MULS Federalistas

Guys that need a new job

2006-10-24T16:44:00.000-07:00

Jim Talentdeweb06.html Dave Reichert]

Another list of good articles

2006-10-24T10:32:00.000-07:00

Jon Kyl Rick Renzi J.D. Hayworth John Doolittle Richard Pombo Brian Bilbray Marilyn Musgrave Doug Lamborn Rick O'Donnell Christopher Shays Vernon Buchanan Joe Negron Clay Shaw Bill Sali Peter Roskam Mark Kirk Dennis Hastert Chris Chocola John Hostettler Mike Whalen Jim Ryun Anne Northup Geoff Davis Michael Steele Gil Gutknecht Michele Bachmann Jim Talent Conrad Burns Jon Porter Charlie Bass Mike Ferguson Heathe r Wilson Peter King John Sweeney Tom Reynolds Randy Kuhl Robin Hayes Charles Taylor Steve Chabot Jean Schmidt Deborah Pryce Joy Padgett Melissa Hart Curt Weldon Mike Fitzpatrick Don Sherwood Linco ln Chafee Bob Corker George Allen Frank Wolf Mike McGavick Dave Reichert

List of Great Articles on Republican Candidates

2006-10-24T10:29:00.000-07:00

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

NOW BUSH KNOWS WHAT NOT TO DO

2006-02-21T18:50:00.000-08:00

Bush is standing firm on his quest to sell our nation's port security to an arab country. I guess it's multiculturalism. If good old fashioned reason and common sense haven't affected him yet, may be this will:

JIMMY CARTER SUPPORTS THE DEAL!!!!!!!!

The entire Republican Party does not support this deal, but Jimmy Carter does. Shouldn't that be enough not to support something?

If he couldn't stand up to the Iranians then, why should Bush listen to him now (or ever).

YET ANOTHER BUST

2006-02-19T19:12:00.000-08:00

Although you wouldn't know it from the headlines, the media's cheap attempt to smear Dick Cheney has utterly failed. Here's a headline from today at ABC.com, in a clear attempt to put new spin on the subject:

Cheney's PR: How Not to Do Damage Control

In the story, the "reporter" tells it like it isn't: "At best, it has fed criticism of Cheney as aloof and isolated. At worst, critics suggest, it has shown a president unable to control his own vice president."

Here's how it really is, as reported correctly in the National Ledger:

Poll: Only 27% Say Dick Cheney Accident Raises Serious Questions

I guess that no one cares, except the Democrats. That's probably why Google News still has literally hundreds of stories on the topic, which by now is nothing more than pure spin from the "objective" media. Enough already. You lost.

NOTHING BETTER TO DO

2006-02-15T18:47:00.000-08:00

What in the hell is wrong with the media? They took a hunting accident and turned it into a homicide. Check out these "objective" headlines:

Cheney under fire as victim worsens (The Age)

Cheney could face charges in shooting (AP)

Man Cheney shot has heart attack (BBC)

Right now, there are 4,368 stories on Google News about this accident. If this is a story, and Iran's nuclear capability isn't, one thing is pretty clear: journalists, by and large, are idiots.

NEGOTIATION: IT ALWAYS WORKS

2006-02-09T08:47:00.000-08:00

This was one of the public comments to a USA Today story about President Bush's speech, during which he described how a 2002 al Qaeda terror attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles was stopped:

This will all be mute soon enough. The Dems will take back the senate in 06 and both the white house and congress in 08. Then we can negotiate for peace after that. No more fear, no more lies, no more war.

What the liberal who posted this comment doesn't know is that these people are the ones they have to "negotiate for peace" with:

Good Luck!!!

A BAROMETER OF STUPIDITY

2006-02-04T17:19:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog that predicts whether 6 more weeks of winter are in store, popped out and saw his own shadow. To some, this means six more weeks of winter. To others, Phil presents an opportunity for an utterly moronic publicity stunt, as noted by USA Today:

The National Environmental Trust said it's groundhog-suit-wearing human "will ignore his shadow and will instead rely on global warming evidence to forecast an early spring."

This is the current status of the global warming debate. Kyoto didn't work out, so the left is putting a guy in a groundhog suit, sending him to Punxsutawney, and having him act as the "shadow" of a real groundhog.

These people are truly becoming pathetic.

GOING UNDERCOVER

2006-02-04T11:18:00.000-08:00

A funny thing happened recently when I signed up for comment posting privileges Daily Kos, the left-wing nutcase blog, and began posting comments. My first post was around Christmas, when I commented that people should go to a "progressive" church and wrote "God bless you." Someone commented on my comment, saying only "Who is this guy?" Apparently they were surprised that someone would have a positive interest in religion and visit that website.

My second post was more nefarious. I commented on one of the "fighting Dem" stories, which feature liberal veterans running for office. I noted (consistent with liberal values, I might add) that people who have served in the military should not hold public office. After all, anyone who would willingly go slaughter innocents, kick in doors in the middle of the night, and sexually assault random females in Iraq (like all the other troops) is not particularly "progressive," and therefore should not play a role in the Democrat party. The regulars were not pleased. The first response said "Do you want us to lose?" (Never mind that the principle that veterans shouldn't serve in government is totally abhorrent.) Other posts followed, basically calling me an out of touch "revolutionary" (which is now apparently passe). I responded that Adolf Hitler served in the military before holding public office (he was also a vegetarian, by the way), and that this proves the point that you can't trust military hawks in positions of power. After that, the other posters flagged my comment for the "parent," who thereafter prevented me from posting and erased all my previous posts.

I acted as an honest liberal, and now I'm banned from Daily Kos for life. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

WHAT A CONTRAST!

2006-01-31T18:59:00.000-08:00

Listening to Bush tonight, I couldn't help thinking that the Democrat/Media's main issues (e.g., whether Bush gleefully watched "Brokeback Mountain," whether abortion on demand will survive into the Iranian nuclear age, whether a photo of Jack Abramoff and Bush exists) are 100% irrelevant to the pressing issues right now. How about America's competitiveness in the world? Bush is at least addressing the issue where it's most important: science/math education and freeing trade restrictions and taxes. The Democrats? They clapped when the value of the "American worker" was praised, but have no program, except for one that doles out favors to special interest groups, such as teachers' unions. Bush ripped the Islamofascists, but the Dems have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO OFFER, except criticism of the President's surveillance program and the lack of a "timetable" for pulling the troops out of Iraq.

The Democrats are utterly irrelevant. Never vote for them.

OSAMA JOINS DEMOCRAT DRUMBEAT

2006-01-21T13:11:00.000-08:00

Had enough of the "love the troops, hate the idea of them winning" rhetoric of the Democratic party? If so, you'll loooove this column, which compares the indistinguishable quotes of Howard Dean, John Murtha, and Osama bin Laden. Who says they're traitors?

LIBERAL EDUCATORS GET RESULTS

2006-01-19T17:38:00.000-08:00

How do American students stack up against their foreign counterparts? If they lived in Asia, they would probably take the short bus. Perhaps the most damning indictment of liberal, teachers'-union-run public schools ever, this functional capacity evaluation proves that college students are practically illiterate when asked to take on common tasks. Guess which courses of study are the least educational? If you don't know, here they are:

The survey showed a strong relationship between analytic coursework and literacy. Students in two-year and four-year schools scored higher when they took classes that challenged them to apply theories to practical problems or weigh competing arguments.

Competing arguments? Analytical coursework? Name a sociology, womens' studies or African American studies department where you'll hear a "competing argument." For that matter, name a public school where the bulk of the teachers aren't liberals pumping kids full of defeatist 60s rhetoric about "social justice," i.e., communism.

Oh well, at least our kids will understand "diversity"!

NUCLEAR WORRY OVERSTATED, SAY MUSLIMS

2005-12-25T11:35:00.000-08:00

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.

SONG-AND-DANCE MAN NAMED PERSON OF THE YEAR

2005-12-18T05:49:00.000-08:00

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.

A STUDY IN CONTRASTS

2005-12-14T17:31:00.000-08:00

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?

ISLAMOLIBERALISM--THE NEW NAZI MOVEMENT

2005-12-08T18:21:00.000-08:00

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.

RECONSTRUCTING HISTORY

2005-12-01T10:09:00.000-08:00

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.

CELEBRITIES TOAST ENEMY APOLOGIST

2005-11-25T12:25:00.000-08:00

Lending legitimacy to his undeserved Nobel Prize award, celebrities are lining up to celebrate the achievements of Mohamed ElBaredi. You may remember ElBaredi as the important-sounding International Atomic Energy Agency head who used diplomacy in the vastly "successful" efforts to stop Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. Well, maybe not successful in any measurable sense. But in left-wing moonbat terms, he's as successful as they come, largely because he pooh poohs the use of force, unlike cowboy George W. Bush.

Next time you're children are hiding under a desk during a nuclear bomb scare at school, you'll know who to thank.

SHOULD WE APOLOGIZE?

2005-11-22T17:24:00.000-08:00

Dear Democrats and Media Members,

For the eight-gazzillionth time, some of the actions taken in the Iraq War were "mistakes." Number one, we were probably far too nice to the so-called "insurgents," which encouraged them to fight harder because they had no fear of the consequences. If we would have done it right, they would be dead, not rotting away in Abu Grhaib Prison. Number two, we should have watched the CIA closer to make sure that subversive MoveOn.org-contributing political operatives (i.e., Joseph Wilson) were not put on fact-finding missions for the CIA (by their wives) where the facts were found before the mission began. Number three, we probably should have killed Saddam Hussein without a trial. After all, his defense lawyers might be alive if we had, and no one really doubts his guilt anyway (except Ramsey Clark). And finally, we should have built military bases on the Iranian border immediately after the occupation, just to scare the Mullahs in that country and make them realize our non-proliferation threats are credible.

Now it's your turn. How about admitting your military failures to the victims of 9/11, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the 1st World Trade Center bombing, the Embassy workers in Tanzania and Kenya, the fallen soldiers in Somalia (and the people there), and the millions people living in Communist regimes (including Vietnam)? Your weak-kneed policies, always seeking to appease dicators--Castro, Kim Jong Il, the Iraqi "insurgents," Osama, the Somali warlords, et. al--are what provide the short-term solutions and the cause the long-term problems.

Your "solutions" encourage our violent, barbarian-like enemies to attack us again, and again, and again. In every confrontation, from Vietnam to Iraq, your party has sought to "understand" our enemies by capitulating to them. You see this as a solution, but our enemies see this as weakness, and weakness always begets violent challenge. But in any event, you don't want to "win" anyway. You think America is so terrible that us winning in war and instilling our democratic values (like we did in Germany and Japan) is always a loss to the people on the other side--even if those people have NO freedoms at all. If you hate American values and democracy this much, why don't you go live in Cuba, where everyone has their own private doctor and a '57 Chevy (and nothing else, including civil liberties). If that's good enough for them, it's good enough for you.

Now you say that "staying the course" in Iraq should be replaced with a weaker solution, such as a gradual pullout. You say that the Administration should admit its mistakes and chart a different course. Yet you offer no solution that won't embolden our enemies. You want to turn this conflict into another Vietnam by preventing the troops on the ground from winning the war. For your own political gain, you want the troops to fail. No way.

You want an apology? You first.

A MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE?

2005-11-21T19:27:00.000-08:00

It's hard to fathom why a Vietnam veteran would join the anti-war forces of Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore. After all, Sheehan and Moore are the successors to the hippie protesters that spit on the troops and called them "baby killer!" at the end of the Vietnam War. Anybody with an understanding of history would realize that the U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were beaten in the Capitol building, college campuses, and the editorial pages of newspapers--and not on the battlefield. Now Congressman John Murtha (D-Pa.), a veteran and former POW, is essentially lending aid and comfort to those seeking to reignite the Vietnam era, as perfectly shown by this "thank you" in the uber-liberal "Progressive" magazine. Maybe it's mind control?

The main reason that Democrats and the media give so much credence to the opinions of people like Murtha and Sheehan is because they've "been there" in terms of sacrifice (and propaganda value) and agree with the liberal ready-to-cave attitude toward Iraq. What the Democrats and media ignore are the people who "are there" today. This was perfectly illustrated by the Democrats' outrage when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) restated the words of a Marine currently in Iraq who dared to criticize the opinions of the vaunted Rep. Murtha, who is, uhh, a veteran after all.

If this keeps up, Bernard Goldberg will fill an encyclopedia before he retires.

