So Dems are going to have a "Gay Debate". How nice for them. John Edwards should do well - he preens himself with thousand dollar haircuts and fancy expensive clothes like a lot of flamers I know. Hillary Clinton with her "lesbian" act will probably score big points too. And then there's Barrack Obama - he's a minority, homosexuals are a minority. What more needs to be said?

But on a more serious note, here are some questions that need to be asked by the unbiased, non partisan, centrist American media (but won't be lest they damage Democrat chances at winning. We'll save the hard, embarrassing ambushes for Ann Coulter and other people who aren't trying to get in to power positions and change the legal landscape of our country.)

For the Group:

#1) We all pretty much agree that sexuality is a private lifestyle choice. Do you agree with Democratic blogs and operatives "outing" gay Republicans last year?

#2) Mark Foley was involved in a "scandal" with a seventeen year old page that he never met. Was it right to bash Foley just for the sake of winning an election?

#3) Why is being called a "faggot" considered more hateful than being called "an angry white male", "a nazi", "a homophobe", etc?

#4) You're all Democrats - don't you feel bad about taking the Congress by gay bashing Republicans last year?

#5) There are people out there actively trying to kill us and destroy our way of life - why are talking about this?

Hillary:

#1) You've said several times that you're opposed to homosexual marriage. Of course, you've said almost as many times that you weren't going to run for President. How can you lie so easily and with a straight face?

2#) Hillary, in light of your husband screwing everybody that moves (especially the people who work for him) what do you think of the Mark Foley case?

Barrack:

#1) You've been more open about your Islamic heritage. But Islam condemns homosexual behavior: "whenever a male mount another male, the throne of God trembles". Some Islamic nations have gone so far as to behead homosexuals. How do you respond to this?

In the end, the answers to the questions are meaningless. Just like the "Live Earth" concerts last weekend it's all about saying the right thing. Actually *doing* the right thing is secondary (...sorry, in most cases tertiary.)

This "debate" is just more pandering and will amount to absolutely nothing.

I know it's a little late, but I have to say it's weird to see libs saying *anything* good about the United States. But they always seem to come out gnashing their teeth on July 4th to talk about how great they think our system is. Truth be told though, the American Revolution was fought against everything Lefties love.

Taxes: The primary fight was over taxes - how high they were and who was paying them. There was a tea tax, an import tax, an export tax, a sugar tax, a glass tax and a paper tax. In fact, it seemed that every time King George found another intern hiding behind the drapes the taxes went up.

Hand in hand with this was a parliment that wouldn't listen. Much like the Amnesty Act trying to be pounded through Congress today, the English parliment decided it would do whatever it wanted regardless of what those lousy colonist little people thought.

Free Trade: The colonists wanted to trade everyone. But this didn't jive with the Crown or the Parliment or the labor unions in England demanding that the colonists live with inferior products. Thus England passed "The Navigation Acts" dictating where ships could and could not go. They were seeking energy independence! And they wanted to keep their wealth within their boundaries via Mercantilism.

The result was that many of the founders became smugglers. Flat out rejecting a lot of English laws.

"The Fairness Doctrine": Naturally all these unpopular laws lead to protests. So to add "fairness and balance" to the debate, the Parliment levied a "Stamp Act". All paper was to have the stamp or be seized as contraband. Naturally, this wasn't done so much as to punish those who disagree with the powers that be, but to bring "civility" to the argument. This act specifically targeted the colonists (the same way "the Fairness Doctrine" will only target radio.)

Gun Control: On the eve of the American Revolution, it was becoming more and more apparent that hostilities would probably break out. So the good pacifist libs decided the best course of action would be to summarily disarm the Colonists. Since the colonists wouldn't willingly hand over their weapons, the British military in Boston marched off into the countryside. They were greeted by several angry citizens who were private gun owners at a small town called Lexington. Thus the Brits did what every good liberal pacifist would do in that situation: they opened fire.

