Twin Cities Conservative: Live from St. Paul

I just left St. Paul, and my first impression of the Republican National Convention is that every degenerate, every dreg, every low-life, patouli-oil, tree hugger has descended on the scene.

Wow, I'm starting to sound like a liberal: arrogant, condescending, smug, patronizing, elitist, etc. (in other words, true to its racist roots).

It's hard not to be a tad bitter when 1.) an anarchist group operating under the moniker, "RNC Welcoming Committee" was on the verge of causing a riot; 2.) certain community activists automatically assumed, when the local police stormed the group's secret location, WITH search warrant, that the group was harmless and police overstepped its bound.

Incidentally, St. Paul police "seized a variety of items that they believed were tools of civil disobedience: a gas mask, bolt cutters, axes, slingshots, homemade "caltrops" for disabling buses, even buckets of urine."

How can someone defend this sort of mayhem?

"But the raids drew immediate condemnation from activists and St. Paul City Councilman Dave Thune, whose district includes the former theater at 627 Smith Avenue South, which was rented by activists as a gathering space. "

It's amazing, but liberals can...somehow. You see, in their perverse world, it's okay to destroy an unborn baby's life, but rally the troops, so to speak, to preach against the death penalty, or defend sexual predators, or terrorists who wantonly and brazenly kill innocent people in the name of their demented God (see: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al).

Liberals: the hypocritical group. They're not afraid to scream when President Bush, who is white, who is Texan, and who is Christian, undertakes measures not envisioned in the venerable FISA bill, to ensure the populace, en masse, is kept safe (e.g. warrantless wiretapping), but are more than happy to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, have no problem rooting through people's trash, to "ensure everyone is recycling" (and probably don't mind doing a little snooping while its supposedly investigating), utilize thug methods in an effort to force a television station to cease running an ad shedding light, nearly irrefutable mind you, on the relationship with Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro, Dunham, and Obama and domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, AND, are attempting to pass HR Bill 1592 (ie. Bible as Hate speech law).

Can anyone else see what's wrong this picture?

Will the real Slim Shady please stand up? So what's Barack Obama's REAL Name?

Any idea? Will the real Slim Shady please stand up?

That's one of the great questions, along with whether the Democratic presidential candidate is actually an American citizen (incidentally, a Clinton supporter has filed a lawsuit, claiming that Obama was not born in Hawaii...that question remains, despite a blogger confessing that he created a "forged" Hawaiian birth certificate).

A faithful conservative reader, in a previous post, offered the following names, all used at one time by the Liberals' "Chosen One:"

Barry Soetoro
Barry Dunham
Barry Obama

The fraud of a candidate continues. Where is the Mainstream Media?

Do you hear that? Yes, I do...crickets if anything. Deafening silence. They've scattered, like cockroaches.

So what is the "Messiah's?" story? Note this, from the Chicago Tribune:

"Obama and his mother moved from Honolulu to Jakarta to join Soetoro in 1967, when Obama was 6. Here, Obama became 'Barry Soetoro.'"

The absurdly left Tribune rambles on about how the notion that 1.) Obama is a Muslim; and 2.) actually an Indonesian citizen are outright lies.

Sure they are...it couldn't possibly be true, could it, Liberals? Where is the art of investigative journalism? It's all but disappeared as the Mainstream Media, so saturated with Leftist rote, refuse to see the forest for the trees.

Of course, this report challenges the notion that Barry Soetoro is a Christian, American citizen, as does this.

Then, the issue exists that Barry Obama's real in fact is not Obama or Soetoro, but instead Barry Dunham; at Barry's birth, his father's girlfriend, Stanley Ann Dunham (yes, real name) was considered to be his father's common law wife as it was accepted practice in 1961to use the American citizen's last name on the birth certificate.

Quick aside, note the following asinine statement from the aforementioned Tribune:

"Some Americans link the religion with terrorism and see Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, as being an alien place, a world away from the White House."

Of course we link Islam with terrorism. Why is that? Because the vast majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by misguided, unemployed, indoctrinated men in the name of Allah?

Idiots...on the Left, naturally.

Obama camp comments about Palin: Party of the Working Class No Longer...OFFICIALLY

Message to Barry Hussein Obama and your Leftist enablers: you are officially no longer the party of the working class, middle class, poor, small-town, rural, American citizens.

Pat yourself on the back.

I'm sure your hubris has blinded you to this fact, but after reading the Obama camp response to Republican presidential candidate John McCain announcing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate, it's all over.

According to the sadistic Huffington Post, "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."

It's part and parcel with Obama's arrogance; note his "God and guns" comment to a group of San Francisco liberals (rolling eyes), as well as his position on the the environment (including Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, et al.).

What you're doing by pushing an alternative energy overhaul on the American public, coupled with capping carbon emissions is potentially driving up energy prices, thus crippling small businesses and the middle class.

What happens when the middle class is using most of its paychecks for energy? It stops buying, it stops going out to restaurants, it stops going on vacations. Can you imagine what that will do to the economy?

What happens when small businesses are paying exorbitant energy prices, consuming much of its overhead? It lays off workers, bottom line.

High gas prices, high energy prices, eliminating small businesses will NOT affect Ben Affleck, Sheryl Crow, Michael Moore, among others. But it will affect working class America.

It's just too bad your messianic message has clouded our country's collective judgment. You, as president, will ultimately destroy this country.

Liberal Lies: Common Sense on Nuclear Power

In ironic fashion, Minnesota politicians are working to overturn a Minnesota moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants.

Finally.

Seriously, does it get more boneheaded than prohibiting the construction of nuclear power plants? It's one thing, albeit very lame and devoid of foresight, for liberals to oppose drilling in ANWR and off the our coasts and construction of new refineries, but to prohibit the construction of nuclear power plants? That's something altogether.

According to the Winona Daily News, "Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, and Republican Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Wabasha, have been political opposites and one-time enemies. But on the issue of nuclear power in Minnesota, the two have become unlikely allies.

Murphy and Drazkowski both back an initiative they say is gaining momentum: an effort to repeal Minnesota’s moratorium on construction of new nuclear power plants. They say Minnesota, which last year set aggressive goals to reduce carbon pollution, must join other states and countries to embrace nuclear power as a non-polluting domestic energy source."

Naturally, liberals are skeptical and obviously reticent about overturning the ban. Why? They're concerned about the toxic waste disposal and it's impact on the environment.

Sigh.

Because of their undying devotion to the Environmentalist Church, the green movement would rather place life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the backburner while misguided excuses for civil servants (see: Nancy Pelosi) wage a pathetic effort to "save the planet."

According to Barclay G. Jones, professor of nuclear, plasma, and radiological engineering at the University of Illinois, states that "nuclear energy is good for the environment."

"Understand this: For the past quarter century, nuclear energy has been the nation's most important source of clean power for avoiding airborne emissions that result from burning oil, natural gas and coal.

According to a new study by Washington-based Energy Resources International, nuclear energy - by substituting for fossil-fuel power plants - has prevented 219 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 98 million tons of nitrogen oxides from being discharged into the atmosphere since 1973.