DEMOCRATS GET WHAT THEY ASKED FOR

2005-11-19T04:40:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, the media and Democrats were dancing in the streets after Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine Colonel, introduced a Bill favoring an expedited pullout from Iraq. According to the always-unbiased Chicago Tribune, Murtha is "one of the House's most respected hawks." And he's also a Democrat. Surely, the media/Democrats thought, his call for withdrawal will carry a great deal of weight, right?

Wrong. Last night, the Republicans in the House called for a vote on a non-binding resolution with similar language. Here is the relevant language:

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

If the Democrats were honest about their anti-war, hippy-like stance on Iraq, they would have voted that their "sense" was that a termination of the Iraq conflict was appropriate. Instead, the Democrats freaked out big-time. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the resolution "a disgrace." Tensions boiled over when Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) made the following statement on the floor of the House about an earlier conversation with a Marine colonel:

"He asked me to send Congress a message--stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message--that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

The Democrats started screaming for her words to be taken down, and Schmidt (for no good reason) apologized. But after all the shrill debate, the Democrats were forced into putting their stances on the record. The vote was 403-3 against the resolution, with even Murtha in the majority. Ha ha ha!!!

In voting for the resolution, the Democrats were forced to choose between their base and their kooks. In voting at all, the Democrats would either alienate their base, the Commie kooks (Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, et al), or the so-called "moderates," i.e. union liberals, who (stupidly) vote Democrat but generally support the war.

Finally, someone knows what they're doing on Capitol Hill. It's about time.

WOODWARD TELLS TRUTH, MEDIA THROWS FIT

2005-11-18T04:49:00.000-08:00

The whole Hillary Plame affair seems to be winding down. In the beginning, the more optimistic members of the left/media complex anxiously waited for Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to hand out their "Fitzmas" gifts--an indictment of Karl Rove, maybe even Cheney or Bush. Eagerness turned to slight dismay when only the Vice President's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted, and not even for revealing Plame's identity as an alleged "deep cover" operative. Instead, he was charged with lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters, during which he allegedly leaked her name. At least that gave Chris Matthews something to talk about.

Now Watergate reporter Bob Woodward, a paragon of virtue on the left, has come out and said that Libby may be telling the truth. It turns out that someone else leaked Plame's identity to Woodward, and it wasn't Libby. So what will the media say now?

Now they're turning on Woodward, saying he's gotten too close to the institutions of power and chronicling his fall from the grace since the days of his Watergate reporting. Here's what our buddy Ariana Huffington, speaking for the mainstream left, had to say:

"Hear that hissing noise? That's the sound of the air being let out of Woodward's reputation."

Yeah, he's no Mary Mapes. That's for sure.

I'LL DOUBLE YOUR STANDARD...AND RAISE YOU 50

2005-11-16T18:52:00.000-08:00

I usually laugh at liberals and their socialist fatwahs against America. Media bias? It's just par for the course. But once in awhile, the mainstream media applies such a double standard that I seriously, and I mean SERIOUSLY, wonder whether there is some sort of socialist conspiracy going on underneath our noses.

Today was one of those days. If you haven't heard (and you probably didn't), Hillary Clinton held a birthday party for 88-year-old Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) in the one-time house of Frederick Douglass. And why is that such a big deal? Well, Senator Byrd was a Ku Klux Klan member during the 1940s. But he was more than your average member, he was elected to the office of Kleagle, and then elevated to the office of Grand Cyclops in that venerable organization. What has he done since? He filibustered by speaking for hours on end when the Senate debated the 1964 Civil Rights Act that, despite his (and other Democrats') efforts, eventually passed with wide Republican support. And a few years back, he noted during a TV interview that he's seen a lot of "white niggers" during his time.

No big deal, right? Well, it was a national crisis when Trent Lott, during a birthday party, said that things would have been better had Strom Thurmond been elected President. As you may recall, Strom Thurmond (like Byrd) was a segregationist. Based on this offhand remark alone, made while singing the praises of an equally old Strom Thurmond, the media immediately jumped to the conclusion that Lott wished that segregation would have continued. They demanded that he apologize, on non-segregation-supporting Black Entertainment Television, and he was eventually forced to resign his leadership position in the Senate (in a fit of Republican weakness).

There is a virtual silence in the media today about the Byrd b-day affair at Douglass' house. Objectively speaking, the decision to hold this party at that location was much, much more offensive than Trent Lott's comment ever could be. Not only was Byrd a former segregationist, he was a Klan member and a strident opponent of civil rights. As someone who isn't as "race conscious" as most liberals, even I can see how off-color it is to defile Douglass' house with the presence of such a man.

So what is the non-silent media saying? They're presenting this as an "attack" by Jeanine Pirro, Clinton's future opponent for her annointed NY Senate seat. What a load of s%#@!!!!

UNLIKE GINSBURG, ALITO NOT A "CONSENSUS NOMINEE"

2005-11-15T18:27:00.000-08:00

In a 1980s job application, soon-to-be Justice Alito said that the "right" to abortion is not found in the Constitution. Worse still, he implied that affirmative action is unconstitutional. These wild, extreme beliefs put him much farther on the ideological extreme that Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Or so the Washington Post would have you believe....

Guess which of Ruth's beliefs made her a "consensus nominee":

1. Government should pay for abortions.
2. The age of "consent" for sexual activity should be 12 years old.
3. The right to consensual prostitution can be found in the text of the Constitution.
4. The right to practice polygamy can be found in the text of the Constitution.
5. Mothers' and Fathers' Days are discriminatory and should be outlawed.

Still guessing? Don't worry, the Post assures us that Ruth hasn't made outlawing Mothers' Day her "life's work."

And the mainstream media wonders why its readership is declining.

WHAT A RESUME!!!!

2005-11-14T19:18:00.000-08:00

A nuclear bomb, in a political sense, will detonate tomorrow. The cause of this explosion-to-be was the discovery of a personal statement that accompanied Judge Alito's job application for the US Attorney General's Office during the Reagan Administration. Here are the money quotes:

"Most recently, it has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly.

"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.

"I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values."

Chuck Schumer could not be reached for comment, as he was busy practicing for the Senate confirmation hearings (see picture).

With law professors like this, who needs enemies?

2005-11-12T18:29:00.000-08:00

I doubt this would ever occur at little ol' MULS, but check out how Yale Law treats its alumni who have been nominated for the supreme court:

NY Times: Yale Law Frets Over Court Choices It Knows Best

Great quote from the Federalist Society president at Yale:

"Joshua Hawley, a third-year student and the president of the law school's chapter of the Federalist Society, a conservative group, said he hoped the school had learned a lesson from the earlier experiences.
"The faculty was perhaps somewhat chastened," Mr. Hawley said, "by the charge that they had stabbed a colleague in the back and then had stabbed a former student in the back.""

Touche!

DEMOCRATS SWEEP ELECTIONS

2005-11-10T18:08:00.000-08:00

Tim Kaine and John Corzine may have won the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. And both of them may deserve to be in jail, if only for sedition. But this fiesty pol has won an even greater victory--being elected to the school board in Riverside, California from prison. Jim Traficant would be sooooo proud. Click here to read all about it!

WORKS EVERY TIME

2005-11-06T17:36:00.000-08:00

Could you imagine if the Mexican immigrants in the U.S. decided they would torch cars, schools, and government buildings throughout this country because they were "disadvantaged"? What do you think would happen if roving gangs of kids terrorized entire neighborhoods and the police completely lost control? Hopefully it wouldn't be what's happening in France, where the government is holding administrative meetings to decide what to do about a similar problem in Paris and its suburbs. That's right, they're holding meetings, on the 10th day of the riots--to decide what to do. Last time I checked, a violent response got pretty good results. But in "enlightened" France, such a response is unthinkable. Prepare for surrender.

This, my friends, is what happens when you run a government that has pacifism as its foreign and domestic policy. How quickly they've forgotten the lessons of WWII. Better call the UN, hold yet another meeting, and then hope that the violence dies down on its own. Word to the wise: It won't.

THOSE ARE SOME EXPENSIVE MOVIES!

2005-11-02T09:55:00.000-08:00

Movie downloads could cost Racine man up to $600,000

Retiree faces suit over grandson's home computer file sharing

By BOB PURVIS
bpurvis@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Nov. 1, 2005

A Racine man who says he doesn't even like watching movies, let alone copying them off the Internet, is being sued by the film industry for copyright infringement after his 13-year-old grandson downloaded four movies on their home computer.

The Motion Picture Association of America, on behalf of three major Hollywood studios, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Fred Lawrence, a 67-year-old retiree. The suit seeks as much as $600,000 in damages for downloading four movies over iMesh, an Internet file-sharing service.

The lawsuit comes after Lawrence, a former employee of Snap-on Inc. and seasonal worker for the City of Racine, refused a March offer to settle the matter by paying $4,000.

"First of all, like I say, I guess I'd have to plead being naïve about the whole thing," said Lawrence. He said his grandson, then 12, downloaded "The Incredibles," "I, Robot," "The Grudge," and "The Forgotten" in December, not knowing it was illegal.

Lawrence said his grandson downloaded the movies out of curiosity. The family already owned three of the four titles on DVD, and his grandson deleted the computer files immediately, he said.

"I personally didn't do it, and I wouldn't do it. But I don't think it was anything but an innocent mistake my grandson made," Lawrence said.

He hasn't settled because he doesn't have the money, and a lawyer said the settlement was likely a scare tactic that wouldn't result in a lawsuit. Now he doesn't know what he's going to do.

"I can see where they wouldn't want this to happen, but when you get up around $4,000 . . . I don't have that kind of money," Lawrence said. "I never was and never will be a wealthy person."

The movie industry readily concedes it won't gain public sympathy suing someone like Lawrence, but a spokesperson said that's not the point.

"We're not asking for anyone's sympathy. We are asking for people to understand the consequences of Internet piracy," said Kori Bernards, vice president of corporate communications for MPAA.

Bernards said the problem is the movies Lawrence's grandson downloaded were then available to thousands of other users on the iMesh network.

"Basically what you are doing when you use peer-to-peer software is you are offering someone else's product that they own to thousands of other people for free, and it's not fair," Bernards said. "People need to understand that when they are swapping movies online they are not anonymous, and that they will face consequences like this lawsuit."

Bernards said that illegal downloading costs the movie industry an estimated $5.4 billion a year.

The industry has filed hundreds of lawsuits against users of peer-to-peer file sharing networks, joining the music recording industry in the crackdown on such networks, said Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based organization dedicated to protecting civil liberties on the Internet.

Most cases have been settled out of court, he said, and the ones that aren't are moving slowly through the system, where judges have been baffled with how to treat many of the lawsuits.

"Frankly, most of the reaction I have seen from the federal courts has been bewilderment. They aren't used to having hundreds of people who can't afford attorneys coming in not knowing why they are there in the first place," von Lohmann said. Lawrence's case fits the norm in many of the file-sharing suits, where companies go after the parent or grandparent paying for Internet service, although it is often a child doing the downloading.

In some instances, parents have argued they didn't do the downloading and won, only to have the industry sue the child.

"That is not a very pleasant outcome, but if you truly can't afford it, it's probably easier for your child to file for bankruptcy than for you to file for bankruptcy," von Lohmann said.

While the recording industry focuses on people who have downloaded hundreds of songs, it's not uncommon for movie studios to target people with just a few movie downloads, von Lohmann said.

"I think the attitude most of the time is, 'the odds are this wasn't your first one,' and that means sometimes they do hit someone who has downloaded very few movies," von Lohmann said.

Von Lohmann and Bernards said it is unlikely that the studios would seek the maximum penalties of up to $150,000 per movie, but that is of small consolation, said Lawrence, who hasn't even seen the movies cited in the lawsuit.

"To be honest with you, I don't even watch movies very often."

Ok, so stupid kid downloads movies from internet. Fine. But I think the problem was that he allowed them to be uploaded from his computer. That’s the crime, as I understand it. And if I’m wrong, let me know. So the out of touch with reality MPAA decides that suing an old man for $600,000 is the right answer. WRONG! MPAA, please demonstrate the damages you incurred as a result of this kid downloading these four movies, three of which he already owned. So you lost out on $20 because the kid didn’t buy the DVD from Best Buy. Fine, then sue him for $20. Or, maybe the movie industry should learn how to embrace technology and get people on their side instead of making national headlines by suing senior citizens for ungodly amounts of money.

A NEW MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT, JUSTICE *

2005-11-02T09:10:00.000-08:00

This has finally made "national" news, or at least in the blogosphere. The Milwaukee Monopoly Press ran an editorial basically stating that Clarence Thomas is not really black simply because he is conservative. I'm going to reprint the editorial here, so that you won't have to register on the site to see it. The most interesting paragraph will be bolded for your reading pleasure:

Editorial: A nomination that will divide
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Oct. 31, 2005

In picking Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, President Bush gave his right flank what it wanted: a true-blue conservative. The question now is: Is Bush giving the country what it needs?

