Kerry Defends His Asinine Comment

Earlier, I posted the video of John Kerry stating that if you don't study, and do well in school, that you will end up stuck in Iraq. Obviously, he is referring to our soldiers who are still fighting for the security of the region. His implication is obvious to anyone with a brain.

But, John Kerry has defended his arrogant, asinine statement by saying that he was not referring to our troops. He was referring to...George Bush. Go figure.

So, let's look at his statement again.

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq"

He is saying that if you study and work hard to be smart you can succeed in life. You can become somebody. You could become a lawyer, a governor, maybe even a Senator! You could become President of the United States!

But, if you do not do well in school, you will become like George Bush.

Uhh...what? Explain that one again. George Bush graduated from freakin' YALE!!! Coincidentally, so did Kerry. In fact, President Bush did better at Yale than Kerry did. The notion that his statement referred to George Bush is just lame.

In his press release, Kerry also stated the following:

"If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy."

Crazy, Senator? Crazy? Let's find out if a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq. Shall we?

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."
- John Kerry, Face The Nation (December 4, 2005)

You, Senator Kerry, are a veteran. And, you criticized the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq. In fact, you called them terrorists.

Crazy? I think not.

John Kerry's opinion of American Troops

John Kerry served in Vietnam (as he was so fond of telling us during the 2004 elections). He came back from Vietnam to lie about witnessing American troops carrying out massacres on civilians. Then, just a couple of years ago, he described American soldiers in Iraq as "terrorizing kids and children, you know, women."

Yesterday, he expressed more of his contempt for the American military:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq"

To John Kerry, our soldiers are the stupid kids who didn't do well in school. They are the left-overs from our educational system. They are the uneducated masses who couldn't do anything better with their lives.

John Kerry is a jerk.



Iraq - The Real Story

I really have nothing to add. Just watch the video:


CNN IS Anti-American

If there was any doubt in your mind about CNN's loyalties to America, this new development in the terrorist sniper film should clear that up. The American Spectator has done a little digging, and even interviewed a former CNN news employee. The information they turned up puts one more nail in CNN's coffin.

You really have to read the article to understand:

Much has been written about CNN's decision last week to run portions of a video provided to the news network via a group identified by CNN as "the Islamic Army of Iraq."

This video, shot by the insurgent groups as propaganda for the Muslim world as well as a recruiting tool for a number of Islamo-fascist websites, showed terrorist snipers attacking American soldiers in Iraq.

According to CNN, the video was provided after a producer for CNN sent the group an email asking about its activities.

"I think the American public would be interested in exactly what the email contained, at least from the CNN side of things," says a producer for a rival news network, who was made aware of the video's existence before it aired. "My understanding is that email sent by CNN could not be construed any other way than as supportive of the Islamic militants' position in Iraq. There are people inside CNN who are disgusted by their colleagues' activities in Iraq and here in the United States in covering the war."

Attempts to get a copy of the email were unsuccessful. But one CNN source familiar with the techniques employed by network producers to get the Islamic extremist perspective says that it's common for producers to use Iraqi or Muslim contract employees to get information and access to the terrorists, and they do so by claiming sympathy or support for what the terrorists are doing.

"Anti-Americanism pays off for us over there, no doubt about it," says the CNN employee. "Questions were raised about this video and the way we got it. Once it was confirmed that it was real, the next question was how did we get it. And the answer was, we promised to give the terrorists a fair shake. I know that we are saying there was soul-searching here about running the tape. But I didn't see much of that. There were somber people here, but there was also a segment of people on staff, once the tape had run and created a firestorm, that celebrated. They thought they were so courageous."

A former CNN news employee says that at that network there is a decidedly anti-war approach to what they do. "It might not be so clear from some of our anchors, but there are people here who direct the news operation who are very comfortable giving aide and comfort to the enemy. They wouldn't call it that, but I would."

