I can't believe what I saw yesterday from our 'leaders' in Congress.

Four star General David Petraeus was brought in ostensibly to answer questions and file a report to Congress about the progress being made in Iraq. I say 'ostensibly' because forty five minutes in, the General still hadn't said anything. This isn't because of anything Petraeus was doing, it was because various Congress people (overwhelmingly from the Democrat side of the aisle) wouldn't let the man speak.

It's really funny. Up to this point, Congress has been trying to convince us that they are really stupid and gullible: they brag about how they were tricked in to going to war by Bush. (Thus try to convince us all that they're stupid or incompetant or both.) But after yesterday, I don't see how anyone from the Bush administration would have gotten a word in edgewise to lie to them.

Wasn't it Congress that wrote the law that required the President to make a report about the progress going on in Iraq? And now Congress fears the report is "partisan" since it's coming from the Executive branch.

Of course their interpretation of any such report wouldn't be partisan or political - even if they're using it in their various re-election bids.

Bare in mind that most of the complaints about the report being tainted come from the left side of the hall: a bunch of people who in recent years are taking more and more of their advice from left wing "netroots". Groups that boast about how non political and middle of the road they are even as they advance a far left wing agenda. Places like MoveOn.org, DailyKos, Code Pink, ACORN and others.

Yep, General Petraeus is biased because he's career military and he'll just say how well everything is going. Yep, can't trust people who have worked in the oil industry all their life either cause they'll just say anything to preserve their profit margin. These people are just not good sources of information.

But you can trust people like the left wing activist Michael Moore - he'd never lie or distort information to win an election. And you can trust a lifelong politian like Al Gore on Environmental issues even though he built his career on such ideas.

Isn't it possible that there really is something good being done in Iraq? And why aren't left wingers accused of being closed minded when they're slamming a report that hasn't even been released? They brag about how "open minded" they are. And being "open minded" means they're at least willing to listen. They keep bragging about how they "look at the grey", so why is it that in the War on Terror they only see the black actions of the United States? And why are they too pathetic and stupid to see the intellectual bankruptcy of their own boasts?

They should really (at least) try to listen to other people, they just might learn something.

For those who missed it, Whoopi Goldberg (the new host of "The View") began her tenure by opening the subject of Michael Vick and giving a excuse for his dog fighting...which she stresses isn't an excuse.

Of course, if she wasn't trying to excuse his behavior you can't help but wonder why she even brought it up.

Anyway she said something to the effect that this is black southern culture and, falling back to Political Correctness looking down on any dark/tan skinned cultures is bad. So taking her non-excuse out to it's logical conclusion Vick is a victim of judgemental, oppressive, overbearing white law.

I'm interested to know if her argument works the other way. Civil Rights leaders have been saying for years that discrimination is a part of white southern culture. But for some reason, that's supposed to be banned by law.

Don't give me this crap about "it's just dogs" and since no human being gets hurt it's okay.

No human being gets hurt when a cross gets burned. No human being gets hurt when racial epithets are hurled. And yet there are laws against those things, laws backed by people like Whoopi. Despite the fact that whites invented the word "n*gger". That word is more a part of white culture than it is black: after all, whites were putting you down long before you thought of putting yourself down. And yet it's not okay for me to say.

Michael Vick broke the law. He admitted it. Now he deserves the consequences. Don't give me this crap about "it's a cultural thing" and "this is just whites taking down a successful black man." You're being held to the same standard with which you hold others. If it's okay to use the government and the law to change parts of a culture you don't like, then it is okay to use the government and the law to change parts of other cultures we don't like.

So stop making (non)excuses, it makes you all sound pathetic.

Do you know what Racism is? What it *really* is? It seems that most people don't or they wouldn't be throwing that charge around so carelessly.

Racism is the basic belief that one race (usually your own) is better than all the others. This usually goes hand in hand with Racial Prejudice which is assuming that people have characteristics based on their race.

Note that it is very possible to have racial prejudices about a race you consider to be superior. For example: the Nazis were in the process of creating a "Master Race" which was going to be blond haired, blued eyed, more intelligent - in other words, it would be the German race.