The nomination is troubling in that 1) it's liable to divide America rather than unite it, 2) it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation's rich diversity and 3) Alito has taken worrisome stands on many issues. Still, Alito deserves the benefit of the doubt until he gets his day in court - or rather before the Senate Judiciary Committee - to make the case for his confirmation.

Bush had chosen White House counsel Harriet Miers to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but many conservatives vigorously objected, questioning whether Miers had the intellectual stamina to stay conservative. The nominee withdrew her name. Now, Bush has picked Alito, a judge who may be in the archconservative mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Prior to Miers, Bush had named Appeals Court Judge John Roberts to succeed O'Connor but switched to have him succeed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in September. A guiding principle for Bush in the two previous nominations seemed to have been candidates with thin paper trails - the less to trip them up at the hearings.

Bush discarded that principle in naming Alito, who boasts a thick portfolio of opinions he's authored, the result of sitting on the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia for 15 years. Bush said that Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years." That experience, the intelligence he displays and his firm grasp of constitutional law are pluses.

But, regrettably, Bush declined to consult with Senate Democratic leaders in making his choice. A big reason President Clinton had relatively smooth sailing on his high court nominees is that he did consult with GOP leaders beforehand.

Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.

In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

Finally, many of Alito's opinions, often dissents, are worrisome. He was the sole justice on a 3rd Circuit panel in 1991 to regard a Pennsylvania requirement that women notify thir husbands before getting an abortion as not an undue burden on access to the procedure. The Supreme Court specifically disagreed with his dissent in an opinion written by O'Connor.

In 1996, he was the sole dissenter when the 3rd Circuit upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns. Also that year, he tried - in the end, futilely - to make it harder to bring discrimination complaints to trial.

These and many other issues deserve a thorough airing by the Judiciary Committee.

Charlie Sykes has found and documented the reaction all over the internet to this ridiculous editorial.

So, for future reference, when naming the members of the USSC, please use the following list: CJ John Roberts, Ruth Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter,
Stephen Breyer, *, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, (Samuel Alito).

CELEBRATING/EXPLOITING IRAQ'S 2000th DEATH

2005-11-02T04:56:00.000-08:00

If you think that the New York Times, the newspaper "of record," isn't biased, then read this column exposing the truth. Even if you know that the Times is biased, read it anyway, then memorize this example for your next coctail party.

LIBERAL TRIVIA

2005-10-26T09:56:00.000-07:00

Check out this test, which lays bare the hypocrisy of just about every major liberal you can think of. It's a great teaching tool for kids, including law students.

AN EMAIL TO JOHN NICHOLS

2005-10-25T05:19:00.000-07:00

Here is a copy of an email I sent today to The Capital Times socialist editor John Nichols:

An interesting turn of events on Madison-hero and liberal icon George Galloway.

Here's a clip of your 9/17/05 story quoting your shining knight:

"I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed 1 million Iraqis, most of them children. Most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to be born at that time."

Here's a clip from today's Financial Times:

More than $600,000 raised from allocations of Iraqi crude oil was deposited into accounts for the wife and campaign charity of George Galloway, the British member of parliament (MP), a Senate subcommittee investigating the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal alleged yesterday.

Documents, including wire transfers, as well as interviews with top officials of the Saddam Hussein regime show Mr Galloway "personally solicited and received lucrative oil allocations from the Hussein regime", the committee alleged.

Can you detect the gap between the rhetoric and the truth?

THE THIN RED LINE

2005-10-24T19:30:00.000-07:00

This picture was taken from the RevCom website, which is dedicated to furthering the Communist movement. Please scroll down.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOW CHECK OUT THIS PICTURE

2005-10-24T19:26:00.000-07:00

This picture was taken from the Democratic National Committee website.

The thin red line has ceased to exist!

A DEMOCRACY FOR THE MASSES

2005-10-23T18:43:00.000-07:00

Check out these rantings, from the wacko who runs revcom.us, about Communism and Democracy:

In a world marked by profound class divisions and social inequality, to talk about “democracy”—without talking about the class nature of that democracy and which class it serves—is meaningless, and worse. So long as society is divided into classes, there can be no “democracy for all”: one class or another will rule, and it will uphold and promote that kind of democracy which serves its interests and goals. The question is: which class will rule and whether its rule, and its system of democracy, will serve the continuation, or the eventual abolition, of class divisions and the corresponding relations of exploitation, oppression and inequality.

If you undrestand this, you're probably a Communist.

A LETTER TO CBS

2005-10-23T07:17:00.000-07:00

Here is a copy of an email I sent to CBS this morning:

I would like to lodge a complaint about the CBS Sunday Morning Journal segment covering the Toledo race riots, and yes, they were riots, although you wouldn't know that from the coverage. Your reporter's coverage of the event was dismally politically correct, as evidenced by the limits of its scope.

The story began, appropriately enough, by covering a white resident's building of a fence to keep out his black neighbor's children, his regular videotaping of black youths, and his myriad complaints about the same youths to police, whom he thought were "suspicious." Eventually, he received the support of American Nazis, who then in turn protested Toledo. So far so good.
Just when the real story had begun to develop, the plug was pulled to avoid any suggestion of political incorectness on the part of the reporter. The sad fact was that the Nazis, for all their ideological fallaciousness, were PEACEFULLY PROTESTING. Their peaceful protest was responded to with VIOLENCE, LOOTING, and ARSON on the part of some of Toledo's black residents, who your reporter completely exonerated by blaming the Nazis for inciting them. In fact, the report barely even touched on this aspect of the story at all, which, unfortunately, was not at all surprising.

It would have taken guts to accurately cover this story, and the fact that some of Toledo residents completely lack tolerance for the OPINIONS of others. In our society, we are all legally obligated to respect the opinions of others. In fact, it's written into the First Amendment. For example, veterans of the Iraq war are obligated to respect Cindy Sheehan's right to protest the war; Jews are obligated to respect the right of Louis Farrakhan to express anti-Semitic beliefs; and on and on it goes. Likewise, blacks are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to respect the expression of beliefs by others, no matter how stupid. By letting certain members of the public off the hook when they egregiously violate the rights of others, your news organization becomes complicit in the same sort of "tolerance" that accompanied violent reprisals against certain forms of speech in Nazi Germany during the 1930s. In your silence, you become more like your ideological enemies than you would ever be brave enough to admit.

Another troubling aspect of this coverage is the suggestion that black Americans just can't control themselves, and therefore can't be blamed for their conduct when incited in any way. This same attitude is expressed, unfortuately, in the low expectations of may public school and correctional systems throughout the nation, which assume, without saying so, the same thing. Low expectations, I believe, are the cause of low school performance and deviant conduct. As long as people like you are reinforcing these stereotypes, it will be almost impossible to make any improvements in our society. Not that you would care, as long as the ratings keep coming in.

Congratulations.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey C. Marty

BRIDE OF SOUTER TO JOIN HUSBAND

2005-10-03T17:51:00.000-07:00

Check out the above photo and caption. I found that on this website, which attempted to predict the direction of the Court post-2004. Not too far from the truth! Except that Kerry didn't even need to get elected. If this goes through, I will forever question why we are even bothering to vote Republican anymore.

WTF?!?!?

ABORT ALL LIBERALS

2005-10-01T10:46:00.000-07:00

If liberals practiced what they preach for others--that abortion is a "sacred right"--maybe they would have more of them and slowly eradicate their idiotic ideas from the American lexicon. Does that idea make sense? Maybe. If liberalism is caused by inherited personality traits and bad parenting. On the other hand, maybe liberalism is caused by something else: mainstream media bias, the curriculum taught in public schools and universities, MTV, bad hygiene, inflated egos, hypnotic drum circles, the color red, a desire to identify with "industrial workers" (while not working), racial animus, a desire to "stop war and end racism" (but support terrorism), etc.

If so, then aborting liberals wouldn't solve the problems caused by liberalism. Which brings me to Bill Bennett's comments this week about aborting black babies (or should I say, encouraging black women to "choose"). Here is the statement Bennett made on his radio show that has caused all the righteous indignation:

I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

Prior to this comment, a caller had been arguing that legalizng abortion has led to fewer social security revenues. The point of his argument was that but-for Roe v. Wade, more babies would have been born and the workforce would have been larger, therefore leading to more revenues to support social security, which is strained because there is a huge population of retiring baby boomers and not enough workers to support them.

Bennett argued in response that such "economic" arguments in favor of the pro-life position are stupid because you can use them in exactly the opposite way, hence the comment about blacks, abortion, and crime. Using current crime rates, which are much higher for blacks per capita than other races, and projecting those rates into the future, you could plausibly argue that aborting black babies would reduce crime--largely because the black population would decrease, therefore decreasing the higher-than-average number of criminals included in that group of people. Ceteris paribus (if all remains equal), Bennett's point makes perfect sense.

BUT THAT WAS NOT HIS POINT!!!! His point was that abortion is morally wrong, and should be argued from that standpoint, not an economic one. After saying that aborting blacks would reduce crime, he immediately qualified the comment by saying such a plan would be "morally reprehensible." That is the part all the grandstanding liberals intentionally ignored.

The perfect irony here is that liberals are the ones who dance on the graves of aborted black fetuses on a regular basis. They're the ones who try to paint black people as "victims" of racism and poverty, thereby justifying liberal support of government sponsored abortions. Bill Bennett is saying just the opposite, that abortion is wrong no matter what race is having one. The race-baiting liberals of today, in deed, are exactly what they claim to preach against.

If the press were less biased or more intelligent, or both, this would be a non-story. As it stands, there were 425 stories on Google News this afternoon. How tragic.

EU TO IRAN: I'M TELLING MOMMY!

2005-09-23T14:32:00.000-07:00

After Iran walked out of nuclear arms talks with EU powerhouses France, Germany, and Britain last month, the EU decided to get serious about the nuclear threat posed by the middle eastern nation. Accordingly, the EU is likely to accede to U.S. demands to bring Iran before the Security Council of the U.N. If Iran fails to comply with demands that it discontinue any ongoing nuclear program, it will likely face severe consequences.

Among the potential consequences are a severe condemnation by the Security Council members, which would likely consist of the Iranian representative being asked to stand in a corner of the U.N. with his face against the wall for 3-5 minutes. Other options include giving Iran a nuclear reactor and uranium enrichment technology in exchange for guarantees that it will not use that technology to develop nuclear weapons. If pressed, the Security Council members may throw in missile guidance technology to finalize the deal.

Forecasters predict that Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons until a Republican U.S. president decides to take military action against the rogue nation. Despite the existence of several U.N. resolutions requiring disarmament, and former cries for action by EU nations, the U.S. president will be roundly criticized for calling upon the use of force.

The preceding story will become completely true in the future. Stay tuned for updates.

UNLIKE GINSBURG, ROBERTS NOT "MAINSTREAM" ENOUGH

2005-09-22T18:55:00.000-07:00

As you've probably heard, Judge Roberts' nomination was voted out of committee today 13 to 5. The Gang of 5 responsible for the "No" votes include Democrat luminaries Biden, Feinstein, Durbin, Kennedy, and Schumer--all of whom are sucking up to NARAL and the rest of the fringe left for early "base" support in '08. These votes prove that no one is good enough for the Democrats, acting simply in their "advise and consent" role, unless that person is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-property confiscation, etc. This is why the Democrats will not lead the country in the foreseeable future.

I saw the most bizzarre interview with Alan Dershowitz today on Court TV (click here for his column on Roberts). He suggested that Justices Breyer and Ginsburg were "mainstream" nominees. Maybe if the pool of potential candidates were taken from the faculty of Harvard University or an Iraq War protest. In the real world, people like Breyer and Ginsburg are social radicals who exaggerate their roles as justices in order to create "rights" and a class-based system of law, despite constitutional restraints plainly implied by the text of the document itself. Further, both of these justices were voted on by a majority of Republican senators, but not because they approved of the nominees' radical ideologies. Instead, the Republican senators possess tact and an understanding of their constitutional role.

The Democrats lack any constitutional understanding whatsoever, and, moreover, don't even understand that they are out of power. Consequently, the rest of us will continue to watch these losers slink into oblivion, aligning themselves with radical leftist groups and taking positions clearly outside the mainstream of the country. At this rate, they'll never hold power again.

IS LIBERALISM A MENTAL DISORDER?

