And you can't trust corporations because they too lie to cover up their poor business practices. Again any reference materials from these people is to be viewed with suspicion. They have an agenda after all.

But amazingly enough, you can trust people like Al Gore and Michael Moore when they make "documentaries". These people are motivated by the goodness of their hearts and only want the best for their fellow man. They would *never* allow politics to influence their film making, even if the films in question deal with their personal pet causes. And naturally Gore and Moore are going to clean up at award shows where unbiased, non partisan judges view things in a neutral fashion.

Uh huh - how stupid are you? Ever since the invent of mass media people have known of the power to influence and control the thoughts and ideas of the masses. This was perfected during the 1920's and 1930's when the Russians and Nazi Germans rewrote large tracts of history to make themselves look better. The weaknesses of these pieces is pretty obvious to the modern mind when the materials start referencing dated events and ideas.

But in the modern day these "documentaries" play to a receptive audience that wants to believe. Thus it seems every liberal idiot that writes me starts waving and citing these pieces of garbage.

Here's the thing though: I can't believe that anyone can possibly be that stupid. It's one thing if you want to watch this stuff and internalize it to reinforce your own beliefs, but to actually use it as a source? I don't think so. Better that you go to the sources these films use - course then you have the problem of finding the sources in the bibliography (which might scare you when you see what all was left out.)

Sadly though some people really are that lame.

Paris Hilton would be the ultimate liberal icon if she would just give money to the right causes. She certain fits the profile of those who are better than the rest of us politically: rich, silver spoon in her mouth, walking around with a holier than thou halo, glowing with the knowledge that the rules are for the common people (not her.) Typical lib attitude. We all know that if she actually was political, she'd be a leftist.

The problem with Paris is that she failed to spread the love. Had she given a couple mil to the Hillary for Empress campaign she'd be a free woman today. All Hilton did was was drive under the influence. Compare that to Representative William Jefferson (Democrat La) who was caught red handed taking bribe money. He was punished by being taken off the Weighs and Means Committee (and reassigned to the Homeland Security Committee.) Compare this to the case of Diana Feinstein who wrote legislation insuring that her hubby's businesses would get excess compensation in government contracts. Or millionaire liberal House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who uses non union labor (while courting the labor unions) and uses illegal alien workers on her vineyard.

See, these people all vote the right way and give money to the correct causes. Liberals love lawbreakers - be they people intending to kill as many Americans as they can or people who hop our border illegally. Yep, the law is just too tough on their favorite politically correct demographics.

Now there is an idea, Paris Hilton should embrace Feminism. She is the ideal model for a feminist after all: a woman who is secure with her body and her sexuality, oppressed by backwards, archaic, oppressive patriarchal laws designed to oppress the fairer sex. Laws like driving under the influence, driving on a suspended license, disobeying court orders, etc. Weren't these just put here to punish minorities? A lot of illegal immigrants sure seem to think so.

Furthermore Hilton could educate us all on the use condems and other various materials. She could come out and show us that living with an STD shouldn't stigmatise someone. Maybe she could even get a spokeswoman position with her abortion clinic and show us that it's okay.

Okay I'm being mean now. But let's face it, the million dollar princess kind of deserves it. She was caught at least twice driving under the influence - which is a crime. After being sentenced, she was photographed by a hundred journalists driving around town even though her license was suspended. Talk about a spoiled brat. Most "common" people caught in this fashion *would* be sent to jail. So she's being treated like the rest of us and acting like she's Jesus carrying the cross to her execution.

So why do so many people dislike her? Do I need to recount the reasons? Okay - she's been given a recording contract despite the fact that she can't sing worth crap. There are millions of people clamoring to just five minutes in front of a record executive to show how good they are (and some of these people really are that good). Yet this woman with no talent gets a shot?

The woman has been given acting roles in movies and her own tv show - despite her awful acting. Again, there are millions of people who want to be actors and actresses (some of them really good) and this woman who would make a low grade porn queen gets chance? What kind of a slap in the face is that?

The woman is on tons of drugs and alcohol. She whines about how depressed she is. She takes actions in defiance of the law. She can use her money, her influence and her connections to live the life most people only dream about. And yet she's a worthless mess. No one would even know who she was had she not be born a Hilton. And she's wasting it. Most of the people I know are working our asses off for what feels like nothing and this loser gets a pass?

Believe it or not, I do feel a pang of sympathy for Hilton (and it seems I'm the only one who does.) Not because I think she's been shafted by the system (cause she's getting the same treatment most of the rest of us would get) but because she's a pathetic mess. Here she is in court crying her eyes out, screaming for her mommy, her lawyer, her shrink and others in one of the most pathetic scenes I've ever seen in my life (and it was caught by a thousand media types.) Talk about someone who needs to grow up...

