No Press Coverage! Surprise, Surprise!

Three employees of a Democrat vote-getting organization (ACORN) were convicted (pled guilty) to voter fraud and guess what? The liberal (Democrat) media didn't think that was news. But when REPUBLICAN Larry Craig "tapped his foot" in a restroom, it was BIG NEWS all over the world! Whenever somebody working for the election of a Democrat gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, "It's not news." But if a REPUBLICAN does likewise, LOOK OUT! As an aside, I'd bet that once whatever amount of attention is on this case subsides (which it will, quickly), these people will get whatever "hand-slapping sentence" they received commuted to "time served" or get a pardon, without notice in the liberal media. (American Thinker, 10/31/07)

50 Years of Objectivist Philosophy

Many people reject, out of hand, Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism because they don't agree with EVERY tenet of it. I don't agree with every word she says, either. But her philosophy was, in the main, correct and I have used it (mostly) as a guide for my life and my "method of operation." It is the fiftieth year since the publishing of her "seminal work," "Atlas Shrugged," in which the "producers of society," those who produce all the things that make life better for all of us (they have all the original ideas and hire all the people necessary to produce them) while being systematically looted by those who are jealous of their success, but who cannot equal it and want an unearned share "went on strike" (the producers) and refused to produce for them any more. Naturally, this caused the collapse of society and then those same "producers" rebuilt it without the input of the "looters." This book literally changed my life. It should be a "must read" for everybody who is living under today's march toward the collectivism (socialism) she abhorred. Before I read this book, I had to ask, "What is happening today that alarms you?" of her. I don't need to ask that today. (Colorado Freedom Report, 10/10/07)

What is "Pork?"

We hear so much about "pork," but nobody seems to be interested in stopping congress people from getting a lot of it for their district or state, whether it is for important projects or not. Most of the time it is not. That's because we just don't understand that "pork" represents a lot of money coming out of our own pockets. Pork is responsible for most of the extremely high taxes we pay because those in Congress are addicted to it. They consider pork as a measure of their effectiveness. A member of congress really has one job; to spend taxpayer money -- and most of them do a very good job of it. Not always for the benefit of the taxpayer, but for their own benefit. Those who do the best job of convincing their constituents they're the best man (or woman) for the job, get re-elected and take that to mean their constituents want them to spend even more money. What amazes me is that most people hear the word "pork" and go right by it to something else. It doesn't get their attention, just as the number "3,000 killed" eludes their attention because it is a "statistic." ONE death does get their attention, especially if they SEE the body or have a personal connection to that person killed. "Pork" is simply one word that to thinking people means "the unnecessary spending" of your money. (Robert Novak, 10/18/07)

IS Ann Coulter "Anti-Semitic?"

That's what the liberals want you to think in yet another attempt to discredit her and try to prove it by typically taking her words out of context. Yes, she said she thinks Jews ought to become Christians. But Jews also think Christians ought to become Jews, if you look way down deep. Liberals think everybody ought to become liberal; conservatives think liberals ought to become conservatives. So what? Is there a word to describe this syndrome? No. That's because they haven't thought one up and popularized it yet, as Jews have with "anti-Semitic," gays have with "homophobia" and Islamics have with the word "Islamophobic." All those "made-up words" tend to make the listener think there is "something wrong" with anybody who would think that way. There is not. There is a good reason to dislike Islamic terrorists, and supporters of Islam want to lump everybody who decries their murders and atrocities in with people they consider an "Islamaphobe." "Islamaphobe" simply means "those who don't like Muslims." So what? That's their right. This is idiocy if you accept it. There is a good reason for some people to dislike gays and feel uncomfortable in their presence, too. Mostly it has to do with their own ignorance. That does not make them mentally unstable, as the use of the word "homophobe" would try to make you think. Now if a person becomes OVERLY disturbed by gays, or even murders somebody simply for being gay, there IS "something wrong with them." Not simply not liking gays. I don't have anything against gays, but I have no reason to associate with them either. Does that make me a "homophobe?" Hardly. Ann simply thinks Christianity is better that Judaism, just as liberals think liberalism is better than conservatism and heterosexuals think heterosexuality is better than homosexuality and vice-versa.. That's her right, just as Jews have the right to think Judaism is better than Christianity. Is there a popular word for that? I guess we haven't thought of one yet. (Human Events/Dennis Prager, 10/16/07)

Democrats Calling for "Change"

The Democrats are constantly calling for "change," but they never get specific on just what kind of "change" they want. Knowing the Democrats, I'd say the change they want is to move further toward collectivism (socialism), where the government gets to pick the pockets of those capable and willing to earn, while giving that stolen to those who are not. Bush's tax cuts have caused an increase in the growing economy and created what constitutes statistically NO unemployment. Do they want to "change" things like that? Bush is the only politician I've seen that actually has the guts to go after the terrorists, wherever they are, regardless of national borders (if those borders are protecting them). Do they want to "change" that? Yes. They want us to purposely LOSE in Iraq by pulling our troops out, even though we won there a long time ago (it took about a week). Whenever a liberal tells you he wants "change," ask him/her to be more specific. What kind of "change" do they want? I'd bet they can't answer. (News Busters, 8/20/07)

"Stripping" God from Government

Entrenched liberals in our government are systematically "stripping" God from government, in any way they can. What don't they understand about "no law? The Constitution says, ". . .Congress shall make NO LAW regarding religion or the practice thereof." What don't they understand about that? That means NO LAW can be made for, or against religion. They apparently don't understand what "no law" means because they continue to make law after law "regarding" religion and "the practice thereof." They "interpret the Constitution to mean they CAN make such laws to "keep religion OUT of government. That's not what the Founders intended at all. They simply intended to KEEP government from MANDATING a certain religion. Aren't they smart enough to know that? I'm not big on organized religion. I believe in a "superior intelligence" that orders this complicated universe, though my beliefs might not be the same as yours. But if I want to subscribe to a certain religion, it's not the business of government to REMOVE all references to ANY religion (AFA).

Tie A Yellow Ribbon

'round the old oak tree." There's a "Grass Roots" movement to attempt to intimidate Bush into pardoning the two Border Patrol agents who were wrongfully imprisoned for doing their jobs. I'm going to post this here in an attempt to get as many people as possible to send yellow ribbons to Washington. If that's what it takes to free these innocent men whose lives have been ruined, I'm all for it. (Grassfire.Org)

Bush to Attack Iran? So What?