2005-09-19T19:57:00.000-07:00

Read this article, and take the free test, to determine whether you have the mental disorder otherwise known as liberalism.

KERRY/EDWARDS SHARE A CRITICAL MOMENT

2005-09-19T18:16:00.000-07:00

A few years ago, a duo named Kerry/Edwards ran for president and vice president on the same ticket. After breaking up, the two are showing signs that they may once again share a microphone soon. Both recently outlined their plans for the post-Katrina hurricane relief efforts; Edwards, who currently works at a "think tank," proposed the well-thought-out ideas of increasing the minimum wage and reinstituting the WPA; Kerry had no substantive ideas to offer, instead choosing to second-guess the president's decisions while asking for campaign contributions from his largely disbanded supporters. Both men denied any interest in a 2008 run for the White House.

If this is the competition, Hillary has nothing to worry about.

TESTING PICTURE FUNCTION

2005-09-19T18:00:00.000-07:00

It's time to start upgrading the excellent content of this blog to include pictures. Enjoy!

A MOUNTAIN AGAINST A MOLE

2005-09-19T17:21:00.000-07:00

Check out this video of Victor Davis Hanson debating Arianna Huffington on the subject of War and Empire. The result is similar to what would have happened had the 1984-version of Ronald Reagan debated the president of a high school debate club. If you went to the high school of the debate club president, you just might be able to give a victory to your fellow student, justifying it through emotional attachments. If you are capable of reasoning through problems and have a grasp of history, you would have a more difficult time. In summary: Hanson wipes the floor with Huffington. It's awesome.

BLACK HELICOPTER LANDS IN VENEZUELA

2005-09-18T14:53:00.000-07:00

Ha ha ha! This is so typical of your average Communist these days! On Friday, Grand Leader of the Endless Revolutionary Movement of the Proletarian Masses Hugo Chavez, of Venezuela, told his comrade in the media, Nightline's Ted Koppel, that the U.S. has definite plans to invade his country. Chavez railed against the alleged U.S. war plan, codenamed "Balboa," which involves--gasp!--planes and aircraft carriers. But the jig is up for George W. Bush. Now that Chavez knows about the secret plan, he's working on a "counter-Balboa plan," the results of which he described as follows:

We are coming up with the counter-Balboa plan. That is to say if the government of the United States attempts to commit the foolhardy enterprise of attacking us, it would be embarked on a 100-year war. We are prepared.

More like a "100-minute" war. All the doctors and teachers in Cuba, along with all their classic cars, couldn't save Chavez in a war with the U.S. But that doesn't matter, because none of this has any basis in reality. The only way people like Chavez (and Castro and Kim Jong Il, for that matter) can stay in power is by constantly claiming that their country's "sovereignty" is at risk from "imperialist aggression." Just take a look at today's North Korean News, which uses a similar tactic (I wrote this sentence without having even looked at the source yet! Yet it's there. It's always there.):

Anti-DPRK War Outcries of Commander of U.S. Forces in S. Korea Blasted

Pyongyang, September 16 (KCNA) -- Laporte, commander of the U.S. forces in south Korea, when interviewed by American media recently, disclosed that the United States is "modifying its military strategy in the direction of depending on ultra-modern weapons to cope with the possible outbreak of military conflict with north Korea." Rodong Sinmun Friday says this in a signed commentary.

It goes on: Multi-faceted dialogues and cooperation are now brisk between the north and the south of Korea and the six-way talks are under way to settle the nuclear issue and put an end to the military confrontation for the purpose of building confidence. The reckless remarks made by him against this backdrop, hinting at setting out a new military strategy, cannot be construed otherwise than a revelation of the U.S. design to chill the atmosphere of inter-Korean reconciliation and cooperation and provoke a war of aggression on the Korean Peninsula at any cost.

What is ridiculous is his assertion that "though the main concern of the six-way talks is focused on north Korea's nuclear capability but its conventional weapons still remain a threat that should not be ignored". He did not bother to talk nonsense that "he is aware of north Korea's massive stockpiling of chemical weapons and its biological weapons are under constant test." While paying lip-service to "dialogue" and "peace," the U.S. is pushing forward in real earnest its work to round off the preparations for a preemptive attack on the DPRK, whetting its sword for aggression behind the scene. The noisy false propaganda launched by the U.S. to charge the DPRK with the spread of weapons of mass destruction is nothing but a plot to create an international environment for mounting a preemptive nuclear attack on it. Herein lies a sinister aim of the U.S. to list the DPRK as a "dangerous state" by inventing a variety of fictions such as stories about "chemical and biological weapons". The ever-increasing danger of war on the Korean Peninsula urgently demands the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from south Korea. The United States would be well advised to stop making much ado about "threat of aggression against the south" from somebody, an old fiction, and quit south Korea as early as possible, taking with it its aggression troops.

Note the rich similarities! These people are all the same; their governments never work, so they have to constantly claim the need to "defend themselves," thereby justifying their terrible policies, which invariably lead to famine and poverty. And to think we're just a few thousand more Cindy Sheehans, Howard Deans, and Jane Fondas from the same fate!

Never vote Democrat. Never.

RELIGION-HATING LIBERALS, PART II

2005-09-17T19:47:00.000-07:00

Check out this article, detailing the hyper-political, communist-inspired American Humanist Association's condemnation of W's calling this past Friday for a national day of prayer and rememberance for the victims of Katrina. The group described the day, and Bush's religiously-tinged leadership, as "inherently exclusionary." The AHA further criticized Bush's motivation for calling on a day of prayer, describing it as an attempted coverup of his poor leadership immediately following the disaster. As you may have guessed, the finer details regarding the mayor's and governor's conduct are not discussed. They must not be praying (except for their jobs).

If you haven't read the last post yet, please do so now.

The left's hatred for religion (particularly Christianity) couldn't be better expressed than in this moronic call to exclude the very idea that God exists from all aspects of our national response to tragedies: natural disasters, war, death/dying, abortion, etc. As my last post proves, the atheist viewpoint is well represented at the collegiate level, where Communist thugs are trying to push any mention of religion out of public universities. After all, religion is "racist" (except for Islam, of course). It's a pretty safe assumption that the public high schools are doing their part as well to push the "opiate of the masses" out of public view as well.

If you're as offended as I am about the left's treatment of religion, we should write to our representatives and request that they immediately discontinue funding for all public universities that do not have a well-monitored "diversity" program that features diverse viewpoints, not just skin color. This would put a "levee" in place that stops the left from turning the campus into the equivalent of an atheistic Potemkin Village, where Christians are casually swept off the streets. In addition, the AHA would lose its fertile recruiting grounds. We might just gain some sanity, as well

A MINIATURE CULTURAL REVOLUTION

2005-09-16T08:25:00.000-07:00

I had the sureal experience of seeing a miniature version of Mao's so-called Cultural Revolution on the UW-Madison campus yesterday. Some Christian group had set itself up at on the Library Mall. The minister sat on a folding chair, perched on a stone cube, and preached to the crowd. Around him were several people holding signs saying that homosexuality, killing, stealing, etc., are sins that God does not approve of. The response of the students was one of the wierder things I've seen in recent memory.

The group of students was extremely hostile. There were members of the militant gay lobby, who wore pins with a rainbow on them, punk rock types, and other fanatical campus liberals who otherwise did not stand out. At various points, the minister would be saying something and one of the liberals would start yelling and criticizing him, usually calling the minister "racist" or Chiristianity "racist." Interestingly, the minister's counterparts seemed to be largely Asian and Latino, while all the liberals were white, except for two black men who appeared to be members of the gay lobby. In terms of "diversity," the minister's group certainly seemed to outdo the liberal group, which I'm sure the liberals would say was caused by affirmative action/diversity policies at the university, and certainly not their nearly satanic outlook.

Each time a liberal spoke, he would obviously be seeking crowd support and appeared to be putting on a show for his friends. I saw several of them, over the course of about one-half hour, slap the minister on the shoulder while making fun of him and calling him "racist." At one point, about four or five of them got onto the perhaps 5 x 5 foot platform the minister was on, while each would take turns speaking the "truth" about Christianity and try to scream over the minister. Throughout the episode, each of the liberals looked and sounded so insecure and stupid that if it weren't for their overwhelming numbers and lack of respectful conduct, each of them probably would have been too afraid to engage the minister, who was obviously much more intelligent than any of them individually (or collectively, for that matter).

Not happy to merely shout over the minister, some of the liberals brought a megaphone to the scene and began using that to completely drown out the minister's preaching. The guy on the megaphone held a little red book (I'm NOT kidding!) and read from it. Before he got started, he asked if anyone had heard of the "IWW" (Industrial Workers of the World). Some of the crowd cheered, but it was obvious that many had no idea what he was talking about (I didn't either). The "industrial worker"/UW-student with the megaphone then read what was either a song or some sort of chant from the book entitled "Christians at War," which is copied below for your reading pleasure:

Christians at War (John F. Kendrick - 1916)

Onward, Christian soldiers! Duty's way is plain; Slay your Christian neighbors, or by them be slain, Pulpiteers are spouting effervescent swill, God above is calling you to rob and rape and kill, All your acts are sanctified by the Lamb on high;If you love the Holy Ghost, go murder, pray and die.

Onward, Christian soldiers! Rip and tear and smite! Let the gentle Jesus bless your dynamite. Splinter skulls with shrapnel, fertilize the sod; Folks who do not speak your tongue deserve the curse of God. Smash the doors of every home, pretty maidens seize; Use your might and sacred right to treat them as you please.

Onward, Christian soldiers! Eat and drink your fill; Rob with bloody fingers, Christ okays the bill, Steal the farmers' savings, take their grain and meat; Even though the children starve, the Savior's bums must eat, Burn the peasants' cottages, orphans leave bereft; In Jehovah's holy name, wreak ruin right and left.

Onward, Christian soldiers! Drench the land with gore; Mercy is a weakness all the gods abhor.Bayonet the babies, jab the mothers, too; Hoist the cross of Calvary to hallow all you do.File your bullets' noses flat, poison every well; God decrees your enemies must all go plumb to hell.

Onward, Christian soldiers! Blight all that you meet; Trample human freedom under pious feet. Praise the Lord whose dollar sign dupes his favored race!Make the foreign trash respect your bullion brand of grace. Trust in mock salvation, serve as tyrant's tools; History will say of you: "That pack of Goddamn fools."

This reading was followed by fairly sparse applause. For the first time, I noticed that some police officers had shown up and were surveying the situation. This seemed to prompt the megaphone guy and his friends to quit the scene, taking the megaphone with them. I'm still not sure if the crowd thought that the megaphone guy had taken things too far when it failed to applaud more loudly. Given the karaoke-like situation, maybe the crowd wasn't very pleased with his "performance," instead of being at least somewhat offended by the arrogance of the song. Who knows?

In any event, here's a word to the wise: Never send your kids to this university. I know that many of you (and I) went there during our undergraduate years, and we still managed to escape without becoming rabid Commies. But why take the chance? If this sort of conduct is the obvious and most expected response to a minister preaching on campus, then we should all be wondering why we spend our tax dollars to subsidize this U.S. version of Red Square, where a bunch of pampered, wanna-be Robespierres can go around disrespecting the Christian religion at our expense. There is a more appropriate place for this sort of behavior: North Korea.

And for any lefty that thinks I'm advocating a suppression of "free speech," just look at yourselves and the conduct of your brethren toward this minister. It's proof positive that the left's respect for free speech extends no farther than the spouting of idiotic Communistic idealism.

BUSH APOLOGIZES, WHO'S NEXT?

2005-09-14T09:21:00.000-07:00

As you may already know, President Bush has taken responsibility for the sluggish response of the federal government in the wake of the Katrina disaster. When I looked around this morning for a story detailing the "apology," there was a surprising lack of material on the glorified event, which has mostly been buried on the mainstream media web sites. Why is that?

Here's why. In order to avoid perhaps the most obvious media bias in recent history, the mainstream press has actually downplayed Bush's "acknowledgement of responsibility" to avoid turning the camera to the most guilty parties in this fiasco--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

And their guilt is a whole hell of a lot more obvious than Bush's. Nagin had a disaster plan that he didn't even follow--leading to the deaths of dozens of people in hospitals and nursing homes--as thousands of buses sat underwater. He even let an outbound Amtrak train leave without any passengers one night before the hurricane struck; when Amtrak had offered to evacuate a few hundred residents, the mayor's office refused. Blanco dilly-dallied for two days after the hurrican hit before calling in the National Guard, causing a huge delay that facilitated much of the looting and criminal conduct that followed. As you may not know from reading the press accounts, only the governor can call the National Guard into her state.

