I'm sorry once again I don't understand things. On one side, George Bush is a cowboy invading other countries unilaterally without help from anyone else. And now suddenly we discover that (as a matter of fact) we do have at least one ally: Turkey.

And suddenly it's really, really, really important to condemn the actions of the Ottoman Empire and their genocide of the Armenians. Which is an event that happened almost 100 years ago during WW1.

Up to this point, libs have been telling me (rather loudly) that Islam is a religion of peace. A religion that respects other cultures and other people and other beliefs. So where is this genocide stuff coming from?

A quick jaunt in to history reveals that during WW1, the Ottoman Empire was overrun with the movement of the "Young Turks" - a political party that was rooted in (surprise, surprise) radical Islam. They hated other religions such as the Christianity practiced by the Armenians. So they began a systematic "cleansing" of their lands. (Some historians speculate that these actions inspired Hitler. But that is another topic.) The US Congress has twice condemned this "cleansing".

But that was 100 years ago. Today Turkey is very important to our actions in Iraq. For starters, a lot of our supply lines go through the nation. The next problem is border disputes. The Kurds in Northern Iraq have never got along with the Turks. Kurdish insurgents like to go north, stir up trouble then race back across the border.

The irony is multileveled. The Kurdish North Iraq is the most stable in the country. But not if Turkey makes good on its threat to chase the Kurd militia back to Iraq. There are roughly 60 k Turkish troops awaiting orders to move in to Iraq.

If Bush is a Cowboy for taking actions against the enemies of the United States, what do we call a group of people who are determined to run off our allies?

The House (read Nancy Pelosi) is the one really pushing this. If you remember correctly, this is the same Feminist broad who (here in the US) demands men (and religious types) "keep their laws off my body" but then happily goes to the fundamentalist state of Syria to get smiling pictures of herself in a burka.

So there you have it: Democrats hate the people who are on our side and love the people who are fighting against us. I remind you that Syria is a state that loves terrorists. In fact, Syria is even guilty of the same kind of invasions that the libs are protesting in the streets here in the US. Was it not Syria that occupied Lebanon for 20 years and even now after pulling out is still messing with the internal structure of that state?

I guess it's okay to do rotten things if you're a brown skinned minority. After all, Ahmadinejad said things at Columbia and the libs cheered. If a white Christian guy had said it Congress would be threatening to cut funding to the school.

But I'm not questioning their patriotism, their ethics, their common sense, their logic. I learned long ago libs don't have any of those things...

Gore won the Nobel Prize - was anyone really surprised? I fail to see what Global Warming has to do with promoting peace though. Yeah I'm sure a few on the left could explain it in a round about way claiming "hot temperatures make hot heads" or some nonsense like that.

If you tell them that Islam is a religion rooted in violence, the libs will argue with you (despite all the evidence that yes, Islam and bloodshed seem to go hand in hand.) But these same people can see a link between peace and hot weather.

I guess none of us should really be surprised. After all, there is no real evidence of global warming. That's why the libs are so desperate for "consensus science". Of course, that doesn't cover the mistakes and outright lies of the Greens. Isn't it interesting that on the eve of Gore's win a judge in the UK ruled that the movie " An Inconvenient Truth" have a disclaimer before being shown to school children. Among the falsehoods is the claim that Global Warming caused Katrina (as opposed to 100 years of liberal Democrat mismanagement of New Orleans.) That one has to be the most stinging though, since " An Inconvenient Truth" features a picture of Katrina on the movie box.

But I'm digressing. If you want to win the Nobel Prize all you have to be is #1) A Bush Hater, #2) White, #3) Rich and #4) Espouse a left wing dogma.

Oh you don't think so? Take a look at past winners: Jimmy Carter, Yassir Arafat, Koffi Annon - Koffi Annon, the guy who while in charge of the UN knowingly broke the UN's own trade embargo on Iraq making millions of dollars while Iraqi civilians died of starvation and sickness is a Nobel Prize winner.

I also notice that a lot of the Literary winners always seem to write about left wing interests: How racist, sexist, homophobic Western society is. How the working people are constantly getting screwed by the rich. Isn't it interesting that a lot of these particular winners tend to be white, from well to do families and have good jobs at Universities where they're overpaid for the nothing they produce?

Yeah I know - you're not a part of the problem because you care. I'm just a bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobe that you're attacking.

The libs tell us that war is caused by poor people trying to make a better lot for themselves. War is about the "disenfranchised" trying to cast off the shackles of oppression from the evil white man.

Question: how is Gore's Global Warming going to help any of this?

People in India and China are starving because there is not enough food. The way to produce more food is to modernize: use tractors, elaborate irrigation methods, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. Every single one of these things Gore is opposed to because it will alter the environment. Furthermore, Gore (and the IPCC) are basically a bunch of white guys using their power and authority to tell a bunch of brown people how to live. It might not be "colonization", but it's still status quo of colonization dragging on.

Next year instead of screwing around, they should give the Nobel Prize to a man who really deserves it, a man who is peaceful and stands up for the oppressed lower classes: Osama bin Laden.

Osama has it all: brown skin, minority status, hates the United States. He's perfect.