With this in mind enter Elvira Arellano a woman who is guilty of breaking US immigration laws and providing a false Social Security number when attempting to gain employment. Last week she was arrested outside a Church and deported.

Naturally her supporters are screaming "racism." They even make the news with quotes like "we're tired of white racist society discriminating against us."

Of course, just assuming that whites are racist and out to get you is a racist prejudice on your part isn't it? You're making judgements based on skin color are you not? We do send illegal alien people with light skin tones back when we catch them, not just you guys. It's also offensive. I would *never* be featured on the news shouting "Why can't these Mexicans obey our laws?" Their statement is considered an accurate observation about our society. My statement would be racist and out of bounds.

You see, illegal aliens come from everywhere but you'd never know it watching a pro illegal rally where the only flags I ever see are Mexican. I take that back, sometimes I see a US flag upside down or being thrown on the grill before the cheering masses.

There is nothing wrong with pride in your ethnicity and country...unless you're a white American in which case it's (literally) a crime. People flooding our borders sure have enough racial hybris - don't even think they have to obey our laws. Who's really the victim of Racial Prejudice and Discrimination here?

But it's not isolated to the Hispanics. Just look at the Michael Vick case.

In the early days a lot of black leaders and spokespeople claimed that this was just an attempt to bring down a successful black man. Yeah it has nothing to do with the cruel way in which the animals were being treated - it's just racism.

Originally Vick claimed that he knew nothing about the dogs on his property...and then they found a net site advertising Vick's "Dog Kennel". So he lied. Now he's plead guilty - so he did it. He broke several laws. For those of you unfamiliar with case, Vick and his friends would routinely hang dogs not performing well from trees. They electrocuted several to death. They shot others. And in an attempt to breed a better dog, they chained a female in heat to the ground and let all the male dogs fight for the ability to mate. He kept all his dogs on chains just out of reach of food and each other to make them more vicious.

Yeah you're right - I doubt PETA would be protesting if Vick was white. Uh huh - right, got it. I work with a black guy who is a dog lover and he's disgusted by the Vick case.

So I have to ask in both of these cases: where is the racism? None of these laws listed above are "racist". None of these laws say "and if a hispanic is caught in the US illegally..." or "if a black guy is found guilty of dog fighting..." The laws that do that are called "Affirmative Action Laws". But that's another column.

I'm sorry I fail to see the racism in law enforcement in either of these cases. But I see a lot of racism against whites coming from the other side. If we're such a racist land holding down minorities why do Hispanics want to come here? If we're such a racist society that can't stand to see a black guy get ahead, then how did Vick even make it in to the pros?

It seems like everything that minority groups disagree with anymore is "racist".

On a July 5th broadcast, Michael Savage while talking about a bunch of protesters going on hunger strike: "I would say, let them fast until they starve to death."

Naturally this has started a firestorm in blue areas - most noteably San Francisco, a city that is considering passing city ordinances to use Tax Payer money to help illegals pay for green cards and the citizenship forms. Activists quickly latched on to protest Savage for his "racist comments".

How on earth is what Savage said "racist"? And is this really the way get political change in America today? It used to be that you'd have to explain yourself and try to talk a majority in to agreeing with you. But in the modern day, you win at politics by acting like a bratty child who's going to hold their breath till they get their way? No wonder terrorists have so many of us by the gonads. They tell us they're going to kill us if we do X. When we do X, we think it's our fault.

But avoiding responsibility is the staple of the left. How many times have we been lectured by libs that murderers aren't responsible for killing people (especially minority killers): society is.

Throwing a puerile temper tantrum isn't the way to institute change in our government. If you get involved in politics at all, you're also going to have to eventually face the realization that you're not going to win.

These people aren't going to starve to death and we all know it. "Hunger Strike" means they will only eat one meal a day. And from the pictures of most protesters I've seen, a great many of them could stand to lose some extra pounds anyway.

Furthermore, it is prudent to ask what San Francisco's city council did about Bill Maher. Have they considered dumping "Politically Incorrect" since Maher suggested that Chenney should have been killed in a terrorist strike? That's kind of hateful don't you think?

