This is the conclusion of a Southhampton University (England) study of IQ tests and eating habits. According to the research, vegetarians have an average of 5 IQ more points than their meat eating counterparts then went on to praise the healthier lifestyle.

Nonjudgemental leftists quickly jumped all over the news, proudly announcing that they had known this all along. Their glows of superiority shown more brightly, their noses raised another half inch in the air and their friends at the coffee shop paused the discussion of John Kerry's influence on neo Marxist philosophy to revel in their own greatness.

Of course, liberals have been telling us that IQ tests are worthless because blacks don't perform as well on them but I'll try not to say the word "racism". I'll just let us all think it loudly.

A healthier lifestyle? It's a good thing that these IQ tests didn't come with drug tests - cause I've only met one vegetarian that didn't have a drug problem of some type (and in a lot of cases, more than one drug problem.)

I'll also try to leave out the most famous vegetarian that comes to mind: Adolph Hitler. The little man from Germany would definitely prop up the validity of this test - he came from humble origins and rose to the leader of Germany. Like most liberal vegetarians of today, Hitler was an artist who spent a lot of his early years starving. Once he became Furher, he enacted radical measures that socialized medicine, legalized euthanisia and abortion, gun control, aggressive recycling programs, conservation initiatives and several other things that leftists hate...oh wait, liberals love all those ideas.

But we're not like Hitler - he wasn't a pothead, right? No, Hitler was a speed freak and I have met vegetarians on meth.  

Well my point is that vegetarianism doesn't make you want to kill 12 million people (as long as said people are already born...and at least older than 3 months and not an inconvenience to living next of kin.) My point is that vegetarianism (and liberalism) are signs of narcissistic egomania and one only needs to visit lefty websites and look at the reaction to stories like this one to see it played out. 

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm 

It's really nice of so many of you to paint me as a Cobra Commander type from the cartoon GI Joe. (For those of you with sensitive, compassionate parents who wouldn't let you watch "GI Joe" growing up cause it would have glorified American exceptionalism, the military and good struggling over evil, Cobra Commander was the faceless enemy who was constantly trying to take over the world with huge arms build ups simply because he relishes death and conflict.) Leftists always say they look at the gray in everything, so it's interesting that I'm being fitted with this narrow minded stereotypes.

What on Earth makes you think I like pain, suffering, death and war? What on Earth makes you think I enjoy conflict? I don't like starting fights. Most of the people I know don't like starting fights either. I said "most. Unfortunately there are aggressive people in this world who threaten peace and these people need to be dealt with.

What exactly is peace? Here is my personal definition: the freedom to live our lives without threats of violence or government action taken against us. It's easy for most Americans to ignore the traumas of the world. The lifestyle of the average citizen gives them the luxury of not paying attention to things going on.

But the world is getting smaller. Gone are the days when the oceans stopped bad people from coming here and doing us harm. 9-11 was a very upsetting experience for most of us. It demonstrated that these people are all to willing to come over here and attempt to bully us into not living our lives the way we deem fit. They're disturbing our peace.

I am *not* going to be bullied in to silence, changing my life or converting to another religion. When you start pushing against those things get ready for me to push back. Americans only seem to see two ways of doing things.

The liberal model is being followed in Europe right now. The Europeans are giving up parts of their lives to appease radical Islamists. Parts of France have been dubbed "occupied territories". The English have established Muslim courts. Other parts of Europe are considering laws against the criticism of Islam.

Anyone who has ever dealt with a bully knows that the last thing you do is give them what they want. They only breeds new, more outrageous demands. It is not a road to anything I would consider peace. So what alternative do we have?

That phrase doesn't offend me. We live in a nation that is 80% Christian from what I'm told. It's only natural that most people at this time of year would wish me a "Merry Christmas". 

What surprises most people is when I tell them that I'm not included in the 80%. (Although we never stereotype people and judge them all as individuals, we all know that only Christians are Conservative. Couple this with the fact that my bio says I'm from Nebraska.) Thus I'm supposed to be outraged when I'm wished a "Merry Christmas". But honestly it's something that I've grown up with. Only in recent times has it been deemed offensive. Maybe I'm just old school. 

