Gore's "Global Warming" Swindle

AlGore Himself

The "Global Warming Swindle" being run by former Vice-President AlGore is the "biggest swindle ever perpetrated on the American public," according to Sen. Inhofe and meteorologist John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel. It's a simple swindle: convince as many people as possible that the one-quarter degree higher temperature we will experience over 100 years is man-made, and a serious danger to humanity. (In other words, "The Sky is Falling!"). Then create a way to make millions from something like "carbon offsets" people can buy to "offset" their "carbon footprint," making sure your name appears on the list of major owners of the largest of the companies that offer "this service." They claim that these companies "plant trees" with your money, and this "offsets" your "carbon footprint." Bulldroppings! It's a scam to make AlGore a bigger millionaire and make him think he's doing something good. The truth is, temperature rises and drops are cyclical and not man-made. This is a scientific fact. Another scientific fact is that man is sufficiently insignificant as to be unable to seriously affect global weather for good or bad, even if he wanted to. No amount of "tree planting" is going to make a change in the global temperature. Did you know the same "scientists" who are touting global warming now were touting global cooling 25 or more years ago? Were they right then, or now? I don't think they are right either time. Gore says global warming is "settled science." It isn't. On what and whose authority does he make this statement? Those who disagree with him are not "out of the mainstream of science." It is Gore and his accomplices who are "out of the mainstream of science." Translated, that means they are "on the margins" and are basing their notions on "trash science." They cannot cite a single source for their silly claims that cannot be shown to be false by real scientists. (John Stossel)

The "Working Rich" Are Necessary

The liberals spend a lot of time and money knocking "the rich." Unfortunately, they don't tell us which "rich" they don't like, and why. There are two kinds of "rich." The "coupon clippers" who really do nothing to improve the lot of anybody but themselves, and the "working rich" who have made themselves (and others) rich through their sweat and effort. Most of the liberals who profess to hate "the rich" are, themselves, the "coupon clippers" who did not work and earn their money, but inherited it from their parents or grandparents. You know, like Ted Kennedy, who inherited $750 million from his father and fiddled away half of it, while claiming to "know what poverty is." Then there are the "working rich" such as Bill Gates, of Microsoft fame. You remember him, the rich guy who wouldn't "play the game" and "wine and dine" politicians and bureaucrats in Washington so they decided to just take what he didn't bother to give them. What they don't tell you is that Bill Gates and Microsoft created more wealth for everybody while he was creating his own wealth. The "working rich" invested their money in many places and many ways that created jobs and, in many places, created more fortunes. Without "the rich," this economy would "go down the tubes" in short order. Yes, the "rich" don't always do everything just as we would like them to do it. Sometimes it seems as if they just "brush us aside" in their quest to make more millions. And some do. But not all. Most "working rich" remember what it was like to wonder where next week's food money is going to come from. "Coupon clippers" don't. They've never had to wonder where their next meal will come from. (Does anybody think Teddy Kennedy ever wondered?) But "the rich" are a necessary part of our society, and we depend on them more than we know. So why do the liberals (Democrats) hate them so much? It's because they've made their riches from capitalism, and the liberals want socialism, where they get to control the money. They know you don't have to own the money if you get to control how, and where it is spent, to enjoy the benefits of the money. (Seattle Times)

Pull Peddlers

Some people will try and make money on anything, even other people's problems. If they have "pull," they can always find a way to peddle it. For instance, in Colorado, they're talking about allowing people with no passengers in the "high-occupancy" lanes if they can pay for it. People who can't, or won't, will continue to be required to have two or more people in the car. Another proposal is to charge skiers $12 toll if they drive from Denver to the "ski country" during "rush hour" on weekends. And they're already selling special ID cards that will allow frequent fliers who can afford it that will allow them to "fly" through airport security lines ahead of everybody else in five minutes. People who do this kind of thing I call "Pull Peddlers."

Five-Year-Old Sex Harassment

In Hagerstown, Maryland, the school charged a five-year-old with "sexual harassment" because he pinched the rear end of a female schoolmate. My question is this: "How can a five-year-old commit sexual harassment when he knows nothing about sex?" I remember when I was that age, an older female cousin of mine showed me her vagina. I looked, because it was "forbidden" and I was a kid. At no time did I think of sex, because I did not know about sex yet. If she had tried to initiate sex, I'd have probably "run for the hills." When I was 12, a girl did try to initiate sex with me and I did "run for the hills." Typical liberals will ruin a child's life for an "offense" he could not possibly have committed because he's too young to even know about sex.. Now he will forever be known as "that kid who sexually harassed a classmate," never mind he was unaware of it. This is what liberals do to advance their agenda. Never mind how many people's lives they ruin in the process. (The Herald-Mail, 12/20/06)

How Do You Tell The Difference?

Eight GIs were charged with murder in the case of the killings of everyone in a house from which they were attacked, in Iraq, after one of their number was killed from within. My question is, "How do you tell the difference" between combatants and innocent civilians when the person shooting at you might be a child" and nobody (except us) wears a uniform? One of my brothers had to kill a 9-year-old boy (I think) in Viet Nam after the kid had just blown the head off his sergeant, to keep this kid from killing him. I think this has haunted him his entire life since. Fact is, the combatant in Iraq who is shooting at you might just be a 7-year-old child or a woman -- or a man dressed as a woman to fool you. Not only that, the Islamic terrorists routinely put innocent civilians in harm's way so they can claim we killed innocent people on purpose. Never mind they do it all the time -- on purpose. I sincerely hope military officials take this into consideration. (Yahoo News, 12/21/06)

U. N. "Sanctions" Iran

Big effing deal! How many U. N. "sanctions" did it take before we lost our patience with Saddam's "flipping them off" and took action in Iraq? Iran has already "flipped them off," and shows all signs of continuing to do so. Do we need any further evidence that the United Nations is nothing but a "billion dollar debating society" that accomplished nothing but the illegal enrichment of U. N. "top guns?" So what happens now that Iran has told them to "stick it?" They'll go back to the debating society and come up with another "sanction," which Iran will reject, and they'll come up with another one, and another one, and another one, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, until we lose patience again and topple the Iran government, as should have been done a long time ago. Notice how the logo above shows the U. N. icon laid over that of the United States. How better to show their intent? (Fox News, 12/23/06)

This is MY Country!