So Scooter Libby has been found guilty and sentenced to thirty months in prison. Leaves me wondering what he did wrong. Most libs talking about it bring up Valerie Plame being outed as a CIA agent. The problem is that Libby didn't leak her name. The guy who did (Richard Armitage) is still walking free having been charged with nothing.

Now let's compare this case to Alberto Gonzales, another guy who has broken no laws and done nothing wrong. The left is demanding Gonzales' head for the "firings" of eight US attourneys. Please note that a lot of these "firings" actually had their terms in office expire without being asked to renew their terms, but this doesn't matter to the left wing partisan hacks in our media and Congress who state that the evil here is someone daring to play politics in the arena of politics. These same big leftists give Valerie Plame's husband Joe Wilson a pass even though he's charged with lying and manipulating our government in his trip to Niger in his quest to find "yellow cake" uranium.

The lesson: politics are okay if you're a big lib.

Don't believe me? Let's contrast this with the case of Sandy Berger. He was found guilty of taking (that means he did it) classified documents from the Department of Justice. He admitted stuffing said documents down his pants to take them out of office (which is AGAINST THE LAW) so as to hide them from an investigation. He later destroyed the documents - again in violation of the law. I repeat, he was found guilty meaning he did it. His punishment for this? A ten thousand dollar fine and losing his law license (which he'll have back just in time to be reappointed to the post in '08 when Hillary takes office.)

Contrast that with liberal Democratic District Attourney Mike Nifong, the rogue prosecutor from North Carolina. He was ready to bring the full punishment of the law crashing down on three Lacrosse players at Duke University despite the fact that there was absolutely no evidence of their crime at all. But it was an election year in a district with a high black population - but I'm sure that politics had nothing to do with his wrongful persecution.

Contrast that case with the case of William "Cold Cash" Jefferson. This is the guy who the FBI caught red handed taking bribes. They got witnesses and video of Jefferson doing what they accuse him of. But you guessed it, libs are taking a defensive stance for this guy. The first thing they did was accuse the FBI of breaching the separation of powers clause of the Constitution because the Feds dared to get a warrant and search Jefferson's office. (A strange charge from a bunch of people who are demanding constant military updates from the Executive branch.) Now the argument is turning in to "the people of New Orleans will suffer if their Congressman is removed." Another strange defense for a guy who took military vehicles during the Katrina evacuation to pick up the bribe money he had stored in his freezer. Yes, while the people in his district were suffering he was hampering the rescue efforts just so Jefferson could hide the evidence of his wrongdoings.

Now look at the case of about an *estimated* 12 million (meaning that it is more likely about 20-30 million) illegal aliens living in our borders who liberal politicians are demanding amnesty for. The theory is that it's too tough to find these people so it's better that we just forgive them, as if everyone who breaks the law is easy to track down. Are we going to grant amnesty to tax evaders as well? These people are also hiding from law enforcement. Nope - you owe our government tax dollars and you'll be hunted like a dog to the ends of the earth. But a loyal liberal voting base is to be forgiven.

The point of all of this is that the law only applies to certain people. The left isn't even trying to hide hide their motivations for passing certain legislation anymore. Just look at "The Fairness Doctrine". They'll tell (with smiles on their faces) that it is aimed at conservative talk radio. All the liberal shows on television and liberal films from Hollywood are going to be ignored. So the real crime is daring to think outside the liberal box. Thus you can be guilty of crimes without ever breaking the law (like what happened to Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales.)

Libs will use double speak and twisted logic to explain why certain people get excessively hammered by law enforcement and why their guys always walk away free - but we all know the truth now don't we?

Linda Chavez you're a racist idiot. Your latest column proves it.

"Some people just don't like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans."

Okay - making a gross generalization about Hispanics, Latinos and other people south of the border is racist. So what about making gross generalizations about people *north* of the border (for example, suggesting that they 'just don't like Mexicans'?) Oh right, whites aren't really a race and even if they were they have it coming so racial prejudice against them doesn't hurt anything.

I'm sorry, I really have to disagree. You see we're talking about *ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS*. That could be people from anywhere. A lot of Conservatives I know are talking about radical middle eastern Muslims coming through the otherwise porous border. If we have a desire to discriminate, it's against people who want to come here with the intention of harming us.

Not that matters to you and self righteous friends. Only hybris in your heritage brings you to the arrogant conclusion that you're being singled out.

Of course we argue with Latino groups over immigration policy: Latino groups have made themselves the face of the immigration debate. And by far and large you're getting your way. Most of Congress and the President wants to give you what you want. It's only a minority killing this stuff in committees that prevents it from becoming law.