So, CNN, in their desire to be "good journalists," sent an email to America's enemies expressing sympathy for their plight. After all, CNN wanted to give them a "FAIR SHAKE." They show support for the terrorists just so they could get their hands on a terrorist snuff-film, a piece of enemy propaganda showing the horrific killing of an American soldier. This propaganda piece has been used by Islamic militants to garner support for their fight and to recruit new terrorists. And, CNN cheered at the opportunity to give this disgusting film a prime-time slot on a world-wide broadcast.

I'm sorry, did I say CNN cheered? They didn't just cheer. They put their Anti-American sentiments in a letter to the terrorists and offered them multiple forms of aid, comfort, and support, just to get their hands on this film.

It sounds an awful lot like treason to me.

CNN did say that they aired this film to show all sides of this war, to be balanced in the presentation of the brutality of war. Well, if that's true, why have they not shown this film? (This link is a video made by American soldiers. It shows American snipers killing Islamic militants. It is not for the faint of heart.)

They will show Islamic snipers killing American soldiers, but they have never and will never air this! Maybe, they just don't know about it.

But, how is it possible that a 25 year-old in Georgia can find this video, and CNN can not?


More Racial Slurs from Politicians

What is with these politicians? They just can't keep their mouth shut when it comes to racial slurs:

Hillary Clinton was caught on tape saying that Mahatma Ghandi ran a gas in St. Louis.

Robert Byrd went on Fox News Sunday, and repeatedly used "the N word."

Joe Biden was caught on tape saying, "You can not go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."

Howard Dean told the Congressional Black Caucus, "You think the Republicans could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here."

Wait...what's that you say? You haven't heard about these racial slurs before? Maybe that's because these politicians were not raked over the media coals for their comments.

So, let's take a look at a politician who was. Senator George Allen made a racial slur, that no one really knew was a racial slur (or, for that matter, even a real word) until the media told them that it was. Allen called a campaign staffer of Indian decent "Macaca."

Lets see...Why was Allen raked over the media coals and demonized, but the others got away without a scratch.

Oh, that's right. Allen is a Republican. The others are Democrats. Bias? What media bias?

Well, now our racial vocabulary can be expanded again.

House candidate Steve Kagen has been caught on tape saying that he was late because he was on "Injun Time." Here is the full quote:

''I appreciate getting here almost on time. Our excuse in Oneida was, well, we're on Injun time. They don't tell time by the clock. Our excuse here is that I am a doctor and that we're never on time.''

So, will Kagen get the media lashing that Allen did? He's a Democrat. You decide.

But, the Chicago Sun is already covering for Kagen. Here is their article. At the very end, they rationalize his comment by saying:

Bobbi Webster, a spokeswoman for the Oneida Nation, said Monday that Kagen's comment was not being taken as disrespectful by tribal members. No apology was sought, she said.

''Tribal members say that themselves. It is not uncommon to hear somebody come in late and say, 'Oh-Oh. I am running on Indian time.' The time you get there is the time to do your thing,'' Webster said.

The term ''Injun'' also is not necessarily disrespectful, she said.

They use that term themselves! So, it's not an insult!

I guess that was Robert Byrd's reasoning as well.

Gun Control

There is a lot of knee-jerk reaction to violence involving firearms. In a lot of cases, you have people like Rosie O'Donnell suggesting gun buy-back programs. With this type of program, people sell their guns to the police department or the local government, thereby reducing the number of guns in the hands of civilians.

It sounds so sweet doesn't it? "If we reduce the number of guns out there, we can save lives!!!"


I have said it before, and I will say it again. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." What happens when people are presented with a government program to turn over their weapons? Law-abiding citizens will turn them over. Those that have no interest in following the law will not.

There is evidence to back this up.

A new report from Australia shines the light on such a program. Australia enacted tougher gun control laws in 1996. Buy-back programs were a part of this. After 10 years, what do the statistics show? I quote:

"The introduction of Australia's tough new gun laws in 1996 has done little to reduce the rate of gun murder or suicide."

Need I say more? (Well, I'm going to say more anyway.)

Blaming law-abiding gun owners is not the answer to violence. Making it more difficult for the general populous (who has no intention of burglarizing, kidnapping, murdering, etc.) to own a form of self-protection is not the answer.