Some argue that schools and government places celebrating Christmas is an endorsement of religion. Personally I see it as another day off (at worst.) As long as I'm not being required to pray to the Christian god, it's okay by me.  I have my own winter rituals that I observe and as long as no one stops me legally, it's all good. And over the years I have been denied jobs, shunned publically and cussed out of my religious choice. 

But that is all beside the point. "The War on Christmas" is silly. Christians think that the "Christ" is being taken out of the Holiday. Left wing activists at the ACLU think "Christ" is being too deeply injected. Like most things in life, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

In the meantime, Merry Christmas.

The empty headed Leonardo Dicaprio has a new movie out called "Blood Diamond" which is (in the opinion of equally empty headed American left) the one of the most exciting films of winter. It has gotten the entire left wing establishment thinking about where their diamonds come from and how they're dug up out of the dirt. 

I haven't seen the movie, but reports say that the film deals with the discovery of the largest diamond in history. The problem is that it was dug up by child slaves and is being sold to fund an evil rebel group.

Thus every big lefties everywhere (especially amongst Hollywood) ran to microphones to brag how their diamonds aren't so called "conflict diamonds" and they have the papers to prove it. 

What kind of a joke is that? Talk about out of touch with blue collar working types. I don't know *anyone* personally that has a diamond collection.  Most of the diamonds that me and my friends have bought over the years wouldn't be worthy of a pet collar for most of these Hollywood types in the Media. Wow - they care so much. Of course, it's an empty meaningless type of care. Lefties are all environmentalists, doesn't it disturb them that human beings are raping the environment to get these precious stones? Lefties are all about fighting the greed and materialism - so why do so many of them have diamond collections? 

Most diamonds come from Africa, a continent known for it's brutal dictators and tyrants, lack of human rights, state sponsored genocides, state sponsored tortures, tribal warfare, religious warfare and the list goes on. Just at a brief glance, I'd favor the rebel groups in a lot of these fights or at least expect the rebs not to be any worst than the ruling power that already there. 

This is truly pathetic but so typical of limo libs. Next they'll be telling us that if we're going to buy islands, don't buy from Micronesia (they haven't signed Kyoto.)

Stop overanalysizing - it's just a joke.

To most people a compromise is an agreement. Two or more parties sit down and they each give up something for a greater agreement. Thus they end up with a part of what they want but not all of it. The misery/goodness is spread equally. 

Enter the Baker Report. It's been out two days and the left is celebrating. I haven't seen them this happy since the election of Bill Clinton and the Democrat Congress. Katie Couric was almost wetting her panties the other night in excitement. Lefty bloggers are going crazy with happiness.  

Thus I'm wondering what they gave up in the Baker Report. It was a 'compromise' right?  So what did the left give up? We all know that if they had given up something that's all we'd be hearing about in the unbiased MSM is how 'unreasonable' it was.

A better question is what did we get out of it? I would expect that 39 of the 79 articles in the report would be things that I (as a conservative) agree with. So how come I have yet to see anything I like? Why are conservative pundits oddly silent?

Cause we haven't gotten crap. We didn't get anything out of this "compromise" accept ignored. The people who were supposed to represent our side gave up our principles and sold us out. This was more of an embarrassing surrender than a compromise. If both sides are supposed to get something, why aren't I happy? 

Get ready for tons of gleeful talk of 'compromise' from the left. They'll tell us that now that we all agree, we go forward from here. The fact that this was a RECOMMENDATION will quickly be forgotten. The fact that we *don't* agree will be ignored. It will become the only way to handle the war in Iraq from here on in (since it mandates the liberal way of doing things.)  

Thus from this point in, conservatives will be viewed as the enemy by the political powers that be. Smug liberal political elitists will be quick to remind us that "now that we all agree" the only discussion left is how to implement their ideas.

This stupid Commission was brought to us by a Republican Congress who was supposed to be fighting for our values. The only upshot is that these idiots won't be there to betray us next year.

