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.

 

Last week Don Imus made an off handed comment about the Rutgers basketball team in the Championship game. He laughingly referred to them as "nappy headed hos".

Of course this sent the civil rights crowd in to overdrive. "Look, America is still a racist nation" they screamed. Reverend Al Sharpton went so far as to call for the FCC to fire Imus. (Yeah, I'm scratching my head over that one too.)

What's amazing to me is that this shows how nonracist we are as a society. So far, Imus is losing advertisers left and right - including companies like American Express. Just a little while ago MSNBC stated their dropping the Imus simulcast. If this was a racist society, I would expect everyone to be standing with Imus' comment. But the best defense anyone can muster is approaching this as a free speech issue. No one is actually defending the term "nappy headed hos" (including myself).

But while this Imus stuff is going on there is another racial case going on largely ignored because of the races involved. Today North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all charges against three Duke Lacrosse players. At a press conference he proclaimed them "innocent" of all charges. This after thirteen grueling months of harrassment along racial lines. When the "victim" Crystal Gail Mangum made her accusation she couldn't identify the ones who did it - only saying it was done by white men...even though she couldn't pick them out of a police line up, even though no DNA from any of the men was found on her, even though her co-dancer disputed her story, even though she changed her story several times. Despite all of this, the case dragged on and as late as a couple of months ago looked like it was actually going to go to court.

I remember when the case first broke, civil rights leaders claimed that white men found black women irresistable, it was a trait left over from the days of slavery (as if that was good evidence.) A group of 88 Duke professors issued a statement supporting the "victim" saying in part:

"Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism, who see illuminated in this moment's extraordinary spotlight what they live with everyday."

-www.concerneddukefaculty.org

Can't help but wonder what race they're referring too. I always thought that "lynch mob" was a description of whites hanging a black, but at Duke it appears that it's the other way around.

So while the entire nation is focused on the racism of what Imus *said* we should be racism of what is being *done* at major universities. Odds are that Imus will eventually recover and carry on. Although this incident will always hang over him he's big enough to take the hit. Meanwhile the students accused at Duke have sustained serious damage that could cripple their chances in the future. But that's okay, crippling the chances of white people is exactly what drives affirmative action laws - where assumptions based on race mean everything.

 

The media is so happy about Nancy Pelosi. First she talked to the murderous thugs in Syria. Now she's thinking about going to talk to the murderous thugs in Iran. She is capable of building bridges with everyone she claims to disagree with, except the Bush Administration.

Going to other nations and claiming to represent the United States when you're Speaker of the House is illegal under US law. True to her liberal philosophy though, it all depends in how you define "represent". Officially these are "fact finding missions". That's hard to believe when she says to the press: "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,"

Legalities aside, Pelosi thinking we can actually talk to these people and get somewhere with it one has to wonder exactly how many "facts" she found.

There is no doubt that the Democrats are trying to undermine the Bush administration, but violating the law shouldn't be allowed. The President has always been in charge of foreign policy all the way back to Washington. Until now, Congress has never had a say in the situation. And there is a good reason for that: Only the President can give a single message. Congress will give 535 different messages.

This is a very dangerous precedent to set. Pelosi should not be allowed to get away with this. She will be because she's a liberal Democrat and amazingly the law never seems to apply to people like her.

If something is not done about this, it will only get worst.

 

On Friday March 23, 2007 fifteen British soldiers were captured by Iranian gunboats while doing a routine inspection of an Iraqi Merchant vessel in Iraqi waters. Their torture at the hands of Iranian thugs isn't surprising.

What is surprising is their torture at the hands of the Western media. Left wing commentators have condemned the Brits for the being pawns of the United States and willing tools in an attempt to create an incident that could be used as an excuse for war. Right wing commentators have condemned the Brits for not putting up more of a resistance both during their capture and later after being imprisoned.

