Joe...Shut up.

Wow. Joe, please do your self a favor. Shut up.

Joe Biden, the moronic Senator from Delaware has recently expressed his feelings about fellow Senator Barak Obama. Biden actually let this fly out of his mouth:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Martin Luther King Jr., Alan Keyes, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and every other African-American who has made themselves a household name…to Joe Biden these individuals are inarticulate, stupid, dirty, and downright ugly people.

Do I actually believe that is what he meant? Of course not. But, imagine if a Conservative had said this. Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had made this statement on his show. The media would crucify him. This would be the lead story for every news outlet in the country for a month. Remember how they treated George Allen?

The media will convieniantly label Biden's statement as a "slip of the tongue," or they will ignore it all together. Just read ABC's coverage of Biden's comments:

Biden called Sen. Barack Obama "incredible." "He's fresh. He's new," he said. "I think experience does matter. … But it also relates to judgment. … He's a really incredible person."

It's as if it never happened. They simply deleted it from their memory. Biden will get a pass from the mainstream media as he always has. After all, this is the same Joe Biden that made the following statement:

“You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

Joe will continue making ridiculous statements like this, and the media will continue to ignore them. They're too busy trying to demonize Republicans.


Crossing the NYT line

As I’ve noted time and time again, the New York Times has never shied away from splashing their outrageous liberal bias and firm opposition to anything conservative all over the front page.

When they commit pure treason by exposing a top secret terrorist financial surveillance program, they think nothing of it. When they condemn the showing of Saddam’s execution, yet endorse the showing of terrorist propaganda footage of our soldiers being killed, they don’t flinch one bit.

However, if one of their reporters goes on a talk show and expresses his desire for America to WIN the Iraq War, there will be hell to pay.

Michael Gordon, the Chief Military Correspondent for the New York Times, appeared on the January 8th edition of the “Charlie Rose” show. On the show, he made the following comment about the war:

“So I think, you know, as a purely personal view, I think it’s worth it, one last effort for sure to try to get this right, because my personal view is we’ve never really tried to win. We’ve simply been managing our way to defeat. And I think that if it’s done right, I think that there is the chance to accomplish something.”

A New York Times reporter expresses his personal desire to see the U.S. prevail in Iraq, and what happens? He is publicly chastised by the New York Times. Editor Byron Calame of the NYT wrote:

“Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper’s chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon.

I raised reader concerns about Mr. Gordon’s voicing of personal opinions with top editors, and received a response from Philip Taubman, the Washington bureau chief. After noting that Mr. Gordon has “long been mindful and respectful of the line between analysis and opinion in his television appearances,” Mr. Taubman went on to draw the line in this case.

I would agree with you that he stepped over the line on the ‘Charlie Rose’ show. I have discussed the appearances with Michael and I am satisfied that the comments on the Rose show were an aberration."

That's funny. The NYT says that they disapprove of reporters expressing personal opinions about Iraq. However, another NYT reporter, Neil MacFarquhar, expressed his opinion about Iraq, ALSO ON THE "CHARLIE ROSE" SHOW. But, since it was a negative view of the war and America, the NYT didn't say a word. MacFarquhar said:

“If you talk to people my age -- I’m in my mid-40s -- and who grew up in poor countries like Morocco, you know, they will tell you that when they went to school in the mornings, they used to get milk, and they called it Kennedy milk because it was the Americans that sent them milk.

And in 40 years, we have gone from Kennedy milk to the Bush administration rushing bombs to this part of the world. And it just erodes and erodes and erodes America’s reputation.”

So the NYT approves of and endorses terrorist propaganda, they don’t bat an eye as they commit an inexcusable act of TREASON, and they tow the Liberal line like they are on the Democrat party payroll.

But, if any of their reporters dares to believe that the U.S. should WIN the Iraq War, that crosses the line.

Convinced yet?


B.J. Novak at his finest

It's funny 'cause it's true:



The word gets thrown around a lot. It’s a word with a lot of sting. “Fascist.”

But do people actually know what it means? Let’s define it:

Fas-cism [fash-iz-uhm]–noun
A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.

Tyranny, oppression of opposition, absolute governmental authority…these are the attributes of Fascism.

Now which political philosophy would be considered more fascist…the philosophy of limited government-control, emphasizing the rights of the individual (i.e. Conservatism and Libertarianism), or the philosophy of infinitely expanding government-control, emphasizing “the greater good” (i.e. Liberalism and Socialism)?