So leftists that want us to pull out of Iraq want us to redeploy to Dafar. I guess they've forgotten our great success in Mogadishu. In the leftist mind, the military is only to be used as moderators in fights. Interesting that the people who don't think we should impose our values on others are always the first ones to call in the troops to impose our wills on the third world.

Yeah we've all heard the stories of genocide and other attrocities. We heard all these stories before going in to Bosnia as well. I remember my fellow left wing college classmates (who cared more about others than any of the rest of us) tell me about Serbian death camps and torture methods. I remember one guy who told me on no uncertain terms that Serbs were forcing mothers to drink the blood of their children. Of course, the minute we get troops over there we find no death camps. Investigations of sites of "massacres" bared no evidence of any attrocities. Mass graves that were supposed to contain hundreds (if not thousands) of bodies of innocent women and children coughed up a few bodies of adult males. In short, we were lied too: by our president (Bill Clinton at the time), by the Europeans and by the people the Serbs were fighting.

The fact that not a single American died in Bosnia is waved around by the left as a giant victory flag as if the innocent Serbs killed in US action didn't matter. It's okay though, Serbs are white Christians: the enemy of Political Correctness.

Let's contrast this with Iraq. The first thing to point out is that there is a declaration of war. "Yeah, but it was built on a lie!" scream liberals. The two reasons that we went to Iraq were WMDs and connections to al Quada.

There is evidence that a lot of them were moved to Syria before the invasion. Remember the keys to terrorism are hideability and mobility. They're not going to show us what they have.

Al Quada ties are often the forgotten reason. Iraq did have ties to al Quada. They were supporting them with money. The only world trade center bomber not captured in 1994 fled to Iraq. Czech police monitored a meeting between a member of Al Quada and the Iraqi embassador in a cafe six months before 9-11. The list goes on.

So where in Bosnia there was no real reason to go, in Iraq we had a lot of reasons. And we have a lot of reasons to stay until Iraq is a stable government. It's both an odd and terrible idea to get involved in Dafar: a situation that has no strategic value at all.

But with the Dems controlling Congress, watch for the push...

The Baker commission released its report today. Let's all try to act surprised that they suggested a liberal course of action. We've tried the Bush approach for about three years and although we're seeing a lot of success, the fact that it's not happening as fast as we think it should is indication that we've failed. So we need to return to a course of action that hasn't shown any results at all in fifty years. I'm sure it just needs more time.

How fitting that this report is released the day before "Pearl Harbor Day". The Japanese were working for US defeat and so is this bunch.

One of the problems is probably the definition of "victory". The Left's definition of victory is "an end to all fighting in Iraq." Since Iraq rests between Iran and Syria and is populated with al Quada and other terrorist groups being supplied by those two states a total end to all violence is an unreasonable expectation. But this hasn't stopped the media, liberal politicians and actors and left wing groups from declaring Iraq a disaster.

The Conservative definition of "victory" is the establishment of a state that can combat the violent elements of its society on its own. In terms of this definition, Iraq is a success. The Iraqis had elections, put together a government, are working on a Constitution, are building schools and upgrading hospitals. Iraqis are starting to live better and know freedoms that have been completely alien up to this point.
 
Obviously a complete and sudden pull out would be a disaster for both definitions. Libs take solace in the fact that their "victory" plan would result in the loss of less American life. The fact that it would cost more Iraqi lives doesn't even echo. More importantly, a sudden pull out would be seen as weakness by our enemies. Why should the enemy quit when if they're patient we'll leave?

Loss of human life is never a good thing. But in terms of a "war" we really haven't felt it. It's taken three years to kill roughly 3000 Americans in the war on terror. This total is overall - it includes Afghanistan, Iraq and other places we're fighting. Three years for 3000 dead. It's still a smaller number than the number we lost in two hours on 9-11, the event that began all of this.

How is giving up going to save anything? The enemy doesn't respect us and why should they? They invaded our soil, used our instruments to kill our citizens and despite this THEY'RE TOLD THEY'RE THE VICTIMS. Leftists *ALWAYS* assume these people are innocent. Meanwhile they *ALWAYS* assume American soldiers and people are guilty.