Our government is supposed to follow the will of the majority. There isn't a poll around (push or otherwise) that has a majority of Americans favoring lax immigration policy. Some of the highest numbers opposed to weak immigration laws are amongst legal immigrants themselves. And you think our government is giving illegals a raw deal? You're a part of the government.

We have a population of people coming here - a minority population (that means you're outnumbered). You have come here uninvited. You demand that we speak your language. You demand that we change our schools to teach what you think is important. You want access to all the laws you like: welfare, housing subsidies, college subsidies, social security and so on. You think the laws you don't like shouldn't apply: immigration laws, auto registrations, tax laws, and so on. You're bringing strange diseases all but unknown with you. Some of you are murderers, rapists and other violent offenders. Our elected officials are attempting to give you what you want *and I'm the racist?!*

Latinos (and I'm going to address them, because Linda Chavez who wrote this mentioned them specifically) have no interest in merging their culture with ours. THEY are the real racists. If they weren't, they would at least learn our language. Latinos have demonstrated through their actions and deeds that they have no interest in becoming Americans. All they want is our money. Why else would they come here? They're using us and demand that we kiss their butts.

The Germans in World War 2 crossed many political boundaries illegally, demanded that the people there speak German and adopt German customs and ways. Were the people resisting the Nazis racists?

This makes me so happy. Rich elitists get get their slave labor. A low class bunch that will consistly put them back in office every election cycle. And that rich elitist bunch will happily sacrifice the middle class who will carry the tax burden for the new unskilled lower class. I can't wait till we socialize medicine.

Yeah, we're demanding radical solutions like a wall and military patrols of the border - can you blame us? We've been demanding something be done about illegal immigration for decades and all we've gotten is ignored. Now we need a real fix, not just a band aid on the massive laceration.

Scared? Gee - can you blame us? An estimated twelve million people can drag our government around by the gonads and get anything it wants. Most political scientists call this type of goverment an "Oligarchy" and it's known for it's terrible treatment of it's citizens. Any criticism of the new protected class gets you condemned publically.

I can't call you "lazy" without being derided as a racist. Why can you call me a "racist" without anything being said?

Hey look at that, there is a "Super Bug" spreading among the American poor. It seems that there is a strain of TB that is resistant to vaccines. Most Americans don't even know what tuberculosis is - we've done that good a job of getting rid of it over the years.

Of course, I'm sure that our friends on the left will tell us this is just another plot by the Bush Administration to kill people of color. Just socialize medicine and you can go back to acting like you care when you don't right?

I'm sure this outbreak has nothing to do with the MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS coming to this nation and not being kicked back out. A lot of these people are poor from the third world. These people aren't vaccinated under the laws of their old nations. Thus they come here and infect us.

And since there is no documentation we have no ideas who these people are, where they live and who we should quarantine. Thus of course this sickness is going to spread like wildfire. TB is a social disease that is highly contageous.

It's okay though. Getting horrible ravaging diseases is a small price to pay for the pathetic things these unskilled people do for us: picking vegetables, mowing lawns, etc. Too bad our laws don't let in more professionals: doctors, surgeons, dentists and so on. But this would favor "the rich".

But it's fine. Watching my family and friends get sick with awful diseases is okay as long as no one thinks that I'm a racist. (Cause we all know that only racists are opposed to illegal immigration.)

Glad to know that hard working Americans will soon be handed the bill for these people's medical expenses. These people who broke our laws, have more pull with our political leaders and basically have the entire system bending over and grabbing the ankles.

You know who I really feel sorry for though? Poor urban American citizens who live side by side with infected illegal aliens. But that's okay, they'll just have to take another hit for the Democrat's political machine...

Are Americans ready for a black president? This is the attempt that open minded leftists use to silence any criticism of Barrack Obama. It goes unsaid that anyone who dares vote against Barrack is a "racist" and if he loses his presidential bid, our nation is still racist.

They want to say the same thing about Hillary Clinton. "Are we ready for a woman president?" Hillary not getting elected just proves that we're a sexist society where gender can still hold you back. Of course, with a black man on one side and a woman on the other will we hear about how racist/sexist liberal voters are in primary where they have to choose between one or the other? The answer is no. It's good enough that libs throw these people up as tokens so they can make outrageous accusations.

And the flip question opens: Why aren't you a racist/sexist for voting against someone who is white or male? The answer to this comes back to basic liberal philosophy. They don't really believe in equality between anything, they just want to appoint themselves referee and keep score. They think that as ref, they should be above the game. The problem is that in our society everyone has to play.

