So the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has finally gotten done "editing" a report on Global Warming that came last Spring. It’s curious as to why they felt they needed to “edit” the report, rather than just releasing the document and letting it speak for itself.

The conclusions that they came too are even less surprising: humans are polluting the Earth and we’re all doomed if we don’t put them in charge right now.

That’s right – just like any other advertiser, if we don’t buy the IPCC line and do buy it right now we’re all doomed. But personally I’ve never believed a telemarketer who told me that I need a product or service right now or my life would be incomplete. So I’m not about to believe that the UN needs to be in charge based on their own work.  Do I need to remind you this is the same outfit that over stated the AIDS epidemic, violated their own trade embargo during the “Oil for Food” years of Iraq and can’t even fix otherwise simple problems like ending nuclear proliferation.

Of course libs – some of the exact same people who look at 9-11 and smell a George Bush/Israeli plot to bring down the Muslim middle East are all excited about this and buy it hook, line and sinker.

Naturally I’m skeptical. For starters there is no evidence of Global Warming. Zip. Zero. Nada. None. For every shrinking glacier, there’s one that’s growing. For every place going through a heat wave, there is a place going through a chill. None of the computer models that they’ve put together so far have panned out. Supposedly places like England and Mexico are supposed to turn in to giant deserts. Instead both places are flooding. Right now, Argentina is stuck in the “Winter that won’t End” with some of the coldest temperatures on record for Nov. Last June saw late winter storms in Wyoming and Sweden. A year ago Russian scientists were predicting the coming of a new ice age as they shivered through one of Europe’s coldest winters on record.

The warmest period in human history was during the middle ages. Warm weather allowed the Vikings to find the continent of North America (and colonize it). It also allowed for farming in Scotland – something that can’t be done today even with our modern technology.

Al Gore’s movie is full of errors. A British court ruled just a few weeks ago that eleven inaccuracies had to be pointed out before showing his film to school children…and that’s just what the court is requiring be pointed out. He keeps throwing around the word “consensus” like that makes him right. I remember science class in school. Sometimes we’d all come to the same conclusion in our homework only to find out the answer was wrong. The teacher didn’t change it to make us right – the teacher flunked us as we deserved.

Then there is problems with the theory of warming itself. According Global Warming theory, the deserts will grow as the globe gets hotter. This is the flawed thinking of the ill informed. They’re confusing a heat wave with a drought. Though they often go hand in hand the two are very different things. Follow me here: heat causes evaporation, evaporation causes humidity and clouds, once the atmosphere becomes saturated it rains. Thus more heat equal MORE rain doesn’t it?

Carbon Dioxide doesn’t change the way the wind blows any more than an oil spill changes the way a river runs. There are other forces at work – the turning of the earth and gravity for example.

Geologically speaking humans don’t put that much CO2 in the air anyway - just 3.4%. The other 96% comes from natural sources. One volcano can spit out more CO2 in the course of a single eruption than all human activity in throughout history put together. The oceans produce our Oxygen and suck up the CO2.

But I’ll play this game with you. Let’s assume that Global Warming is happening. You’re going to have a hard time pinning it on humans. Geologic history is a patch work of warming and cooling.

And what are the IPCC’s fixes for Global Warming? How are they purposing to stop it? The first thing they’re going to do is raise taxes as if we can buy it off and have it go attack another planet. Ostensibly this money will go to poor “developing” nations (but the UN is so corrupt, I’m thinking it will go other places.)

So are these “developing” nations going to use it to modernize? Environmentalists hate modernization. In order to save the environment, starving third world citizens will have to stay starving.

Technology is what allows millions of people to live on the globe. This is why it took six thousand years to create a population of billions. The reason we grow so much food is because we no longer have to feed the ox that pulls the plow. Gas powered tractors don’t eat a portion of the grain and corn. Irrigation allows us to bring water to arid places that can’t otherwise support plants. Pesticides insure that the plants won’t be eaten before it gets to the human table. And fertilizer causes the plants to grow bigger and healthier than at any other time in history.

But all of these things change the environment. Land has to be cleared for farming use. Rivers have to be dammed for their water. Chemical pesticides and fertilizer run free throughout the land. And tractors emit CO2 – and that’s not including the truck that drives the food to the cities.

The end result is a punishing of the first world while letting the third celebrate environmental destruction. The Kyoto Accords (which the IPCC thinks should be mandated everywhere) lists giant polluters like China and India as “developing” meaning that they can spit out as much poison as they want to with impunity…and “modernizing” will compound the problem as their population gets bigger, requiring more food and so on and so forth.

But that’s not the only fix they have in store for us. I’m sure that another power they will see to give themselves is the power to silence those that disagree with them, their theory and their methods. We’re already seeing this – from Al Gore suggesting that the media not cover those who question global warming to various European countries considering laws against “Global Warming Deniers”. And they’re so full of their own self righteousness that they’ll continue to call their censorship free speech – the same way that Islamists insist laws against cartoons of their prophet are in the spirit of free speech.

But there is still more from the IPCC. They’re going to anoint themselves the judges of how resources can be used and by whom and how much – as if it’s theirs to assign. How arrogant is that?