The Baker Commission is a joke. It's purpose is to give *recommendations* about the war on terror (specifically Iraq). But watch for the word "recommendations" to be dropped from the debate. Watch for the "bipartisanship" of the commission to be hailed everywhere. But I'm guessing even the biggest news junkies amongst you could tell me who was on the commission. Were there *any* real conservatives? Or just RINOs?

And most insulting of all: watch for a call for everyone who disagrees with the leftist argument to be politely told to shut up. It will be said that now that we all agree, be quiet. But with a bunch of people disagreeing with the liberalism of this report how truly "bipartisan" could it have been?

I was arguing with a leftist the other day about US "torturing" of political prisoners. This particular individual gave me the usual unbiased, non partisan liberal sources to back up their argument. You know the story about "some guy" who went on "a very important tv show" and talked to "a host of great prestige" about the torture he underwent and here is a detailed description of the torture. 

I told this person that "some guy" from an *uncited* television show isn't a good source when it suddenly struck me - in the leftist mind to not believe this individual is akin to an endorsement of torture. It's no different than when you disagree with Michael J. Fox (you must obviously want people to suffer from genetic disorders) or to disagree with Cindy Sheehan (you must obviously want people to die.)  

I'm not in favor of torturing people - especially the way "some guy" describes it (being put in cold rooms, hot rooms, having dogs put within inches of their bodies, etc). Also according to what I'm told, "some guy" was completely innocent of everything. 

So this particular liberal I'm arguing with wants me to believe (based on uncited, unnamed sources) that our government is snatching *innocent* people off the street and torturing them for no reason at all. And to ask questions like "Why didn't they just kill him when they were done instead of letting him go?" is considered offensive, unreasonable and a defense of torture. 

Look: I'm an enigma buff. I like to watch unsolved mysteries and read books about the unexplained. I would love to believe that there are aliens with the cure for cancer visiting the Earth but the acid dropping, devil worshipping hippy commune living just outside LA isn't a real good source. I don't cite World Net Daily in my columns. I love their conservative philosophy, but I think they're prone to exaggeration.

When it's not "some guy" it's usually someone who was released from Guantanamo telling the stories of torture. Again I have to ask: "If it was really that bad, why did they let you go? Why didn't they just kill you when they were done?" The left really needs to take these questions to heart. 

Al Quada is run by very intelligent, very resourceful people. Nine Eleven demonstrated that they're very willing to use our own devices against us. There have been stories about members of al Quada lecturing their followers about making up stories about what is going on in prisons like Guantanamo coming out of Afghanistan. (Ever notice how everyone in prison is innocent?) 

They're attempting to sew confusion and breed mistrust and they've found willing idiots amongst guilt ridden, politically correct indocrinated, western hating socialists and Communists amongst us. Maybe there is torture going on - but to date no one has presented me with anything I consider to be credible source. The only things I've gotten are reports from the ACLU (a partisan organization where it's leading members talk openly about their hatred for Bush), stories from former prisoners (who tell stories that would make Renaissance witch hunters cringe) and reports from know-it-all openly left wing college professors (who's reports are based on what the former prisoners mentioned above are saying.) 

I'm not endorsing torture: the stories I'm being told don't make any sense. And screaming at me when I question you isn't going to make me a believer.

 

I'm stunned by the response to my original column "Bring Back Nam." A lot of people "disagree with my arguments" but don't say why. Apparently the peaceniks can't wait to be conscripted into the US army. You lefties will be ecstatic to hear that there is a trial balloon being floated around that gays will be quotaed in to the new draft. So long "Don't ask, don't tell".

They'll also be happy to know that under the proposed draft, women will be serving in combat. And it's starting to look like yes, draftees will come from the pool of people between 18 and 42.

Each one of these details has been met with more applause from the anti war crowd. We all know the real reason the left is so happy: it's really lonely at the peace march these days. Rangel wants "a generation of Democrat control". He believes that a reinstatement of the draft will do just that and his supporters think so as well. Nam is arguably what solidified 40 years of Democratic rule.