But these obvious mistakes are of no interest to the liberals in the media, who were (and remain) too focused on the national government's shortcomings to care. When it became obvious that the Democrat-dominated local government was woefully inept, perhaps more inept than its federal counterpart, the media decided that blame just wasn't that important, anyway.

Mayor Nagin, who recently purchased a house in Dallas and enrolled his children in school there, apparently understands that one day he may take the blame for some of this. But if I were advising him, I'd tell him he has nothing to worry about, so long as a Republican was in the White House when the bad thing happened.

And one was.

IF DEMOCRATS RULED THE WORLD

2005-09-13T17:37:00.000-07:00

Here is a liberal's rendition of what type of speech GW should have given when he "apologized" for the slow response after Katrina, entitled "The Katrina Speech that George Bush Isn't Man Enough to Make." It's laden in class envy and, of course, lacks an actual plan to remedy any problems. The whole thing is worth reading, but here are a few representative passages:

But taxes are there for our common good. We have to change our minds about taxes. Not paying taxes is selfish. Paying taxes is about contributing to the common good, about being selfless and charitable. We should be happy to pay taxes because that is our social capital. That's the money we pool to make ourselves better. We should be happy to pay taxes to build a better education system, for example, so poor kids have a better chance at life, and can work themselves out of poverty.

....

We in America have forgotten that we are one big family, the family of America. Like a family, we have to learn how to take care of our own. A good, strong family stands together to help its members who are in trouble. Everyone who is in a family knows that when you are in need, you can rely on someone in your family to come through for you. And when you are doing well, you don't think twice about helping those in your family who need help.

The author's rosy, or maybe red, view of government is a laughable example of how far out of touch the Democrats are when it comes to government corruption and waste. The whole reason for lower taxes and increased privatization is that government is utterly incapable of increasing "social capital" in most cases, and it certainly isn't a very good "family" to be in (just ask any child in foster care, any prison inmate, any government hospital patient, etc.). Not only that, but the government is itself a big corporate-type entity, complete with corrupt unions and unneeded, wasteful programs (and employees) that refuse to die, a la programs in the movie "The Matrix."

In its unreality, doesn't this sound similar to something you might hear from "Uncle Joe" Stalin's political department when he ruled the Soviet Union? But this faux "speech" is all too typical of the left these days. It is yet another great example of why no one should ever vote Democrat again.

SOMETHING WORTH READING

2005-09-12T13:44:00.000-07:00

Check out this article about the logistical difficulties involved in providing aid to New Orleans. And who says journalists are uninformed?

WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?

2005-09-10T12:22:00.000-07:00

Check out this collection of video clips of Arab and Saudi Arabian television shows. The commentators, who wax conspiratorial about 9/11 and Israel, sound an awful lot like Michael Moore.

GET IN ON THE ACTION

2005-09-10T11:58:00.000-07:00

Check out this website. It's awesome.

http://anonymousliberal.blogspot.com/

LIKE A TREE FALLING IN THE FOREST

2005-09-08T11:38:00.000-07:00

As you may recall, the President appointed his father and Bill Clinton as co-fundraisers following the Katrina disaster. You may also recall that Clinton gladly accepted the appointment. The press has since gone crazy over a quote by Barbara Bush, calling her insensitive to those affected by the crisis (see last post). The media has also been in a frenzy trying to discredit W's slow response to the tragedy and its aftermath. If Bush Sr. would have done anything within their realm of outrage, you can be sure that he would have taken a boatload of criticism as well.

Which leads me back to Bill Clinton. What's he been up to? On Wednesday, about one week after disaster struck here, Clinton attended a dinner held in his honor in Uttar Pradesh, India--half a world away from the disaster site. Not that you would ever hear the mainstream press highlight that story, which stands in stark juxtoposition to the Bush family actions they're currently criticizing with such zeal. If Bush Sr. had done the same--attending a foreign dinner held for the sole purpose of inflating his ego--could you imagine the press response?

If you can't, you're probably a liberal.

HOW DARE SHE!!!

2005-09-07T14:31:00.000-07:00

Check out this editorial in today's mouthpiece of the Madison left The Capital Times. The nameless writer gets extremely exercised about the following quote by George W. Bush's mother:

Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them.

What Mother Bush is referring to is the relative quality of the surroundings of the Houston Astrodome, when compared to the Democrat-run Superdome in New Orleans. According to the Cap Times, any sort of optimism in the face of the Katrina aftermath is highly inappropriate, especially when the optimistic person lives in a "multi-million dollar" home.

No, when it comes to poverty, the liberals have a monopoly on the "appropriate" affect: a somber tone, a condemning voice, etc. Nevermind that their plans, including hellhole public housing projects and a family-busting welfare program, actually make poverty worse. In the end, that is probably why the editor is so upset about Bar's comment. It gets to the crux of the matter in that the evacuees are probably better off being relocated outside Democrat-run New Orleans than they otherwise would have been. After the chaos dies down, they will most likely get an opportunity to start over in a better environment.

I guess that Cap Times editors can mull that over in their multi-million dollar houses tonight, as they centrally-plan the fate of the poor in their minds. With any luck, they won't be able to plan anything in the actual government.

THEY'VE LOST THEIR MINDS

2005-09-06T13:52:00.000-07:00

John Nichols, the associate editor of The Capital Times, had this to say about Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House's, commitment to rebuilding the Democratic stronghold that is New Orleans:

Don't believe it. Hastert, like his congressional godfather, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, sees everything in political terms. And in the political calculus of the House Republican leadership, New Orleans and cities like it have for a long time been seen as expendable.

As you may recall, Hastert questioned the wisdom of rebuilding New Orleans because the city was (1) virtually destroyed and (2) under sea level, which places it in a precarious position should another disaster hit. Yet, according to Nichols, Hastert's real motivation is driven by "political terms."

Nichols goes on to frame Hastert's political motivations according to his own red vs. blue strategy map. For example, Mississippi should be rebuilt because rich Republicans live there; New Orleans shouldn't because it's a densely populated Democratic district, etc.

Only a liberal could think in such bone-chilling, aloof terms during a time of national crisis. Nichols completely ignores that practical difficulties and expense of rebuilding New Orleans to its prior status. Although Hastert spoke pragmatically, and perhaps a bit insensitively, he is only thinking of the good of the country and trying to contain the costs of the cleanup while preventing the consequences future disasters. Nichols, by his own analysis, demonstrates perfectly how he "thinks" about such crises, despite the fact that he tries to attribute his darkest thoughts to Hastert.

How pathetic, yet typical, of the left these days.

AN AWESOME NEW BLOG

2005-09-05T16:33:00.000-07:00

Check out my newest effort, a blog dedicated to my repressed liberal side. Click here to read the first post.

IS IT RACE, OR BEHAVIOR?

2005-09-05T13:09:00.000-07:00

Check out this article about the influence of tribalism on what happened in post-Katrina New Orleans. It's pretty enlightening.

REUTERS STORY SLIPS THROUGH THE CENSORS

2005-09-05T08:44:00.000-07:00

Kanye West and Jesse Jackson won't be too happy about this story slipping through the censors over at Reuters. A reporter interviewed a man who before the hurricane had a "complex about white people," only to lose the same after being helped by white rescuers. Others were found carrying Bibles and being consoled by church leaders who made it into the disaster zone.

Of course, the lefty journalists couldn't resist a "counterpoint" by an Atheist organization, which I'm willing to guess has very little offer in terms of hurricane relief--except for a "critical" voice:

"We're getting reports of how some religion-based 'aid' groups are trying to fly evangelists into the stricken areas and how U.S. Army chaplains are carrying bibles -- not food or water -- to 'comfort' people," Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheist, said in a statement. "People need material aid, medical care and economic support -- not prayers and preaching."

I guess that Ms. Johnson speaks for the looters, rapist, and other blame-society types with a nihilistic view of the world around them who are causing most of the problems for the actual rescuers. What New Orleans needs now, more than ever, is more religiosity and togetherness, not a bunch of whiners like these. What a shame that this woman speaks for your average liberal these days, who wants more than anything to make political hay from this crisis. How tragic.

CHILDLIKE DEMOCRATS SEEK IMMEDIATE SOLUTIONS FROM GOD-KING PRESIDENT

2005-09-04T12:58:00.000-07:00

Has anyone else noticed that the Democrats have been doing nothing more than whining incessantly in the wake of Katrina. Just look at today's edition of the Huffington Post, where almost all of the articles criticize the officials in charge of disaster management for not acting fast enough. I hate to sound like a broken record, but the people actually doing something about this situation are very likely not going to have a mindset like your average liberal, who is too busy acting as "society's critic" to actually get off his or her you-know-what and actually DO SOMETHING, such as sending in a ten dollar check to the Red Cross. Further, even when a liberal does pitch in, such as Bill Clinton did by assisting in the fundraising effort, the liberal residue will turn its anger towards him or her for not acting as a nose-in-the-air critic of President Bush.

The liberal post-hurricane refrain is starting to sound very similar to the one employed after 9/11. Immediately after that crisis, the libs criticized President Bush for waiting a whole 7 MINUTES to leave a classroom of children and do something about the attacks on the World Trade Center. Of course, Bush's approach to that disaster was far more comprehensive than the "anger management" approach the liberals would have instituted had they been in power. Still, in liberaldom, actual results have no bearing on the handling of a crisis because it's all about the "feelings" conveyed by a leader. There, as here, President Bush has failed because he failed to focus solely on the "feelings" of those hurt by the crisis, combined with some sort of symbolic, yet likely ineffective, action. Nevermind the myriad logistical difficulties presented by the current situations in New Orleans, such as the impossibility of getting tractor trailers into the disaster area, the tendency of residents to shoot at rescue helicopters, the noncooperation of residents who still refuse to leave their houses (despite a mandatory evacuation issued before the hurricane), the fact that New Orleans police officers are walking off the job, the hyper-criminality of many of the residents preying upon their fellow citizens, the failure of the Mayor to utilize a large number of passenger busses at his disposal before Katrina hit, etc.

According to the libs, none of these things should have prevented the god-king president from instantly remedying (or preventing) the situation. Of course, it is difficult to imagine that even a perfectly executed plan would have avoided all of the consequences of Katrina, which is why the libs are now starting to blame such lofty concerns as global warming and poverty for the disaster, despite their tenuous or nonexistent causal link with what actually occurred. We are also hearing from Kanye West and other liberal "thinkers" that the President hates blacks and hearing Jesse Jackson criticize the President for not appointing a black person to head up the disaster relief effort (even here, pushing affirmative action). In sum, all the liberal brimstone and fury is likely to cause even greater problems resulting from the situation, such as deeper racial divisions or non-science based solutions (e.g., signing the Kyoto Protocol instead of fixing the surrounding wetlands). NEVER will you hear a good solution come from their lips.

If it weren't the socialist educational system, the entitlement mentality, and the race baiting that liberals engage in, which all result in a childlike, infantilist opinion of the world, we might solve these problems much sooner. As it stands, we'll just have to continue doing something while they sit around and point fingers. How tragic.

RACIST DEMOCRATS PLACE POLITICS OVER PEOPLE

2005-09-03T10:17:00.000-07:00

This column, by Arianna Huffington, pretty much sums up the liberals' contribution to the Katrina aftermath. According to her, the dems are missing a "teachable moment" due to Clinton's misdeeds. She's spazzing about Bill Clinton acting as a chief fundraiser at W's request, which, in her words, makes Clinton "Suck-Up-in-Chief." She's angry because Clinton, who is the figurehead of the Democratic party, won't come out and blame Bush for the disaster--despite the fact that some people in New Orleans are impoverished, which, of course, Bush caused. In her view, the disaster was perfectly foreseeable--never mind that no Democrats (including Clinton) ever made a big deal about New Orleans' vulnerability BEFORE the disaster hit. I guess that makes the Democrats racist against blacks, including the mayor of New Orleans (who is black).

Like 9/11 made terrorism a top priority, I suspect that this disaster will make responsiveness to natural disasters a top priority as well. Clearly more could have been done, such as immediatley sending in paratroopers, to stop the criminal looting and marauding that followed the disaster; more also could have been done to quickly send in food and water. However, to lay the blame solely at Bush's feet, and notably not at all at the Mayor of New Orleans' feet (who is in the best position to set readiness plans in motion), is to follow the Democratic talking-points to a tee.