Maybe next year (maybe.)

The war on Terror is a silent war. There aren't large armies moving across battlefields like in wars of years past. Despite this the strategy of war remains the same: destroy the enemy army by either costing them huge losses of man power and equipment or by completely demoralizing them or both.

We're fighting terrorists. Terrorists are people who will only strike when the odds are completely in their favor. That's why they strike civilians hiding amongst non combatants and using the invisibility they're afforded to kill innocent people.

The terrorists know they can't beat us in a stand up fight. They don't have the equipment or the numbers to survive on a battlefield against us. So they're focusing on demoralizing us.

And our media in the West is doing everything in their power to help the enemy by demoralizing the American people.

Two big examples over the past few weeks are Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia and the attack on Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldier" comment.

Inviting Iranian Tyrant and terrorist sympathizer Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University was truly one of the dumbest things academia has done in recent years. The University thought they were being oh so clever by taking the chance to make fun of dictator to his face.

But in reality all they really did was give him the appearance of legitimacy. The foreign news corp. picked up the story and spun it in the usual fashion - showing pictures of smiling students and reporting on "standing ovations".

Ahmadinejad was applauded when he openly questioned Bush's hand in 9-11. He was applauded when he questioned and cast doubt on whether or not the holocaust happened. He was even applauded when he talked about how there were no gays in Iran. Think about that - the same student body that charged the stage and forced the Minutemen to stop talking because immigration restrictions are "hate speech" and "discriminatory" were entertained by Ahmadinejad.

The second big thing is that the soldier Jesse MacBeth - a man who posted a blog about his role in the US military, where he helped his units in Afghanistan and Iraq massacre women and children only to then hang the bodies from the rafters of Mosques was found guilty of making up stories. In truth, MacBeth served 44 days in boot camp before washing out. He is going to serve 5 months in jail and 3 years of probation.

But his damage is going to ripple for years. His stories were translated in to Arabic where they spread like wildfire. His story is just what al Quada and other Islamofascist groups need to make their case.

The only thing that would dispel these falsehoods is the truth - but the Islamic media isn't going to report the truth. Hell, the American media won't even report the truth. In fact, they're fighting anyone who is trying to get the truth out. Look at how they're treating Rush.

Was Jesse Macbeth condemned on the Senate floor for damaging our war effort? No. Was Columbia threatened with possible legal actions to "balance" the debate? No. Are the motives of either of these two people being questioned at any turn? No.

Instead Congress is mumbling that they might take action against people trying to get the truth about these people out. Liberal Congress people are pushing for the renewal of "the Fairness Doctrine". Of course, it's not an attack on free speech - no. They like to think of it as "balancing" the debate. But don't worry, their left wing friends at Columbia won't have to worry about their speech being "balanced". There will be no Conservative response to Ahmadinejad (that would be "hateful" as if doubting the holocaust is "loving".) There will be no "truth in news" laws requiring that media outlets who once touted MacBeth's falsehoods make just a big a case retracting the stories.

You're right, the problem is people giving us opinions we don't like on AM radio bands.

Being as it is October, I've invited some friends over for a German celebration. We're going to have some bratwurst, sour kraut and beer. Maybe I'll introduce them to some of the Nordic gods and goddesses sitting on my altar. Being half German, I have to say I'm very proud of my heritage.

Question: have my friends "stolen" my culture by coming over?

No. Of course not.

Question: do my friends have to understand the meanings of the food and drink and various rituals at my party?

Again no, of course not.

The Octoberfest is a German tradition. It's basically a big party. Do people really need to know the history, importance and background of the Octoberfest celebration to partake in it?

No.

So why do so many witches and neopagans hold such a purist view when it comes to religion? Does it really matter where something comes from? Or what significance it has in a particular culture? Isn't it more important what it means now to us in our culture?

Religion is a part of culture and culture by definition is constantly changing. Just consider: where were you 10 years ago? What did you look like? How did you dress? What hairstyle did you have? What kind of car did you drive? Where did you live? How about twenty years ago? Thirty years ago? I'm guessing that most of you have changed quite a bit.

And not just for us as individuals. Things in general have changed a lot over the past thirty years - just like things have been changing since the beginning of time. Just because you can pass over thirty years in a single sentence of a history book doesn't mean that the people during that era were stagnant and completely uniform. New generations bring new things and ideas. They change and reinterpret old ways of doing things as well as adding new ways and ideas.

And the realm of religion is no exception.

Most religions pagan, Judeo, Christian or otherwise used to practice some kind of animal sacrifice at some point in their history. Some religions (again pagan, Judeo, Christian and otherwise) even included human sacrifices. Bloody sacrifice is only one thing to be noted. Old religions (including a lot of pagan religions) often mixed their teachings with politics, sponsored slavery, upheld the ideas of racial/gender inequalities and other practices we abhor today. Should these practices be brought back to keep the religion pure?

I don't think so. Should we try to understand or note that these practices were done? I suppose - but in very few cases does it have any baring on the present. A lot of the old customs and religious practices were for hunting and farming. Few of us today are hunters or farmers. If a religion is going to be tangible, it should fit in to our lives as individuals.