Oh joy. Forty more years of neo aristocrats lording over us. Seventy percent of Americans are opposed to a draft.

But don't know what's good for them. If they did, Liberals would be out of a job. So lefties are going to attempt to *force* a draft on us. Don't worry though, when election time rolls around they'll blame war mongering conservatives. Of course even if we're at peace, we'll still be conscripting people but that won't matter either.

Again: Rangel says that he wants a draft so that politicians will have a stake in wars. Maybe (he rationalizes) if the children of politicians were in danger war wouldn't exist. I can't help but wonder if he's talking about the same Politicians who wrote themselves out of Social Security and the Civil Rights act. I can't help but wonder if he's talking about the same people who were outraged when the FBI searched the office of William Jefferson just a few months ago *despite the fact that the feds had a warrant.*

I still have a hard time seeing Chelsea Clinton being drafted and sent to war. It's more likely that her *rich and powerful* parents will hire high priced lawyers to get her off the hook. It's likely that other rich and powerful people who find see their children drafted will threaten to cut off those very important campaign contributions to get their children out.

The rich kids who do go will probably end up as officers. Most of them have some level of college - thus CO is a very distinct possibility. They'll get desk jobs far, far away from the real carnage.

Thus the poor (that libs claim to care more about than anyone else) will suffer worst than anyone else. But who cares as long as it keeps the left in power?

There was at least one person who emailed me forwarding the theory that a draft would bring an end to the use of foreign mercenaries. That's really a stupid chain of logic. If you want to end the use of mercenaries, you push for a law banning the use of mercenaries - not a draft.

I'm warning you peaceniks right now: don't confuse "antidraft" with "antiwar". You will one day find that that line of thinking will come back to bite you.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1740933/posts

Ladies and Gentlemen - not every artist is a leftist whack job. Now that we are just a little over five years away from the terrible events of 9-11 I have produced a piece of "net art" to commorate the event. Though I try not to prostitute my blogs, I am going to make an acception here.

It took me some time to put this all together - finding all the pictures and quotes. I can't believe some of the quotes I found and you should see some of the stuff that I couldn't fit in.

I'm still galled *anyone* could take the film "Loose Change" seriously. And too see the "unbiased, non partisan" media fawning over the guys who did it makes me want to vomit.

I can't believe what the Hollywood slime is saying about America - its troops, its citizens, its culture. It makes me want to hit something (and I'm not a violent person.)

I'm tired of "artists" talking about "making people think" and then giving us more tired liberal, left wing, neomarxist, recycled 60's crap like it's a new idea. With this piece I wanted to show them that we can do it too and that our stuff can be just as touching. Putting their words with pictures of the people who suffered and died. I wanted to SHOW them what they are talking about.

This piece is actually 1000 words long (if you count hyphenated words as 2).

Wow Chuck Rangel (Liberal Representative Senator New York) wants to reinstate the draft. This seems to be a shock to the main stream media, college professors and various left wing activists around the US. Of course, anyone paying attention has known that Rangel has been pushing for a draft since the beginning of the Iraq Invasion.

Ostensibly this is so that the rich will be just as effected just as much as the poor (who people like Chuck Rangel have told me poor people have been forced into this position.) Of course going back a couple of years we saw military personnel living on food stamps thanks to the efforts of military hating Liberals Democrats like Rangel. But that will be quickly forgotten.

The other reason he says he wants this is so that politicians will have a stake in things when they make wars. Yeah, I'm so sure that now that Chelsea Clinton is done flunking out of Oxford she'll be on the list of as one of the first to be rounded up. Just as I'm sure that if I looked back at the antiwar Rangel's response to every Clinton excursion around the globe I'd find nothing but words of glowing support from the Senator.

We all know the real reason behind this, Rangel said it himself last week. He wants to create "a generation of Democratic control." It doesn't take a genius to guess what he means. Vietnam (and the draft during that war) is what arguably let to forty years of Democratic control of Congress. Voters quickly forgot that it was JFK and LBJ (Democratic presidents) that really got us deeply involved in that war. Just as they forgot that it was the Democratic controlled congress who took over ten years to end the draft. Just as they forgot that it was Richard Nixon (Republican president) who pulled us out of Nam.

