Bias at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. What can you say about our wonderful local oasis of current event commentary? If you don’t live in Georgia, you have probably never picked up a copy of the AJC. If you did, you would soon find that you’ve delved into the realm of leftist talking points.

Is the AJC biased? You better believe it. Just take a look at this.

Last week, the AJC ran a piece written by Bob Dart entitled, “House takes on gas pricing.” Not a very catchy title, I’ll grant you. But, judging from the headline, it would seem to be a very straightforward article. It was a report on the ridiculous price-gouging bill that was passed in the House of Representatives. The vote was 281 to 141, which means that there were several detractors in the House.

If you are doing a report about a piece of controversial legislation in Washington, and you wanted to be completely objective in your presentation of the story, how would you go about doing that? Most logical people would conclude that you have to interview both supporters and objectors to the bill. YOU PRESENT BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY.

In his original article (for the Cox Newspaper Washington Bureau), Bob Dart DID, in fact, present both sides of the stories. He quoted Congressmen in support of the bill as well as a nonpartisan advocacy group who opposes the bill. It was a somwhat balanced presentation of the facts.

But, as I said, this is the AJC. They have an agenda. There was no room for objectivity.

Most of the original article was dedicated to the supporters of the bill and the demogoging of oil companies. Three paragraphs near the end of the article were reserved for the opposing viewpoint.

When the AJC ran the article in their paper, what do you think thy conveniently edited out?

That’s right. They cut the opposing viewpoint. Their version of the article had no sign of balance. They presented a one-sided argument in favor of the sham legislation.

Read the AJC article. Now, read the original article. Here is what the AJC cut:

At the hearing, though, a statement against the "Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act" was distributed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan advocacy group for "the principles of free enterprise and limited government."

"If we want to go back to the gas lines of the Seventies, this is a good way to do it," said Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the institute. "Constraining the ability of gas companies to set prices according to supply and demand is a recipe for rationing. In the end, there will be less gas available and the people who get it will be those most prepared to wait in line."

"Legislation to curb 'price gouging' is a solution in search of a problem," said Charles T. Drevna, executive vice president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. In another prepared statement distributed at the hearing, the head of the refinery industry trade group said dozens of federal investigations have never turned up evidence of market manipulation in the industry.

I’d say that these few paragraphs are very important in understanding the reality of the situation.

The AJC disagreed. Bias…what bias?


This has nothing to do with politics

This particular blog entry has nothing to do with politics. Despite what you may believe, my life does not revolve around the current events in Washington. If it did, I would soon find myself relocating to a padded cell.

My other obsession in life is film. I’m a huge movie buff. Perhaps it is my passion for acting and writing that drives my NEED to constantly patronize the local movie house. I love the creativity that is brought to life on the big screen. And, it isn’t just about watching the latest blockbuster.

It is about the entire experience of going to the theatre. From standing in line to buy tickets, to the smell of movie popcorn, to the anxiety of waiting for the Feature Presentation. Oh, yeah…I can’t forget about the trailers. I love watching movie trailers! But, all of these things are equally important facets of the movie-going experience.

Nothing…and I mean nothing…will ruin this experience more than some dumbass who has no appreciation for the experience and lacks any glimmer of respect for those around him. We’ve all seen them. These are the people who refuse to turn their cellphones off. Then, when their phone rings in the middle of the movie, THEY ACTUALLY ANSWER IT! It’s just wrong.

There are also the parents who bring their newborn babies to the theatre. I'm sure that you and your significant other felt that you needed an evening out. And, I'm sure that you think your child is the most adorable creature on the face of the planet. But, when your baby begins screaming in the middle of a crowded room, I can guarantee you that those around you DO NOT AGREE. The logical thing to do would be to take the child outside, where it can scream to its heart's content. But, do the parents do that? Of course not. They sit there, without giving a single thought to those around them. Jerks.

For some time now, I have been toying with an idea that could take care of these problems. It is quite simple. Each seat in the theatre is separately wired with a remote control. These remote controls will be tied directly to a computer in the manager’s office. Each movie patron would have the ability to alert the manager about loud talkers, crying babies, people talking on cellphones, and even problems with the sound or picture of the movie.