For years it has supplied trillions of kilowatt-hours of clean electricity without earning tradable credits under the Clean Air Act. Congress must rectify this oversight by allowing utilities to receive credits for nuclear plants, thereby boosting the value of nuclear plants and helping the ensure their continued operation in a competitive, restructured electricity industry."

When a professor, such as Jones, states that nuclear power is good for the environment, why won't liberals accept such claims?

Primarily, the boneheads on the left have preconceived notions regarding nuclear power, courtesy of rare accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Furthermore, said idiots clamor that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Great idea; I think most clear-minded, lucid individuals would agree. Yet, since the Left clings to the notion that gasoline is bad, how are we supposed to achieve this end? According to the Leftist propaganda sites like "WagingPeace.com," the waste resulting from creating nuclear power will adversely affect the environment.

Sigh...again.

Who would rather listen to? Groups with a clear agenda like "Waging Peace," or a REPUTABLE group like the Scientific American, "Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste."

Furthermore, according to John McCarthy, professor at Stanford University, nuclear power plants can expect to operate for HUNDREDS of years, thus outlasting oil fields, wind generators, and solar panels.

Also, McCarthy states that the notion of nuclear waste is completely overstated:

"When fuel rods are removed from the reactor they contain large quantities of highly radioactive fission products and are generating heat at a high rate. They are then put in a large tank of water about the size of a swimming pool. There they become less radioactive as the more highly radioactive isotopes decay and also generate less and less heat. The longer the spent fuel is stored, the easier it will be to handle, but many reactors have been holding spent fuel so long that their tanks are getting full. They must either send the rods off or build more tanks."

According to a 1998 report, there has never been a release of radioactivity when it's stored in large pools of water.

" Once the fission process has slowed, the fuel rods are replaced. The spent fuel rods contain highly radioactive fission products and must be stored safely. These used fuel rods are considered high level nuclear waste. Currently all high level nuclear waste is stored in large pools of water at the power plants where it was generated. Seven to ten feet of water is enough to stop all radioactivity (Keeny, 1998). Since the late 1950's, high level nuclear waste has been stored in this form, and there has never been any release of radioactivity. There is actually a relatively small amount of high level nuclear waste. All of the waste ever produced in the history of commercial nuclear power production in the United States would cover the area of a football field four yards high (NEI: High-level waste, 1998). "

Unfortunately, we shut down our reprocessing plant during the 1970's.

In Minnesota, it's the Democrats, naturally, that oppose the construction of nuclear plants. It's not surprising.

Hypocritical liberals infringing on civil liberties in San Francisco

A few weeks ago, my fiance and I were issued a warning by our apartment managers. Evidently, I had inadvertently disposed of some magazines without first putting themin a plastic garbage bag. On our warning letter, slid under our door during the dark of night, was a photocopy of my name, address, etc. on a copy of ESPN the magazine.

One can imagine to what lengths the apartment managers undertook to root through trash. Undoubtedly, they RUMMAGED through the dumpster, verifying that all waste was properly disposed.

This story is oddly reminiscent of a measure being considered by the obnoxiously liberal San Francisco city government, whereby, in an effort to ensure its citizens are properly recycling, will snoop through their garbage.

According to SFGate.com, "Garbage collectors would inspect San Francisco residents' trash to make sure pizza crusts aren't mixed in with chip bags or wine bottles under a proposal by Mayor Gavin Newsom."

"And if residents or businesses don't separate the coffee grounds from the newspapers, they would face fines of up to $1,000 and eventually could have their garbage service stopped."

Anyone else notice an issue here? Of course; anyone with a half-a-mind (does not include liberals, unfortunately) will question what the government is doing 1.) with the garbage; 2.) and also what ELSE they're doing while they're verifying that its' citizens are properly recycling its waste.

We've heard the obnoxious Left clamor that President Bush usurped the Constitution by engaging in a clandestine warrantless wiretapping program aimed at fighting Islamic terrorists. If those same idiots on the Left are not outraged at this veiled attempt by the San Francicso city government to keep tabs on their citizens, then they're hypocrites.

Which, sadly, they are. Wny? Because said actions potentially perpetrated by the SF government is conducted in the name of Environmentalism. Because they worship in the Green Church, the Left can institute such draconian, blatant violations of our basic civil liberties...

All to worship the Gods of Green.

Note the following from the Christian Science Monitor:

"Ever-perceived by the rest of the nation as perched on the fringe of rationality, San Francisco is about to flip its lid once again. The lid's color, if it's any comfort, is green – as in one of the three recycling bins into which its residents will be forced to sort their food waste.

History repeatedly reminds us that extreme fervor by government leads to infringement on basic rights. Yet eager, young, and even brilliant leaders experience moments of impaired reason when confronted with an idea that appears a perfect solution for a historical moment."

Hypocrisy at their finest; with the Left, the hypocrisy is nothing new.

Liberal Lies: Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant and the Global Warming Lie

In this week's installment of Liberal Lies, the Twin Cities Conservative takes a crack at the supposed foregone conclusion that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.

Quick aside, the idea of denouncing or debunking commonly held liberal lies must be completely credited to AWESOME conservative author Gregg Jackson, who wrote the stunning conservative bible: Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies.

We've heard former President William Jefferson Clinton clamor on occasion that the the Republicans were conspiring against him. But it's plainly obvious that the Left has orchestrated a massive effort, on a global scale, to bring down the American economy through the lie known as global warming.

Here's the bottom line, and I hope that some liberals can embrace this:

According to Environmental Chemistry, "Carbon Dioxide is a natural component of the atmosphere and is needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis.?

Of course, liberal propagandists like Melissa Carey, a climate policy specialist for Environmental Defense smugly responds with clever comebacks like the following, "'Refusing to call greenhouse-gas emissions a pollutant is like refusing to say that smoking causes lung cancer,' responded Melissa Carey, a climate policy specialist for Environmental Defense, a New York-based environmental group. 'The Earth is round. Elvis is dead. Climate change is happening.'"

Au contraire, Melissa. In fact, there is a just momentum towards the theory that the Earth is actually cooling. Note your beloved liberal Time and Newsweek, which only thirty years ago portended a coming ice age.

Furthermore, there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming 1.) exists; 2.) is caused by humans; and 3.) if it DOES exist, it is nothing more than part of cyclical weather pattern that has occurred for BILLIONS of years.

So don't proclaim to us, with your superior Liberal hubris, that "climate change is happening."

As Real Climate.com states, "The lesson to take from this is the obvious one: not to take your science stories from the mass media if you can possibly find better sources. Which nowadays are readily available: the IPCC report for a solid review of the state of the science; and RealClimate for more topical stuff."

Yet, it's the Mainstream Media that has perpetuated this Global Warming Lie. Despite efforts to suppress the climate change truth, diligent reporters, scientists, and general do-gooders have attempted to shed light on the global warming phenomenon.