Terrorist Sponsors: During the campaigns of Western New York and Pennsylvania, the British tried to break American spirit by whipping the Native tan skinned people on the border in to a frenzy. Using anti American rhetoric (similar to Hollywood's messages to Islamofascists) they got the tribes to organize and then exterminate innocent, unarmed Americans living on the frontier. These Natives wiped out everybody, burning villages and scalping everyone in their path. The Brits supplied these marauders weapons for their efforts.

I'm sure that most libs reading this last passage are laughing and smiling. After all, no one they know personally got killed in those raids. You can't fault them for that though, there were plenty more white skinned, Christian people where those came from.

What pisses leftists off is the colonists responded using the exact same tactics. An army was put together and then divided in half. The first half hunted down the Indians and wiped them out. The second attacked the Indian villages using the same tactics that the Indians had used on the whites.

The lesson here is the same as the lesson today: it's only a crime when light skinned westerners do it. When tan/dark skinned people do it we need to "understand their anger."

So there you have it - the libs hate the 4th of July. So every time you see one stand up to give an Independence Day speech, just remember that deep down inside they're throwing up in disgust. The Founders didn't do one thing modern libs would approve of.

I have a problem in that I think taxes are too high. So I got a brilliant idea - I'll throw a party.

Anyone else find the above statement absurd? I fail to see how getting drunk at a party is going to solve my tax burdens. So how is it going to solve a problem like "global warming"?

Al Gore's big idea is to have concerts on all of the continents at the same time: Sydney, Australia; London, England; Kyoto, Japan; Johannesburg, South Africa; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and Washington DC in the US. Oh and there will be a concert in Antarctica for the first time ever. It's winter in Antarctica - but I'm sure these activists won't mind the cold (which they tell me isn't as cold as it used to be thanks to global warming.)

The point here is: how is a stupid concert going to do *anything* to help fix global warming, pollution or anything else? These rock stars are going to fly to these locations in private jets, drive around in limos, burn up tons of energy for their lights, their instruments, their amps, pollute the air with all the smoke from their pyrotechnics and so on. And the people going to these shows are trample the grass and toss their trash everywhere. The people at the concerts will pollute the air smoking cigarettes (and other various substances).

So how does this stupid concert help anyway? (It's raising awareness.) Yeah you're right, most people in populated centers like London, Kyoto and Washington DC have NEVER heard of global warming. We have never seen it in movies, television, radio, schools, politicians, newspapers, internet and so on. I suppose I'd be prone to believe that there are people living in the backwoods of Africa, South America and India that have never been presented with the theory of global warming - but I notice none of the concert locations are in these ill informed places.

So since these concerts are wasteful and won't do anything to fix the problem it claims to address one has to wonder: what is the real meat of these concerts (insult to the vegans intended)? Answer: to make rich elitist snobs feel like they're doing something. It gives them a chance to justify their decadent lifestyles and make them feel better about themselves. Now I'm not just getting drunk, I'm getting drunk for the Earth (where do I toss the beer cans?) I'm not just getting stoned, I'm getting stoned for the Earth. I'm not just having sex, I'm having sex for the Earth.

The fact that these concerts don't do anything to actually solve a problem is secondary.

Question: Aren't the poor the ones who are going to be most hurt by environmental destruction? So why aren't you inviting some of these people to your concerts? Why aren't any of these concerts being held in areas that are destitute? Why is it that I feel the only poor people who will get in to this concert will be sweeping the trash up after the last band leaves the stage?

Are they sending the money to charity? The real question is *how much* are they sending to charity? What about concessions sales? Tee shirt sales? How much are these bands making on this concert? I've never met a lib that did anything for free - so obviously they're getting something for their efforts.

Even if they do send the money to charity or whatever is really going to help the problem? I get the feeling that less than a week after these concerts we'll continue to be told that global warming is happening faster, its effects will be more devastating than we originally thought and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Hell, they're telling us this right now and we haven't even had "Live Earth" yet, so what good will this do?

Morale of the story is that "Live Earth" is a pile of crap. It won't help anything and won't change anything. It won't even make any of the people participating feel better about anything.

So why even go through the motions?

There were a series of coordinated terrorist strikes in the UK last week and my only real thought is: "Oh god, here we go again."

