We have a serious problem in the middle east in the form of Iran. A few months ago the Iran, a nation sitting on one of the richest oil reserves in the world began rationing gasoline. Late last week Iran began "mending fences" with its neighbors and for years now Iran has been boasting of its nuclear bomb technology. Although these could be the actions of a nation coming in to the 21st century, it is scary to note that these are also the actions of a nation gearing up for conflict.

With all that we don't know about Iran, looking at what we do know shouldn't make anyone feel any better. Iran is a state backs known terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Iran has bragged that *when* it figures out how to build a nuke it will share it with these groups. We know that nations like France, Germany and Russia are helping to build Iran's nuclear program. The European powers have assured us that Iran is working on peaceful power plants. But these were also the same nations that assured us they weren't trading with Iraq in violation of embargos in the 1990's.

It's possible that Iran was set up. That British sailors were ordered to enter Iranian waters illegally. It's possible (and most leftists will stop reading right there and skip the next important part of this.) But the Western powers haven't made the Iranians humiliate the captured sailors. The Western powers haven't demanded the Iranians deny their captives the right to practice their religion. The Western powers haven't forced the Iranians to make outrageous demands. The Brits have produced satellite data and Iraqi witnesses who claim the English were on the Iraqi side of the border. The Iranians have produced "confessions".

Who do Elitist Liberals believe? What happened to the Geneva Convention? Leftists were beating it over our heads less than a year ago over the supposed US violations. Now that the Iranians are openly breaking it it's okay?

Let's face it, Liberals are racist. They trust and believe Iran: a nation of brown skinned, Islamists. Liberals have multiculturalism stuck so far up their a**e$ that it's coming out their mouths making them say things that defy all of the most basic common sense reactions. The Iranians torture people and behead them for crimes like "being a vampire." We know they do it because they do it in open but the self declared smartest amongst us don't believe it. Then when Leftists even hear a hint that the US is doing it in in secret it's considered #1) credible and #2) the truth. But of course we're guilty, we're a mostly white Christian nation. Can't trust us - ever heard of the Crusades? Of course mentioning Mohammed's conquest of Arabia, Mohammed's descendents destroying the kingdoms in North Africa, the Islamic incursion in to Spain, the Turkish invasions of Eastern Europe and the Muslim carnage in India (which is still going on today) is all out of bounds. It's "racist" - which is interesting cause I always thought Islam was a religion not dependent on factors like race and ethnicity.

The real genius about what the Iranians are doing right now is that they're setting themselves up to be the heroes of stupid western leftists. They're already calling the British hostages "insurgents". They're already telling us their prisons are better than Guantanamo Bay. And when they up the ante and attack us, they'll tell the libs its our fault. Idiot tools like Jack Murtha and Nancy Pelosi eat it up like candy.

I'm sure you lefties are going to read this as my endorsement of a war. How nice of you to stereotype me based on my ethnicity/national identity/and political beliefs. You really need to stop judging people.

 

A "Chicken Hawk" is defined by people on the left as someone who supports the War on Terror but won't join the military themselves. These "Chicken Hawks" are some of the most repugnant people amongst Conservatives as far as the left is concerned due to the hypocracy. How can one be in favor of war and unwilling to fight it themselves?

Of course if you're like me, you're left wondering why the Liberal Hawk Chickens didn't all join the war effort when Clinton decided to ruthlessly massacre Serbs in that Kosovo thing, but we won't talk about that right now.

The point is that the Left tells us that they find it repulsive that someone would say one thing and act in a 180 degree different fashion. This leaves me wondering what someone who is an environmentalist warrior refusing to give up their wasteful lifestyle should be dubbed. People like Al Gore and John Travolta who chide us for living the way we do while live in giant, energy inefficient mansions and fly around in gas guzzling private jets. With what we're told is the impending environmental disaster just a few years away, you think that environmentalists would be slamming these "Green Wasters". But with one glance at my email box I can tell the most vocal Greens actually support these people.

Maybe it's because we stupid, simple people just don't understand the definitions of words like "environmental" and "global warming". After all just a few years ago I learned that I really didn't understand what "sex" and "is" were. Perhaps this is just another misunderstanding on my part.