Back In the thirties I'd "bet the farm" that there were stories in some frightened newspapers with the same headline, only substitute "Germany" for Iran. We hesitated far too long before taking Hitler on while he grew bigger and bigger and killed more and more people. Why should we wait to "take down" today's Hitler? How many more people must Ahmadjinijerk kill before we "take him down?" He seems to think he'd win if we attacked him. To that I simply laugh heartily. It took us about a week to take Saddam down. It would take about as long to do the same to Iran. Should we wait until it becomes a big job to take him down? I'd say no way! Do it now when it can be done easily with less loss of life on both sides. (News Max, 10/29/07)

Democrat Election Donation Scandals

There's nothing new about Clinton's (Bill and Hillary) campaign contribution scandals. They go on all the time and no one seems to notice, not even the Republicans. Things like AlGore's phone calls to raise funds, using his (government-paid-for) office phone, his attendance at a fund-raiser in a "Buddhist Temple" where Buddhists, who take a vow of poverty donated $5,000 each to Gore's campaign (he said he didn't know it was a fund-raiser), and Bill's changing the law so that the Loral Company could legally transfer to communist China secrets that allowed them (The Chinese) to advance 25 years in their ability to hit American targets with their missiles, and NO investigation to speak of. We hear about these scandals all the time but nothing ever seems to come of them. What happened in the Buddhist situation? Was Bill Clinton ever called to account for giving important secrets to communist China? Not that I've been able to discover. There is a small "hooraw" for a couple of days and then the scandal is forgotten. Once in a while the politician pays a small fine and goes on about "business as usual" And the public forgets all about it until the next time. Clinton was impeached, but stayed in office. SOMEBODY paid a $90,000 fine for his felony (probably his campaign, which means his donors). Now it's a Chinese family in California who don't make a lot of money, yet they have donated $45,000 between them to Hillary's campaign. Oh. One of Hillary's top fund-raisers once listed their address as his own. How does this happen with nothing happening in return? They're DEMOCRATS, that's how. They control the machinery of investigation and routinely quash such investigations, quietly, usually behind the scenes. So Democrat scandals usually don't get pursued to the end. Once in a while somebody gets a "wrist slap" and a small fine (a lot less than what their crimes netted), usually paid out of campaign funds, then it's "business as usual. (Addendum: Now a bunch of Chinese (Chinese?) dishwashers who live in tenements and just barely make enough money to live, each "donate" $1,000 to $2,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Where did they get the money? Will there be a "meaningful" investigation? Will anybody be punished? Don't hold your breath. They're Democrats, after all. (Boycott Liberalism,)

Bush Needs to Get His Priorities Straight

I'm generally supportive of most of George Bush's policies and actions. Especially since he seems to be the only person in this government able to understand that we are at war with Islamic terrorists. I also agree that his tax cuts have continued the bright economy Reagan's tax cuts started, in spite of eight years of Clinton's efforts to destroy it. But I draw the line when he allows the "World Court" to interfere in a state's business, allowing a double murderer to go free. Jose Medellin brutally murdered two teenage girls, but the World Court wants to free him because he didn't press his "consular rights" when he was convicted. Bush is pushing for this. At the same time he refuses to intervene in the case of the two Border Patrolmen imprisoned for more than ten years for doing their jobs. This guy needs to get his priorities straight and stop interfering in the Medellin case, and give a full pardon to those unfortunate Border Patrolmen. If he doesn't, no policeman, anywhere in the United States, will be safe from a political attack upon their efforts to do their jobs. (Human Events, 10/15/07)

"Validity?" To Marxism?

"Howard Zinn's one-man play 'Marx in Soho' is over an hour of the German philosopher himself talking about why the years since his death have done nothing to repudiate the validity of Marxism." Don't make me laugh! There IS no "validity" to Marxism, and there never has been. They present a lot of twisted "reasoning," but they cannot ever convince me that Marxism has ever HAD any "validity because it's based on the theft of earnings from those capable and willing TO earn, and giving that stolen to those unwilling to earn. It's amazing to me that people still believe this crap. One of their usual comments is that "Communism hasn't failed, since it's never really been tried." What do they call that 70-some year "experiment" in Russia that cost many lives, and collapsed in the face of capitalism? They'll never admit that communism has been "tried" all over the world, in many different countries, some of which still survive (just barely) because they're being supported by people like this. They'll always say "it's never been tried," in spite of ample evidence that it HAS been tried, in many places, most of which have failed. Communism, for instance, is still "alive" in Cuba, where they live a 1950s-like lifestyle because Russia cannot any longer prop them up. I expect Cuba's Marxist government to collapse soon, whether or not Castro stays alive much longer. (American Thinker, 10/28/07)

Collectivism vs. Individualism

I keep talking about the Democrats (mostly) being socialists, and I get a blank stare. What I've found out is that most people have no idea just what collectivism (socialism) is! I even had to explain to my own SISTER that collectivism, socialism, fascism, and most of the other "isms" I talk about are ALL different forms of collectivism, which is ruled by this: "FROM each according to his ABILITY, and TO each according to his NEED," making "need" a DEMAND on the earnings of those capable and willing to earn their own way. You wouldn't cash your paycheck, then go around your neighborhood, asking your neighbors if they have any NEEDS for which you can give them part of your earnings for which to pay? No? Then why do you elect collectivists to government to do it for you? Did you know that your taxes would be HALF as much if the government weren't "taking care of" the "needs" of people you don't even know? That's what collectivism is: taking money from EARNERS, and giving it, UNEARNED, to those who will not or can not earn for themselves. I have no problem helping people who TRULY cannot earn their own way. That's called "charity." But I DO have a problem giving a regular check to able-bodied men and women who stand on the corners in their neighborhoods and do nothing because there is no reason for them to do anything constructive. I think we need to do a better job of DEFINING just what we mean when we talk about "collectivism" or "socialism." If they don't even understand our WORDS, how can they understand what we're saying?

We Must Name and Identify the Enemy

One of the things the elite liberals (Democrats) are doing is trying to stop us from even being able to NAME the enemy. The New York Times won't even let their writers use the word "terrorist." They want to ignore the threat the Islamo-Fascists represent, so as to be able to ridicule everything George Bush (the only person, it seems, who is able to understand the threat the Islamic terrorists represent) says or does, and therefore make themselves able to elect Democrats in spite of the stupidity of their actions and pronouncements and advance our movement toward socialism. They appear to not even be aware of the danger they, themselves, will be in, should the Islamo-Fascists win this war. They don't even recognize that we ARE in a war. If the Islamo-Fascists win it, the people at the New York Times will be the first to be beheaded. One would THINK they'd be intelligent enough to know this, but apparently, they're not.

Why Do We Even Need To HAVE This Discussion?