It’s really nice of these guys to put together a study that concludes you should be in charge. It’s a lot like when that nice used car salesman puts together a study showing that I need to buy his car or when that nice businessman puts together a study showing that I need to invest in his idea. The only difference here is the arrogance being demonstrated and how stupid and blind the left is for falling for it.

And for my critics – did I say that we should pollute the planet? No, I didn’t. Did I say we should hunt all the creatures of the Earth to extinction? No, I didn’t. Did I say that would should put smoke in the air and pour chemicals into the rivers and oceans? No, I didn’t. Did I say we should throw our junk everywhere? No, I didn’t.

Lastly - Did I say Global Warming isn’t happening? No, I didn’t. I said there is no evidence of it because there isn’t.

To our Native American friends this Thanksgiving: get over yourselves. I'm sick and tired of being lectured too by you self righteous bigots. Yeah we've all heard the simplified version of PC history where evil Europeans came here, found a peaceful people living in a paradise, sold them guns and liquor, introduced them to slavery, stole their land, massacred them using war and disease and so on and so forth.

You know, Native Americans (or as I call them "Indians") did terrible things in "500 years of oppression" too. Indians in the United States got off on playing the European powers off each other. There were a lot of tribes that were violently opposed to the white man (or as they should be called, "European Americans".) Some of these tribes are still honored today with statues and even towns named after them.

Ever heard of "Baton Rouge Louisiana"? It's French for "Red Stick" after the tribe of Creeks that massacred all whites who dared enter their land. The Red Sticks went on rampages where they burned crops, scalped the innocent, massacred women and children and did a bunch of other things patriotic libs tell us that only white people in the Marines stationed in Iraq do. But since Indians have brown skin, practice a minority religion and are considered to have lost, we'll forgive them.

It's a myth that most Americans wanted to wipe out the Indians. Constantly through all the wars between the government and the various tribes there were many people who were sympathic to the Indians. A lot of Americans compared Indian leaders to George Washington: a ragtag band standing up to a united, powerful force. If it was supposed to be a put down, they would have compared them to King George of England.

Thanksgiving is an American holiday. It's all inclusive. The first Thanksgiving was open to all regardless of race or ethnicity. The Indians at the time showed up too. They were welcomed with open arms. It was a second in a violent time where everyone actually got along. Isn't that worth celebrating?

I know what libs and Indians are thinking as they read this: another white guy defending his racist history and way of life. Another white man making excuses for his prejudices and justifying his stereotypes, right?

Well let me tell you a story about a man named Homer. Home lived his average normal life in Louisiana around the turn of the 1900's. But all was not well. Louisiana had just passed a law requiring that blacks (which included Mexicans, Indians, Asians and Blacks) be separated from whites.

Homer went to get on the bus one day and told the driver, "My great grandmother was black, making me one eighth black. Should I sit at the front or the back?" The driver made him sit at the back. Homer Plessy sued - took his challenge all the way to the Supreme Court and lost in the landmark "Plessy vs. Ferguson" case. In that ruling the court affirmed the practice of segregation. Unfortunately for Homer Plessy, he was too black for society.

How ironic it would be that today Plessy is too white for Affirmative Action laws. Not judging by skin color indeed.

Why is this story important and why am I telling it? Because my great grandmother was an Indian. I'm one eighth Indian.

(Yeah well, you've had it easy cause you look white.) What were you just saying about not judging by skin color and ethnicity?

Yeah - your own rules never apply to you.

Happy Thanksgiving all.

The Second Amendment might be going on trial at the Supreme Court. It seems that Congress passed a law banning guns in Washington D.C. (though you'd never know it by the violent crime rates.)

Here is what the Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. You can't get much more clear than that. But leave it to a bunch of political hacks to try.

District of Columbia Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is that act that was struck down in a 2 to 1 ruling in the D.C. circuit court. The provision in question made it illegal to own side arms in the District of Columbia.

Obviously this is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. The Congress of the United States passed a law that violates the supreme law of the land. There is absolutely no question about it.

It's rather offensive that this even had to go to court to begin with. Surely politicians with even the most meager education can read the Second amendment and figure out what it says.

This is scary on many, many levels. I've often joked that I was waiting for some judge somewhere to begin declaring parts of the Constitution unconstitutional. I just never thought it would be so close.

Despite the criticism of the left when the war on terror began, Bush emphasized the need for allies. Especially amongst "Islamic Republics" dotting the middle east. A key state in the war is Pakistan which shares a border with the (at the time) Taliban run state of Afghanistan.

Naturally when the fighting started Afghans began making runs for the border and President Gen. Pervez Musharraf halted them there. But as time went on Pakistan policy changed, the border was opened and Afghans were let in.

The United States warned Pakistan that members of the Taliban and al Quada were hiding amongst the refugees. Musharraf echoing western liberal rhetoric refused to do anything. The reports of the US military targeting civilians are always true right? Besides - Musharraf is a Muslim, they're Muslims, we're all going to get along here. These refugees are just looking for peace and quiet right?

Wrong. Now here we sit in 2007 and the mountainous provinces of Pakistan are seeing an increase in civil unrest fueled mainly by Islamic extremism. Shrines and holy sites that Muslims find offensive are coming under attack more and more.

