Global Warming Hysteria

When it comes to Global Warming hysteria, this pretty much sums it up:

Is it exaggerated for comedic effect? Yes. Is it freakin’ hilarious? Absolutely.

Like all good comedy, does it also have a hint of truth to it? Sadly, yes it does. From Hurricane Katrina to Global Warming, sheer panic is created by a media with an agenda. It is facilitated by Politicians and “activists” who either don’t have a clue what they are talking about, or they intentionally distort the facts to meet their needs. In turn, the hysteria that is created is not far from the absurdity in this clip.


Classic Class Warfare

Yesterday, the Dow Jones Industrial average broke a new record when it climbed to a staggering 13,000 points. This is cause for celebration. Our economy is booming. Record earnings are consistently being surpassed by bigger and bigger numbers!

But, how is this great news met in the media? The same way they treat every bit of good news. They spin it to focus on the negative. All of the major media outlets are trying to generate fear in American consumers of looming trouble on the economic horizon. But, I think the Today Show gets the award for the most ridiculous story.

They resorted to a very effective tradition…Class Warfare. When they have nothing else, they pit the poor against the rich, and wait for blood. Strangely enough, they had Matt Lauer introduce their segment titled, “Share the Wealth?: The Rich Get Richer.”

At last check, Matt was earning a reported $13 million a year. So, it’s a bit strange to hear him refer to the “fat cats” who are getting “richer and richer.” I guess he would know.

Anyway, Matt began the story this way:

Lauer: Do you feel like you're working harder and harder nowadays just to stay financially afloat while fat cats get richer and richer? It's not just a feeling, and you're not alone.

Lauer does his best to relate to the average joe. His question stinks of victimization. He is trying to entice, or further exaggerate, vitriolic feelings by those in lower income brackets toward those in higher brackets. It’s sickening.

The story continued like any other Class Warfare hit piece. NBC’s Scott Cohn picked up where Matt left off. Here is what he had to say:

COHN: Not only are the rich getting richer, they're leaving everyone else behind. In fact the last time the rich were this much richer than everyone else . . . was the Great Depression.

It’s as if the rich were stealing money from the poor. Because they earn so much, they leave nothing for anyone else to earn. It is the fault of the “fat cats” that “the rest of us” can’t get ahead. If that’s not Class Warfare, I don’t know what is.

Cohn sadly continued:

COHN: A University of California study shows the top 1% of Americans now make 22% of the nation's income, their biggest piece of the pie since 1929, while middle-class Americans, by and large, are stuck, rising energy prices canceling out any increase in wages.

Middle-class Americans are stuck! Oh no. And, whose fault is that? Of course it’s the fault of the rich. They leave the rest of us behind. Oh, and it's also the fault of the evil oil companies. The rising energy prices can always be tied back to those price gougers!

Cohn conveniently forgot to mention that, while the top 1% of Americans earn 22% of the income (even though this figure can’t be substantiated by any sources), the top 1% also pay 36.9% of the income tax. The bottom 50% of Americans who earn 13.4% of the income only pay 3.3% of the income tax.

How’s that for balance?

The story concluded with a statement from Robert Greenstein, Executive Director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This is probably my favorite part of the story. Not because Greenstein’s organization is funded by leftists like George Soros. But, because of what Greenstein said:

“It makes it harder to achieve the basics of the American dream for the millions of families that get up, work hard, play by the rules every day.”

Millions of families in middle-class America work hard and play by the rules every day. What is the obvious implication in that statement?

The rich do not work hard, nor do they play by the rules. They became rich because they were born into money, or they cheated their way to the top. It’s much easier to hate the rich if you believe that they are all liars and crooks.

Like I said. Classic Class Warfare.

The Measure of Happiness

How do you gauge happiness? What is the measure of a happy life? A recent study tried to determine the “happiest” people in the world. The researchers considered factors like health, prosperity, and education. They found that at the top of the list was Denmark. The Danes ranked as the happiest people in the world.

So what accounts for this illustrious classification? What makes the Danish people so darn happy? ABC’s Good Morning America decided to find out. Lama Hasan reported from Denmark. Here is what she had to say:

Hasan: “Unlike Americans, Danes are not always comparing themselves to others and asking for more. It seems that everywhere you go in Copenhagen, you stumble on the satisfied. Having a generous welfare system that provides security and comfort doesn’t hurt.”

Hasan, also correctly pointed out that their “generous welfare system” is paid for with “astronomical taxes.” (FYI, According to the Guiness Book of World Records, Denmark has the highest Income Tax rate in the world at 68%.)

But, Hasan needed to talk to average Danes, the ones who benefit so much from the “generous welfare system.” She interviewed one lady who explained what her secret is to such immense happiness:

Steina (No last name given): "I don't put dreams totally up there so I can't reach them."

Don’t you see? All we need to be happy is a Government who over taxes us, then convinces us that their handouts are “generous.” And, when it comes to setting life goals, we should set the bar just high enough to trip over.

Got it?

Thus, the brilliance of the Denmark system…an overtaxed welfare state with incredibly low self-expectations. I guess it is no wonder why that county produces virtually nothing, adds nothing to the rest of the world’s populace, and generally fails to improve themselves as human beings.