The simple answer is that the anti-gun freaks are STUPID and just don't understand that banning guns ANYWHERE is an INVITATION to criminals to attack us. "The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is taking issue with a crass remark by Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in which Hamm contended in a Fox News report that self-defense advocates have no business on college campuses. Hamm's remark, reported by Fox News on Wednesday, was, 'You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school.' CCRKBA Executive Director Mark A. Taff, himself a part-time college student, fired back, 'For a fairly bright, though philosophically misguided guy, Peter said a remarkably stupid thing and he ought to apologize to every college student who believes that their right of self-defense should not be nullified simply by stepping onto a college campus. Taff said the Virginia Tech outrage might never have happened if that university had not adopted a campus gun ban, and actively lobbied against a proposed statute that would have allowed legally-licensed students and instructors to be armed. A shooting at Virginia's Appalachian Law School a few years ago ended when the gunman was confronted by two armed students. A high school shooter in Pearl, Mississippi was taken down at gunpoint by a school administrator who ran to his private vehicle, retrieved a pistol and confronted the gunman." For Hamm to make such a stupid statement, in the face of such evidence shows just how stupid such people really are. (CCRKBA, 10/25/07)

Creating A Crisis

That's what liberals do well. Which is why I can't understand how amateurish the campus radical attempt to stain the "Young Americans for Freedom" on the George Washington University (GWU) campus as "racists" was. The picture on the flier was of an Arab, first of all. Arabs ARE Islamic. But not all Islamics are Arabs. The comments in the flier were of the stupid type usually found in Islamic terrorist publishings (and were probably written by them). "Accusations of hate speech make great headlines for newspapers, even if those accusations turn out to be wrong -- or even worse -- contrived. Such is the case at The George Washington University (GWU). Administrators at GWU are on a rampage against a conservative group on campus for posting anti-Muslim fliers that the group had nothing to do with." They didn't even ASK if they were responsible. SO typical! "It must be said that the Left is notorious for manufacturing incidents of 'hate' and then turning around to attribute such incidents to alleged intolerance. At San Francisco State, for example, two black students scribbled racial epithets in their own dormitories and then claimed 'white racists' did it. At Boise State University, a homosexual student beat himself up, but told the police he was assaulted because of his sexuality. In California, a visiting professor at Claremont McKenna College spray painted her own car with ethnic slurs, slashed her tires, and shattered her windshield and then attributed the vandalism to campus racists." They apparently just don't understand how well they discredit THEMSELVES with such antics. But nobody was ever able to convince me that elite liberals were intelligent, anyway. (Jason Mattera/Human Events, 10/10/07)

Is the Time at Hand?

The time seems to almost be here when George Washington's statement about the then conflict with the British government will surely lead to warfare is true today: "The time is near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no no human efforts will deliver them." With all the reports of overreaction by "government agents" I have called in the past, "thugs," the killing, by the government, of almost 100 citizens who had done no wrong in Waco, Texas, the sniper murder of Randy Weaver's wife while she held her infant child in her arms (for which the government had to pay Randy $3 million dollars of our money), the use of Border Patrol agents to forcibly take then 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint from his family, to return him to Castro's "island prison" in Cuba, I wonder. When Democrat senators and representatives lie in an attempt to destroy Rush Limbaugh, the most successful of those who use their own words against them, I really wonder. What do you think? (Just common sense)

What Don't You Understand About Islam?

They're going to call me an "Islamaphobe" for this item, but that doesn't bother me because I put no importance on anything said by the Islamic terrorists. The very word "Islmamphobe" is a "made-up word" designed to allow Islamic terrists to demonize anybody who speaks out against them. The Islamic religion itself I don't much like because of the way they treat their women and because of how tightly they control the daily lives of their victims . . . er, uh, adherents. But I wouldn't make war on them because of that. But the whole idea that the "war on terror" is a "religious war" fomented by America is bogus. It IS a "religious war," but it is being fomented by Muslims. There is one and one only reason for this war: to get you to convert to Islam or die. They're very frank about that in some circles, but in others they tell us WE caused all the problems by our policies toward Muslims. Wrong! This "war" has been going on for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years, and the ONLY reason for it is to get you to become a Muslim. It's that simple, no matter how their "partners-in-crime," the liberals, cry otherwise. Liberals cry "crocodile tears" whenever we accuse them of being unpatriotic. But what would they do differently if they were unpatriotic? I go by what people DO, not what they SAY. (Just common sense)

Gross Miscarriage of Justice!

That's what was done to the two Border Patrol agents who have been sent to prison for doing their jobs, and on lies and manipulated "evidence." Who profits from such an action? Why was it done? They actually went down to Mexico, found the drug smuggler, and told him to come back and testify against the cops who shot him in the butt while he was running away after aiming his own gun at them then sue the American government for millions. What the hell is going on here? "Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and John Culberson (R-TX), along with 41 other Members of Congress, including Representative Ralph M. Hall (R-TX), who is Chairman of the Board of the Free Congress Foundation, have written to Judge Michael B. Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee for Attorney General. They point out that the two agents were prosecuted by Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas. Sutton granted immunity to the drug smuggler, provided him free health care and granted unconditional border-crossing cards so he would testify against the agents. The Congressmen want Mukasey to investigate the situation. In his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mukasey agreed to do so." Only time will tell. If he does so, it MIGHT lead to a full pardon as President Bush leaves office. But I wouldn't hold my breath. He could have done so before, and didn't. (Free Congress Foundation, 10/24/07)

Texas School District Bans "Cleavage"

If they'd banned "strip tease dances," I could understand it. But banning "cleavage?" It's a study in futility, since many of the girls show their boyfriends a lot more than cleavage after school. (Especially when they're giving them oral sex, which is happening a LOT more often these days than before, after Bill Clinton told them "oral sex is not sex.") Then there's the girl's tendency to wear certain clothes when someone who doesn't like it will be watching, then change to something a LOT more revealing later (Wearing it underneath until then). Another thing. Women -- adult and young, dress provocatively all the time, and then criticize boys (and men) for constantly "thinking about sex." Tell me: what are these GIRLS thinking about when they wear their short skirts and half-unbuttoned blouses. and pants so low and tight they'd split them if they bent over? You'd think if they REALLY thought less of the male sex for thinking about sex all the time, THEY'D stop thinking about sex all the time themselves. No, no! I don't say women are "asking for it" when they get raped while wearing provocative clothing. They should ALWAYS be able to reserve the right to say "no." But they should stop "titillating" the opposite sex if they think less of the male sex for thinking about sex all the time. And they should stop BLAMING them for thinking that way. I don't condone rape by any means. But I think as long as they titillate men and boys by the way they dress, they should accept the consequences, that being that men think about sex often. Girls didn't dare dress that way when I was young and, while teenagers still thought of sex often, it wasn't nearly as often as today. (Key TV, 8/4/06)

Blame It on Global Warming

Every time a bee farts in Montana, the Democrats blame it on global warming. They've even got the president thinking they might be right --which just proves Goebbels (Hitler's PR man) was right. You tell a lie, repeat it often enough, and people will come to believe it and will even fight people who deny it. Sen. Reid has just proven it again with his comment (against all logic) that global warming is responsible for the fires in California. But then, Reid is one of those who want to convince us that logic doesn't exist Logically. Sen. Reid said, " 'One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming' Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster." (The Hill, 10/24/07)