You wouldn’t have to leave the theatre and track down an employee. With the simple click of a button, the manager can be notified, and the problem rectified.

Well, it seems someone else has turned that same idea into a reality. Regal Cinemas in New York have equipped seven theatres with the Regal Guest Response System.

I can only hope that this system works its way down south. I look forward to the day when inconsiderate jerks get kicked to the curb for their rude public behavior.


You have to love the irony

I don’t really need to provide more evidence that Hillary Clinton is a confirmed socialist. But, I’m going to anyway. She keeps letting her Marxist talking points guide her thinking processes. And, it is scary.

Today, she gave a speech at the Manchester School of Technology. As reported by the Associated Press:

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans.”

Isn’t that precious? Clinton thinks that our society would be better off if we just all worked together. Makes you fell all warm and fuzzy doesn’t it? But, the problem lies in the methodology. How does Clinton presume to accomplish this utopian community?

“I believe our government can once again work for all Americans.”

What she really means is that our Government will take what someone else has and give it to someone who does not have. If the Government regulates what everyone has, no one will be “on their own.” We’ll all be in it together!

(FYI - The only thing “we’ll all be in” is POVERTY. Just ask the Soviet Union.)

Then, in an attempt to appear in favor of the free market, Clinton said:

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets.”

You know, she should have just stopped there. That is an accurate statement. But, sadly, Clinton continued:

“But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies.”

It’s as if she were trying to be ironic. In a speech about the free market, she stresses the importance of government controls. Her first sentence said that the FREE market promotes growth. But, the FREE market is defined by the absence of Government interference. When “the right government policies” are allowed to interfere with the free market, it is no longer THE FREE MARKET.

So, what are these “right government policies?” Well, in the mind of Hillary Clinton, the seizing of oil company profits for redistribution would fall into that category. Telling CEOs how much they are allowed to earn falls into that category. Having the Federal Government control and operate the nation’s healthcare, retirement, and insurance systems falls into that category.

Shall I go on? These are all things that Hillary Clinton views as necessary to promote the FREE market.

This is why I can no longer call these people Liberals.


The obscene profits of "Big Oil"

Here we go again. Our legislators in Washington are pandering to the stupidity of the American public. Because our populous is so despicably uneducated about basic economic principles, politicians put forth bills like the one the House passed yesterday.

By a vote of 281 to 141 the House of Representatives passed The Federal Price Gouging Protection Act, an anti-price gouging bill targeted at the evil oil companies who are charging “unconscionably excessive” prices. Friends, if you believe that our current gas prices are due to record oil company profits or price fixing at the hands of “Big Oil,” then you have fallen into the trap that politicians have set for you.

Our representatives know that if they can convince you that “Big Oil” is the real criminal, and that they will punish the oil companies for stealing your money, it will make them look very good. It is yet another reelection ploy.

Price gouging legislation has never done anything to lower prices. In the past, similar legislation has only served to limit supply, which makes the problem WORSE.

Right after Hurricane Katrina, the demogoging of “Big Oil” was all over the airwaves. Media personalities blamed the sharp rise in gas prices on oil company greed, record profits, and George Bush. It was all a calculated strategy to hurt the President and demonize oil corporations. And, it was a strategy based on the fact that the majority of the American public is too ignorant to see through the bulls**t.

Due to this demogoging, the Federal Trade Commission began an intensive study of oil company business practices, allegations of price fixing, and the effectiveness of price-gouging legislation. In their final report, they stated that:

“The lack of consensus on which conduct should be prohibited could yield a federal statute that would leave businesses with little guidance on how to comply and would run counter to consumers’ best interest

Holding prices too low for too long in the face of temporary supply problems risks distorting the price signal that ultimately will ameliorate the problem.”