But, according to ABC, that is the shinning example that we should all strive to emulate.

This is why I can no longer call these people "liberals."


What does General Petraeus have to say?

I have grown weary of debating about the War in Iraq. Every time the debate is brought up (which I estimate is once every .035 seconds), the same points are repeated. Democrats have their talking points. Republicans have their own. It basically boils down to whether we should bring the troops home immediately, or keep them there until the Iraqi government can stand on its own.

Personally, I would prefer to listen to the soldiers on the ground in Iraq. What do their commanding officers have to say about the situation? What do the troops have to say? For me, their voice has a hell of a lot more weight than any politician in Washington.

Four-Star General David Petraeus is in charge of the Multination Force in Iraq. He is the commander of ground operations over there. That would probably be a good person to listen to.

Senator Harry Reid agreed. On Monday, Reid was interviewed by Dana Bash with CNN. The interview was in response to Reid’s recent comment that “this war is lost.” Bash asked Reid what he meant by his comment. Here was the exchange:

BASH: The phrase "the war is lost" really touched a nerve. Do you stand by that comment?

REID: General Petraeus has said that only 20 percent of the war can be won militarily. He's the man on the ground there now. He said 80 percent of the war has to be won diplomatically, economically and politically. I agree with General Petraeus. Now, that is clear and I certainly believe that.

BASH: But, sir, General Petraeus has not said the war is lost. I just want to ask you again...

REID: General -- General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily. He said that.

BASH: Is there something to that, an 18- and 19-year-old person in the service in Iraq who is serving, risking their lives, in some cases losing their life, hearing somebody like you back in Washington saying that they're fighting for a lost cause?

REID: General Petraeus has told them that.

BASH: How has he said that?

REID: He said the war can't be won militarily. He said that. I mean he said it. He's the commander on the ground there.

Reid has fully backed Petraeus, and endorced his credentials. “I agree with General Patraeus,” “He is the commander on the ground there.” Petraeus knows what he’s talking about!

But, did Petraeus really say that "the war can't be won militarily?" Of course not. Reid took his statement completely out of context. Petraeus made the statement in question during his first press briefing from Baghdad on March 8, 2007. Here is Petraeus’ FULL comment:

PETRAEUS: We and our Iraqi partners recognize that improving security for the Iraqi people is the first step in rekindling hope. The upward spiral we all want begins with Iraqi and coalition forces working together and locating in the neighborhoods those forces must secure. This concept features Iraqi and coalition soldiers partnering with local police to establish joint security stations, such as the one we began establishing in Sadr City on Monday, as well as combat outposts to ensure continuous presence in local communities.

REPORTER: Could you confirm to us, please, that there is a dialogue between the American officials and the Mahdi Army militias and some armed groups like the Islamic Party in Iraq?

PETRAEUS: In an endeavor like this one, the host nation and those who are assisting it obviously are trying to determine over time who are the irreconcilables and who are the reconcilables.

REPORTER: You said that the host country can determine who are the reconcilable groups. ...So how are these people going to be part of the solution?

PETRAEUS: With respect, again, to the -- you know, the idea of the reconcilables and the irreconcilables, this is something in which the Iraqi government obviously has the lead. It is something that they have sought to -- in some cases, to reach out. And I think, again, that any student of history recognizes that there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security, for all the reasons that I stated in my remarks, but it is not sufficient.

What he is saying is that there are two kinds of people in Iraq right now. The “reconcilables” are those in Iraq who are willing to work with the Iraqi government. Any grievance they may have can be dealt with through peaceful means. The “irreconcilables” are the ones who will stand for nothing less than the death of every American soldier and the complete institution of radical Islamic law. There is no way that these individuals will reach a peaceful agreement with the new Iraqi government.

So, how do you bring the “reconcilables” around to working peacefully with the new government? Petraeus is saying that “a problem like this” is not a military matter. That is a diplomatic or political matter. He is there to “help improve security.” He is there to kill or otherwise defeat the “irreconcilables.”

Harry Reid is either incompetent for not being able to understand the context of Petraeus’ statement. Or, he is intellectually dishonest. Methinks it is the latter.

Reid knows full-well what Petraeus was saying. But, most Americans don’t. It was a perfect political opportunity to twist the words of a military commander to fit his agenda.

So, Reid, during the first part of the interview, was willing to agree with Petraeus and fully endorse Petraeus’ credentials.

However, what happens when Petraeus makes a statement that doesn’t fit Reid’s agenda? Well, naturally, Reid would say that Petraeus is lying.

The funny part is Reid praised Petraeus and called him a liar IN THE SAME INTERVIEW! A mere 30 seconds after Reid boosted up Petraeus and backed his expertise, he claimed that Petraeus was a liar. Here is the rest of the interview:

REID: I mean General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily. Doesn't every soldier going there know that he's said that? I think so.

BASH: He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?

REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening.

When Reid can take the General's comments out of context, Reid acknowledges that the General knows what he is talking about. As soon as the General says the surge is working, Reid claims that he is a liar.

Simply amazing.



I have come to a decision. Now, this isn’t a life-altering decision. I did not make this decision after some sort of earth-shattering revelation. To be honest, most of you probably won’t care. You will merely see it as insignificant. But, to me, it is important.