Let me put it a different way. Neal Boortz, an avid Libertarian, dedicates much of his radio show to exposing Hillary Clinton as the socialist that she is. The health care plan that she proposed during Bill Clinton’s presidency was nothing more than government-controlled socialized medicine. There was actually a provision in her plan which stated if you act as an individual and seek to provide for your own health care, the Government can throw you and your doctor in prison. If you want to control your own health care, you are a criminal.

So, Neal brings up this fact on his show. Then, he receives the following email from someone named George Ellano:

Hey Lying Bastard,

I am sick and tired of you criticizing Hillary Clinton's health care plan. She is the only person who has taken a bold and refreshing approach to reforming a broken system. When she is elected she will fix the system, and hopefully she will use the FBI to throw ASSHOLES like you, lardass Limbaugh, Con Hannity and the other fascists in prison. By the way, your name should be Neal "Baits", because you bait your audience with lies placed on a hook of deception.

Aside form the very clever names George has come up with for other talk show hosts, look at what he says. He wants Hillary Clinton to be a President with no checks and balances. He wants Hillary Clinton to have the power to throw out the Bill of Rights. He wants Hillary Clinton to have the power to throw voices of opposition behind bars.

This is the type of Government that George Ellano wants. This is the type of Government that Hillary wants.

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." (Hillary Clinton, 1993)

So, I ask again. Which political philosophy would be considered more fascist? The philosophy of limited government-control, emphasizing the rights of the individual (i.e. Conservatism and Libertarianism), or the philosophy of infinitely expanding government-control, emphasizing “the greater good” (i.e. Liberalism and Socialism)?

Kids will be kids...

Anyone who knows me can attest to this. I’m not a big fan of kids. I don’t plan on having any. I also believe that there are many people in this world who shouldn’t be allowed to have any.

Rule # 1 – If your reaction to your child’s misbehavior is “no reaction at all,”
you don’t get to have a child.

Rule # 2 – If your reaction to your child’s misbehavior is laughter at “how cute
it is,”
you don’t get to have a child.

Rule # 3 – If your reaction to your child’s misbehavior is asking them nicely to
, you don’t get to have a child.

I understand, kids will be kids. But, PARENTS MUST BE PARENTS. Apparently, Julie and Gerry Kulesza never got the memo.

Last week, AirTran Airways took action against the Kulesza’s when they refused to be parents to their whiny, annoying child. Apparently, their 3 year old girl got onto the plane with them, and immediately began to throw a tantrum. She refused to sit in her seat, yelled, rolled on the floor of the plane, crawled under the seats, hit her parents, you know…a tantrum.

The plane couldn’t take off until this child sat in her seat and was buckled in. 112 people were waiting to leave this airport. They were just waiting for these parents to take action to get their child in that seat.

What do parents do in this situation? If you actually cared about rearing your child to be able to integrate into civilized society, you stop the tantrum. You take that child off of the plane, and spank them. You spank them until they understand why it’s not OK for them to inconvenience 112 people.

But, if you are the Kulesza’s, you do nothing. You wait until the child gets tired of screaming and quits. Of course, by that time, you and your menace of a child have already delayed the flight to the point of cancellation and infuriated 112 passengers. But, forget about that. Your little “angel” is “expressing” herself.

AirTran did exactly what they should have done. They kicked that family off of the plane. They even went above and beyond by giving the family a full refund for their tickets and 3 free round-trip tickets.

I’m glad AirTran kicked them off the plan. But, I wish they hadn’t given them the refund or the free tickets. These despicable excuses for “parents” should learn a hard lesson from their unwillingness to act like responsible adults. They refused to act like parents.

By the way, I had said that the way to handle the situation was to take the child off the plane and spank them.

If you did that sort of thing in California, you could be arrested.


As the political wind changes...

I’ve been saying it for years. Politicians from both sides of the isle are approaching the War on Terror as a political opportunity. They twist it, spin it, distort it, misrepresent it…all to garner votes.

Since a Republican is in the White House, the politics of war are much more prevalent from the Democrats. But, many spineless Republicans are guilty as well. These politicians put their re-elections ahead of intellectual honesty. And, who suffers for their screwed-up priorities? The troops in harm’s way.

Case in point, John Kerry’s now infamous statement:

“I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.”

Obviously, this represents a serious commitment issue on Senator Kerry’s part. But, it highlights the fact that Democrats’ opinions will change with the political winds. They are not dedicated to winning this war. They are dedicated to re-election. Plain and simple.

The most recent debate on the Iraq War solidifies this point. President Bush is proposing a “surge” of troops to re-gain control of many violent areas in Iraq. He is proposing to send 21,500 more troops overseas.

Is this a good idea? I don’t know. I’m not a military expert. I’ll leave that to the Generals on the ground.