To put it simply, the FTC is saying that such legislation would force oil companies to set prices artificially low. Such, artificially low prices would be counterproductive when the demand for gas spiked, such as it did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Supply and demand cannot work when outside forces, such as the iron fist of the Federal Government, involve themselves in the process. When the Government is allowed to decide how much money you are allowed to make on the commodity you are selling, it erodes the foundation of the market. Not to mention the fact that it sets a bad precedent for the amount of power that we grant to our elected officials.

Regarding the so-called price fixing by oil companies, the FTC report also found:

No evidence to suggest that refiners manipulated prices through any means, including running their refineries below full productive capacity to restrict supply, altering their refinery output to produce less gasoline, or diverting gasoline from markets in the United States to less lucrative foreign markets. The evidence indicated that these firms produced as much gasoline as they economically could, using computer models to determine their most profitable slate of products.

No evidence to suggest that refinery expansion decisions over the past 20 years resulted from either unilateral or coordinated attempts to manipulate prices. Rather, the pace of capacity growth resulted from competitive market forces.

No evidence to suggest that petroleum pipeline companies made rate or expansion decisions in order to manipulate gasoline prices.

No evidence to suggest that oil companies reduced inventory to increase or manipulate prices or exacerbate the effects of price spikes generally, or due to hurricane-related supply disruptions in particular. Inventory levels have declined, but the decline represents a decades-long trend to lower costs that is consistent with other manufacturing industries. In setting inventory levels, companies try to plan for unexpected supply disruptions by examining supply needs from past disruptions.

No situations that might allow one firm – or a small collusive group – to manipulate gasoline futures prices by using storage assets to restrict gasoline movements into New York Harbor, the key delivery point for gasoline futures contracts.

So, this report, which was published last year, firmly states that price-gouging laws only serve to make the problem worse, and that there is no evidence that price-gouging is even happening!

Do our Representatives know about this report? Yes. They commissioned it. They know about it, and they are ignoring it. Why? Because, the average American citizen doesn’t know about it.

Most people are still convinced that “Big Oil” is the bad guy. They are the greedy ones robbing us blind. The Government is there to protect us!

If that defines your thinking process, then I have some facts to reveal to you.

First, let’s find out about the money we are spending at the pump. Where does that money go? Whose pocket does it go in?

Well, a majority of it goes to the actual production of the gasoline. This money pays for the crude oil, the transportation and refining of that oil, and the delivery of the gasoline to your local pump. This is NOT profit. This is just the basic cost of doing business.

Now, out of all the money that is left, how much goes into the pockets of the oil company. Out of every dollar you pay for gasoline, how much is “Big Oil” profit?

Out of every dollar, only 10 cents is oil company profit. So, where does the rest go? Why it goes to the supposed savior of the American public…the Government.

Yes, yes. While they are busy trying to convince the American people that they are protecting them from the evil oil companies, the Government takes in between 26 cents and 68 cents on every dollar that you pay for gasoline.

The federal taxes on that gasoline (after you calculate the taxes on transportation, importing, refining, etc.) equal 18.4 cents out of every dollar. The state taxes range between 8 cents and 50 cents on every dollar.

What has the Government done in the production of that gasoline that grants them access to that money? Nothing! They have done not one iota of work to earn that money. But, they seize it nonetheless.

Now, who’s gouging the American people?

The truth is that, while the media touts oil company profits as “record” or “obscene” profits, the amount of profit that they take in is really not that much. Consider their profit margin (If you don’t know the difference between a profit and a profit margin, then look it up). Currently their margin is around 9%. This is below the profit margin of many other industries.

Also, let’s just look at a hypothetical situation. Let’s take the highest reported Oil Company profit on record. In 2006, ExxonMobil earned $39.5 billion in profits. Sounds like a huge amount of money, right? They are ripping us off! They should give some of that back!

OK. What if they did? What if they gave back every penny of that profit? Currently, there are approximately 190,000,000 licensed drivers in the United States. If ExxonMobile divided their record profits among these 190,000,000 drivers, how much would each person receive?

$39.5 billion / 190 million = $207.89.

If they divided every penny of their annual profits among American drivers, each person would receive $208. That’s for an entire years worth of gas! Per week that works out to about $4.