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested to know where these things come from and what they mean. But I don't think it's a requirement for a person to be a "true" witch or pagan. And for ancient pagans worldwide it didn't necessarily matter either. Bachus, Dionysis and Cernunnos are all gods of wine (among other things) found in the Roman world. Although they shared similar identities, they were very different from one another. There were different stories, myths and legends dealing with each of them. There were also different styles of worship. Some of these differences were pragmatic in nature. The types of grapes that grow in Italy are a little different than the ones grown in Greece or France. But the Roman travelers treated them as all the same. The deities were close enough to each other.

It's not just a European idea either. You see similar things in the Aztec world. The winged serpent Queztacoatl was a god of peace *in Tenochtitlan*. In other parts of central America he was even bloodier than a lot of the local deities.

Should it be held against the present day followers of Queztacoatl don't conduct human sacrifice? Is all the meaning lost in the worship of Queztacoatl today because modern believers don't know how the original sacrifices were treated and dispatched?

I could tell you the logic and beliefs behind these practices - but they don't matter. The only thing that does is what the feathered serpent means to us today.

And I don't have to trace my genetic/cultural lineage back to the Aztec people to count Queztacoatl amongst the gods in my pantheon either. I can't help my skin color or my heritage or how I was raised. The goddess has one thousand faces - is it a sin that I can only worship her with one at a time?

The bottom line is that it is more important to understand why *you* believe and do the things that *you* find prudent. It's not as important why others do and act and believe what they do. This is one of the big problems that I have with "organized" religions - they try to tell you what to believe and what to think and how to act. Sometimes those things don't work for me. Often these people can't answer all of my questions because the questions aren't supposed to be asked. You're just supposed to accept that this is the way (and usually it's the only way.)

There is yet another point here. As I stated before, a lot of religions like to mix with politics. This has allowed arguably some of the worst atrocities in human history. The Inquisition is probably the best known of these endeavors, but there are others and not all of them have their roots in Christianity. Organizations such as the Inquisition are masters of violence, bullying, censoring and outright destruction of other religions. A lot of traditions and lore are now lost to us thanks to the efforts of these conquerors.

So even if we wanted to know the ancient wisdom we couldn't find it - much less put meaning to it. Thus we're left to the best guesses of researchers and vague clues in the records of the victors.

Sometimes the devout themselves do things that bury the secrets. There have been many mystery cults throughout the years. There is also the prejudices of various priests and priestesses. The biggest example here are the Druids - a lot of whom believed that writing down religious ideas, stories and rituals took the magic out of it. And even today there are cults and groups that only allow members and initiates to partake in the worship.

The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with eclecticism. If it works for you then it's okay. I don't believe there is truly any wrong way to worship the goddess if your heart is in it.

It is arrogant and elitist of coven witches to trash the eclectics as "lazy" or somehow less. I've met a lot of conveners who weren't real disciplined. I've also met a lot of conveners who seemed more interested in using their authority to get each other in to the sack than being devoted to anything. I'm not saying that covens are all bad - I'm just pointing out that a group doesn't necessarily make better religion.

Yay! Another "racial" incident packaged exclusively for the unbiased, non partisan information with holding media.

I guess there was an incident with some security guards at Knight High School in Palmdale California on Friday September 18th. The event was actually caught on tape.

According to the four stories that come up on the internet, we know the following: a security guard pushed sixteen year old Pleajhai Mervin onto a table. According to the stories, Mervin's wrist was fractured during the scuffle (though there seems to be doubt about this part.) Birthday cake was thrown during the fight. A forteen year old (Joshua Lockett), his sixteen year old sister (Kenngela Lockett) and Latrisha Majors (Mervin's mother) were all arrested and taken in to custody. Kenngela claims to also have had her wrist broken.

And of course there is a myriad of unconfirmed rumors around the incident - that the guard used the "nappy headed" slur and so on.

The incident has gone far enough to get the Project Islamic Hope involved in a protest demanding the release of what they've dubbed the "Palmdale Four" in a direct attempt to parallel the "Jena Six". Najee Ali screeched "Children are being beaten and brutalized. Black students are being victimized."

This is pretty much all we know about the case. Yes breaking wrists does seem rather harsh - I'm really curious as to what brought on this reaction. Naturally our glorious media doesn't seem to think a description of what happened to cause a fight to break out is worth reporting. Nor is it important that we get the security guard's side of the story.

It's really interesting that they're making a big stink about the security guards being white. It's almost like they're racistly accusing all whites of being prejudiced. That's okay though just assuming all whites are racist isn't a crime. After all whites have a history of violence and abuse against people who don't look or share cultural values with them. White people are thoughtless, barbaric and just attakc people who don't look like them because that's what whites do right?

Of course, pointing out that the people involved are Muslim and Islam has a long history of violence and abuse against people who don't look or share cultural values with them *is* a crime. It's just not a double standard and there have been many books written as to why. *Gag*

So is there any hope that our media will get the facts of this case reported and I mean all the facts involved not just the one sided version of the special interests?

Didn't think so, but I thought I'd ask...