Words have meanings. We derive their meaning from the way we interpret them. Languages are based on a common acceptance of the same interpretation. Without a common acceptance, words have no meaning. If we misinterpret words, their meaning is distorted or lost completely.

Take, for instance, the word “liberal.” What exactly does it mean? Commonly, it is interpreted as a political categorization. It is used to describe those on the left of the political spectrum (Democrats, Socialists, Progresives, etc).

But, that word is used in a variety of contexts. So, how is it defined? Well, let’s look it up, shall we?

lib•er•al [lib-er-uhl] –

1. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

2. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression

3. not strict or rigorous; free

Obviously, these are dictionary definitions of the word. Wikipedia defines “liberalism” this way:

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.

You can see a theme in all of these definitions. The word “liberal” rests heavily on personal freedom, individuality, and non-interference from outside forces. In the classic sense of the word, a “liberal” would be absolutely opposed to more restrictions imposed by the Government or an erosion of individuality.

Contrast that, with this:

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

“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.”

Both of these statements were made by leaders of the Democratic Party. The first was made by Hillary Clinton, the latter by Ted Kennedy. Both of these people call themselves “liberal.” But, are they? Their statements lay the framework for their war on individualism. They want to have the power to circumvent individual rights in favor of “the greater good.”

The truth is that they have a very strange definition of “the greater good.” They consider it good when every single citizen of the United States is wholly dependent on the Government for their healthcare, retirement, medications, education, and income. They consider it "good" when individualism is defeated in favor of “what is best for society.”

Does this sound “liberal” to you?

Add to their war on individualism, the way that they view restrictions on the free market. They endorse things like the Fairness Doctrine. This doctrine states that the Government has the power to regulate Radio and Television to ensure a “balance” of viewpoints. Officials in Washington would be able to control what programs can and cannot run on the airwaves.

They also endorse the seizing of private company profits. If they feel that a company is earning too much money, they would seize those profits for Governmental use. Essentially, they would tell people how much they are allowed to earn.

Also, think about their endorsement of things like Affirmative Action. In a free market, your ability to profit depends on the demand for the skill set you possess. Ideally, your race, creed, gender, and religion would not play a factor. With Affirmative Action, it does. Affirmative Action provides a method for groups to practice reverse discrimination.

Does this sound “liberal” to you?

They want the Government to regulate more and more aspects of our lives. In their minds, it is no longer acceptable for people to be responsible for their own lives. It is no longer acceptable for people to dissent from their “consensus.” It is no longer acceptable for people to be individuals. We must do what is best for the “greater good.”

Does this sound “liberal” to you?

It is my contention that the “liberals” of today’s society are nothing of the kind. They have turned away from the ideas of personal freedom, individuality, and non-interference from outside forces. They have distorted the meaning of the word “liberal.” Therefore, that term can no longer be used to describe them.

The term that best describes them is “Statist.” A basic definition of “Statism” is

“A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters at the cost of individual liberty.

Fitting, don’t ya think?

So, from now on, you won’t see me refer to these individuals as “liberals.” The definition just doesn’t fit. They are “Statists.” And, they will be referred to as such.


Taking The Law Into Your Own Hands

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Many of you will recognize this statement as being in the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. This document set the stage for the foundation of our country. It threw off the old form of Government, the oppressive British crown, and declared the desire to establish a new Government based on inalienable freedom. The role of this new Government is to protect those inalienable rights.

Read that opening paragraph again, and answer this question. Where does the Government derive its power? They are granted the power to protect our rights from the consent of the Governed. In essence, we, as free people, hire them to do a job.

However, what happens if the Government or one of its institutions is not able to provide that protection? What happens when our very life is threatened, and the Government isn’t there to stop it? The duty is ours. We have created provisions in our laws, based on the idea of self-defense, that protect us from Government retribution if we are forced to act in self-preservation.

With that said, why do we keep hearing the phrase “people can’t take the law into their own hands?” The law IS in our hands. We hire police officers to protect and serve. Our consent gives them their just powers. But, if they are not present when our life is being threatened, the responsibility falls on us.

Last week, Catarino Piedra, a store owner in Oakland, California, was faced with this situation. And he acted.

Last Thursday, a man named Allen Hicks entered Piedra’s pizzeria armed with a gun and tried to rob him. Held up at gunpoint, Piedra had a decision to make. His wife and three children were also in the restaurant. All of their lives were in danger. This was a matter of self-preservation and the protection of his family. So, Piedra picked up his own gun from behind the counter and killed Hicks.

The act was completely justified. No one can argue that.

But, remember. It’s California. So, they’ll certainly try to argue it. First of all, the San Francisco Chronicle refers to this as a tragedy. Why? What tragic thing happened? A criminal threatened the life of this man and that of his family. He put himself in that position. Piedra acted ethically and in accordance with the law.

Secondly, a spokesman for the San Francisco police department made the following statement:

"This thing had potential -- who knows where the suspects were going to take the situation? But by no stretch of the imagination are we agreeing with or justifying what the owner did.

We're not saying that we want citizens to go out there and arm themselves and take the law into their own hands. We want citizens to be good witnesses, to be good report-takers and to identify suspects."