Note the following headlines from IceAgeNow.com:

2008 on track to be coolest year this century
21 Aug 08- Data from the UK Met Office shows that temperatures in
the first half of the year have been more than 0.1 Celsius cooler than any
year since 2000.
See 2008 on track to be coolest year this century

Meteorologist predicts 'global climate will become
similar to the colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s'
25 Aug 08 - Global temperatures have cooled during the past 12 months.
During 2008 and 2009 the first stage of global cooling will cool the world’s
temperatures to those observed during the years from the 1940s through
the 1970s. By the year 2023 global climate will become similar to the
colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s.
See As cold as the 1800s
.
.
Probability 94% for imminent global cooling
20 Aug 07 - Australian engineer Dr. Peter Harris authored a paper entitled
"Probability of Sudden Global Cooling." The data clearly shows, said Harris,
that the nominal 100KY cycle for glaciation and the interglacial phases have
reached the end of the typical interglacial cycle and are due for a sudden
cooling climate change.
See Probability 94% for imminent global cooling

This sort of flies in the face of what nincompoops like Carey above have pontificated, doesn't it?

Note the following from the Weather Climate Report:

Antarctica Snowfall Increase

Filed under: Antarctic, Polar —

The ice caps hold a special place in the cold hearts of the global warming advocates who are all too quick to insist that our ice caps are currently melting at an unprecedented rate. We suspect that they will not be particularly thrilled to learn that a paper has just appeared in Geophysical Research Letters entitled “A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.” The article is by scientists with the British Antarctic Survey and the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada; the work was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the U.S. National Science Foundation. In case you think that the Desert Research Institute in Nevada would have little interest in Antarctica, recall from geography classes you’ve had that Antarctica receives little precipitation and is regarded by climatologists as a frozen desert.

Finally, note this chart prepared by Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, a climatologist and meteorologist, respectively, from LongRangeWeather.com:

What does this tell you? It says that various warm cycles have occurred in eras PRIOR to pollution, industrial consumption, smog, etc. It also states that the Earth is fairly impervious to humankind; in other words, it's climate is independent from noxious gases, as cited by boneheads like Carey above, as contributors to "climate change."From what we know about the Earth's weather history, there was in fact more carbon dioxide, up to 80% over a billion years ago! Who was driving then?

So to pompous Leftists like Carey, don't preach to us about how "climate change is happening." OH wait, it is...except it's not getting hotter, it's getting cooler.

Media aglow with Hilary's speech

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

While I knew the Mainstream Media is corrupt and reprehensibly liberal, they never cease to amaze me at the lengths they'll travel to fellate our Democratic civil servants.

Have you seen this article, courtesy of US News and World Report? It consists of a MSM coverage roundup of Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the Democratic National Convention. Note the following:

Hillary Clinton last night addressed the Democratic delegates gathered in Denver, and urged them to back her former rival Barack Obama. The speech, and Clinton's delivery of it, are receiving extremely positive reviews in today's newspapers. On its front page, the Los Angeles Times reports Clinton accepted "defeat with grace and generosity," and "moved to close the divide among fellow Democrats on Tuesday night by offering a forceful and unequivocal endorsement of her fierce rival." The New York Times reports Clinton "deferred her own dreams on Tuesday night and delivered an emphatic plea at the Democratic National Convention to unite behind her rival, Senator Barack Obama, no matter what ill will lingers." The New York senator "betrayed none of the anger and disappointment that she still feels and that, friends say, has especially haunted her husband." The Washington Times refers to a "rousing speech" that laid "rest to a bitter primary battle that left many of her supporters -- especially women -- seething months later." The AP reports "the speech was as much of an attack "on Sen. John McCain "as it was an embrace of Obama." The Washington Post reports Clinton said, "You haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership. No way. No how. No McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our president."

The Rocky Mountain News says Clinton "did her best to put the hard feelings to rest." While the Denver Post headlines its story "Clinton: The Team Player," and notes that "Michael Barone, a conservative commentator, was nearly as lavish in his praise: 'If you read through the text, it's unimpeachable -- I guess I shouldn't use that term. It makes a logical case for people supporting Obama for the reasons they supported Hillary Clinton, in a rather artful way.'"

On ABC World News, which aired prior to the speech, ABC's chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos contended that Sen. Clinton "genuinely believes that if John McCain wins it will be bad for the country. She knows that. She wants Barack Obama to win, whatever disappointment she feels. Whatever anger she feels about Barack Obama. And that's real, too."

Has anyone else excused themselves to vomit?

Star Tribune: Iraq War still matters to Democrats

We're likely to hear the same defeatist rhetoric from Washington insider and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Biden at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

You've heard the familiar lamentation from the Left: we need to get out of Iraq, this was an illegal war, Bush is worse than Hitler/Saddam/Stalin, etc, and he should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Yawn.

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Iraq still matters to delegates. If this story exposes anything, it epitomizes misplaced priorities in the Liberal agenda:

Universal health care, alternative energy, surrender from Iraq.

Furthermore, it demonstrates how inexplicably naive and misinformed the Left is.

"Minnesota delegate Miguel Lindgren, of Roseville, said he is worried that Iraq is taking a back seat to the convention's focus on domestic issues.

'I haven't heard much, and it concerns me," Lindgren said. 'Obviously, we're getting lost in the hype and the hoopla in the convention talking about issues at home finally, but we need to readdress the war.'"

Of course it is, you nincompoop. The war is going well, despite every effort from your corrupt liberal mainstream media to paint it as the second coming of Vietnam. Even your beloved Messiah, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama is having a difficult time portraying Iraq as a failure.

There ARE more pressing issues our future president needs to address, primarily a sinking dollar, sluggish economy, insane gas prices, etc.

"And one of the more forceful comments about Iraq at the convention came from Sen. Edward Kennedy on Monday night. 'Barack Obama will be a commander in chief who understands that young Americans in uniform must never be committed to a mistake, but always to a mission worthy of their bravery,' Kennedy told the crowd."

What a disengenous boob. You and your Leftist ilk (namely Bill Clinton and Al Gore) were clamoring for the dismissal of Saddam Hussein in the 1990's while maintaining that the Iraqi despot was feverishly working on a WMD program consisting of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Even your new VP candidate had strong words about Saddam earlier this decade (thank you Gateway.com):

Here is the transcript of Joe "Glowstick" Biden speaking about Saddam's WMD.
Joe Biden on Meet the Press on Sunday April 29, 2007:

MR. RUSSERT: I want to go back to 2002, because it’s important as to what people were saying then and what the American people were hearing. Here’s Joe Biden about Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security.”

“We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

“He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.” You were emphatic about that.

SEN. BIDEN: That’s right, and I was correct about that. He must be, in fact—and remember the weapons we were talking about. I also said on your show, that’s part of what I said, but not all of what I meant. What I also said on your show at the time was that I did not think he had weaponized his material, but he did have. When, when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had. The big issue, remember, on this show we talked about, was whether he had weaponized them. Remember you asked me about those flights that were taking place in southern Iraq, where—were they spraying anthrax? And, you know, what would happen? And, you know, so on and so forth. And I pointed out to you that they had not developed that capacity at all. But he did have these stockpiles everywhere.

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them.

The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

But does it really surprise anyone that the Left refuses to address incriminations from its dear beloved Democratic leaders when THEY admonish the world for failing to act against a ruthless tyrant? No, only when it comes from a Republican.

Typical.