I know that a lot of the fringe Kossacks and posters at the Huffington Post are from San Francisco - how many of them chuckled when Tony Snow had a resurgance of cancer? So anger amongst some of these people is very selective.

I also have to ask if the opposite is true: am I off the hook because of action of these protesters? If I read news about immigrants getting away with it and get mad, can I burn a cross on the lawn of illegals and get away with it? Can I dress up in bed sheets with my friends and make threats against them? Is that my fault or the activists?

I don't think there is a lib in the world that would say "yes" - even the ones that believe in free speech would say something about silencing me.

If the left cares so much about people who are willingly starving themselves to force their agenda on people, I would suggest that Michael Savage fans should institute a hunger strike themselves. Be interesting to see the reaction to that in San Francisco.

Okay - so the New Republic has been featuring stories from "The Bagdad Diarist", a soldier in Iraq who is blogging the horrors of American soldiers on innocent Iraqis. Since leaking this guy's name wouldn't compromise our national security, the New Republic refused to give out any info on this guy. It took suspicious Conservative bloggers to track down who this guy is: Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

No sooner than his name was released, he confessed that he made everything up. The New Republic's response was typical of know it all left wing media types: oops our bad, now on to other news.

So there you have what's wrong in the US today, right wing commentators on the radio. Hopefully Congress will get right on their overhaul of freedom of speech and stop these awful hosts from beaming out what they'll freely tell us are their opinions and trying to influence politics their way.

Seriously though, when are politicians going to decide that Journalists need to be "balanced"? I know what you're thinking, Journalists have free press - but I figure that the channels of speech are a public form and as such the people should be able to regulate what goes out over them.

Yes our Constitution says that the Government (which is comprised of "the People") can't do that but in a world where McCain Feingold is okay, why not?

The New Republic is lying to us. If nothing else, they're guilty of fraud. They want to hide behind the fact that they didn't know this guy was making up stories. But isn't it their job to find out?

The media is biased. They had preformulated conclusions and they try to hammer every story in to those conclusions. (Wasn't it the Seattle Times news room that cheered when Rove resigned?) If there was an unknown blogger in Iraq writing that yes, there are WMDs and we helped move them last night, there is not a doubt in my mind that New Republic reporters would be digging in to the story (if they considered it worth mentioning at all.) Not only would they know everything about the author, everything that even seemed mildly suspicious would be taken in to account: from his father voting for Bush 41 to his Uncle that had a yard sign supporting Bush 43 in '04. Any story written would mention at least ten times that the source isn't necessarily reliable and the phrase "rumored too" would be featured in every other line.

I'd rather take one Al Franken reporting the news on his bogus radio show than ten New Republics. I know where Franken stands: he's a partisan hack and doesn't pretend to be anything other than. He doesn't insult me by trying to tell me that he's not trying to win in the political arena the way news reporters are.

I'm a hack too. I'm not reporting anything, I'm simply commenting on it.

The New Republic is guilty of fraud. What I wonder is if making up the news is a new thing or if they're just now getting caught in the modern day thanks to watch dogs on the internet.

But the left wing of this country isn't going to do anything about lying and deceiving news agencies cause these places help get them elected. And the stupid left wing voter will continue to use these frauds as sources of information.

We're fighting a shadow war and it doesn't help when know it all reporters go in and tip off the people we're fighting.

Enter "The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development" - a "charity" organization that is suspected of having ties to terrorist groups. In late 2001 (after 9-11) the FBI obtained a warrant to search the offices of the "charity". New York Times reporter Philip Shenon learned of the warrant and went to The Holy Land Foundation for an interview about the upcoming search.

Well gee, if you had illegal stuff and you knew the Feds were coming to your house with a warrant, what would you do?

Don't libs understand? There are people out there that want to kill us. They want to kill us because we're westerners - that's all they need to know. And a lot of journalists, college professors, artists and elitists in our government seem to look at that as a casual joke. John Edwards even said it: "The war on terror is a bumper sticker war".

They don't care if you're liberal or conservative. Communist, Democrat, Republican, Nazi, Anarchist, American Monarch makes no difference to them. They don't care if you believe in global warming or where you went to school or what you think of the movie "Sicko" or if you like "American Idol" or if you think the Palestinians are getting a raw deal or any other reason outside of possibly joining the religion of Islam (but even then I still have my doubts.)