So much for Islamic "brotherhood."

But it gets worst. Musharraf is a dictator who promised to step down both from the presidency and the military by this point. Well he's done neither and this is causing civil unrest in the population at large who are demanding elections immediately.

Now add in the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear state and we've got quite a problem.

Benazir Bhutto who used to be Prime Minister before being exiled, has returned to her home and is now leading opposition to Musharraf. But she has a history of friendly relations with the Taliban - even going so far as to send them military aid back in the 90's. Her policy on the terror backing group might have changed, but being as she's a hero of the left worldwide I'm not going to count on it.

Make no bones about it - any election in Pakistan is going to include people who like terrorists (or are terrorists.) Now I doubt they'll be dumb enough to actually run as a "Taliban" or an "al Queda" party. But it will still be there. Most polls from that area find ordinary citizens do sympathize with terrorists.

And make no bones about this: we're not going to let terrorists get their hands on nuclear weapons.

So there is the choice - back an evil that we know or back an evil that we don't know.

What a choice.

Cindy Sheehan where are you? It seems that the first Veteran's Day in several years has come and gone without you gracing the front page of every newspaper, magazine and cable news show and every reporter on the planet reminding me that your son died in Iraq.

Where are the pictures of you throwing yourself on your son's grave? Where are the pictures of you looking all self righteous as they drag you out of another peace protest (denying you of your "right" to be obnoxious and disruptive)? Where are all the celebrities and foreign tyrants who were racing to have their pictures taken with you?

Do you still have a movie in the works? Or did Susan Saradon drop you when you became unfashionable? Where is your play? Is it still being acted out to what (I was told) were sold out theaters? And how is your campaign for Representative from San Francisco going? Hm...now that I think about it, seems like you dropped off the face of the earth about three days after announcing you were running.

I'm not accusing the media of being biased, but it sure is interesting that six months ago you couldn't use a public restroom without it being a "statement" about the evils of the Bush administration. I can only assume that you've been hiding at home under the bed. Which is really strange when you think about it. I would assume that now that you're running against Nancy Pelosi you would be more politically active, not less. How odd is it that journalists no longer seem to find you interesting.

I notice that Code Pink is still around. Isn't that your outfit? If I remember correctly you were deeply entrenched with the rotting geezers that make up that group. Yet your face is oddly missing from the wrinkled, toothless, shower hungry crones that make up that fine organization. Weren't you at that "haunted house" in Washington DC just before Halloween? You didn't make it in to any of the pictures. You provided us with no quotes or sound bites from the Code Pink vandalism of Recruiting offices a few months ago.

DailyKos isn't lamenting your absence. I have yet to see a diary in the top ten that even mentions you when talking about the innocent people effected by the "illegal" war. Those diaries used to be a staple.

It's so odd that the urgency is gone. It's so odd that the anti war movement no longer has a face, a victim, a sacred cow that could go out and say anything that the critics aren't supposed to respond too. And it's really funny that the last few mentions of you in liberal blogs state the some of the very observations I've been making over the years. So I guess I was on to something.

Look on the up side Cindy, you had your run - enjoy it. At least you got some land in Crawford Texas...land that you bought under less than honest and truthful circumstances...land that you lied about when promised to build a park on in rememberance of your son...land that you are now trying to sell for two or three times what you paid for it. But that doesn't make you greedy any more than all your activism made you a media whore.

Wow I never thought I'd get to a part three of this, but here it is. Hillary's campaign is beginning to show weakness. Is this because of a right wing conspiracy and fifteen years of Rush Limbaugh's criticism?

No.

Is it because of all the Chinese funny money she's getting? From the 1000 dollar contributions from dishwashers to the 800k from a welfare family in California?

No.

Is it because of her obsession with privacy going so deep that she's locked up her college papers and rehired Sandy Berger - a guy who was found guilty of destroying documents? (And let's not forget her and Bill doing everything they can to keep us from getting documents from their first two terms in office.)

No.

Is it because Bush (the dumbest leader of modern times) tricked her (which leaves me wondering exactly how smart Hillary is) in to voting for an unpopular war that no one wants?

No.

Is it because she's going to nationalize healthcare, raise taxes and (despite not having enough money for any of the above) still earmarks money for campaign contributors and a Woodstock Museum?

No.

Is it because Hillary Clinton is an arrogant witch that looks down on us and hates it when "the little people" ask her questions she doesn't feel she has to answer?

Somewhat.

Believe it or not, a waitress and single mother named "Esterday" has done what none of the above could: hurt the Hillary campaign. How'd she do it? By uncovering something embarrassing?

Again no.

Hillary simply didn't tip her. It takes a village to raise a child, but I guess Hillary's not a part of that particular village. So it's okay.

Or is it - a lot of hay is being made over Hillary's snub. The media is really digging in to it, though I'm not sure why. My first guess would be that some in the press are starting to favor Obama or Edwards. Or perhaps the press really is getting bored and trying to stir things up.

Anyway - kudos to Esterday for doing something the "right wing conspiracy" couldn't.