Barry Obama: Silencing Dissent regarding his ties to the Weather Underground

First of all, thank you Michelle Malkin, arguably the BEST conservative blogger on the web, for posting this story:

"I cannot stress how outrageous the Obama campaign’s attempt to silence the creators of the Ayers ad is. Mr. Hope and Change is applying Chicago-style mafia tactics to intimidate those who want to alert the nation to Obama’s troubling ties to, and longtime relationship with, the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist. Obama’s lawyers and minions are playing hardball with TV stations that have dared to air the ad. They have the gall to champion campaign finance integrity — even as Obama has just admitted hiding payments to his Chicago cronies at ACORN. The Obama campaign can’t cite anything false or defamatory about the ad because it is accurate and truthful. This intimidation campaign is of a piece with the left-wing MoveOn effort to bully GOP donors. Remember?"

The American Issues Project, in response, ran a television ad outlining Obama's relationship with Ayers. In response, "The Barack Obama campaign has resorted to a campaign of intimidation and legal threats to convince television stations and the federal government to force off the air an ad by the American Issues Project detailing the link between Sen. Obama and remorseless domestic terrorist William Ayers."

"The Obama campaign has been contacting stations running American Issues Project’s ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot. The Obama campaign also sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice asking the government to investigate American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors. With no success on either front, the campaign has begun running its own ad in response. Notably, this ad fails to dispute a single fact in the American Issues Project’s initial ad."

For those of you that do not remember, Democratic presidential Barry Hussein Obama, the self-proclaimed unifier and Washington outsider, has a bit of a sordid past that he and his enablers in the Mainstream Media have been trying to sweep under the rug. In this case, it's his cavorting with domestic terrorist William Ayers.

So essentially, through HR Bill 1592, an attempted reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine, efforts by the San Francisco city government to rifle through your trash, among others, it's the damn liberals and their goddamn Democratic benefactors that are suppressing your civil rights and freedom of speech.

Once again, thank you Mainstream Media for failing to shed light on your chosen one's questionable political ties, religious relationships, and verbal gaffes. Instead, for the past eight years, you've exposed a clandestine Bush program that kept us safe from terrorists, run ads calling General Petraeus, "General Betray Us," and refused to run stories chronicling the successes in the Iraq War.

Is Barry Obama an American Citizen?

Here's a story the corrupt liberal Mainstream Media won't report (courtesty of the HillaryProject website):

"Clinton supporter sues Obama on grounds he is constitutionally ineligble for Presidency"

One of the highlights from the story, other than Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama's status as an American citizen by birth, is that his Hawaiian birth certificate has been confirmed by three sources as being a forged document.

Thank you Mainstream Media (note: sarcasm). Thank you for doing your best to keep Obama's skeletons in the closet, for doing your best to stifle reports that he cavorted with racists, terrorists, dirty politicans (Chicago is about as dirty a town as they come) and fraudelent real estate moguls (Tony Rezko).

Here's the complete story:

By: Jeffrey Schreiber

A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit yesterday afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission.

The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Phillip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party. "I filed this action at this time," Berg stated, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.".

Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator's background, and in today's lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.

Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.

In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

The Left's Global Warming Crusade: Blood on their Hands

So it's really the Left that has blood on their hands...

It's their deranged view that the world is in danger, and that we must all make tremendous sacrifices to save her, even at the cost of our livelihood, our jobs, our houses, our security, and even our lives, just so we can reduce carbon emissions.

Do you remember Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stating that she was trying to "save the planet?" Her and others of her ilk have made it their top priority to "save the planet" while placing the welfare of humankind on the back burner.

We've heard the Left screaming about President Bush's "illegal" invasion of Iraq. despite our incessant efforts to solve the Saddam problem diplomatically; subsequently he's a war criminal in their eyes.

But it's truly the Left that has blood on their hands.

Their global warming "push" truly goes hand in hand with their stance on abortion and ultimately population control. In fact, is it any wonder that Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama refused to support the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act when he was a state senator?

Here's the common denominator:

The Left simply does not value human life...well, they do, but it's actually the lives of terrorists, murderers, and rapists to whom they place value, while utterly disregarding the well-being of innocent victims and completely innocent babies.

Furthermore, this almost-psychopathic view towards all things oil (including gasoline) has led to high food prices and subsequent GLOBAL POVERTY. How so, ask the mindless Left?

This unhealthy, macabre obsession with ethanol has driven up oil prices. Consider this from The Economist:

"But the rise in prices is also the self-inflicted result of America's reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America's (record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year. And it affects them indirectly, as farmers switch to maize from other crops. The 30m tonnes of extra maize going to ethanol this year amounts to half the fall in the world's overall grain stocks."

I don't think the evidence could be any clearer; the Left, for years has claimed it represents the poor, the working class, minorities, NON-Christians, etc. But the philosophical change in the Democrat orthodoxy is oh so evident: rather than purport to care about the under-nourished or misfortunate, it's true god are the special interests, namely on the anti-war and environmental front.

Huffington Post: It's okay if Obama is a Muslim

More brilliant and objective insight from the Huffington Post, once again.

Sarcasm...

I came across this story which serves a dual purpose by reinforcing the marriage between the Left and Islam while displaying the Left's mindless, inane lack of foresight. Essentially, the author attempts to convey the notion that while Barry Hussein Obama is NOT a Muslim, it would be okay if he was.

Personally, I don't think Barry is a member of the Islamic faith; but, I do think it would be disappointing if he was. Contrary to what the Left would like the rest of us believe, this country was built on Judeo-Christian values. Said values fly in the face of the moral relativism, a "faith" to which the Left adhere.

Of course it would make sense for the Left to embrace the teachings of the Koran and the Islamic faith in general. Who else could justify suicide bombings, beheadings of Americans, the abuse of women, misogyny, persecution of non-Muslim faiths in Muslim countries, etc. This is the same group (the Left) that has brought you abortions, infanticide, justice for criminals rather than victims, suppression of free speech and thought (see attempted revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Hate Speech bill HR 1592, etc.).

So the author in this brilliant piece of journalist work (note: sarcasm) states that it would be okay for Barry Hussein to lay claim to the Islamic faith? My reaction, how is this good for our country? First, the Left naively belief that people of all faiths (or non-faiths) and creeds can "coexist" under one large, multicultural tent. Furthermore, they, in their narrow perception, have fought to remove all semblances of God and the Bible from our daily lives, whether it's school, government, etc.

Second, with that said, if the Left thought they had problems living in a country where they MISTAKENLY believe Judeo-Christian principles have been forced down their throats, try living in a theocracy, such as Iran or Saudi Arabia.

This is not to say that Barry Obama would transform this country instantly into an Islamic theocracy (if he WAS Muslim) but would it surprise anyone, considering the Democrats in our Congress are slowly moving towards outlawing the Bible as hate speech (see above bill HR 1592), thus marginalizing Christians while collectively shoving their progressive values down our throats.

Seems a bit, how you say, hypocritical and perhaps ironic?

Here's a news flash to the Left: I know this is hard to believe, but Islam is not a tolerate, open, religion of peace. But, it's not surprisingly that the Left has hitched themselves to the Islamic wagon; we've witnessed first-hand whose side they're on in the War on Terror.

