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.

 

A "Chicken Hawk" is defined by people on the left as someone who supports the War on Terror but won't join the military themselves. These "Chicken Hawks" are some of the most repugnant people amongst Conservatives as far as the left is concerned due to the hypocracy. How can one be in favor of war and unwilling to fight it themselves?

Of course if you're like me, you're left wondering why the Liberal Hawk Chickens didn't all join the war effort when Clinton decided to ruthlessly massacre Serbs in that Kosovo thing, but we won't talk about that right now.

The point is that the Left tells us that they find it repulsive that someone would say one thing and act in a 180 degree different fashion. This leaves me wondering what someone who is an environmentalist warrior refusing to give up their wasteful lifestyle should be dubbed. People like Al Gore and John Travolta who chide us for living the way we do while live in giant, energy inefficient mansions and fly around in gas guzzling private jets. With what we're told is the impending environmental disaster just a few years away, you think that environmentalists would be slamming these "Green Wasters". But with one glance at my email box I can tell the most vocal Greens actually support these people.

Maybe it's because we stupid, simple people just don't understand the definitions of words like "environmental" and "global warming". After all just a few years ago I learned that I really didn't understand what "sex" and "is" were. Perhaps this is just another misunderstanding on my part.

Just like earmarks and corruption. Right after the Nov elections last fall Nancy Pelosi pledged to end rampant overspending and kick out all elected officials who committed fraud. With one of the biggest pieces of pork having just passed both houses by some of the most corrupt officials in our nation's history, one is left wondering what Liberals will say about these "Moral Corrupters". Not even William "the Refrigerator" Jefferson's sleazy actions seem to garner any stern glances from libs.

Thus we can all face the truth: as long as you say certain things and vote certain ways, you can live any way you want too and the left will let you walk. Thus we can lie, cheat, steal and murder as long as we give it a pretty face - and that is open minded.  

 

If you want Rosie to go away stop watching "The View", stop reading her blogs and just ignore her. Before Ms. O'Donnell took over the command chair, "The View" was a show only known to a few housewives. Now it carries a huge audience waiting for the next Rosie rant. Ratings is what keeps television shows from going away. By watching it, you're just aggravating the problem. By talking about it, you're just increasing the show's reach.

Pay attention because this will be my one and only column about Rosie and her brain dead show. I want it to go away, so I'm trying to ignore it.

Recently on her blog (and on "The View") Rosie has accused the Bush Administration of setting up the fifteen British soldiers for capture so that the West would have a reason to declare war on Iran. She goes on to declare that maybe the Iranians really aren't that bad of people, they're just in the way of a corporate plot to control oil in the Middle East.

Let's assume for a second that Rosie is right. Bush set those troops up just so he would have an excuse to make war on Iran and Iran is as innocent as Rosie tells us they are. In this situation I'm left perplexed by why the Iranians haven't let the soldiers go with a stern warning about never entering Iranian territory again. I would expect them to be making condemnations of the West in the media and at the UN rather than humiliating the soldiers in front of the TV cameras (which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.) I wouldn't expect the Iranians to be making all kinds of outrageous demands of the West before they let the soldiers go. That reminds me of the actions of a school yard bully who won't return a toy till their victim cries "uncle". If what Rosie says is true, the Iranians would bring forth some hard evidence that the Brits were in Iranian territory rather than relying on confessions.

Rosie is a dunce. For some reason, the stupidest people imaginable make up the leadership of the left worldwide. Rosie is just one example. But expecting Rosie to say something coherent demonstrates how stupid some of us on the right can be. We already have a pretty good idea what Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan, Hanoi Jane and other big libs are going to say so why even pay any attention to them when they speak? Just ignore them and they'll go away - just like the The New York Times, NBC, CBS and ABC. 

 

If you read the fringe news wires you'll notice another big story slipping through the gaps. Seems that California Senator Diana Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee which she was the ranking Democrat under pressure from the Senate Ethics committee. And it only took four years of Ethics committee pressure. She sat in that seat for four years (from 2001 to 2005.)

In her financial records, Feinstein failed to mention that her husband, Richard C. Blum is in charge of securing government contracts for the companies he represents (namely Perini and URS). There is no doubt at all that this a conflict of interest, but since Feinstein also sits on the Ethics Panel she could white wash her activity as well.

Officially Feinstein recused herself from activity dealing with Perini and URS contracts - but we all know how Democrats define things to favor themselves ("is" has a vague definition and "sex" excludes so many activities.) Feinstein should have left the building every time those contracts came up. But she didn't. Instead records show that at critical moments, Feinstein pressured the committee to award contracts when her pet companies were the obvious answers. Furthermore there is evidence that she might have known about the abuses at Walter Reed Hospital but ignored them.

There is no doubt that there are serious conflicts of interest going on in the Senator's background. Meanwhile the Senate continues to look in to non illegal, non unethical firings of US attorneys. But what else would you expect from brain dead leftists?  

