Thank you Democrats!

In part 2 in a series of "tongue-in-cheek," snarky, smug, sarcastic remarks, I wanted gleefully offer up a hearty thank you to the Democrats. Yesterday, my salaciousness was directed to the corrupt, liberal Mainstream Media, for essentially distorting and filtering the news, as well as verbally fellating one President-Elect Barry Obama.

Today, my sardonic and caustic wit is directed to the Democrats, once a proud party of the working class. This group of out-of-touch politicians are doing everything within their party to destroy the very fabric of this country.

And it seems we're powerless to stop them.

Two examples come to mind.

First is the issue of "climate change." What this amounts to is nothing more than pandering on behalf of the Democrats, in this case to the environmentalists. In this article, courtesy of Townhall.com, President-elect Obama promises global leadership on climate change.

Why?

So much of the "consensus science" utilized by global warming fanacists is faulty AT BEST, doctored at worst. When will these "scientists" (I use that term loosely, as it seems many of a political agenda) realize that instead of getting warmer, the planet is actually cooling, that Arctic ice has been restored to its pre-2002 levels, and CO2 levels were higher (exponentially) than they were prior to the existence of humans (furthermore, CO2 levels on Mars are high as well; where are the humans?).

In the roughly four-minute message, Obama reiterated his support for a cap-and-trade system approach to cutting green house gases. He would establish annual targets to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them another 80 percent by 2050. Obama also promoted anew his proposal to invest $15 billion each year to support private sector efforts toward clean energy.

At a news conference Tuesday, a coalition called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership _ made up of 32 leading corporations, including electric utilities and oil companies, and environmental groups _ urged Obama to press Congress to approve legislation next year for a mandatory cap-and-trade system to limit the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases. Opponents of such action argue controls on carbon dioxide emissions will increase energy costs.

Under a cap-and-trade program, the government would establish a ceiling on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be released into the air from burning fossil fuels. A utility or industrial plant would have to purchase emission allowances for every ton of pollution released. Anyone who exceeds the cap must either make pollution reductions or buy additional allowances, while those who cut emissions below the cap would be able to sell allowances. Initially the cap would be relatively high and then be lowered gradually to achieve the targeted pollution reductions.

So guess who suffers? The average American...how do you think these companies will pay for these allowance or penalties, by either laying off workers or RAISING PRICES on their wares.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Second pertains to this autoworker's bailout plan. On top of a $700 billion "crap sandwich" (catchphrase courtesy of Michelle Malkin) taxpayers will soon be on the hook for an additional $25 billion to the struggling "Big 3" automobile manufacturers. Once again, the Democrats are pandering to the special interests: this time it's the unions.

Can someone tell me why we should bail a confederation that refuses to embrace what the marketplace dictates? Furthermore, why should the average American pay for a vehicle that costs thousands of dollars MORE compared to a foreign model yet is does not possess the features NOR quality that the aforementioned foreign car has?

Yet the Left implores us to "buy American!." Listen, we would all LOVE to buy American, but why? All we do is enable these auto manufacturers and unions in their "entitlement quest." Instead, it's time we hold them accountable (same with the idiot who bought a $300,000 home on a $30,000 wage, but that's another story for another time).

Ken Blackwell sums it up perfectly:

The Big 3’s woes are largely self-created. For years now their management has been criticized as ineffective. But two numbers tell the story of the primary cause of their insolvency: 73 and 48. The average hourly cost of an hourly wage worker for the Big 3 cost $73 per hour, while the average cost at Toyota and other foreign automakers with production facilities here on American soil is $48 per hour.

What accounts for this disparity? It’s the massive healthcare and pension costs and other benefits that the workers at the Big 3 get through their union-negotiated contracts. These contracts, primarily secured through the United Auto Workers, have created massive obligations. Consequently, the Big 3 either offer a product that is equal in quality and features to their foreign counterparts, but several thousand dollars more expensive per car, or they offer a product for the same price but with fewer features.