Blame it on Bush

Anything bad happens, blame it on Bush. Yes, Bush has spent more than LBJ, the champion of spenders. There's one difference: Bush is fighting a "righteous war," which costs money. LBJ ran from his war at the behest of the same liberal politicians who would like for Bush to "cut and run." And another thing: Bush has been trying to "appease" the liberal Democrats, and this is what he gets. More and more spending on "social programs" (meaning "vote-buying" programs). Reagan spent a lot of money the same way, for the same reason. But at least, he did other things to cut down on spending. Both Reagan and Bush cut income taxes and by so doing, hugely increased the tax "take" without increasing taxes while significantly improving the economy. Yes, Bush has spent some money (at the behest of the Democrat liberals) but he has caused Reagan's economy boom to continue, even after eight years of Bill Clinton's efforts to kill it. (McClatchy News Service, 10/24/07)

Castro's Dreaming Again

"HAVANA (AP) -- Former revolutionaries promised to keep fighting for Cuba on Saturday as the island beefed up security, saying it fears a U.S. attack during Fidel Castro's health crisis. The government, under the control of Castro's brother, Defense Minister Raul Castro, has mobilized citizen defense militias and asked military reservists to check in daily." Apparently, Raul and his brother Fidel still are laboring under the delusion that his "island prison" is important enough to the United States for us to invade. He is also dreaming if he thinks he could "repel" an American invasion if it DID come. John Kennedy agreed for a brief time and promised to back an invasion -- although he "finked out" at the last minute and did not do so, right in the middle of things -- which caused the deaths and imprisonment of many Cubans. Castro has used his imaginary "invasion" every once in a while to "scare the hell" out of his prisoners (also known as citizens). But apart from a brief moment of idiocy on the part of John Kennedy, which led to us providing a bunch of tractors to Castro to get him to release the prisoners he captured when Kennedy reneged on his support of the invasion by Cubans, no one is interested in "invading" this insignificant country, so he can continue to brutalize, imprison, and kill his "prisoners" at his whim, as long as he lives (which most thinking people hope will not be long). (Georgia Access, 8/5/06)

Canadian Socialized Medicine

This link is to information given by a genuine Canadian citizen who wants us to know what we're getting into if we gullibly vote to allow HIllary Clinton to be president and to saddle us with a similar system. One in which a "faceless bureaucrat" somewhere can deny us treatment necessary to save our lives because he "disapproves" of how we live, or if he/she's just having a bad day. If we elect Hillary and she institutes this atrocity, we will be moving one step closer to socialism, where government bureaucrats control every aspect of our lives and could not give a damn if their decisions cost us our lives. Their response when we die because of their decisions? "Oh, well." (Canadian Socialized Medicine)

Gun-Grabbers Fear This Book

It's called, "America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent age." Written by a prominent advocate of Second Amendment rights, Alan Gottlieb, and David Workman, this book puts the lie to the anti-gun fanatic's contention that people are more likely to shoot themselves or a loved one if they had a gun. Former Congressman Bob Barr said, "During my years in the U.S. House of Representatives serving on the Judiciary Committee, I tired of listening to the arguments of one gun-control advocate after another endlessly repeat the same tired, baseless arguments in support of their efforts to disarm law-abiding American citizens. Now, in "America Fights Back – Armed Self Defense in a Violent Age," we have a well-written defense of the Bill of Rights that provides both sound substantive arguments in support of the right to keep and bear arms, as well as true-life stories of how the Second Amendment works in practice not just in theory. This book ought to be required reading for every Member of the House and Senate; and every occupant of the White House." Maybe then, they'd understand that laws against gun ownership by criminals don't work -- because they're criminals -- who break laws for a living. (Amazon) By the way: I get no commission from any sales. I just think as many Americans as possible should read this book.

Liberals Are the Real Troop Detractors

How transparent must they be before Americans realize that liberals and Democrats are our enemies and want the Islamic terrorists to win the war on terror? They've shown it time after time, but way too many people in this country "who don't pay attention to politics" aren't aware of their traitorous actions and comments, or just don't care. They don't know how much damage these traitors can do, just by falsely accusing our troops of atrocities without proof. "Sadly, the left all too often has unquestioningly accepted such horrible allegations against our soldiers. Sen. Dick Durbin assumed the worst of our soldiers in Guantanamo. Sen. John Kerry disseminated lies about our troops raiding Iraqi homes and assaulting civilian women and children. And Rep. John Murtha prejudged Marines guilty of murdering innocent civilians before they had even told their side of the story, much less been tried for the alleged crimes. But did liberals express outrage against Durbin, Kerry or Murtha? No. They vigorously defended them. According to the loony left, the foreign-policy views of (leftist) veterans are sacrosanct and above criticism, even when they are themselves falsely impugning other soldiers. Obviously, the left's loyalty isn't to soldiers -- it's only to outspoken leftist soldiers." It's time we showed these traitors that their words and actions have consequences . . .to them. We need to do what we did to the FORMER Senate Leader, and vote them out of office. (David Limbaugh, 10/22/07)

Why Do They Need More?

Politicians in Denver, Colorado, are pushing 10; count 'em, 10 new taxes, supposedly to pay for the "infrastructure costs" that they should have enough money in the bank to pay for. They constantly poor-mouth" us while hiding references to all the money they have in the bank fro the 14; count 'em, 14 tax increases we've already suffered under Mayor Hickenlooper. "For the 14th time in four years, Denver taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for yet more taxes. The question: Should we say yes? 'Staying true to his always colorful and lively campaign antics, Mayor John Hickenlooper and his friends at City Hall are trying to get our attention -- desperately pleading with us to approve nine tax-and-bond increases at a total cost of more than a half-billion dollars. And in doing so, they want to raise our property taxes -- forever. Hickenlooper says ballot questions 'A through I' are all about 'catching up' and 'maintaining' the city. But if the numbers show us anything, it's that Denver has squandered the money it already has, and doesn't deserve to come back for more. Consider the following: Denver's population has risen just 2 percent in the last five years. Over this same period, the city's total budget has swelled by 13 percent [What did they do with that money? -RT]. Even if voters deny each new proposal, next year will mark Denver's first-ever billion-dollar budget." Why should Denver need a half-million dollars in NEW taxes to "catch up" and "maintain" the infrastructure? Why didn't they spend the money they've ALREADY overtaxed us for that instead of the "vote-buying giveaway" programs? Do they think we are that stupid as to continue to give them more and more money after we've already given them more than we can afford? I've always liked "Hick" until now. But he's proven that he is a typical "tax-and-spend" liberal and should be gotten rid of. (Independence Institute, 10/14/07)

Pete Stark is Ignorant!