This Rush thing just keeps going. For those of you living in a box on Mars with your fingers in your ears Rush Limbaugh commented that the media only talks to "phony soldiers" when they are looking for statements that are negative about the war in Iraq.

Rush was referencing a story about Jesse Adam Macbeth which he had talked about earlier in his broadcast but didn't refresh the details at the time that he made the "phony soldiers" comment.

MacBeth was found guilty ~ meaning he did it ~ of writing fake blogs about attrocities him and his troop were doing to the civilians in Iraq. He became an over night hit with the left wing blogosphere. But the truth is that it turns out that MacBeth washed out of boot camp after 44 days. He never got to Iraq to help with the terrible acts he reported on. In fact, he even lied about his rank of corporal.

Anyway the story went to the unbiased, non partisan Media Matters for America dot Org (a group that gives overwhelmingly to left wing causes and Democrats in particular.) Lazy, mind numbed journalists then picked up the story and ran with it without ever once investigating.

So now with the Democrat Congress too weak to get any of their rotten ideas passed, they are taking the "safe" passage of condemning Limbaugh.

The secondary motive is to take the heat off the other unbiased, non partisan big money special interest group that (coicidentally) only gives to Democrats and left wing causes: MoveOn.Org. Libs charge Limbaugh with hypocracy since Rush ripped MoveOn for the General "Betrayus" ads.

Of course, anyone with a third grade education can tell you difference between someone who lied about being a soldier doing awful things and a bunch of obnoxious know-it-alls not wanting to listen.

But lefties and Dems in the back pocket of these million dollar special interests have to play ball or risk losing the money. (I thought McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform would clean all of this up and get nasty fights like this out of our government - but maybe they were only talking about partisan fighting and not nonpartisan fighting like the war being waged by these 501 groups.)

Here is the irony of this whole situation: the Congress is condemning Rush for trashing the troops? What have the Dems been doing for...well, the last forty years but trashing the troops? Do you realize that the same day all of this came to a head a judge has decided that Congressman Jack Murtha can be brought to court for claiming from the halls of Congress that said Marines had committed "cold-blooded murder and war crimes'' despite the fact that he had no evidence.

Wasn't it John Kerry who almost a year ago stated:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

A lot of soldiers are highly educated. True, it might not be no fancy book learning like butthead elitist college kids that support Kerry blindly, but it's often been said that life (and the experiences of life) is the best classroom. Best because it's hands on and not just theorical.
Talk about demoralizing the troops.

Or how about Democrat Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur who said:

"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."

Yeah our soldiers are terrorists and murderers and Osama bin Ladin is a hero. And Rush is the bad guy?

All these people I mentioned are sitting in office right now. And all these people I mentioned are in "safe" seats - meaning that they are all expected to be re-elected. Despite their insane statements and observations. Despite the fact that they have no evidence to back up any of their charges - unlike Rush who was talking about a guy who has been found guilty in a court of law.

Will the media fix this? Will our unbiased, non partisan press actually bring out the truth? Of course not. The media's job is to "balance" the points of view and even though one side of this case is built on lies and distortion it still has to be presented for "balance". Journalism isn't so much about reporting facts as it is balancing all points of view and treating them all equally, unless it's a "hateful" point of view such as loving the United States, being pro life, loving freedom, etc.

It sucks that in the year 2007 with the internet and other devices that can bring out the truth the lies and falsehoods of the libs and media is still treated as serious.

Rush Limbaugh is in trouble again. This time while talking to a caller he referenced what he dubbed a "phony soldier".

This incident has created a fire storm in the media. Immediately commentators all over television began condemning Limbaugh. The group MediaMatters.Org slammed Rush mercilessly. It got so much traction that it actually made it to the Congress of the United States where various elected officials made motions to condemn what Rush said.

The rest of the story: Limbaugh was talking about a "soldier" named Jesse Macbeth who chronicled horrible abuses of Iraqi civilians while on his tour in that nation. Well it turns out that Macbeth was only a soldier for 44 days before washing out in Boot Camp long before being assigned to the combat role that he claimed to have in his blog.

But don't look for a lot of media corrections and clarifications on this. Journalists say they're unbiased and non partisan - but watching some of the things they've done and said in the past year one can't help but wonder.

It was almost a year ago that Israel invaded Lebanon? And suddenly our media outlets were flooded with pictures of blown up buildings with a teddy bear laying out front or an old woman crying?...the same teddy bear/old woman in every single pic no matter how far away each spot was from each other?

You'd think that would have been a big headline, but no. Journalists have more important things to report on than the lies and distortions of their peers.

Remember March 2, 2007 when Bill Maher stated while talking about Dick Cheney

"I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact."

If you don't remember the comment, that's okay. Most people don't. More people remember

Ann Coulter's reference to that comment:

"if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

To this day Coulter is still hounded by non partisan media types about this statement. Even when Ann reminds her inquisitors (like Chris Mathews) of the contexts they ignore what Maher said and continue to pound her.

So either journalists are stupid or they're patently biased. You can suggest that certain people (namely the ones we disagree with) should be killed but don't you dare make similar suggestions about our guys.