But this is why left wing journalists and aid workers are always stunned when they're targeted for terrorism. They think that their "America screws everybody" philosophy will protect them.

Now couple this with the fact that these Muslim Zealots do NOT share our ideas of tolerance and acceptance. We might welcome them here with open arms, but the feeling is not necessarily mutual. This is not paranoia on my part either. It's a fact. Just ask the Brits about it (after all the bombings last July.) Just ask the French after all the riots and burnings a little over a year ago. Just ask the Danish journalists now receiving death threats for daring to comment on the religion of Islam. Ask the families of the Korean Missionaries in Afghanistan who were taken hostage last week and murdered.

Yes I know the dangers that a government with unchecked power poses to the people it governs. You don't have to tell me. It's funny to me that the left who wants the government to know how much money you make, where you spend it, whether or not you own a gun, who your friends are (lest is go against their "diversity" models), what kind of car you drive, what kind of health problems you have, etc are upset that the government might be listening to FOREIGN NONCITIZEN operatives who are talking on the phone.

Question: how are we going to stop this crap? Does any big lib have a better idea? For over fifty years we've tried the liberal way of dealing with these people: sending these people money, food, doctors and medicine. We've earnestly tried being nice to these people. All we've gotten in return is bitterness, violence, hatred, suicide bombers and bullying tactics.

Look at Somalia - our only crime was attempting to feed the starving people there. We were on a mission of peace. We didn't strike back at our attackers over there. And it turned in to a disaster. It gave a young militiaman Osama bin Ladin the inspiration to attack the US.

I ask again: does anyone have a better idea? A real idea? A real solution? So far the only other idea I've seen is for Hollywood, prominent journalists and know it all college professors to pathetically apologize to these people - which only emboldens the enemy cause now we've admitted wrong doing.

The response is very clear: apology not accepted.

I don't want to live in a world like this. But if I'm forced to choose, I would rather live in a peaceful pseudo police state than a free society where terror acts that kill my family and friends on a semi regular basis. Neither of those societies are free - yet they seem to be our only options. Besides under liberal, left wing politicians have already set up a pseudo police state. Right now at Pace University a student is having action taken against him for the "hate crime" of shoving a Koran in the toilet. Yet I can shove a cross in a jar of p!ss and have it called "art".

There's the left's "free" society.

I'm perfectly happy to live and let live. I could spend the rest of my life in coexistence with Muslim neighbors.

But too many of them aren't going to have it that way. I'm not the aggressor here. Non citizens don't have the same rights as we do under our Constitution (nor should they). I don't have a problem with warrantless wire taps of non citizens.

The most important news about Hillary Clinton's run for President is also the one that seems to get the least attention. It seems that good lady has been pressing for detailed plans about a possible US pullout of Iraq. Just this week, she went so far as to send a letter to her supporters.

"More than 150,000 of our brave men and women are in a war zone, and Dick Cheney doesn't think Congress should know about how we are planning to bring them home." Her mass email shouts.

This is a very interesting reaction coming from a woman who is very guarded about her privacy, especially when it comes to her work in the Government.

Forteen years ago, Hillary Clinton put together a "task force" of over 500 people. This body was defined as an "advisory council" to the President - who was of course her husband. Not surprisingly, she saw no ethics problems with working on political agendas while sleeping with one of the people in charge. But more disturbing than this, she saw no need to tell the American people the details of what her and her gang were doing.

Her "task force" met in secret. Three groups of doctors and concerned citizens requested to be allowed in to the meetings citing the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 which states that anyone who advises the President regardless of their definition in American law is to fall under open public scrutiny. Not surprisingly, the administration refused stating that FACA was never meant to apply to the first Lady even though the law specifically states that it applies to people acting in pretty much any capacity.

Insulted the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the American Council for Health Care Reform, and the National Legal and Policy Center all sued. The White House response amounted to the usual self righteous indignation - claiming FACA was unconstitutional. And liberal pundits came out in force as well.

