Still wonder how the inquisition got so out of control? We're witnessing the modern day equal right now.

Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom decided that violent foreigners who will use any means at their disposal and have declared war on us are to be given all the rights and protections under our Constitution. It is a really strange decision coming from a bunch of justices who routinely look to international law for their inspiration. I do believe that the international law libs have been screaming about for the past few years (namely the Geneva Convention) are very clear on how trials are to be handled: with military tribunals.

The nice thing about a military court is that since it’s done in private away from prying eyes, classified information isn’t leaked out to everyone. The problem with this of course is that left wing pundits, idiot activists, know it all liberal journalists and pompous left wing politicians won’t get their tv time, photo ops and self important speeches. Even worse are the pilfering raiders who dare call themselves lawyers who are covering for the animals at places like Gitmo. Most of these people are upper income hailing from Ivy league schools like Harvard and Columbia. (It’s insulting enough that Yale won’t allow the ROTC on their campi, do their grads have to defend the enemy as too?)

Why doesn’t that make more people angry? Just think of these liberal lawyers riding around in their limos and dining on steak and lobster with those holier than thou halos around their heads are actively going out of their way to defend a bunch of human debris that are sworn to destroy our government and the Constitution that created it. Where are these people when 98% of us need a lawyer? Why do we get stuck with the tired, overworked, squealing little guy who got his license after spending 10 years in night school? Even private schools greedily gobble up every government grant offered. That means that we (the people) helped pay for the educations of these rats. It’s nice to think that the thanks we get is a giant kick to the jimmy.

Do these people realize that we’re at war? The Court is doing something unprecedented: its usurping the authority of the Executive branch to run wars. If this is being read correctly, all the dangerous people we’ve captured up to this point can now be released on technicalities. I doubt these people were read their rights when they were captured. I doubt the military went and got court warrants to enter the bunkers and other places these people were hiding when we got them. These things take time to get. Time is something you don’t necessarily have on a battlefield. Are our troops now going to have to be retrained to handle evidence and make reports about “crime scenes”? Can military personnel now be dragged in to court to testify one way or the other? Is our military now subject to laws against police brutality and other things? Is this a joke?

But all that aside, aren’t there a bunch of laws about the military not being used as a police force? I think there are. And I’m willing to bet that if I looked them up I’d discover said laws proudly written and put together by the same smirking bunch of liberal dinosaur politicians that still populate our government.

Okay fine. The sacks of vomit they’re defending are covered under our Constitution and to be treated as other American criminals. Now that we’ve established this, I say we immediately confiscate their pray mats, their Qurans and all other religious materials that were bought and paid for by taxpayer money. Liberal courts have been telling us for years that there is a “separation of church and state”. That means tax money is not to be used for such things. If we wouldn’t do it for American prisoners, why do it for these guys?

The next thing I want to point out is that we can hold these guys without habeas corpus under our Constitution:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

-US Constitution, article 1, section 9

If the Constitution applies to these people, then they are definitely in a state of rebellion. That aside though, one can definitely make the case that the public safety does warrant it. Of the people we have let out of jail, an alarming number of them have returned home to commit new acts of terrorism and violence.

Moreover, if the rights of the Constitution apply to these people so do the restrictions:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

-US Constitution Article 3, Section 9

A good chunk of these people are openly confessing that they hate us, don’t recognize our government and want to destroy us. Clearly they are acting in a Treasonous manner. Personally I think a good number of lefties themselves are “…adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” starting with the Supreme Court itself!

The worst part of all of this is that the enemy is watching. In the words of bin Laden himself:

They left after some resistance from powerless, poor, unarmed people whose only weapon is the belief in Allah the Almighty, and who do not fear the fabricated American media lies. We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who fought and killed them, while the latter were still there.

-Osama bin Laden, 1997 CNN interview

Unfortunately for us, they’re smarter than our intellectual elites making up our government and our academia. They know how to manipulate and play our media, our politicians and our court systems. And all of the above are just begging to be used by these people.

This is truly sickening. But we’re now living a world that is completely topsy turvey. You can’t go in to an airport without a body cavity search. Meanwhile the people who brought us these overaggressive searches can’t be touched. “Cowboy” diplomacy is being replaced with spineless, French elitist diplomacy. In a time when we should be standing up to these people, we’re laying down to die and it’s reinforcing their resolve.

These third world thugs don’t have to beat us. We’ll do it for them. How embarrassing.

This is truly pathetic. From now till the election any tough question leveled at Barack Obama will be responded to with screams of “racism”? Well it’s par for the course.

Oh but don’t take my word for it. Go look at about 10k liberal blogs backing Obama against Clinton. Why vote for Hillary? Because not voting for her makes you a sexist. Why vote for Obama? Because not voting for him makes you a racist. I guess libs care more about the plight of blacks than the plight of women. So ladies – to the back of the equality bus please.