Libs have been telling us our society is intolerant and unaccepting since the sixties. After forty plus years of attempted integration, our culture is still sorely devoid of chances for minorities and women. Leftists point out that there are still places that are white only (like exclusive country clubs) and places that are male only (like various organizations.) A forty year struggle to break in to these various things is far too long. The existance of these things demonstrates how rotten we are. People should be viewed as and treated equally regardless of skin color and gender. Okay, I'll go along with all of that.

Enter the Congressional Black Congress. This is a cliche that was formed in the late 60's by blacks, for blacks. Their stated purpose is to make sure that they get better government goodies than other races. They support the equalitarian idea of affirmative action (you know, those laws insure our equality by giving some of us special perks denied to others that don't have the same skin color?)

But they're not the only hypocrits. Enter the National Organization of Women (NOW). This organization was founded in 1966 with the stated purpose of equality between the sexes. But in 41 years they've never had a male president. Talk about an "old boys club". You'd think that as zealous about sexual equality as they are, they would have had at least one male lead them. But no, in typical left wing fashion their rules and regulations only apply to everyone else. They're excluded because women have a lower score than men and thus can get away with more. Too bad this isn't equality, it's just a group of pigs living like humans and calling it better.

I guess you'd have to be lib to understand.

Danny Glover is getting 17.8 million dollars American from Hugo Chavez to make a movie about the slave revolt in Haiti. The stipulation from Chavez is that Glover has to make it as anti-American/anti-Western as he possibly can. Which leads one to ask the question: How do we tell this from any other film coming out of Hollywood in the modern day? Most big films in recent times highlight their hatred for everything Western from kids movies discussing our destruction of the environment to dramas about soldiers being sent/killed in Iraq. But don't worry, Glover's readiness to do a movie showing the evils of the United States doesn't make him unpatriotic. Indeed making a movie about how evil and rotten America and Americans are shows what a great patriot he is.

This news parallels nicely with the news of the Cannes film festival going on in France right. The jewels of these awards are chalk with anti-Western/anti-American ideals. Michael Moore's new "documentary" got a standing ovation. Of course if his new "documentary" is anything like his old "documentaries" there are exaggerations of details and important facts left out to make Moore's left wing conclusions look better. Naturally this isn't done to further political agendas. Need I remind you that the Nazis were masters of "documentary" film making? How stupid do the elites of the world think we are? Note that although "Sicko" is a critique of the US HMO system, Moore trades HMO stock. But if lefties taught me anything it's that it is okay to live high on the hog as long as you're doing to the work of "the people".

Just take Leonardo DiCaprio for instance. His new film "The Eleventh Hour" is a sound warning about what will happen unless human beings cut back on energy usuage right now. Of course, this didn't discourage him from using a small, gas guzzling jet to get to Cannes - but take heart, it wasn't *his* private gas guzzling jet and they lost his luggage. So it's all okay. The CO2 from his trip will be hardly noticeable. DiCaprio even took umbrage at being asked the question.

"It's finding another way to convolute the issue and argue about semantics and things that ultimately don't matter," said DiCaprio.
"Look at the message. ... Isn't that the larger story?"

I guess in lefty land it is. After all, liberal elitists are constantly wanting to make rules that don't apply to them. But from where I'm sitting and what I've been told it's up to *ALL* of us to stop environmental destruction and that means that we *ALL* cut back. Not just the poor class working slobs.

But hypocracy is nothing new - especially for unbiased, non partisan left wing film makers. It seems that Cannes itself is in a bit of hot water for not having selected any films from Africa to compete at the festival in over a decade. Now I'm sure that our media has much more things to cover than the gaping holes left wing practices (just like only certain hand picked information ever seems to get in to Michael Moore films.) But that's okay. The real issue here is the larger story of racism in our society. What a handful of people do ultimately doesn't matter.

This amnesty bill stinks. How do I know? It's being praised by every RINO including John McCain. It's also being praised by the President of the United States - not this this will win him any friends amongst the left. Bush will still be demonized by open minded leftists.

How stupid do these people think we are? Illegal immigrants aren't willing to follow the law as it's written now. So Congress tells us they can't force illegals to follow the old lax law, how on earth do they think they're going to make anyone follow the new harsh law? This same Congress keeps telling us that it is impossible to enforce the old law because illegal immigrants hide. What a pathetic excuse. From my experience, most law breakers attempt to hide their activies. Since we can't find serial killers and tax evaders I guess we should give up and grant them amnesty too.

I'm truly floored by this. There isn't a poll anywhere that show that any group of Americans is in favor of this, including immigrants. So how is it that this bill is getting railroaded through? Aren't our officials supposed to be responding to us? So where is this crap coming from?