MY Country!

Not yours. "And, because I make this statement does not mean I'm against immigration. You are welcome here in my country. Welcome to come through like everyone else has. Get a sponsor. Get a place to lay your head. Get a job. Live by our rules. Pay your taxes. And learn the language like all other immigrants have in the past. [Don't demand I learn your language. -RT] And please don't demand that we hand over our lifetime savings of social security funds to you to make up for 'your losses.' When will Americans stop giving away their rights? We've gone so far the other way .. Bent over backwards not to offend anyone. But it seems no one cares about the American that's being offended."I was sent this with instructions to forward it, or be "part of the problem." But I elected to do more, not because I'm afraid of being "labeled," but because this is what I believe. (Just common sense)

Americans Kill Top al Qaida Commander

Naturally, They deny it, just as they have been denying all along that bin Laden is dead, and has been for years (We made a "crispy critter" of him a long time ago). They've been (figuratively) "propping up the dead body ever since, trying to make us believe he's still alive. My evidence? NOBODY has seen him alive since we dropped a "big bomb" on one of his caves in Afghanistan. Yes, there have been tapes made, using old footage, carefully edited to make it look like they were made recently. They may even come up with a look-alike and keep trying (It's not hard to look like a tall, skinny, bearded thug wearing a turban). Islamics are well known for using look-alikes of their "leaders." Just as they are known to put innocent women and children between them and their enemies so they can claim we killed those innocents on purpose if we attack them. They cry if we attack them in a Mosque after they attack us from WITHIN that Mosque, yet they attack Christian churches and Jewish synagogues routinely (Fox News, 12/23/06)

Is Islam a "Peaceful Religion?"

Not according to the Koran: "After examining a number of scriptures which warn of the dangers of having Christian and Jewish friends, the lesson concludes: 'It is compulsory for the Muslims to be loyal to each other and to consider infidels their enemy.' This comes straight from the Quran. 'O believers,' the Quran says (Sura 5, Verse 50), 'do not hold Jews and Christians as your allies. They are the allies of one another; and anyone who makes them his friends is surely one of them.' As historian Paul Johnson noted in National Review, such 'canonical commands' -- along with 'slay the idolaters wheresoever you find them' (Sura 9, Verse 5) -- 'cannot be explained away or softened by modern theological exegesis, because there is no such science in Islam.' Johnson goes on to explain that contrary to the evolving nature of both Christianity and Judaism, Islam has never undergone any update, reformation or enlightenment since its inception in the seventh century. 'Islam,' he wrote, 'remains a religion of the Dark Ages. The seventh-century Quran is still taught as the immutable word of God, any teaching of which is literally true. In other words, mainstream Islam is essentially akin to the most extreme form of Biblical fundamentalism.' " In other words, they're trying to foist upon us a seventh-century ideology, disguised as a religion. (Just common sense)

George Soros: "Capitalism Coming to an End

Another "filthy rich" billionaire claiming what made him rich is "going away." He finances literally every socialist (liberal) outfit going, and meanwhile he's making money from capitalism, but he says "the era of capitalism is coming to an end." Maybe he'd like that, now that he "has his." "George Soros, the Davos partygoer who finances near every left-wing political-action group on both sides of the Atlantic pond, recently wrote in the Financial Times that the era of capitalism is coming to an end. Soros, of course, has been predicting this for at least 20 years -- through the greatest world boom in history. And how was it that Soros made his money? Trading currencies in the technologically advanced world financial markets, the very same markets that were spawned by 20th century free-market capitalism." The bad thing is that some people actually LISTEN to people like this, and it affects what they do, creating more opportunities for people like Soros to loot them, then promote socialism. (Lawrence Kudlow/Human Events)

They Hate Him Because He's Effective

He's probably the best president since Ronald Reagan overall. That doesn't mean he is "another Reagan. Far from it. Reagan would not have allowed the Border Patrol and the court system to send two Border Control agents to prison for ten years for doing their jobs to the best of their ability by refusing to pardon them. Reagan wouldn't have refused funding for stem-cell research that could find cures for things we had almost given up on, on the spurious claim of "sanctity of human life" while allowing people to murder their unborn children (which are much higher on the cycle) for their own convenience, rather than use condoms. But he did lower the tax rate and create the best economy this country has seen since Reagan did the same thing. His policies are responsible for the almost ZERO unemployment rate. He's the only politician to actually SEE the danger presented by the Islamic terrorists, much as Churchill first saw a similar danger in Adolph Hitler and Nazism and he's not afraid to do something about it. Every liberal politician now claiming to be "against the war in Iraq" were FOR it during the 14 months we waited for Saddam to do something, ANYTHING to make us believe it wasn't necessary, while Saddam ignored UN resolution after resolution. They also agreed with him that Saddam had WMDs, and he did. They were discovered long after Saddam's death, but the liberal press will not report it. He's no Ronald Reagan, but unfortunately, he's the next best thing we have right now. I hear people knocking him every day, and saying things that could not possibly be true about him, mostly from the ignorance of the uninformed who are "parroting" what they've heard their liberal friends say. I get tired of it. I don't know of another Republican now running that could replace him, and CERTAINLY not any of the Democrats. He has prevented another terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, even while other countries have suffered them. He has restored respect (among the intelligent) to the White House from the "trash" atmosphere that it had during the Clinton administration. I fear we're in for a rough time of it for a while and I hope I live long enough for the pendulum to swing back away from the socialism that's coming if a Democrat gets elected president, or if a Republican who is a "closet" socialist or a wuss does. (Just common sense)

This Cartoon Says It All

Be Careful What You Wish For

I tried to find the original cartoon on Town Hall, but couldn't. So I had to reprint it here and tell you that the cartoons by this man are hilarious. If you can't read the punch line, they're praying for an end to racial strife and bigotry. (Glenn McCoy)

"Screw Jesus!"