Do the math. Assuming you fill up once a week, your gas would be a total of $4.00 cheaper every time you filled up. Of course, that means that ExxonMobil is left without 1 penny of profit. They are left with no capitol to expand their refining capacities, to hire more workers to produce the gasoline, or to deal with shifts in the market. They are left without any ability to provide gasoline to you the following year.

But, don’t worry. You stuck it to the evil oil company and got your $4.00 discount!

“Big Oil” is not the problem. The environmentalist who protests the building of new refineries is the problem. The Government who takes 50 cents on every dollar in tax money is the problem.

They claim to protect you, but they are the source of the trouble. They are the ones making “obscene profits” on gasoline. Then they pass bogus laws that will only make the problem worse.

And, the American public eats it up. They are far too ignorant to understand the truth.


Which one is the real one?

You can’t help but notice the change in tone of politicians when the political winds begin to shift in Washington. It happens on both sides of the isle over a variety of issues. But, it is especially relevant to highlight this change in tone when the politicians in question are trying their darndest to undermine a WAR.

I submit to you Exhibit A. Al Gore. He has recently released a new book called "The Assault on Reason," where he criticizes Bush for starting the War in Iraq. In his book, he writes:

“History will surely judge America's decision to invade and occupy (Iraq)…as a decision that was not only tragic but absurd

Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack…then that means the president took us to war when he didn't have to and that over 3,000 American service members have been killed…unnecessarily.”

It’s really nothing out of the ordinary. This is the same line that the Left has been repeating for 4 years. But, juxtapose that statement with this one:

“As long as Saddam stays in power, there can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the Middle East. We have made clear it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone.

Who said this? It was Al Gore, when he was campaigning for the Presidency in 2000. He changed his tune, as soon as he saw that it was politically viable to do so.

Now, I present Exhibit B. John Edwards. He has said before that he thinks the War on Terror doesn’t exist. He believes that it is propaganda piece constructed by the Bush Administration. Today, he repeated that notion, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. A report in USA Today reads:

“Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a ‘global war on terror,’ calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.

In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a ‘bumper sticker’ slogan President George W. Bush has used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad to the invasion of Iraq.

‘We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes,’ Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. ‘By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set — that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam.’

So, John Edwards is opposed to the idea of a Global War on Terror, right? Then, explain this.

That link will take you to a video of John Edwards on Bill O’Reilly’s show in 2001. There is no mistaking what he said in the clip:

O’REILLY: When this war widens, and it will…when Saddam Hussein comes into play, and maybe Libya, and maybe Syria, and maybe Sudan, and maybe even Iran…when all these come into play, are we going to as united as we are now?

EDWARDS: Oh, I think we will be.

O’REILLY: Really?

EDWARDS: Yeah, I think, I think…

O’REILLY: You guys aren’t going to give Bush a hard time?

EDWARDS: I think that we will be united with the President throughout this War on Terrorism.

Granted, this clip has been edited. I’m sure that this statement was taken completely out of context. I’m sure that if you watch the whole clip, you will hear the following:

EDWARDS: I think that we will be united with the President throughout this War on Terrorism. We will be united as long as it is politically advantageous for us. When we start looking at polls, and Bush’s approval rating begins to sag, and public support for the war begins to slide, then all bets are off. I mean, come on. We have to think about our reelection, right? So, we’ll probably start calling Bush a liar, a traitor, a Nazi…you know, the usual comments you hear from us.

And, at that point, we’ll call for Bush’s impeachment for lying us into War, while at the same time we’ll try to hide the fact that conversations like this even took place. We’ll ignore the fact that we voted to send our troops to war, and we’ll probably try to cut off their funding. If that’s not enough to undermine the war effort, some of my Democratic colleagues will also publicly announce that our troops have lost the war, and I will deny that we are even engaged in a War! From there, who knows how far we will go to win political points.

Other than that, we will remain united with the president throughout this War on Terrorism.

I can imagine that the real conversation went something like that. After all, it is the reality of the situation.

Which one is the real one?


Amnesty, Amnesty, Amnesty

Out of all the friends and family who read this blog, is there a single one of you out there who thinks that amnesty for criminal aliens is a good idea? If so, feel free to use the comments section to make your point. I’d love to hear it.