Susan Trausch of the Boston Globe stated, "Very few of us give a fat rat about the technicalities of a 1972 law regulating task force meetings. We do not care is she is operating as a federal employee, a private citizen, the president's wife, or all three. We just want a break on our health insurance."

Imagine *any* Conservative pundit (outside of radio and a few blogs) saying this today about the war on terror?

But I digress. Judge Lamberth eventually ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. On March 26, 1993 the White House finally released the list of all 511 people on the task force. All 511 were said to be government employees. Furthermore, the meetings would have to be opened up. A little over 20 days later, the task force was disbanded. Two weeks later, the Washington Post received a leak that the White House was shredding the records of the Task Force. Understandably the angry Judge Lamberth ordered that the documents be preserved, but by that time it was too late. Most of the important information had already been lost.

The point of all that everyone should keep this in mind as they watch the Democrats go out and reiterate their talking points - especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Anyone who pays attention to left wing hypocracy knows that they don't follow their own rules. Look at the number of investigations brought against the current administration by left wing groups. Look at all the national secrets cheerfully reported on the front page by left wing media outlets. These are the exact same people who yawn at all the cover ups and shifty dealings of Clinton and her husband. The task force is just one of a thousand examples of the truth being buried. Hillary Clinton even locked her Wellesley senior thesis placed under “lock and key.” (Washington Times 7/13/1999)

So one can't help but wonder what she's hiding. What is it that the press *won't* tell us? Are we really supposed to believe that any potentially embarrassing information is out there because some reporter actually dug up the truth as opposed to having it spoon fed to them by Clinton Inc?

http://www.nlpc.org/hctf/tfl-09.htm

You just can't escape the annoying antics of skanks of modern day. A short while ago Paris Hilton dominated the news after being sent to jail for a DUI charge. Now it's Lindsey Lohan who was arrested for wrecking her car while driving drunk and having a bag of cocaine in her pocket.

(After she was taken in, she slightly altered her story and claimed that the black guys who were in the back seat were actually driving. No one believes this story, but it is an aggravating foot note.)

So far these idiots have been very lucky. No one has yet been physically hurt by any of these classless floozies. Not even when Nicole Richie drove the wrong way on the interstate was she was on a chemical induced trip.

More annoying still is the army of lawyers, friends, sycophants and family that defend these people. Often these people portray Lohan, Hilton, Richie and others as victims of the system that just hates their success and so on.

But it's just a matter of time until one of these morons drives over a little kid. Even if one of these people did this, their support team would continue to back them up.

It's maddening. Is there no line these women can cross with certain people? These women should be embarrassed for themselves. Not even lefties will defend them.

Liberals: we're talking about people who defend terrorists, thugs and dictators but won't say a word to defend Lohan.

It's bad when the left won't finds you embarrassing. These women should take a hint.

Jetblue last week pulled out of sponsoring the "Yearly Kos" convention in Chicago this year.

No, I'm not kidding. It sounds like a joke, but I'm serious.

Here we have a big, greedy corporation who is only interested in earning big profits contributing money to an extreme left wing organization that (despite kicking Cindy Sheehan off for not supporting Democrats) includes many corporation hating communists and socialists.

The only thing that would make this more stunning would be if the Kos sponsor was a tobacco/oil company/Walmart. Airline companies are some of the worst types of corporations in terms of screwing their consumers: lots of paperwork, overpriced tickets, long lines, refusing to give refunds the list goes on. And of the airlines, JetBlue is one of the worst. Just in the past couple of months there have been several stories about JetBlue leaving their passagers trapped in the flying sardine cans they call planes for hours on end on the tarmac.

But then maybe it makes perfect sense. Government agencies are known for treating people like crap, long lines, overprices for what you get, stacks of paperwork and so on.

From the Kos side, I'll say it again - why they want a corporate sponsor is beyond me. Shouldn't these people just have their convention in the park free from the bonds of evil money? Naturally Kossacks (as they dub themselves) hate money cause it corrupts the government and takes the power out of the hands of the people and puts it in the hands of special interest groups. That's why Daily Kos spends so much time raising millions of dollars for candidates and causes (not that that makes them a special interest.)

