Ronald Reagan saved AM radio by getting rid of the draconian "Fairness Doctrine", which itself was a legal device installed in the 30's to prevent a single candidate from buying the two radio stations and two newspapers in New York. Everyone knows that by the time Reagan dumped it, there were dozens of both AM And FM stations along with three big television networks and an explosion in channels with the popularity of cable.

The fact is music sounds better in FM, thus AM radio was dying out. Everyone was terrified of saying anything even the slightest bit controversial lest they get a ton of lawsuits based on the "Fairness Doctrine". Ending the doctrine opened up a whole new market: talk radio. Thus came the new problem, left wing talk was grossly unpopular and died out quickly while right wing talk took over. Thus in the year 2007 with a new sense of righteous indignation (and a lefty Congress backing them up) there is a new call to reinstall "The Fairness Doctrine".

But how "Fair" is it? Anyone who has ever worked in radio knows what a pain it is to keep things running. Especially on the sales side. Account Executives work long and hard trying to keep advertisers supporting the station. Often this means taking them to lunch, offering them special deals and many other tasks and errands. When it's all said and done, most people don't work an eight hour day: including the talent. Yes, the three hours or less they are on air is a fraction of their eight to twelve hour day. It's expensive to keep the power running, the equipment operating, pay all the board operators and so on.

But under the Fairness Doctrine a lot of stations would have to give 12 hours of programming away for free. Lefties could walk in to the studio glowing with entitlement and just take over without ever once being asked to pay a phone bill or pay for the set of keys they'd be given. Their job would start and end with time they are allotted.

As I said before, originally the Fairness Doctrine was focused on CANDIDATES running for office. But that's not what most people in 2007 mean when they talk about it. They want equal time FOR ISSUES. For example, Pro Life Issues would be "balanced" with a pro Death forum. Sounds harmless enough until you consider the following: CBS radio fired Don Imus for racial slurs, the company has a no racism policy. But under the Fairness Doctrine, the KKK could go in to CBS radio, demand equal time and have a case for it. Shouldn't Al Sharpton (in the name of fairness) be balanced out by people like Don Imus?

It's obvious that the people pushing for the Doctrine fail to understand it. Almost everyone I've talked to who are pro Doctrine bring up Fox News and how biased it is. Well I hate to tell you this, but the Fairness Doctrine *never* applied to the news. That means that "The O'Reilly Factor" could make a serious argument that the doctrine doesn't apply to them, since O'Reilly is a journalist. But even if the doctrine did apply to the news, there is still the question over whether the doctrine applies to cable. Those of you who think that Fox News would be history might very well have a rude awakening.

The argument that they simply want to open debate on things is a joke. Most people don't listen to the radio or watch network TV. Movies are a bigger market - but we're not going to tell big liberal Hollywood they need to balance out their crap. (Yeah well, they have free speech.) So radio and television station owners don't?

One could make the argument that radio and television use radio bands and those bands are public property, thus "the people" can decide what can be transmitted. If that's true, then I have to ask: Just about every single University in the United States is taking government grants - that's taxpayer money, i.e. "The people". So why don't the Universities have to provide balance? We all know the truth, because they're left wing organizations and lefties *never* have to follow their own rules. Thus the Universities can use the people's money to censor things via "speech codes".

But unlike TV and radio which I can turn off or ignore, the most insane liberal classes are often required for any type of degree. 

Closer to home still, the public school system. The propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth" is becoming required viewing in a lot of Junior and Senior High schools. Shouldn't we balance it out with some films that give real science about global warming? Again not gonna happen.

In the end the Fairness Doctrine isn't going to solve any of the left's problems. Instead of giving all kinds of free air time to left wing losers, you'll simply see a rapid mass migration of talent to internet stations and private satellite stations far from the over reach of a government ignoring its own restrictions. But that's okay, I guess silence has a type of balance too it. I just feel sorry for the people liberals love most: the poor who can't afford cable or satellite radio watching all their avenues of open dialogue suddenly dry up. But that's okay, the poor can take the hit for the lefty team again.