Proponents of amnesty for criminal aliens feel that it is a great way to solve the illegal immigration problem, because it brings the illegal immigrants “out of the shadows,” forgives any past transgressions against our immigration laws, grants them citizenship, “levels the playing field,” and guarantees basic human rights for these hard-workers.

Here is my point. This argument is equivalent to the idea that we parole every criminal that is currently serving time in prison, excuse their violation of our laws, drop all charges from their record, and integrate them back into society. If we just let them out, they can’t be classified as criminals anymore!

Do you not see a problem with this? And, what has amnesty done to solve the illegal immigration problem in the past. NOTHING! In fact, it made it worse. Here are a few facts you may not be aware of:

In 1986, there were an estimated 4 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. Since then, 7 amnesty plans have been passed into law.

1986: The Immigration and Reform Control Act granted amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens.

1994: Section 245(i) granting “temporary” amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.

1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty.

1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act granted amnesty for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America.

1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act granted amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.

2000: Extension of amnesty for an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act.

2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens.

Count them. Seven amnesty bills since 1987. And, what has happened since then? The number of criminal aliens in this country has tripled! There are now an estimated 12 million criminal aliens in the U.S. today.

Yeah, that amnesty idea really has paid off in the past. Let’s do it again! Well, our legislators in Washington intend to do just that. Yesterday they agreed upon a bill, which grants amnesty to the 12 million criminal aliens living inside our borders.

Our lawmakers argue that this is not an amnesty bill because the illegal immigrants would have to pay a $5,000 fine and undergo a background check. Sure. I’ll believe that when I see it.

All it will take is one protest from the “hard-working” criminal aliens and cries from the likes of Geraldo Rivera about how families will be ripped apart, and these provisions are done away with. The ones who rationalize the criminal activity of these aliens will continue to whine and moan about “human rights,” and the politicians will give in. The provisions for fines and background checks will either be repealed or ignored.

This is a bad idea, put forth by politicians who have no intention of solving the problem. This will only result in making the problem worse. We have seen it time and time again.


Refuse to be a Victim

I freakin’ love stories like this! An 11 year old girl named Xochil Garcia was the target of an attempted kidnapping. Bernard Mutterperl, a 19 year old from Brooklyn tried to attack Garcia as she was coming home on Monday night.

But, Mutterperl picked the wrong person to mess with. The 6-foot 2-inch attacker was beaten by the 4-foot 5-inch sixth grade Garcia. She refused to a victim. She was in danger. She fought back. She won.

You can (and should) read the full article here. But, here are a few of my favorite bits:

“'I always make my plan before there's a robbery or a kidnap[ping],' Xochil said from her Midwood home. 'I think of a plan, like, if anybody kidnaps me, kick them back or scratch them - I'm growing my nails out.'

“'I always tell her, whatever happens, whatever these men do, don't go with them for anything,' said mom Martha Hernandez. 'Thank God she knows how to defend herself.'”

“Mutterperl scrambled to escape, trying the roof and the basement doors before stripping down to his white undershirt in an attempt to conceal his identity, witnesses said.

When he tried to sneak out the front door, the brave girl and her neighbors were waiting.”

“Xochil, who called for her attacker to get a stiff sentence, warned other kids to think safety first. 'Try to figure out a plan before somebody tries to kidnap you. That way if somebody tries to touch you, you're ready to attack them back.'

Refuse to be a victim.

Disturbance in the Force

Is it possible? In this world of hysteria and doomsday predictions…is it really possible that the religion of Global Warming is losing ground? Perhaps.

"Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure, it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics."

And, these skeptics aren’t simple-minded Neanderthals such as myself. They are prominent scientists! The list of dissenters is filled with Geophysicists, Geologists, Astrophysicists, Mathematicians, Climate Researchers…you get the idea. These individuals used to be a part of the so-called “consensus.” But, they have turned from the Dark Side.

I feel a disturbance in the Force.