I'm not talking about terrorists, I'm talking about left wing apologists. Here we go again with the typical holier than thou boneheads espousing their typical bonehead theories about how Westerners are totally responsible for actions of radicals who want to kill us. It's rather insulting to think that 3000 people in the World Trade Center had it coming, but Daniel Pearl was a victim. I'm sure the fact that Pearl was a journalist has nothing to do with those media conclusions.

Already pollsters are running around asking Muslims if there is any "anti Islamic" backlash, if they're afraid of backlash, etc. Any large percentages are taken as proof that Westerners really are as racist and intolerant as everyone thinks we are. The burden is on us to fix the problem.

Talk about blaming the victim. Contrast this with how the media treats any and every story about Abu Grab or other mean things Westerners do to middle easterners. The first thing journalists do is run to Islamic Republics and ask them what they think of us.

Thus you get this weird twist where looking at Islamists funny justifies their terrorist actions and our attempt to stop them is "over reacting".

Has political correctness really turned us in to such idiots? For a lot of us the sad answer is "yes". The same people who have absolutely no problem at all with Affirmative Action (a racist policy built in to our laws) because of "white privilege" are the same people opposed  to looking at the shared religion of terrorists in the West. Did I say that Muslims are the only ones who commit terrorist actions in the United States and Britain? No I did not. But whereas our law enforcement officials can watch white Neo Nazi groups with no one even complaining, Muslims are treated as if they have a special protection.

Does every Muslim support terrorism? The answer is no - but that shouldn't stop us from trying to find the ones that do. I still find it interesting - polls saying that Islamists don't trust the United States are waved around as big problems that need to be fixed while polls saying that most Islamists world wide are sympathic to terrorists are to be ignored as "racist".

We have a very serious problem here. There are people who are trying to kill civilians in the West simply because they're westerners. We have been getting lucky so far - a lot of their plots are being foiled or are just unsuccessful. But eventually, these people are going to succeed. The Lefty idea of running to these people and telling them how sorry we are and then trying to buy them off with money like they're some kind of voting block isn't working.

As typical though, big libs don't care. It's only a problem when it happens to them (again just look at how they Daniel Pearl as opposed to everyone else who's been a victim of terror.)

Farfour is dead. The loveable little Palestinian rat who taught children 3-7 (and liberals of all ages) the joys of killing Americans and Israelis for Jihad is gone. He was beat to death by a greedy Jewish banker who wanted to buy his land. One of Farfour's little helper children broke the news in a sad retelling of the story.

You know, Hollywood and our media could learn a thing or two about open minded tolerance for others and fair depictions of racial and ethnic groups from Palestinian TV. But I digress.The real point here is that there is an opening for a host on Mickey Mouse Terrorist TV. May I recommend Rosie O'Donnell to fill the hole?

Let's face it if there is anything that Rosie loves more than kids, it's terrorists. Rosie used to be a staple on Nick - hosting their Kids Choice Awards and what not. And in her off time she's spoken highly of IslamoFascists - reminding us all that they're mothers too, that they're just like the founding fathers of the United States and so on and so forth. Recently O'Donnell posted a picture of her daughter Vivi with a bandoleer of bullets around her chest and a burka on her web site. This could be a win-win for everyone involved. Terrorists would finally have a spokeswoman and O'Donnell could teach us all the joys of Jihad.

True, I doubt that TV Palestine could offer Rosie the paltry millions of dollars O'Donnell would demand - but when they explain to her it's for the kids she might go along with it.

Never hurts to ask eh?

For those of you who had better things to do, the Democrats had one of their moron debates tonight. I guess the focus of this one was race relations. Since the Supreme Court just said that schools can't discriminate against people on the basis of race (even if they're white and deserve it), this seems to make sense.

Dems have been walking around patting themselves on the back for having the "guts" to put up a black candidate. This just goes to show that the Democrats (just like the racist they decry) aren't serious about the plights of minorities. Since we all know that white people won't vote for darker skinned candidates, they should give Barrack Obama a hundred thousand vote head start in their primary. They can call this "Affirmative Voting". It would serve as a great lesson in tolerance and allow them to lead by example when it comes to Affirmative Action. If it's good enough for John Q. Sixpack trying to get in to college, a good job or some other important position - it should be good enough for empty headed libs.