My first thoughts regarding the author's treatise is that her plea for the country as a whole to embrace Islam stems from an encounter with a local schoolteacher. Thus immediately from the beginning of her story, she's operating under the impression that white American consists largely of Islamophobists who wonder if she'll return to "the middle east."

Furthermore, the author makes further inane comparisons to her treatment as a Muslim to that of Japanese-Americans during World War II:

"During World War II, Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps because they were presumed to be loyal to Japan (no matter how many generations their families had lived in America). The destruction of the World Trade Towers was a type of Pearl Harbor, casting suspicion on American Muslims this time instead of Japanese Americans. But al-Qaeda is no more representative of Islam than the Ku Klux Klan is representative of Christianity."

That's absolutely outrageous in both regards. Muslims who have emigrated to this country enjoy unsurpassed freedoms they could unequivocally NOT enjoy in their native country. Furthermore, your so-called religion of peace, has shown in a recent poll in this country, identifies with its extremist "fringe" while justifying the use of violence against "infidels."

The author also mistakingly says that her religion doesn't get a fair shake in the media:

"We don't get much of a voice in the media, but we are, as a group, middle class and mainstream."

You don't get a voice in the media? At every turn, the media attempts to portray Muslims as peaceful members of society while ULTIMATELY 1.) mistakingly equating violence perpetuated by the radicals to that of a Christian who kills an abortion doctor; 2.) unabashedly portraying Muslims as the victims in the War on Terror, whether it's stories about citizens in Iraq or Afghanistan being killed during an Allied air strike, stories justifying a suicide bomber's motives, or casting light on President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, WHICH have targeted INTERNATIONAL telephone calls between Muslims here in this country and abroad.

Give me a break.

You have it good here, lady.

That's it...it's time to go! NATO declines to really punish Russia

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that Europe will never learn from her mistakes. Time after time, she cowered in the face of danger, rather than confront an imminent threat.

Germany, Soviet Union, Islamofascists, etc. just to name a few.

And again, Europe curled in the fetal position, pathetically sucking its thumb.

According to MSNBC.com, "NATO pulled its punches against Russia on Tuesday, suspending formal contacts as punishment for the Georgia invasion but bucking U.S. pressure for more severe penalties."

And in typical Russian fashion, the country's ambassador stated that Europe and the United States completely overreacted: "'The mountain gave birth to a mouse,' said Dmitry Rogozin.

Of course, the Russians claim they invaded Georgia to save citizens in South Ossetia, which has claimed independence from its parent country. With that said, the United Nations, to which most of the Left adhere, states that South Ossetia formerly belongs to Georgia: "The United Nations, European Union, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Council of the European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and all other countries in the world recognize South Ossetia as part of Georgia."

So when the rest of world finally possessed the ability to do SOMETHING about Russian aggression, it sat on its hands...again.

Why is that? Could it be that Russia controls a massive flow of oil into Europe. In the past, when the Russians attempted to make a political point, they've cut off the flow of oil into Europe, as it did when it engaged in a trade row with Belarus, thus punishing Germany, Poland, and the Ukraine.

Earlier this year, Russia cut oil to the Czech Republic by 50%, citing "technical difficulties." Of course beneath the facade of such fabrications Russia cut oil to make a statement. Recently, the United States and the Czechs signed an agreement to place missiles on Czech soil.

As Scotsman.com says, Russia knows it can invade Georgia under the guise of protecting its citizens in South Ossetia without fear or reprisal. She knows that Europe depends to a large extent on Russian oil.

"The subtext of the Russian invasion is the so-called Nabucco pipeline. This is a project being promoted by the EC to run natural gas from Azerbaijan, through Georgia and Turkey, and thence into the EU, via a major natural gas hub in Austria. Nabucco would by-pass Russia, relieving Europe of its risky dependence on Russian gas. The EU gets around 40 per cent of its gas from Russia, but this will rise to well over half as energy demand intensifies. Unfortunately, Moscow is prone to turning off the gas tap if it does not get what it wants politically."

Of course the United States' hands are tied as well. It's already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a potential for further conflict in Iran if her nuclear program cannot be curtailed. Our gestures and statements have essentially

The bottom line is that Russia has the upper hand. It knows it can sway decisions based almost purely on energy needs.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul"

In a June 16th, 2001 news conference, President George Bush and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin discussed their friendship and supposed "cooperation" between the two countries.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.

We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue. There was no kind of diplomatic chit chat, trying to throw each other off balance."

You were horribly mistaken, Mr. President.

Contrast that conversation, where Bush egregiously misjudged Putin, to the state of relations today between the two countries, as a new cold war has become a reality. According to Townhall.com, Russia has now threatened neighboring Poland with a potential military response if they agree to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base.

This, on top of the recent incursion into Georgia by the Russian military to "rescue" its citizens in South Ossetia.

What caused the President to so horribly miscalculate Putin?

American hubris was rampant after the Soviet Union disintegrated...typical American arrogance (do you hear that, Barry Hussein Obama?). Our pride led to overconfidence; thus we dropped our vigilance to our former Cold War enemy.

In the past ten years or so, Putin has led Russia back from bankruptcy, established itself as a dominant oil power, and rebuilt its military. It is now relevant once again. Moreover, consider Russia's hand in the Iran nuclear fiasco: Moscow supplies fuel to Iran's nuclear reactor in Bushehr as well as providing missiles to Iran in the event of an Israeli or United States-led attack on its nuclear sites.

"The system would theoretically permit Iran to intercept some cruise missiles as well as airborne missiles that U.S., Israeli or other western countries might use in an effort to keep the terrorist-supporting nation from developing nuclear weapons or using them."

Additionally, Russia and China have blocked efforts from the West to disband Iran's nuclear program.

As Rosemary Roberts of news-record.com states, the Russian bear is on the growl once again. They're looking to reestablish itself as hegemony in the region, whether it's flexing its military muscle in Georgia or Chechnya, controlling the flow of oil and natural gas to its European neighbors, killing dissidents, or threatening its neighbors.

Unfortunately, the United States is not only overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has the looming threat of Iran on its plate, as well as the very real possibility that our country is in dire economic straights. If there was ever a time for Europe to grow a set and 1.) united with the United States; 2) send a strong message to message, NOW is the time.

Mega Disaster - Cope or Die

Every day disasters include fire, flood, tornadoes, hurricanes and other common natural disasters. We also cope with a number of personal disasters: family or personal distress due to disease, job loss, economic misfortune, or government interference. At some point in many of these disasters, when the disasters have passed, we cry, scream, beat a wall or a pet, drink or do drugs to escape, and finally accept or at least acknowledge the disaster and how it has impacted our life.

A mega disaster is an event of mind-numbing magnitude, another notch up from the common disasters. The raw power displayed is on a scale that you can't get your head around. The most recent example is the Bandeh Aceh earthquake and resultant tsunami, killing hundreds of thousands within a few minutes. Past epochal disasters were even larger, changing the very nature of the world, for instance, the tilt of the Earth or the orbital period. One disaster literally froze whole herds of living wooly mammoths in place in Siberia so quickly that their meat was still edible many hundreds of years later. These mega disasters are rare and you can make a case that one will never show up in your lifetime. On the other hand, if one did, and if it happened near your house, what would you do? Would your normal disaster coping mechanism work in a mega disaster situation?