This bill is 700 pages long. Most people (including most politicians in Washington) haven't read it. Two details that we've been told is are in it are a punishment forcing people who are here illegally to pay a 5000 dollar fine and the head of the household is forced to return to their nation of origin for 8-13 years. Of course the ink of the signatures won't even be dry on this piece of crap and various liberal groups will be complaining that 5000 dollars is too much. Most of the border hoppers now make up unskilled labor - how are they supposed to come up with 5000 bucks? Do you really expect these people to now come forward and turn themselves in?

This bill screws middle America. These illegal immigrants have no respect for our laws are going to get Social Security that they've never paid in too. They're going to get access to education that they've never paid for. They'll included in "Affirmative Action" laws - laws meant to compensate for past US actions that these people as immigrants have never suffered from. These people will also swell our welfare and food stamp rolls. Middle America will be handed this massive bill and get nothing for it.

Meanwhile the rich, white liberal elitists will get a cheap labor source. These lefties need unskilled workers to pick grapes on their vineyards and clean their houses. Contrary to popular buzz phrases, Americans will do these job but not for nickel an hour that greedy, money grubbing liberals are willing to pay. Someone has scrub the ivory towers of our liberal universities to keep them shinning and the million dollar budgets of most colleges there is apparently no money to pay the janitors.

Lot's of people will read this and call me a racist. Racism is the belief that one race is inherently supieror to another. How do tougher immigration laws make us racist? Did I ever once in the statements above point out any specific race/ethnicity? There are illegals from all over the world. Now the Hispanics are the face of the illegal immigration movement - but they have chosen that for themselves. These Hispanic groups comprised of illegals have demanded that we change our laws to accommodate them. They have demanded that we adopt their language. They have demanded that we adopt their customs. They have demanded that we give them entitlements even as they disrespect us and our way of life. And anyone who questions any of this is called a racist? What gall is that?

I have no problem with immigrants who want to come here and be Americans. But we're catering to a bunch of people who want to come here create mini tracts of their homelands. They're not interested in joining our culture and our community. If they were they would start out by OBEYING AND RESPECTING OUR LAWS. They have no problem demanding that the law be applied when they get something out of it (like government housing, government assistance in for college, etc.)? They want to ignore the laws they don't like and follow only the ones that they do. What a slap to the face for everyone, especially the people who struggled to come to our nation legally.

We shouldn't be rewarding these people for breaking the law - especially when it's nothing but a bold face attempt to get liberal Democrat voters.

Good bye Jerry Falwell. I'm sorry to see you pass, especially at only what is defined as a middle age. There are very few people I would be happy to see pass over, yourself included.

It's very cold to see so many gloat your passing. Especially when it's over something as trivial as politics. The lots of people all over the left wing blogosphere have been excitely throwing parties. Some of the comments I've read have curled my hair. Moreover, it would be one thing if it was just a handful of kooks - but the number of sick wackos in off the scale.

Anyone remember a few months ago when Tony Snow was told that his cancer came back? The same bunch of bastards were happy back then.

I'm floored by what is the intellectual vacancy of Liberals. These are the people say they care about the welfare of others. These are the people who say they sensitive to the pain and suffering of others. They should amend themselves to say that they care about the pain and suffering of people that agree with them.

The same group of buttheads who lay in to you for being "insensitive" to Cindy Sheehan when you comment on her latest empty headed rant about how we should socialize medicine ("don't you know her son died in Iraq?") are the same monsters partying over the death of Falwell.

I'm truly curious about you leftists. Does your pro choice vote really negate your boorishness? Do your beliefs about socializing medicine really make you more altruistic when you say such awful things about people who disagree with you? Do you really care about preserving the environment for the poor or have you just found a way to cash in? For all your talk of altruism I sure don't see it right now.

I know what you're thinking: Jerry Falwell deserves it because he said some terrible things. At times he made statements about people that were really rotten. But if these are such horrible things that shouldn't ever be forgiven - why should any of us let you off the hook?

I doubt I would have gotten along with Jerry Falwell. He was always considered one of the leaders of the "Religious Right" which I'm not a member of. To hang with me, he would have come to the strip club for a beer. But I still take no joy in his death.

Where are you Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson? Last week the radio shock jocks Opie and Anthony along with their guest "Homeless Charlie" made light of the idea of raping Condoleezza Rice. You think that Jackson and Sharpton would be all over an incident about some white guys (what color is "Homeless Charlie"?) pondering the rape of a black woman. A woman that appears in her pictures to have nappy hair and treat her like a ho.