Just like earmarks and corruption. Right after the Nov elections last fall Nancy Pelosi pledged to end rampant overspending and kick out all elected officials who committed fraud. With one of the biggest pieces of pork having just passed both houses by some of the most corrupt officials in our nation's history, one is left wondering what Liberals will say about these "Moral Corrupters". Not even William "the Refrigerator" Jefferson's sleazy actions seem to garner any stern glances from libs.

Thus we can all face the truth: as long as you say certain things and vote certain ways, you can live any way you want too and the left will let you walk. Thus we can lie, cheat, steal and murder as long as we give it a pretty face - and that is open minded.  

 

If you want Rosie to go away stop watching "The View", stop reading her blogs and just ignore her. Before Ms. O'Donnell took over the command chair, "The View" was a show only known to a few housewives. Now it carries a huge audience waiting for the next Rosie rant. Ratings is what keeps television shows from going away. By watching it, you're just aggravating the problem. By talking about it, you're just increasing the show's reach.

Pay attention because this will be my one and only column about Rosie and her brain dead show. I want it to go away, so I'm trying to ignore it.

Recently on her blog (and on "The View") Rosie has accused the Bush Administration of setting up the fifteen British soldiers for capture so that the West would have a reason to declare war on Iran. She goes on to declare that maybe the Iranians really aren't that bad of people, they're just in the way of a corporate plot to control oil in the Middle East.

Let's assume for a second that Rosie is right. Bush set those troops up just so he would have an excuse to make war on Iran and Iran is as innocent as Rosie tells us they are. In this situation I'm left perplexed by why the Iranians haven't let the soldiers go with a stern warning about never entering Iranian territory again. I would expect them to be making condemnations of the West in the media and at the UN rather than humiliating the soldiers in front of the TV cameras (which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.) I wouldn't expect the Iranians to be making all kinds of outrageous demands of the West before they let the soldiers go. That reminds me of the actions of a school yard bully who won't return a toy till their victim cries "uncle". If what Rosie says is true, the Iranians would bring forth some hard evidence that the Brits were in Iranian territory rather than relying on confessions.

Rosie is a dunce. For some reason, the stupidest people imaginable make up the leadership of the left worldwide. Rosie is just one example. But expecting Rosie to say something coherent demonstrates how stupid some of us on the right can be. We already have a pretty good idea what Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan, Hanoi Jane and other big libs are going to say so why even pay any attention to them when they speak? Just ignore them and they'll go away - just like the The New York Times, NBC, CBS and ABC. 

 

If you read the fringe news wires you'll notice another big story slipping through the gaps. Seems that California Senator Diana Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee which she was the ranking Democrat under pressure from the Senate Ethics committee. And it only took four years of Ethics committee pressure. She sat in that seat for four years (from 2001 to 2005.)

In her financial records, Feinstein failed to mention that her husband, Richard C. Blum is in charge of securing government contracts for the companies he represents (namely Perini and URS). There is no doubt at all that this a conflict of interest, but since Feinstein also sits on the Ethics Panel she could white wash her activity as well.

Officially Feinstein recused herself from activity dealing with Perini and URS contracts - but we all know how Democrats define things to favor themselves ("is" has a vague definition and "sex" excludes so many activities.) Feinstein should have left the building every time those contracts came up. But she didn't. Instead records show that at critical moments, Feinstein pressured the committee to award contracts when her pet companies were the obvious answers. Furthermore there is evidence that she might have known about the abuses at Walter Reed Hospital but ignored them.

There is no doubt that there are serious conflicts of interest going on in the Senator's background. Meanwhile the Senate continues to look in to non illegal, non unethical firings of US attorneys. But what else would you expect from brain dead leftists?  

 

Why does the Left hate George Bush so badly? When you get down to the nitty gritty of it, he hasn't done anything they would seem to dislike - and he's done a lot of things that they love. Why do you think Conservatives are often at odds with him? Let's go through some liberal victories under Bush:

Campaign Finance Reform - an unneeded, unnecessary attack on Freedom of Speech. Jokingly dubbed "The Incumbent Protection Act" it was backed overwhelmingly by Democrats (and the "maverick" John McCain) this law makes illegal political ads by independent groups during campaigns. This law does what liberals have only dreamed of: silencing political opposition. Not even their "Hate Speech" laws have had the power to do that. Bush pledged not to sign this bogus legislation, but when push came to shove did it anyway.