The truth is most likely understandable and in the middle. British satellite data shows that the troops *were* in Iraqi waters at the time of their kidnapping. It also shows no less than six Iranian warships with mounted weapons (designed to rip apart other warships) approached the merchant vessel. The Brits only had light sidearms themselves. The inspectors were armed for minor resistance from petty smuggling thugs, not for a full scale military assault like the Iranians were. Who can really blame the English for not shooting back? It would have been a needless slaughter. A bad comparison would be: border guards on the US/Mexico boundary being condemned for not stopping a tank that drove across the line.

The next leg of condemnation comes from after the Brits were captured. Right wing pundits condemn the soldiers for going on camera and giving Iranian talking points. (Of course left wing pundits all believe the talking points they espoused, but that goes without saying.) Again, who could blame the British soldiers? Interrogation is a part of most higher level of marine/naval training in most western nations. But there is training for it and then there is the real thing. It's much harder to think straight when faced with the real thing. Most of us have had to speak before a large group before. And for a lot of people it seems that no matter how much you rehearse, you go blank the minute you meet the gaze of your audience. I can't even imagine what it would be like when faced with real pain and death in the face of not playing ball. Now the captured soldiers tried to qualify their statements using language like "from what we are told" and "from what we understand" - but any good editor can cut those statements out as the Iranians did. 

Iran is a master of mind games. Throughout the fiasco Iran used political doublespeak with western powers in general. At first, they said they would give up the Faye Turney. Then they retracted that a couple of days later. If Iran is yanking us around in such a fashion, what kind of games were they playing with the soldiers in their custody?

Now that the soldiers have returned home, the bashing hasn't stopped. One of them has been condemned for (literally) crying to the press. Others have condemned them for considering selling their stories to the media.

The bottom line is that no one really knows what these people went through. And there were times when each of them were isolated from each other. No one really knows what the individual experience was of these soldiers. There is no value from playing arm chair general and attacking these people for not shooting at their captors or being forced in front of Iranian TV cameras for propaganda pieces. So who can really blame them?

 

The worst thing you can do with a problem is ignore it. That only aggravates it - whether it's someone you want to dump, that thumping sound in your car or that strange sore on your foot. In international matters it can be completely devastating. Everyone tried to ignore Hitler too.

Today, we've been ignoring Iran for thirty years. With nuclear technology becoming easier for third world dictators to get that fact is awful. Monday Iran declared a National Nuke Day, publically and proudly stating that they had 3000 centerfuges enriching uranium.They have already stated that yes, they are working on a bomb and yes, once they get it they will share it with known terrorist groups (as long as those groups are opposed to Israel.) I can't help but think of the film "Battle Beneath Planet of the Apes" where the wacko cult detonated their god (an unexploded nuclear missile) to defeat the apes on the surface.

Experts tell us not to worry, Iran is twenty...no wait, ten...no wait, two years away from having the plans for nuke. Of course, these same experts assured us that the Oil-for-Food program wasn't being violated either. Naturally libs take comfort in these experts despite how unsure it all sounds. It's funny to think of the same leftists who believe we need to do something *now* about global warming fifty years in the future don't care about the likely actions of madmen two years from now.

The truth is that we don't know what Iran has or how far along they are. Russia has tried to calm international fear by claiming that the Iranians are overstating their own capabilities - but this is the same Russia that wants a new Cold War and is selling the Iranians all the tech they need. This is the same Russia that sold Iraq all kinds of things despite an international embargo. Russia is not a very good source of information.  

The UN isn't going to help in this matter. The UN has never helped in any matter. A quick glance at most of the world's hot spots where people are fighting each other to death and you'll see the red tape, paperwork and inaction of the UN. The last thing Iran needs is more time.

I fear if something is not done quickly it will be too late.

 Why on earth does the left hate Bill O'Reilly? When I was getting my degree, I sat in unbiased, non partisan classes where equally unbiased, non partisan left wing college professors would slam O'Reilly between lectures on why we should all vote for John Kerry. And the typical conclusion from the great minds of the *media and journalism* department was that Bill should be taken off the air because of "hate". (Interesting that concepts like "free speech" and "free press" don't apply to the enemies of libs.)