Don't get me wrong at all. The media is free to write and say anything they want. What aggravates me is that despite of how obviously one sided they are about it they continue to claim otherwise. How stupid do you think we are?

And sometimes they can't even get the facts straight in stories that seem simple. Do a google search for "Jena 6" and you'll get several stories...all featuring slightly different facts about the same incident. Some of the stories say that the white victim (Justin Barker) was taken to the hospital. Others say he wasn't. Some of the stories claim that Barker pulled a gun. Others say that the gun was a separate incident a few days later (or earlier).

All of the stories agree (though they might not say it): there is still racism amongst whites and only the whites in the old south. All of the stories mention "history of Jim Crow" and the "all white jury" that convicted Mychal Bell. All of the stories mention the segregation of the 1950's.

Only one of the stories (the one on wikipedia) mentions that the Jena 6 beat Barker to unconsciousness. None of the stories note that the six *continued* to beat Barker after he fell unconscious. None of the stories mention that Mychal Bell has a history of violence. None of the stories think it's worth noting that Justin Barker had nothing to do with the "Noose Incident" that began the racial unrest.

So what are we supposed to think when we read/watch a single report on the Jena Six? Most people aren't going to read and compare all the media stories to see all the inconsistencies
in all the various versions of these reports?

It's obvious: that minorities are getting screwed by an evil white racist system. Only a person with no life like myself is going to uncover all the distortions being put out there like it's really news.

It's so strange to me. Right now all over the world people are struggling putting their lives on the line for freedom of speech and press. These people are tired of getting the one sided take on the news. And here in the United States we have free speech and press and still pretty much only get one take on the news. When another voice does come out, left wing politicians suggest that these different takes be "balanced" out with the same old crap from the major outlets (see talk radio.)

How sad is that?

I demand my right to speak at Columbia University. (Well you need an organization to sponsor you...) No I'm afraid I don't. You just said it was a "right" - I don't need permission to exercise my Constitutional rights. Granted I might need to go on record when I'd like to speak and for how long, but I'm willing to do that.

Columbia is proud that they invited Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak there, lecturing all of us who disagree with a smug "well it's a free speech thing" as their retort.

I'm not a lawyer but I do know there is not a single federal court (liberal, conservative or otherwise) that has ever stated that advocating a violent overthrow of the government is protected speech. Ahmadinejad has and his regime have called for violence and outright attacks of the US many times over. The guy even had a military parade the day before he came here bringing out his latest missiles and gave a speech stating in part that Israel should be wiped off the map.

I figure if violent, trash talking tyrant would be welcomed by a bunch of peaceniks - I should be hailed as a hero when I go to speak.

Funny that a foreign dictator who wants violence against innocent people and an end to the US government (and the institutions of principles like freedom of speech) is welcome on Columbia campus and a bunch of people who want to serve our government and protect the institutions of freedom (namely the ROTC) are not. I guess soldiers don't have a right to speak, assemble or have an opinion. Somehow I'm guessing that if they found a soldier that had serious problems with the War on Terror and the Bush administration's policies on it would also be welcome on Columbia campus.

But I digress. Back to my original point I'm demanding my right to speak. (Well what are you going to say? We're not going to let you get up there and say a bunch of hateful things.)

#1 - I have free speech - it doesn't matter what I'm going to say. Free speech = free speech.

#2 - Hate speech...you mean like openly doubting that Hitler put 12 million people (half of them Jewish) to death simply for being who they were? And didn't that hate filled line about "we need to do more research about what really happened in Europe" (I paraphrase) get an applause?

Hate speech...you mean like stating "there are no homosexuals in Iran" a line that got quite a bit of applause with a sprinkle of booing?

Or do you mean like *gasp* being pro-life and talking about how millions of innocent people are killed every year? Or the hate filled suggestion that we actually control who comes through the US border? Would those things get my mic cut?

The great minds at places like Columbia can demonstrate how Garfield comic strips further racism. "Brilliant" people can write long essays about how the Bush administration pulled off 9-11 despite there being no evidence. And yet they can't see how stupid their actions of inviting Ahmadinejad make them look.

I believe the KKK has a right to speak and assemble peacefully in the United States. The KKK can believe, write and think whatever they want too. That said, I would never invite the current Grand Dragon to my house to speak. If nothing else, it makes it look like I endorse their philosophy (or is that a far fetched conclusion?)

By inviting the Iranian dictator to speak, you're making him look like what he says carries weight. And for you to sit here and argue that "it's a free speech issue" makes you look vacant. Ahmadinejad can go talk out on the sidewalk if he wants.

But back to my original point: I demand the floor at Columbia. If it's good enough for a middle eastern terrorist sympathizer, then it should be good enough for me.

So when can I expect my invite?

While listening to the Rush Limbaugh show today (as all angry white guys waiting for their marching orders do), Limbaugh had the most interesting piece of audio. It's David Shuster from MSNBC interviewing Marsha Blackburn about the MoveOn.Org ads in the New York Times. The two had the following exchange about Rush referencing one of his callers referring to Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel as "Betrayus":

SHUSTER:  Where was the outrage when Rush Limbaugh said this about Republican Senator Chuck Hagel over one of the senators' stances on Iraq.  Limbaugh said, "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska. We got General Petraeus, and we got Senator Betray Us, new name for Senator Hagel."