A little over a year ago Jesse Jackson wrote:

"The history of white men and black women – the special fantasies and realities of exploitation – goes back to the nation’s beginning and the arrival of slaves from Africa."

You'd think he'd step up to the plate now to defend Rice. And on the heels of Don Imus being fired, you'd think that Al Sharpton would be all over this. But no, there is a strange silence. Most surprising of all in this case though: you'd think that CBS radio would dump Opie and Anthony over the comments. True, the comments were made on XM and probably not stated over CBS' public airwaves, but you'd still think that in the quest for continued racial fairness CBS would punish the duo.

So what conclusion are we to draw here? Why is it okay for a couple of stupid white boys to joke about forcing themselves on a successful black woman?

We all know the answer: politics. Condoleezza Rice is a member of the Bush administration. Her connection to the administration for all intents and purposes makes her public enemy number one. So you can use all kinds of racial slurs and make all kinds of disgusting suggestions about her and get away with it. The only punishment XM gave Opie and Anthony was a 30 day suspension *with pay*. Wow, I call that a "vacation". And CBS won't do anything at all. Gotta love the selective anger. It's sad to think that some people are shielded as Sacred Cows simply due to politics.

And I know what you're thinking: Do I believe Opie and Anthony should be kicked off the air? Answer: No, of course not. I didn't think that Imus should have been kicked off the air either. Nor should have JV and Elvis. (Making fun of the way people pronounce things? Who hasn't done that? There are dialects from all over the United States. Who hasn't heard a comedian making fun of a red neck/northern easterner/Brooklyn or other accent?) Would I be offended if jokes about white people were made by radio shock jokes and other media types? They make jokes about white people all the time in various media outlets. Despite this, no one ever gets fired for racist jokes against the light skinned. So my opinion in that respect doesn't matter.

We need to make the rules consistant regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or politics.

Ah here we go again. Six terrorists have been captured when they attempted to buy guns so as to shoot as many soldiers as they could at Fort Dix New Jersey.

I call them "terrorists". Most other people in the media don't (that's "racist" and "bigoted".) I guess all the Jihadist propaganda they found at these guys' home which included videos of Osama himself, was just a coincidence. The fact that all of these immigrants (three of which were illegal) identify themselves as Muslims is unnoteworthy. In fact, doing so breaches the unwritten rules of Political Correctness.

The fact that these creeps wanted to kill us only because we're Americans shows what equalitarians they are. Again the fact that they're using violent means to try to force everyone around them to adopt a distinctly Arabic lifestyle, with a distinctly Arabic religion and a distinctly Arabic culture shows how tolerant they are. The real racism is only on the part of the people trying to stop these thugs.

The truly amazing part to me is where all of this started. Of the six men, four of them are Albanians. You know, from Albania...that country that was being attacked by Serbia? You remember Serbia: it was the nation that the greatest leader of the modern times (Bill Clinton) bombed the living crap out of. He taught us all that slaughtering civilians is okay as long as #1) they're white Christians and #2) there are no Americans killed in battle. Boy that "police action" won us a lot of friends, now didn't it? And by the way, when is some unbiased, non partisan journalist going to ask Hillary if she's going to pull us out of Kosovo? We're supposed to be out of Iraq before she takes office - but we've been in the Balkans for almost ten years. There is no government there. There is tons of violence. So when are we pulling out?

Thanks to Mrs. Bill Clinton there are quite a few Albanian Jihadists here brought here under the Clinton refugee program. (Too bad it wasn't good enough for Elian Gonzales.) And any attempt to stop these people is the cardinal sin of "racism". Talk about blaming the victim.

Yeah I know, I'm a racist. I'm an American - you could say narrow minded intolerance is inherent in my race and still think of yourself as open minded.

So PBS is doing a special called "Mormons" that examines race and sexual orientation in the LDS church. Hm...what do you think that conclusion will be? I'm guessing that since we're looking at people who lived in a pre PC world, we'll all be pissed off at the LDS over their historic discriminatory race/homosexual practices by the time the last few minutes of the film go by.

I got news for you, almost everyone had their prejudices one hundred years ago - even the Communists, Baptists, Jews, non white people, etc. Should we also look down on these people for living in log cabins and riding horses as well?

But that's not the only media production about the Mormons coming out this summer. The film "September Dawn" will be out in June. This piece is a dramatic retelling of the "Mountain Meadows Massacre" an incident where Mormon fanatics killed a group of settlers moving through the Utah territory and blaming it on the Indians living in the area. The movie poster talks of "...the reputation of one of this nation's mightiest religious figures has been preserved and protected. Until now." hinting that it will be an indictment Brigham Young for supposedly ordering the attack.

In reality, there is no real evidence that Young did order the attack. If the man were alive today, he could sue the production company for libel.