To back up their claims I was treated a whole host of O'Reilly's greatest blow ups. We watched video of him ranting in interviews on PBS and Comedy Central. I sat through clips of him screaming at his guests, cutting off mics and and just generally ranting.

Understandably I was taken aback. I'd never seen "The Factor" before. Someone who was so rough on everybody made me a little nervous. The first time I actually watched his show was in public and I expected him to explode with profanities and name calling at everyone around him. The wisdom of playing such a show in a public place seemed absurd.

That was about a year ago. Recently I discovered "The Radio Factor" on a local station and listened. I was surprised by what I heard. Moreover after listening to him it's obvious a lot of big libs haven't.

Shock point number one: O'Reilly is an environmentalist. He firmly believes that oil companies manipulate the price of gas to increase their profit margin. Who does that sound like if not the environmentalist left? On this issue O'Reilly bucks the conservative/capitalistic belief market forces determine the price of gas. This goes hand in hand with shock point number two: O'Reilly backs the government efforts to tighten gas efficiency in cars. And shock point number three: O'Reilly not only believes that humans are causing global warming, he's in favor of government regulations to curb CO2 levels. You'd think that environmentalists would have latched on to this by now, but no. Most environmentalists I know slam O'Reilly.

But those aren't the only non conservative beliefs Bill clings too. O'Reilly also is firmly convinced that the war in Iraq is an unwinnable stale mate. Who does that sound like? Less like a conservative and more like something you'd read on DailyKos.

So why is there a visceral hatred for O'Reilly? Libs are always lecturing everyone on being tolerant and listening to people (especially ones you disagree with). So how many lefties have actually watched/listened to "The Factor"?

 Yay! Congress is on recess. And before they walked out they laid the biggest, most bloated, most pork stuffed budget in American history on the President's desk. The most important article in the bill is further military spending for the surge in Iraq. No budget, no money. Our soldiers will be left in the field with little to no real support.

The arrogance of the libs is typical of rich elitists out of touch. Hillary Clinton stated in a stump speech in Iowa, "This is vetoing the will of the American people". Yeah I'm sure the people who voted last fall did it so that spinach growers could get 25 million dollars and the House could spend 16 million dollars increasing their office space.

Despite this, Dems are promising to fight the veto. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has gone so far as to threaten that if a veto is comes of this, the next budget will have *no* Iraq military spending at all. This is completely unreasonable on so many levels. They can't possibly expect the President to sign this bill. Or can they?

In theory the veto is unbreakable. The Dems don't have enough votes to hammer this miserable bill through. *If* the bill is actually vetoed. Let's face it, there is a sad lack of gumption on the part of the conservative leadership and the Republican party in general. Bush has backed away from many things he said he'd fight against - like campaign finance reform. Ironic that the guy who is known for his ruthless tactics against Islamists is a pushover at home. We have every reason to believe that he'll cave to pressure. Why should the Dems take him seriously?

But even if the President rejects the bill there are plenty of spineless Republicans in both houses that can be slammed in to line. There's tons of Olympia Snows, John McCains and others. People willing to cut a deal for a bigger office and twenty seconds of praise on CNN.

Reinforcing the deal will be the unbiased, non partisan press who will run with every liberal Democrat talking point. Look at how they're treating the US attorney "scandal". For starters, they're calling it a "scandal". I'm sorry my dictionary tells me that a scandal involves illegal activity - but journalists at major media outlets all seem to ignore that fact. How do you think they're going to treat the rejection of this budget? The headlines will read "President cuts funding to troops". Liberal pundits will be all over the news ranting, "How can the President do this?"

Does anyone else remember the government shut down in 1994? Cause we're heading for a repeat of that. Republicans backed down because they didn't have the stomach to fight and *everyone* expects them to do that again. Why else would Dems act the way they are? They're fully confident that this is a win-win no matter what happens.