People like Huffington (a rich, pampered Stepford-wife of a woman) are not proposing any meaningful solutions to Katrina-like disasters at the policy-making level. Instead, they are actively trying to STOP Clinton from raising funds to help the poor minorities they claim to embrace. The Democrats have no interest in any solutions to these problems that will not add to their position politically. Given the alternatives, helping poor blacks with aid money or making political hay against Bush, the Democrats' choice allows only one conclusion: The Democrats are racist!

KATRINA HITS, DEMOCRATS DANCE IN THE STREETS

2005-09-01T17:04:00.001-07:00

I simply cannot believe the liberal bloggers' coverage of the Katrina aftermath. While some blame definitely can be laid at the feet of the administration (too few National Guard troops, etc.), the Democrats' petty response speaks volumes about their inability to lead the country in times of crisis. Among their "reasons" for the tragic situation in New Orleans: Bush diverted flood-prevention funds to Iraq, not entering into the Kyoto Protocol caused Katrina, racist Republicans have no interest in helping poor Blacks, etc. You will never see anyting approaching a SOLUTION to the problem come from a liberal's lips. As usual, the libs are too busy schizophrenically pointing out the administration's faults to bother themselves with actually suggesting a course of action.

If you are interested in reading a first-hand account of what's going on in New Orleans, I suggest you read this briefing by a doctor working out of a hotel on Canal Street. The situation is truly frightening.

If you are interested in reading about the what the liberal bloggers are writing, click this link.

If you are interested in actually doing something, click this link.

KATRINA HITS, DEMOCRATS DANCE IN THE STREETS

2005-09-01T17:04:00.000-07:00

Please help me get a free iPod

2005-08-29T09:56:00.000-07:00

all you must do is sign up for one of the offers on the website, via the link i will provide. all of the offers may be canceled a couple of days after signing up, but please allow about a week for the credit to hit my account. if you need any help in the future getting free stuff, i'd be more than willing to help.

follow this link: http://ipods.freepay.com/?r=21791918

thanks.

nazw.

GENERAL BIDEN CALLS FOR TIMETABLE IN IRAQ

2005-08-28T21:18:00.000-07:00

I'm tired of saying how foolishly Democratic members of the Senate are acting these days in regard to a "timetable" for getting out of Iraq. As anyone who has watched the History Channel a few times knows, it is not a good idea to artificially constrain your options when facing down an enemy. Take this story as a metaphor for what I mean by all this:

Imagine that you had a little brother who was constantly getting beaten up by a neighborhood bully. You would step in and defend your brother on a regular basis and beat up, but not kill, the neighborhood bully. Each time you help your brother, you get hit a few times, but you always end up hurting the bully badly. Eventually, you tire of helping your brother and demand that he starts lifting weights, taking martial arts classes, etc., to beat up the bully himself. You hope that he will be ready soon, because you're sick of getting punched by the bully yourself.

To motivate your brother, you state publicly that he has two months to get ready and then he'll have to fight the bully himself. Interestingly, the bully stops attacking your brother quite so often during these months, so you declare victory early. However, when the two months have passed--and you leave--the bully returns. Unfortunately, your brother wasn't ready after all, and the bully not only beats your brother up; he kills him. Now you'd like to help, but its too late for both political and strategic reasons.

Now imagine that you never provided a "timeline" and kept the bully guessing. He would never know what your intentions were, which would strike at his morale and prevent him from planning a large-scale attack against a weakened enemy in the future. Unfortunately, the Democrats are so stupid that even this simple metaphor is too difficult to understand. Their ignorance is especially offensive because they are the ones who insist on "Vietnamizing" this war. You would think that they would have learned something from that conflict. Unfortunately, they were too stoned. For more, read this post.

Democrats are incapable of handling foreign policy. Never vote for them.

OIL TOPS $70 A BARREL, LIBERALS SCRATCH HEADS

2005-08-28T21:08:00.000-07:00

If you're a liberal (and that's unlikely if you visit this site), you are probably wondering how the big oil companies got together and caused a hurricane over the weekend. As the news-savvy among us are aware, oil topped $70 per barrel this weekend because the Gulf of Mexico oil rigs have shut down in anticipation of the devestating hurricane Katrina. The increasing oil costs are attributable to several factors influencing supply and demand, such as instability in the Middle East causing decreased supply and increasing Chinese affluence (and automobile use) increasing demand. When a natural disaster hits that significantly decreases supply, we feel the pain at the pump.

Likewise, when supply increases through increased production--for example, with oil drilling in the "prestine" Anwar preserve--prices are generally lower. In the same vein, success in Iraq would likely mean lower prices, as the Iraqis operating in their best interest would like to be like Kuwaitis: Rich.

In the long run, increased supply and decreased demand are both good for the country, and allow us a measure of economic independence. On the conservative side, we seek to increase production and use oil somewhat more efficiently than we have in the past. On the liberal side, they whine and complain about how oil companies are preventing the potato-powered car from coming on the market and about how Dick Cheney is teaming up with his oil buddies for, uhh, cheaper oil, blah, blah, blah.

Don't be surprised if the liberals blame Bush for the hurricane and create a conspiracy involving oil out of Katrina's arrival. It wouldn't be much stupider than their theories about war, oil production, and a host of other issues.

A SHOULDER TO CRY ON

2005-08-28T14:35:00.000-07:00

Carrying on his trademark trend of counseling less and less worthy "victims" of wrongdoing, Jesse Jackson has decided to lend a helping hand to Hugo Chavez, the Communist dictator of Venezuela, who was "victimized" by a TV minister calling for his assassination last week. Jackson noted that U.S. authorities should take action, and the U.S. govenrment should choose "diplomacy over any threats of sabatoge or isolation or assassination."

Maybe when the "U.S. authorities" are done "taking action" against Pat Robertson for daring to say that we should assassinate a Communist dicator (of all people), the same authorities can begin taking action against other agitators of violence, such as Al Sharpton or the Black Uhuru movement. I'm sure that the good Reverend will be right there to condemn their calls for violence as well, even though he has never been there in the past.

Come to think of it, if Reagan had only just resorted to "diplomacy" with the Soviet Union, like FDR did in Yalta, maybe it wouldn't have ever collapsed. I'm sure the good Reverend would agree that we should avoid tragedies like that in the future.

CBS INTERNSHIP GONE AWRY

2005-08-26T11:48:00.000-07:00

Dan Rather should be proud of the journalistic efforts made in this story, which followed the unfolding heartache of a little girl whose daddy was going off to Iraq. In a brilliant scheme, a woman and newspaper editor (he denies it) concocted the story and recruited the "actors" by making them believe they were playing roles in a movie. Although the "scenes" of the movie had no cameras, the actors nonetheless believed that they were playing a role, and dutifully posed as the necessary parties for the story.

The "legitimate" media are calling this a hoax. But it is no more of a hoax than the Bill Burkett story, which so many of them wanted to believe, despite the evidence. If they repeat themselves often enough, maybe they'll believe this story too.

LIKE NERO PLAYING THE HARP AS ROME BURNED....

2005-08-25T15:27:00.000-07:00

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need.
Check this out to see how this Communist credo works out in practice. Gee, maybe Pat Robertson was right! Not that our Communist-minded liberal media would ever see the blatantly obvious failings of the political ideology they propagandize about in their reporting on a day-to-day basis.

GOVERNMENT CORRALS BATTLE INTO SUBWAY STATION

2005-08-24T13:50:00.000-07:00

If the U.S. government put someone from the show "Street Smarts" in the role of head of homeland security, not even those morons would act as stupidly or wastefully as our duly-elected government officials are acting with regard to terrorism in the NY subways. In fact, our fearless defenders are pumping a huge amount of money into the intense surveillance of subway stations in order to prevent a terrorist attack.

Well golly gee. Maybe if they used these techniques on the f-ing MEXICAN BORDER we wouldn't have a problem with illegal immigrants/terrorists coming into the country!

"UNDOCUMENTED" TRESPASSERS AWARDED THE LAND THEY TRESPASSED ON

2005-08-22T21:14:00.000-07:00

This is absolutely insane. If I hadn't read it myself, I never would have believed that this outcome were possible. Click here to see how Morris Dees, of the Mexican Property Law Center, is upholding our great system of justice. Who says judicial appointments are important?

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

2005-08-22T20:50:00.000-07:00

Are you in a union? Are you just trying to put bread on the table, living paycheck-to-paycheck? Do you hope that your political party, filled with normal, average working folks will stick up for you in the Congress?

Click here to see what your liberal heroes are up to this week!!! Da da da, you trade your heroes for ghosts....da da da....hot air for a cool breeze....da da da.... Wish you were here!

RUSSIA/CHINA PERFORM JOINT MILITARY EXERCISE, DEAN SURRENDERS

2005-08-18T18:18:00.000-07:00

The island of Taiwan is the Elian Gonzales of countries. The Commies want the island back because it's a visual slap in the face to their perceived power and authority (circa 1949), just like Elian was to Castro (circa Lewinski). Like Clinton's capitulation then, Howard Dean has already capitulated, in advance, in any future war against China.

How do I know this? By deduction, my dear friend. First, I watched Howard Dean on Face the Nation last week, where he (as usual) either (1) lambasted the President for his terrible policies (e.g., teaching creationism alongside evolution made the President "anti-science") or (2) lambasted the President's means of achieving acceptable goals (defending the country shouldn't be achieved by military force). Specifically, Dean said that we couldn't afford to use force against Iran's nuclear ambitions (allegedly an acceptable goal) because our military is too overstretched in Iraq. Then, when asked whether he approved of the use of force against Iran to stop them before they develop any nuclear weapons (a forbidden affirmative act), Dean immediately backpeddled. If he didn't, he just might agree with the President, who said that force was on the table. I guess Dean plans on repeating the diplomatic success of the Clinton administration's negotiations with North Korea.

The Dean interview just about said it all. By deduction, if we're too weak to defend ourselves against the combined front of a rag-tag group of terrorists in Iraq and the Mullahs in Iran and their armies, there is absolutely no chance that we could beat China, who along with Russia participated in joint military exercises last week. In fact, we couldn't beat either of them.

Back to Taiwan. If a Democrat gets into office, that island will be to countries what Elian was to Cuba. Elian voluntarily left a Communist hellhole to come to the (evil) United States. Like Elian, he Nationalist armies fled to Taiwan in 1949 to get away from the Maoist Commies. After Castro made a big stink about Elian's return (notably, without force to back it up), the Democrats rolled over and returned Elian (using military force) to a country so corrupt that we won't even trade with it. Like Castro, the Chicoms are making a big stink about returning Taiwan to the mainland. Although it hasn't (officially) happened yet, the Dems are sure to capitulate there too.

So there you have it. If China decides to attack Taiwan, Dean has already surrendered. According to him, we're just too overstretched in Iraq, dammit. If we weren't in this quagmire, tough-minded Democrats would, maybe...uhh.......Well that's not important anyway. Besides, Cindy Sheehan would disapprove.

Democrats are incapable of handling foreign policy. Never vote for them.

USA TODAY PUBLISHES WORLD'S STUPIDEST NEWS STORY

2005-08-17T13:49:00.000-07:00

Just when you thought that the media in this country couldn't be any stupider when choosing what world events to cover, this story came along and shattered the paradigm. Also, don't miss the reference to Katie Couric at the bottom--I wouldn't want her to miss out on her share of the credit.

Honorable mentions: Brad/Angelina/Jennifer love triangle; Valerie Plame Affair; Bill Clinton CD.

ANOTHER ESSENTIAL ALBUM

2005-08-16T11:07:00.000-07:00

For those who haven't heard, former President Bill Clinton is releasing a compilation CD, which the press will surely tout as an "essential" album soon. Here are just a few of the tracks you can expect to hear (or should expect, anyway):

10. Melissa Etheridge: I Wanna Come (sic) Over
9. Michael Jackson: Beat It
8. 2 Live Crew: Me So Horny [Explicit]
7. Warrant: Cherry Pie
6. Poison: Talk Dirty to Me
5. Steely Dan: Hey Nineteen
4. Motley Crue: Girls, Girls, Girls
3. Kiss: Lick It Up
2. ZZ Top: Legs
1. Pink Floyd: Have a Cigar

You can get your copy at the Clinton Library Website. Enjoy!

I guess I'm a Libertarian

2005-08-16T07:49:00.000-07:00

So I guess I'm a Libertarian. Who knew? ;-)

Take the quiz and see how psychotically right-wing you are.

You scored as Libertarian. Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering, as long as you donâ��t violate the rights of others. This translates into strong protections for privacy and property rights, and a weak to non-existent social safety net.