There are also a lot of Democrats who can’t decide if it’s a good idea or not. When they are the ones to propose it, they support it whole-heatedly. This is the best idea anyone could propose! This is the ONLY option.

But, let President Bush (their arch enemy) jump on board with them, and propose the exact same idea…the proposal becomes unthinkable.

I introduce to you, the new Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Silvestre Reyes. Here is Congressman Reyes on December 5, 2006:

"We're not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies. We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq. I would say 20,000 to 30,000 for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled."

Now, let’s take a look at Congressman Reyes 1 month later, after President Bush proposed the exact same increase in troop levels:

"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level. The president has not changed direction, but is simply changing tactics."

Now, the illustrious Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In an interview with Tim Russert on May 30, 2004:

RUSSERT: Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?


Now that Bush proposes the exact same thing? Pelosi writes in a letter to the President:

"We do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success...Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain."

Two years ago, Pelosi was in favor of a strategy that she now says is a recipe for failure. One month ago, Reyes proposed the "change in direction" that he now says isn't a "change in direction" at all.

Essentially, the Democrats are adopting the philosophy,

“If Bush is FOR it, we are AGAINST it, and vice-versa…no matter the issue.”

With Bush’s approval ratings in the tank, this may, in fact, be the best way to win political points.

But, like I said, political points are all that concern them…winning be damned.



It’s begun again. This past weekend herald the return of one of the greatest television shows of all time…24. A friend of mine once said, “There are two types of people in this world. Those who love 24, and those who have never seen 24.” To a point, this is true.

But, sometimes, people allow there own ignorance, arrogance, or hatred to cloud their view. Since its inception, 24 has been accused of being a “conservative show.” And, anything “conservative” becomes the target of hate for the far left.

The hero of 24, Jack Bauer, frequently bends and breaks the rules to get the job done. It isn’t out of the ordinary to see Bauer using torture to get important information or stop a potential terrorist attack. Obviously, for people who are so invested in the idea that torture is never, ever acceptable under any circumstances, this plot device is a problem. To them, Jack Bauer isn’t the good guy. He is the problem. Although he is a fictional character, he represents everything that they hate. He does what is necessary to protect America.

This season is no different. Jack Bauer is still Jack Bauer. He is still a total B.A. And, he will do what is necessary. So, newspaper editorialists, liberal news commentators, and left-wing critics are labeling 24 as “conservative propaganda” and a “neocon sex fantasy.”

But, this season, critics are ratcheting up their hatred. 24 is now being accused of fear-mongering. Keith Olbermann stated on his show:

“24 is back. It dropped the bomb, literally. Al Gore makes a movie about global warming and gets smeared as a fear-monger. Fox portrays a fictionalized America riddled with terrorists, which helps keep part of the real America convinced we might really be riddled with terrorists, and it wins five Emmys and two Golden Globes? Gripping drama or thinly veiled propaganda?

It's a familiar tactic for grabbing and holding the public's attention beloved by both the Bush administration and, just as another example, Fox News Channel. Step one: fear. And if step one does not work, step two: more fear.

If that wasn't enough to scare or outrage you, the rest of the four-hour, two-night show opener featured a mall attack, a would-be suicide bomber on a subway, and a successful suicide bombing on a passenger bus. Not in places where these things have already happened, but in a country called the United States of America. In case you missed the point, the show finished up with a nuclear weapon detonating in a major American city, literally conjuring up the administration's imagery for the war in Iraq, the good old mushroom cloud.”

First of all, Al Gore’s movie was praised by the media. Those of us who understand the truth about Global Warming, and the outright lies presented in “An Inconvenient Truth,” are the ones ridiculing Gore’s film. But, I digress.

Keith tries to make the argument that 24 is fear-mongering because it pushes the “false” idea that terrorists could attack the United States. He said:

“The rest of the four-hour, two-night show opener featured a mall attack, a would-be suicide bomber on a subway, and a successful suicide bombing on a passenger bus. Not in places where these things have already happened, but in a country called the United States of America.”

So, terrorist attacks only happen in other countries. They don’t happen here. They could never hit us here. We are safe. 24 is just trying to scare us.

This outlines the very point Conservatives have been trying to make for the past 5 years. Liberals like Olbermann don’t understand our current situation (i.e. the War on Terror) because they have forgotten. They have forgotten 9/11. They live in a fantasy world where 9/11 never happened. Previous presidential administrations never considered Saddam a threat with weapons of mass destruction. Islamic fascists never hated us before Bush went into Iraq. Iran and other terrorist groups would never seek or acquire nuclear weapons. We are in our current situation because of fear. Bush wields it as his most powerful tool.