California Congressman Pete Stark has always been an ass, now he has shown that he's a STUPID ass. He rose in Congress and made this statement: " You don't have money to fund the war or children [Which is totally wrong. The president vetoed the increase in free medical care for SOME children because he didn't feel we should pay for medical care for "rich kids." It's not a matter of "can't afford it." -RT]. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people [Another lie. We aren't "blowing up innocent people." We're killing GUILTY people to stop THEM from "killing innocent people,". -RT] if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President's amusement [This is the stupidest part of his remarks. We aren't doing this "for the president's amusement." We're doing it to keep Islamic terrorists from overrunning the world with their seventh century technology. -RT]. (, /07)

Phony Racism

Racist hucksters and extortionists such as Jesse Jackson, (Calypso) Louie Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and their ilk (notice, all three call themselves "reverend," though there is no record {to my knowledge} of any of them being so endowed, officially), who have made millions (and killed a few people) promoting false racism, love it when somebody puts a noose on somebody's doorknob. But while racism DOES still exist, it's doubtful if it is nearly as widespread as those race hucksters would like you to believe. Ann Coulter says, "Liberals are so invigorated by the story about a noose being found on an obscure Columbia University professor's door that now nooses are popping up all over New York City. Liberals love to make believe the Night Riders are constantly at their doors. I'll be shocked by a noose appearing on a college campus the day an actual racist does it." So don't believe all the liberal cries of "racism" you hear. It doesn't exist to the degree they want you to believe. Yes, there are a few residual racists around. But there is nothing like the "institutional racism" of the fifties and before. People are more intelligent about it these days for the most part. They tend more to judge people as INDIVIDUALS, not by groups. That's the way I do it, anyway. (Ann Coulter/Human Events, 10/17/07)

Does NOBODY Understand?

We are AT WAR with Iran. The battlefield, right now, is in Iraq. But we are fighting Iran and the Islamic terrorists they are supporting, financing, and arming. If they ever DO get a nuclear bomb and the means to deliver it to a target, we are going to be in BIG TROUBLE. Sometimes it seems like only I, and George Bush see the danger. When Bush calls our attention to the possibility of WWIII, he gets criticized for "being paranoid." What I want to know is, were the people who said we should go to war against Hitler "paranoid?" Hitler (and the Japanese) almost took over the world before we got off home plate because of such people's criticism. Yes, Iran is small, now (So was Hitler). But they're working feverishly to become much larger. We need to go after Iran's nuclear installations in any way we can to prevent them from EVER getting a workable atom bomb, which they have signaled they will use to take out Israel -- first. These people (the politicians who want to go to war with the world) need to be destroyed, and their ability to go to war on ANY scale needs to be destroyed. If that means we must declare war on them, so be it. (News Max, 10/18/07)

Hillary Subsidizes Liberal Bloggers

I don't know if this is illegal or not. If not, it should be. Hillary has ADMITTED to "setting up a "network" of bloggers to tell her lies. "Call it 'Bloggergate' -- the subversion of the blogosphere by Democrat money. To be more precise, Bloggergate is the subsidizing of left-wing bloggers with illegal Democrat campaign contributions, laundered through ostensibly 'non-partisan' non-profit groups. At a convention of left-wing bloggers last summer, Hillary Clinton announced, 'We are . . . putting together a network in the blogosphere.' Her remarks became public only three weeks ago, on Oct. 2, when an anonymous person posted a shaky, hand-held videotape of her speech on YouTube. In it, Hillary bragged that she had helped create 'institutions' which had produced a left-wing 'network in the blogosphere' capable of 'matching' the alleged 'advantage of the other side.' [Which doesn't exist. -RT] Hillary’s claim raises troubling questions. On a practical level, just how exactly does a U.S. senator go about exerting her power to stack the blogosphere in her favor? One obvious method is to buy favorable coverage. Hillary's boast carries a strong implication that she has subsidized bloggers." Yes, just as she has subsidized larger organizations, such as moveon.org, and its subsidiaries, one of which is even now trying to lie Rush Limbaugh out of business. (News Max, 10/18/07)

Govt Takes Over, Business Stops

One "unforeseen consequence" of ANY new "government program" is that private enterprise, who out of the goodness of their hearts were providing assistance to people who could not afford it, steps out of the way and stops its help. That means seniors who are dependent for their very lives on certain medicines (that are VERY expensive) are now completely dependent on the government for that medicine. I know of one person very close to me who was getting a year's supply of Plavix, a medicine that kept him alive, from the maker, free, now must depend on a government program (paid for by taxpayers) to get his medicine because the maker of Plavix immediately stopped supplying him that medicine the minute the feds passed that law to pay for necessary medicines through private companies, while putting "strings" on it and making it "mandatory." This person was happily using this "government service" provided by "Sierra RX" until they sent him a letter asking him to verify that he had not applied for such a program for two years after it was available ant telling him he would be assessed a penalty for it. This man did not apply because ALL the "programs" out there were so confusing that even the legislators that made them mandatory did not understand them, and this is his right. He is also opposed to such a system, on principle. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that says such a program can be made "mandatory." If there is, please show it to me. I'm not holding my breath. These programs are, as usual, made to be unnecessarily complicated, paving the way for an even bigger bureaucracy. I'm ashamed to say that a Republican signed it into law, and in its present unnecessarily confusing form. (Just common sense)

"Air America" Host Blames "Talk Radio"

She fell down while walking her dog and apparently thought that would give her a good opportunity to blame "talk radio." But it turns out she was lying: "Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes is temporarily off the air, but cops and her lawyer say reports she was mugged near her Manhattan apartment were bogus [They came from her. -RT]. Fellow host Jon Elliott said on the liberal network that Rhodes was attacked at 39th St. and Park Ave. on Sunday night while walking her dog, Simon. Elliott, who said Rhodes lost several teeth in the attack, waxed about a possible conspiracy. 'Is this an attempt by the right-wing hate machine to silence one of our own?' he asked on the air, according to the Talking Radio blog. 'Are we threatening them [Not in the slightest. -RT]?' A police source said Rhodes never filed a report and never claimed to be the victim of a mugging. Rhodes' lawyer Robert Gaulin told the Daily News she was injured in a fall while walking her dog, but she wasn't sure exactly what happened." Thus the liberal network is shown to again foment a lie. (NY Daily News, 10/17/07)

McKinney Gets Off

Cynthia McKinney -- you know, the congresscritter who hit a Capital policeman when he tried to get her to obey the law? (You'd think she had better sense. But she's too arrogant.) She was "let off." It's next to impossible to convict a Democrat of ANYTHING in Washington. But if a Republican had done such a thing, he would have already been convicted and maybe even executed. If I had done the same thing, I'd have been immediately shot. But Cynthia McKinney has other things going for her except for being a Democrat in Washington. She's also a black woman, a member of TWO groups who get special consideration in Washington in ADDITION to being a Democrat. So as I predicted some time ago, she was "let off" on an action than anyone else would have seen jail time for doing. All she had to do beyond being a Democrat was "play the race card" and the "woman card." People such as the widows of 9/11 victims can do just about anything they want in Washington, but McKinney doesn't need to lose a loved one (does she have any?) (My Way, 6/16/06)

WHAT Experience?