Maybe we need new "Server Fairness" laws.

Recently a George Washington University student filed a police report that she had come back to her dorm room only to discover Nazi Swastikas drawn on the door. A police investigation revealed that the student herself was responsible for the offending graffiti.

This incident is just one in a long list of phony charges about racial strife primarily on college campi, but other places as well. From the Duke Lacrosse team to nooses at Columbia University, fake racial problems are the style of the day.

And despite the fact that there have been so many fake racial crimes in recent days, the press, civil rights activists and other "open minded", "non judgemental" types that always have the same reaction regardless of the (lack of) evidence presented: all white people are racist and capable of this (as if that's not a racist statement itself).

Insultingly when a lot of these "hate" crimes are discovered to be what they are, all charges are dropped. Of course, when a group of black men were roughly treated by police after Natalie Holloway disappeared and then released after there was found to be no evidence civil rights activists wanted an apology (and more.)  

But the point is simple: these phony allegations are hate crimes in and of themselves. Like the Nazis or Lenin's Communist Horde or the KKK at the turn of the 20th century we have political movements attempting to foster hatred against a scapegoat for political gain. And in a lot of cases modern libs are using the same rationalizations that prompted the Nazis and Communists against the Jews: namely money and class. Since the Jews had the money, controlled the banks, were in charge of credit institutions, etc. it was rationalized that they were responsible for the suffering of the common people in Germany/Russia.

Today political correctness teaches that white people are responsible for all the evils on earth. Every single sin from slavery to global warming can be traced back to some white male somewhere. Libs have even come up with a great name for it: "white male privilege". Most libs who walk around complaining about "white male privilege" are not white or male so I can't help but wonder how they know their buzz phrase holds any water. They tend to use TV and movies as their evidence. True these same TV and movies show only negative stereotypes about minorities and women, but I'm sure they got the white male down accurately.

The irony is multifaceted. We're not allowed to screen Muslims at airports, lest they feel discriminated against. So we have to randomly search everyone. We're not allowed to racial profile blacks lest they feel the hand of intolerance. We have to profile everyone. But a noose hangs from a tree somewhere and we go round up all the white men.

Studies show that Muslims are more likely to commit acts of terror and blacks are more likely to commit crime and we told to ignore these "racist" studies. But studies showing that whites are prejudiced are accepted unquestioningly as gospel. Moreover we make laws based on such racist studies.

Since white people won't hire black people, we're going to make a law requiring them too. Since white college boards won't let black people in, we'll make a law requiring them too. (Nevermind the fact that all business owners, people on college boards and police are just assumed to be white.)

Racism is racism. Discrimination is discrimination. It's very interesting that the people who claim to be fighting these things are some of their biggest backers. Just as it's interesting that the "open minded, non judgemental" people who propagate these myths won't listen to this column.

About a month ago I was telling everyone that Hillary would be the next president of the United States.

Today I'm not so sure.

Truth be told, Hillary is a weak candidate on shakey ground - just listen to her. On one side I'm supposed to believe that she's one of the smartest leaders in our country. That said, she wants us to believe that she was tricked in to endorsing a war with Iraq by George Bush (who is supposed to be one of the stupidest leaders in our country.)

On one side I'm supposed to believe that Hillary had nothing to do with the Healthcare plan when it was proposed back in 1994. But if you use your memory (or do any research in to the subject) you'll notice that she lead the Health Care "task force".

On one side she portrays her experience as a co president in her husband's administration. On the other hand she had nothing to do with it.

And now in the latest news trickling out I'm supposed to believe that Hillary is opposed to giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, unless we're trying to get an accurate count of how many are in the state of New York, only then we're not going to let them on our roads - but it's all Bush's fault.

To paraphrase the words of Barrack Obama, "I can't tell if she's for it or against it."

In fact if you listen/read the transcripts of the last debate Hillary's only solid message is "It's all Bush's fault." Too bad Bush isn't running in 2008 or this might make a good campaign slogan. Definitely win her the support of the kook left wing blogosphere anyway.

But the truth is that she's got all kinds of bad baggage from unusual fund raising practices that covers everything from taking thousand dollars in contributions from dishwashers, hundreds of thousands of dollar contributions from people living on welfare and big money from infants and toddlers.

Moreover she is holding documents about her and Bill's first two terms in office. Our media can get military plans and secrets using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) but we can't get the chronicals of a failing administration using the same types of "Sunshine Laws".

Even if the records do slide out, Clinton will just get Sandy Berger to destroy any forms that indicate criminal wrongdoing. He was found guilty of destroying classified documents to cover for the Clintons you know. And he was rewarded by being rehired by Hillary.

But conservatives have been pointing out stuff like this for years only to be ignored by the unbiased, non partisan press. But none of the above has even tickled the curiousity of Journalists. I notice that media types are keenly interested in investigating the theory that Bush knew about 9-11 despite that there is no evidence. But the dirty dealings of the Clintons get a pass despite mountain of evidence.

Well it's starting to crack apart. The Main Stream Media (MSM) is starting to take another look at the Clintons. And although the MSM never takes sides I can almost guarentee that it's because the Clinton machine is starting to target other Democrats - especially the other presidential candidates.