Now, 24 has joined in on the fear-mongering. We should simply ignore it. It could never happen.

Yes, the events of 24 are fictional. Yes, it is presented in a highly dramatized way. But, the bottom line is that terrorists have hit us. Five years ago, they killed 3,000 of our civilians. They used our own planes as weapons against innocent Americans. 9/11 wasn’t fiction. They struck. And, they can do it again.

But, Olbermann, and those like him, have forgotten about 9/11. Any reminders of it are labeled as scare tactics and propaganda. Any messages (fictional or otherwise) that we must fight those who seek to destroy us are called brainwashing.

Keith, leave your head buried in the sand if you want. The rest of us who still understand the post-9/11 world will continue to stand against those who seek our destruction.

And, we will continue to appreciate one the most-entertaining shows on television.


The Economy is Great...Now.

Was there really a single person on the planet that didn’t see this one coming? For the past few years, our economy has been booming with low unemployment, higher average wages, and a drastic increase in home ownership. The economy has been fantastic.

Of course, that isn’t the report we have been getting from the media. They drag every left-wing economist they can find in front of the cameras to proclaim that our economy is terrible.

It’s funny how a 5.6% unemployment rate under Bill Clinton was phenomenal. Yet, a 4.5% unemployment rate under President Bush is disastrous. Just in case you slept through Economics 101, when it comes to unemployment rates, lower numbers are better than higher numbers.

Yes, the media has been hammering the Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress with a sagging economy. The Republican tax-cuts to the wealthiest one percent are destroying our financial structure. The economy will never recoup!

That is, until Democrats take control again. That’s right. We all saw it coming. The economy under Bush…bad. Now that the Democrats are in control of the Congress…the economy is great!

Read it here.

We are sure to see more stories exactly like this for the next 2 years. Our country has been in shambles. But, with Democrats in control, all that will magically change.

Aren’t we lucky the Democrats seized control? The Republicans spent the last 6 years trying to destroy this country. But, a mere 10 days after taking office, the Democrats have dramatically repaired the damage!


Bias confirmed

The New York Times is really making this too easy. It has always been easy to find evidence of their liberal bias. But, rarely do they ever announce it to us. Over the weekend, they practically did just that.

Yesterday in their Business section, they ran an article about Mutual Funds. Seems pretty straight forward, right? Boring, but straight forward.

However, this particular article focused on a New York Investment group called Blue Investment Management. Here is how the article describes the group:

"In one election after another, American voters have shown that they are sharply divided along partisan lines. Now, Americans have a new way to demonstrate whether they lean red or blue: through their choice of a mutual fund.

Two funds started recently by Blue Investment Management, a New York fund company that is less than a year old, will limit their holdings to companies that donate the majority of their political contributions to Democrats."

At the surface, there doesn’t seem to be any problem. The New York Times is reporting on an investment group who only supports Democratic Kool-Aid drinkers. Got it.

But, a very brief look into Blue Investment Management's portfolio reveals a different story. Here are a few of the companies that Blue Investment Management invests in:

Bed, Bath, and Beyond
The Gap

No real problems there. But, looky what we have here. Two of the big name companies that Blue Investment Management finds liberal enough to support:

CBS and The New York Times Company.

Surprise, Surprise. Of course, this little fact was left out of the Times' article.

So, by studying the political contributions of CBS and The New York Times, Blue Investment Management has found that both companies are strong supporters of the Democratic Party and liberal causes. Go figure.

The mainstream media keeps telling us that they are not biased. Yet, they keep running articles that scream they are!


My Soapbox

This is my soapbox, and I need to rant. One of the most important issues to me is the role of capitalism in our society. I believe that capitalism is the single-greatest economic system ever developed by man. It has been empirically proven that capitalism is responsible for bringing more people out of poverty and creating better living conditions than any other economic system ever conceived.

At the heart of this great system is the idea of the free-market. Unfortunately, our market is not as free as it should be. The socialist cry-babies on the left have seen to that. Nevertheless, our market is still somewhat free.

One main attribute to the free market, which still thrives in America, is the idea of competition. Company ABC introduces a great product or service, and they begin to sell it. Company XYZ comes along with a similar, but better product or service and sells it for less. Company ABC now must compete for business. In order, to get more business than the other guy, ABC improves their product or service, and lowers their price.

During the improvement of products and services, and the dramatic price wars, who is really comes out as the winner? The consumer…you and me. We get better products, and we don’t have to pay as much for them. Sounds great, right?