Hillary Clinton and the other (socialistic) Democrat candidates for president continue to insist that they "have the experience" their opponents lack. What experience? Hillary has not had a single day's experience in running a business. Her one attempt at running the health care system (one seventh of our economy) ended in dismal failure, and I understand the so-called "ideas" she put forth were Bill's, anyway. None of the other Democrats (and some Republicans) have had such experience. So how can they truthfully claim "experience?" Of course, lying has never been a problem for Hillary and most other politicians. They have no "experience," yet they want to enable programs to give them the right to run your business with their ideas, rather than yours. I, for one, will do everything in my power to prevent that from ever happening. People have asked me who I favor on the Republican side, and I can't answer. I don't see a single Republican who totally measures up to my standards. Fred Thompson comes the closest, but he voted to allow Bill Clinton to stay in power after he had been impeached. The "jury" is still out on him, although I do like him.

Cease-Fires As A Military Tactic

Hitler used a cease-fire with France to gain time to get his troops into position and rearm and resupply them while "negotiating" with everybody in sight, INCLUDING the French. German soldiers bathed in the Rhine River and waved to the French on the other side, who waved back. Then, when he was ready, he attacked, crushing the French in six weeks. Fortunately, we didn't have a ""Kofi Anan" to scream "cease-fire!" at every turn, with gullible "negotiators" listening. If we had given the Germans or the Japanese a "cease-fire" then, so they could resupply, rearm, and move more troops into position, we would all now be speaking either German or Japanese, whichever one "got" us in the "coin toss" after they won. The Japanese were working on their own nuclear bombs, and the Germans had the best warplanes going at the time. Hitler was working to perfect synthetic oils and other lubricants because his trucks and tanks were freezing up in the sub-zero Russian temperatures. So were their guns. If we had given them the time to complete development, we would be "goners." We would now be speaking German. Fortunately, we continued our "disproportionate" response to their attacks, and we won. We did not stop firing until neither could make war any more and their leaders were dead or surrendering unconditionally. That's the way to win wars. Kofi Anan wouldn't have liked that. "Talking" isn't going to get it done. It never has, and it never will. (Syndicated columnist professor Thomas Sowell, on Atlasphere, 7/28/06)

Judicial Misconduct

There are two things I see in courtrooms regularly that are, to me, "judicial misconduct." The first is any attorney, having gotten a "yes or no" answer out of a witness, cuts him/her off, saying, "Thank you, that'll be all," not allowing the witness to complete his/her answer. Witnesses should be allowed to give a full and complete answer to any question, and any judge who allows an attorney to do this is as guilty of judicial misconduct as is the attorney. Another example is a judge who disallows the use of a specific defense by the defense, OR the use of a specific prosecution by a prosecutor. A defendant, OR the State, should be allowed to use ANY defense or offense he/she deems necessary. I have seen innocent people convicted and put to death because a judge would not allow him/her to use the only defense that could possibly prove him/her not guilty. The same is true sometimes when the judge disallows the prosecution's case. This is not legal advice. It is how it should go in court and what such actions constitute in my opinion. (Just common sense)

Anybody Can Get A Nobel

AlGore thinks it's a great honor to get the Nobel. It's not. Just about anybody can win one. "In 1939 a member of Sweden’s parliament nominated Adolf Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize. Other nominees for this award have included Hitler's fellow socialists Benito Mussolini and Soviet Communist dictator Joseph Stalin, who also murdered millions (News Max)" [Emphasis mine. -RT]. The Nobel definitely "lost its luster" for me when Yasser Arafat, murderer of many, got one for his "attempts at peace" in Israel. (Thanks. I needed a good laugh.) ABC literally "gushed" over Gore's win, saying "He is educating the world." Apparently, these idiots have "bought the bull droppings" Gore has been spouting in the biggest con and scam in memory. Frankly, while I am aware that global temperatures are increasing at the rate of about a quarter degree a CENTURY, I'm not arrogant enough to think MAN could, in any way, be responsible, nor that man could stop it. (Newsbusters, 10/12/07)

The "Evita Factor"

They'll probably give Evita Peron a Nobel Peace prize posthumously. Because she is responsible for destroying Argentina's prosperous economy in about ten years by selling socialism to the population and finally, after succeeding her late husband as president, turning her prosperous capitalist society into a socialist society, thereby removing INCENTIVE from the equation. It amazes me that people in this country can't see the eerie similarities between Evita Peron and Hillary Clinton. It isn't as if she hides what she is and what she intends to do. She's always talking about such things as "taking profits from oil companies and putting them into vote-buying programs." The very titla of her (ghost-written) book, "It Takes A Village," meaning parents should have no rights in the bringing up of their children; "The Village" (meaning the government) should have all such rights. That's pure socialism. A quick look at the lineup of Democrat candidates for president tells us it is a list of socialists. Any one of them has the potential and the willingness to take us down the same road. Even some of the Republican candidates will, if elected, allow the entrenched socialists in our government to cause this country to continue its march toward pure socialism. The article linked below talks about this in detail. (Ray Thomas 101,)

Gore Proves Again ANYBODY Can Get A Nobel

AlGore thinks it's a great honor to get the Nobel. It's not. Just about anybody can win one. "In 1939 a member of Sweden’s parliament nominated Adolf Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize. Other nominees for this award have included Hitler's fellow socialists Benito Mussolini and Soviet Communist dictator Joseph Stalin, who also murdered millions (News Max)." The Nobel definitely "lost its luster" for me when Yasser Arafat, murderer of many, got one for his "attempts at peace" in Israel. (Thanks. I needed a good laugh.) ABC literally "gushed" over Gore's win, saying "He is educating the world." Apparently, these idiots have Bought the bull droppings Gore has been spouting in the biggest con and scam in memory. Frankly, while I am aware that global temperatures are increasing at the rate of about a quarter degree a CENTURY, I'm not cocky enough to think MAN could, in any way, be responsible, nor that man could stop it. (Newsbusters, 10/12/07)

Do Terrorists Have Rights?

"Enemy combatants captured on the battlefield do not have due process rights or Geneva Convention protection. [Should we have given Nazis such rights during WWII? -RT] The obsession with international law has to stop. America must come first if we are to preserve the founding principles that made this country great, protect our national security interests and protect our citizens. Those are things that Jimmy Carter, anti-Semite and terrorist coddler, would know nothing about. The ticking time bomb scenario: we capture an enemy who knows the whereabouts of a nuclear bomb, just 24 hours from annihilating an American city. Do we rough him up or read him his Miranda rights? Defeating radical Islam is a complicated matter, but failure is not an option. Our future and freedom are on the line." For my part, I'd "rough him up." Actually, I'd do more than "rough him up." If I was the one who caught him in the act, he wouldn't make it that far. Jimmy Carter says, "But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, 'we don't violate them.' And ... you can make your own definition of torture and say 'we don't violate it,' " said the former Democratic president and Nobel laureate." Really! Jimmy is stating how many liberal Democrats look at things, which is why they can get away with lying and deny it. Like Henry Waxman denying he's got 50 "investigators" snooping around Rush Limbaugh. The number is probably more like 60. So he can deny 50 and not be lying (technically). (Breitbart, 10/10/07)