In a very related news story, the environmentalist group known as the World Wide Fund for Nature has revealed a new catastrophic prophesy. In recent years, the official dogma of the church of Global Warming has been that we only have 10 years to save our planet. By 2017, we will have passed the point of no return. At that point, we will have no ability to curb the spread of Global Warming, and we will certainly perish for our environmental sins. We must repent from our wicked ways within the next 10 years.

Well, for the World Wide Fund for Nature, 10 years wasn’t soon enough. They now say that we have a mere 5 years to save the planet. According to them:

Governments have until 2012 to ‘plant the seeds of change’ and make positive moves to limit carbon emissions.”

Why not go with nuclear power? That would certainly cut back on carbon emissions and generate sufficient power for our needs. Of course, that idea doesn’t sit well with the World Wide Fund for Nature.

“We can slash carbon emissions and meet global energy demand without resorting to the red herring of nuclear power.

The big question is whether the world's statesmen will have the strength and vision to make this happen.”

See what I mean? They want us to use alternative sources of energy. But, when we try to use the most efficient, cost-effective, and powerful source of energy at our disposal, they protest. Unbelievable.

Side note…look at how many times the World Wide Fund for Nature calls on the Government to save us. To them, it is never the role of private businesses to find solutions for their own energy usage. It is always the job of Governments.

Could they be more dependent?


Geraldo at Large

There are moments in a debate where it seems as if one of the debaters doesn’t even listen to the words that come out of their mouth. If they did actually listen to themselves, they would hide their face in shame over the stupidity that they utter. Such is the case with those who rationalize the criminal activity of illegal immigrants.

One such argument that those individuals make was repeated by open-border advocate Geraldo Riviera. On his Sunday program, Geraldo interviewed Jean, an illegal immigrant father of four children. During the interview, Geraldo looked into the camera and made the following statement:

“Take a shot of these children. And I say to my colleague and friend Bill O'Reilly, I say it to Sean Hannity, and especially to the most hysterical voice in the bunch, Lou Dobbs of CNN. Look at these children. Do you want to be responsible for separating these babies from their daddy? Their hard-working daddy who's done nothing but do good here in this country? Is that where we're going with this? Is that where we're going?”

Illegal immigrant supporters like Geraldo have made it a staple to cry about “the children.” It’s funny how people with such weak arguments revert to the “think about the children” rationalization. It’s an absurd argument. Here’s why.

You can take, as an example, any country in the world. What happens when a citizen of that country breaks that country’s laws? If they commit a serious enough crime, the law-breaker is sent to prison (or worse). Every single government on the face of the planet exercises a form of incarceration for criminals. Now…when a criminal is incarcerated, do they get to take their children to prison with them?

No? But, that means you’re breaking up a family! Why? Just because one of the parents committed a serious violation of that country’s laws, is that any reason to take them away from their children? Please! Someone think about the children!!!

Do you see how that works? When a parent CHOOSES to commit a crime, that parent has CHOSEN to be separated from their family.

That’s problem #1 with Geraldo’s asinine argument. Here’s #2.

When facing deportation, our laws allow illegal immigrants to CHOOSE whether or not to take their children with them. The state does not automatically take custody of their children. They can take them with them to their home country. So, families are not being broken up. Illegal immigrant parents can CHOOSE to take their children with them or to ABANDON them in the United States.

So, Geraldo already has two strikes against him for this ridiculous statement. Do you think there’s a third strike in there somewhere? Oh yes. There most certainly is.

“Do you want to be responsible for separating these babies from their daddy? Their hard-working daddy who's done nothing but do good here in this country?”

Earlier in the interview, Jean admitted that he faced deportation because he was busted in 1989 on a drug charge. He served 11 years in prison, which means that it wasn’t a minor drug charge. So, we have a man who went to prison for a serious drug offense and who, after being released from prison, decided to spend his time evading immigration officials. Every day, for the last 7 years, he has knowingly and intentionally violated our immigration laws. This is the man Geraldo labels a “hard-working daddy who's done nothing but do good here in this country.”

Good call, Geraldo.