Really though - how committed to oppressed minorities can they be if they don't take the intiative here? Is a couple hundred thousand votes really going to matter when Mr. Ears gets slammed by the Hillary Train?

I don't think so.

I swore I'd never write about Rosie again, but I feel prompted too.

Rosie O'Donnell is a terrible mother. It's one thing if she wants to be an anti-war wacko. It's quite another if she wants to exploit her children.

On June 26th Rosie put up a picture of her daughter Vivi (age 5) wearing a bandoleer of bullets around her chest. The kid seems to be decked out with a head wrap and what appears to be a robe. She looks like a little terrorist in training.

It's asinine on so many levels. First of all, Rosie's a big anti gun nut - where on earth did she find a bandoleer of bullets (even if they're fake)? The bullets in question are gigantic. It is definitely the accessory of a large, automatic assault rifle. I haven't seen a children's toy like that and even if there was, would Rosie actually buy it for her kids? I thought she was a big liberal peacenik.

Secondly little Vivi looks like a terrorist. I guess the lesson is "Violence is okay if you're killing Jews and Americans." I can't even begin to imagine the psychological damage to her daughter. How long did they let this little kid run around like this snapping pictures of her the whole time? What did they tell little Vivi as they were doing it? "Well mommy needs to prostitute you for left wing causes."?

Thirdly aren't you endangering your child? Rosie has a following of wackos and now every single one of them knows what her kid looks like. Have you read what some of your nutzoid followers are writing? It should bother you. Have you no concern for the well being of your child?

What the hell is your stupid message anyway? "The world is a violent place it's somehow all the Conservatives fault."? What an idiot. If you want to talk about the goodness and virtues of terrorism that's fine, but bringing your kid in  to it?

For the libs out there: Stop focusing on the politics and consider the psychology of the kid involved please. But of course, "the people" are always just a tool for you. "The Children" are just a means to an end of putting yourselves in charge.

I can't even begin to imagine how screwed up this kid is. Child Protective Services should be called in...of course, Rosie is a rich white woman with tons of high priced lawyers at her beck and call and friends in high places. So nothing will be done. If this was some kid from the hood or a kid of poor Muslim immigrants CPS would be right there. Yay! The system continues to fail with people like Rosie decrying the "unfairness" even as they reap the benefits themselves. Ironic that people like Rosie are their own biggest criminals.

Rosie and her ilk need serious help. It's okay though, Rosie will ride the wave of controversy to another million dollar contract - and they'll call it "justice"....

So the cloture vote has won - 64 to 35. It's being hailed as a great blow to talk radio.

Question: Does this mean we still need the Fairness Doctrine?

We've just demonstrated that talk radio no matter how much pressure they put on people doesn't always get its way. This would seem to indicate that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary - right?

Wrong. Liberal Democrats will still push for it. Radio goes out over the public airwaves and thus, we can determine what's said there...course, television and cable also go out over the public airwaves, but don't look for any pushes to balance Keith Olberman, CNN, MSNBC, CBS or other left wing mouthpieces any more than you can look for a push for a conservative show to play opposite "The Daily Show". Left wing PBS is safe from the push for "Fairness".

Furthermore I keep coming back to this important point: when are we going to balance out left wing schools? They might not go out over the public airwaves, but most of them take government money. Even a lot of private schools take grants and other subsidies.

Course where I come from, the government paying to influence public opinion is called "propaganda" but since that's such an ugly word, we're going to call it "balance".

Look the first amendment's speech clause is a safeguard against what people like Diane Feinstein are proposing. It doesn't matter if the politicians don't like what's being said - that's the point of Free Speech. These people are free to go out and attempt to sell their ideas to people as well, but there is to be NO government intrusion. That is the point. It doesn't matter if liberal politicians and left wing special interest groups like it or not.

It doesn't matter what arguments lefties present. The Constitution is very clear on this matter. Is this going to be a hollow exercise or not?