It Happens Only to Republicans

Democrats wail about it being his "personal business" when former (whew!) president Clinton was getting oral sex in the Oval office in the White House while important people waited in the outer office. But that was because he was a Democrat. Same when Barney Frank got in trouble for his boyfriend running a whorehouse out of his (Barney's) apartment. But HE'S a Democrat, too. But When Senator Craig tapped his foot and moved his hands while in a restroom, a cop planted in the next stall "interpreted" it as a "request for gay sex." Even if true, using the Democrat lexicon, so what? His sexuality is his own business, and that cop shouldn't have been planted there. Has anybody checked that cop's background to see if he is a "true-blue" Democrat, or even a Gay hater? Why is it that this kind of thing only happens to Republicans and it's "his private business" when it happens to Democrats? Frankly, I agree Craig should not be in the Senate. But not for being gay; for being stupid. He was stupid for pleading guilty to "disorderly conduct" (not to being gay), and he was even stupider for telling the country he was going to resign from the Senate. Now he's starting to be more intelligent, but I'm afraid it's too late. (MSNBC, 10/1/07)

Another School Shooting

Yet another student walked into his school and started shooting. Yet at the same time, school authorities are fighting to keep a teacher (who is presumed to be a responsible person) from carrying a licensed gun for which she has a permit into her school to protect herself from her husband, who has hurt her before and has threatened her, School officials ask if the students should be subjected to watching her shoot her husband, and anyway there are "restraining orders" to keep him away. There are a couple of errors here. One, why should the students be subjected to watching him beat the hell out of her or kill her? And since when has a restraining order kept a man determined to hurt his ex-wife or girlfriend from doing so? If teachers could randomly be armed in school, maybe some of those victims in this, and other schools would have been safe if one of the teachers could put a couple of rounds in the head of the shooter. I know the principal at Columbine was in such a position and if he had been armed, could have stopped that shooting right there. (Breitbart, 10/10/07) [Posted /07]

"Yellow Journalism" Never Went Away

It's well-known that in the 1800s, "Yellow Journalism" was what we had to suffer because it was "the only game in town," or state, or country. When a newspaper printed the editor or publisher's opinion rather than truth, there was little we could do about it because there was no television or Internet. No "alternative media." We had to listen and believe what we were told. Today, we have many places to go to find a media outlet we trust. But the liberal media ia still trying to "control" what we believe. An example is their treatment of the "innocent civilians" supposedly killed in Iraq, which usually turn out to be armed combatants and those "witnesses" who make these claims are, as well. And the liberal press "laps it up" and reports it as if it were truth. They also sensationalize it in the best "yellow journalism" fashion. In the following CBS piece, designed to make Americans hate the war, the only numbers cited are nonenemy. It's as if American forces and their allies are the only people killing and being killed over there. What about all the people the terrorists have kidnapped and killed, beheading many? What about the news people they've beheaded? How are we going to stop them from doing those things if we don't kill them before they can kill more innocent men, women, and children? Yet today's "yellow journalists" continue to try and convince us this war is unnecessary and that we should "flee." It's a "holy war" against all non-Muslims. At least those Muslims who don't believe they can, and should kill all people who don't adhere to their narrow, violent, brand of Islam. (CBS, 2/5/07)

Define "Civilian"

The headline is: "Americans Kill Innocent Civilians!" But the truth is somewhat different: "Steve Schippert has the latest on "innocent civilians" killed in Baghdad.. You'll notice that those "innocent civilians" just happened to be Shia militiamen and the witnesses and government officials probably Shia politicians with links to those same militias." How can you define "civilian" in Iraq? It's a well-known scam used by Islamic terrorists to claim that "innocent civilians were killed by Americans," when those "described" as "innocent civilians" turn out to be armed combatants and the complainers are, too. In other cases, terrorists pack innocent civilians into a house, then attack a military unit outside, drawing them into the house. Then they run out the back, leaving the "innocent civilians (usually including some children) to take the fire from frightened soldiers who only see people inside a house from which they had been attacked. An interesting twist on this scam is to tie empty guns to the hands of some of those "civilians" so as to make sure the soldiers, who have scant seconds to decide to shoot or be killed, shoot them, thereby making an excellent public relations boon for the terrorists. You can be sure there will always be a "witness in place, to "testify" to the ruthlessness of the Americans and ignore the original attack on those troops. (National Review, 10/5/07)

What's the Big Deal About Sen. Larry Craig?

It's very simple. He's a Republican. Had he been a Democrat, such as Democrat Barney Frank whose gay boyfriend was running a whorehouse out of the congressman's apartment, or Rep. Gery Studds, Democrat member of congress who was found to have had sexual relations with several congressional pages (underage males all, of course), it would have been quickly forgotten and, as with both gay Democrats, he would still be serving in the congress. Yes, Craig was charged with "disorderly conduct" by a cop who interpreted some hand and leg motions as "soliciting gay sex" (Since when is some vague hand or leg movement against the law?). Is he gay? Maybe, maybe not. With two proven gays still in congress (Democrats both), that's not a reason for him to resign. In any case, he wasn't charged with "being gay." He was charged on the basis of the opinion of a cop who might have had his own agenda with a "catch-all" misdemeanor charge that could mean just about anything. Still, Craig ought to resign. Not because of the charges, but because of his stupidity in pleading guilty. Anybody with no more intelligence than that has no business making laws for the rest of us. (Source: Human Events, 10/3/06)

What's This "Secret" Crap?

The London Independent (in a country where most of the press is totally against Israel) seems to think that Israel is "waging a secret war" against Palestinians . Not a word about the "not-so-secret war" the Palestinians are waging against ISRAEL. They mention specifically a boy "shot dead for standing on his roof." (Where'd they get THAT, I wonder? From an Islamic terrorist, maybe?) Then there's the story about the "phone ringing and a voice in broken Arabic ordering them to leave their home on pain of death." (The Independent's version of Israel's attempt to minimize civilian deaths while they counter-attack Palestinian terrorists by warning civilians) I guess there's nothing anybody can do about the English press's evil and lying reporting about an "open war" between two parties who have been fighting for thousands of years, ignoring the Palestinian atrocities and calling Israel's responses "atrocities" in turn. I think Israel needs to eradicate the Palestinian terrorists (not the non-combatants, if they can find any) from the earth. That's the only way this centuries-old war will ever end. No amount of lying about Israel's responses to attacks against it will do it. (London Independent, 7/29/06)

War Will End When Islamic Terrorists Are "Erased"

The "talks" that people hoped would end in a "cease-fire" in south Lebanon, failed. Is anybody surprised? Have any "talks" EVER succeeded where terrorists are concerned? Yes, some have resulted in "temporary" cease fires, giving the terrorists a chance to rest and resupply, so they can launch another offensive later. Ayman al-Zawahiri (al Qaida's supposed "number two man) says, "The war against Hezbolla won't end with 'talks and agreements.' " He's right. It will end when Hezbolla and other Islamic terrorist groups are "erased" from the face of the earth. They will not stop killing innocent people who do not believe the same exact way they do until they're dead. (Financial Times, 7/27/06) [Posted /06]

What Don't You Understand About Islam?