Obama, Edwards, Dodd and others love it when they get passes and softballs when arguing with conservative critics. But when Saint Hillary gets dodges at their expense, they get mad. Or I at least assume that these guys are serious about their runs for the highest office in the land and they're being played for chumps by the Camp Hillary and the media.

But something interesting is starting to happen: journalists actually are starting to look in to some of the curious things Clinton is doing. 

Already the feminists are splitting on Hillary. A lot of feminists are falling back on the same tired arguments that "The boys are attacking the girl". But other feminists are starting to argue that Hillary is under attack for being the front runner. Even Hillary herself has forwarded this notion - even as she talks about being a good mother/housewife. But this hasn't stopped people like Nancy Pelosi are chidding the ex first lady for "playing the gender card". 

Funny - I disagree ideologically with Clinton but my not voting for her makes me a "sexist". Feminists won't vote for Hillary even though they share her ideology and that makes them, not sexists but good voters? How's that for twisted?

The bottom line is that the gaps and cracks and weaknesses are now being looked at by a handful of people in the press and the other candidates. And even though no one is really going to truly go for the jugular when it comes to Clinton, it is a bit refreshing to have everything I've been saying up to this point given some veracity.

Maybe Hillary will start to face other hard questions - if not from CNN then maybe from the other primary candidates.

Welcome to the right wing conspiracy guys!

Maybe someone will even ask her when we're finally going to give up on Kosovo (her husband's forgotten war.)

I hate labor unions. They have a purpose I suppose, protecting the little guy from the company. The real problem with labor unions though is who is protecting me from the union?

In fact most unions have the game rigged so that you need them a heck of a lot more than they need you. Pretty sweet deal for them - setting up their own little monopoly on labor in a particular field.

But all this said, I'm going to go on record as siding with the Writer's Guild of America (WGA) against the Hollywood Studios.

Partially this is a kiss up - people who don't support the union tend to get blacklisted and *never* work anywhere ever again. Being a screen writer myself, this would obviously be a
bad thing. (As I said, who's protecting me from the union?)

But mostly I'm supporting the WGA because I think they're right.

I've worked in a lot of businesses in my time but none have ever been as cut throat and backstabbing as screenwriting. In my short tenure in the 'biz' I can't believe some of the rotten, mean things I've seen so far. A lot of script "contests" are actually idea collection scams for established writers. Some writers like to "collaborate" with other writers (only they're really stealing your contacts.) Nefarious production people changing two lines of your script so that they can give themselves a coauthorship credit.

In fact some aspects of screenwriting are more miserable than others. Most people will never have to endure some of the degradations that a screenwriter will go through. Odds are that when you sell a script, the first thing the new owner will do is have it entirely rewritten. Most people I know get mad when their work is questioned/corrected. We learned long ago that this would be a staple of our business.

Fortunately this is one place where the guild actually protects its people. The *first* rewrite is to be done by the actual person who wrote it. Other rewrites don't have to be.

Other things that you can look forward to are: last minute changes, requests for miracle working and being treated like a toilet seat by producers, directors and actors.

And probably the biggest put down of all: being unknown outside of Hollywood circles. Who wrote "Casablanca"? Who wrote "Titanic"? Who wrote "The Godfather"? Most people can identify the actors and possibly even the directors of said movies. But only a scant few could tell me who wrote them.

So as a screenwriter, you can also expect being almost unknown. In an industry that is all about glitz and glamour and being known, you'll have to settle with obscurity.

But none of these things are what the strike is all about. What this strike is about is how writers will be paid in the cyber age. Right now every time you watch a movie in the theater or at the video store, the screenwriter gets a small royalty.

But new technology has made it possible for internet downloads and DVD sales - things that the writers are all but cut out of. And every day technology changes just a tiny bit more.

So the bottom line is that the studios are charging the same (overinflated) prices while paying less overhead.

Screenwriters are just wanting the fruit of their labor. Scripts take a long time to write and create. A good script can take years to put together. But it only takes a few seconds for someone to decide they want to steal it (and do so.)

The writers are just protecting themselves and their work.

In the wake of these debates, I don't know who to feel more sorry for: the Democrats who are still act like they have a choice of candidates, the Republicans who actually think they might win, the media for being too arrogant to see how stupid they look to everybody who's conscious or the American public who is probably going to get a screw job when the Hell B***h Hillary assumes office in '09.

Of course this is a piece about Hillary - that's all anyone in the media can seem to talk about. But unlike other articles, this won't be a puff piece about how romantic Bill is and how clever the Clintons are at lying.

You really think the press is status quo/fair? Oh come on. The Hillary campaign has raised millions and millions and millions of dollars - mostly from Chinese immigrants now serving as dishwashers. And despite receiving an 800k check from a family living on welfare, journalists don't find the story investigation worthy.

Moreover - Hillary takes credit for setting up "charity" organizations like MoveOn.Org, Media Matters for America and other groups that only contribute to left wing causes. I guess they need to feed starving working class joes like Barack Obama and John Edwards. (Of course, any time a minister stands up in a church to talk about abortion or homosexuality, here comes the FEC/IRS gestapo.)