Federalizing Baggage Screeners - in the wake of 9-11 airport security came under the microscope of the left. Even though the screeners on 9-11 did nothing wrong and even followed their job, liberals screamed that the same government that has failed on education, welfare, the post office, road construction and other easy projects would get airline safety right. I'm less likely to think leftists care about protecting our citizens and more likely to believe they wanted another labor union to contribute to liberal Democrats. Even with this in mind, Bush signed the legislation anyway. Oh joy.

Amnesty for Illegals - Nothing makes me laugh more than when I read some left wing idiot writes about how Bush should give these ungrateful lawbreakers everything they want. The problem is that Bush is actively trying to give these ungrateful lawbreakers everything they want. The President actually coined the phrase "...doing jobs Americans don't want to do." Bush pushed the Congress in 2006 to get an amnesty bill to his desk. This action is one of the big reasons that Republicans lost in 2006.

The Education Joke - We're spending more money than any other nation at any point in history on education and we're producing good liberal students who think that Global Warming is real science and that things are worst for minorities than at any other point in our history. It's good that these students are incapable of reading or they might learn the truth. But at least they vote Democrat and that's all that really matters. Thank Bush for letting Kennedy write one of the education bills early in the administration. It only took the drunken Senator a couple of months to go to the floor of the Senate and denounce his own bill for not spending enough.

"The New Tone" - When Bush first took office he decided to "change the tone" in Washington. Namely, he broke tradition and kept most of the people Clinton employed. To bad the left had other ideas. Most of the leaks in this administration have come from Clinton hold overs trying to undermine the President's initiatives. "The New Tone" has built up to the present day attorney non-scandal. Had Bush just fired everyone not connected to his campaign like every other administration we wouldn't be subject to the media enema we're getting now.

Bush's Green House - Long before Al Gore's energy and resource sucking 10k mansion was even envisioned in blueprints, Bush's ranch in Crawford Texas was already conserving water and using less energy than the average American's. Naturally the unbiased, non partisan media isn't going to give any attention to this fact instead focusing on Bush's "big oil buddies". Lefties should be praising the President for his conservation efforts.

The Patriot Act - The left is hammering the Patriot Act for invading the privacy of Americans. Hard to believe that Liberals who want lists of everyone with a license to carry a concealed weapon, want the IRS to know every single dollar you make and where you spend it, laws dictating what kind of a car you can own, what kind of a house you can live in, how much internet access you can use and what kind of television and radio shows you can listen too is concerned that the government is invading people's personal lives.

I could go on with more examples, but I think the point is clear. Bush should be a hero to the left, but because of his Republican label they're all going to reject him. Talk about non judgemental and non stereotyping. Now that's open minded.

 

I don't know why I'm even wasting my time writing this cause the people it would apply too aren't going to listen.

Iran is clearly violating the Geneva Convention. You remember, that document that was a fad with liberal bloggers and the unbiased, non partisan media a few years ago every time Guantanamo Bay came up? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Iran was one of the signers of Geneva and as leftists have screamed at me so often, once you sign a document like that there is no backing out regardless of any other factors.

Iran's crimes violating Geneva include the following: humiliating prisoners, denying them their right to practice their own religion (Faye Turney was forced to wear a burka) and making statements publically about what they were doing.

Where is the left wing outcry? There isn't any against Iran. The usual gang of empty headed suspects are making the usual bunch of empty headed claims. The flavor of the week theory is that the Bush administration (probably from Karl Rove's desk) set this up to simply to give us a reason to attack Iran. Of course, you'd think that they would have used American troops but ideas like this never seem to occur to the smartest amongst us.

The English Government claims that their troops were captured in Iraqi waters while searching a merchant vessel for contraband. Of course, the English government has been known to lie when caught dirty. The Brits have brought forth satellite images showing that their soldiers were in Iraqi waters.

The Iranian government has also been known to lie. They say that the English invaded Iran. And as proof, they're offering us confessions from the soldiers involved. Coming from a nation that is known for its open practices of torture and human rights violations, call me suspicious.

One could argue that since the West has supposedly violated the Geneva Convention, Iran is justified in violating it as well. So we go back to the old lefty argument that two wrongs do in fact, make a right. Thus if Iran drops a nuke, it'll be okay for us to do it as well (or would that be an over response?)

Sorry I didn't mean to interrupt the investigation of no laws being broken in the eight attorneys being fired.