Libertarian

85%

Pro Business Republican

70%

New Democrat

55%

Foreign Policy Hawk

50%

Socially Conservative Republican

40%

Old School Democrat

30%

Green

20%

What's Your Political Philosophy?
created with QuizFarm.com

DOVE HUNTING SEASON OPENS, LIBERALS RUN FOR COVER

2005-08-15T10:24:00.000-07:00

The group of protesters camped outside President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch got a rude awakening this weekend when Larry Mattlage, a neighbor of the President, fired his gun twice in the air. When questioned by the secret service, he told them that he was preparing for "dove hunting" season. Ha ha ha!!!

Mr. Mattlage, who probably has a job, was upset by the traffic created by throngs of jobless protesters visiting the site of the President's ranch. Cindy Sheehan, who actually has something to protest (her son was killed in Iraq), is leading the group, most of which has no reason to protest at all (except, of course, when you're counting an overprivileged childhood, a Communist-inspired university education, or how, like, "wrong" war as valid reasons for a protest). I'm willing to bet that this was the first time many of these pampered babies had ever even heard a gunshot. Maybe when the war is over they can restart the gun control movement.

OH THE HYPOCRISY!

2005-08-12T22:11:00.000-07:00

What do you say about a woman whose President-husband took a payoff from the woman's brother before giving a presidential pardon to a dangerous, convicted drug-dealing felon? You might say that she is unfit for the Senate. You would certainly say that she is unfit for the presidency.

If it weren't for the willful amnesia of the mainstream press, you might hear some reporting about this same woman criticizing someone else for taking money from mobsters--especially since the charges are utterly false. But you won't hear that in this story.

WHO WILL READ THE CUE CARDS NOW, MEDIA WONDERS

2005-08-08T19:20:00.000-07:00

With the passing of Peter Jennings, the last of the 3 horsemen of the mainstream press steps away from the helm of the liberal media juggernaut. That is not to say that the university breeding grounds will stop corrupting and brainwashing journalism students before placing them in the remaining powerhouses, such as the New York Times and Washington Post. That is also not to say that Katie Couric or Juan Williams will suddenly see the light, either. However, it is one less cornerstone in the church of liberalism, which is as personality-driven as a religious cult.

The obituaries of Jennings' life bear our the theme that the press is an emotional or "spiritual" outlet, not a news source. Just read the following passage, as written by Howard Kurtz and printed in the Washington Post:

I remember hanging out in the ABC skybox at the Democratic convention in Boston last year as Jennings, in shirtsleeves, anchored a two-hour digital cable broadcast also available to America Online and cell phone users. He reveled in the spontaneity of it, without knowing whether the audience would be hundreds or hundreds of thousands, and boasted that the program would kick off with music by Jimi Hendrix.

Could you ever see Jennings "reveling" in the "spontenaity" of the Republican Convention? Of course not. But that is what he lent to liberalism--a self-righteous, snide tone when talking about conservatives, a somber tone when liberal heroes were taken down or Communists defeated, and an ecstatic tone when liberals were on parade.

With Peter Jennings passage, what must be on the mind of all liberals is whether someone will be able to show the appropriate affect when reading the news or interpreting an event as important as the Democratic National Convention. If no one steps forward with the same charisma, maybe they libs will actually start listening to Air America.

NICE PHOTO

2005-08-05T11:41:00.000-07:00

In yet another example of media bias on display, check out this photo of bad-word-sayer Robert Novak. Who's that guy with him in the 2003 photograph? Can you say guilt by association? They must not have had any other photographs of Novak, who is, after all, only on TV about 5 times a week.

To defend himself, all that Novak has to do is say that he was "expressing himself" in an artistic manner. And now his civil rights are being violated by CNN, which is "suppressing" his right to free expression. Oh wait, that only works if you want a shit-stained picture of the Virgin Mary displayed in a public museum. Silly me for thinking otherwise.

KAPOCIUS FOR SCHOOL BOARD!

2005-08-04T18:44:00.000-07:00

It looks like the Federalist Society's own Mark Kapocius has begun his run early, using a little homemade yard art to get out the vote in Greendale, WI.

I find this amusing

2005-08-03T07:44:00.000-07:00

Man pays $120 traffic ticket with pennies. My hero.

ARREST THEM FOR SEDITION!!!

2005-08-02T10:11:00.000-07:00

Does anybody remember when Dan Rather fawned over Saddam Hussein during a pre-war interview? In that shameless piece of anti-war propaganda, Rather, without sarcasm, asked Saddam about recently getting "100%" of the vote in a sham election. Here is what happens when left-wing propaganists (the same ones, I might add) try that sort of thing in Russia.

Neal Boortz is on the Fair Tax attack

2005-08-02T07:43:00.000-07:00

If you’re not familiar with Neal Boortz then this will be a great day for you. Neal is a radio talk show host in Atlanta, GA. He is freaking awesome. Neal has now authored a book, in conjunction with Congressman John Linder, which will absolutely reform the current tax system. The FairTax Book is released today, and is currently #6 on Amazon.com. I recommend that everyone pick up this book. Or borrow it from me in a couple days when I’m done with my copy. If you’re not sure what exactly the FairTax system is, Neal will be doing promos on some national television and radio shows. If you’re employed, Tivo these; it will be worth your time:

Tuesday (8/2/05) Neal will be on during the third hour of Sean Hannity’s radio show (appox. 4pm-5pm CST). Listen live here.
Tuesday (8/2/05) Neal will be on Hannity & Colmes this evening. Fox News Channel, 8pm CST.
Wednesday (8/3/05) Neal will appear on CNN’s American Morning. CNN, 6am-9am CST.
Wednesday (8/3/05) Neal will appear on Your World w/ Neil Cavuto. Fox News Channel, 3pm-4pm CST.

The British are freaking out

2005-08-02T07:32:00.000-07:00

Near King’s Cross station, on Gray’s Inn Road, in downtown London, police and fire squads have converged on a double-decker bus. Apparently there is smoke coming from the bus and a suspicious package may be on the bus too. Amazing how everything that happens in London is now terrorist related. Sounds like America 3 years ago. Scary.

issues with firefox

2005-08-02T07:21:00.000-07:00

I just started using Firefox. When I load this particular blog, it does not display correctly. No frames are displayed, just the posts. If anyone can help me out, and fix this problem, please post a comment.

AND THIS GUY WAS PRESIDENT?

2005-07-30T19:09:00.000-07:00

Shockingly enough, former President Jimmy Carter has come to the defense of our terrorist enemies currently residing at Gitmo. According to Carter, the prison has given the extremists reason to attack us. Further, according to the former President of this country, the war in Iraq is "unnecessary and unjust," noting that he is "embarrassed about it."

Can you believe this guy? Remember, he is the same person who was paralyzed by the Iranians during the hostage crisis (which ended immediately after Reagan, a real President, took office, by the way). When Carter's ill-fated rescue mission failed, he buckled to the demands of the Islamofascists then. Now he's willing to buckle to the terrorists because they aren't getting the protection of the Bill of Rights, which, gasp, is forcing them to attack us. How naive can he be? And to think, this guy used to be our President!

Democrats are incapable of handling foreign policy. Never vote for them.

WHO WORKS HARDER?

2005-07-22T20:05:00.000-07:00

If you want some evidence of how delusional liberal journalism has become, read this column, by the L.A. Times' (surprise) John Chait, criticizing the fact that President Bush likes to EXERCISE. The following passage puts it best:

Bush's insistence that the entire populace follow his example, and that his staff join him on a Long March, er, Long Run, carries about it the faint whiff of a cult of personality. It also shows how out of touch he is. It's nice for Bush that he can take an hour or two out of every day to run, bike or pump iron. Unfortunately, most of us have more demanding jobs than he does.

It's a "more demanding job" to whine in paper once a week than it is to be President? This column is a parody unto itself. Any armchair psychologist can see that this particular liberal (like most, I suspect) got one too many grundies in gym class.

CLINTON GOES OUT FOR HOT COFFEE

2005-07-18T08:19:00.000-07:00

Check out this story about Bill Clinton. I saw it on Google News and immediately believed in its veracity.

SENATOR NEEDS 6 VOTES, NOT 6 DRINKS

2005-07-01T13:11:00.000-07:00

Everyman Senator Teddy Kennedy has already come out and said that he will oppose any of Bush's Supreme Court nominees that threaten to "roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people." By "rights and freedoms" the happy-hour ham doesn't mean things like, say, property rights, but instead true American freedoms: abortion, gay marriage, the right of city governments to take a house from a senior citizen and replace it with a Starbucks, etc.

It's funny that the swimmer actually thinks that filibustering a judicial nominee protects our "rights and freedoms." Wouldn't you think that being able to have the duly-elected President have a nominee confirmed by the duly-elected Senate represents our freedoms better than having Ted Kennedy stumble through a harangue on the Senate floor for 16 hours just to avoid an up-or-down vote on the judge?

Maybe the gentleman Senator should think more about getting his party elected to a majority (which would take 6 seats) rather than downing 6 drinks and talking incessantly on the Senate floor, which is already a boring-enough place as it is.

YOU'VE GOTTA LOVE THIS HEADLINE

2005-06-30T13:01:00.000-07:00

I don't want to give it away, so click here.

MEDIA BIAS ON DISPLAY

2005-06-29T17:02:00.000-07:00

Check out this CBS story about Joel Osteen's Lakewood super-church, which has over 30,000 members and pulls in $55M a year in donations, television revenues, etc. For those of unfamiliar with Osteen, he preaches a positive form of Christianity, which emphasizes all the good things that will happen to believers, as opposed to the bad things that will happen as a consequence of unbelief. His services are part motivational speech, part religious inspiration.

CBS, seizing on all the normal preconceived notions that atheists have about Christianity, peppered its story with several liberalisms about religion:

"Last year, Lakewood brought in $55 million. Sales of pastor Joel Osteen's book 'Your Best Life Now' became an instant best seller. But he makes no apologies for his style or his success." (So he should "apologize" for running a successful church. When is the last time CBS demanded an apology from some scumbag Hollywood producer raking in cash hand-0ver-fist? Answer: Never.)

....

As CBS News Correspondent Byron Pitts reports, Osteen looks like an anchorman, talks like a Southern salesman and runs this congregation like a CEO. (Allow me to translate: Osteen is nothing but a snake-oil salesman who runs his congregation of mind-numbed idiots, manipulating them like the CEO of Enron did his employees. All CEOs are evil, of course, as are all Southerners in Jesusland.)

....

Critics like Notre Dame sociology professor Michael Emerson say it cheapens religion by making it just another commodity for people to consume. They call it "feel-good theology." "Religion changes to nothing more than 'make me feel good,' and there's no sacrifice," says Emerson. (Why would they invite this do-nothing, most likely atheist, academic to criticize the success of an innovative new church? Answer: Because they couldn't say it themselves.)

This story is eerily similar to political stories about Republicans. All the media biases against CEOs, religion, successful financial endeavors, etc., are present. If you don't believe that this story shows bias against conservatives, Christians, and southerners, just try to imagine a similar story being printed about Democratic luminary and counselor Reverend Jesse Jackson. Case closed.

GENERAL FEINGOLD DEMANDS ANSWERS

2005-06-29T11:16:00.000-07:00

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has posted an op-ed on the Huffington Post website about how the President's speech last night lacked "Candor and Clarity" regarding our plan in Iraq. Accordingly, Generalisimo Feingold has issued the following orders to President Bush:

I have introduced a resolution calling for the President to provide a public report clarifying the mission that the U.S. military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq and laying out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission.

This idiotic "resolution" shows just how incompetent liberals are when it comes to managing war and foreign affairs. If I remember correctly, the libs were demanding a "timetable" and public disclosure of future battle plans, etc., during the Vietnam War. Proving that liberals haven't learned anything since then, Feingold, like a deadbeat hippy of yore, asks Bush to provide a specific pullout strategy and "timeframe" for accomplishing our mission in Iraq, just like he probably asked of Nixon on the University of Wisconsin campus back in the 60s.

I'm starting to wonder whether the libs are actively plotting against our success in Iraq, rather than just being horribly wrong about the messages we send to our enemies. If we give the "insurgents" a timetable for withrdrawal, what does Feingold think that these people will do? Check their watches and say, "Well, the Americans are leaving soon, better attack now." No, unlike Feingold, the "insurgent" terrorists are not complete idiots when it comes to war policy. They will wait for us to leave, then attack a weakened Iraqi military, overthrow the government, and then impose an extremist regime in its place.