These knee-jerk reactions will only make it worse for those of us who must defend ourselves against the violence. If you want the real answer to the problem, take a look at our legal system which treats criminals with "kid-gloves." Take a look at the "victim mentality" that is idolized. Take a look at the demogoging of self-protection.

There you will find the answer.


Good News

I have been told by a couple of people that I never mention any good news on my blog. I'll attempt to take that constructive criticism to heart. In fact, I'll start today!

A group of Republican Congressmen have made me proud. And, they are all from California! Representatives Duncan Hunter, Brian Bilbray, and Darrell Issa are sounding off against CNN for airing thier dispicable footage of terrorist snipers shooting American soldiers.

These men are calling on the Pentagon to pull out any and all CNN embeded reporters. In Rep. Hunter's words, CNN is "the publicist for an enemy propaganda film."

Rep. Hunter goes on to say:

"The average American Marine or soldier has concluded after seeing that film that CNN is not on their side."

Right on, guys. Right on.


Peace at any price

I really can't make this stuff up. I've posted another call to the Sean Hannity Show. This one is from a liberal who says that we should have peace because, "War is bad."

When Sean asked if it was bad to go to war against Nazism, the caller replied that we should make "peace at any cost." You can hear the rest of the call:

Listen here
(Right-click to download)

The caller actually says that we should give up ANYTHING, even our freedom if it means making peace. This is why we call them the "Peace-at-any-price crowd." The caller admits that he would rather live in subjugation, in slavery to the Islamic terrorists, than fight evil.

Sean brilliantly quoted Patrick Henry. "Give me Liberty, or give me death."


Global Warming, Global Cooling...what's the difference?

When faced with the fact that this month has experienced unusually COLD temperatures and even snow, one of the Global Warming nuts wrote into the AJC with this little tidbit:

"I'm sorry the term "global warming" is so confusing to you. It means that the climate is changing and causing screwy weather patterns. So yes, I think you can consider 2 feet of snow in Buffalo on Oct. 12 as evidence of this."

There you have it. No longer does the word WARMING mean "to become hotter." The term "Global Warming" really means "Unpredictable global climate changes over the surface of the planet, which could be manifested as cooling or warming." Basically, temperatures will change, and it is OUR fault.

These people will go to ANY length to "prove" global warming. When the evidence doesn't fit their mold, they change the definitions of words.

I guess they learned that strategy from Clinton.

On a similar note, September 2006 was 0.7 degrees BELOW average.


Still Think the Democrats Aren't Socialists?

This article should put to rest any arguments that the Democrats are not anti-capitalist, wealth-redistribution, community-is better-than-individualism, socialists.

Their new campaign slogan has been created to show
America the true ideals of their party. The new slogan is "The Common Good." In reality, they have been pushing this slogan for a long time. They just never made it the official motto of the party.

This article from quotes John Halpin of the Center for American Progress, who is really leading the charge for this new slogan. Take a look at what he says:

"It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives. With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community _ sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."

Let's see..."rise of materialism," "better sense of community," "shared sacrifice" "ethic of service and duty." Yep, this has all of the makings of a communist platform. It is our evil "materialism" that must be defeated. We must not seek to have anything someone else does not have. We should consider it our "ethic of service and duty" to "sacrifice" and "return to a better sense of community." You realize, of course, that the root of the word COMMUNISM is "community."

Am I against sacrificing for your fellow man? Am I against a wholesome idea of a community? Absolutely not!

Am I against a government-sanctioned and controlled theft and redistribution of what I own to fund such a community? YES, YES, YES!

I am also against the idea that the government should invest itself into a war against individuality for "the common good." Liberals tend to think differently:

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

-Hillary Clinton (1993)

''At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good.''
- Ted Kennedy (2002)

Are you seeing a trend? A war against the individual.

I am also against the idea that the Government can do better with my money than I can, when it comes to my own health insurance, my medical care, and my retirement.