 

Elizabeth Edwards has breast cancer. I guess it was treated some time ago, but came back. This leads to the belief that her particular condition is uncurable.

The embarrassing part of news has been the Conservative reaction. All over talk radio and the blogosphere everyone is asking the same question: Will the Edwards make this a campaign issue?

Let me be the first Conservative to go on record by saying: who cares?

I fully expect the Edwards to make this a campaign issue. His wife has just been told she has a painful, incurable disease. In a nation where the Congress gives grant money to doctors and scientists seeking cures you can be dang sure it will be a campaign issue. How can anyone hold that against the Edwards.

The whining from the right is embarrassing. It's one thing if pundits were reacting to things the Edwards were saying, this is a pre-emptive self pity party.

Honestly, Edwards biggest obstacle at present is Hillary Clinton - he's still got to beat her. And if Clinton ends up on the ropes, there is still Barrack Obama. He's got to do all of this before he gets to a national election.

So with all this in mind my fellow Conservatives do me a favor and STOP COMPLAINING. Sometimes you just have to roll with the punches and frankly, this time it's a bunch of rabbit punches this time.

 

It seems that the Iranians have seized fifteen British Marines after the Brits carried out a routine inspection of an Iranian merchant vessel in the Shatt al-Arab waterway a corridor known for smugglers. According to reports, the British soldiers had finished their inspection when they were surrounded by six Iranian gun boats. This was the last time these people were seen publically but it's believed that they were taken to Iran. According to the Iranian News Service the soldiers had confessed to "invading" Iranian territory. The next day the same news service announced that the soldiers would be put on trial for spying, a crime punishable by death - but only if it could be proven that the Brits had knowingly entered Iranian territory. Since there are already "confessions" these guys could be in big trouble.

One of the interesting things about this incident is that never once in any of the stories from the unbiased, non partisan news that I've seen has the word "hostage" been used. Never once has the the suspicion of torture been brought up. Three years ago in Oct of 2004, Iran seized British troops in a similar incident. When released, those troops talked of mock executions and being blindfolded - things that are illegal under the Geneva Convention. And in that case, not all of the soldiers made it home.

Thus it's not surprising at all the leftists are looking at the Western account with suspicion. Iran is talking like Western liberals by dubbing the British "insurgents". This is playing well to the usual band of Bush hating morons. The great liberal philosopher Rosie O'Donnell has already suggested that this could be a contrived incident to foster a war with Iran. Cindy Sheehan and Sean Penn haven't been given microphones yet, but they'll probably say something similar. Maybe the English Government does have a history of lying, but it's not nearly as bad as the Iranian history of falsehoods. But who are leftists going to believe?

But unlike the Gulf of Tonkin ordeal, the Iranians haven't run away. In fact if it's a set up they've taken the bait and whole fishing pole along with it. Iran could end this incident very quickly by simply returning the troops and publically issuing a warning that they wouldn't do it again. At a time when Iran has proudly stated publically (before certain non western audiences) it's working on a nuke and will share the technology with terrorist groups, this is a very serious situation. The Brits didn't even find anything on the ship they searched.

Iran could end this situation very easily, but they're playing a very dangerous game of chicken. There has been talk of the US attacking Iran for years. Bush even included it in his "axis of evil". If that's true, why give Western powers the justification for an attack? You can stand up for yourself without turning the situation deadly.

 

How can the film "300" be anti Iranian? I haven't actually seen the movie but from what I'm told it is based on the Battle of Thermopylae, a battle that the Persian Empire won. If anything you'd think that the Iranians would love the movie.

Who were the Spartans of history? They were a people renouned for their violent and militaristic ways. They were a pagan people who tended to favor (unsurprisingly) the god of War. There is also a debate amongst historians over whether these men practiced homosexuality while on the campaign trail.

And the Greeks in general were a series of small states that often refused to work together. It was a pennisula of petty kings and Democracy known for its over reactions to world events. These states were also known for their reliance on paganism and devulges into the occult with such practices as going to Seers and Prophets. But what got the Persians mad was the Greek meddling in Persian politics. Even though all the world condemned the actions of Sparta and Athens and a couple of other rogue states, the Greeks still didn't back down.

Wouldn't all of this line up with an Islamic view of the West (and especially the United States) in the modern day? Decadent, violent, worshipping evil gods, getting involved in dark forces inspired by the Devil, unreasonable, getting involved in places where they shouldn't despite the world telling them they're in the wrong - these seem to be Iran's critique of modern life in the US from where I'm sitting.