You would think that the Democrats, who are obsessed with Vietnam, would have actually learned something from that experience. If you let politics, instead of sound military policy, dominate the rules of engagement, spelling out everything for the enemy, you will lose. Feingold, in one sweeping letter, proved that he really is the "useful idiot" the Commies snickered at during the cold war.

War strategy is too tough for liberals to understand. Never vote for them.

CHILLING END OF KILLINGS RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS

2005-06-27T18:22:00.000-07:00

Dennis Rader, the BTK killer, has plead guilty to the cold blooded murders of ten of his fellow townspeople in Wichita, Kansas. He admitted that the killings were conducted to fulfill his sexual fantasies. The killer was caught after complaining to the media about his lost notoriety, sending them a disk with clues about his victims, which the police used to finally catch him.

So, now that it's all over, where are the Democats? Shouldn't they be monitoring his jail cell to make sure that he's getting fair treatment, without torture or ridicule from guards? Shouldn't they be asking BTK why he "hates" us? Shouldn't they be trying to start a dialog, and come to a common understanding with this savage? Shouldn't the liberal media be running story after story about his "plight" and calling him an American "insurgent"? Shouldn't President Bush somehow be blamed for letting the BTK killer go free for so long?

If BTK were an Iraqi terrorist or member of al Qaida, who cut the heads off of live, conscious people in a fit of religious fervor, was caught, and then was transported to Guantanamo Bay or Abu Graib prisons, the liberals would be falling over each other to side with him and protect his "rights." Not only that, but this guy killed out of sexual fervor, which should all but make him a hero according to liberal standards. It is sorely disappointing to watch as this gentleman's (should I say victim's?) rights are being trampled, with no Jesse Jackson to consult him.

Somebody send ol' Dicky Durbin a postcard, he missed the train on this one.

A PSYCHIC BOOK REVIEW

2005-06-26T18:02:00.000-07:00

Moveon.org has put out a book called "50 Ways to Love Your Country," featuring such left-wing luminaries Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and "members across the country" (aka college professors, actors, and teacher's union members). Without reading the book, I will venture to guess what 10 of these loving acts would be:

10. Defect to North Korea.
9. Pull the plug on a disabled relative, who probably wouldn't want to live like "this" anyway.
8. Become a journalist, and "change" the country with your, uhh, "reporting."
7. Complain about how your upper-class parents are such, like, corporate slaves, while taking their money for tuition, books, cars, apartments, etc.
6. Become a homosexual, bisexual, transgender, transexual, beastialist, or make up something new involving inanimate objects.
5. Convert to Islam, except for the parts that are sexist, homophobic, intolerant, unpleasant, "confining," etc. On second thought, become a Wiccan (witch) instead.
4. Join a teacher's union, then complain incessantly about your career choice.
3. Make a paper mache effigy of George W. Bush, burn same, then burn flag.
2. Start a protest against war, which is, like, so wrong always. Learn Chinese.
1. Have an abortion.

Now let's get started!

NEXT STOP: COMMUNAL HOUSING

2005-06-23T19:10:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wondered what it would be like if the government could decide what sort of buildings should be built where, kind of like they did during the Cultural Revolution in Mao's China or during Stalin's 5-year plans?

Well wonder no more. The Supreme Court, in today's ridiculous decision in Kelo v. New London, decided that a city government can condemn a person's house just because some hoity-toity corporate-urban-planner types have decided that a "planned" neighborhood (complete with a Starbucks and Panera Bread, no doubt) would drive up property values, add jobs, and, most importantly, generate tax revenue for the sucking leach that is local government. That, the 5-4 majority of the Court says, serves a "Public Purpose." Sorry grandma, but your house is being replaced by a Bed Bath and Beyond. But hey, there's a consolation prize: Somewhere in your town, a teacher's union member won't have to pay a $5 copay on a bottle of prescription drugs at Walgreens. Feel better? I thought so.

At least there is an upside. It looks like O'Connor is back from the end of the plank. She ripped the Communist majority a new one, based on the increasingly outmoded principles of original intent, and, uhh, stare decisis. Scalia, while not writing an separate dissenting opinion, at least did not pull a Manchurian Candidate worthy switch like he did a few weeks ago in the Raich (medical marijuana) case. Thomas, of course, was in classic form. I think he's my new hero.

WHO'S THE EXTREMIST?

2005-06-08T18:23:00.000-07:00

The Senate has finally confirmed "out of the mainstream" judge Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The firmly "in the mainstream" Democrats were outvoted 56-43, with one Democrat, a la John McCain, crossing party lines to vote with the GOP. A disappointed CNN published a particularly unflattering photo of soon-to-be Judge Brown, and focused its story, entitled "Senate confirms Brown," exclusively on the filibuster and the Democrats' restraint in allowing a vote.

It's funny how the Democrats persist in claiming that they are in the "mainstream" while losing every election. Maybe they should rethink whether supporting partial-birth abortion and the supreme control of the federal government over the "masses" puts them into the mainstream of this country. There is nothing worse for the racist Democrats than a black judge who will tell them like it is. Just look at what a hero Justice Thomas is to conservatives (see two posts ago). Every time a free-thinking, conservative minority judge gets appointed, the so-called "white Christian party" gets a little bit stronger.

This is wonderful.

A GREAT LOGO FOR A GREAT NAME

2005-06-07T19:12:00.000-07:00

Marquette's appalling choices for a nickname, Golden Eagles and Hilltoppers, are so substandard that it's almost not even worth mentioning. I voted for the Hilltoppers, which would give Marquette one of the lamest nicknames in all of college sports, and deservedly so. I thought the whole idea behind this name change was that people hated the name Golden Eagles. It's time to just jump ship on this thing and throw it back in their faces.

That's not all, however. Marquette is allowing us, the masses, to suggest a logo now. There is no reason to believe that they will choose any of the submissions. I'm willing to believe that they've already picked a logo, like they did a nickname last time, but I still gave them some choices. The following was my written submission to the powers that be over at MU:

Given that you're willing to make everyone angry by giving only these two terrible choices, why don't you give the team a PC logo, like a rainbow flag, to show how diverse and wonderful Marquette is. Or you could take a personal check of the university and put a stamp with the words "Insufficient Funds" on it. That would represent the draining of the university operating budget after thousands of alumni refuse to donate one cent to a university that is willing to act in such a stubborn manner.

Ahh, but it's all for nothing.

SCALIA AND GINSBURG, THE DYNAMIC DUO

2005-06-06T19:18:00.000-07:00

Can you believe this crap?! Justice Scalia, of all people, voted that growing a miniscule amount of marijuana in your backyard, for medical purposes only, can expose you to the heavy hand of ham-fisted federal government regulation. What a load of garbage. This is why we lost control of the government of the first place. Let them regulate things that are well within the domain of the states and you will end up with an uber-government, one that knows what's "best" for you in every area of life.

Thomas summed it up pretty well the opening salvo of his dissent:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually
anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

So, so true. I am still in shock about Scalia joining the commies on this one. You would think that voting with Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have given him pause. WTF!!!!

THE NEW ACLU

2005-06-05T19:57:00.000-07:00

Amnesty International sunk to a new low when it called Guantanamo Bay prison a "gulag," comparing the treatment of prisoners by our armed forces to that of criminal dictators in places like Saddam's Iraq. Either these people are completely politically motivated, or they are completely unable to put right vs. wrong into a meaningful hierarchy. I believe it's both.

To adequately present their side of things, I will quote AI's own words, as reprinted by left-wing-mouthpiece the New York Times:

"The issue of the gulag is about policies and practices," she said. "You put people beyond the reach of law, you locate them in facilities where families can't access them, you deny them access to legal representation, you attempt to prevent judicial review."

Huh? I've never been to a gulag, but I did read Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," which he wrote based on his own memories of being in an actual gulag in the USSR. Among the differences between that gulag and our "gulag" were that the one in the USSR had the objective of WORKING PEOPLE TO DEATH. Probably the last thing a prisoner was worried about in a real gulag was whether he had "judicial review" or "access to legal representation" as part of the "policies and practices" of the prison. No, he was worried about only one thing: STAYING ALIVE. That was about it.

What are the prisoners at Gitmo worried about? Whether a Quoran gets too close to the toilet. Something tells me that the people in a real gulag would have bigger worries than this. It's probably a pretty safe assumption that no one in a real gulag ever had a Quoran, too.

Comparing Gitmo to a gulag is like comparing bad food in the county jail to being starved to death in a concentration camp. It's just that stupid.

MULS Federalistas

Guys that need a new job

Another list of good articles

List of Great Articles on Republican Candidates

NOW BUSH KNOWS WHAT NOT TO DO

YET ANOTHER BUST

NOTHING BETTER TO DO

NEGOTIATION: IT ALWAYS WORKS

A BAROMETER OF STUPIDITY

GOING UNDERCOVER

WHAT A CONTRAST!

OSAMA JOINS DEMOCRAT DRUMBEAT

LIBERAL EDUCATORS GET RESULTS

NUCLEAR WORRY OVERSTATED, SAY MUSLIMS

SONG-AND-DANCE MAN NAMED PERSON OF THE YEAR

A STUDY IN CONTRASTS

ISLAMOLIBERALISM--THE NEW NAZI MOVEMENT

RECONSTRUCTING HISTORY

CELEBRITIES TOAST ENEMY APOLOGIST

SHOULD WE APOLOGIZE?

A MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE?

DEMOCRATS GET WHAT THEY ASKED FOR

WOODWARD TELLS TRUTH, MEDIA THROWS FIT

I'LL DOUBLE YOUR STANDARD...AND RAISE YOU 50

UNLIKE GINSBURG, ALITO NOT A "CONSENSUS NOMINEE"

WHAT A RESUME!!!!

With law professors like this, who needs enemies?

DEMOCRATS SWEEP ELECTIONS

WORKS EVERY TIME

THOSE ARE SOME EXPENSIVE MOVIES!

Movie downloads could cost Racine man up to $600,000

Retiree faces suit over grandson's home computer file sharing

By BOB PURVISbpurvis@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Nov. 1, 2005

A NEW MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT, JUSTICE *

CELEBRATING/EXPLOITING IRAQ'S 2000th DEATH

LIBERAL TRIVIA

AN EMAIL TO JOHN NICHOLS

THE THIN RED LINE

NOW CHECK OUT THIS PICTURE

A DEMOCRACY FOR THE MASSES

A LETTER TO CBS

BRIDE OF SOUTER TO JOIN HUSBAND

ABORT ALL LIBERALS

EU TO IRAN: I'M TELLING MOMMY!

UNLIKE GINSBURG, ROBERTS NOT "MAINSTREAM" ENOUGH

IS LIBERALISM A MENTAL DISORDER?

KERRY/EDWARDS SHARE A CRITICAL MOMENT

TESTING PICTURE FUNCTION

A MOUNTAIN AGAINST A MOLE

BLACK HELICOPTER LANDS IN VENEZUELA

RELIGION-HATING LIBERALS, PART II

A MINIATURE CULTURAL REVOLUTION

BUSH APOLOGIZES, WHO'S NEXT?

IF DEMOCRATS RULED THE WORLD

SOMETHING WORTH READING

WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THIS BEFORE?

GET IN ON THE ACTION

LIKE A TREE FALLING IN THE FOREST

HOW DARE SHE!!!

THEY'VE LOST THEIR MINDS

AN AWESOME NEW BLOG

IS IT RACE, OR BEHAVIOR?

REUTERS STORY SLIPS THROUGH THE CENSORS

CHILDLIKE DEMOCRATS SEEK IMMEDIATE SOLUTIONS FROM GOD-KING PRESIDENT

RACIST DEMOCRATS PLACE POLITICS OVER PEOPLE

KATRINA HITS, DEMOCRATS DANCE IN THE STREETS

KATRINA HITS, DEMOCRATS DANCE IN THE STREETS

Please help me get a free iPod

GENERAL BIDEN CALLS FOR TIMETABLE IN IRAQ

OIL TOPS $70 A BARREL, LIBERALS SCRATCH HEADS

A SHOULDER TO CRY ON

CBS INTERNSHIP GONE AWRY

LIKE NERO PLAYING THE HARP AS ROME BURNED....

GOVERNMENT CORRALS BATTLE INTO SUBWAY STATION

"UNDOCUMENTED" TRESPASSERS AWARDED THE LAND THEY TRESPASSED ON

POWER TO THE PEOPLE

RUSSIA/CHINA PERFORM JOINT MILITARY EXERCISE, DEAN SURRENDERS

USA TODAY PUBLISHES WORLD'S STUPIDEST NEWS STORY

ANOTHER ESSENTIAL ALBUM

By BOB PURVIS
bpurvis@journalsentinel.com