The question comes down to this: are we going to fight these people or not? We've got an election in two years, it's time to start inspiring people. It's time to show people what we stand for and what our will is.

Otherwise Bush might as well sign this bill and be done with it.

 

Let's all praise Nancy Pelosi. She's in the middle east working to improve our relationship with shameless terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who have sworn they'll kill everyone in the United States. This action has won her accolades from every person who seems to matter: Jimmy Carter, Democratic leaders in this country, Communists, lunatics, bloodthirsty Islamic zealots...

I can't help but wonder when Pelosi is going to have time to go to the President's office to work with him. Funny with Bush our glorious speaker is unreasonable and demanding. With rogue states harboring our enemies she finds common ground. Maybe it's their hatred of Bush or maybe it's their repulsion of all things American. In addition, they both hate Christians and Jews and live in luxury at the expense of their native populaces.

But niceties aside, I wonder she can convince the Syrians how sorry we are for dumping carbon dioxide in atmosphere and not legalizing gay marriage five years ago. That's why terrorists really hate us right? I can't remember anymore. Seems like they used to hate us cause Bush's tax cuts.

Oh well. The point is that the Queen Bee worked her life to bust through the marble ceiling all while bouncing children on her knees only to be hammered in to line by a third world, hate filled Islamic fascist. And maybe these guys are on to something. Over there most of the women support the "troops" raising them to be good little suicide bombers. The mothers over here raise their kids to mooch off government and trash their nation at every chance. In a way, Pelosi is probably doing more to reverse the Feminist movement over there than she could ever possibly realize. Elect feminists to high office and you'll be depantsed by pathetic third world thugs on international television (and be told it's your fault).

Don't believe me? Look at what happened to France.

 

On April 2nd, the Independent newspaper in the United Kingdom released a story entitled "The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis". (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2414760.ece) The word "hostage" in this story isn't going to play well with liberals worldwide, but that isn't going to slow down the hate America first crowd who will go right to what they consider the meat of the story - namely that it's all our fault (again.)

By this point in time, this should be a non story. The entire chronicle of history is basically some white guy (probably a Christian and most likely an American) puts the screws to someone who has tan skin and a different religion. This particular case deals with low level Iranian officials in Arbil Iraq. Apparently the "botch" was that the real targets  (Mohammed Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard) weren't there. Unfortunately for the thinking population, *why* two high level Iranian military officials were in Iraq doesn't pique the curiousity of the journalists involved here. From my limited understanding there has never been any love between the Kurds and the Iranians. I'm sure there is a good explanation - too bad none of us are to be enlightened.

But I digress. The story then goes on to cast doubts about the level of Iranian military activity in Iraq. No Iranian bodies have ever been found after a suicide attack, right? Of course this contradicts the great, unbiased, bipartisan Iraq Study Group's finding that Iran *is* assisting insurgents in Iraq - but the unbiased, bipartisan mainstream media will likely forget that too.

The truth is that we don't have all the information about what is going on in Iraq behind the scenes. Our military isn't going to tell the civilian population everything it knows for obvious reasons. US forces carried out the attack themselves instead of using Iraqi security forces. Obviously army intelligence thought something big was up - and they might have been right.

But none of this is going to matter to the patriots in the Left wing blogosphere. They'll talk like they know everything and give the Iranians more leeway in shaky answers than they will give their own countrymen.

Here is the real question: What does this story change? Liberals worldwide already blame the United States for what's going on. The Iranians too, blame the United States for what is going on. Nothing's changed there. Iranian military officials were in Iraq talking to the Kurds. We didn't hop the border and grab these people. That hasn't changed anything either.