And the Persians of this story? The Persians had a sophisticated Empire. They had a better system of government and areas under their management were stable and peaceful. It is believed that the Persians practiced Mithraism which is a proto type of Christianity and Islam. So even before their was a prophet, the Iranians were already moving in the right direction.

And when the uppity Greek States messed with Persia (just like today) the king set out to restore the balance. Xerxes gave the West a chance to back down, but the typical unreasonable Westerners refused. Thus they moved in to pacify the situation. In the end, the Spartans defending Thermopylae all laid dead. Their bodies were ground beneath the heels of the victorious Persian army. A fitting end for the decadent, greedy and chaotic disbelievers.

Now some Iranians in the modern day have complained about the portrayal of both sides in the movie "300". But what do they expect? Of course the United States is going to make a bunch of decadent, immoral Homosexuals look cool and sympathetic. Just like we'll make anyone who stands up for what's right look like filthy animals. This is just in our nature so I don't see the problem Iran has with the movie. This should just be par for the course.

 

Wow - what a crappy bunch of choices on the Conservative side for president. I'm sorry, none of these losers could inspire me to walk out of burning building much less vote for them. And all the pundits and all their guesses are wrong. They're hitting all around the answer to why no one can get a Conservative movement going, but they haven't hit it yet.

It basically boils down to WHY WON'T ANY OF THEM FIGHT FOR ANYTHING? The spirit of standing up for their beliefs is what won Ann Coulter so much praise from the Conservative base just a month ago. A lot of people feel like we're taking this lying down and we're tired of it. So many on the Republican side seem all too eager to sell what they say are their beliefs for some invites to the cool parties and 30 seconds of praise on CNN.  Not the least of which is John McCain. Note how many of the Republican candidates are from the Northeast? That's a big red flag - you don't win in New England unless you drop your ideas under pressure and none of these guys have even come close to demonstrating that they're fighters.

How do you think you can inspire me? So what if you're pro life - Hillary Clinton will call you a sexist and you'll back down. So what if you want to win the war on terror - Cindy Sheehan and her bunch will make one speech and you'll run for the tall grass. Your ideology is meaningless unless you're going to stand up and defend it. So what if you're for tax cuts, the left will just ask you to turn around, drop your pants and grab the ankles and you'll do it.

What's truly pathetic is that I know you guys *can* fight. You showed us this last year during the immigration debate. I've never seen one party stand up to its base and tell us off so forcefully. We told you we didn't want amnesty and you extended the middle finger and told us you'd do whatever you felt like doing. And then there was the William Jefferson scandal. You know that Democrat from New Orleans who took all that bribe money and the FBI got a warrant to search his office? I've never seen a bunch of people so willing to defend their political rivals - especially against their own base.

So here we are six months later and you're rolling over for them. We have the attorney non issue. Dems are going crazy over something that is not a violation of any law, not a violation of any ethic and something that historically Dems themselves have done and no Conservative leader inside the beltway has done anything to fight it. What's even worst is the number of you joining Liberal Democrats in pressuring Gonzales to quit - he did nothing wrong. (Well we can't get media coverage.) That is crap. If you stood up and fought the media would come and the headlines would all be the same "So and so stands up for corruption." You worry that that will look bad to middle America? What about your base? Middle America isn't going to remember this at election time, but the Conservative movement will. 

Why didn't any of you defend Libby? He was convicted because he couldn't remember anything. If that's a crime, then Hillary Clinton should be behind bars as well. But none of you even tried to defend him. Libby's not even the guy who leaked Plame's name. He was put on a liberal partisan railroad. Meanwhile just a couple of months ago Sandy Berger took official records off government property and hid them at a construction site in an attempt to thwart an investigation. Berger did something wrong and illegal. Where the hell were all of you when all of this was going on? I would expect the left not to mention anything cause they're getting caught dirty, but for the Conservatives to stand around and let it slip?

You choose to go in to politics. You choose to put yourself in the spotlight. Stop whining about it now. Are you going to stand up for what you believe in or not? Of course they're going to call you names, they're your political rivals. They're not your friends and will never treat you as such (unless they're trying to get something.) Forget it now. But the base will notice and this is what you need to jazz up if you're going to win *anything* in the next few years.  If someone actually goes out there, espouses a right wing viewpoint AND STANDS UP FOR IT AMID CRITICISM we'll have a front runner. In the meantime, have fun trying to out libs the libs. It'll never work, you'll never win and I'm stunned that you haven't learned this yet.