Congresses approval ratings are at an all time low. Doesn't matter if you're on the right, the left or in the middle, odds are you're not happy about what Congress is doing right now. Interestingly the media doesn't consider this scream worthy like when the President's poll numbers go down. It's okay though, I'm sure that the lack of coverage over Congress' numbers have nothing to do with politics.

But why are legislative branches numbers so low? Personally I think it's because there are so many issues smashing together at the same time.

When is this immigration bill going to die and stay dead? Just about every poll shows that Americans (especially legal immigrants) are opposed to the amnesty bill that is being hammered through. That said, guess which polls get cited whenever a Congressperson/Senator/News Story comes out?

Senator Lott appearing on the evilest of all places (Fox News) on Fox News Sunday reiterated his support for the bill (even though Fox News only plays the Conservative side of anything) while he was appearing with Diane Feinstein. He went on to chide stupid Americans for not understanding how "tough" the bill is and how much it cracks down on border hoppers.

The problem is we don't believe you Senator. Here our media keeps bringing us all kinds of footage of what they tell us are illegal aliens protesting and marching everywhere - and the cameras sweep past police and ICE agents filing their fingernails while telling us they can't do anything. If you won't even try to enforce the old, lax bill then we have NO confidence that you'll enforce this new bill no matter how tough it is.

They keep telling us they can't find illegals in our society - but someone figured out that there are 12 million here. They should hire that guy to enforce our immigration laws. You know, most criminals be they speeders, murderers, smugglers or whoever hide from law enforcement. In fact, the two most disgusting types of criminals in the eyes of Congress (people who won't pay their taxes and people who run campaign ads during elections) are to be hunted to the ends of the earth without mercy. Tax evaders owe the Government money and no amount of hiding is going to win amnesty for these people.

No one is sure if McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform applies to the internet. But to play it safe, law enforcement is going to crack down on these people anyway despite the fact that it's almost impossible to find anyone on the net. Moral of the story is that if it bothered our elected officials, it would be a problem worthy of getting serious on.

Even their response to their critics on this issue exposes their arrogance. Since they can't get the bill past Trent Lott, Barbara Boxer and others are complaining that "talk radio" is defeating their efforts. How DARE the people express their opinions over the public airwaves. I guess it goes without saying that television, film, newspapers and major universities are all in favor of the legislation since no one in Congress is complaining about these outlets. Never mind that the Constitution is *very* clear on this issue - Congress shall pass NO LAW limiting speech. Even the most closed political philosophers agree that the the free speech clause in the United States deals with political topics which Immigration is.

It should surprise no one that I listen to a good chunk of talk radio (I have listened to Air America btw) and every show I hear takes phone calls. And not all of those phone calls are glowing sycophantic butt kissing. A lot of hosts love to take calls from people who disagree. It makes the show much more interesting. Moreover I have heard some hosts speak praise about the immigration bill: Roger Hedgecock and Michael Medved are two.

The idea that talk radio has an audience just sitting around taking their marching orders is insane. True, some hosts give out phone numbers to members of Congress in order to effect policy - but #1) no one is being forced to make the calls and #2) no elected official should be upset when they hear from the voters. Do these people work for us or not? If it's just a bunch of fringe kooks, then you can easily write these people off without fear. Since this bothers so many members of Congress, then my only conclusion is that this bill is unfavorable.

So instead of scrapping the bill, their solution is to silence the people. How is that for twisted logic? The people are supposed to talk about politics in our system, that's what makes the machine work. Our government isn't supposed to regulate political speech for ANY reason. Speech is supposed to be free. If people are "misinformed" about immigration and it's a problem that needs a government fix, are we also going to clean up the "misinformation" about global warming (cause there is a lot of it)? Answer: no. Global Warming nuts vote left wing, so they'll be left untouched.

Who would have thought that illegal aliens would have brought so many issues to a head?

So Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton are rumored to want to "reign in" right wing radio. They're quoted as saying there needs to be a "legislative fix" for the one outlet of the media not solidly in the hands of wacko leftists.

