Sunday, December 25, 2005


Who would think that Muslims in America could be activiely plotting a nuclear terror attack? Anyone reasonable, that's who. But when U.S. government agents used electronic monitoring equipment to detect nuclear devices around (Gasp!) Mosques and the homes of Muslims in the U.S., the liberal media was (and remains) outraged. Apparently there is a right to build and use nuclear weapons in the Constitution (but only if you use them against Americans).

"It is a waste of time, it is a waste of resources and it is causing us to be concerned about our citizenship, our constitutional rights," Nihad Awad, of CAIR, told CNN. A waste of time? I'd bet stopping innocent Muslim flight students for questioning would have been a "waste of time" to this moron as of 9/10/01. If any group would detonate a nuke on our soil, it would probably be a Muslim terrorist cell, so it's perfectly reasonable to target these groups for homeland security purposes. As for civil rights, these types of sweeps are about as non-invasive as it gets.

But none of that matters to the liberal media. According to them, the Muslims in the U.S. are beyond reproach. If it makes Bush look like big brother, they'll run with pretty much anything these days.

I once visited a Mosque in Madison, Wisconsin, just to see what it looked like and how the worship service was conducted. During the "sermon" portion of the service, the Imam got up and ranted for about 20 minutes about how terrible the U.S. and Israel were. I suspect that this "sermon" is repeated millions of times per year in Mosques throughout the world, on a daily basis. Accordingly, if any place should be targeted as a potential meeting place for terrorists in the U.S., it would be a Mosque.

No offense to our innocent Muslim friends, but you've made no effort to distance yourselves from a pretty bad crowd, and must accept the consequences that follow.

Sunday, December 18, 2005


Egomaniac, sunglasses-wearing song-and-dance man Bono, of the world-famous arena-rockers U2, has been named Time magazine's "Person of the Year," along with Bill and Melinda Gates. His contribution? Urging government leaders to cancel third world debts. Here's the criteria for the award:

The aim is to pick "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse."

Did Bono "embody what was important" about anything this year? If by "important" Time means that he (or, more likely, his staff) has worked dilligently on the thoroughly idiotic policy of debt "forgiveness." As any thinking person knows, the nations whose debts we are asked to forgive were NOT innocent bystanders to their own misfortunes. And if we forgive the debts of corruption-ridden governments whose own mishandling of money was the cause of these debts in the first place, with NO corresponding demands for internal reform, we essentially wipe the credit card ledger clean and encourage the same behavior that got them there in the first place. Not only that, but many of these dicatorships depend on just this sort of aid to prop up their socialist/communist governments, which have no hope of succeeding on their own. By writing them no-strings-attached checks, we help to perpetuate tyranny.

While the debt forgiveness program has little appeal to people who understand international relations and economics, it has immense appeal to people in the media and entertainment worlds because it sounds compassionate. Every time Time magazine nominates someone like Bono, it encourages people to think that the well intentioned, but in reality stupid, policy suggestions of know-nothing entertainers are worth giving a fair hearing. Bono should do us all a favor and stick to music. On second thought, maybe he should give that up too. After all, his band hasn't put out a good album since "The Joshua Tree" about 20 years ago.

Next year's Person of the Year? I'm betting on Jessica Simpson.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005


Liberals revealed their true selves again this week in their response to convicted, cold-blooded murderer "Tookie" Williams' death by lethal injection and their conflicting response to President George W. Bush's admission that some of the pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMDs was wrong. In "Tookie's" case, the liberals completely forgot his former misdeeds, including the murders of four people who did nothing more than try to run a business and make a living, while glorifying his alleged authorship of an anti-gang children's book (which apparently erases all moral culpability). In Bush's case, the liberals finally got what they wanted--an admission that some of the Iraq intelligence was wrong--yet they're still calling for Bush's execution (see graphic), because "Bush Lied, People Died." To them, someone making the "mistake" of murdering American citizens, never admitting it, and then writing a little-known children's book about gangs makes a person less deserving of death than someone responsible for liberating a nation filled with oppressed people based on questionable intelligence. Are these people nuts?

If you'd like to see a great example of the lunacy of the left (and distasteful protesting) during the leadup to and aftermath of the Williams execution, read this article and, when you're good and mad, check out this man-on-the-scene reporting, which is hillarious.

Author's Note: Like many liberals, I oppose the death penalty, not because of "racism" or other idiotic reasons, but instead because the government has and will continue to wrongfully convict a small number of individuals. Further, I believe that these prisoners could be better used as slave laborers for the benefit of others, so that they could give back something to the society from which they took so much, rather than as an endless irritant in our courts. If a life worse than death is provided for them, why not keep them alive?

Thursday, December 08, 2005


What in the hell is wrong with liberals these days? For starters, they seem to have completely forgotten history. They are constantly criticizing Bush and comparing him to Hitler. But at the same time, they praise people like the late Yassir Arafat, Al Qaeda "detainees," and even Saddam Hussein. If liberals hate Hitler so much, it's worth asking what a Nazi is, isn't it?

Maybe it's someone who denies the holocaust occurred, like soon-to-be-liberal-hero (when we and/or Israel finally attack) "President" Mahmoud Amadinejad of Iran. Or maybe it's the Palestinians, who also seem to be in favor of wiping the Israel (and the Jews) "off the map." The following graphic is instructive:

But all of these things can be said about liberals too, which is the height of irony. A religion/political movement like Wahabbism, which denigrates women, targets civilians militarily, accepts the coexistence of no other religion (sorry liberals, that includes atheism), and has no respect for individual rights or civil liberties would, logically, repulse liberals. Unfortunately, they're too stupid/ignorant to realize that in all their Bush-bashing, Christian-hating fervor they've come to accept a movement than is logically a hundred-million times less tolerant, more homophobic, less rights-respecting, and just about every other bad thing, than Christian conservatism.

I guess the Soviet term for Cold War liberals, "useful idiot," is an equally good description of Islamoliberals today. So who's more of a Nazi, George w. Bush or his leftist opponents? To answer that question, just look to the Wahabbis' most adamant supporters: The American left.

Thursday, December 01, 2005

If you can stand it, try reading this column in the Village Voice, which compares the Bush administration to the "arch-conservatives" that ran the Soviet Union. Here is the opening to this blind-eyed view of history:

When the Soviet Union was still around, thousands of American students became Kremlinologists, counting words and deconstructing seemingly innocuous phrases in the speeches of the secretive arch-conservatives who ruled that crumbling empire.

Huh? As you may have guessed, the intellectual honesty (and rigor) of this column doesn't get much better. Here is the picture accomanying the column, which implies Bush is "playing God" with Iraqi children:

I guess this picture, which no doubt represents many of the children living under Saddam's utopia, wasn't available:

But who cares what happens to the Iraqis anyway, so long as a Democrat gets elected. This column proves one thing at least: Liberals never let facts get in the way of their arguments.

How pathetic.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?