 So what is the stink over Bush firing eight attorneys now? He only fired eight, this means the rest are a bunch of Clinton hold overs. In my opinion Bush should have fired them all *the same way Bill Clinton did.* (Yeah, but there is a scandal...) There is no scandal here.(But they were investigating corruption of Republican officials which is blantantly partisan.) Well nine months ago you were telling us that the FBI couldn't investigate elected Democrat officials, so why is it that attorneys can?

Yeah, you remember that incident right? Seems that Representative William Jefferson (Democrat New Orleans) was being investigated for taking bribe money. The Feds wanted to search his office, but Congress threw a hissy fit at the time saying they were immune to such things even as it was revealed that while the city of New Orleans fell in to chaos, Jefferson was using army rescue vehicles to go to his house and hide the evidence. Interesting the change of heart now.

Bush did nothing wrong. Gonzales did nothing wrong. If it's a crime for a President to fire 8 people that work for him, then Clinton's firing of 93 is more than 10 times worst. And those 93 people were working on everything from corruption in high office to charges of racism. You can bet that the first Lib President who gets into office after Bush will can attorneys that don't tow the liberal line and no one will say anything.

I can't believe that lefties get so self righteous about no laws being broken when there are tons of real laws being broken all the time - overwhelmingly by them.

 

"Mustard Gas" is a blanket term used for several different types of poison gas. A good number of these gases are surprisingly non lethal. But don't make the mistake of thinking their effects are pleasant either. Just about all Mustard Gases are blistering agents causing welts on the skin. If if you inhale the gas, you get welts on the inside. If the gas gets in your eyes, well you can guess what happens. And being as that it damages the body gas maskes won't do much to protect you.

Mustard Gases were first unleashed in WW1. According to legend the first successful battlefield use was so successful the Germans didn't have time to capitalize on the victory. The first casualties of this attack didn't die immediately. It took them 4 to 5 weeks of vomiting, bleeding out every hole in the body and going blind before they were freed from the effects. Of course, the Germans used a highly concentrated form designed to kill rather than just maim.

And the beautiful part (?) of poison gas is that it could be attached to ordinary ammo: mortar rounds, missiles and other projectiles. That way if you miss your target the gas will still get them. It's a really ugly way of fighting a war. It's so terrible that even twenty years after WW1 a nation listening to a Halloween radio show of Martians invading the Earth and unleashing clouds of poison gas caused a panic. It's also why a lot of nations have banned the manufacture and use of such weapons.

One thing a lot of battlefield reports leave out though is the "collateral damage". At the mercy of the wind, the deadly cloud can go anywhere - even leaving the battlefield and going in to civilian places. We'll never really know how many innocent people were effected by Mustard Gas in WW1. We'll never have an accurate count of the animal population that was devastated either. From the pooh bear looking for honey to the mother bird bringing worms back to her chicks.

Why is all of this important? Because last Friday terrorists in Iraq detonated three "Chloride Bombs". The detonation affected an estimated 350 Iraqis (most of them civilians) and 6 US soldiers. Most newspaper accounts cite that there were only a couple of deaths involved in the attack. What they're not saying is that the survivors will live with injuries from the attack for the rest of their lives.

How can the media be unbiased when they won't even call it what it is: Mustard Gas, a weapon of mass destruction or an over reaction. It's sadly not surprising that the media who ran tons of cover stories just six months ago over *rumored* Israeli use of illegal cluster bombs won't dedicate a single minute to *real* use of illegal chemical weapons. As I said these are WMDs. They're being used in terrorist attacks. So the question becomes: where is this stuff coming from? If Saddam had no Mustard Gas then where are these people getting it? And where is it being manufactured? Why is one of the most important stories of current moment being almost totally ignored? If the use of cluster bombs is illegal and should be condemned, then why not illegal mustard gas?

Does the left still consider these people to be patriots on par with American Revolutionary leaders? When American soldiers in the Revolution "broke the rules" of warfare they attacked on Christmas, fought from cover and targeted enemy officers. When our current enemy "breaks the rules" of warfare they use illegal weapons, hide amongst civilians and target them when ready. American Revolutionaries tried to gain popular support amongst civilians by trying to appeal to people's sense of reason. Iraqi Terrorists try to gain power by targeting people who might disagree and bullying those people in to line. The differences are so stark if only someone out (outside of myself) there would give it some anaylsis.