But the question comes up: why all this sudden interest in the LDS Church? The media would have us believe that it's all coicidence. Uh, huh - right. Libs would have us believe that everything in media happens by accident (accept for things on Fox News and ABC's "Path to 9-11".) The real reason can be summed up in two words - Mitt Romney. He's the Republican Presidential Candidate who used to be the Governor from Ma. The unbiased, non partisans that make up the press core are going to make sure they have some insurance should Romney ever become the Republican front runner.

There is no question at all that the American media is Mormon bashing. Are we going to see PBS specials about the way that Islamists treat homosexuals and minorities? (I know the Iranians tend to behead those found guilty of sodomy.) Wouldn't it be prudent to do so? One of the Democrat front runners (Barrack Obama) is half Islamic. In fact, tracing Obama's lineage on his father's (read his black side) leads to a history of slave ownership.

No we can't talk about Islam, they're a minority religion....of course so are the Mormons. Ah but Muslims have faced historic discrimination in the United States...and so have the Mormons. In fact, the Mormons faced such horrible discrimination that in the 1800's they actually left the country and went to Mexico. (One Mexican American war later, the Mormons found their Utah territory back in the US.) Despite all the whinning of Islamists in the modern day, they're still flocking to our nation in droves. Ah but the Mormons practice(d) polygamy. The LDS no longer endorses multiple marriages. Yeah, you can find a few radical hold outs in rural areas but for the most part they don't do that anymore. Contrast this with Muslims for whom Polygamy is a standard practice. Also marrying girls as young as 12 is commonplace.

For any lefties yelling at me right now I have to turn your own minority litmus test back around on you: How many Mormons do you know? If the answer is zero, then I guess it's safe to say #1) you're a bigot and #2) you have no idea what you're talking about so shut up.

As for myself, I do know Mormons. I do talk to them. I spent part of my childhood living in Utah - and guess what, Mormons are just like everyone else. They can haughty, arrogant, ignorant, judgemental and unaccepting. But so are some of the Muslims, pagans, witches, blacks, whites, asians, Hispanics, homosexuals, Buddhists, Baptists, Jews, Germans, Irishmen, farmers, college professors, Communists, Anarchists, Republicans, Democrats, Liberatarians and everyone else I know. Making a movies and television shows highlighting the failings (as I've been lectured by libs on so many times) is discrimination. And being as Mormons are a minority religion it's the worst kind of discrimination in the leftist mind, or it would be if the LDS congregation wasn't overwhelmingly white. Or couldn't trace their ideology back to Christ.

If it's discrimination and prejudice, then it's discrimination and prejudice. The liberals who make up our media would *never* condemn Muslims the same way they condemn Christian sects. In fact, just recently Mr. Fair Speech himself Al Sharpton said that "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation." If that's not enough, a little over a year ago the Press Corp in the United States refused to publish the controversial Mohammed cartoons smugly telling us about "the responsibilities of speech." At the same time Madonna was hanging herself on a cross in a mock of Christianity. That was defended as "art". If we're going to critically examine Romney's philosophy then it should also be prudent to look at Obama's twisted upbringing. But we're not going to do that, that would be prejudiced of us....

Congratulations to France’s newest President Sarkozy. Although the media is calling you a “Conservative” being as you’re from France and the news agency call McCain a Conservative, I can’t help but wonder how far to the right you really sit. If you’re of the typical European right winger stripe, you’re a Trostskist and you’re real crime is that you’re not in line with the hard core Stalinists that make up your population.

Of course his opposition immediately began rioting after his victory was announced. Apparently they think Iraq is too violent a place (and France is not.) One can’t help but wonder if these rioters are the same “angry youths” who took their violence to the streets a little over a year ago. It’s bizarre that those riots weren’t deemed worth reporting and these new riots are – not that I’m accusing the media of being agenda driven propagandists.  But it sure is funny the stories that are suddenly thrown up as problems the minute a right winger gets in to office anywhere.

That said, I don’t envy the new President. Sarkozy sure has his work cut out for him: a bloated, socialist state that can no longer support itself. The people living on the fat of the hog are numerous and hold lots of political power. They’re not going to want any of their precious benefits cut off even if it means that the people in the lower classes are going to have to suffer to do it. And the only people who don’t see that are the Communist elites composing the think tanks of that floundering nation. They need to reread the section of the Manifesto where Marx talks about the wealthy doing whatever they can to maintain their power.