Ninety five percent of the lefties I’ve argued with call me a racist for not supporting Barack. Conversely ninety five percent of the lefties I’ve argued with can’t tell me what Obama stands for. All they see is his dark skin tone and they get all gushy. I thought a “racist” was someone who judged people solely based on their color. So who’s the racist here? I know why I’m opposed to Obama and it has nothing to do with how he looks.

Obama loves to portray himself as the son of a poor single mother…a single mother who lived in Hawaii a place most Americans only visit in their dreams. Okay Hawaii has one of the highest costs of living in the US, I’m with you. I would believe that most people in the aloha state are working their butts off to make ends meet. But a few years later she moved back. Okay – I guess I’m still (somewhat) willing to believe the ‘Oh woah is me’ act…except that Obama went to a PRIVATE SCHOOL there.

Again most Americans can only dream of sending their kids to private school. Even if they have the Congressional connections to get the paperwork to send their kids to a place for a better education, most Americans can’t afford it. I can only guess how outrageous the cost of private school in Hawaii is.

He went to college at Harvard and Columbia. How many poor kids can claim attendance at these places? I’ve known people who were really sharp on the uptake and wanted to go to such places. But they couldn’t afford it even stacked to the gills with student loans and scholarships. Likewise his wife went to Princeton and Harvard.

What’s next – Steven Spielburg’s niece going to come out and lecture us about how tough it was growing up on the mean streets of Beverly Hills?

Now if you listen to the Obamas, black people can’t do what they’ve done in America today. And they’re going to be joined by the usual band of suspects: Oprah Winfrey, Spike Lee and before it’s over many, many others who’ll join the chorus of lecturing us about what a rotten place America is because people like them are getting screwed and have been screwed.

We’ve all felt ostracized at some point in our lives because we were the wrong race, the wrong sex, the wrong religion, the wrong political party and so on. To sit here and argue that it’s exclusive to only one race, religion or sex is so far off it is offensive. To argue that one single group got it worse than all the others is likewise offensive. During the early 1900’s laws all across America attempted to destroy German culture. You couldn’t even speak German publicly in a lot of places. Likewise the Indian tribes were forced off their lands. Likewise the Irish suffered from horrible discrimination during the 1800’s.

Yet people like the Obamas only want to talk about how they were shafted. It’s amazing to me. “God Damn America”, screaming about “white privilege” and other prejudiced stereotypes aren’t racist? But asking Barack a question he’s not ready to answer *is* racist? And the people who claim to be the smartest amongst us can’t follow that simple chain of logic? How stupid is that?

He claims that he didn’t hear any of this while sitting in his church for TWENTY years. This is the guy who wants to go talk to our enemies. Is he going to listen to their answers? Or is he just going assume that they don’t mean it when they tell him they want us all dead? His wife was paying attention to all of those sermons. What’s he going to say to our enemies anyway? “Please don’t kill us.”? “Please don’t build nuclear bombs.”? We’ve been saying these things to people who don’t like us for 50+ years now. It hasn’t worked. They’re still working on nukes. They’re still drawing up plans to murder us. The idea that this is a change of any kind is naïve.  

One last thing: Barack comes from a long line of slave owning plantation overseers on his father’s side. Will Spike Lee demand forty acres and a mule from Obama? Will people like Spike Lee even point out Obama’s slave owning background? I didn’t think so.

Hillary wants to win the presidency: bottom line. Right now everyone is focused on her fight with Obama. This has been a bitter fight that has split the Dems and libs. She can’t win as an independent.

This leads me to believe that Hillary’s best option if she wants to win the Presidency is to run as a Democrat.

With the last of the primaries last week, Obama just barely squeaked to the minimum number of elected delegates needed to get the nod. But Hillary only needs a handful of the super delegates to have enough for the nod herself. To paraphrase Madam Pelosi it’s not about who has the most votes, it’s about who has the most delegates. Barrack has them. Hillary has them. If she can keep them together, she’ll have it.

It is possible for the Democrats to have two candidates on the ballot in Nov. Historically this isn’t unusual at all. Legally it is possible. The election of 1860 had three or four Dems all on the same ticket. Basically it would mean that Dems would have to split their campaign war chest between the two.

Most people can only think in two ways: Democrat or Republican, Good or Bad, etc. The idea of a third, viable candidate coming from one of the major parties is strange and confusing. It might be just strange and confusing enough to grease the wheels for a Clinton victory.

One of the big problems conservatives have with McCain is that he’s going for the Liberal/Democrat base. And Obama’s going for the same people. This means that the conservative base is largely being forgotten. It would be possible for Hillary to play to this forgotten group to carry herself to victory.

Hillary wants to win the Presidency. She can’t beat Obama in a Primary run – but she’s right that she had more popular vote than he did. In a three way fight she just might take it.

Ann Coulter has already declared she’d rather vote for Clinton than McCain. I know that I would support Clinton over these two losers. Politics makes very strange bedfellows.