 

 

Friday March 9, 2007 the Democratic party officially backed out of a televised debate to be presented by Fox News Channel in Nevada next Aug. Though there are many conflicting stories, the biggest theory is that the Left wing blogosphere demanded the pull out because Fox news is "too right wing".

That's really stupid of them. You'd think that the hardcore left would be celebrating its chance to bring another point of view to the mind numbed masses. There one chance to bring the kind of "balance" to a network they hate and libs throw it out. One could argue that Fox might be setting these people up to make them look bad, but wouldn't that just serve as more evidence of how rotten Fox News is?

Fox is probably the most watched of all the cable news channels. What kind of dirty tricks could Fox pull? Attempting something sneaky in the middle of the Democratic debate would be like trying to rob a bank on live television. Everybody would see what Fox was doing and call them on it. But let's assume the network did try something stupid, wouldn't it be great to expose Fox what you think it is?

That aside, if Dems and Libs really believe their ideas are solid they wouldn't mind talking about them anywhere. Dennis Kucinich has already said this much:

“I’m prepared to discuss the war, health care, trade, or any other issue anytime, anywhere, with any audience, answering any question from any media. And any candidate who won’t shouldn’t be President of the United States.”

-Kucinich's blog

And he's right. If you really believe in something then there are no "tough" questions. Thus it would be impossible for Fox to set them up.

But let's assume for a second that Dems went on Fox and the absolute worst possible thing happened. Don't you think that all the candidates would team up to defend themselves? They might be competing for the Democrat Presidential nomination, but there is no way they're all going to sit there and watch their entire side get trashed without doing anything. They'll circle the wagons for each other.

I think the Democrat pullout of the Fox debate sucks on a couple of levels. Firstly because I'm from Nevada and it's kind of a swipe at us (a little state.) Secondly because I watch Fox and was kind of looking forward to the debate.

If I was Roger Ailes, I'd sue for breach of contract.

 

On Friday March 2, after being introduced by Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, Ann Coulter walked to the microphone and uttered the phrase that would shake the political world.

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards."

The quote is an obvious joke and a comment on our times. It's even funnier considering how many outraged people now want to send Ann Coulter to rehab for daring to say it. Her comment also held political implications bringing up issues of the first amendment and freedom of speech as well as questioning the integrity of John Edwards himself.

Of course the usual gang of pot smoking, empty headed morons who wouldn't know a thought if it ran over them with a car were outraged. This is "hate speech." These are the same people who have no problem with university professors calling for the death of Americans simply because they are Americans. Good thing I'm here to bring sunshine onto their hypocritical stances once again. You see, there is another medium that has been using the word "faggot" for a long time now. Several years in fact.

Enter the show "South Park." Just a few years ago there was an episode called "Follow that Egg" (first aired Nov. 2nd, 2005) in which a jealous Mrs. Garrison had the following exchange with her gay ex lover Mr. Slave:

Mr. Slave: Mr. Garrison, there's something you should know. Al and I are getting married.
Mrs. Garrison: Married?
Big Gay Al: Yes.
Mrs. Garrison: You can't get married! You're faggots!

Later while trying to get a crowd worked in to a frenzy, Mrs. Garrison says the following:

Mrs. Garrison: Appeal to the governor? Oh, come on! Where's your balls? F*g drag!

From the episode "Mr. Garrison's fancy new vagina" (first aired March 9, 2005) come the following gems:

Mrs. Garrison: I'd rather be a woman who can't have periods than a f*g.

From the show called "South Park is totally gay" (first aired Oct 22, 2003) come the following quotes:

Cartman: Yeah, don't be such a f*g, dude!
and

Craig: You'll never be as metro-sexual as us! C'mon fags!

All these episodes came out years before Ann made her joke and the left was silent. No calls for boycotts. No demands for apologies. No crude comparisons to dictators and lunatics. Just utter silence. Why? There is no difference between what Ann did and what "South Park" does. Both make jokes of a political nature. You can't even argue that "South Park" only makes gay jokes at the expense of fictional characters. In the episode "Trapped in a Closet" (which first premiered Nov 16, 2005) several people including Tom Cruise and John Travolta literally become trapped in a closet and refuse to come out.