Well, that's the "cleaned up version" of what CNN "anchorbabe" Dana Jacobson blurted out while reportedly drunk at a celebrity roast " Did it make you mad to see that title? It would me. I didn't say it. It's a quote. "Catholic League president Bill Donohue said he pressed ESPN on the issue and received an e-mail with an unsatisfactory statement by Jacobson. The statement said, in part, 'My remarks about Notre Dame [Notre Dame? -RT] were foolish and insensitive. I respect all religions and did not mean anything derogatory by my poorly chosen words.' " But she did mean it. You don't blurt out such words at such a gathering if you don't mean it, especially if you're (reportedly) drunk and your inhibitions are lowered. If Catholic League and other religious organizations hadn't raised a bunch of hell about it, CNN wouldn't have done anything about it because from what I've seen, they feel the same. This kind of thing is the inevitable result of the liberal attempt to destroy religion unless it comes from the "religious left." (World Net Daily)

No "Stimulus Package" Needed

Well, not the way the Democrats and most Republicans view it. All we need to do is continue, and maybe augment Bush's tax rate reductions, which have done more in the last few years to stimulate business and increase the "tax take" than any other single factor. But most politicians want to do something that will take money from those who earn it and give it to those who don't, or won't. That's simple socialism, and will never work. All it will do is give more power to the politicians while giving a temporary "lift." Lowering the tax rate is a proven strategy, and has worked every time it has been tried. Try to convince the politicians of that -- including Bush, who authored the latest one. The one that created the latest business boom (which the Democrats hate). The Democrats will always do something that makes the economy worse, criticize the Republicans for it, and then promise to "make it all better" if they get elected. (National Review)

Kill One and You're a Murderer

Man Holds Dead Baby from Saddam's Mass Grave

Kill 300,000 and you're a monster (Statistics just cannot reflect the reality of finding thousands of murdered people). Saddam gives new meaning to the phrase, "I regret that I only have one life to give for my country." It's too bad we can't kill Saddam 300,000 times to "get even" for those he murdered during his time in power. And that's just one group. How many more he has murdered, we'll never know because they're all buried somewhere in a mass grave we probably haven't found yet. And some people (who were not subject to his murderous actions) say we shouldn't execute this monster. How wrong can you be? What idiots! Click the link below to see the remains of some of his victims and learn more about his genocide. And killing people is not all he has done. I don't think he was the first dictator to have "rape rooms" where the wives and daughters of his enemies were raped by his soldiers, but he is the most recent we know about. Killing Saddam was good for the world. (Saddam's mass graves,)

It's Just Backwards!

When you call a number that goes to a computer, you always have to "Press 1 for English" before you can go any further. It happens every time I call my phone company or the Cable company to discuss my bill, and it's just backwards to the way it should be. People who want to talk in ANOTHER language but English in an English-speaking country ought to be the ones who have to "press 1." I get tired of having to do it to speak the language of the country in which I live. If you're tired of it, too, you might want to support the Alexander English Amendment (H.R. 3093), to prohibit EEOC from spending funds to sue organizations for demanding their employees speak English at work, as they did to the Salvation Army. "However, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have ordered that negotiations be indefinitely halted because they oppose allowing the Alexander English amendment being included in the CJS bill when it is sent to President Bush. This is dirty politics at its worst!" Is there ONE bill that Americans want that Pelosi and Reid will not try and kill? Way back when I was in security, I worked for a while in the Post Office, where where an old Spanish man "gave me hell" because I did not speak Spanish. Apparently, he thought it was a law that federal employees must speak Spanish. What a "can of worms" THAT would open up, as people of all different languages demanded equal treatment. Does anybody speak Swahili? (Eagle Forum)

Clinton Bored at Obama Speech

Clinton's Nap

You probably won't see this picture anywhere in the liberal media, although I saw it several days ago on Fox, which shows both sides (which enrages liberals). If this had been a Republican "catching a few winks" at a Republican meeting, you'd have never heard the end of it. It would be a permanent part of the reel they show to "knock" Republicans for the next hundred years or more. (Glenn Beck)

Clintons to "Inflict Pain" on Their Enemies

Hill, Bill, and Chelsea

Hillary and bill have always been known for inflicting as much pain on their enemies as they could. But it could never be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now it can. Judicial Watch has foun d evidence of it. "Seeking to impose an unworkable plan on an unsuspecting public was bad enough, but the pain Hillarycare supporters were prepared to inflict on opponents demonstrates insensitivity in the extreme. A 'confidential' memorandum written on May 26, 1993 by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia Democrat, to Hillary Clinton was entitled 'Health Care Reform Communications.' The Rockefeller memo suggests Hillary employ 'classic opposition research' to attack critics who were excluded by the administration from Task Force deliberations and to 'expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists' to counter and overcome criticism. Rockefeller also suggested news organizations 'are anxious and willing to receive guidance (from the Clinton administration) on how to time and shape the (news) coverage.' Rockefeller seems to accept the notion asserted for years by conservatives that the mainstream media are biased in favor of Democrats and their policies. For many, this will not be a revelation. A Feb. 5, 1993 Draft Memorandum from Alexis Herman and Mike Lux to Mrs. Clinton spells out the Office of Public Liaison’s plan for the health care reform campaign. It notes the development of an 'interest group data base' detailing whether or not organizations 'support(ed) us in the election.' The database would also track personal information about interest group leaders, such as their home phone numbers, addresses, 'biographies, analysis of credibility in the media, and known relationships with Congress people.' " This "database" mirrors exactly what was suggested by Rockefeller and knowing Hillary is such a well-known wiretapper she's known as "Senator Wiretapper," no one who pays attention is surprised. (Cal Thomas)

"Looking for a Fight?"

"Them's Fightin' Words!"