How cute. They want us to be good witnesses and good report-takers. They want us to be defenseless peons that can’t survive with out the omnipotent Government there to protect us. Screw you. If it is kill or be killed, and you aren't there to do your damn job, we will act. We refuse to stand idly by while criminals threaten our lives. In that situation, I would take a gun in my hand over a freakin' notepad any day.

He also used the phrase, “take the law into their own hands.” As I have already explained, this statement is in complete contrast with the spirit of our law.

On top of all of that, the San Francisco police department can’t even bring themselves to justify what Piedra did. But, it doesn't matter. Whether they like it or not, he was justified. The police weren’t there to do the job that Piedra hired them to do. So, he took action. Case closed.

This report is also a classic case of media bias. The San Francisco Chronicle felt that this was a perfect opportunity to espouse their anti-gun feelings. First, The Chronicle made room in the article to quote an anti-gun business owner:

Mohammed Ali, the manager of a market on the busy thoroughfare that has seen its share of robberies, had mixed feelings about business owners arming themselves. "Of course they have a right to protect themselves, but from what? If we have law enforcement, should (businesses) have guns? I don't think so. They're inviting trouble."

Moving past the obvious idiocy of Ali's statement, why is this quote even in the article? What possible relevance does it have to the situation at hand? It serves no other purpose than to promote the anti-gun agenda of the San Francisco Chronicle.

Then, in a heroic story of a husband who protected his family, the Chronicle thought it was necessary to end the story this way:

Hicks was remembered at a growing makeshift memorial Friday near the corner of 90th Avenue and Olive Street in East Oakland. Friends left balloons, candles and bottles of Hennessy cognac on the street and wrote messages on white boards tied to a fence.

"Hard-headed ass, Boonie," one message read. "The world's gone miss u boy."

"He always had a smile on his face," said a 22-year-old man who identified himself as a rapper named Little Al. "He was a solid dude, loyal."

He didn't express any anger at the pizzeria owner for shooting his friend. "Life happens," he said. "I'm not upset, you feel me? You wouldn't want it to happen, but it happened. Ain't no telling why that shooting occurred.

That’s right. They memorialized the criminal. They dedicated the last half of the story in fond remembrance of the perpetrator. They even quoted an ex-girlfriend, who Hicks abused. She told the Chronicle that he was a “good person.”

Wrong. He wasn’t a good person. He was a thief. He threatened the life of Piedra and his family.

The fact that his life ended during one of his criminal exploits is justice.

How to defeat Global warming

Ugh. This is a perfect example of why most celebrities should refrain from speaking in their spare time. When you are not on stage or on screen, please don't open your mouth and let words escape. You ruin any image of intelligence when you express your thoughts. When you create a dissertation on social policy, you demonstrate exactly how void you are of rational thought. Prime example…Sheryl Crow.

She has been on the Global Warming bandwagon for some time now. Recently, she and Laurie David have been on a college tour trying to bring new converts into their Global Warming religion. They have been chronicling their tour exploits on their blog. Last week, Sheryl made the following post. You simply have to read it for yourself:

"I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming. Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating.

I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required."

I…She…I………I am at a loss for words.

Wait a second. I found the right words. Sheryl, you’re an idiot. But, this is a prime example of the lunacy coming out of this religion.


High Gas Prices...a good thing?

I can't believe it! A reporter with ABC's Good Morning America actually went on the air Friday and praised high gas prices! You read that correctly. They said that high gas prices were a good thing. According to this reporter, high gas prices are "a big idea," "innovative," and "discourage guzzling."

I'm glad that this information is finally getting out there. I'm glad that the media is finally figuring out the role of higher gas prices when it come to supply and demand. It's just too bad that they will only mention it in a story about EUROPEAN gas prices.

Oh....did I forget to mention that? Yes, yes. This entire monologue about high gas prices came about in a story of how innovative Europeans are in dealing with environmental issues.

Apparently, when America's gasoline costs $2.00 per gallon, is is due to the filthy greed of the evil oil companies. When France sells it for $6.00 per gallon, it is an attempt to make the world a better place.

Here is the rancid diatribe:

Chris Cuomo: "Here I am in front of the famous Arc de Triomphe. And you're looking at a major environmental situation, the greenhouse gases caused by automobiles. But you're also looking at a solution here in Europe, smaller vehicles, more energy efficient. Many which use diesel fuel which is more efficient. And the price of gas here is $6 a gallon to discourage guzzling. A lot of big ideas and innovations coming out of Europe.

We just got a recent revelation out of Norway. They're going to reduce emissions 30 percent by the year 2020. They also had a Europe wide lights out day.

Here in the city of lights, that meant the Eiffel Tower went dim for five minutes. In that one day, France reduced its energy use by 1 percent, which is amazing. They've also changed all 20,000 light bulbs in the Eiffel Tower to make them more energy efficient and shut down. And they shut down all the lights in the city at 1am just to save energy.

Another important note here in France, now they're getting 80 percent of their energy for everything from nuclear power. Of course, that means no greenhouse emissions. That means a much cleaner environment, the air quality is better. In fact, the air quality in France, even in Paris, with all these cars and all the industry and all the people, is the cleanest in the industrialized world.