I never thought I’d say this: but I feel for Hillary Clinton. I’m in to games of all kinds - board games, strategy games, computer games and so on. There is nothing worse than playing a close game that you think you can win while having a bunch of bystanders telling you to give up.

Bottom line: Barrack Obama doesn’t have enough votes to get the Democratic nomination. But they’re going to give it to him anyway. Why? Because he’s black and libs are going to prove how non racist they are by screwing the white person (as if whites aren’t a race). But in doing so, they’re screwing one of their other PC protected groups: women.

Don’t take my word for it though. Go check out pretty much any liberal/left leaning blog site online and you’ll see what I mean.

There are only a couple of Democrat primaries left. The odds of Clinton closing the gap are slim to none. But that’s not the important part now. The important thing is if Obama can get enough delegates to get the nomination himself. Unfortunately for him the last couple of states are places Obama and his elitist buddies sneer at and look down on. There just aren’t enough Harvard graduates and black people in South Dakota to clinch him the victory. Say what you want about the Clintons, they did have appeal in fly over country.

It’s going to be very interesting if the primaries end with neither Dem candidate having enough delegates to garner the victory. The decision will be thrown to the unaccountable party hacks (aka the super delegates).

But truthfully the Democratic plan they unveiled Saturday night was a joke. The party that cried about needing to count every vote in Florida in 2000, became the party of toss out enough votes to get the result they want in Florida in 2008. If Florida’s votes for Hillary aren’t going to count, why even bother of feigning to include them?

Obama wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. Despite this – they’re going to give him half of the Michigan delegates anyway. It is Affirmative Action in progress. What a big middle finger to that state too.

The irony is at so many levels. The reason that these delegates were thrown out to begin with is that these states dared to defy the Democrat party elites by holding their primaries too early. The little guy doesn’t matter to the oligarchy of rulers. Of course this was obvious when the rulers demanded to know who had their nomination hours after the polls closed on Super Tuesday. Sure the other half of the states who hadn’t voted will have their ballots counted: it just wouldn’t matter.

So why include half the votes of Florida and Michigan? Answer: they want Clinton’s supporters to leave her.

Liberals have too long been warring with spineless Conservatives who drop their positions so easily for promises of niceness. For one of the first times in recent history the left is eating its own. Lefties don’t ever give up even when it’s obvious they’re lost. They haven’t given up on the war, the environment, affirmative action or any other failed, broken system. There is no way the Clinton supporters are going to drop their candidate of choice any more than the Obama supporters are going to drop their messiah. Counting only half the vote will be seen for what it really is: giving Obama the nomination.

So the next leg is going to be the joke of liberal damage control. It’s going to be fun to watch as liberals and journalists suddenly begin trashing and questioning protesters. Protesters have always been portrayed as good people who want needed changes in whatever society in which they live. But now that they’ll be protesting libs, get ready for trash pieces.

And Obama supporters will try to win the Clinton supporters the way they try to win everyone who disagrees with their cause: by talking down too, mocking and taunting. It’s already begun. Liberal good will never extends to those they disagree with. It’s going to be war in the streets like you’ve never seen before.

But the most obnoxious part of all of this will be the smug elitist think tanks going on all the talking shows to educate us all on what is really meant by the term “count all the vote.” See when they say “count all the vote” what they really mean is something other than “counting all the vote.” There might be a couple of libs like Nancy Pelosi who go out and tell everybody what they really think: that the little people are so stupid they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. But the vast bulk of these liberal think tanks will just cover up their opinions arrogance.

This is interesting to watch.

There are food price spikes going on all across the globe as I write this. The hardest hit by these rising prices are unsurprisingly the poor who didn’t have the money to pay the old prices. As leaders and activists try desperately to come up with ways to help ease the problem, allow me to make a few suggestions.

An international body should be set up to create standards for how much food the average person should eat. The recommendation of 2000 calories a day would be a good place to start. It can be changed as needed. Moreover this body would should have the power to distribute food as needed and have the power to punish nations that are not in compliance. This body should also have the power to repeal protective national laws prohibiting the exporting of food stuffs. Places like China have such laws.

People who do not meet their 2000 calories a day ration should be able to sell the calories they don’t eat to their neighbors. This will result in the equalizing of food consumption around the globe.

People should be required to eat slower. Say one spoon/fork full per every 30 seconds or so. People who eat fast don’t often realize how full their getting until several minutes later. Eating slower will allow people to sense exactly how full they are getting. This would go hand in hand with taking smaller bites – which is just a healthy alternative anyway. People who refuse to eat at the new speeds should face steep fines.

We should be required to buy new, smaller plates. Bigger plates invite bigger portions. Most people try desperately to fill their plate when at the dinner table. Smaller plates won’t let us take helpings that are so large and thus in addition to slowing down our eating styles help us all conserve food.