Ya think? Isn't that the whole purpose of these debates? Isn't she "looking for a fight? Isn't John "perfect hair" Edwards? What amazes me is Obama's inability to use the word "lie" with regard to her utterances against him. He continues to use "weasel words" like "prevarication," "not true," or "not factual." But it seems nobody, most of all him, can bring themselves to utter the word "lie." For my part, when a candidate lies, I call it a lie. Forget the "weasel words." (Breitbart)

Just Waiting to Be Offended

It's a trend. People out there being "offended" by the slightest real or imagined slight. The worst offenders are Islamists. Only they would be moved to MURDER by the appearance in a Dutch newspaper of several badly done cartoons that just DEPICTED their "prophet," not even in a bad way. They SAY they're "non-violent," but they commit violence at the first opportunity and blame it on some tiny slight an "Infidel" gave them. They're just hunting for a reason to kill somebody. In this litigious society, you can be sued for almost ANYTHING. Yes, maybe you'd win, but it would cost you a LOT, maybe EVERYTHING, just because you "offended" somebody. An example is the recent flap in Seattle where the Airport (Sea-Tac) took down every Christmas tree they had up on just the THREAT of a suit. Sheesh! (Just common sense)

Animals Get Better Trteatment Than Babies

When you slaughter an animal you have to follow strict federal rules to keep from hurting the animal unduly. Not so when you slaughter unborn human infants. "The U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday evening voted 250-162 in favor of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 6099). This bill, supported by the National Right to Life Committee, would require abortionists to provide women seeking abortion after 20 weeks past fertilization (the beginning of the sixth month) a brochure explaining that there is 'substantial evidence' that the abortion will cause pain to the unborn child, and advise them of their right to request the administration of pain-reducing drugs to the unborn child. The bill received a solid majority but fell short of the two-thirds vote required for approval under the parliamentary procedure employed." Why was this particular parliamentary procedure employed? Ordinarily, a simple majority vote is sufficient to pass such a bill. Whose bright idea was it to require a two-thirds vote for such an important (to unborn infants) bill? Somebody ought to slap him or her silly. It's clear that the feds think more of animals than they do of human infants. (Truth TV, 11/12/06)

What Is It With These African Politicians?

Rev. Joshua Blahyi, Formerly Gen. Butt Naked

One of them, who is known for marching into battle naked, has "confessed" to killing 20,000 people, many of them children, and even eating the hearts of children, while another is a Liberian Senator who "pals around" with other politicians (this one is known for torturing and murdering Samuel K. Doe, yet another African politician who killed willy-nilly) and neither fears being called to account for his crimes. Some homes house people who have been victim and murderer, under the same roof. Now he's a "preacher," claiming to have "found God," and goes about on the street selling tapes of his sermons. This man should be put to death in the most painful way. No one can atone for the things he has done by "claiming God." And the liberals in this country want us to allow people from other countries, and other cultures, to advise us on how we should proceed. (MSNBC, 1/21/08)

Can't Have It Both Ways

People (mostly liberals) are "crying out" for us to intervene in Darfur as that country's government kills its citizens in wholesale quantities. Meanwhile they criticize George Bush for stopping Saddam Hussein from doing the same in Iraq. What's the difference? The answer is simple: the president is a Republican and they hate him. WhatEVER he does is going to be wrong. Meanwhile, people are still dying in Iraq, mostly at the hands of either Sunnis or their opposite number, people who have been killing each other for thousands of years. We accomplished our main goal in Iraq in the first week. Saddam is gone and they have a government of their own making in place, complete with a constitution. That the violence continues is not OUR deficiency. It is the deficiency of the factions in Iraq, who will always be killing one another. Americans are dying only because they're there. Saddam murdered 300,000 in just one atrocity. They've "only" counted 400,000 total in Darfur. So why was it a "mistake" to go into Iraq, but not into Darfur? (Darfur)

We Don't Need This Competition!

The clerk of the Oakland County village of Lake Angelus, MI decided not to release the results of a local election because she "didn't want to hurt the loser's feelings." The clerk, Rosalie Lake, said, "We don't need all this competition." What a whack job! Isn't competition what elections are about? Were there not other applicants competing for the job she held when this happened? Did the losing candidates not "get their feelings hurt?" This is liberalism gone amok. Liberal tenets are contrary to human nature. So how has liberalism been so successful in selling their scams? Because most people "don't pay attention to politics" until just before an election, when they cast their votes, based on what they learn from the "attack ads" run by candidates on both sides, most of which are either patently not true, or are at the very least, twisting the facts, but which do not reflect reality. People do not research the records of the candidates for whom they vote. Tell me. Why hold an election in the first place if "we don't need competition?" Why hold ball games if you don't keep score? You can bet the participants know who is ahead, even if the league refuses to know. I haven't seen anywhere what happened to this election official, but I'd bet she was immediately replaced. I'll bet that hurt her feelings! (Just common sense)

Why Should They Help?

"In the lawsuit filed Friday [late 2004 -RT], Novell claims (PDF form) that Microsoft withheld certain critical technical information about Windows from Novell, thereby impairing its ability to develop new versions of WordPerfect and other Novell office productivity applications." Microsoft Word belongs to Microsoft. Where is it written that they should be required to give Novell private information that will allow them to create a product that mirrors Microsoft's product, and therefore cut into their market? I think it's Novell's responsibility to come up with the information they need. It's not Microsoft's responsibility to help them. The feds sued Microsoft because Gates would not give them money. He had no lobbyists in Washington to "wine and dine" politicians and bureaucrats; he did not "spread money around Washington." He just did not give a damn what politicians think. That was his mistake. Politicians have this massive power they like to "throw around" to get the money Gates refused to give them. Yes, they won the suit, because there were enough liberals (looters) on the court who thought Gates should help Novel steal their market. Now Gates has promised to give away all but 5% of his fortune (which liberals are quick to point out is still a lot of money left) before he dies. That's just stupidity. But he's learned his lesson. Don't "refuse to play the game" the liberals (looters) run. (E-Week)

Teaching School Children to Be "Gay"