There’s no way to escape the plain truth. The costs unions have written into their contracts with the Big 3 must be passed along to consumers. As this either increases prices or decreases value, the Big 3 lose sales to foreign competitors, and so revenues for the Big 3 have dropped. As revenues drop it becomes even more difficult to pay these union-created obligations, so the situation worsens.

Liberals and their utter lack of responsibility

That's really what it comes down to with liberals and their Democratic enablers, doesn't it?

Whether it's the $700 billion bailout, terrorism, abortion, taxes on the rich, health care, entitlements, their collective mentality is either the "underprivileged" are owed or are entitled to something because they've been held down, or it's okay to partake in irresponsible behavior sans fear of taking personal responsibility.

The $700 billion bailout was passed jointly by a Republican White House and Democratic Congress. But the essence behind the bill was Democratic implications that homeowners who had purchased houses and had been foreclosed upon, or were facing foreclosures, were actually "tricked" into buying houses by predatory lenders. Puh-lease. If you click the link to Michelle Malkin's column, you'll notice that the number of left-wing mortgage counseling services is staggering.

No, the problem is that 1.) instead of working and saving for a house that fit within our price range, people from all walks of life wanted a big house; in other words, something they couldn't afford. 2.) when the shit went down, because they greedily purchased said excessive home, they figured that Joe and Joanne taxpayer would foot the bill for them. So the socialists in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, along with some Republican idiots, passed a bill "bailing out" the idiots who didn't belong in those house, at the expense of honest, hard working Americans.

But if you talk to a liberal, they tell you that something had to be done. The ones who couldn't afford the expensive homes (see $200 thousand on a $30 thousand budget) were tricked, they were lied to.

Bullshit, I say. Moreover, because many of these homeowners were minorities, the specter of racism looms over any accusation from those of us on the Right. If we impugn these people, it's because we've all taken off our KKK hoods long enough to point fingers.

By extension, this bailout issue seques into the notion of entitlements, welfare, and taxes. Because liberals play the victim card to perfectly, it's easy to blame those of us who work hard and pay our taxes. Somehow, according to liberals, we've kept poor Americans, once again, often minorities, from grabbing their slice of the pie. By taxing us that have worked hard, paid their bills, gone to college, etc (and notably because we're "white"), Democrats, led by presidential candidate Barack Obama, want to "spread the wealth around." Why? Because it's good for everyone?

Huh? How is it good to reward laziness and lack of motivation? Rather than make poor people richer, it instead makes ALL of us poorer. Rather than allow those of us to enjoy our HARD-EARNED prosperity, we're all supposed to suffer together.

When it comes to the War on Terror, and our subsequent "world standing," it's actually George W. Bush's fault that Radical Muslims loathe us to the extent we do. Nevermind that terrorist attacks were being committed in the name of Allah LONG BEFORE Bush became president (see: Beirut, early 1980's, USS Cole, 1998 Embassy bombings, Khobar Towers, FIRST World Trade Center bombing), or that President Bill Clinton responded ineffectually to terror attacks perpetrated against, NOR really took any action to apprehend Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Regarding abortion, nothing epitomizes lack of responsibilty than statements from Obama, whereby he would never want to burden mothers with the "punishment" of an unwanted child. Rather than hold accountable those who engage in unsafe fornication, he wants to allow abortions occur, completely unfettered. Nevermind that we've butchered 30+ million babies in this country.

That is the ultimate in lack of responsibility.

Live from St. Paul: Protestors and the activists who love them

As if we needed further impetus to loathe those on the Left who align themselves with the criminals rather than the victims, along comes this story, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

"Almost a year to the day before the Republican National Convention began, members of a self-described anarchist group gathered to talk about ways to disrupt it, including kidnapping delegates, sabotaging air vents at the Xcel Energy Center, blocking bridges and "capturing federal buildings" in Minneapolis and St. Paul."

Don't you people see what this is? This is a direct affront to those of us on the Right, those of us who defend traditional values, Christianity, and free market politics.