After the Virginia Tech shooting, I don't feel safe around Koreans. Who knows how many Koreans Cho Seung-Hui's letter and writings will inspire to act to violence themselves? Factor in the fact that this guy was an immigrant and you're creating a recipe for complete disaster.

The cultures of the far east are known for their violence from Ninja's and Samurais to Mao and Pol Pot. These are racist societies that have little to no respect for human beings, human rights or kindness and diginity. Japan is known worldwide for its violent television and cinema. And we've opened the immigration flood gates to these people!

If the above paragraphs are racist and bigoted, then why is it okay to say similar things about the United States and its culture?

Already South Korea has issued a statement of concern saying in part that they're afraid that there will be a backlash of violence against Koreans living in the United States. Yeah - cause we know how racist and violent Americans are. (And that's not a racial prejudice.)

Already left wing elitists worldwide (but especially in Europe) are criticizing the "violent culture" of the United States. What a gross disturbing generalization of American culture. They would never make a comment like that about the culture of Islam: that would be racist. We're a nation of 300 million people. Most of us have never and will never kill anyone.

It is a racist slam from the left. Any critique of Islam is met with "you're a racist" despite the fact that people from a wide array of cultures and races practice Islam. Any discussion about cracking down on illegal aliens entering our nation is met with "you're a racist" despite the fact that illegal aliens also come from a wide array of cultures and races. So why do the "Americans are violent and racist" condemners get a free pass?

Ironically the answer goes right back to racism: America is considered to have a white majority. Conventional wisdom states that #1) you can never be racist against a majority (cause it doesn't hurt them) and #2) white people deserve it for the Age of Expansion. So as typical, liberals are excluded from their own rules.

When the news broke, it didn't take long for cultural critics to chide us: "How many of you just assumed that this was an Islamic terrorist attack?" Not I. My first reaction to the shooting was to compare it to the Columbine Massacre - an incident where two white kids shot up their school. Interesting that my assumption that the shooter at VT was a white guy isn't considered racist and I'm not slammed for it. White is a race after all. Maybe I should become a lefty.

Gun control is unConstitutional and statistics, studies, comparisons to other nations and isolated high profile crimes don't make gun regulations any more legal. I'm of course speaking about the Virginia Tech shootings and the reaction to it.

I have often heard that a saying that the criminals win if they make us give up our liberties and freedoms. The same people who a constantly screaming that we're going to lose a bunch of our rights when it comes to the War on Terror are the same people who are lead the charge when it comes to wanting gun laws.

Blaming the NRA for what happened at VT is like blaming the NAB for what Imus said. An activist citizens group isn't responsible for the actions of strange people in our society.

How naive is it to think that some gun law would stop this anyway? If a law was going to stop this tragedy, you'd think that the violations of statutes against murder, breaking and entering, illegally barring a door and countless other breaches would have stopped this guy. None of them did.

Even if we had tons of laws banning all guns nutcases are still going to come up with ways of committing terrible acts. Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun in Oklahoma City. Neither did many other monsters that have committed awful acts that pepper our history.

But none of these things will matter to left wing political candidates with their eyes on the White House in '08. None of this will matter to the unbiased, non partisan media that back left wing calls for gun control 100%.

So now that the Duke Lacrosse players have been declared innocent, all the supporters of the "victim" are now circling the wagons in an attempt to save some face. The argument has gone from "she was raped" to "well something happened at that party."

It's always amazing to watch the civil rights "we should never stereotype anyone by race" crowd bite in to every prejudice known (especially racial ones): white men always get away with it, black women are always abused by whites, the rich are always privileged, every exotic dancer is a fine upstanding citizen working to support her illegitimate children, etc.

Terry Moran of ABC news wrote in his blog entitled "Don't feel too sorry for the Dukies":

"As students of Duke University or other elite institutions, these young men will get on with their privileged lives."