BLACKBURN:  What I want to do is talk about the New York Times, and probably Rush Limbaugh could have gotten by without saying that.

SHUSTER:  Could have gotten by?  It was wrong, wasn't it?

BLACKBURN:  He was referencing what a caller said, and --

SHUSTER:  Right, but it was wrong for a caller or from Rush Limbaugh to call Chuck Hagel Senator Betray Us, right?

BLACKBURN: But Rush Limbaugh did not go in and buy an ad and place it with the New York Times and get a special preferred rate.

SHUSTER:  So there's a difference between buying an ad in the New York Times and Rush Limbaugh hearing something that he likes to hear from one of his viewers and repeating it on the air? What's the distinction? Why is there a distinction?
 
Marsha Blackburn was obviously taken aback by the question. Here's what she should have said:

"....you honestly don't know the difference? You need me to explain this too you? Which journalism school did you go to again? Cause I know 3rd graders that can see the difference. Are you smarter than a fifth grader? I'm guessing not.

I can't believe that you, as a nationally syndicated host are asking me such a stupid question. What is your demographic, the comatose?

Okay, I'll explain it too you (and please try not to drool on yourself.) MoveOn.Org bought ad space *at a discounted rate* in the New York Times, a media outlet that *claims* to be unbiased and non partisan (much like yourself). It's not so much what the ad *said* but the treatment that MoveOn was given.

But I feel reassured. Since you demand that I explain this too you, I have to assume that you're retarded and not just a partisan hack trying to force your left wing agenda on everybody."

I demand my right to free speech. This is what Columbia gave Ahmadinejad correct? Well I think it's only fitting that I get to speak too.

What do you mean "no"? You're going to deny me a right that you give to a tyrannical dictator that has openly stated that he wants to arm terrrorists with nukes and wipe Israel off the map?

Oh I get it - Ahmadinejad is spreading a message of love, whereas I might discuss being pro-life, stopping terrorists, controlling our borders and other "hateful" subjects. Got it. I guess we should all be happy that the Iranian leader didn't encourage anyone to join the US military or he would have had his mic cut immediately (since the ROTC has no right to speak at Columubia.)

Maybe they'd deny me my Constitutionally protected right to speak because I'm not "important". It's ironic to think that an Ivy league school that cares so much about the poor and the downtrodden (like myself) would oppress us in such a fashion in favor of the rich, the powerful and the elite. I'm sure these big libs feel really bad about that (not).

I guess Columbia could argue that being a private institution, they are not necessarily bound by the Constitution. But this would be akin to admitting that they gave Ahmadinejad a platform/forum/chance to humiliate the United States.

Seriously though: what did they think he would say? We're talking about a man who (before his trip to the US) held a military parade where he denounced the United States. Columbia (whatever they thought they were doing) essentially gave the Tyrant another tool of propaganda. Already the foreign news agency (which left wing organizations in this country say are more accurate than our own) are already reporting that Ahmadinejad is being received with standing ovations. If there is anything that demonstrates how crappy and lie ridden the foreign media is, it's now. But don't worry - this incident won't change the minds of the holier than thou, smartest people in this country that populate places like Columbia.

I'd also like to point out that Columbia greedily sucks down large government grants to "educate" the wealthy elite making up its student body  (meanwhile poor kids go to failing schools strapped for cash.) So much for caring about the poor eh?

So Iranian leader Ahmadinejad is going to speak at Columbia University. And the usual suspects are calling this "free speech". And I'm betting that the peaceniks on the left will flock to see it in spite of the fact that the thug is working to get nukes and has promised to give the technology to their terrorist friends when they figure out how it works.

Yeah I know - all those charges are false. They're just made up by propagandists from Haliburton and the Bush administration to make money and oppress minorities. The Iranian leader has tan skin and is a member of a minority religion here in the United States - so he's obviously just a victim.

The left is going to eat this guy up. On the eve of coming here, he's spouting all kinds of Democrat talking points: from not caring about Katrina victims to natinationalizing health care. As typical, the libs aren't nervous to hear one of the biggest troublemakers in the world agrees with them. In fact libs seem to take comfort in this fact.

Anyone else see the double standard? When a third world warlord comes here giving left wing talking points we're supposed to listen. When a racist white supremacy group gives support to a right wing cause (like say Illegal Immigration), conservatives are supposed to be shamed and dropped their position.

So Columbia is backing up "free speech" eh? There are tons of controversial people here in the United States that never seem to get invited speak at there. Would they invite a pro life speaker to talk there? How about someone who supports Bush and spying? How about someone who is opposed to Affirmative Action?

Somehow I don't think so. Those speakers are "hateful."