But if this isn't enough for the hypocrites on the left, I call their attention to "Rolling Stone Magazine" March 22, 2007 issue (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/south_park_still_sick_still_wrong/page/1) that features an interview with "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker. In it both Stone and Parker loudly tout their thoughts about lefties.

"...while soldiers and policemen protect me so I can say things like 'fudge-packing faggot' on my television show,..."

-Matt Stone

"...to go up to a tattooed, pierced vegan and say, 'Whatever, you tattooed faggot, you're a pierced faggot and whatever.' '' He looks very pleased with himself. "That's hardcore."

-Trey Parker

So admit it: you hate Ann Coulter and that's the only reason you're mad now. Just admit it, if nothing else to yourselves. If it's okay that "South Park" said it two years ago, then it should be okay to say it today. And if it's not okay to say it today, then where is your outrage over Parker and Stone?

 

Most people who read the news heard about Ann Coulter at CPAC last week. I guess she went to the microphone and joked "I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word faggot, you have to go to rehab." Naturally the "Conservatives" at the meeting couldn't distance themselves from Coulter fast enough - her words were called "inappropriate" and it was suggested she shouldn't have said it.

But this reflects the problems with the modern Conservative movement. It's bad enough the unbiased, non partisan, activist left wing press jumps all over true Conservatives - we don't need a pathetic washouts who call themselves Conservatives helping the left out. Someone else made a crude joke on Friday: Bill Maher when talking about the assassination attempt on Cheney stated "I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact." Maher also questioned why comments supporting the attempt on Cheney's life were taken down from the Huffington post.

Now which incident is getting more coverage? What do you think would have happened if Ann had joked that someone should kill Edwards? But Maher wasn't the only case ignored. There is no doubt that if Maher's comments ever did become big news, Libs would simply dismiss it as "free speech".

Assistant Professor Julio Pino at Kent State University has a blog called "Global War". In his blog, he hails an Islamic victory worldwide against the "Crusaders". In his own words he describes his agenda ""We are a jihadist news service, and provide battle dispatches, training manuals, and jihad videos to our brothers worldwide. All we want is to get Allah’s pleasure. We will write ‘Jihad’ across our foreheads, and the stars. The angels will carry our message throughout the world."

Not surprisingly Kent State refuses to take any responsibility for the hate being pumped out by Pino. After all the University argues, Pino has "free speech." The Libs circled the wagons again to defend this guy. Again the MSM felt this was not worth mentioning.

Now let's go back three weeks ago to the Edwards for President campaign itself. They had hired two bloggers by the names of Melissa McEwan and Amanda Marcotte. These two women are feminists who attacked Catholic dogma. The Edwards campaign REFUSED to take any action any the women at all, deciding instead to give them a "fair shake". Edwards himself stated "We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked."

The bottom line is that the left is actually willing to fight for what it believes in. And real conservatives are also willing to fight for what they believe in, which is why none of the current presidential candidates can get any traction with the base. People like John McCain are willing to sell us out so they can be invited to all the best parties - which is sickening. Arnold Swartzenegger ran as a conservative - so why is he pandering to the left now? North Easterners Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are really the front runners? These guys were elected in Lib country - how can they possibly even come close to what a real conservative is?

Why did Republicans get voted out last Nov? Because they sold out their base. Republicans fought for amnesty for illegals, federalized airline inspectors, implemented massive new spending policies, banned speech in the form of McCain Feingold Campaign Finance Reform and a host of other big left wing issues.

Ann Coulter's statement was a swipe at Political Correctness - a doctrine that is wrong. A doctrine that violates freedom of speech. A doctrine that is itself a political issue. People like me and Ann have been saying for 15 years that Political Correctness is wrong and no one listened. Politicians passed laws institutionalizing Political Correctness in the form of "Hate Speech" and people like me and Ann argued that it was wrong. So 15 years later, Ann is drawing attention to something that needs to be changed. PC has gone too far. It might have started out as an innocent attempt to treat people with dignity, but it's become a way for Liberals to silence debate and we're seeing that with Coulter right now.

So instead of giving in to the leftist agenda, we should be fighting on Coulter's behalf. Geez - the left defends Pino's calls for a jihad. So what's wrong with what Ann said?