But liberals tend to think differently. Here is another quote from the article:

"Liberals say that Republican policies promote a "radical individualism" _ advocating individual retirement accounts above Social Security, health savings accounts over affordable insurance, and tax cuts that Democrats say benefit only the rich."

The idea that tax cuts benefit only the rich is an absolute lie. But, it goes to show that what they really care about is controlling how much income they "allow" the wealthy to keep.

Now, let's look at the rest of the sentence. "Republican policies promote a "radical individualism" _ advocating individual retirement accounts above Social Security, health savings accounts over affordable insurance"

What is so bad about that? Why is so bad that I invest in my own retirement, instead of the government stealing my money, and investing it into someone else's? Why is so bad that I buy my own health insurance, instead of the government stealing my money and buying it for someone else?

Why do we have to rely on the government to do this kind of stuff for us? Answer...because people are idiots. They let their hatred for those that achieve (i.e. the wealthy) and their desire to "level the playing field" (i.e. steal from the wealthy and bring them down to my level) cloud their judgment.

What happens when everyone who does not achieve continues to depend on the government for their needs? You have wealth redistribution. Therefore, you have a socialist society.

Capitalism thrives on the idea that free individuals competing in an open market will create a strong economic foundation. Government policies mandating "the common good," at the expense of the free individual, erodes that foundation.

And, it is outrageous that these politicians would invoke Christianity to further this cause. First of all, if they held onto their definition of "the separation of church and state," they wouldn't be able to use this argument.

Secondly, Christ never advocated a Government mandate of such philosophies. The "righteousness" in the act of giving to the poor is found when the action is voluntary. There is no "righteousness" in the act when it is forced by Caesar (i.e. Government).

When we have no choice, there is no good.

So, to recap, Democrats believe we should "face down individualism," "stop thinking of the individual," and "sacrifice for the greater good" (government controlled medical programs, retirement plans, incomes, etc.)

Just one more quote for you:

"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man."
-Adolph Hitler (1933)

Sound familiar?

Outrageous News Story of the Day

A 14-year old girl named Codie Stott is a student at Harrop Fold High School in the UK. Her science class was recently assigned small group projects. The class was divided into several small groups, and Codie was assigned to a group with 5 other students.

A serious problem arose when Codie realized that the 4 of the 5 students she was assigned to work with did not speak her language. I don't mean that figuratively. Literally, only one other student in that group spoke the English language. The others all spoke Urdu (similar to the Hindu language).

Once Codie realized the predicament she was in, she went to the teacher and made the following statement:

"I'm not being funny, but can I change groups because I can't understand them?"

You think that sounds like a reasonable request, right? In this class, you would be wrong. Not only would you be wrong. To that teacher, you would also be......that's right......a RACIST.

Codie could not understand what the other students were saying, so she is a racist.

You think that's the end of the story? I'm just getting warmed up.

After the teacher called her a racist, she also threatened Codie by saying, "you're going to get done by the police."

I guess in the UK that phrase actually makes sense. But, I digress. After this, Codie was put in isolation for the rest of the school day. Oh, I wish the story would have ended there. But, no.

A week after this incident, the UK police...............

I can barely make myself finish the story. It is too unbelievable.


The UK police arrested Codie Stott. Codie was arrested on a "Section 5 Racial Public Order Offence." She was taken to the Swinton police station, booked, processed, and spent 3 and a half hours in jail.

If you really want to, you can read the news story for yourself.

Granted, this happened in the UK. They are an entire ocean away. Certainly, the PC pushers in this country aren't that bad!

Are you really willing to take that bet?


Terrorists in Georgia?

WHOA! A man from my own backyard, Rome, Georgia, has pled guilty to providing material support to Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization!

Full Story

I really don't have anything to add. It's just astounding that terrorists and their sympathizers can be hiding so closely to us.

Oh yeah...I forgot about Cynthia McKinney.


Classic Liberal

This phone call to the Sean Hannity show is from a classic liberal. He's lacking a lot in the spinal cord region. The caller says that the answer to the North Korea and Iran problem is to...SURRENDER.