Columbia University is an Ivy league school. Like most Universities, it is a private institution that sucks up tons of government grants every year. And every year it rejects thousands of good, honest, hard working American students. People who are trying to better themselves. These are the same people giving that tax money that Columbia so eagerly sucks up. Some of these people are poor and have no rich relatives to grease the right palms insuring that they'll get in. These people will never get on to Columbia campus, much less be invited to speak there at a large forum. In fact, despite the fact that Columbia is lecturing us all on "free speech" I do believe the Ahmadinejad's lecture is closed to the public. So he has the right to speak, but the rest of us peons have no right to hear even if we're paying for what's being said. That seems unjust.

And the University stands by its decision.

And what do they think Ahmadinejad going to say? We're talking about a man who held a military parade showing off his new weapons, including a missile he proudly claims can hit Israel - a state he admits he wants gone. You think that would upset peaceniks here in the United States - but instead they'll be flocking to see this guy. I'm sure that there is more than one unbiased, non partisan left wing professor that will require their students to go and see this guy (and test them on what he says.)

Question: What will Columbia do if several angry students charge the stage? Will they try to stop the students? Have security take them out? Almost a year ago speakers from the Minutemen had their speech interrupted when angry students stormed the stage. University officials defended themselves by stating "it's not our responsibility to defend their free speech" or some nonsense like that. Be interesting to see if Ahmadinejad is worth defending or not.

The people at Columbia think they're some of the smartest people in the United States yet they're letting hostile foreign leaders play them like a fiddle. No wonder al Quada, North Korea, the Iranians and others have no respect for us.

Oh god, here we go again. Another racial incident packaged especially so that the unbiased, non partisans that work in the hallowed halls of journalism can show whites in the United States how racist we all are.

Of course the journalists themselves, college professors, students who vote left wing and other white liberals are excluded from the charge of "racism".

Enter Jena Louisiana which from what I understand is the backwoods. I guess (bare in mind that since left wing bloggers have gotten involved with their hysteria, getting any details of the case is near impossible) that there was a tree at Jena High School that traditionally only whites were allowed to sit under. A group of black students last fall asked administrators if they too could also sit under the tree. School Admin told them they could sit anywhere they wanted and these students did just that.

The next day, three nooses in school colors appeared hanging from the tree - apparently one for each black student that sat there.

There can be no denying that this was an attempt to intimidate and bully each other. The students responsible were found and suspended for a few days.

But the black community in Jena was still outraged. This punishment wasn't enough. They
wanted these students arrested for "hate speech" I guess. (If you haven't noticed, students have the freedom to say/print anything they want to as long as it falls withing liberal PC parameters.)

Anyway this was the beginning of a long series of events mostly trivial in nature. A few black students weren't invited to a party, someone tried to burn the school down (the culprit hasn't been identified) and so on and so forth.

It all culminated in an incident last Dec. in an incident where 6 black guys beat a white guy. Apparently, they beat him up pretty bad. That's the only thing anyone can really say for sure. Some reports say that the white guy pulled a gun - but other sources say no weapon was involved.

The "Jena Six" (i.e. the black guys) as they come to be called, were originally charged with assault, but this was later changed to attempted second degree murder.

Naturally this has sparked outrage. To be sure, attempted murder charge seems a bit harsh - but we had no idea what was said between the blacks and the white involved. Make no mistakes, this was a racial incident and odds are that racial epiteths were thrown on both sides. It's ironic to think now that the same black community that decryed how little was done with the whites involved in the noose incident seem to want the system to go easy on their guys.

I got news for you: racism is a two way street and although the fine details have been clouded,
there was a race crime committed on a white by a group of blacks. There is no denying that a hate crime has been committed here.

Naturally - since it's a black on white hate crime it's considered excusable. After all (critics keep telling us) whites started it by hanging nooses.

So there you have it: two wrongs make a right. A hate crime committed against a black is a horrible thing, whereas a crime committed against a white is understandable. Thus not all hate crimes are equal. Which is interesting, cause they keep telling us they want to be treated "equally" (as long as we remember they're victims of whitey's system).

And of course, the NAACP (a group set up by blacks to focus exclusively on black interests) is going to run down there to march against racism without ever seeing the irony. Perhaps the black racist NAACP should march against itself to stamp out the racism of their organization.

But I digress. There is no doubt that racism is still alive and well. Just the knee jerk reaction that "whites from the south did this" is a racial prejudice. But since it keeps the civil rights groups in power - we'll keep that one around. And the same with the prejudice that blacks are oppressed - especially in the south. We'll keep that one around too.

From the rattling in the Hillary camp, we're in *BIG* trouble. Not just conservatives, but all of us.

I'm of course talking about Hillary Care which she so nicely unveiled for us all just a few days ago. The woman is so certain she's going to win the next election that she's actually telling us exactly what she has planned when she takes the office.

But it goes further. It would be one thing if she told us she planned on resurrecting the bogus piece of crap, but she's gone so far as to give us the intimate details.

We'll be required to prove that we have insure before being able to get a job? I need money to get insurance. I need a job to get money. How am I supposed to get in to this iron ring? (Well the government will step in and help.) Great - I'll be *required* to accept the helping hand of government.