Now they're faced with the prospect of having to pay some of the convention bill themselves and they're having a hissy fit. No one should be surprised by this. The left is great at spending everyone else's money (just look at their tax policies.)

Bill O'Reilly is the one who grilled JetBlue CEO Dave Barger about sponsoring Kos. This interview is what is credited with the withdrawl of sponsorship - but O'Reilly brought up many good points in the interview.

Kos is a Hate site. I know. I have a Kos account. I both lurk and post there from time to time. I remember when Dick Cheney was targeted with a terrorist bomb in Afghanistan. There were several diaries lamenting the fact that the terrorists missed. How rotten is that that? There were diaries when Tony Snow was in the hospital expressing hope that his cancer had returned. I've read hateful things on Kos about Jews that Nazis would consider extreme.

And these are not just blogs by a few. These blogs made the "top ten reads" on the front page - meaning that several people had recommended them for reading by others. Strange to think that a lot of these people wanted Don Imus' sponsors to back because they thought his "nappy headed hos" comment was over the line.

In fact, Kos is one of the most intolerant and nasty places I've ever posted. I can't believe some of the hatefilled comments I've read there. Attacks on character are a staple of most posters. Despite how much they all brag about how accepting they are, I've read some truly cutting things about gays, Mormons, Jews, whites and men that I've ever seen.

Let Kossacks pay for their own convention. Markos is making a pretty penny taking donations from poor, blue collar working slobs like Michael Moore. Surely they can afford to put on their own party. Jet Blue did the right thing by backing out.

How many ways can you rephrase the same question? How many ways can you retwist the answers? This was all on display last night in the first ever CNN YouTube debates.

Don't get me wrong, on one hand this demonstrates the greatness of our society - that people from all over the world can now ask the candidates questions and get answers immediately. But on the other side, most of the questions were empty headed, sycophantic pandering. It was almost more pathetic than when "unbiased" journalists ask softball questions.

And remember it's CNN. The retirement home of high ranking Clinton flunkies like James Carvel. It's okay though, I've been assured by lefties that he never lets politics get in the way of honest reporting.

That said - let's face it, most of the people who participated last night were Democrats - and the majority of them libs so extreme they'd make Kossacks blush. They want taxes raised, out of Iraq, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc.

So today as we go through the "highlights", the story becomes who slipped up and dropped the lib message during their answer?

The bottom line is who really cares outside of pundit shows who need something to talk about? Is there any doubt that electing any of these candidates is not going to lead to more socialism and big, more intrusive government? Is there any doubt that you Dems are stuck with Hillary? She wouldn't be running if the nominatin wasn't in the bag.

Do all the "youtube debates" you want, that's not going to change.

I'm going to try to hold the bile down as I write this. I might not have any luck and have to end this early though.

That said, ideologically Cindy Sheehan is wrong. I'm not going to sit here and apologize first because her son died. She loves to wave around the death of Casey. She brings it up in EVERY SINGLE PUBLIC STATEMENT SHE MAKES. How does the death of her son prove that taxes need to be raised? How does the death of her son prove that the government should be in charge of health care? How does the death of her son make her right on any stupid issue she's come out in favor of? The death of her son doesn't even prove that the war in Iraq is wrong.

Okay - I'm sorry you're wrong (and not smart enough to see it.)

But just because this woman is an idiot that doesn't mean it's okay for the left to take advantage of the woman (which is exactly what they did.) According to the biographies I'm reading, the woman was born in 1957 and her life started in 2004 with the death of her son. How strange that a modern day figure has absolutely no notes on her past anywhere. Although it's not noted anywhere I can find, I do believe that Sheehan was featured in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11". A very strange credit in the Internet Movie Database would seem to confirm this. Although it gives a short bio of Sheehan there, it lists no acting credits at all.

Thus Sheehan just emerged out of thin air. She walks around talking about how her son died in war in Iraq - but so what? Thousands of mothers and fathers have lost their kids Iraq. Why did Sheehan rise to the top to become a celebrity?