That's right. Before we go making any trouble, we should negotiate the terms of America's surrender before we are forced to surrender.

How have people become this wussified?

Listen Here
(right-click to download mp3)

That didn't take too long

I made my last blog post at 5:00pm on October 11, 2006. It was a mere two hours after I first heard about the plane crash in New York. At 5pm EST, I wanted to go on the record with a prediction:

Within the next few days, we will hear people claiming that this crash was planned by the Bush administration to scare people before the November elections.It seems that I was beaten to the punch.

Even before I made the prediction, the accusations had already begun to fly. I introduce the Huffington Post. Typically, bloggers at HP spend their time pushing for socialism, UN control of the United States, etc. Today, they spent a little time coming up with conspiracy theories:

I am so cynical these days, but I wonder if this is what the Republicans were saying was going to be an "October surprize" just to scare people before the elections.
By: Madashhellintexas on October 11, 2006 at 03:27pm

One can hardly miss the irony of this event happening just when the Republicans need it most.
By: JeanneInMinneapolis on October 11, 2006 at 04:14pm

Can you say distraction.. whether it happened deliberately for all the political reasons or not they are SPIN SPIN SPINNING it.. that way.
By: icdumbpeeps on October 11, 2006 at 04:22pm

All of these posts were made BEFORE I even made my prediction, and I swear that I had no idea that they had already been posted.

Then, the Huffington Post had one of their own writers, Tony Hendra, draft a little piece raising some of the same questions:

Will the building collapse in its own footprint? (It hasn't so far...). Was this what Rove meant by an October Surprise (Not big enough dude...) Who does this benefit politically? (Focus off Foley, focus off North Korea...) Who was in the plane and why was it first identified as a helicopter? (Or was it a drone?)

One of the comments on this article reads:

I had the same thoughts. I kept wondering...would my government do something like this, just to change the subject? It would bring it back around to terrorism and fear, their specialties. The sad answer is, yes, they would.
By: lisaZ on October 11, 2006 at 08:05pm

I'm sure that more is yet to come. More mainstream writers and commentators (possibly even politicians) will raise the same questions.

At this point, nothing surprises me.


9/11 memorial honoring the hijackers?

Over at my MySpace blog, I posted on the outrages 9/11 memorial in Arizona that was corrupted by the left. They filled this memorial with anti-American propoganda, and tried to use it as a Hate-Bush platform. In a word, the memorial was HIJACKED.

It seems that the designers of the momorial had a special place in their hearts for hijackers, even those that would hijack American planes and fly them into American buildings, murdering innocent American civilians. After all, they wanted to use the 9/11 memorial to commemorate the Islamic hijackers, and paint them as victims of the attacks.

This is the most disgusting display of moral relevatism I have ever seen. To even consider painting those murderers as victims is a disgrace. To even consider putting them on the same moral plane as those killed in the Twin Towers is an outrage!

But, this is exactly what the Blame-America-First, Bush-Hating, No-Such-Thing-As-Right-And-Wrong, Liberals tried to do.

You can see the full video here.

By the way, the Commisioner of the "memorial" says, in the interview, that the 9/11 attacks were caused by America's "total support of Israel." So, according to him, we deserved it.


More Proof: al Qaeda will not stop if we leave the Middle East

"Allah will not be pleased until we reach the rooftop of the White House."

This is a direct quote from Abu Yahya al-Libi, a top al Qaeda militant.

They seek to conquer us. I rest my case.

Full Story


Muslim Scholars

A scholar is defined as a learned person or a specialist in a given branch of knowledge. Therefore, the term "Muslim Scholar" can be defined as a learned Muslim or a specialist in the Religion of Islam. These individuals have done in-depth analysis of the Koran and its teachings. They know what the Koran instructs and what it condemns.