Europe does have a lot of significant issues it has to deal with, like the United States.
But they're much more innovative here in terms of figuring out what to do."

The entire report is an attempt to slight America for our "backwards" policies. Cuomo praises Europeans for being so "innovative" and "clean." Mind you, that is probably the only time you'll ever hear a European described as "clean."

But, right there at the beginning of his condemnation of the US, Cuomo specifically states that $6.00/gallon gasoline is meant to discourage wasteful use. He's absolutely right. If it costs more, people will buy less. The supply is regulated by the price. THAT IS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK! The Government is not meant to to control prices. That is the job of the free market.

It isn't until ABC gets the chance to praise Europeans that they will finally admit that. When it comes to a report on American gas prices, however, watch how they report it. They will never talk about the US Government's incredibly high share of gasoline profits. They will never talk about the role of high prices in the law of supply and demand.

They will simply tell you that the oil companies are trying to gouge you with outrageous profits. $2.00/gallon gasoline in America = evil. $6.00/gallon gasoline in Europe = innovative.


By the way, ABC also neglected to mention a couple of things. First of all, they praise Europe for switching much of their energy needs over to Nuclear power. Excuse me? Do you have any clue as to why we can't build more nuclear power plants in America? ENVIRONMENTALISTS! Their lobbies in Washington prevent much need oil refineries and nuclear power plants from being built. They constantly scream at us for not being more energy efficient, then they accuse us of destroying the environment when we try to improve our efficiency.

Also, ABC neglected to mention the high cost on France's economy due to their environmental regulations. Their "innovation" is paid for by extremely heavy taxation and a 10% unemployment rate.


Cry me a river

It’s official. The people of Maine have completely lost it. They have rewritten the law to reflect their PC obsession.

They have now made it a CRIME to offend someone. That’s right. I said, “offend someone.” I did not say, “attack someone.” I did not say, “kill someone.” I didn’t even say, “assault someone.” I said, “offend someone.” If you hurt someone’s feelings, in Maine, you can be investigated for a HATE CRIME!

Last week, a student at Lewiston Middle School walked over to a table where several Somali students were sitting, and threw a bag on their table. Inside the bag was a ham sandwich. Innocent enough, right? Wrong.

You see, these Somali students are Muslim. Their religion prohibits them from eating pork products. To them, it is unclean. So, to be that close to a ham sandwich is highly offensive.

Did the student who threw the bag on the table know this? Of course he did. He did it to be a jerk. He intentionally offended them.


Last time I checked, there was no law against offending someone. Nowhere, in any State or Federal document, will you find a statute prohibiting offending someone. This kid broke no laws. It was a jerk thing to do, but it was completely lawful.

Yet, you must remember. We live in a society of candy ass wusses. The kid who threw the sandwich on the table is now being investigated for a HATE CRIME! I…kid…you…not:

Police are investigating as a possible hate crime an incident in which a ham steak was placed in a bag on a lunch table where a group of Somali students were sitting.

A Lewiston Middle School student was suspended after the incident, which happened April 11.

Superintendent Leon Levesque said the incident is being treated seriously and police are investigating. The center for the Prevention of Hate Violence is working with the school to devise a response plan.

What the hell??? What has our country come to? In order for a hate crime investigation to take place, a CRIME must have been committed. In this situation, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

However, the PC crowd is making a practice of coddling our candy ass citizens. The worst crime in their eyes is hurting someone’s feelings. When such a travesty takes place, the CRIMINAL should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The strong arm of the Government should take hold of him, and never let go. After all, he offended someone.

Cry me a river.


Partial-Birth Abortion

For the past several years, I have tried to make it a principle to not get into a debate about abortion. It is a polarizing issue, and it is one filled with so much misinformation.

In any given debate on the subject, you can break down every single argument to a single premise. Actually, it is a single question. It is that question which causes such division. And, it is that question which seems irresolvable.

That question is, “When does life begin?” Abortion supporters call it a fetus. Abortion opponents call it a child. How people answer that question, in most cases, depends on which side of the abortion issue they take.

Yet, despite the huge division between the two sides, they can agree on one thing. Once that child breeches the womb, it has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thus, the problem. There has been a controversial procedure in this country known as partial-birth abortion. Here are the basics.

Typical abortions can only be performed in the first two trimesters of a pregnancy. But, after the 21st week of pregnancy, the only abortion option is a late-term abortion, also commonly called "partial birth abortion." There is a reason this term is applied.

In this procedure, the child is turned to the breech position, feet first. The doctor pulls the child out of the womb by the legs, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. At this point, the doctor sticks a catheter into the child’s skull. The catheter sucks the child’s brain out, causing its skull to collapse.

The child is in the process of being delivered as it is murdered. That is why the term “partial-birth abortion” applies.

Even many of the most stern abortion supporters can see a problem with this practice. Their contention in supporting abortion is that the fetus is not alive until it comes out of the womb. Partial-birth abortion is at serious odds with that contention.

In 2003, the Bush administration and the Republican-controlled Congress passed a nationwide ban on this barbaric practice. Since then, the ban has been challenged by abortion supporters who state that the ban is unconstitutional. That’s funny. I can’t seem to find the part of the Constitution that enumerates our right to murder a child while it is in the process of being born.