But Chuck doesn't care as long as he gets to keep his precious chairmanship of the House weighs and means committee (the committee where all the tax and spending bills begin). Be interesting to see if Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich goes and talks to the new chairman about his nonpartisan idea to cut off funding to troops in Iraq (and all the newly drafted troops while they're at it). Not for political games, but for the children.

Bush and other military leaders have said many times that we have enough troops. It's liberals that have disagreed. Bush and other military leaders have said many times that there is enough military people on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's liberals who are demanding more (right before they they start marching around with signs stating the a running toll of the death count.) It's not hard to see what the left is doing. They learned from Nam alright - they learned to love their power, their control, their political games. But in the meantime people are suffering and dying. But as long as Dems remain in charge it's a worthy loss.

Rangel's latest version of the draft will put people from 18 to 42 into political play. Thus I personally know a lot of people who are as equally likely to be drafted as their of age kids. Now that the Dems are in charge of the Congress watch for this draft idea to get a lot more traction.

Peaceniks be proud. You're getting exactly what you voted for. Too bad none of you were paying attention.

Why is it that whenever you argue with a leftist they always lash back with "Oh yeah, well why don't you....?" (in the case of abortion, adopt a child/in the case of the military, enlist/etc.)

What a stupid response. Here for the sake of fun, let me reverse it: If you like taxes so much, why don't you pay yourself?

No you don't. No - you don't. No one who actually pays the draconian tax rates of the US would be in favor of raising them. This is why leftists always talk about raising taxes "on the rich" and making sure everyone "pays their fair share". In their minds they themselves are not rich and they already are paying their fair share. But a quick glance at who votes for liberals reveals they're not paying much in taxes at all: illegal immigrants, the dead, welfare collectors, people living on social security and millionaires who can afford armies of lobbists and accountants to find all the loop holes. Isn't it interesting to note that when Hillary Clinton went to drop off the money (that had been raised by contributors on the behalf of the Clintons) for the taxes she noted with surprise in her voice "wow, these taxes are high".

But then maybe this is why the Democratic party is packed with millionaires. Congress usually writes themselves out of their own legislation be it Social Security or the Civil Rights Act. It's okay to drive around in Limos, eating steak and lobster as long as you're doing the work of "the people".

Perhaps as leftists point out, you can't criticise something unless you've done it/been in the situation yourself. Thus one can't criticise Cindy Sheehan unless you've actually lost a son or daughter in war. You can't criticise Michael J. Fox unless you actually have Parkinson's Disease.

Unfortunately, the double edge is sharp since you also can't criticise Mark Foley unless you've flirted with pages on MSN, you can't criticise the military unless you've actually been in the military (which most of the Democratic leadership hasn't), you can't  criticise tax payers unless you've actually paid them....

 

Now that the Dems are done partying from their mid term election victory, they've began work on what they mistakenly think got them elected: Pulling out of the war in Iraq. The only thing less surprising than the fact that they don't have a clue how they're going about this is the tired rhetoric they're using to justify the action.

It seems that leftists everywhere are talking about "forgiveness". We should forgive the terrorists who would do us harm. We shouldn't be mad about things like 9-11. We should understand that the West (and everything that made the west great like freedom, respect for each other, human and women's rights, etc) made the Middle East what it is today. Forgive the murderers who come over here and kill us indiscriminately. Forgive the dictators over there who are committing tons of human rights abuses. Forgive their hate filled philosophy. Forgive their antisocial religion.

And what is the best way to do this? By cracking down on Conservatives. Get ready, cause liberals and Dems won't offer their political rivals any quarter. They want to impeach Bush for all kinds of "war crimes". Isn't it odd to think that the people who are directly responsible for the deaths of so many innocents are worth forgetting about, but the people who are trying to protect our nation from the people who would cause so many innocent deaths are to be hunted down?

It also illustrates the twisted side of liberal logic.