The Clintons were, by far one of the most corrupt administrations in American history. (Having a degree in History I have studied this quite a bit.) Bill sold our nuclear tech to the Red Chinese, gave the North Koreans everything they need to make a nuclear bomb (tech which they are now sharing with the Syrians), let Osama bin Laden go (even after declaring a war on terror), raised taxes, made us the world's personal b*tch and so on. Oh and did I mention lying under oath?

As for Hillary herself - she's listened to secret tapes made of critics, gathered FBI files on political rivals, locked away her college papers so they can't be reviewed by anyone - again and so on.

So as you can see, I'm opposed to Clinton cause she's a woman and I fear a strong female. Uh huh, right. But I digress.

Libs chased Nixon out of office for stuff like this? It's good to know that in 2007 listening in on political rivals is okay...just not listening in on terrorists plotting to make strikes against the innocent people in this country. (Talk about having your priorities out of wack.)

And through it all, isn't it fascinating that none of the above seems to garner any interest with our "unbiased, non partisan" press corp? Nah - they're all focused on Larry Craig (as if anyone cares about that.)

On the other side, it's kind of funny to watch now as the Democrat presidential candidates slowly come to the conclusion that they're just worthless cogs in the machine now. We told them that the Clintons are darlings of the press and can get away with everything they want. Most of them responded by threatening right wing media outlets with government regulations. Now they're starting to realize that we might be on to something as the media drools over the chosen one.

Tonight's Democratic debate featured a "pile on" of everyone vs. Clinton - with Hillary nailing herself to the cross of "it's all a right wing plot and they all hate me" as usual.

But if you watch the debates, you won't see anything new. Everything the all but coronated queen bee is proposing is right out of 1994: massive tax hikes, giving terrorist organizations everything they want, nationalizing healthcare and putting everyone in the lower/middle class under their heel. The only difference now is that there are no strong conservative leaders directing a groundswell. In 1994, we had Newt Gingrich - a guy who went out and actually fought for what he believed in.

Now the best we have on the conservative side is wishy washy, squealing little guys who'll sell us out for 30 seconds of puff on Hardball.

Yeah I guess a lot can happen in a year - but if all factors remain like they are now, it's going to be a very long next five years.

There is an ill wind blowing out of the south. Hugo Chavez is reinforcing his tyrannical dictatorship in Venezuela. Student demonstrators gathered in the streets a few days ago to protest an expected vote in their nation's parliment that would repeal the term limits for the President. For you libs slow on the uptake, that means that Chavez would be President until he dies.

The people who are terrified that Bush might not step down in '08 stand on the sidelines and cheer on Chavez.

But this is just one thing that leftists don't ever seem to have a problem with when it comes to Communist Dictators in other nations. They have nothing but glowing support for people like Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro (each of which only had one election ever during their respective tenures.) Saddam got 100% of the vote and it was called "fair" by libs the world over.

Of course, I've never seen an election where someone wins with 100% of the vote - not even in districts where politicians run unopposed. There is almost always someone who writes in a joke or just leaves it blank.

Truth be told, Chavez's last election in 2004 saw him win 59% of vote. Jimmy Carter certified the vote as "fair". Of course there was widespread reports in various Venezuelan media outlets (before Chavez decided to close them anyway) of election rigging - everything from fixed voting machines to Hugo's granting of citizenship to millions of foreigners on the eve of the election.

Exit polls (which always tell the truth here in the United States - especially when they show an Al Gore/John Kerry victory) indicated that the polling numbers should have been reversed - with 59% against Chavez. Scattered media reports indicate that oppositional polling leaders tended to disappear or be fired during Hugo's re-election party.

Moreover Chavez has faced not one, but two attempted coup's while in office. He wants to write this off as just an attempt by the CIA to undermine his regime. The thing is that the people who started the fight weren't a bunch of foreign mercenaries from Columbia - they were citizens of Venezuela who were risking their lives and families and livelyhoods to stop what they saw was happening.

To draw a comparison, for all their blubbering and moaning about how awful life under Bush is in the United States the radical left has yet to try to start an actual revolution. Much less two. (It was these coups that Chavez used to justify the shutting down of an oppositional television station in Caracas earlier this year.)

Does this sound like a popular leader who carries 60% of the vote?

I'll give liberals the benefit of the doubt though. I'm guessing that most of them know Chavez is a Communist/Socialist who is opposed to the war in Iraq and therefore an ally to them. Because if they do know Chavez's record, I would have to call the complete hypocrites.

Chavez is making alliances with the Syrians and other warmongers. He's already threatening to use force against (not just the United States) but his neighbors like Guiana which he insists is actually a part of Venezuela. He's meddling in Latin American politics - from Honduras to Mexico. He's setting himself up to be "President" for life. He's stamping out free speech and press everywhere. I'm willing to bet with a little digging, we'd discover that he tortures and executes prisoners without trials or humanity. He also refused to let in international observers during the election of '04 - with the exception of Carter's bunch. (Carter is the guy who gave us present day Iran and a Nuclear armed North Korea, so Chavez knows a chump when he sees one.)