You don't think this is possible? How about Deerfield, IL, where they forced students to attend a gay orientation "seminar" after being forced to sign a promise not to tell their parents? The first link in this World Net Daily story was to the Deerfield school where this took place. Unfortunately, it has been taken down and replaced with an innocuous page. Seems to me, requiring them not to tell their parents about a "seminar" of this kind shows us they know what they're doing is wrong, and they intend to do it, anyway. Then there's Massachusetts, where a judge ordered a school to teach the "gay agenda." Notice both of these items are on a well-known conservative web site. That's because you usually won't see such stories in the national media. They may appear in local news, but that's as far as it usually goes, so no one will know it's happening nationwide. "Wolf [the judge -RT] essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said 'the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…' " Which reveals their real agenda. Destroying parental control over what their children are forced to learn in school. Then there's the gay book that was pushed on students in Lexington, MA [Birthplace of the American Revolution. -RT] telling about two "princes" who married, instead of a prince and a princess. Next, there's the law signed by California Gov. Swarzenneger that would prohibit any public school curriculum that would adversely portray the homosexual lifestyle. I could go one and on, but I won't Google "teaching school children to be gay" yourself and get a real education on what's going on in this country, and the world. That's what I object to. Not people "being gay." That's their business. I just don't want them to push it onto me, or my descendants. (Just common sense)

Fred Thompson Emerging

As the primaries continue, I'm watching Fred Thompson emerge as probably the only real conservative in the race. All the Republican candidates (and even some of the Democrats) claim to be "Reagan conservatives," but the only one I see that comes anywhere near that is Thompson. David Limbaugh agrees with me: "Commentators are citing the unpredictability of the Republican primary contests as proof that Reagan conservatism is dead when precisely the opposite conclusion is warranted." The main problem here is that most people today have no idea what conservatism is, so they succumb to the various "definitions" presented by various candidates. One candidate even tried to present "give-away programs" as "Reaganesque." Rush Limbaugh put the quietus to that, right away. Don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do. See what they propose and, in many cases, it'll be socialism in disguise. (News Max, 1/18/08) This just in: Fred Thompson has dropped out of the race. I heard this on Fox, so I believe it.

"Creeping Control" Over YOU

Federal and state governments are engaged in "creeping control" over YOU. Today it's incandescent bulbs. Next it's government control over your thermostat; then government control over your television set. No? Don't say it's not possible. How long ago would you not have believed the feds could tell you that you could not use incandescent bulbs? In California, they want an "energy czar" to be able to set YOUR THERMOSTAT according to HIS opinion that there is an "energy emergency." "In other words, the thermostat must be configured in a way that doesn’t allow the customer to override the czar’s decision. Some people might agree with this level of government control over their lives, but if these amendments become law, you can safely bet there are other intrusive energy-saving proposals waiting in the wings. For now California’s energy Nazis are simply testing how much intrusiveness Californians will peaceably accept. I can easily imagine California’s Energy Commission requiring remotely controlled main circuit breaker boxes that control all of the electricity coming into your house. That would enable the energy czar to better manage your electricity use." This is "creeping control" over your life. They do it "little-by-little," never so much as to cause you to object. They take away your rights one by one, and wait to see if you'll rebel. If you do, they backtrack. If you don't, they introduce their next small scam. You'd BETTER wake up and object every time they promote one of their unconstitutional laws or "regulations." (Professor Walter E. Williams, 1/10/08)

Stupid Liberal Quote

Bill ("The Cigar") Clinton

Bill Clinton and most other liberals (Democrats) are against the war in Iraq. It wasn't always thus: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." - President Bill Clinton (while President)

Showing They're "Out of It"

Robert Redford, actor, oil drilling expert

Robert Redford (The well-known expert on where to drill for oil) says,- "Prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels would guarantee homeland insecurity. If you are worried about getting oil from an unstable Persian Gulf, consider the alternatives: Indonesia, Nigeria, Uzbekistan." (Actor Robert Redford in an LA Times op-ed) Hey, Bob! Why not drill in places we own? Like ANWAR, and offshore U. S. (which Teddy (The Swimmer) Kennedy is fighting tooth and nail, because it would spoil his ocean view). Howard Dean said, on June, 2003, "We need more troops in Iraq now . . . [W]hat I would do in Iraq now is bring in NATO and bring in the United Nations." But on Feb., 2003, he said, "The wrong war, at the wrong time." John Kerry said, in May, 2003, "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." On Sept. 2002 he said, "[Sending more U. S. troops to Iraq] would be the worst thing." These, and too many other liberals are "the both ways boys." They either don't know what they want, or they just don't think we write down their words to tell you about when they say just the opposite. Maybe they just don't know what they're talking about? Senator Feinstein (Democrat-CA) (former San Francisco mayor) said to San Jose Mercury News, "I was embarrassed to wear it." (talking about her American flag. And this is one of America's senators! How do such people get elected to such exalted offices, from which they can demonstrate their anti-Americanism? Because people "do not pay attention to politics" until just before an election and so elect such jerks because they believe their ads.

IS It A "MuslimThing?"

I did an item recently about a Muslim man murdering his two daughters because they were seeing non-Muslim boys. In another case, a Muslim man killed his daughter because she refused to wear a Muslim headdress. Soon, I got a reply from a woman who wrote a book on a similar subject, insisting "honor killings" were not about religion, that they predated the Muslim religion. That may well be true, and "honor killings" may not belong exclusively to Muslims. But every instance of it I've seen recently involves a Muslim. The fact is, even if it isn't in the Koran (however they spell it today) it is something that has been fully embraced by the Muslim extremists as their own. (Human Events)

Fox News Staffers Attacked, Vandalized

In one case, a very tall individual, identified as an Obama staffer, purposely blocked Fox's camera view and when asked to move, says, "Sorreee" and didn't move a muscle. Democrat candidates have refused to take part in Fox-sponsored debates because liberal web sites told them "they would be punished" if they did. Other vandalisms took place in the parking lot. When was the last time you heard about a (real) conservative attack on a liberal news agency? And they say they're the "party of peace." (News Max, /08)

Muslim Kills Daughters

He murdered his own daughters because they were going with non-Muslims. He says this is an "honor killing," ordered by Allah. Any religion that would command a man to murder his own daughters is not worth considering as religion. Another post on this board says we should ("leave religion out of it." The poster says Christians kill, too. But I have yet to see a Christian kill his own children for going out with someone of another religion, and who is proud of it, saying the murders are "commanded by Allah." That is something only Muslims would do, today, and I condemn it. (E-Boards,)

Snow in Iraq?