And if taxes and oppressive socialism isn’t bad enough, you have to factor in a horrible immigration problem. Again, I don’t know if these new riots are being sponsored by the same “angry youths” who rioted a year ago, but both problems need to be addressed. Of course, pointing out that these “angry youths” all come from the same geographic area, speak roughly the same languages and practice the same peaceful religion that requires them to pray in the direction of Mecca five times a day is “racist”. And suggesting that they lay off the antisocial violence in the streets is unfair “discrimination”. (Does this sound at all familiar to my American readers?) So if Sarkozy can’t even talk about the problem one can only wonder how he’s supposed to do anything to try to fix it.

Liberals are liberals no matter where they are – be it France, Germany or Washington DC. And the goal of all liberals is to insert themselves in positions of power where they can tell people what to do free of criticism and completely untouchable by voters. So how much will Sarkozy actually be able to get done? Will he actually be able to do the things that need to be done to pull France out of the doldrums? I’m not going to hold my breath….

It seems like every day the radical environmentalists become more wacko and dangerous. One of their latest ideas is compare everyone who disagrees (or even takes a critical look at Global Warming) to Holocaust Deniers. That's really a nasty comment, but it hasn't taken them long to suggest that anyone who questions global warming be silenced/arrested for espousing their opinion. They rationalize that people who deny global warming are causing pain and suffering in their fellow human beings (especially the poor.) The global warming deniers are going to kill us all goes the chant, so why not quiet them?

The fact that this is an attack on free speech means nothing to self righteous lefties. To paraphrase the liberal UN, "Free Speech is to be preserved (with certain restrictions.)" I'm sorry but where I come from *any* restriction on speech negates the "free" part. Notice too that "certain restrictions" isn't defined. Who do you think a bunch of unbiased, non partisan lefty politicians are going to go after for people using their free speech rights irresponsibly? People who question global warming. People who ask too many good questions about Islam. People who dare take a critical look at Marxism. They're not going to stop anyone from racistly attacking Americans as violent. Nor will they stop any "artist" from defacing Christian symbols. But I digress.

The real question is: why is the left focusing on one group of people? Why should only people who question global warming to be punished? People have believed and argued all kinds of stupid things over the course of history. My grandmother went to her grave arguing that the moon landing had been faked. Even today, there are a bunch of stupid people who actually believe that 9-11 was a plot by the US government. Just think about how many people could be hurt/killed if these 9-11 conspiracy knuckleheads get their way. So why should only global warming critics be outlawed?

Because there is a political agenda tied to all of this. The far left is always looking for an untouchable speaker - someone or some group who could demand their agenda without being criticised. Silencing their rivals is a great way to reign supreme.

I don't care what you say, it's still an attack on free speech though. The minute you put any restriction in there, no matter how benign sounding it's no longer "free" no matter how you want to argue it.

The founders hated the aristocratic establishment. And for good reason - who wants to pay taxes to a government that doesn't serve you? The noble estates snatched away simple things like criticism of the way they did things and fair trials. The aristocrats also set up differing sets of laws: one for them and one for the peasant classes. One glance at such grievances reveals the wisdom of the founders.

Unfortunately as time has gone on our government has become so big that there are agencies sliding through the cracks. Especially when it's as obvious as our University system but it has.

If the recent shooting at Virginia Tech and the declaration of the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse team has revealed anything, it's that the lords and ladies of Collegiate manor have seen fit to free themselves of their power limitations laid out in our Constitution. Most colleges in the wake of VT pledged hard gun bans on campus as if the Second amendment doesn't exist there. But the increasing tax bills of millions of Americans every year would say otherwise. What college is without its precious speech code? What college dares to defy the inherent racial discrimination enshrined in "Affirmative Action"? More repulsive still is the fact that every year these economic lampreys and hagfish come complaining that they're not getting enough money.

What a great business for them. Every year they get more all while producing the same brain dead research no one will ever read (except their colleagues). If you want to have no boss, answer to no one and scream about how terrible you're being treated. If you're really lucky, you're also completely unfirable giving you the powers not even Don Imus is blessed with. (Tenure, who the hell thought that idea up? Next brilliant idea: giving nukes to Iran, that way we can avoid that whole "cold war" thing.) Hate Americans and love al Quada? Teach it and put it on the next test or make your class right a paper about it. We'll call it "balance". It's the perfect Lefty job.

But what happened to the Constitution in this blind spot? They are bound to it aren't they? Some would argue that there are private schools that don't have to hold to that standard. But even private schools can't help themselves from sucking up government grants. Ask any active on campus Christian group what you can and can't do with that money. When was the last time any of us got money with no strings attached? Why are the feudal lords and ladies off the hook?

Don't worry, even after this rant nothing will be really be done. The job of university system is to crank out good little Liberal Democrat voters. Until no longer do that, they'll be safe.