For most of us, this story is completely believable even though both Senators are now denying it. Hillary Clinton back in the 90's blamed a "vast right wing conspiracy" (which included talk radio) for the failures of her husband. (Of course, if talk radio was so powerful we can't help but wonder how President Clinton and her husband got elected twice and how St. Hillary won two terms as a Senator from New York.) Wasn't it just last fall that the "honorable" Senator from New York tried to bully ABC from running a movie about her husband failed to get terrorists when they had the chance? Her and her friends in Congress were rather open about their threats to "investigate" ABC. She also lied to the people of New York when she told them she would serve her terms as Senator without seeking the Presidency, so her retraction now is a joke.

Senator Boxer is a double talker with an almost equally filthy past. Just a few months ago there was a story about how she was using her position in the Senate to get high priced government contracts for her husband's companies. Naturally the unbiased, non partisan press didn't feel that particular story was worth any heavy reporting outside of AM talk - which is one of the reasons they're focused solely on talk radio. Cause the regular press gives them passes.

People from Enron and Haliburton are demonized when it's even sort of hinted that something like what Boxer did happened.

This all comes out at a time when people like Dennis Kucinch, Think Progress and other groups are pushing for "fairness" on the airwaves. Although all these people are completely non partisan and not agenda driven, I still can't help but wonder why the regular media, Hollywood and our college/university systems don't concern them - after all these places are controlled by partisans (notably left wing partisans).

Left wing twits keep telling me that you can't yell fire in a crowded elevator - but you can yell about how America deserved the terrorist attack on 9-11, demand American flags be pulled down, charge the Bush administration with racism in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and many other offensive things with impunity. I guess it only counts if some lefty gets their feelings hurt. The rest of us have to suck it up.

Why are you lefties so pissed off anyway? You control the New York Times, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, The LA Times, The Boston Globe, all of Hollywood, most rock stars, etc and you're still not satisfied. So naturally your reaction is to trample the Constitution and all it's protections against the government regulating speech while all the time calling it free speech. Demonstrating just how truly stupid liberals really are - and just how stupid they think the rest of us are...

Headline today: Journalists contribute overwhelmingly to Liberal Democrats. As if I needed a study to tell me this. Let's give a big round of applause for all the time, money and energy that was wasted in a study giving results that everyone (outside of elitist lefties) already know.

Aw but the study only showed that mostly non-political reporters contributed to Dems. Yeah you're right - I'd never guess in a million years that Larry King, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Katie Couric, Keith Olberman, Chris Mathews and others support liberal causes - how stupid do you really think I am?

Just in the past couple of months the New York Times relegated a plot to blow up Kennedy International Airport to page thirty. A few years ago the NYT skipped a story about the new elections in Iraq. And this is just a couple of stories I remember off the cuff from one major paper. I'm sure that a little digging would reveal similar actions across a wide spectrum of news outlets.

The truth is major journalists don't have to necessarily contribute money. They can parse stories, sit on important stories or blow other stories completely out of proportion and decide what the lead story is going to be to effect elections. Example: most stories about Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are glowing. About a month ago Barrack while speaking in to a group mistated the number of deaths in a devastating tornado. It was quickly forgotten. Contrast that with a few years back when Bush couldn't remember the names of a couple of world leaders - the press didn't forget that. The press has the power to make anyone look good or bad depending on how they choose to do it. Granted sometimes it backfires, but it usually doesn't. I ask again: What did Scooter Libby do? Won't anyone in the press core go in to that? No? Why not? (Cause he's a member of the evil Bush administration.)

It just reveals more stupidity in left wing philosophy. Can't trust "big oil" to work on energy policy because they'd only work to further their own interest. But we can trust a bunch of left wing journalists to bring us "unbiased, non partisan" news. They're not fooling anyone, they're just insulting us all - which is part of the problem. How long can you talk down to your clientele before they get mad and walk out on you? Sagging sales and low ratings would indicate we've reached that point. Naturally journalists blame their audience (which they believe are all stupid) instead of working on their product. ("We can't help the news, we just report it.") Cool, don't take my advice. I'd love to see you all disappear.

There is an interesting sidebar to all of this: the "Think Progress" web site has done a study that shows that talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. And since they're a liberal group, we can trust them and their study. Naturally their suggested fix is usurp free speech and subvert the Constitution and force a bunch of liberal programming to "balance" the radio.