What galls me is that community activists in the Twin Cities were quick to rush to the defense of the RNC Welcoming Committee, after St. Paul police stormed their local headquarters WITH a search warrant, confiscating materials that could be potentially used for violence.

Of course rather than wait until all the facts emerged, IDIOTS like Dave Thune, council member of Ward 2 in St. Paul, which just happens to be the area where the anarchists, and liberal sympathizers were arrested.

Naturally, idiots representing alternative media, like BeyondChron, are quick to state that because law enforcement staved off a threat from the aforementioned RNC Welcoming Committee, their first amendment rights were violated.

This sort of mentality is typical in the anti-Bush/anti-authority/leftist community: their rights have been usurped. Because the Bush administration tapped the phones of Muslims placing international calls to Pakistan, London, Madrid, and parts unknown, it's naturally an affront to our civil liberties. Of course, 1.) our country has not seen a successful terrorist attack since 9/11 thanks to those measures; 2.) those representing the Leftist/anti-Bush crowd are STILL free to speak out against the president and his administration.

Of course the real tragedy lies in the fact that is indeed the Left usurping our first amendment rights, whether it's an attempted reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine, the passage of HR 1592 in Congress (Bible as Hate speech law), the ultra-liberal San Francisco city government snooping through its citizens' garbage under the auspices of "recycling assurance," or the endless discrimination against Republicans on college campus.

Yet, thanks to our corrupt mainstream media, this stories aren't reported.

Can someone tell me how a group of thugs' rights were violated because they were forbidden to dump their "waste" on unsuspecting victims?

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.

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: 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.

The RepubliCAIN's plan of attack: Exploit the Energy Issue

There's a critical issue at stake in the forthcoming 2008 election; it doesn't take a Pulitzer Prize winner in Physics or Chemistry to figure out what it is either:

It's all about the energy, baby.

Really, it's an extension of the elitist attitude prevalent in Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama. His true colors became evident a few months ago when he stated to a group of San Francisco liberals that small-town Americana "get(s) bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

It's this elitist, "chablais-and-brie" crowd (courtesy Pat Buchanon) to whom Obama and his Democratic counterparts in Congress are pandering. Rumor has it that back in the day Democrats SUPPOSEDLY represented the working class.

You could fool me, because right now certain policies practiced by the know-nothing Democrats are completely alienating mainstream, middle-class, and working-class America: their policy on energy and the open border crowd.

Regarding open borders, the bottom line is this: you can't purport to represent working class families, yet pander to the La Raza-type groups that believe we should allow immigrants to 1.) illegally stream over our border; 2) stay in this country; 3.) steal jobs; 4.) cost taxpayers millions in education and health care costs; 5.) support sanctuary cities.

It's time the Republicans took this election back from the Democrats. For this purposes of this treatise, the Republicans, led by presidential candidate John McCain, should "drill" (no pun intended) the liberals and their Democratic enablers on energy.

Of course, rather than take a real course of action, in other words, drill for oil in Alaska or off-shore, the Democrats want oil companies to further explore for oil on already developed/purchased lands.

In an absolutely disdainful maneuver, the Democrats would rather offer bullshit solutions, such as the one above, or offering plans that include solutions that are either too expensive to implement, or ultimately worthless.

Dick Morris said it best yesterday:

Meanwhile, McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue - oil drilling - exposing how the Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West. The Democratic claim that we “cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices” begs the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.

The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas. Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades.

It's also an opportunity for Republicans to reinvent themselves; it's time for the Grand Ol' Party to return to days of fiscal responsibility. Balance the budget, shrink government, and demonstrate some damn restraint. Do NOT give the Defeatocrats any ammunition.

Defending the Terrorists

...or "freedom fighters," as romantic liberals are wont to say.

This article, courtesy of liberal spin machine MSNBC, is sure to draw the ire of the collective liberal community.

"Lawyers for a Canadian prisoner at Guantanamo Bay released excerpts of videotaped interrogations Tuesday, providing a first-ever glimpse into the secretive world of questioning enemy combatants at the isolated U.S. prison in Cuba."