Snow in Iraq?

What's this? Snow in Bagdhad? I thought the planet was "warming." At least, that's what AlGore says. If you ask him about this, he'll say it's an "anomaly" and that you don't know what you're talking about. Of course, every instance of warmer-than-normal weather there is, is seized upon instantly to "prove" global warming. Talk about "selective facts." Global temperature is "cyclical," and man isn't "effective" enough to change it, except for small local changes. But global changes? People who buy this Gore swindle are just ignorant (at least, in this), and that includes those politicians who buy it, as well. Even Bush buys it, and he's actually pretty smart, although he is ignorant in some things. He proves that by his opposition to stem-cell research. (Breitbart, 1/11/08)

Huckabee a Liberal?

Fred and Others

He claims to be "the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan," but the things he's promoting are all socialism, according to Fred Thompson, who is the only candidate in this race who actually espouses "conservative values." My only objection to Fred is his support of McCain-Feingold, which, I've heard, he is now against. The thing that disturbs me about Huckabee's statements is that he claims to be "the second coming of Ronald Reagan," yet he espouses socialist plans -- which is about as far from Ronald Reagan as you can get. I do like what Fred is saying, generally, because it's something I haven't heard from any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. As a "rational individualist," I approve. But I'm still listening. (Breitbart, 1/12/08)

Hillary Walks "Hispanic Streets" in Las Vegas

Hillary in "Hispanic" Crowd

The newspapers make it look like Hillary walked dangerous streets, alone, for the most part. But you can bet she was surrounded by armed security people as well as all the politicians, newspeople, television cameras, etc. You can bet anybody who wanted to do her harm would have a hard time just getting near her, unless they had been "vetted" a long time in advance. Unfortunately, many of the people she was pandering to aren't legal citizens and can't vote legally, anyway. But that has never stopped liberals before. (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1/11/08)

"Times" Lies Again (As Usual)

I haven't commented much on the Durham, NC "preppie rape case" because I wasn't close enough to make a definitive decision about it. But the longer it went on, the more plain it became that the accuser was lying, and Nifong (the prosecutor) was helping her to do so (It was finally proven to be so, and Nifong has suffered the consequences). He used this case in a futile attempt to enhance his career. This woman changed her story more often than I change my socks. Now the New York Times is lying about it, too. As columnist Ann Coulter says, "Stuart Taylor Jr., the liberal but brilliant legal reporter for the National Journal, described the New York Times' coverage of the Duke lacrosse rape case as '(w)orse, perhaps, than the other recent Times embarrassments.' For a newspaper that carries Maureen Dowd's column, that's saying something. As the Times' most loyal reader, this came as welcome news. I had briefly suspected the Times was engaging in fair reporting of the alleged rape case at Duke University. Taylor's article documenting the Times' massive misrepresentations restored order and coherence to my world." Ann details the many ways the Times lied in this case in her article (which did not appear in the Times). (Ann Coulter, 1/17/07)

You Can't Please Environmental Crazies

The "Nano"

An Indian car maker, Tata, has unveiled their new "Nano," which is small enough to carry in a briefcase and gets 54 MPH, if you believe the press release. The environmentalists ought to be giddy with excitement, but they're not. They're afraid that if this car sells well, it will encourage more and more people to drive, elevating the pollution. What mileage would make them happy? None, probably, because anything that encourages more people to drive is bad, to them. I predict that if this car becomes popular in the U. S., the death rate will rise. And if they publish data car make-specific, this car will be at the top of the list of cars involved. (Jalopnik)

They All Want "Change"

"Politicians, like diapers, need to be changed frequently, and for the same reason. The problem is, in short order, the need arises again. (Sign me unenrolled and frustrated.)" I've heard this said before, and with good reason. All politicians (mostly Democrats now, since Republicans have either controlled things or stopped the Dems in their tracks), say they want "change," but they never define what they mean by "change," and voters respond favorably without ever knowing what "change" is to a specific candidate. Fortunately, since they all are saying they want "change," wanting change doesn't motivate as many people as it used to. Both Hillary and Obama say they are "the candidate of change," but predictably, they don't define it. But I know what they both mean: "Change," to them, is movement toward socialism, whether or not either knows it (Hillary does). Look at what both propose, and what they vote for, and it will become obvious. (Boston Globe, 1/9/08)

Toyota Prius Harder on the Environment

The Toyota Prius

Environmentalists tout the Toyota Prius and others of its ilk as something that can "save" the environment." Yet according to a new research report, Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal, the lifetime energy cost of new hybrid cars such as the Toyota Prius is 67% greater than the often-vilified GM Hummer." So how does a car that is WORSE on the environment become something that will "save" the environment? Typical of the "smoke and mirrors" the environmental idiots use to make you THINK you can DO something about "global warming." These are people, remember, who lecture about using smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, then go home in their SUVs. Or get on their fuel-gulping jet planes after going to the airport in their SUVs. (The Atlasphere, 8/16/06)

They Just Don't Understand

People just don't understand that we're in a fight for our very existence -- our very lives! It's not a fight over Iraq, or Afghanistan, or even Iran. It's a fight against those who want to kill every person who does not believe as they do, and it doesn't matter to them where they do it. Today, it's in Iraq because that's where Americans are constructing a democratic government. That, they cannot have. In order for the Islamic terrorists (they hate it when we call them that, because it's the truth) to thrive, they must have a government they can control or disrupt. They don't control the Iraqi government, so they disrupt it any way they can. They're working hard to make it look like a "civil war" between the Shiites and others, but that's not what it is. It is a war between Islamic extremists and EVERYBODY who does not believe the outlandish things they believe. They can't see that if we (free people) don't win this war, we'll soon be under Sharia Law and be forced to pray, mumbling memorized syllables with our butts in the air, facing East, five times a day. They call it an "illegal war," but it's not, and they can't prove it is. So they repeat it, over and over again, hoping the very repetition will make it so. They say Bush is not the "decision-maker," but, as usual, they can't prove that, either. But Bush is "the decision-maker." He's the president. Congress specifically gave him that power in Iraq, and that's the way it is. Deal with it. They can't take it away now. (My Way, 1/28/07)