With that in mind, I give you Dr. Muhammad Salim Al-Awa, Secretary General of the International Union for Muslim Scholars. Al-Awa recently made the following statement:

The Muslims who fight the Zionists in the West Bank and Gaza - in Palestine - have begun to use young women as [human] bombs in self-sacrifice operations, in which a person blows himself up in a Zionist crowd of soldiers, or policeman, and so on. One [Sheik] ruled that this is forbidden. Why?...

This fatwa (ruling) had a negative effect in Palestine, I'm sad to say, because many mothers - good, dear mothers - began to fear that if their daughters did this, they would be committing a sin, so they told them that this Sheik forbade it. A long debate ensued. But, Allah be praised, eventually people ignored this fatwa (ruling).

There are so many things to point out about this statement. Where to begin?

First, do you notice how he calls the homicide bombings, "self-sacrifice operations"? They are murdering people! They are going into crowded areas and murdering innocent civilians. But, to Al-Awa, these are just "self-sacrifice operations." He won't even refer to them by their white-washed American PC name, "suicide bombings." Neither term appropriately defines the action. They are homicide bombings.

Secondly, when these homicide bombers blow themselves up, they are not doing so in a Zionist crowd of soldiers, or policeman, and so on. They are doing so in crowds of innocent civilians! They are targeting those that are not engaged in the fight.

Lastly, and most importantly, this scholar asks why it is forbidden for women to be used as homicide bombers. In his opinion, such a ruling (or fatwa) has a negative effect on Palestine. In his opinion, Allah is glorified when Muslims ignore this ruling. Allah is glorified when women strap bombs to themselves and murder the innocent.

This representative of Islam claims to be a scholar. This is the man whom Muslims claim is an expert on their religion. If he were not considered to be an expert, he would never have been named Secretary General of the International Union for Muslim Scholars.

This is a "religion of peace?"

Let's also take a look at the website for the International Union for Muslim Scholars.

On the list of characteristics of the IUMS, look at number 7:

7. It eschews extremism and bigotry and thinks moderately.

Are you sure about that? Your own director promotes the idea of women being used as homicide bombs.

Look at number 8:

8. It translates its words into actions...

I'd say so. Those actions consist of murdering the innocent.


I thought Liberals loved free speech?

Unless, of course, they disagree with you. Then they will storm the stage, shout over you, try to shut you down, and start fights. At least, that's what happened at Columbia University when the founder of the Minutemen, Jim Gilchrist, was invited to speak.

The Minutemen are acting completely within the law to actually ENFORCE the laws that our government refuses to enforce. But, to these "protestors," the Minutemen are RACISTS.

CTV news caught the event on tape:

Listen to their brilliant chant. "Racist, Nazis, KKK. Racist bigots go away." Such strong words. Yet, strangely enough, none of them apply to the Minutemen. If you can give me one bit of information that points to the idea that they are racist, please do so.

By the way, racism is defined as, "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability, and that a particular race is superior to others."

If you can give me one bit of evidence that the Minutemen have committed mass genocide, such as the Nazis, please do so. And, if you can give me one bit of evidence that the Minutemen are conducting lynchings, such as the KKK, please do so.

Why am I even validating this lame chant with a response?

Oh yeah, one last thing. Did you notice their Huge yellow sign which read, "There are no illegals"?

So, I suppose the millions of people who are citizens of foreign countries, illegally crossing our borders, intentionally breaking our immigration laws, and continuing to break the law every second that they remain in this country, are not illegal.

Thanks for clearing that up.


Separation of Church and State, huh?

First of all, nowhere in the Constitution will you find the phrase "separation of church and state." Look it up. But, the first amendment does say that there shall be no "establishment of religion" by the Federal government. The separation of church and state can be inferred from an extent.

No, a validictorian saying a prayer at her graduation is not a violation.

But, there is something to be said about prayer being mandated in government schools. I don't believe that it should be mandated (even though I am a Christian). Because we, as a nation, do acknowledge a division between the secular world (government) and the religious world. Or, so I thought.

Apparently, religion is being taught in California and Oregon schools. Not only taught, but mandated. The difference this time is that students are being forced to pray Islamic prayers.