And what is Mr. Moran basing this on? Does he personally know any the Duke players? The answer is "no". He's basing this on the fact that the men accused were #1 white and #2 upper class. These are both prejudices. Truth be told, social problems like child abuse and neglect know no economic level. Furthermore it's a misnomer to just assume that whites have it easy in this country. This Lacrosse Team was on its way to a national championship. They worked very hard to that point. The other Lacrosse teams weren't just going to hand it to them.

"Their team specifically requested at least one white stripper."

Yeah, this makes them guilty. Right after the story broke, Jesse Jackson charged that white men had a long history of preferring black women that all whites secretly are more attracted too. With this in mind one can't help but wonder if the team's request for black dancers would have shown that they're more open minded or if they're getting a rush out of having power over people they think they're better than.

"During the incident, racial epithets were hurled at the strippers."

The Duke Lacrosse players admit to racial epithets. But according to them, the dancers started calling the players 'short d*cked white boys' first. It's the word of 47 players versus the word of 2 strippers - one of them having just been demonstrated to be a liar. It should be added that Constitutionally speaking, words aren't illegal.

"The young men were able to retain a battery of top-flight attorneys, investigators and media strategists."

Oh yeah - this makes them guilty. A lot of states require lawyers to do pro bono work. The Duke case was a high profile sham from the beginning. We had a rogue prosecutor (Michael Nifong) running for reelection in a largely black district and he had no evidence of anything. Of course, Moran isn't the slightest bit suspicious of any of Nifong's motives. That's unsettling considering this guy is a JOURNALIST. How can so many obvious inaccuracies and story holes go flying over this guy's head?

The bottom line is that if racial prejudice is wrong then it's wrong - even if you're prejudging white men. It's wrong to racially prejudge all blacks as "disempowered". Here is a clear incident where a woman destroyed the lives of three men based on nothing. She got their professors to turn their backs on them. She ended their chance to win the national championship. She has put them in a situation which they will never recover from - they will drag this around for the rest of their lives. And there will always be those people who (like Moran) will cling to the idea that these people got away with it.

I hope for their sakes that something like this never happens to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Terry Moran.

Now that Imus is gone, Al Sharpton is strutting around talking about everyone else who is on his list. Estimates say that the Reverend's rent a mob numbers about 500,000. In a nation of 300 million that's a pretty paltry sum - not even one percent. The fact that he could mobilize all of those people to boycott is still impressive.

Compare this to Imus who had an audience in the millions. If Mr. Sharpton's half a million can pressure broadcasters to dump Imus, what would happen if all of Imus' listeners decided to boycott the good Reverend's sponsors. Do you think that big corporations like McDonald's and Walmart would respond to the financial loss and pull their backing?

Take that thought out a little further and ask yourself what would happen if Imus' audience decided to throw a counter boycott against the people who abandoned Imus in his time of need: Procter and Gamble, Staples and American Express. And what about the networks that carried Imus? MSNBC that carried his television show and CBS radio which actually put the show on the airwaves? In an era where both of those networks are suffering in ratings it would sure be awful to see all those loyal listeners walk away.

Wouldn't it be great? What rant do you think Sharpton would go on? Would he complain of "racism" against him rather than admitting he made a lot of people mad? Sharpton keeps telling us we're a racist society. Since black people can call each other by racial slurs in jokes, music and art but white people can't, I'd have to agree.

Public boycotts can work both ways. Be nice to see what happens when it's reversed.

What Imus said was really mean. His "nappy headed hos" comment was a swipe at the race, sex and way the ladies Rutgers basketball team conducts itself. Imus stated it thoughtlessly while talking to a guest. He should have apologized and he did. But that wasn't enough. Imus has now been fired from all of his broadcasts.