Iran Gives U. S. "The Finger"

USS Hopper in Hormuz Gulf

Several tiny motorboats tried to intimidate several American warships in the Gulf of Hormuz, relying on the "steady hand" of American officers to avoid being blown out of the water for their impudence. They all knew that if they actually DID anything offensive instead of making the usual empty threats, they'd have died before any explosives could have gone off near our ships. This is the kind of crap Iran has been doing for years, hoping to cause us to attack them in such a situation where they could claim to be "innocent victims." Apparently they think we don't know that such small boats could not carry enough explosives to seriously damage a warship beyond which we could not retaliate, making theirs a "suicide run." Ahmanutjob had the audacity to say "America needs to remember we have our finger on the faucet for 25% of their oil," as if that made a difference to us. We could easily blow that finger to hell if he keeps pushing us and get that 25% from someone else. We're getting closer and closer to the time when he gets on our "last nerve" and we quit holding back. He'd better be very careful. (My Way, 1/8/08)

Did We "Overreact" to 9/11?

Raising the 9/11 Flag

How do you "overreact" to the mass murder of 3,000 innocent men, women, and CHILDREN by Islamic terrorists? And today, how do you react to Islamic terrorists putting a bullet into each head of survivors of a downed helicopter in Iraq? You don't. You go in and KILL every one of these sobs you can before they can kill any more innocent people. You don't try to "debate" them. They aren't amenable to debate. You don't ask them why they hate us. They've already told us. It's simply because we don't believe the same way they do, so they want to KILL us. Every one. We aren't going to dissuade them from this by meekly asking, "Why do you hate us?". We're only going to be able to dissuade them when THEY'RE dead. This is World War III, and THEY'VE declared it. Did we "overreact" to the complete destruction of our Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor? I don't think so. When you're faced with an enemy who simply wants to kill you, you simply kill HIM.

This article in the L. A. Times asking that question and giving examples of times when we have "overreacted" offends me. The monumental stupidity displayed by the writer amazes me. This is an AMERICAN. He says our losses (so far) are dwarfed by those suffered by the Soviet Union during WW III. So what? What we're doing today (and Iraq is but ONE theater) is to make sure WE don't suffer such losses in the future. Yes, they're small now. But if we allow them to grow stronger and stronger, one day they'll have a nuclear device and blow up an entire city. Maybe Los Angeles. You don't stop such people by "surrendering" to them. You stop them by KILLING them. Watch for the liberal press to promote the ideas he has spelled out. His ideas are simply the "end result" of what they've already been preaching. (Rush Limbaugh, 1/29/07)

Liberal Media Ignores Hsu's Conviction

Katie With Hsu Picture

One of the biggest contributors to Democrat politicians was convicted this week, but to listen to most of the liberal media, it didn't happen. The only media liberal who even mentioned it was Katie Couric (to her credit) but even she didn't mention how much money he donated to Barak Obama and other Democrats such as Hillary, who claim to have "returned it." Note that Hsu is Chinese, as are most of the other well-known political contributors to the Democrats, who are now in prison or about to go there with a similar silence from the media. (News Busters, 1/4/08)

Dream On, Adam

Adam the Loser

The "American al-Qaida" the only American they could find who hasn't already been imprisoned and who is somewhat able to speak says, "America has lost" in Iraq. Funny. American soldiers aren't "running and hiding" every time they see the enemy, al-Qaida is. America is not spending their time in hideouts, hoping their enemies will not find them. American soldiers are doing what winners do -- ferreting out the enemy and killing him. They won the war a long time ago. It took them about a week. It took a little longer to find Saddam and kill him, but they got the job done. I ask you, Adam, on what lie do you base your pronouncement that America has lost the war? Is it your own stupidity, or the stupidity of those ignorant terrorists you're "fronting" for? Tearing up your passport was a cute thing to do, since it's no good for anything to you any more, since if you ever appear in the U. S., you'll be imprisoned faster than you' can holler "foul!" The American media call you a "leader." But you aren't smart enough to lead your own rear end. Look at that picture. Isn't that the face of an idiot who's trying to be what he's not? (Fox News, 1/6/08)

Under the Radar"

Harry Reid

There have been several "scandals" uncovered regarding Democrat Senator Harry Reid (Senate Majority Leader) and Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Majority Leader in the House), but you won't read much about those "scandals" in the so-called "mainstream media" because these people are DEMOCRATS, not Republicans. The only places you'll be able to read about it is in the new "THOMA$ REPORT," or on Rush Limbaugh's web site." You MIGHT see it on Fox. Every tiny "scandal," real or imagined, regarding a REPUBLICAN is "shouted to the skies" by the liberal media, but not a peep about DEMOCRAT scandals will you see, for the most part. Yes, the government does not censor the press in this country. They don't need to. The press censors itself to promote their slant toward socialism. (Arizona Central/USA Today, 1/29/07)

WHO Buries Smoking Study

The study was "breathlessly awaited" before it came out, but was immediately "buried" when it showed exactly the opposite of what they'd hoped it would say. I've written about this before, and have been completely ignored by the mass media. They don't even try to answer these charges. They just ignore them and continue to preach about "the dangers of passive smoking." The World Health Organization (WHO) itself continues to post propaganda on its web site saying passive smoking IS a "cancer cause," completely ignoring the study they buried within days of its appearance. Anti-smoking freaks won't even answer the question when we ask about this study. They deny the very existence of such a study. Meanwhile, they continue to blather about "second-hand smoke" and its effect on humanity. What a bunch of jerks! I kept a copy of this in case they pull it down. (UK Telegraph, 3/8/98)

Hard to Find

Democrat John Celona, left

Former Rhode Island State Senator John Celona was recently sentenced to 2-1/2 years in prison for his part in a "kickback" scandal, but I had to do a diligent search (Google) to verify his party affiliation. The fact he was a Democrat seems to escape just about ALL news sources. Even Fox News didn't mention his party affiliation, probably because the item they published came from an Associated Press release. I guess this is how the Democrats keep the numbers of known scandals involving Democrats small. They just work hard to keep the party affiliation of Democrats involved in scandals quiet. (Fox News)

I'm Running for President!