Students, as a part of Social Studies course, are required to wear Muslim dress, use Muslim names, memorize the Koran, and recite Muslim prayers. So, much for that separation of church and state.

I guess all of this is OK as long as they are indoctrinating them with a religion whose followers flew planes into the twin towers. But, if Christian prayers are even mentioned, the ACLU will come running!

The Red and Black

Unless you went to the University of Georgia, you probably have no idea what the Red and Black is. It's the name of the college newspaper. It is an independently owned newspaper, that has done pretty well for itself. All-in-all, they put out a descent paper. But, they are unmistakably left-wing.

In my opinion their best section is the Opinions section. It gives a voice to the many political and social positions of the students. On that page, there is also a section called "Our Take." This is the voice of the Red and Black staff. This is where their opinions come through. This is the soap box they use to advocate their positions. Let's take a look at a couple, in particular.

A couple of weeks ago, the Guard Dawg, the Conservative-slanted UGA publication, had their news bins robbed and vandalized. Of course, the prevalent opinion was that students who disagreed with what was printed in the Guard Dawg were responsible. This began a debate of "Liberals support free speech until they disagree with it" and "How do we know it was Liberals who did it?" This debate raged for days on the pages of the Red and Black.

Well, the Red and Black decided to chime in with their thoughts. What did they have to say?

"Guard Dawg publisher David Kirby should not be so surprised more than 1,200 copies of his paper were stolen from their bins Thursday night...The ultra-conservative paper pushes itself so far to the right that incidents like this are bound to occur...The Guard Dawg should examine the reasons why someone would commit that crime."

Basically, they deserved it. Nice.

Then we have another great piece from them in today's paper. They are responding to the Amish school shooter. Here is how they examine the situation:

Individuals should have the right to own a gun, but if a person cannot control himself mentally, such Constitutional privileges should be revoked.

Harsher gun control legislation may create inconveniences for some, but the safety of the American public is worth the added effort.

Until a more stringent form of gun control is enacted, there's no telling how many more lives will be lost at the hands of a citizen abusing his Second Amendment right.

Uhh...what? Because unstable people in this country buy guns, we should also make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own them. This is the "you're an idiot" moment of the day.

It is terribly trite, but it is true..."If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

But let's look at this from a different perspective. The Red and Black advocates limiting, or REVOKING, gun rights for the "safety of the American public."

Why stop there? Speech can be a deadly thing too. Sometimes our speech can offend people to the point where they will kill, destroy property, steal newspapers (insert sarcastic cough).

We could start limiting first amendment rights when the "greater good" is at stake. We should limit free speech when it is just too offensive and hurtful. We could start doing the same thing with the 4th amendment. What if we could just start searching people at random on the streets? We could find the guns people are carrying before they even had the chance to use them!

We would be saving lives!

Islamic Rage

The Religion of Peace has struck again! They have this ritual where they strike out in violence to prove that they are not a violent religion. Nice, huh?

Well, now they have lashed out against the most offensive, the most devisive, the most outrageous object of blasphemy...a tree.

Muslim teens in Indonesia attacked the tree because there were rumors that it was "supernatural." During recent construction around the tree, the Indonisian government refused to cut it down. The rumors that it had magical powers were started as a result. The Muslim teens were trying to prove that it had no mystical powers.

The truth is that the government refused to cut down the tree, because the tree was over 100 years old. It was a landmark. Here's what's left of it:

The Muslims could not let these rumors of supernatural powers go unanswered. Allah must be so proud.

Oh, the humanity!

The allegations of torture at Guantanamo continue. As the captured al-Qaeda training manual, The Manchester Document, instructs:

"Avoid revealing information at all costs, don't give your real name and claim that you were mistreated or tortured during your detention."

The detainees at Guantanamo are really taking that instruction to heart, no matter how ludicrous it is. They flushed my Koran! They are making me listen to loud music! Now...

They are feeding me too much!

They are claiming that they are being abused by the high-calorie diet being served to them. One detainee has nearly doubled in weight to 410 lbs!