They're going to call me an "Islamaphobe" for this item, but that doesn't bother me because I put no importance on anything said by the Islamic terrorists. The Islamic religion itself I don't much like because of the way they treat their women and because of how tightly they control the daily lives of their victims . . . er, uh, adherents. But I wouldn't make war on them because of that. But the whole idea that the "war on terror" is a "religious war" fomented by America is bogus. It IS a "religious war," but it is being fomented by Muslims. There is one and one only reason for this war: to get you to convert to Islam or kill you. They're very frank about that in some circles, but in others they tell us WE caused all the problems by our policies toward Muslims. Wrong! That's just propaganda. This "war" has been going on for hundreds, maybe even thousands of years, and the ONLY reason for it is to get you to become a Muslim, or die. It's that simple, no matter how their "partners-in-crime," the liberals, cry otherwise. Liberals "cry crocodile tears" whenever we accuse them of being unpatriotic. But what would they do differently if they were unpatriotic? I go by what people DO, not what they SAY.

The New "For The Children"

For many years, all a politician had to do to get votes for his favorite project was to say "It's for the children." Now they're trying to create a new watchword to ensure passage of their pet projects into law, and that's "It's for the environment," although there is no way man can control the environment, one way or the other. Dr. Walter E. Williams says, "Our buying into global warming hysteria will allow politicians to do just about anything, upon which they can muster a majority vote, in the name of fighting climate change as a means to raise taxes." And raising taxes and gaining more control over all of us is what it's all about. Make no mistake. (Professor Walter E. Williams, 10/5/07)

Typically, No Mention of Party

When Republicans get caught with their hands where they shouldn't be, there's no end of condemnation from both sides of the aisle, and nobody fails to mention his/her party. But when the same thing happens to a DEMOCRAT, there is usually no mention of his party connection. Such was the case when S. Dakota Democrat State Senator (allegedly) "groped" a male page. Nowhere, in any news story (except that of "News Busters, is there the word "Democrat." Did anybody but "News Busters" notice? Probably not. So that gives us a new "code" to notice: any time a politician gets into trouble and his party affiliation is unmentioned, he's got to be a Democrat. (News Busters, 10/4/07) [Posted /07]

Beating A "Dead Horse"

You'd think Democrat Senate Leader Harry ("Dingy Harry") Reid would "see the handwriting on the wall" and stop digging himself deeper into his hole. I got a tip for him; when getting deeper and deeper in the excrement, stop digging. "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has sent out a mass e-mail Thursday asking recipients to demand that Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays order talk show host Rush Limbaugh to apologize for his remarks about 'phony soldiers.' As he did earlier this week on the Senate floor, Reid said Limbaugh's 'phony soldiers were men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq [They were actually 'phony soldiers.' -RT]. But Limbaugh has already pointed out on the air that the 'phony soldiers' he referred to were just that -- Americans who falsely claim they have been in the Armed Forces and in some cases say they have been to Iraq [When they haven't. -RT]. He was specifically referring to Jesse Macbeth, who appeared in a widely seen YouTube video in which he claimed he had been a corporal serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and was awarded a Purple Heart. He also described how he and other U.S. soldiers had killed innocent civilians there. But it was all a lie, Rush said. He had never served in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, he had been discharged from the Army after several weeks of basic training." As for his being a corporal, forget it. Somebody ought to tie Reid up and put a gag on him so he doesn't embarrass himself further. Reid wrote to Mark P. Mays, CEO of Clear Channel, which carries Rush's program, demanding an apology from Rush. Mays wrote back, telling Reid in effect, to "stuff it." (News Max, 10/6/07)

Child Sex Abuser Cop Gets No Time

"What the hell do you have to do today to get prison time?" That's a question asked by a blogger friend of mine who is incensed (as am I) by the story about a former cop who raped six boys while he was a cop who gets a 45-year suspended sentence! What, indeed? (How stupid is that judge?) Smoke a toke; or have a single ounce of cocaine in your car (even if they can't prove you knew it was there (you have to find a way to prove you didn't know). There are so many of these victims of the "drug scene" in prison there isn't room. But rape a kid? Especially if you're a cop? And then (some) judge will give you a "pass." This is happening more and more of late, as more and more liberal judges get to "pass judgment" according to their liberal views on real people. Why is there no oversight on such judges? Why are they allowed to flout the law in such a way?

Is The Time at Hand?

The time seems to almost be here when George Washington's statement about the then conflict with the British government will surely lead to warfare is true today: "The time is near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no no human efforts will deliver them." With all the reports of overreaction by "government agents" I have called, in the past, "thugs," the killing, by the government, of almost 100 citizens who had done no wrong in Waco, Texas, the sniper murder of Randy Weaver's wife while she held her infant child in her arms (for which the government had to pay Randy $3 million dollars of our money), the use of Border Patrol agents to forcibly take then 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint from his family, to return him to Castro's "island prison" in Cuba, I wonder. When Democrat senators and representatives lie in an attempt to destroy Rush Limbaugh, the most successful of those who use their own words against them, I really wonder. What do you think?

Blogger Nails Murtha

Congressman Jack Murtha is confronted by a blogger, who does what the liberal media used to do: call him to account for his irresponsible crack about American soldiers "wantonly killing" civilians in Haditha. "Wiser heads" are now examining the case, which is a simple one of the terrorists doing what they always do: pack a bunch of "innocent civilians" in a house, then attack an American military unit, and run through the house and out the back, leaving those "civilians" to be killed in "the heat of the moment" (by soldiers who couldn't know who they are). This gives the terrorists a big PR win, because people like Murtha are willing to take them at their word, "dissing" our entire military. This blogger confronted Murtha and was summarily told to "get out," which is how liberals handle it when they just can't answer a question. Murtha thinks since this is "just a blogger," the world won't know about his response. But Rush Limbaugh got hold of it, and his twenty million listeners (and all those they tell) will know. (Rush Limbaugh, 9/19/07)

America's"Royalty"

The Kennedy family and all their yachting chums are against a "wind farm" on Nantucket Sound (Providence Journal) because it might spoil their view. Remember, these are the same people who want to FORCE such things upon us "peasants." Kennedy is the only person whom I personally know to have gotten away with murder. He's one of the most powerful men in the Senate and has been for many years, in spite of it (which just shows we need to change the requirements for Senators and other Congressmen). Mallard Fillmore is right most of the time, and he's right this time. What confounds me is that not many other people notice things like this and this kind of person continues to be re-elected time after time. I wonder how many of his pregnant girlfriends he has to kill before he's relegated to the "junk heap of history?" (Mallard Fillmore, 9/26 &27/07)