The Supreme Court agrees. Yesterday, they upheld the ban on Partial-birth abortion. Justice has been served.

This is NOT a ban on all abortions. It has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. Partial-birth abortion is in a category all to itself. There is absolutely no defense for such a practice.


The Virginia Tech Shooting

I don't know what to say really. Our thoughts and prayers certainly go out to the victims' and their families. Words can't really describe the nature of an event like this. Evil acts were carried out by an evil person. Innocent lives were lost. It is a tragedy of astounding magnitude.

The small glimmer of hope that can be focused on is the heroes that came out of such a tragic event. Certainly, the law enforcement officers on the scene deserve immense gratitude. But, there are also ordinary citizens who deserve to be recognized for their acts of heroism. When they take action to protect the lives of others, they are worthy of being called a hero. When we focus on these stories of bravery, sacrifice, selflessness...that can be the shining light in a time of such great darkness.

One such story is already being reported. 77 year-old Liviu Librescu, was an engineering professor at Virginia Tech. He was also a Holocaust Survivor. Up until yesterday, his life was no doubt defined by his survival of the most horrific mass genocide the world has ever known.

However, yesterday, his life was defined by his sacrifice in the worst mass shooting in American history. Professor Librescu was teaching his class in Norris Hall, as Cho Seung-hui began his shooting spree.

After hearing the shots and realizing that the shooter was approaching his classroom, Librescu ran to the door and blocked it with his body, giving his students time to evacuate through the windows.

Liviu Librescu was shot and killed as he was blocking the door. He sacrificed his life to save his students.

Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a hero. That is the shinning light in the see the goodness of some during times of such evil committed by others.


You really can't make this stuff up.

It’s as if God were reaching down out of heaven and smacking environmentalists in the back of the head (metaphorically, of course). When I see stories like this, I just have to laugh. The Global Warming hysteria becomes so overwhelming at times. But, when their hysteria meets the reality of our climate, it’s a ripe area for comedy.

Take this story for instance. The title is really all you need to read to burst into laughter:

“Cold, rain cuts short global warming rally.”

A Global Warming rally was called off because it was too cold. Priceless.

But, it get’s better.

“The storm prevented the use of solar ovens for a potluck picnic, Stiller said, and caused the planned two-hour demonstration to break up after about an hour.”

The great saving technology of the Global Warming lobby, Solar Power, is useless in certain weather conditions. Oh well. I'm sure that we can look past that little problem. You might pay a hell of a lot more for a less efficient power source. But, you'll feel much better about yourself.

I know. My comments on this story just illustrate that I don’t know what I’m talking about. After all, Global Warming pushers tell me that extremely COLD weather is evidence of Global Warming! Extreme Cold = Global Warming.

Cold…Warming. I…I…I…I don’t know what to say.


First Amendment?

I swore to myself that I wouldn’t post anything about the Don Imus flap. I’m sick and tired of hearing about it. Everyone’s talking about it, and there is a lot of misinformation being spread concerning this situation. One piece of gross misinformation is so abundant, that I am forced to break my oath, and make a posting about this situation.

I don’t need to take the time to explain the full situation to you. I’m sure that you’ve heard about it everywhere! But, offensive things were said, apologies were made, race-baiters came out of the woodworks…you know…the usual.

But, now Imus has had his show cancelled by MSNBC and has been fired by CBS. Here’s the point I want to make.

Talking heads everywhere are repeating the same line:

Free speech issues abound in all of this.”

That quote was made by Diane Sawyer. But, the exact same message has been expressed by many others. That shining beacon of intelligence, Rosie O’Donnell, had this to say:

“But the point of the story is, if it impedes on free speech in America, democracy is at stake. Because democracy is based on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So we really have to worry about that in this country

But it’s not a freedom if you outlaw certain words or thoughts, because then the thought police come and then before you know it, everyone’s in Guantanamo Bay without representation.”

We have people everywhere screaming that this is a matter of “free speech.” While it is true that the freedom of speech is one of the major foundations for a free society, it is important to understand what that right actually entails.

It is an inalienable right. We do not possess it because our Government "gives" us that right. We possess is because of the simple fact that we exist. The First amendment, and the American Government are given the responsibility of PROTECTING that right. They exist to protect our rights. They do not GIVE us that right.

With that said, the first amendment of the constitution outlines how that right is to be protected. Let’s look at what it says:

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

If you remember your 6th grade grammar class, what is the subject in that sentence? I’ll give you a hint. It is the first noun. In fact, it is the first word. CONGRESS.

In essence, the Government shall make no laws that can take away any aspect of your right to speak your mind. It refers to a prohibition against the Government.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A PRIVATE EMPLOYER! When you work for an employer, they make the rules. If they determine that you have diverged from those rules, they have the option to fire you. This has nothing to do with your freedom of speech. The Government is not impeding upon your freedoms. Therefore, the First Amendment doesn’t apply.

CBS was Imus’s employer. They determined that he diverged from what they consider to be appropriate broadcasting. They took action.

Now, you can certainly make the argument that they enforce that policy unevenly. They may let certain broadcasters slide with their inappropriate content, while taking serious action against another. If that is your point, then you have an argument against the employer’s policies.