Taxes need to be raised on food stuffs. Any economist will tell you that higher prices reduce demand. But artificially driving up the price we can increase our supply rapidly. This will encourage people to stop eating simply because they are bored.

Scientists need to be encouraged to come up with drugs that can act as food substitutes. We already know that “uppers” like Cocaine and Meth curb the appetite. There have to be safer drugs that have similar appetite suppressing effects. People should then be given access to these drugs.

Greedy farmers who are the directly responsible for the high food prices need to be called in to answer for the high prices. Farmers are demanding more money for the same product. This isn’t right. If they’re not going to give us fair prices for their products, then our governments should take the surplus profit through the enactment of taxes and fees that will insure farmers don’t get any more than they deserve.

There are some who disagree with my progressive ideas above. I’ve heard their backwards arguments and ideas such as growing more of our own food. This idea won’t work. It takes a good two to three years before a field will start yielding a crop. It won’t help us now. Moreover, creating new fields will tear up the precious environment that in this era of Global Warming needs to be preserved.

My question now: why is this bad food policy good energy policy?

For the first time I can remember Hillary Clinton appears to be shedding real tears. Not just the fake ones for the camera, but actual real tears. You'd think she'd be crying about all the awful things she's done over the years – but no. Never in spoiled politician land.

Which brings up a good point, Democrats are going to real soon be facing the angry, bitter and vengeful side of Mrs. Clinton that we conservatives have been saying is there all along. Now secretly Dems have known that Hillary has a vicious record for years. They've just been able to pretty much ignore it since they're all on the same team. The Clinton wrath was directed at the enemy across the aisle. But now that there is a fight brewing within, odds are the ex first lady is going to pull out all the stops to defeat her opponent.

It is truly shaping up to be an interesting election year.

Sunday February 16, 2008 the Kosovo region of southern Serbia declared its independence from that state. The move prompted great fanfare from the ethnic Albanians who make up the region and stark horror from the nation of Serbia.

What is interesting to me is that despite the US’s “War on Terror” the Bush Administration has backed the move by the Kosovo Parliament. The Prime Minister of the new Kosovo state, Hashim Thaci has been accused of being a terrorist and is/was the head of the Kosovo Liberation Army at one time. The KLA is defined as a terrorist organization by both the United States and the United Nations. (And here we are helping them.) Cheering us along is the usual band of western “super powers” – namely the French and the British.

The list of people opposed to this declaration is much longer: Greece, Russia, Spain and Serbia just to name a few.

To back history up a little bit, Kosovo was the region that NATO got involved in during the late 1990’s. Reports were coming out that the fighting between the Kosovo Liberation Army and Serb security forces was getting out of control. There were stories of terrible things happening on both sides – of Serb Security Forces killing innocents and KLA thugs doing the same. Some of these stories were false. Some of them were exaggerated. This is to be expected of two peoples locked in bitter conflict. The only thing that can really be said for sure is that millions of noncombatants on both sides were fleeing for their lives.

NATO entered the conflict and drove the Serb forces out of the region before moving in to take control themselves. Civilian Serbs fearing their Albanian neighbors they thought would do bad things since they would now have the upper hand. The Serb population was supposed to be encouraged to come back, but instead it dwindled.

UN peacekeepers were brought in to manage the situation. I guess it was believed that the region should be governed by a neutral third party. And it has been this way for the past 9 years.

All of this noted, I think there is a bad precedent being set here. If I remember correctly, Serbia allowed UN peacekeepers into the region partly on the agreement that Kosovo would remain a part of Serbia. They have just been lied too. Now every UN Peacekeeping force that moves in to an area will be looked at with suspicion. And it is understandable why.

It’s also kind of nasty of Kosovo to declare it’s independence while hiding behind international forces that are not supposed to be involved in such conflicts. There is real potential for people who are truly are third party in this fiasco to be injured/hurt in a war that is truly not theirs.

Then you have to factor in the fact that just about every nation on Earth has populations looking to break away from the nations they’re a part of – including the United States, France and England.

How can the United States welcome a nation like Kosovo while denying the Kurds of North Iraq a homeland?

This is going to turn in to a very large mess that will drag on for years in to the future.

“Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”

This is actually a good question. It actually sounds like something one of my feminist professors would have asked in one of their patriotic rants about how much Americans and our culture suck.

But the question actually came from Talk Radio Host Rush Limbaugh and thus it’s regarded as anti-feminist and anti-woman by people who didn’t hear his entire monologue on the subject. The lesson here is clear: depending on who you are (and how you vote) you can get away with saying certain things. If you’re white and male there isn’t much you can say without getting yelled at – and that’s not racist, sexist or homophobic on the part of the Politically Correct (didn’t you read their book explaining why it’s not?)

But Limbaugh brings up an excellent point: our culture is obsessed with looks. Not just on women either. About fifty years ago Nixon lost an election to Kennedy after a debate where a sweating Nixon (who claimed to have a cold) squirmed under questioning while his opponent across the aisle looked confident. I guess it’s a natural byproduct of being able to send pictures from one coast to the other in a matter of seconds and having a population with enough wealth and privilege to see those pictures the minute they get transmitted.