None of this stuff is coming from the "status quo" media of the United States. All of this I'm citing is coming from foreign media sources (most notably the BBC.)

And despite all of this, Hugo remains a hero of the American left. Left wing leaders and spokespeople from Cindy Sheehan to Sean Penn have run down there to get their pictures taken with him. Danny Glover even wants to make a movie about Chavez.
 

I believe that people have a right to live free. I believe that people have a right to say and write things they believe in without fear that the government is going to take action against them. There is nothing going in Venezeula that would further any of these things.

We're watching yet another tyrannical dictatorship unfold. Why doesn't the left care?

Hillary Clinton may well go down in history - not because she's the first possible woman candidate, but because she'll be the first candidate in American history to win promising to raise taxes as high as they'll go and putting the government in charge of everything.

It's really strange to think that a nation that traces its roots to a revolt against high taxes is now going to put a bunch tax oppressors in charge. The American colonists groaned under inflated taxes (on everything), lack of free trade and government regulation of speech/press (via the stamp act - which was also a tax.)

This is pretty much the Democrat platform for 2008. Hillary the front runner supports Chuck Rangel's tax hike. She hates free trade. Hillary supports "the fairness doctrine" - a nice way of saying "government regulated speech." And although Madam Clinton publically denounces Bush's wire tapping of terrorist suspects, she sees nothing wrong with listening via wire taps on political opponents (see "Her Way" by Don Van Natta Jr. and Jeff Gerth.)  Didn't libs chase Nixon out of office for stuff like this? And today it doesn't bother them?

What is the end result of all this socialism? They're destroying the American dream. You know, that romantic idea of the United States  where if you work hard you can become wealthy and prosperous. It's the dream that still brings people here.

But Dems and libs are putting artificial walls between the middle/lower classes and the rich/upper class. By punishing people on the way up, they're basically holding people down. Someone on the verge of making it is going to have a much tougher time overcoming the inflated taxes and excessive red tape than someone who is already there.

And isn't it interesting that the people who making all of these assertions happen to be already there? Congress is composed almost entirely of millionaires. Wealthy elitists who find the idea of paying for their own campaigns to be offensive (thus they look to lower/middle classes for their re election money.)

Like the kid demanding money from their parents cause they don't want to spend their allowance - these elites look at the lower classes as a bottomless hole.

I guess I would be considered "middle" class (even though it sure doesn't feel that way.) And yet every time there is a tax hike on "the rich" I see my rates skyrocket. Not only I am overtaxed, I'm constantly being lectured on how the Federal/State/Local government doesn't have enough money. Thus they're raising fees, raising tolls, going to start charging for this, going to start charging for that, etc.

Now - despite the fact that we're going broke, we're going to give non paying illegals all kinds of stuff, build bridges to no where, pay for art work that both attacks my principles and I'll never see. Course my personal favorite is Hillary's pet Woodstock Museum which she wants to dump one million dollars in too ( not for her aging, dinosaur liberal base but "for the children" I'm sure.)

And just this week, Pelosi is pushing for a shorter Congressional work week...so they'll spend less time having to look busy. Like college professors, they're grossly overpaid for the nothing they do. But I digress.

The bottom line is that the libs are going to create the system they claim to oppose once again: where a pot smoking, rich, decadent class of elitists rule over the peons. And of course, lame lefties will call it a "free and fair" society. Watch how they drool over Castro's Cuba, Chavez's Venzuela, etc.

The last thing this country needs is more socialists/communists - much less another Clinton presidency.

*************************************************

Quotes from Al Queda Letters

(Below is a translation of part of the captured letters from Al Queda)

My People,

As you are aware, the war against the racist, sexist, homophobic Great Satan is not going well. It appears that they are too good at making martyrs and we do not have enough people to make a lasting struggle against them. Therefore we have to heighten our efforts on "Plan B."

Our allies in the United States lost the last major election only one year ago. Fortunately, our operatives living in America haven't lost hope. I'm proud to say that only one month ago did the great heroes of our people march on their capital demanding that their government surrender to us. But we need to do more.

It is imperative that Hiliary Clinton win in 2008. Therefore, we must begin worldwide fundraising for her campaign. Although the United States has several laws governing how campaign money is to be raised and spent we have discovered that this only applies to candidates that obey the law and since Clinton does not, it should be no problem.

Thus my people, go get campaign money any way you can: sell drugs, steal it, it does not matter. As long as it goes to left wing candidates, god will forgive your otherwise unholy actions.

Only then can we bring peace, love and open minded tolerance to the world at large. DEATH TO ALL AMERICANS!

Sincerely,

Osama bin Ladin

**************************************************
-http://www.redstate.com/story/2005/10/12/125850/42

I was booted by a mod named Krempasky who stated the following:

"This is pretty boneheaded and offensive diary. I'm only leaving it here to let others see what'll get your arse booted out of RedState. Smears like this, for instance."

He locked my account and left my post up so that I could be condemned by flamers without being able to respond. How nice of the smirking little pencil neck to do.

But let's let a few years go by. It's now Oct of 2007 and check it out from WND November 2, 2006:

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege. "

-http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52747

Reuters story from Nov 10, 2006 notes:

The Democrats' victory at U.S. Congressional elections on Tuesday were a step in the right direction, the (al Qaeda) speaker said.