For the next few days, listen to the continuing coverage of this case. I’m sure that there is a lot more in store for us. Listen to the people that consider this a first amendment issue.

Those individuals don’t have a single clue what they are talking about.

P.s. Also, listen to the numerous people that refer to America as a “Democracy.” We are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. There is a big difference.


Who needs trees anyway?

It’s time, once again, for another report on Global Warming. Remember, it’s going to kill us all. Even though the earth’s temperature has only risen 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, the polar ice caps will soon melt. The entire earth’s population will soon be destroyed. Get ready. It’s comin’.

Anyway, a fascinating new study has just been released. And, it’s findings sound strangely familiar.

According to this study, deforestation (cutting down trees) contributes to Global Warming. Wait…did I read that right? Let me read it again.

No. I’m sorry. I misread it. It actually says, FORESTS contribute to Global Warming.” That’s right. We’ve heard for years that cutting down trees will lead to warming. Now, this study tells us that:

“By the year 2100, if all the forests were cut and left to rot, the annual global mean temperature would decrease by more than 0.5 degree Fahrenheit.”

I…I…I have a headache. The study goes on to cite a lot of scientific jargon about tropical trees vs. nontropical trees. You can read it for yourself. But, I think someone should really tell the Trees For Life group about this study.

I’m simply posting this study to illustrate the absurdity of the Church of Global Warming. Everything man does causes Global Warming! If we plant more trees, we die. If we cut them all down, we die.

Folks, put on your rubber waders. The bulls**t is getting pretty deep.


Video of the day

Originally, I was going to post the video of O'Reilly vs. Geraldo. But, I am not going to waste precious blog space on two guys that I can't stand.

So, let's go a different way. Here is a video for you Easter enjoyment. Watch it. You won't be disappointed.


Nancy Pelosi

All right, kids. It’s quiz time!

Question: Who in the United States government is responsible for visiting foreign governments to broker peace treaties?

Answer: The Secretary of State.

Question: How many Secretaries of State does the United States have?

Answer: 1.

Question: Who is the current United States Secretary of State?

Answer: Condoleezza Rice.

Question: With these facts in mind, who the hell gave Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, the authority to engage in “peace talks” with the Syrian government on behalf of the United States and Israel?

Answer: No one.

That’s right, kids. Despite what the Queen Bee from San Francisco would have you believe, there is only one Secretary of State. And, it ain’t her. That is Condoleezza Rice’s role, and she engages in peace talks at the behest of the Executive Branch, namely President Bush.

There is not one single reason outlined in any American government document that grants the Speaker of the House the authority to engage in such foreign policy measures. But, Nancy took it upon herself to travel to Syria and do just that. As it turns out, her unbelievable arrogance got the best of her. She made a couple of critical errors in her “diplomacy.”

First, she bought into the false idea that if we just sit down and talk with our enemies, the world will be filled with love, flowers, and candy. Don’t get me wrong. Peaceful talks are certainly the way to go with some conflicts. Diplomacy, and not full-on aggression, is sometimes the way to go.

With Islamic terrorists and the countries that support them, this is not the case. This ideology is one that seeks to control the world. Like so many tyrannical movements before it, Islamic extremists do not want to live in peace with the infidels. They want to destroy us. They do not want to live in peace with the State of Israel. They want to “wipe Israel off the map” (a direct quote for the President of Iran). Diplomacy and Peace do not factor into that equation.

The only way to stand against evil such as that is to actually TAKE A STAND. Take an aggressive posture, and stick to it.

Syria has well-known ties with terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. These groups have made it their goal to destroy the State of Israel. They also seek an end to the United States. And, they receive support from Syria’s government.

Diplomacy is not going to change this.

The second major mistake Nancy made was the biggest one of all. She went to Syria to engage in “peace talks” on behalf of not only the United States, but also on behalf of Israel! Even if Liberals try to make the case that as a United States representative she has the right to engage in diplomacy (which is an indefensible position, by the way), there is absolutely NO reason that she should be speaking on behalf of Israel. Especially not when she undermines and contradicts Israel’s STATED POSITION!

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, has stated:

“Although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East.”

Olmert also said that the only way Israel would engage in discussion with Syria is if Syria:

Ceases its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hezbollah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran.

However, when Pelosi spoke to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, she told him that Israel was ready to engage in peaceful diplomacy!

Uh…what? Nancy, I think you missed a couple of steps there. It seems to me that Israel had very specific issues that had to addressed before they engaged in such talks. Namely, SYRIA’S SUPPORT FOR TERRORIST GROUPS WHO SEEK THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL! But, Pelosi conveniently forgot to mention that prerequisite.

We don’t have 535 Secretaries of State serving in the United States Congress. We have one.

Nancy would do well to remember that.


Hey, ABC. Your bias is showing!

One of the most striking displays of Liberal media bias comes when a Democrat and a Republican make the exact same mistake/action/statement. Watch the media coverage of the two politicians’ mistake/action/statement. The bias is unmistakable.

Take for instance the Trent Lott vs. Christopher Dodd coverage. Lott was run out of his job. Dodd was given a pass.