And women who tend to care more about the way they look than men often have a harder time. The funny part is that women tend to be harder on the way women look than men. Remember what feminists said about Paula Jones? These were women attacking another woman on the basis of looks. Feminists also like to attack Dr. Laura on the basis of how she dresses as well. Rush even said all of this himself:

“There is this thing in this country that, as you age -- and this is particularly, you know, women are hardest hit on this, and particularly in Hollywood -- America loses interest in you, and we know this is true because we constantly hear from aging actresses, who lament that they can't get decent roles anymore, other than in supporting roles that will not lead to any direct impact, yay or nay, in the box office. “

So its semi bizarre to me that he is in trouble for what he says. If anything libs and Hillary supporters should be happy that Limbaugh brought this up cause he was actually defending their candidate on this front. So you’d think they’d be praising him.

But I’ve noticed that “open minded” people on the American left seldomly listen…

Like most things in politics, there are at least two interesting things going on right now that expose the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the American Left.

The first thing is U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. is pushing for a hearing on whether or not the destruction of CIA tapes of torture against Al Qaeda operatives in 2005 was legal. The CIA and the NSA both maintain that the judge has no authority in the matter. Never the less, Kennedy has scheduled an inquiry anyway.

Of course this is a staple of left wing blogs and activists with their sites bubbling with activity about how our government needs to be open to the people and how citizens have a “right to know” about what our government is doing.

Right or wrong our government has been doing this type of thing for years and the libs never cared. Their outrage is truly selective in this arena. They hate Bush and they think they have an issue that they can take him out on.

Don’t believe me? Check out issue number two: At least 2600 pages of material are *still* being held by the Clinton administration despite several Freedom of Information inquiries. And all the left is doing with this story is either ignoring it or defending it.

Naturally Bill denies having anything to do with the hold up even though the hang up can be traced right back to him. And Hillary also claims she can’t do anything about it. Funny to think that she is promising to do all these grandiose things even as she admits that she can’t even get simple things moved.

But the interesting thing about the Clinton case is how much it parallels the CIA case. Some of these records come from 1994 the time when the Clintons were trying to force their brand of socialized medicine on us. At the time a citizens group sued under sunshine laws to be allowed to sit in on the meetings. The White House refused. A federal judge sided with the group. No sooner than the ruling been handed down than the White House claimed that they had disbanded the task force AND DESTROYED THE RECORDS OF THE PRECEEDINGS.

So there you have it: In liberal land destroying things in the interest of national security is wrong. Destroying things to keep big libs in office is okay. What the CIA is doing to protect our country and ferret out our enemies is worthy of the front page of the New York Times. What the Clintons are hiding about what they did when they were in office is none of our business. The CIA are a bunch of monsters for trying to figure out what hostile foreigners are trying to do kill us should be condemned. The Clintons are innocent of any wrong doing and their lies, distortions and cover ups prove that they’re worthy of another four years in office.

How bizarre is that?

There’s a generational split between libs? It seems that that is the conclusion of political commentators like The New York Times and Rush Limbaugh when they look at the presidential race on the Democrat side. I guess it’s the aging Baby Boomers who support Hillary versus the young Gen X/Gen Yer’s who support Obama.

I guess I don’t pay attention to ‘who’ nearly as much as I pay attention to ‘why.’ My business teacher called it “Monopolistic Competition” – that is, it’s all the same junk in different packages. Much like breakfast cereal, left wing idiocy is left wing idiocy is left wing idiocy. The only difference is the obnoxious cartoon character trying to shovel it down my throat. The only real difference between Obama and Clinton and Edwards and Biden and whoever else the libs throw up is pretty much a matter of degrees. Thus it’s kind of interesting to me that this observation of generation is being made.

I’m talking strictly about the presidential race when I say I can’t see a generational split. I have noticed a time wall between lefties in other areas – especially in places like universities, journalism, Hollywood and other places where libs flock. Here oldsters amongst the left reign supreme. They’ve been working on it all their lives after all.

I always thought it was funny when my professors would stand up and tell us to go “fight the man”, “question everything” and “don’t accept what they tell you.” Course our professors were “the man” and “the power” that we decided to fight.

Hollywood and journalism are just as bad. How many more times are they going to compare military action in Iraq to Vietnam? The US pulled out of Nam the year I was born. Most people my age don’t have the same memories about Nam. In fact, most of us don’t remember Nam at all cause we were too young. Yet every movie tries to draw a parallel between the two. Seems like just about every movie being pumped out in the modern day features US soldiers killing and torturing innocents and then trying to cover it up (just like in Nam.)