With this new report out will they demand Conservative equal time in the television news media? (Answer: no.) With all the studies that show college professors being overly liberal will this Think Progress group demand more conservative opinion at Universities? After all, I can turn off the radio but most of my reading at college was mandatory. (Again Answer: no.) With all the studies about Hollywood and how left wing they are and all the actors and actresses supporting big lefty causes, will Think Progress demand more conservative voices there? (Answer: no.)

Just like the other unbiased, non partisans that make up the left wing - they're agenda driven and tell us otherwise.

Wow - Gaza has fallen in to chaos (again.) Naturally it's the United States' fault. If we would offer more money to these people who want to kill us and destroy our way of life, then everything would be fine. But we're too greedy, racist and so on and so forth.

Yeah I don't understand these people (and that's a crime.) True they don't understand me, but that's okay. According to them our society is evil. Interesting that for me to call their lifestyle evil is a crime, but for them to call my lifestyle evil is accurate observation.

Can't criticise Islam which is the excuse that Hamas is using for it's actions because that would be "racist" even though Islam isn't a race. Don't worry, that's not going to stop them from attacking Christianity as a violent religion (ever heard of the Crusades?) Those moldy middle age invasions justify everything these people do: from terrorist actions in Israel to destruction of Hindu temples in India...what India has to do with Israel and Christianity I have no idea - and that only reinforces the point that I shouldn't comment on things I don't understand.

I don't understand what prompted Hitler to gas 12 million people either - and it would be wrong for me to call it evil since I don't understand it.

I say we just let these people duke it out and massacre each other. But that would be unfair (as if there has ever been a fair fight.) The Palestinians are under equiped and the Israelis are best armies in the world. Doesn't matter that the Palestians are the one instigating the fighting. It would be completely unfair for Israel to just wipe them out. Best that they just live with constant overhanging threat of terrorist actions.

Looking back at history, I think the Romans had a good idea. You want war? Fine you'll get it - and once every man, woman and child lay dead in the ruins there was no one left that wanted to fight. But that would be unfair because there would be a winner...as opposed to the "fairness" of innocent people being terrorized and killed for things that happened long before their birth. Being killed for reasons they may not care about.

The nation of Israel is 70ish years old. Most people on this planet weren't around when it was set up. Some of the people who were around at it's birth were just babes themselves at its inception. My point is GET OVER IT.

At some point you have to decide whether you want to make the best of a bad situation or sit around crying about it. The people who make the best go on and some become quite prosperous. The ones who sit around crying about it will only end up sinking into a pool of their own misery. You can have a meaningful life with the existence of Israel there - I know because millions of people are doing it every day.

I'm sorry - how is chaos in Gaza my fault again? How is it my government's fault? If we have such great control over the people there why is terrorism such a problem? If we can control the people in Gaza and the West Bank, why is there such violence against the people so accused of licking up too the Israelis? You obviously have some form of self determination.

Aw - Michael Moore's film has been dumped out on to the web, meaning that anyone can now watch it for free. (Personally, I think that even at free it's still a rip off but I digress.)

Well from what I'm reading this has Moore and Weinstein his distribution company. They're going to lose millions of dollars. One can't help but savor the irony of a group of people with socialist/communist sympathies decrying their loss of profit. You'd think that they would have put the film out on net unprompted for free so that the working poor could have access to the material (and then decry the world that the working poor can't afford computers to see the movie). After all, Moore is the guy who took all those people to Cuba to prove how great the socialized medicine down there is compared to the greedy, inept US system. Cubans get their awesome medical care for free, so why doesn't the same theory apply to Moore's films? Doesn't he condemn our healthcare industry for sucking up millions of dollars?

But no in typical hypocritical elitist fashion it's a crime when *they* lose money. *They* need the cash to get their message out (whereas the rest of us are just greedy and will spend the money on the wrong things anyway.) Apparently you're allowed to eat steak and lobster and drive around in Limos when you're doing the work of "the people."