Try the attorney firings by President Bush and President Clinton. President Bush fired 8 Capitol Hill lawyers. Absolutely NO laws were broken in either case. Yet, there are calls for Bush’s impeachment and the firing of Attorney General Gonzales. Clinton fired all 93 of his attorneys, and CNN simply labeled it a "clean sweep."

Now, we have Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton. Hillary recently set a campaign fundraising record by raising $26 million. ABC heralded this achievement as "making history," "a sign of strength," and as a "shock and awe announcement." They praised her.

Then Romney announced that he had raised $23 million. In case you suck at math, that’s less than Hillary’s $26 million. Less money = less praise from the media. OK, I get that. That’s fair.

But, while announcing Hillary’s fundraising, ABC had nothing but words of praise. Contrast that with ABC’s response to Romney’s announcement. When his announcement was made, ABC began questioning his fund-raising methods and his contributions from the Mormon Church.

They didn’t ask one question about Hillary’s campaign contributions sources. Not once did they question her fundraising methods, even though she had set a RECORD. But, if a Republican raises $3 million less than Hillary, the inquisition is on!

Here’s how ABC covered Hillary Clinton:

Diane Sawyer: "We turn now to the presidential race for 2008 and staggering dollar signs. In fact, Senator Hillary Clinton has taken in a record $26 million in the first three months of the year, she has announced. And ABC's weekend anchor Kate Snow is here with the rest of it. Kate?"

Kate Snow: "Well, Diane, big numbers are seen as is a sign of strength. Small numbers can mean the end for a candidate. And while we still don't know this morning how the leading Republicans stack up, we have heard from several Democrats and we sure know who is on top. What does Barbra Streisand have in common with rapper Timbaland? They both chipped in to help Hillary Clinton make history. Shattering the record held by Al Gore when he ran for president, Senator Clinton raised $26 million over 10 weeks."

Now, here is there coverage of Mitt Romney. Note, the reporter did describe it, initially as "staggering." But, the tone very quickly changed:

Robin Roberts: "Well, Claire, now we're going to talk to the man of the morning, former Governor Mitt Romney. We spoke from Watertown, Massachusetts to discuss those staggering fund-raising totals that are the talk of the town. Governor Romney, we certainly do appreciate your time this morning. Third in the Republican polls, but you have everybody's attention this morning. So, where is the money coming from, Governor?"

Romney: "Well, frankly, from all over the country. I think from all 50 states. I'm very heartened by the fact that people who have heard my message and have seen me have been willing to part with some money and send it my way. It's giving us a great boost, a great start, and, of course, it's very encouraging and heartening to know the message is connecting with people across the country, particularly in the early primary states."

Roberts: "You say the money is coming from all the states. The ‘New York Times’ this morning is reporting that 15 percent of the money raised in your campaign is coming from the state of Utah. Many speculate that it has something to do, of course, with your being a Mormon. Does your, does your religion factor in at all in your campaign and in your fund-raising?"

Romney: "Of course not. The number one state is California and I lived, of course, for several years in Utah and helped organize the Olympic games there. So it's pretty natural that some of the folks who know me there and that are good friends have been supportive of my effort of my effort there. I think this is a campaign about changing Washington. Americans want a person who is willing to make some real dramatic change there and transform government to make it more responsive to the needs of our people, to bring stronger families, better jobs, better schools, better health care. And they're tired of all the bickering in Washington. They don’t want a life-long politician. They want somebody who will actually bring change."

Roberts: "Many are wondering if you will do, take a page from former President Kennedy, who had addressed the nation about his Catholic upbringing. Do you anticipate, anticipate doing the same?"

Romney: "Well, you know, time will tell about that. There's probably not a single interview I do with you guys that doesn't raise that issue, so, of course, we talk about it from time to time. But, you know, what I find as I go across the country is the people I talk to want a person of faith to lead the country, but they don't particularly care what brand of faith the person has, so as long as they have American values and we have shared values. "

Bias? What media bias?


The Supreme Court Has Spoken

Well, it’s official. The Supreme Court has decided that every time you breathe, you are polluting. Their recent decision about greenhouse gas emissions sides with environmentalists who say that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.

Granted, their decision focuses on vehicle emissions and not that of humans breathing. But, the point still stands. They consider CO2, a naturally occurring gas, a pollutant. What happens when you exhale? You emit this "pollutant." You are polluting the environment when you exhale.

Forget the fact that CO2 is a naturally occurring gas. Forget the fact that our planet DEPENDS on this “pollutant” to survive. Forget the fact that only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is attributed to man-made emissions. (Most of it is attributed to water vapor) Forget these facts.


You might also be interested to know how CBS covered this Supreme Court ruling. On Monday night, CBS reported the following:

“ ‘The EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,’ Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. Joining him were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Dissenting were the four most conservative members of the court: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

This was a 5-to-4 decision with the Court's most conservative justices dissenting. But you can still add the Supreme Court to the list of voices advocating action on global warming.”

Notice, for the four very Liberal members of the Supreme Court (Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter), there are no political labels attached to them. But, for the dissenters, they felt compelled to mention their political affiliation…twice.

If you agree with Global Warming, you are merely an independently-minded person who is concerned about the plight of the planet at the hands of evil mankind. If you are a Global Warming “Denier,” you are just one of those Neo-Con Bush-cronies.

Nice, huh?