But, what if the principle of competition was taken out of the equation? What if contracts or back-door deals were in place to make sure that Company ABC did not have to compete for business? They would have no incentive to improve their product or service, and they could charge whatever they wanted for it.

Here’s a real-world example of this travesty to capitalism. My apartment complex only allows one cable TV company to provide service to its tenants. This cable company is called MediaWorks.

MediaWorks has weaseled its way into some sort of contract with my apartment complex. If tenants want cable television service, the only company they can use is MediaWorks.

This deal works out really well for MediaWorks. After all, their contract guarantees a continuous flow of new customers. But, the tenants are screwed due to the fact that the entire premise of the contract is socialist in nature.

By taking away the freedom to choose our own cable company, MediaWorks has successfully removed competition from the free market. There is no incentive for them to provide superior service (or even adequate service) at a reasonable price.

Case in point, MediaWorks lags behind every other major cable provider in existence when it comes to the services. Their cheapest cable package is still 50% more expensive than any other provider (satellite or cable), and doesn’t offer digital or HD programming. They are selling obsolete technology at a premium price. But, what can be done? Where is the incentive for them to offer a better product or lower their pricing? There is no incentive. So, it won’t happen.

Of course, there is a provision in their contract which says that tenants can sign up for satellite service. And, I tried to do just that. I was going to get better services, digital cable, HD programming, DVR service, and free movie channels. To top it all off, I was going to pay a lot less.

But, alas, I could not.

My apartment does not have a clear line-of-site to the southern sky, which is the direction all satellite providers broadcast from. For me, and the 75% of tenants who don't have a line-of-sight to the southern sky, satellite service is not an option.

So, once again, if we want TV service, we have to turn to MediaWorks.

This contract is a disgusting rejection of capitalism, and a pathetic way to do business.

I would suggest that MediaWorks abandon this shameful business practice and begin new ones. Improve their service and lower their pricing. Offer digital programming at a low price. Incorporate HD service. It’s 2007. How about catching up with the rest of the world!!!

But, I'm sure that they won't take that advice. After all, I have no choice but to take what they give me. Right?


The Saddam video

I didn't get a chance over the holiday to express my thoughts on Saddam's execution. Let me put it this way. The world is one tyrannical, murderous, evil dictator less. It is a better world.

But, please explain something to me. Why is everyone making such a big deal about the filming of Saddam’s execution? The guy was a dictator who slaughtered his own people with outlawed Weapons of Mass Destruction. He had rape rooms and torture rooms for people who spoke out against his regime. He murdered countless innocents and threw their bodies in mass graves. He was evil. Why mourn his passing or condemn a video documenting it?

The news today is that the Iraqi official that shot the footage on his cell phone has been arrested! American news outlets are saying that the footage is causing world-wide outrage.

By the way, these same news outlets are also whitewashing Saddam the tyrant as “Mr. Hussein.”

But, back to my point. Why is that footage causing outrage? A lot of the concern is centered on the outrage in the Middle East, and the division it may cause between Sunnis and Shi’ites. I suppose that is a valid concern. But, that is not the outrage I am referring to. Some media outlets are furious that Internet sites would offer such brutal footage to the American public.

The New York Times put it this way:

"Confronted with a second, unofficial and more graphic video account of the moments leading up to the execution of Saddam Hussein, and the hanging itself, executives at television news organizations made a series of what one executive, President Steve Capus of NBC News, called “delicate editorial decisions” about what they would put on the air on Saturday night and Sunday to augment the first pictures of the execution.

The new video, almost certainly shot by a cellphone camera by one of the guards or witnesses at the execution, includes exchanges between Mr. Hussein and either the witnesses or guards leading up to the moment when the trapdoor opens and he falls. No national American television organization has thus far allowed the moment of the drop to be shown.

But the same niceties were not observed on numerous Web sites, which have posted the complete video, including the moment that Mr. Hussein, noose around his neck, falls, and a close-up of his face afterward."

That’s funny. I don’t remember the same type of sentiment expressed over CNN’s terrorist propaganda footage. In fact, I remember the New York Times endorsing the posting of YouTube videos showing the deaths of American Soldiers. From the New York Times on October 6, 2006: "Now on YouTube: Iraq Videos Of U.S. Troops Under Attack,"

“At a time when the Bush administration has restricted photographs of the coffins of military personnel returning to the United States and the Pentagon keeps close tabs on videotapes of combat operations taken by the news media, the videos give average Americans a level of access to combat scenes rarely available before, if ever.

So, footage of a vicious dictator being served true justice at the gallows is wrong. But, offering terrorist propaganda On-Demand is just fine.

Bias? What media bias?