 

Why does the Left hate George Bush so badly? When you get down to the nitty gritty of it, he hasn't done anything they would seem to dislike - and he's done a lot of things that they love. Why do you think Conservatives are often at odds with him? Let's go through some liberal victories under Bush:

Campaign Finance Reform - an unneeded, unnecessary attack on Freedom of Speech. Jokingly dubbed "The Incumbent Protection Act" it was backed overwhelmingly by Democrats (and the "maverick" John McCain) this law makes illegal political ads by independent groups during campaigns. This law does what liberals have only dreamed of: silencing political opposition. Not even their "Hate Speech" laws have had the power to do that. Bush pledged not to sign this bogus legislation, but when push came to shove did it anyway.

Federalizing Baggage Screeners - in the wake of 9-11 airport security came under the microscope of the left. Even though the screeners on 9-11 did nothing wrong and even followed their job, liberals screamed that the same government that has failed on education, welfare, the post office, road construction and other easy projects would get airline safety right. I'm less likely to think leftists care about protecting our citizens and more likely to believe they wanted another labor union to contribute to liberal Democrats. Even with this in mind, Bush signed the legislation anyway. Oh joy.

Amnesty for Illegals - Nothing makes me laugh more than when I read some left wing idiot writes about how Bush should give these ungrateful lawbreakers everything they want. The problem is that Bush is actively trying to give these ungrateful lawbreakers everything they want. The President actually coined the phrase "...doing jobs Americans don't want to do." Bush pushed the Congress in 2006 to get an amnesty bill to his desk. This action is one of the big reasons that Republicans lost in 2006.

The Education Joke - We're spending more money than any other nation at any point in history on education and we're producing good liberal students who think that Global Warming is real science and that things are worst for minorities than at any other point in our history. It's good that these students are incapable of reading or they might learn the truth. But at least they vote Democrat and that's all that really matters. Thank Bush for letting Kennedy write one of the education bills early in the administration. It only took the drunken Senator a couple of months to go to the floor of the Senate and denounce his own bill for not spending enough.

"The New Tone" - When Bush first took office he decided to "change the tone" in Washington. Namely, he broke tradition and kept most of the people Clinton employed. To bad the left had other ideas. Most of the leaks in this administration have come from Clinton hold overs trying to undermine the President's initiatives. "The New Tone" has built up to the present day attorney non-scandal. Had Bush just fired everyone not connected to his campaign like every other administration we wouldn't be subject to the media enema we're getting now.

Bush's Green House - Long before Al Gore's energy and resource sucking 10k mansion was even envisioned in blueprints, Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas was already conserving water and using less energy than the average American's. Naturally the unbiased, non partisan media isn't going to give any attention to this fact instead focusing on Bush's "big oil buddies". Lefties should be praising the President for his conservation efforts.

The Patriot Act - The left is hammering the Patriot Act for invading the privacy of Americans. Hard to believe that Liberals who want lists of everyone with a license to carry a concealed weapon, want the IRS to know every single dollar you make and where you spend it, laws dictating what kind of a car you can own, what kind of a house you can live in, how much internet access you can use and what kind of television and radio shows you can listen too is concerned that the government is invading people's personal lives.

I could go on with more examples, but I think the point is clear. Bush should be a hero to the left, but because of his Republican label they're all going to reject him. Talk about non judgemental and non stereotyping. Now that's open minded.

 

I don't know why I'm even wasting my time writing this cause the people it would apply too aren't going to listen.

Iran is clearly violating the Geneva Convention. You remember, that document that was a fad with liberal bloggers and the unbiased, non partisan media a few years ago every time Guantanamo Bay came up? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Iran was one of the signers of Geneva and as leftists have screamed at me so often, once you sign a document like that there is no backing out regardless of any other factors.

Iran's crimes violating Geneva include the following: humiliating prisoners, denying them their right to practice their own religion (Faye Turney was forced to wear a burka) and making statements publically about what they were doing.

Where is the left wing outcry? There isn't any against Iran. The usual gang of empty headed suspects are making the usual bunch of empty headed claims. The flavor of the week theory is that the Bush administration (probably from Karl Rove's desk) set this up to simply to give us a reason to attack Iran. Of course, you'd think that they would have used American troops but ideas like this never seem to occur to the smartest amongst us.

The English Government claims that their troops were captured in Iraqi waters while searching a merchant vessel for contraband. Of course, the English government has been known to lie when caught dirty. The Brits have brought forth satellite images showing that their soldiers were in Iraqi waters.

The Iranian government has also been known to lie. They say that the English invaded Iran. And as proof, they're offering us confessions from the soldiers involved. Coming from a nation that is known for its open practices of torture and human rights violations, call me suspicious.

One could argue that since the West has supposedly violated the Geneva Convention, Iran is justified in violating it as well. So we go back to the old lefty argument that two wrongs do in fact, make a right. Thus if Iran drops a nuke, it'll be okay for us to do it as well (or would that be an over response?)

Sorry I didn't mean to interrupt the investigation of no laws being broken in the eight attorneys being fired.