Then come the movies that are actually about the 60’s and how great those times were. It was a world where people actually wanted to make a difference for the better - unlike today where a selfish younger generation just wants to sit around and smoke pot. I mean, they smoked pot back in the 60’s, but they were making a difference – unlike today where they just have a drunken orgy. And the pot was better back then too anyway.

Journalistically nothing was worse than Nixon rigging the election. Not even Clinton giving North Korea everything they need to make a nuclear missile. Not even 9-11 which they took off the rotation topics as soon as they could (it’ll just breed anger you know.) In reality we all know what’s going on: these geezers made their names on the Nixon Scandal and now that they have nice jobs where they sit at desks all day, they don’t want to go out and put footwork in to getting the story. But on the other hand, they’re not going to risk losing their job to some up and comer by treating the modern subject matter as serious either. There is job security to consider.

So basically you have a bunch of dinosaurs at the top who vainly don’t want to admit to anyone (especially themselves) that they’re aging. They would rather be wrong than admit that they’re old. And underneath these people is a bunch of idiots who naively believe the crap they say. The people who constantly tell us to “think for ourselves” never take their own advice.

These younger people lap up all the luke warm mush that the older generation throws out there. This is why left wing rhetoric hasn’t changed in forty years. This is why libs still cite studies from the 60’s as if they’re new. This is why there was a “Woodstock 2” and “Woodstock 3” – because young libs want to be like old libs.

Personally I find this all pathetic. Moreover, it makes it hard for me to tell the difference between lefties when I’m looking at them from a distance. Therefore when I see a group of Obama voters and a group of Clinton voters I can’t tell the difference. I’ll just have to take your word for it that it is there.

I’m not a vegetarian, but I would be if I could afford it – in both time and money. Call me soft hearted - there’s worst things I’ve been called. It does make me feel bad that an animal has to live in rotten conditions so that I can eat. I make an exception for chickens and turkeys – two animals that would probably go extinct if humans didn’t raise them. We’re talking about a couple of birds so dumb that they drown staring up at the rain after all.

That said though, the most horrid thing in my opinion is the live food that you have to kill and cook yourself. And the most tragic thing by far is the plight of the lobster.

Okay – so these creatures aren’t cute, fuzzy or something you’d want to snuggle like a cat or a dog. Ecologically they perform an important function of eating all the garbage at the bottom of the ocean. They’re kind of like a big cockroach. But that doesn’t mitigate the inhumanity that these animals endure in the process of being prepared for food.

Firstly consider that these shellfish are caught and for the most part kidnapped from their native environment and put in to a tiny tank with their claws rubber banded so as they can’t defend themselves. (I don’t know how many lobster farms there are, but I’m guessing there are a few.) Can’t really blame them for being upset can we? It’s pretty much a given that even the simplest of animals feel fear. This is why spiders and roaches run when you try to squish them.  So I can’t even imagine what the poor lobster in the tank at the grocery store/restaurant is going through.

It wasn’t until a couple of years ago that a friend of mine from Maine pointed out something that made my skin crawl: lobsters lose freshness almost immediately uponst dying. Therefore you toss them in to a pot of water and boil them to insure the best taste. Now I’d seen this in movies and television before, but my friend had to relate to me how the lobsters often start thumping on the side of the pot in a vain attempt to escape their gruesome fate.

Even if I was starving on a desert island with nothing else to eat I don’t think I could do that. I would kill the lobster first and then cook it. The idea that anyone in 2007 America with a grocery store on every corner could still eat lobster like this makes me question humanity.

More bizarre still is that lobster is considered a delicacy. You can buy a lot of food for the price of a single lobster. Add in the fact that there is not enough food on the tiny creature to fill me up and amount of work it takes getting that tiny bit of meat out of the  stinking shell and it’s just not worth it. Now consider most people don’t eat the lobster plain – they have to dip it in unhealthy melted butter.

Makes my stomach churn. But at least the high price would help preserve them right? Wrong.

Enter ‘Long John Silver’ the seafood restaurant that enables you to get cheap food on the run. Their new product: lobster bites a bite sized, batter dipped, deep lard fried artery clogger that you can smear with ketchup so you don’t have to taste it….which makes me wonder why you’d even bother eating lobster as opposed to say, a potato since it all tastes like tomato sauce anyway.

I’m sorry – I just don’t see the point of any of this. It’s quite ironic to think that a symbol of elegance in our society is the ability to eat what is basically an aquatic, junk munching, overgrown insect.

I disagree with every Democratic candidate for president that I’ve seen. The front runners are all big government, social/communist wannabes. They’re all planning on taking as much freedom and resources from the ‘common people’ as they can get. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are two of the most arrogant, self righteous people in the present campaign. Barrack Obama acts luke warm and clueless. And when you move away from these front runners, it only gets more radical and scary. Dennis Kucinich thinks *everything* should be regulated no matter how many times the Constitution says he can’t.