Bush Derangement Syndrome

Have you noticed how almost every bad thing that has taken place in the last 4 or 5 years has been blamed on George Bush? Leftists have found ways to blame the Bush Administration for 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, Global Warming, Gas Prices, the Enron scandal, Cory Lidle’s plane crash…the list goes on. One way or another, these events can all be traced back to that bumbling idiot, George W. Bush.

The ridiculousness of these attacks on the President has reached a pinnacle. Yesterday, a local Indianapolis paper reported on a scandal at an Indiana University. Of all of the lame attacks on President Bush and his policies, this one gets the reward for the most absurd.

The IndyStar reported that a large group of students were caught trying to cheat in one of their classes at the Indiana University School of Dentistry. Forty-six students have been punished by the school administration for their role in the scandal.

The IndyStar interviewed Dr. Anne Koerber, an associate professor of dentistry at the University of Illinois. She expressed her feelings about the situation. Here is what she had to say:

“I see this as being a widespread problem, not just in dentistry. When you have persons in high places who clearly lie about what's happening with weapons of mass destruction, or CEOs who lie about where the money is going, I think the general public gets the idea that anything that makes money is what's right.

Once again…I have a headache.

This so-called "educator” is actually trying to say that the students cheated because President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Because, as we all know, students never tried to cheat before Bush started his illegal war in Iraq. People had never even imagined the concept of dishonesty before Bush took office.

Like I said. This moron takes the cake.

We must STOP sanctuary cities!

Some of you may not be familiar with the term “sanctuary city.” A “sanctuary city” is a city that invites and harbors illegal aliens. They assist these criminal aliens in breaking our laws and shield them from criminal charges or deportation.

Among these "sanctuary cities" are Anchorage, Baltimore, Durham, Boston, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City. The local government officials in these cities have determined themselves to undermine the sovereignty of our nation. They care nothing for our rule of law.

Their act of defiance is a felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, yet our federal officials refuse to do anything about it. They continue to give federal tax money to the felons in charge of these local governments.

So, why is this so important? Why is it so critical to end the sanctuary policies of these cities? Well, that should be obvious. If local politicians are allowed to rewrite the law, or simply violate it whenever they choose, it sets a dangerous precedent for our national security.

Case in point. This week, six would-be Islamic jihadists were arrested in connection with a plot to attack soldiers at Fort Dix. Among the six were 3 brothers, Dritan, Shain, and Eljvir Duka. Would it surprise you to know that all three of these men had entered into this country illegally? In fact, they had been living in the United States illegally for 23 years!

These criminal aliens had also received 19 traffic citations. Typically, if an illegal alien receives any sort of citation, it is reported to immigration authorities. Nineteen citations would certainly raise some red flags.

But, the 3 brothers had been living in “sanctuary cities.” That’s right. Local government officials had harbored these three criminal alien Islamic militants from federal prosecution for 23 years. Because, they assisted them in the violation of our immigration laws, federal officials never knew that these jihadists were living inside our borders.

That is why these local governments must stop the practice of harboring criminal aliens. Securing the borders and cracking down on illegal immigration isn’t simply about stopping the flow of Mexican workers from crossing our borders. It is also about stopping the flow of Islamic terrorists. They can cross our northern or southern border without our ever knowing it. And, once they are here, there are city officials in these "sanctuary cities" who will commit felonies to shield them from prosecution.

That amounts to nothing less than treason.


Agent Smith

Question. What does Agent Smith (from the Matrix Trilogy) have in common with environmentalist Paul Watson?

“Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area.

There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.”

This quote was made by the diabolical Agent Smith. He hates mankind with every artificial fiber of his being. This quote obviously reveals the sick, twisted world view of a corrupted personality.

Yet, it sounds frighteningly similar to a recent statement made by Paul Watson. On May 4, he wrote the following:

“We are the ruthlessly territorial primates whose numbers have soared far beyond the level of global carrying capacity for the deadly behavioural characteristics that we display…

Biological diversity is being threatened by over-exploitation, toxic pollution, agricultural mono-culture, invasive species, competition, habitat destruction, urban sprawl, oceanic acidification, ozone depletion, global warming, and climate change. It’s a runaway train of ecological calamities. It’s a train that carries all the earth’s species as unwilling passengers with humans as the manically insane engineers unwilling to use the brake pedal

The trends are all around us and in the process of rapid escalation. Of course, it is easy to dismiss this and go about our business which is the ignorance-is-bliss-school of thought.