Why are we serving them so much high-high calorie food? According to Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, spokesman for the detention facilities at Guantanamo:

"The detainees are advised that they are offered more food than necessary, to provide choice and variety, and that consuming all the food they are offered will result in weight gain."

But, much like the morons in this country who decide to sue McDonald's for making them fat, the blame is not being placed on eating too much. They blame the food.

So, you think, this is a joke. Who cares if they are complaining? They will try anything to cry, "TORTURE!" Well, you're right. But, human rights groups in this country are...surprise, surprise...siding with the terrorists:

"Human rights groups attribute the weight gain to lack of exercise. They cite accounts of released detainees who complained they were allowed to exercise fewer than three times a week outside their small cells."

Cry me a river!


I'm so disillusioned

I have never felt that I was completely saddled with one particular political party. Despite the conclusions you may draw from many of my previous posts, I am not a firm Republican. I am, first and foremost, an economic conservative. I am, also, socially libertarian. I believe in the ultimate freedom of people as long as their actions do not threaten someone else's life, liberty, pusuit of happiness, or property. I believe in the power of a free market. I believe in small government, but one that is dedicated to the domestic and foreign protection of this country.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party does not meet these standards. Most of them are firmly dedicated to the idea of foreign protection of our country. They are steadfast in the War against Islamic fascists. For that, I am thankful.

But, they no longer practice the beliefs of small government, domestic protection, freedom of individuals, or the freedom of the private market. The policies they have instituted, lately, erode all of these principles.

The McCain-Feingold bill flies directly in the face of free speech and the freedom of the private market. The bill is used to silence political speech in days before elections, and is currently being used to silence a privately-owned radio station from talking about public policy such as the gas tax.

Who let this bill become law? A Republican-controlled Congress!

By not strictly enforcing our borders, and locking them down immediately, the Republicans have failed to protect us domestically. They allow the reconquistadors to continue flooding into this country. Steps are being taken to erect a wall along the border. A bill is up for approval by President Bush which would commission the building of the wall. Let's hope he signs it!

But, the fact is, this should have done long ago! We should have locked down the borders, and actually enforced our own laws. We could have even gone a step further and put much harsher penalties on anyone caught illegally entering this country. But, the Republicans have let us down.

Their spending is the only evidence I need to point to, in order to show that they no longer believe in small government. A prescription drug bill? An expansion of Medicare? Since when did Conservatives believe in socialized medicine?

Oh yeah, that's right. We're not talking about Conservatives. Conservatives did not pass these spending bills. It was the Republicans. No longer are the terms synonymous. Conservatives would not stand for this.

Also, Conservatives wouldn't sexually harass and exploit a 16 year-old Congressional Page. They also wouldn't stand-by while one of their own carried on with this behavior. They would put a stop to it. They would expose the offender and boot him out of their ranks. There is no place for that type of behavior. Sadly, it seems, Republicans are guilty of just that.

What is going on here? Who are you people and what have you done with all of the Conservatives? I'm really not sure where to go from here. The elections are in November, and I don't know that any of them should retain their seats. Fortunately, my representatives (Chambliss, Isakson, and Deal) are among the few that still retain some Conservative principles. They are, also, sponsors of the Fair Tax. So, there is hope for them.

But, the Republican Party, as a whole, is lost. They have no focus on the principles that got them elected. They have lost the vision of Conservatism.

So, where do we go from here? Let's get one thing straight. Republicans may have lost their way. But, the Democrat way will lead us right into a socialist society, who is afraid of it's own shadow, and has no concept of the "individual." We will have to hand over our National Sovereignty to the United Nations. We will hand over our paycheck to the Government for wealth redistribution. And, we will hand over our individuality for the "greater good." Republicans are bad. Democrats are worse.

But, where do we turn? A lot of "third parties" have extremely wacko positions. Libertarians typically don't believe in going to war until the enemy is sending tanks into our backyard. The Green party is in the same socialist boat as the Democrats. The Reform Party...well, that was started by Ross Perot. So, forget that.

Where are the good guys?