A mega disaster is a world-changing event by definition. Any natural disaster is going to be a matter of raw, physical survival if you happen to survive the initial onslaught. Post-disaster the essentials will preoccupy you completely: water, food, shelter, and medical aid. This is not much different than a standard disaster, other than, it may take more time for help to reach you since infrastructure is obliterated in a mega disaster. In a world changing mega disaster, help my never come. Your corner of the world may be written off or just unreachable or there are too many simultaneous problems and not enough resources for the short term. If you have survival skills and the strength of spirit to use them, you might live depending on what is left after the mega disaster.

If you happen to survive a mega disaster, before you start the scramble for survival, get your mind and feet under you. The world is now very dangerous and you have to operate at your peak or you won't last long. The disaster probably has left you shaken and drained. You have to stop and take stock. Your first act should be to praise God that you survived. Secondly, cry out to Him for help. You will not get through the aftermath of a mega disaster without His help. Thirdly, assess your own physical and mental status. Do all three of these steps thoroughly before proceeding into survival. Without a clear head and heart, your chances for survival are slim. It is indeed a new world and you have to respect it whatever it may now be.

Once you've calmed and with the Lord by your side, begin to do the things you need to do to carry on. Assess your surroundings. Flee if necessary. Help others where you can. Seek or build some shelter if that seems best since the mega disaster might have a part two or three or ever how many.

I'm not going to go over survival techniques here. There are a huge number of web sites, books, and training courses out there if you are interested. Gaining these skills will help but your spiritual and mental preparation will be the most important aspect. Skills are only useful if you are in a state of mind to actually use them.

I as CodLiverOilGuy hope that a megadisaster does not appear in my lifetime near me. But I do see change in the air, certainly mega economic change, and I know I have to be ready. Being ready could be the difference between a bearable life and misery for an economic crisis. For any megadisaster, is there really a good case for not being prepared?

Take your medicine. It's good for you.
CodLiverOilGuy

Liberal Lies, Lies, Lies! Franken and the rest still spreading lies on energy

The Twin Cities Conservative has been remiss in not focusing as much of energy on the Al Franken-Keith Ellison-Amy Klobuchar triumvariate as he would like; unfortunately, he's been distracted by the trainwreck known as Barry Hussein Obama, and his copatriots in Congress: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, etc.

With that said, I've been trying to occasionally update everyone on Minnesota Senate race between Republican Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Stuart Smalley, er Al Franken. I felt compelled to take proverbial pen to paper when I saw this story, courtesy of Agri News.

THe crux of the story is the Democrats and other patsies for the Green movement are still trying to pimp alternative energies, an unproven source of fuel for this economy. But does it surprise ANYONE that Democrats are hedging their bets on the WRONG team? We witnessed this for the past few years in Iraq, as the Left and their Democratic enablers essentially made a pact with Islamic fundamentalists, as they shamelessly and overtly rooted for the "bad guys" to defeat our forces there.

A few utterly laughable moments in the story came to mind:

First, Franken regurgitates the Daily Kos talking points by accusing Coleman of pandering to Big Oil, "Democrat Al Franken answered the first question, saying the nation has increased its dependence on foreign oil with Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, in the pocket of Big Oil."

Hmmm, let's examine this point rationally. Ideally, this economy is driven by CHEAP OIL in everything we do. Furthermore, "big oil" returns about $.08 for every $1.00 invested, compared to over $.25 for companies like Microsoft; manufacturing on the whole recoups over $.10. Can we start accusing politicians of participating in the "war dance of the handmaidens of big...MANUFACTURING?"

Note the following from noted columnist John Hawkins (one of my favorites):

Unsurprisingly, given the outrageously high cost of gas and the Left's penchant for pointing the fickle finger of blame at big corporations, we've heard a lot about how big oil is gouging consumers.

However, when you take a look at the actual numbers in California, for example, you find that the "Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits" for the oil companies make up only 8 cents per gallon of gas.

That doesn't sound like gouging, does it? But if you believe it does, what would you say about the 70 cents per gallon in taxes that's paid by California consumers? Additionally, as Karl Rove has pointed out,

(Oil companies) make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales....Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales.

Sure, these oil companies are huge and therefore, even an 8.3% profit adds up to billions of dollars, but when you look at the relatively small percentage that they're putting in their pockets as compared to the humongous share that the government is raking in, it's pretty clear that it's the government, not the oil companies, that is gouging consumers.

Second, Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley stated that ""Brazil can be energy independent, why can't we?" It's sad that not only are our potential public servants completely uninformed, our public is generally misinformed thanks to clowns like Franken and Barkley, whose messages are disseminated through the corrupt liberal mainstream media.

Furthermore, BONEHEAD, Brazil is energy independent because they have large reserves of oil NOT because of ethanol.

Third, Independent Shill Barkley states the following, "The nation sends billions to Venezuela and the Middle East each year, instead of tackling the energy problem at home." Well, actually "comrade," the #1 and #3 oil exporters to this country are Canada and Mexico, but nice try.

It's sad how so few people consume the garbage disseminated from the MSM rather than read the internet.

It's ALMOST funny how the Leftinistra screams and shouts for "energy independence." Of course there idea of "energy independence" consists of driving small cars and waiting for wind. I don't know about you, but that's not my idea of a viable energy source.

The Liberals' War: freedom of thought, speech, and expression under attack

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Have you seen this bill currently making its way through the United States Congress?

The history behind the bill is interesting: it originally started out as the "Matthew Shepherd Act," named after the young Wyoming homosexual of the same name, who was murdered because of his sexual orientation.

"On March 20, 2007, the Matthew Shepard Act (HR 1592) was introduced as federal bipartisan legislation in the U.S. Congress, sponsored by Democrat John Conyers with 171 co-sponsors. Matthew's parents, Judy and Dennis, were present at the introduction ceremony. The bill passed the House of Representatives on May 3, 2007. Similar legislation passed in the Senate on September 27, 2007^[27] (S 1105), but President Bush has indicated he may veto the legislation if it reaches his desk.^[28]

On December 10, 2007, congressional powers had failed to get a bipartisan bill passed, which would update the hate crimes legislation, also attached to the Department of Defense Authorization bill. However, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, says "she is still committed to getting the Matthew Shepard Act passed." Pelosi plans on trying to get the bill passed early in 2008. "
I lived in Fort Collins, Colorado, where I was attending graduate school at the time of Shepherd's murder. A brother of my roommate was good friend's with Shepherd at time, so while I witnessed such a tragedy in terms of location, I also witnessed tragedy on a more personal level."

This sort of legislation is already making headway in Canada and has been implemented in Sweden as well. Even worse, a Canadian court has rules that certain scriptures contained in the Bible can be considered "hate speech."

Unbelievable. While Muslims exhort their fellow terrorists to kill anyone that draws a cartoon negatively depicting Mohammed with a bomb on his head, the Western World is shamelessly pandering to those who can easily a fatwah, rather than those in a religion (see: Christianity) who are taught to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor.

But, as the liberals are wont to do, it's getting out of hand. It's evolved from targeting senseless violence against intolerant people to now targeting dissenting voices, who believe that "alternative lifestyles" are an abomination, a sin, an affront to God, etc. Doesn't the First Amendment protect dissenting voices?