It reminds me of one of the text books I had as required reading back in college. It openly praised the glory of Marxism even mentioning Karl by name. The book kept citing a web site as a source. Imagine my shock when I discovered the web site was a pay site. Again you'd think that they'd want "the poor" to have access to the material. But no, these commies want compensation for the work they put in (how snide of them.)

So whereas the rest of us are all supposed to work for free, they want to maintain their high calibur lifestyle - but do we expect any different from them?

The real reason we're up to our elbows in people who won't respect our citizenship laws is because greedy rich people don't want to pay a decent wage. (Of course, only a racist would criticise them, but I digress.) Thus it is after spending the last year being lectured too about the jobs illegals will do that Americans won't, I'd like to some suggestions about what kind of work I'd like to see illegals do in our society.

1) Liberal Political Leader - If our nation is going to be destroyed from within, wouldn't it be nice if the people doing it weren't products of the fruits of American idealism? Nothing makes me sicker than when some politician somewhere starts complaining that people can't make it in our society - they obviously did. At least with an illegal I can always say "of course they'd say that, they aren't from here."

Moreover maybe living on a budget of a nickel an hour these people would have some ways of streamlining our budget and maybe lowering taxes. I bet they could rebuild New Orleans for less than the millions we're sending down there presently (and still being told how it's not enough.)

2) Hollywood Producer/Director/Actor - Since these people constantly lecture us on the plight of the downtrodden minorities, surely they wouldn't be opposed to stepping down so that some of these aliens could step up? Besides, the only things more bloated than the Federal budget are some movie budgets - and it's often hard to decide which gives more crappy performance.  Either way, both could be done better, faster and cheaper by illegal labor. Maybe it would finally cost less than 30 bucks for one person to go to a matinee. At least they'd be smart enough not to try to sell a propaganda piece as a "documentary".

3) Journalists - How many millions do these people get paid to do the crappy jobs they do? Endless coverage of Paris Hilton with the occasional "America Sucks" story sprinkled in? Give me a break. How much talent does it take to be a journalist anyway? From what I can tell the only real qualifications in the modern day are a) hating the Bush Administration, b) hating the United States and c) thinking you're better than everyone else. I'm sure the illegals flooding our nation would happily adapt to this line of thinking for a tenth of what we're paying now.

4) College Professors - Ah, but aliens might not have the training to teach subjects like Math and Science you say? Well from what I've heard most Math and Science professors spend more time unbiasedly trashing Conservative opinions than they do teaching. A bunch of illegals might actually try teaching the subject they're in charge of. The symbolism here is doubly good as illegals are promoted over legal alien teacher aides.

As the old saying goes, it's always funny when it happens to the other guy. Like to see what happens when it effects to brain dead lefties.

It seems that the left is attempting censorship again. Naturally they're not calling it that, thus they can skirt their own definitions of banning speech. And no one should be surprised either, it was the left that brought us laws against "hate speech".

The particular incident in question deals with AM 610 in Broward County Florida. Presently the station serves as the flagship for weather warnings in the area. Whenever the National Weather Service issues a caution, they call AM 610 (who then calls all the other stations.)

The problem is that AM 610 is a talk station that dares to carry Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Democrat hack Stacy Ritter (who is the Commissioner down there) stated openly that she didn't want to support a station that doesn't reflect the politics of the surrounding area.

"They have every right to speak, but we don't have to do business with them." she said.

I'm sorry but I see this as a step towards censorship. Here we have a member of the government actually coming out and stating that the politics of a local business are wrong and proposing blacklisting them.

It will be interesting to watch this summer as Michael Moore's new movie "Sicko" gets released to watch the Stacy Ritters of the world complain of "censorship" as theater owners don't want to run the movie (despite the fact that theater owners are private citizens as opposed to government representatives.)

Remember the whinning over "Fahrenheit 9-11"? Everything was said to be censorship: from only a few theaters running the movie to no one showing up to watch it. Nevermind the fact that you could go see it if you actually wanted too. Just think what would have happened if a bunch of County officials anywhere got together and stated publically they wouldn't go see the movie because they hate the politics. You'd see lawsuits.

But it just goes to show that the rules never apply to liberals. There's always some reason it doesn't apply to them.