The video, recorded by a hidden camera, shows 16-year-old Omar Khadr sobbing during a 2003 interrogation. This video, according to MSNBC, "provides insight into the effects of prolonged interrogation and detention on the Guantanamo prisoner."

Khadr is a Canadian citizen and is accused of throwing a grenade that killed an American soldier in Afghanistan. In the video, Khadr is being questioned by Canadian agents. Furthermore, the 16-year old detainee claims that he was tortured while at an American detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan.

My first reaction? What the hell is this kid doing in Afghanistan? I'll tell you what he was doing, like many young, angry Muslim men that "heeded the call" of the mujahadeen during the 1980's, during the emasculated American response years of the 1990's, and post 9/11, they were fighting the dreaded "infidel (that's you and me)."

Where's the evidence of torture? Purportedly, the detainee was moved every three hours to deprive him of sleep and familiar cell mates. And THIS is torture? What would the touchy-feely liberal community have us do when interrogating TERRORISTS? Snuggle up to them? Rub their feet?

No, what the leftist idiot community fails to understand is that, in the misogynist Muslim world, only strength is understood. Moreover, the spineless left also won't admit that Guantanamo Bay is virtually a country club to its detainees. These detainees almost assuredly have been treated better than prisoners in this country, or better than a non-Muslim in a Muslim country.

Furthermore, former 9/11 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, himself detained at Guantanamo Bay, states that "we are in hell." Why? Because allegedly, "the military has not given him paper in his cell and failed to deliver a legal motion he wrote to the judge on this U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba."

Let the leftist uproar continue.

What the leftists refuse to fathom is that the "freedom fighters" in their vernacular, seethe hatred and are desperate to murder as many "infidels (once again: that's you and me)" as possible. According to one of the co-conspirators, he was proud to have trained and participated in attacks on the United States and her global interests:

"'Any attack I undertook against America, or even participated or helped in, I am proud about it, and I am happy, said Waleed bin Attash, a Yemeni who allegedly ran a training camp in Afghanistan for Sept. 11 hijackers."

What the terrorists, and their liberal benefactors will not admit also, is that, according to Marine judge Col. Ralph Kohlmann, "they will not be allowed to see classified material because they lack security clearances and would risk a greater chance of being convicted."

So Ahmadinejad does or doesn't want to wipe Israel off the face of the planet?

MSNBC.com is reporting that Iran "test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said were intended to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack, state television reported."

Instinctively, my first reaction was one of perverse gratification: you SEE liberal bastards, Iran is not a peaceful nation, representing a "religion of peace." No, on the contrary; they're terrorist group financiers (in terms of weapons, logistics, and cold hard cash) and they've killed and maimed hundreds of OUR soldiers in Iraq.

Yesterday, I chronicled Wisconsin congressional candidate, Kevin Barrett, essentially disputing the notion that Iran desires to see the "tumor" of Israel "wiped off the map." Why ELSE would Iran be developing a nuclear arsenal?

On the news today, I saw mindless idiots protesting not only the Iraq War, but any potential action against Iran as well. You on the Left just do NOT get it, do you?

"Oil prices jumped on news of the missile tests, rising $1.80 to $137.84 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange by afternoon in Europe."

Doesn't this also indicate the need for this country to 1.) become less dependent on foreign oil; 2.) cultivate its own energy resources: off-shore/ANWAR oil; nuclear power; coal; oil shale?

Footage showed at least six missiles firing simultaneously and said the barrage included a new version of the Shahab-3 missile, which officials have said has a range of 1,250 miles and is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead.

That would put Israel, Turkey, the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan within striking distance.

'Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch,' the official IRNA news agency quoted Salami as saying Wednesday."

It's entirely for "peaceful" purposes, I'm sure.

And you still propose to negotiate with this crazed madman, Obama?

I just hear the Defeatocrat crew coming to Iran's defense, despite the man's convictions about non-Muslims, women, and homosexuals...you know, issues you TRADITIONALLY immerse yourself in?