The scariest thing about the Imus case is that it is setting a precedent. Now any *white man* (and only white men) who say something a Politically Correct demographic takes racial/gender offense at will now find themselves in a bigger firefight. You can now lose your job if you say something these people don't like. Heady with the power he now thinks he has, Al Sharpton is already promising to go after everyone he disagrees with.

The problem is that whereas in the Imus case there is clear racial/gender overtones talk show hosts and shock jocks often discuss things minority groups have a problem with - things that are less of a slurring nature.

For example: Illegal Aliens. You can't talk about making tougher laws on illegal aliens without Hispanic groups getting all in a tizzy. Said groups have dubbed it racist to disagree with them on this particular issue. The thing is that illegal aliens come from everywhere, not just Latin America. Illegal aliens represent every ethnicity, not just Mexicans. Illegal aliens represent every religion not just Catholism. Illegal aliens represent every sexual orientation not just straight. And Illegal aliens represent every political affiliation not just Liberal Democrat. With all of this in mind, who's really being racist on this issue? Most of the people that I've heard who want stricter laws on this issue have never once pointed to a specific race/ethnicity that they want to be harder on than others. But there is a good chance that after seeing what happened to Imus, broadcasters are going to be more nervous every time the issue of immigration comes up.

Naturally this is going to make a lot of Hispanic groups (who favor open borders) very happy. They now have evidence that they can shut down people on the side of the issue that they disagree with.

Another example: Muslims. Muslims have been saying for years that any critique of Islam is "racist" - even though Islam is a religion practiced by a wide array of racial and ethnic groups. Again we have to ask who is really being racist here? Unfortunately leftist politicians viewing these people more as a voting block than a possible damage on our culture by their irresponsible use of definitions, have decided to agree with these people that criticism of Islam is racism. This means that if you ever talk about almost anything from the flying Imams to the War on Terror you could find yourself getting hammered.

These are big issues of the day - and now it seems that they can shut down and silence those who disagree.

My final example: Homosexuals. The Gay community (seeing the success of the civil rights crowd) has been trying to get "homophobia" to be on par with racism. While I agree that you shouldn't make hateful statements about people based on their sexual orientation, "homophobia" has slowly become a word used to describe *anyone* who disagrees with what radical (left wing) homosexuals want. After Imus, we have to ask what will happen to someone who talks about an issue that is near and dear to the Gay Rights crowd but disagrees with them. They will rightly ask "If racial groups have this much power, why don't we?"

There is a definite problem here. Our government hinges on the free flow of ideas. It has now been demonstrated that one side can silence the other. It also demonstrates how far we've come racially. No longer will racial insults about *minorities* be tolerated. Unfortunately the lesson will be grossly overlooked by leftists: they will talk about how disgusting Imus' carelessly used words and phrases shows that we're a racist nation. The fact that he was fired in disgrace will be glossed over.

Note that I've been pointing out which race can say what because inspite of all of this, white men will still be fair game. Even as this Imus thing unfolds, leftist groups continue to hammer the Duke Lacrosse players accused of rape. These are the same players who just a few days ago were declared innocent by investigators. The argument has now evolved from "she was raped" to "well something happened at that party". Although Nifong (who was running for re election in an area with a large black population during a good chunk of the investigation) has apologized, the 88 Duke professors who issued a statement shortly after the charges were filed have (as of the penning of this column) not. Nor has Jesse Jackson who wrote

"The history of white men and black women – the special fantasies and realities of exploitation – goes back to the nation’s beginning and the arrival of slaves from Africa."

-http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/commentary.cfm?ArticleID=4990

There is a definite racial undertone to the Reverend's words. In a twist of irony, while making his disparaging racial remarks Imus noted how unattractive he thought the Rutgers team is.

So there you have it. We are a racist society, but not in the way most people believe. We've come a very long way from the racial stereotyping fifty years ago. There is no doubt that it's now swinging back the other way. I've heard a scary number of people justify modern racism by alleging that the white guys deserve it. But I've always believed that two wrongs never make a right.