Monkey Me

It had to happen. I've always thought someone who doesn't want the job, or who doesn't care if he gets it or not would make the best candidate. Unfortunately, that describes me completely. Do I think I could ever be elected? No. Do I want the job? No. Would I refuse to take the job if elected? No, because it would be my best chance to "make things right." But it is not of sufficient importance to me to worry about it, or to go out and make speeches and shake thousands of hands to make it happen. I've always thought the problem with politics is that you might be an honest man when you start, but in most cases, you have to become a crook to get the office. The one glaring exception I've seen to that rule is Ronald Reagan. I fervently wish he were still alive and in full command of his faculties. (Ray Thomas 101)

Political Correctness: Censorship

I get "talked to" on a regular basis about political correctness because I don't buy that fiction. I call a bum a bum, not a "homeless person." This is what is said about political correctness in an article on the "Fried Brains" blog: "Political correctness is linked to cultural Marxism in that it seeks to impose a uniformity of thought, speech and behavior on people and is therefore totalitarian in nature. The politically correct are afraid of the truth and personal responsibility; it is far easier to lie to themselves and blame others. They have actively promoted the terms sexism, racism, and homophobic, etc, to the world. If these terms were not promoted so much, I doubt we would have such resentment today. By promoting these terms through politically-correct policies, they have created an environment where it is easier for people to blame by crying the words sexist or racist [Name-calling -RT], etc, instead being responsible for themselves." Sexual harassment, for instance, can be charged on the unsupported word of one woman who gets to define what sexual harassment is. It's very subjective. If I were to want to change the Constitution, I would make a simple article against "subjective laws," or laws that can be defined by the so-called "injured party" or even the person enforcing it. That means someone gets to create a violation by simply defining the act as a "violation." Political correctness is simply a way to prevent people from offending others by their words. The last I heard, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits such things. It is not against the law to "offend" somebody. I make it my business to offend as many liberals every day as I can. (Philip Atkinson,)

Al Franken to Run for Senate

Al Franken(stein)

"Comedian Al Franken has decided to run for the U.S. Senate from Minnesota in 2008, a senior Democratic official from Minnesota said Wednesday [He needs a job. -RT]. The news was not unexpected. Franken has been calling members of the Minnesota congressional delegation to get their input on a run [Ever since Air America told him he was fired. -RT], and he announced this week that he would be leaving his show on Air America Radio on Feb. 14. He told listeners he would be making a decision on a race soon." Actually, I think it's more like the show left him. Air America is essentially out of business. It has been sold. There is no longer a show for him to "leave." As for a run for the Senate is concerned, he'll probably win. Americans have shown they're not smart enough to ask what a candidate REALLY stands for. He's "well-known." That's enough for people who pay no attention to politics until a few months before an election, when all those lying political ads are running to distort a candidate's position to the point where nobody knows what he or she stands for. (News Max, 2/1/07)

Hillary Wants to "Cut and Run"

She Still Voted for It

She voted for the Iraq war, but now wants everybody to forget that. Hillary Clinton has made the strongest statement yet in the Democrat drive to "cut & run" from Iraq. "WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she would not have attacked Iraq if she were president in 2002 [more bull droppings -RT] and would end the war if elected, as she tried to blunt rivals like John Edwards who are stoking anti-war passions in the Democratic Party." Which means she will precipitously pull the troops out of Iraq as liberal politicians caused us to do in Viet Nam when we were winning, causing untold numbers of deaths when we ABANDONED the Viet Nam people. We went into Iraq as PART of the overall "war on terror." Not as a "stand alone" war. If we "admit defeat" and pull out without a stable government in place that can ensure peace, we've ABANDONED them to their fate and untold millions of needless deaths will result Yet another reason not to let this witch within a MILE of the White House (again). (My Way, 2/2/07)

Global "Warming?"

Global "Warming." Sure.

AlGore and his henchmen keep telling me the world is warming at an "intolerable rate" (about 1 degree in 100 years). So what's with these long, bitter cold winters? Nobody better tell me that's caused by global warming or I'll think they figure I'm a fool, and I'm far from that. The fools in this game are AlGore and those who believe his bull droppings and send him a lot of money to "equalize their carbon footprint." AlGore is the reincarnation of the "snake-oil salesman" who used to sell whiskey and tell people it's a "wonder medicine" that will cure all their ills (but only made them drunk). Al won't even argue on the merits any more. When someone, even an eminent climate scientist, questions his "theory," he simply discounts them, saying they are "outside the mainstream of climate science" and should be ignored. Where the hell does AlGore get off doing this? What makes him think he even KNOWS enough about climate science to dismiss the words of an eminent climate science? What a jerk! (Yahoo News, 1/2/08)

Hillary is a Menace!

Hippies Bill and Hillary

She's not just a bad candidate for president. She's a menace to any society in which she acquires power to force us to accept her socialist ideas as law. Listen to her own words: "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking of what’s best for society.” (Hillary Clinton); “We can’t afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it.” (First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1993); “We can’t afford to have that money go to the private sector. The money has to go to the federal government because the federal government will spend that money better than the private sector will spend it. (First Lady Hillary Clinton, in 1993); "We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” (Hillary Clinton, in a 2004 fundraising speech to wealthy liberals in San Francisco). And they still want to elect her. "We . . . can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."(Hillary Clinton, June 4, 2007) She's fixated on "taking things away" to "serve the common good." Is there a better example of socialistic (collectivist) thinking? I guarantee you: if you elect her president with a Democrat Congress, this country will be the new USSR. It will be completely collectivist, with NO personal rights, for ANYBODY. I don't know if I believe everything on the site the link below goes to, but what's there will give you a lot of fodder for your own investigation. (Hillary Chronicles,)