Despite my ideological differences with all the people above, the left has me pegged as to why I don’t support the liberal front runners Clinton and Obama: I’m a racist/sexist. (Note that lefties who are opposed to Mitt Romney aren’t religious bigots. So I guess not all “isms” are created equal unless it’s a Muslim that’s getting screwed, because Obama is half Islamic too and not voting for him even though he embraces Christianity also makes you a religious bigot.)

So the same types of people who tell me that inviting Iranian tyrant Ahmadinejad to speak at Ivy league schools does *not* amount to an endorsement of him and we should keep an ‘open mind’ as he gives a speech denying homosexuals live in Iran can’t see what my problems are with the liberal left? How strange is that?

I’m not a racist and I’m not a sexist either. I disagree with Clinton and Obama despite their minority status. Liberals just want to try to cow me in to supporting their guys by calling me names.

If anything libs are racist and sexist. As I already stated: the only differences between Obama and Clinton are from where I’m standing, cosmetic. One is female. The other is male. One is white. The other is black.

So when faced with two of the same thing with only superficial differences dividing the two, isn’t that when racism/sexism comes to play? More simply put, aren’t Hillary supporters racist? After all – there is no real difference between Obama’s platform and Hillary’s. So Hillary supporters are choosing Hillary because she’s white, right? And Obama’s supporters are choosing him because he’s a man, right?

So there you have it, racism and sexism is alive and well amongst the American left.

Jaime Leigh Jones (or is it Daigle?) I guess I’m calling you out. Despite your story of horror, you don’t act like a rape victim. For one, most rape victims don’t want to talk about it. And I notice you’re talking EVERYWHERE. Then even after coming forward, most rape victims want to remain unknown. Not only are you out there loud and proud with your name, your pictures are EVERYWHERE.

Then there are parts of your story I have a hard time believing. Let’s go through your blog one step at a time (or at least the blog presented on your website: http://www.jamiesfoundation.org/index.htm). Firstly I assume that this blog has been edited? A lot of it is pretty short. I’m wondering what you took out/changed. Are these dates accurate? Or are they your best guesses? I’m just curious.

Okay – so the first few entries talks about getting hired and why you were excited. Now according to your website, I have to ask how you got a job (in the IT department none the less) at a giant company right out of high school with no prior experience or training. I have a lot of friends that work in IT. Most of them are hamstrung by the fact that they don’t have any formal degrees hanging on their walls. From what I’ve seen, IT is just as hard as any other career to move around in.

You then go on to talk about how you feel patriotic and blah, blah, blah. This is what makes me think you wrote this in retrospect. I would imagine that anyone taking a job for the first time anywhere would be talking about what they would be doing and how much money they would be making more than anything else. Your little speech about loving your country reminds me of the hate mail I get where they say “I’m a conservative and always voted Republican UNTIL NOW.” I find their stories a little hard to believe too.

But I digress. Basically your blog goes on to state that after about a year and a half of training you were off to Iraq. Naturally that year and a half is excluded from your blog, but okay. According to you, you spent four days there bunking in an all male dorm before being drugged and raped.

First of all, you were drinking under age. Texas law says you can’t drink until you’re at least 21 right? And I’m thinking that the “green zone” falls under some kind of American law or your sexual harassment charges would completely baseless. Then according to your story, they drugged you and BRUTALLY beat you while you were unconscious. They beat you so badly that your fake breasts were misshapen when you got up.

I’m sorry it’s a little strange to me. Logically it would seem that a rapist would beat up someone who was struggling. Since you claim to have been passed out, this would seem unnecessary. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But this still leaves the question: why did they beat you so brutally? People don’t do things without a reason. Did you make these guys mad or something? Were these American men? Or Iraqi? How many people were bunking in this place? You make it sound like a good number – why didn’t someone else do something?

It’s very interesting to me that you just leave the conclusion that all the guys you were working with were complete animals. I have a very hard time believing this. Seems like someone would have done something. You’re asking me to believe the absolute worst in people – a lot of people.

You then went to the hospital and were checked out by a doctor. After the doctor visit they locked you in a “container” with no food, water, etc. Then after an unspecified amount of time, you managed to make friends with a guard and used his cell phone to call your father. Your father then called Congressman Ted Poe. You returned to the United States but the records of your hospitalization were lost. Later they resurfaced and were sent to the State Department where they were lost again.

I’m sorry, I remember about a year ago another government cover up in a rape trial. That one dealt with a Duke Lacrosse team – but again I digress.

Your story fits the left wing template so nicely. TOO nicely. We have the evil corporation of Halliburton (who started the war in Iraq just to make money) and their subsidiary KBR (who started the California fires to make money) are over in Iraq oppressing women and minorities and when they get caught, the evil racist, sexist, homophobic US government covers up for them.

Uh huh.

But I don’t believe the worst in people. I also have a hard time believing that our State department which has done nothing but try to undermine the administration over the last six years with leaks and outright attempts to influence elections for leftists would now sit on your case.