The short answer is that she's a left wing construct. Libs saw a woman who is obviously insane with grief and instead of dropping the money to get the woman a shrink, they spent it giving her a platform to make a circus of herself. How in the hell does a woman who lists her occupation as "Housewife" have millions of dollars to organize protests, buy five acres of land in Texas for thousands of dollars and party with Movie Stars? How does a nobody get a book deal, her own stage play and a movie deal?

Answer: she's a useful idiot. Much like that girl in high school that all the football players had sex with - she wasn't popular, they just knew they could put her on display and she'd go along with it.

And thus is Cindy Sheehan. As long as the left had someone out there willing to embarrass themselves life was good - especially since the left was out of power. Someone had to go out there and say the things libs think but would never dare say (like the war in Iraq is really a war for Israel.)

But now there's a problem: Democrats and Libs are back in power. Now instead of being a face of the movement, Sheehan is more like the embarrassing aunt. They don't want Sheehan to say what they all think anymore (lest it ruin their chances in the next election.)

Case and point: on July 3, 2007 Sheehan announced that if Pelosi doesn't draw up articles of impeachment by the end of July, she would run against her in the next election.

And the firestorm began. So far, Sheehan has been "Warned" about posting on the lefty site DailyKos. Apparently Kos is (now) a Democrat Hack site that only supports Dems. Funny, cause I remember Lieberman about this time last year, was Kos' public enemy #1 since he supported the war. It seems like I also remember the Kossacks supporting Sheehan's speeches to the Communists, the Socialists, the Venezuelans who support Hugo Chavez, etc. Frankenstein's monster is free to rampage the peasant village, just don't let her back in when she runs back to the castle.

So the moral of the story is "Threaten OUR power and you're out." I can't help but feel sorry for the woman. She's too intellectually vacant to see what they were doing. This makes even madder at the left. But I'm not surprised. Their power means everything to them - and people are just tools to an end like any other rotten movement.

The Nazis had their "Night of the Long Knives" where they massacred all their radicals. Seems that the left is having theirs as well.

Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have been captured on audio/video discussing "limiting" debate to "serious" candidates.

This has outraged the Kucinich who lambasted Edwards.

"This is a serious matter and I'm calling him on it," Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, said in a telephone interview Friday. "Whispering, trying to rig an election, then denying what's going on and making excuses. It all reflects a consistent lack of integrity."

It's truly ironic that Kucinich, Mr. "We need the Fairness Doctrine" would be angry that the powers that be are looking to limit his time on air. In typical left wing fashion, speech limits are good for the common man, but not for important aristocrat wannabes like himself.

Edwards tried to work damage control on the incident stating that what he was really thinking was that he wanted the candidates split in to four groups and then chosen at random.

Of course, this sounds like a fair system to me and a way to bring balance to their solid left wing agenda. Truth be told, all these Liberal Dems sound the same to me anyway.

But Kucinich called it "disturbing" and then suggested a debate between him, Clinton and Edwards. So they're going to have a debate about why they should exclude people by excluding most of the candidates from the debate. Makes sense to me.

But then the left has always championed free speech - just ask Cindy Sheehan who was kicked off DailyKos earlier this week for daring to run against the Queen Bee Pelosi. Supposedly Kos is a site which supports Democratic Candidates only which is probably a shock to Joe Lieberman who was public enemy number one on Kos as he ran for re election last year. It should also be noted that there is no mention of a particular party affiliation in their "What this Site's About" page.

We on the right have known what these people are about for a long time: preserving the right to freedom of speech as long as it doesn't offend anyone, doesn't violate any "hate speech" codes, is supported by a majority of liberals, isn't too religious in nature (unless the religion is Islam) and is actually legal to say in the place where you're saying it.

I told you that once you can ban one person won't take long before it becomes open season on everyone who disagrees. It's nice to see libs finally trying to silence each other.

Seems like every election year gets a name from lefties. It used to be "The Year of the Woman." Two thousand and eight is turning out to be the year of "The Year of the Feminist Mom".

Personally, I think Feminists would stink since they sneer at the idea of motherhood outside of the fact that it might get them things like free college, free housing and dates. Feminists defend abortion so you can see what they think of children and motherhood in general.