The Iranians siezed British sailors from Iraqi waters. That fact didn't come from US intelligence. The Iranians are violating the Geneva Convention by humiliating and denying their hostages a right to religion. That hasn't changed either. In fact, how does this failed US military operation change *anything* in this whole story? Do two wrongs make a right? This was a US raid, you'd think that the Iranians would strike at US forces. Why attack a third party? And why will these questions and points be largely ignored by everyone that matters?

 

Nancy Pelosi's trip to the middle east is both crass and tasteless. It would be one thing if she were over there as a private citizen on vacation. But she's over there as Speaker of the House first.

Foreign dealings are the realm of the Executive Branch for very practical reasons. Being as the Congress has 535 people in it getting a unified message from the Legislative branch is almost impossible. Only the President can send a single message to other nations.

Unfortunately, most foreign lands have no understanding of our government. For that matter, most Americans have no understanding of our government in that respect either. But I digress. The problem is that *any* the idiot speaker says over there can (and very likely will) be used against us at a later date. And since it play right in to leftist politics, there will be howls from Libs to follow through on whatever promises and illegal agreements the Queen Bee happened to mention off hand.

Liberal stupidity truly knows no bounds.

 

We have a serious problem in the middle east in the form of Iran. A few months ago the Iran, a nation sitting on one of the richest oil reserves in the world began rationing gasoline. Late last week Iran began "mending fences" with its neighbors and for years now Iran has been boasting of its nuclear bomb technology. Although these could be the actions of a nation coming in to the 21st century, it is scary to note that these are also the actions of a nation gearing up for conflict.

With all that we don't know about Iran, looking at what we do know shouldn't make anyone feel any better. Iran is a state backs known terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Iran has bragged that *when* it figures out how to build a nuke it will share it with these groups. We know that nations like France, Germany and Russia are helping to build Iran's nuclear program. The European powers have assured us that Iran is working on peaceful power plants. But these were also the same nations that assured us they weren't trading with Iraq in violation of embargos in the 1990's.

It's possible that Iran was set up. That British sailors were ordered to enter Iranian waters illegally. It's possible (and most leftists will stop reading right there and skip the next important part of this.) But the Western powers haven't made the Iranians humiliate the captured sailors. The Western powers haven't demanded the Iranians deny their captives the right to practice their religion. The Western powers haven't forced the Iranians to make outrageous demands. The Brits have produced satellite data and Iraqi witnesses who claim the English were on the Iraqi side of the border. The Iranians have produced "confessions".

Who do Elitist Liberals believe? What happened to the Geneva Convention? Leftists were beating it over our heads less than a year ago over the supposed US violations. Now that the Iranians are openly breaking it it's okay?

Let's face it, Liberals are racist. They trust and believe Iran: a nation of brown skinned, Islamists. Liberals have multiculturalism stuck so far up their a**e$ that it's coming out their mouths making them say things that defy all of the most basic common sense reactions. The Iranians torture people and behead them for crimes like "being a vampire." We know they do it because they do it in open but the self declared smartest amongst us don't believe it. Then when Leftists even hear a hint that the US is doing it in in secret it's considered #1) credible and #2) the truth. But of course we're guilty, we're a mostly white Christian nation. Can't trust us - ever heard of the Crusades? Of course mentioning Mohammed's conquest of Arabia, Mohammed's descendents destroying the kingdoms in North Africa, the Islamic incursion in to Spain, the Turkish invasions of Eastern Europe and the Muslim carnage in India (which is still going on today) is all out of bounds. It's "racist" - which is interesting cause I always thought Islam was a religion not dependent on factors like race and ethnicity.

The real genius about what the Iranians are doing right now is that they're setting themselves up to be the heroes of stupid western leftists. They're already calling the British hostages "insurgents". They're already telling us their prisons are better than Guantanamo Bay. And when they up the ante and attack us, they'll tell the libs its our fault. Idiot tools like Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi eat it up like candy.

I'm sure you lefties are going to read this as my endorsement of a war. How nice of you to stereotype me based on my ethnicity/national identity/and political beliefs. You really need to stop judging people.