Your feminist rhetoric does not help your case either. A “prejudice” (like racism, sexism and homophobia) is a belief about someone based on those characteristics. So why does a website that claims to want to end all of those things say the following:

“We still live in a male dominated society in which organizations and men control most power. Rape is a crime of dominance, so in this perspective the domineering individual would be vengeful towards the victim.”

Just assuming things about our society and men. How nice is that? And how sexist. Thank god a bunch of women thought this up or we could sue you for sexual discrimination. What would happen if I just ASSUMED that all feminists make up stories about their experiences to force their political agendas on everyone.

And you do have an agenda for us, don’t you Jaime? Despite being “scarred for life” your smiling awful big in all of your pictures. You named your Foundation after yourself. Why you even wrote a book about it that you’re now looking to get published. Even optioned out your movie rights. Hell you’ve done everything but send your pictures to Playboy for their “Girls of the Illegal Occupation” issue.

Your entire board of directors is composed of left wing hacks. Most of the links to news stories about your plight are left wing media outlets (such as Feminist News sites and Democracy Now.) I see the New York Times yanked its story – or at least I can’t find it.

The most interesting part of your story are the people who are now giving you real traction in your plight: ABC News. Why is that interesting? Because if my memory serves me right that was the outlet that Lisa Meyers was working for about ten years ago when she worked her butt off to get an interview with Juanita Broaddrick. Even though Broaddrick never  wrote a book, never optioned her screenplay, never went to parties with celebrities, I’m sure a big feminist like yourself remembers her. She was the woman who accused Bill Clinton of brutally raping her while he was governor of Arkansas.

In spite of her story (and the many months that Lisa Meyers spent having to talk Juanita in to an interview), the unbiased, non partisan ABC didn’t dedicate a single second of news time to Juanita’s story (or at least none that I saw.) And in spite of her awful story of horror, not a single feminist group rallied to her support. Instead said groups circled the wagons around her oppressor. Isn’t that interesting?

Maybe I’m being too hard. Maybe you really were gang raped in the way you said. But your story is awful suspicious.  

I have a question. Being as our society is simply a racist, sexist, homophobic contraption set up simply to hold down people who aren’t white, Christian, male, straight and conservative, why do I live so poorly?

Case and point: Housing Foreclosures.

I don’t own a house. I rent. I can’t afford a house payment. Despite our government defining me as “middle class” (in fact, just a hair below the “rich” line) I accept these things as a given.

But now I’m reading reports that people who poorer than I am do own their houses. I guess our racist government passed laws requiring banks and other institutions give these people loans. And thus these loans were put under the requirements of “ARMs” (Adjustable Rate Mortgage).

What does that mean? It means that if interest rates go up, so does your house payment. And so in an attempt to prove what an open minded, non racist society we are we started handing these things out.  

Well what happened? The government continued to overspend. It continued to dump money in to the system. There is too much US money out there. So the federal reserve did what it always does: raises interest rates. Thus all these people with ARMs who couldn’t afford the loans to begin with saw their house payments go through the roof.

So now comes the parade of victims – people going up to government to bemoan the fact that they made awful choices. And here come the politicians lecturing us all on what a racist, hate filled society we are because the poor are suffering.

Well gee, they’re suffering because they’re living a lifestyle I as a middle classer can’t afford. It’s nice that the irresponsible amongst us continue to be portrayed as victims even after they make stupid decisions. And it’s not because they made stupid decisions that they’re suffering, it’s because of some secret plot to screw them.

So instead of letting the wheels of business turn and having a bunch of foreclosures happen, our government is stepping in (again). Bush has tried to ride the middle by suggesting that interest rates on home loans be frozen which has caught him in the middle of the fight with Libs leveling charges of “big business screwing the little guy” and Conservatives angry that the government’s bailing out people who make stupid decisions.

And now we learn that a lot of these people complaining are immigrants, and the part that is left unsaid is that a lot of these people are in the country illegally. We’ve already heard many, many stories about government programs helping out people who don’t contribute to the system. So just like welfare, social security, food stamps, the school system and too many colleges and universities, I’m going to be looked at to pull the freight for people who do nothing. And if I complain, it just shows what a racist, sexist, homophobe I am even though these people are living a better life than I am.

The left is going to come and demand that pay for the houses I already said I couldn’t afford. And if I refuse to pay, I’ll be the one the government will take action against. What a country.

And of course, all this new government spending is only going to inflate the dollar further requiring interest rates to go even higher exasperating the problem. I guess we could freeze interest rates but the dollar is already at historic lows. Organizations like OPEC are considering dropping the dollar as its currency.

Yes – the whole thing is an iron ring brought to you primarily by people who spent more time reading Marx in the 60’s than business text books. And this is why we have the problem now.

So with this all said, I have a question: If we’re such a racist, sexist, homophobic society where the minority are constantly getting screwed, why is it that I as a white man am living at a level lower than “poor”, brown skinned immigrants?