In the left wing feminist mind, kids are just political means to an end. Just a few weeks ago the liberal (probably describe herself as a feminist) Rosie put up pictures of her five year old daughter Vivi dressed as Islamic terrorist complete with a bandoleer of bullets around her chest. Personally I think CPS should have been called in, but that's not the point of this piece. Rosie isn't running for office and there are two rotten mothers that are (and are going to crash.)

The two are: Nancy Pelosi and Cindy Sheehan. The year 2006 put the Queen Bee Pelosi in charge. And envious eyes glared when the Queen took the center of the hive, put her grandchildren on her lap and made some stupid speech about how women are supieror because they have children (even if nannies raise said offspring.)

And the left and the unbiased, non partisan media orgasmed as the it looked like the age of Bush was ending.

So here we are six months later and the extremists on the left (the guys who give millions of dollars to candidates and organizations in an attempt to get the "big money" out of politics) aren't happy with the work of the Queen Bee. Thus there are now contenders for the throne (which is funny, because according to feminists women are non competitive unlike barbaric men.)

Enter Cindy Sheehan who's son Casey died in Iraq (for those of you who have been living on Mars the past six years.) Pelosi isn't moving fast enough for Cindy. Thus, Cindy has announced that she will run for Pelosi's House seat if Impeachment Articles aren't presented by July 23rd.

Forget everything you hear from the left about free speech, government returning to the little guy and so on. Now that one of their own is under assault from one of their own, you're going to see just how nasty the libs can be. Already the Left wing blogosphere is on fire with messages "Don't run Cindy".

Don't get me wrong, Sheehan doesn't have a bat's chance in Hell of winning. But that's never the point with the left. The point is that someone actually *dared* to question the way they run things. The worst place for any poor sap to be is between a lib and what that lib thinks is their god given power. Thus Sheehan is only going to be stung to death by 10,000 little socialist worker bees.

That said, from where I sit this might actually be fun to watch to the libs eat one of their own. It's going to be fun to watch as Sheehan's eyes widen in horror as once friendly journalists start asking hard questions instead of the usual softballs.

This might provide a momentary distraction in '08 - so let's all hope the bad mothers run...

Yay - so Michael Moore thinks we should convert to a Cuban style of Health Care system (even though he freely admits that Cuba's system is worse than the US'.) Yeah, yeah, yeah - its' all America's fault. According to Moore, we're with holding drugs and equipment from the Cubans. Of course, all our drugs and equipment come from outside the United States.

So as you can tell, it's not the Communist government failing in Cuba, it's a plot from Americans. I guess this is why Castro flies to Spain every time he needs major surgery.

Castro is a typical lefty - it's okay for the peasants, but not good enough for him. Congress is always very careful to tailor laws so that said laws don't apply to them. Social Security is a good example. The Civil Rights act (which didn't effect Congress until 1994 when the Republicans took over) is another. Moore has an attrocious record when it comes to hiring minorities, so he'd know what I'm talking about.

So we get stuck with a crappy, bankrupt, overworked system and limo libs like Moore continue to fly to Europe for private care. We're talking about the Government here. You ever stand in line at the DMV? Imagine sitting in that line when you're vomiting blood having to wait your turn behind the guy who wants a sex change operation.

And yes, we will be paying for sex change operations. All we need is one activist judge (of the hundreds available) to decide we shouldn't "discriminate" against these people. (And there is the teenage girls who want breast implants and let's not forget the ones that want abortions. These people have "rights" you know...)

And this is before illegal aliens get involved. Judges have already said that aliens have a "right" to government housing, government schools and so on. Think social medicine will be any different?

Our government can't be trusted to do anything: social security, welfare, medicare - even our roads stink. How many millions of dollars are being poured in to the broken, overinflated, inefficient systems every year?

The real reason our health care sucks is because people like Moore got involved to begin with. Wasn't it a young Ted Kennedy back in the 70's that decided we had a health care crisis and wrote the original HMO legislation? He's only had 30 years of failure, why not let him expand on it? 

The point here is do you really want morons like Michael Moore who pump out propaganda thinnly disguised as "documentaries" creating our health care system?

Sadly too many think "yes"...