We've heard and seen the liberals stamping their feet because they believe the Bush Administration, in its effort to protect the American citizenry, conduct warrantless wiretapping on international calls. We've heard them cry that the government is eavesdropping on all of our phone calls.

Does anyone REALLY think that's happening? Perhaps I should, does anyone with a semblance of common sense really believe the government is eavesdropping on calls, for example, between my fiance and me, or even worse, my MOTHER and me.

No, I don't think so.

Ironically, the Left, the champions of the nanny state, wish to control every facet of our lives, whether it's curbing fast food intake, rummaging through our garbage, and meting out economic justice (i.e. redistributing wealth).

The Leninists actually have the audacity to accuse the Bush Administration of curbing our basic civil rights. Yet, right before our eyes, they're attempting to control our very lives.

13 Iraq War Protestors arrested in Wisconsin: Indicative of the movement's "collective intelligence"

I spied this article, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Evidently, 13 boneheads attempted to enter the Fort McCoy military installation in Western Wisconsin, illegally.

So when in doubt, commit a crime by attempting to breach security at a United States military establishment. For all the clamoring the Leftinistra does regarding its superiority to us redneck hillbillies on the Right, they're really not very bright. Perhaps, it's a naivety.

For the past five plus years, the American populace has endured the tirades and lies from the Left about the Iraq War. Just yesterday, on my journey home to the western suburbs from St. Paul, a small group of protesters gathered on an overpass above I-94 and displayed various anti-war signs and banners, for example, "Stop 'Iraqnam' now."

How did this country transition from serving as a bastion of freedom and democracy, with an active global agenda of spreading freedoms, to virtually celebrating, condoning, and pardoning virtually indefensible actions from those like Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin, Osama bin Laden, all in the name of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)?

Furthermore, in their naivety, the Left is 1.) hedging their bets that we will lose not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well; 2.) believes that Bush and the neo-cons have provoked Muslim terror, and that if we only disengage from places like the Middle East, we can "coexist" peacefully with each other.

This sort of civil disobedience is emblematic of the Left's agenda: commit a crime, yell the loudest, stomp one's feet, and ultimately remind others of a small child.

More problematic is that the Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama, is a flag-bearer for these sorts of fringe groups. These groups, which, despite Obama's futile attempt to morph towards the Center, adore him. A very real possibility exists that Hussein Obama will take power as the next American president.

How, as a former community activist, will Hussein Obama embrace his Leftist brethren?

The bottom line is this: if Hussein Obama becomes our next president, we are in BIG, I repeat, BIG trouble.

Here's the complete article:

13 arrested at Fort McCoy

Associated Press

August 11, 2008

FORT MCCOY, Wis. - Thirteen people protesting the Iraq war were arrested for trying to enter the Fort McCoy military installation in western Wisconsin.

The protesters delivered a letter seeking an end to the war Sunday afternoon and asked to enter the fort to talk with soldiers. They were denied access and asked to leave.

The 13 people were arrested after going beyond secured boundaries.

Fort McCoy spokeswoman Linda Fournier says the demonstrators have a right to express their opinion, but not to breach security.

The protesters were cited for trespassing, fingerprinted and escorted off the base. Authorities told them if they attempted to re-enter they would be taken into federal custody.

___

Information from: WKBT-TV, http://www.wkbt.com

Wake Up United States: We're Dying a Slow Death Thanks to the Environmentalists

Fellow Twin Cities Conservative, CodLiverOilGuy, forwarded this article to me today: it sounds like our Democratically-controlled Congress, when they're not sidestepping the issue of oil and taking a FIVE-week vacation, are contemplating the passage of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (known as LOST).

Here's the crux of the legislation:

"Can you imagine gifting the United Nations with $50 trill in Arctic oil taxes? This is what the U.S. Senate proposes to do if it ratifies LOST."

"A dangerous scramble for the oil and gas reserves between Russia and the West can be avoided and, more to the point, the U.S. will lose its entire future commercial and energy security by signing onto LOST. Meanwhile, Democrat leaders in both houses of Congress have already rejected President Bush’s July 14 effort to end a 25-year moratorium on drilling in most coastal waters."

What the hell are we doing to this country? More specifically, what the HELL are the Democrats doing to this country regarding energy, nevermind the shoving of progressive values down our throat, the pandering and cheerleading to terrorism, etc?

Tyrant of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), at the beginning of the month, despotically adjourned Congress, shutting off the lights and the C-SPAN cameras, in an effort to avoid voting on the issue of off-shore and ANWR drilling. She's saving the planet, she says. What a crock of shit.

Furthermore, I caught this article, courtesy of Townhall's Amanda Carpenter, whereby supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama clamored for $10 a gallon gasoline.

"Ed Frank, vice president of public affairs for Americans for Prosperity, spoke to Obama supporters during an event organized on Capitol Hill by liberally-leaning MoveOn.org. According to an email MoveOn emailed to supporters the event was designed to 'highlight the GOP’s extensive ties to Big Oil.'

There, AFP members handed MoveOn supporters a mock $8 bill and said “this is what Al Gore wants you to pay for gas.”

An older man dressed in an Obama shirt said, 'This is too cheap! This is too cheap!' Waving the eight dollar bill he said, “Let’s get it up to ten! Let’s get it up to ten bucks.'"

Can someone tell me how the hell this country is looking to elect MORE Democrats in the fall, including arguably the most liberal Democratic candidate ever? They want to tax "windfall profits" on big oil, thereby giving a $1000 energy rebate check to everyone; doesn't that almost ensure higher gas prices, for example, across the board? Obama wants to mete economic justice; in other words, he's vying to redistribute the wealth from people, in his estimation, do not deserve it.

On top of that, he's looking, if president, to tax this country out of a potential recession/depression, while endorsing alternative energy, sources of energy not currently viable enough to even support a reduced standard of living in America.

If we ONLY use alternative energy now, we WILL collapse. The development of alternative energy is highly-dependent on a cheap-oil driven economic structure which is in the process of collapsing. $10 gasoline will only make it collapse faster. What the Obama-bots fail to realize is that our food supply is also dependent upon this same cheap-oil economy. By hastening its collapse, they are taking food from our dinner plates.

I guess on the bright side, the greenies will starve with the rest of us.

Liberal Lies: Windfall Profits and Big Oil

In this week's installment of "Liberal Lies," I discuss Obama's windfall profits tax on big oil.

Thanks to XM radio, I was able to listen to my favorite conservative talk show hosts on "America Right," channel 166: Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Michael Reagan, Rusty Humphries, etc, who discussed Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama's recent "energy/economic plan" to take the windfall profits of "Big Oil" (boy the libs love that term) and use them to provide needy families with $1000 worth of energy rebates (gasoline, heating oil in the winter, electricity, etc.).

According to CBS News, "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday called for a $1,000 'emergency' rebate to consumers to offset soaring energy costs amid fresh signs of a struggling economy with the nation's unemployment rate climbing to a four-year high.

Obama told a town-hall meeting the rebate would be financed with a windfall profits tax on the oil industry."