And from December 22, 2006 ABC:

"Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists."

-http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html

Furthermore I would like to point out that in the years since I wrote my "boneheaded" diary, Rush Limbaugh and others have often joked about al Queda backing Democrats.

So my question now that you can see things in retrospect, was I cutting edge? Or just offensive?

I doubt you'd throw Rush off your site. Bite me losers!

A new talking point has emerged from the Democrats. Namely that Hillary is great because she stuck with her rounder husband. I can't believe all the places this is coming up.

As usual, the typical band of stupid libs are walking around with that arrogant halo lecturing all the rest of us about the "family values" held by Conservatives.

Apparently I'm supposed to vote for her because she's married and has been married for many years. And if I don't vote for her, I'm a hypocrite. (Just like if I don't vote for Barrack Obama I'm a racist.)

Who are they kidding? The left hates "family values". The Vice Presidential candidate back in 1992 (who was running on the Clinton ticket) even said it: "I'm sick and tired of 'family values'." or something along that line. But now they're embracing it and I'm supposed to too.

I fail to understand how they can get away with twisting everything. Shouldn't the gay community be pissed off? Whatever happened to Hillary's "it takes a village to raise a child"? I thought "family" was to be redefined in to whatever they thought it should be? So they're what, admitting we're right now?

Isn't this sudden change of heart interesting? It seems that Hillary believes that the kooks she has shored up right now (the gays and others who want to reshape the word 'family') aren't enough to get her elected. Now she has to change her stripes yet again to try to appeal to at least the center line of the voting body. The Hillary campaign needs your support and she'll happily sell out her extreme fringe base to get that support.

The left should be outraged by this new (discriminatory) tone. Instead they can't celebrate the new philosophy hard enough - even Feminists who "don't need no man" to survive.

And they're doing this all to try to defeat Rudy Giuliani (maybe Fred Thompson) who have divorces in their past. Woop dee doo.

If this is the best attack they've got conservatives might not be in as much trouble as they seem to be in 2008.

Looking over the current crop of Republican candidates, I'm trying to decide which of my ideologies I value the least. I guess I could vote for Rudy Giuliani and sell out my belief in the people's right to own guns. Or I could vote for Mitt Romney and get the proto Hillary Care that he's proposing. Or maybe I could vote for McCain and welcome in every hostile foreigner that wants in.

The funny part is that if any of these people get elected odds are I'll end up selling out ALL of my ideologies.

Seriously though. George Bush has spent the last seven years trying to bring a "new tone" to Washington. And that "new tone" is try to make friends out of the rabid, uncompromising left wing. And thus Bush has given them all kinds of things in an attempt to make friends. He let Ted Kennedy write the Education bill back in the early days. Bush signed the precious "Campaign Finance Reform" law that the Left (and John McCain) demanded and now ignore. He Unionized baggage screeners to create a brand new liberal voting block for Democrats. He didn't fire ALL of the Federal lawyers when he took office (like Bill Clinton did). And of course, he has pushed relentlessly for Amnesty for Illegals.

Now has any of this attempt at bridge building worked? No it hasn't. In fact, I'm sure that my lib readers are sneering as they read this and giving cute retorts to their computer screens.

So the lesson is clear - who cares what libs think? If you get elected by the conservative base, you go out and fight for your conservative ideas. And you squish anyone who gets in your way.

The real reason the Republican is not excited is because none of the current crop of candidates acts like they're going to fight for us. The front runner is from New York City for god's sake. The ONLY people who get elected in NYC are left of center at best. Other tough talking candidates were met with a great deal of fanfare and excitement only to turn around, drop all their ideas for the sake of "compromise" (see the Gubinator in California.)

I guess some would argue that Republicans are fighting, it's just the media that won't tell us about it - but I don't buy this. Remember the Amnesty fight? I've never seen a group of people fight so hard AGAINST THEIR OWN BASE. It was a massive struggle that continues to this day. Even as recently a few weeks ago Congress is still trying to get amnesty slipped by.

The real reason for the loss in '06 is that the Republicans cannibalized themselves. It's not like they didn't know Amnesty was unpopular - some Republicans went back to their home districts to find themselves suddenly running in tight primaries. Campaign contributions to the party went down the toilet.

If only they had fought this hard for tax cuts! If only they had battled this ardently for school choice or the social security overhaul!

Instead they rolled over and died at the first sign of Democrat resistance.

I'm still flabbergasted as to why they didn't go after Democrat Representative William Jefferson of New Orleans. You remember him, he's the guy who used military vehicles in the Katrina aftermath to go pick up his bribe money from his house. The FBI had a warrant to search the guy's office cause he was dirty. But the Republicans *circled the wagons around this guy.* Part of their defense was due to the fact that they wanted to play nice with their coworkers on the left side of building.

But it didn't win them any friends there either did it?

The Republican party was founded on the principle of NOT compromising with political enemies. Abraham Lincoln once said that they had compromised and compromised and compromised with the slave states - yet the slave states were still not happy (thus no more compromise). I think we need more of this today.