But, would we do this if we were diagnosed with a terminal disease? No, as depressing as that revelation would be, we would address possible remedies. We would look for a cure. We would try to survive.

The planet’s ecosystem is a collective living organism and operates very much like the human body…Humans are presently acting upon this body in the same manner as an invasive virus with the result that we are eroding the ecological immune system.

A virus kills its host and that is exactly what we are doing with our planet’s life support system. We are killing our host the planet Earth.

I was once severely criticized for describing human beings as being the “AIDS of the Earth.” I make no apologies for that statement. Our viral like behaviour can be terminal both to the present biosphere and ourselves.”

Both of these twisted maniacs believe the human race to be a cancer on the planet. Of course, one of these maniacs (Agent Smith) is a fictional person. His character was written to harbor vile feelings of hate and animosity toward the human species. But, his character remains unreal. He doesn’t exist.

However, his unbound hatred of the human race is embodied in Paul Watson. The words of Paul Watson reflect the same depraved animosity that Agent Smith expresses. Paul Watson is not fictional. Paul Watson is a real life ecoterrorist.

So, what is Paul’s solution to the problem of the human virus? Like all environmentalists, he suggests that we dramatically cutback on our energy usage, endorsing the use of wind and solar power. But, he goes several steps further. According to him, the real cure for the planet is population control.

No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas. Communication systems can link the communities.

In other words, people should be placed in parks within ecosystems instead of parks placed in human communities. We need vast areas of the planet where humans do not live at all and where other species are free to evolve without human interference.

We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion. We need to eliminate nationalism and tribalism and become Earthlings. And as Earthlings, we need to recognize that all the other species that live on this planet are also fellow citizens and also Earthlings. This is a planet of incredible diversity of life-forms; it is not a planet of one species as many of us believe.

There is, of course, a complexity of problems in adjusting to a new design that will simply allow us to survive the consequences of our past ecological folly.

Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.”

He proposes that fewer than 1 billion humans be allowed to live on this planet. He suggests that it will take “invasive therapy” to accomplish this. I wonder what he means by that.

Currently, there are 6 billion people living on Earth. I wonder how Paul would intend to reduce that number by more than 5 billion people. He would have to wait a very long time for 5 billion people to naturally die off without being replaced by a newborn. And, something makes me think that waiting for the population to be reduced naturally isn’t the “invasive therapy” that Paul had in mind.

There is little doubt that what Paul is proposing amounts to mass genocide. He believes that we should exterminate 5 billion people from the face of the planet. After that, draconian measures to control population would be put into place.

This is the mind of a warped individual. This is a man overwhelmed with his own hatred for the human race. To kill animals for food is an unthinkable evil. But to practice mass genocide on 5 billion humans…that’s progress.

Sick. Sick. Sick.



crime [krīm]:
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity.

crim·i·nal [krim-uh-nl]:
1. of the nature of or involving crime.
2. guilty of crime.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that I don’t need to define first grade vocabulary words. Even those with a childish grasp on the English language know what a criminal is. Certainly, I don’t need to spell it out.

But, you would be wrong. Apparently, it does need to be explained.

Thomas Rodriguez, of Aurora, stood in Union Park wearing a shirt that said: “We are hard workers. We're not criminals.”

Once again. Crim·i·nal [krim-uh-nl]:

1. of the nature of or involving crime.
2. guilty of crime.

The immigration laws of the United States of America are documented in the Immigration and Nationality Act. If someone in this country has not abided by the letter of the law in that document, by definition, that person has violated the law. They are guilty of a crime.

What do we call someone who is guilty of a crime? A CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The immigration debate has turned stupid. Morons have found a voice. Sadly, those voices are being treated as serious, intellectual commentary.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.