Now really...how much sense does that make? In mathematical terms, a 62.5% tax increase on oil companies is necessary to come up with the money to provide this energy rebate, or about $75 billion. As the Politically Drunk blog points out, "Do we impose a 62.5% tax on Oil company profits, in which Institutional and individual investors dump the stocks; relegate them to penny status; bankrupt the industry; and cause an insta-depression? Or... Does the government pick up the tab, causing a record budget deficit to balloon further and destroying the promises of government investments in alternative energy?"

You see, everyone likes to blame "Big Oil." They're an easy target; and the Democrats know how to push our buttons. The corrupt mainstream media provides endless reports on oil companies record profits, and instinctively we assume that they're colluding to keep the price of oil up.

Leftist groups like Consumer Watchdog perpetuate this lie that Big Oils has collectively bent over the American public: "'The 'drill now, drill everywhere' campaign is a hoax on Americans,' said Judy Dugan, research director of Consumer Watchdog, based in Santa Monica. 'Oil companies are able to sit back and make more money by selling less.'"

What the IDIOTS, to quote conservative talk show host Mark Levin, won't tell you is that prices are driven by DEMAND. Hmmm...where is the demand coming from? How about China or India for example, as their countries become more modernized? To match increased demand while keeping prices down, industry needs to interject more SUPPLY into the stream, supply in the case being MORE OIL. That's economics 101.

Furthermore, where are the "obscene" big oil profits going? The Left would have you believe that the tens of billions of dollars in oil profits are being shared among a few rich oil tycoons, like Al Gore at Occidental. But in fact, these oil profits are being shared among many. The Left and their benefactors in the mainstream media won't tell you this, but is that despite the low profit margin (i.e. $.08 profit for every dollar spent, compared to $.20-.30 for the computer industry), not only is Big Oil paying an astonishing amount in taxes, but those “record profits” are actually going to people’s 401k’s for one thing…that wealth isn’t just going to ONE “oil despot,” it’s being shared ACROSS the board. But we’ve been so indoctrinated by the MSNBC’s, CBS’, and New York Times of the world to think that Big Oil is “bending us over,” we as a people automatically believe the lies.

Note the following from one of my favorite authors, John Hawkins:

"Unsurprisingly, given the outrageously high cost of gas and the Left's penchant for pointing the fickle finger of blame at big corporations, we've heard a lot about how big oil is gouging consumers.

However, when you take a look at the actual numbers in California, for example, you find that the "Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits" for the oil companies make up only 8 cents per gallon of gas.

That doesn't sound like gouging, does it? But if you believe it does, what would you say about the 70 cents per gallon in taxes that's paid by California consumers? Additionally, as Karl Rove has pointed out,

(Oil companies) make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales....Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales.

Sure, these oil companies are huge and therefore, even an 8.3% profit adds up to billions of dollars, but when you look at the relatively small percentage that they're putting in their pockets as compared to the humongous share that the government is raking in, it's pretty clear that it's the government, not the oil companies, that is gouging consumers."

One would think that with these facts, it would be pretty to combat mindless leftist and liberal lies...

But it isn't...we'll keeping trying, though.

Muslim holiday at Tyson Plant: Let the pandering continue

Once again, we in the West bow to the wishes of Islam.

I came across this story a few days ago, as Tyson foods in Shelbyville, Tennessee has decided to drop Labor Day in favor of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr:

"Workers at Tyson Foods' poultry processing plant in Shelbyville will no longer have a paid day off on Labor Day, but will instead take the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr in the fall."

It looks like liberal pansies, this time in the form of union workers, have demonstrated their Dhimmitude once again.

Let's get one thing straight: this is the United States of America, a country with its own traditions, its own culture, its own holidays. The appeasers in this country need to realize that immigrants should adhere to our way of life, whether it's learning English, working hard, and generally assimilating into society.

It's generally a well-known fact that in Muslim countries for example, minorities and non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizen AT BEST. Yet, when Muslims, for example, emigrate to our country, they demand that the good citizens of the United States bow to their religious sensibilities, despite the lack of reciprocity in their native country.

Let's eliminate the subject of Christianity from this debate. I've heard arguments that because our country is steeped in Judeo-Christian principles, we are a Christian nation. While the former is true, the latter is not. One of the attractive qualities of our country is that we are free to worship as we please, without fear of oppression or reprisal. What is slowly occurring is the infiltration of Islam into our society.

Thanks to the Democrats, we have allowed ourselves, in the name of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism, to be emasculated and submissive to the wishes of people like Ibrahim Hooper, who stated the following:

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

It's no secret that the intended goal of Islamic fundamentalism is to create a pan-global caliphate, with those of those who oppose their faith as their faithful servants. In Shelbyville, among others, it looks like that is already happening.

Star Tribune: McCain is "Swift-Boating" Barry Obama

The Leftist media's "Messiah," that's Barry Hussein Obama, is facing some tough talk from Republican presidential candidate, John McCain.

And rightfully so...

And now the Left is crying "foul." The Minneapolis Star Tribune, no stranger to liberal media politics, asks, "Is John McCain's attempt to tie Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in an attack ad this week the "Swift Boating" of Obama?"

We're all sorry, Leftist trash, but you "Swift-boated" President Bush for the last years, especially on warrentless wiretapping and the Iraq War.

"But in striking an aggressive pose, McCain is in danger of letting the caricature of an angry, petulant candidate take seed -- not so much because he is one, but because it stands in stark contrast to Obama's carefully cultivated, well, celebrity, and McCain's own promises to run a respectful campaign."

The statement coalesces perfectly with the pie-in-the-sky mentality perpetuated by Obama's "change/unification" message: "why can't we all just get along?" The Left possesses the inane notion that if we all just lay down our arms and engage in "dialogue," the world's ills will work itself out.

Unfortunately, this is the real world, and McCain is asking tough questions to REAL-LIFE issues. Take for example the issue of energy: McCain has pushed for Congress to lift its off-shore oil drilling ban, cultivate nuclear power, develop clean coal solutions, and implement oil shale. Obama's response? Push for more alternative energy solutions, despite that 1.) the implementation of said "alternative" power is costly (installing solar panels on houses, for example, isn't cheap; neither is buying "environmentally-friendly" light bulbs, as well); 2.) alternative energy is unproven at best, risky at worst. It has no track of being a viable energy solution for a country that relies on REAL energy to propel its economy.

If anything, McCain is exposing the fact that Obama is 1.) completely disassociated with working class individuals; 2.) is bought and paid for by the radical Left, namely anti-war and environmental fringe groups.

"'The campaign is making him seem angrier than he is and therefore it's a disservice to him,' said John Weaver, McCain's former senior strategist, who left the campaign in a shake-up last year."

Message to arrogant, boneheaded, out-of-touch liberals: these are angry times, and people are angry: angry at the notion that putting gas in our vehicles prohibits us from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," illegal aliens, welcomed by the Left, consuming our tax dollars for education and health costs, high taxes and admittedly at waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are the realities.

Somehow Barry Obama has hoodwinked a significant portion of people in this country to his message of "change." Whether it's unwavering view that the surge in Iraq served no purpose, or his plan to implement "economic justice," or that dialogue will keep us safe from Islamic terrorists, the Left is intoxicated with the Barry message.