But I digress. Back to my original point: who gives their entire game plan to their opponent in any competition? They'd either be grossly arrogant, amazingly stupid or both. Usually you float a trial balloon like "I want healthcare for all Americans" and then let the thinktanks speculate all over television as to what the plan would entail. You don't tell them exactly what you're going to do.

Another stunning thing about this: back in early 90's when she worked on the original plan (which we're now expected to believe was all Bill's idea) she did it all in secret. The public wasn't allowed in - despite all the Sunshine Laws that libs have pushed through over the years. When a judge forced her to reveal who was working for her and what they were doing, Hillary had all the documents of their findings destroyed. In the year 2007, we know more about what's going on in Guantanamo Bay than we knew about what was going on in Hillary's Healthcare meetings. But I digress again.

So why is a woman who is so obsessed with secrecy that she even has her college papers and records under lock and key now giving us the details of her plan?

Someone really needs to start trying to get to the bottom of this. As far as I'm concerned, Hillary has just announced that she plans on detonating a nuke near Denver Colorado when ascends to the White House. And now everyone is discussing exactly where that bomb might be placed - but I'm still stuck back on the idea that she wants to drop a bomb.

I thought the left wanted the "big money" and "special interests" out of politics. Isn't that why they embraced the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act?

So why are all these libs out raising millions of dollars for millionaires. I guess it would be a shame if these rich people running for office actually had to spend their own money to do so.

Nice to know that them and their backers feel the pain of the working people. Recently Oprah Winfrey had a huge "Black People Can't Make It In America" fundraiser for Barrack Obama where they raised millions. This is the same Winfrey who did a "funny" skit on her show a year ago highlighting how she couldn't remember how to put gas in her car. Oprah and her friend struggled to find the cap, push the button on pump and debated over which number was showed the gallons put in and which number was the price of a fuel. Oprah admitted not having put gas in her car since 1988.

Doesn't that put her out of touch with just about everybody? I would expect most millionaires to at least know how to put gas in their car. Yet this woman who struggles with it feels our pain?

From just a light tracking of the left wing Democrat antiwar fund raising site Daily Kos it would appear that Edwards is the favorite over there. I can't help but wonder why a website that constantly bemoans how the poor working class can't get anywhere is interested in raising money for a millionaire. Again it would be a shame if this guy had to put his own money on the line for his re-elect bid.

And in news that's not worth mentioning, Hillary Clinton is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from Chinese immigrants living on welfare. Despite this, no one in our unbiased, non partisan media is even the slightest bit curious about where a bunch of people living on food stamps is getting these giant chunks of money to give to Clinton. Hillary and her wife have a long history of taking illegal campaign contributions from Chinamen who are hostile to the US, but I'm sure this current story is really nothing.

It's bad when these people expect us to pay for their miserable runs. But it's downright horrible when you consider what we're getting for it.

At every fundraiser these people go out and highlight their failures and tell us how stupid they are. According to them, Bush tricked them in to going into Iraq. Isn't it their job to go through all the facts first? Isn't it their job to sift through all the information? My boss at work wouldn't buy this excuse - so it confounds me that these people actually have people chomping at the bit to vote for them.

If Bush tricked them, then what are we supposed to think when they go to talk to people who truly are trying to trick us (like al Quada, the Iranians, etc)? The Syrians already have the Democratic Congressional leadership in their pocket. Pelosi assures us that the Syrians are peaceful - but as I already said, she is one who claims Bush tricked her.

So how is that? You guys on the left are truly unbelievable. You claim to care about the poor but you support millionaires who are out of touch. You claim to want the "big money" and "special interests" out of politics, but your side is run by those two things. You claim to want "honesty in government" but your lead candidate is guilty of taking illegal money - illegal even under the old laws. You want to tell me that Bush is a dunce - but your guys all tell me that they were tricked by the President.

You guys claim to be the smartest people in the United States...but of course, your stupid actions speak louder than your screeching words...

Oh no! Kansas City is in quite a pickle. It seems that the Minuteman Organization wants to have a meeting there. Naturally this has the usual ban of left wing yahoos in a tizzy screaming their same tired rhetoric about how minorities can't get anything from the powers that be in the United States.

Apparently they forgot about Affirmative Action, Imus getting kicked off the air, etc.

It's really ironic to think that a group set up exclusively for blacks and black interests and a group set up exclusively for latinos and latino interests are accusing anyone of racism. The fact that the Kansas City City Council is trying to come up with a way of stopping the meeting demonstrates exactly how powerless said groups are.

I thought left wing groups wanted to "return the power to the people." Apparently not if "the people" disagree. Americans want a crackdown on the tidal wave of illegals forcing their way in to this country ever day. Every single poll has a majority favoring getting tough. Even those "unbiased, non partisan" polls with loaded questions asking us if illegals should be sent home to die horrible agonizing deaths come back with a majority in favor sending them home.

Sorry - I don't know how they do things in "the old country" but in the United States people have a right to speak, a right to assemble and a right to redress their government to make changes that are needed. Not just a bunch of big money, far left wing backed special interest groups. Maybe if you actually took the citizenship test (which includes basic information about our Constitution) you'd know that.

I'm happy that a small, powerful few are so excited to sell our freedoms in the name of Political Correctness.