"Iran HAS to defend herself against the marauding imperialistic United States."

"Iran is only developing a PEACEFUL nuclear program."

"Iran is misunderstood."

And on, and on, and on...

Really, it's like pissing in the wind with the Left; they'll never get it, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they just can't see the truth. You'd think 9/11 would have shook them.

But it didn't.

Wisconsin Congressional Candidate: Ahmadinejad never stated that Israel should be wiped off the map

And this statement did NOT come from a Democratic appeaser, but rather from Libertarian Kevin Barrett, whom, according to OpEdNews.com," has issued a demand of Ron Kind, the Democratic incumbent, to retract his endorsement of the claim that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map.' According to Barret, an Arabist who has taught university course on Islam and is fluent in French and Arabic, Kind's position is based upon a false atribution and represents a mistranslation."

What we have here, folks, is a good old-fashioned apologist.

Here's another sign that people in Wisconsin aren't quite right.

"The candidate's demand concerns an extremely sensitive and important claim, which has frequently been cited by the Bush Administration to support its desire to take military action against Iran. According to Barret, the origin of the alleged quote is not the President of Iran but Ayatollah Khoemeni, whom Ahmedinejad was citing rather than making an assertion of his own."

Three points: First, the Bush Administration has not expressed any desire to attack Iran. In FACT, it is exhausting every means necessary, diplomatically, to stave off the Iranian nuclear threat. Again, more lies perpetuated by the Left. Think back to 2002: the Bush Administration exhausted every possible diplomatic means before toppling Saddam's regime to continue a CEASE-FIRE that was declared after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Also, Saddam violated 12 UN sanctions that called for military reprisal. In addition to Saddam profiting from the Oil-for-Food programs, countries that opposed the 2003 war, France, Germany, and Russia, profited extensively as well.

Second, so I guess one can safely assume that the Iranian despot wishes to seek normal relations with Israel? I don't think so. Regardless of this particular claim, didn't Ahmadinejad state that the Holocaust was a myth? Furthermore, he believes that he can hasten the return the of the Mahdi (or 12th imam) by waging an apocalyptic war against Israel, as well as other non-infidels (that's you and me). According to the Christian Science Monitor,

"From redressing the gulf between rich and poor in Iran, to challenging the United States and Israel and enhancing Iran's power with nuclear programs, every issue is designed to lay the foundation for the Mahdi's return."

Someone with plans on hastening the apocalypse through nuclear conflict has to be someone with whom perhaps-President Barry Obama could negotiate? Right, appeasers?

Of course the leftist apologists will state (and have stated on numerous occasions) that fundamental Christians are just as dangerous as Muslims.

"'This kind of mentality makes you very strong,' says Amir Mohebian, political editor of the conservative Resalat newspaper.

"'Bush said: 'God said to me, attack Afghanistan and attack Iraq.' The mentality of Mr. Bush and Mr. Ahmadinejad is the same here - both think God tells them what to do," says Mr. Mohebian, noting that end-of-time beliefs have similar roots in Christian and Muslim theology.

'If you think these are the last days of the world, and Jesus will come [again], this idea will change all your relations,' says Mohebian. 'If I think the Mahdi will come in two, three, or four years, why should I be soft? Now is the time to stand strong, to be hard.'"

Mohebian mistakenly believes that because Christians believe that the Lord Jesus will return as well, we will engage in open conflict and aggression.

Incorrect...in fact, if anything, Christians will attempt to "do good" in terms a moral code (no thanks to the moral relativism that the Left is pushing down our throats): good deeds, love, forgiveness, etc.

Third, many "expert" think it's the mullah who run the country. Assume for a moment that Ahmadinejad purportedly did state that Israel was a tumor that should be wiped off the map, instead it was the Ayatollah; do they (the mullahs) not hold the reins in that country?

MSNBC: Joint Chiefs head: Iraq security gains holding

So why withdraw troops now?

Nationally, we've heard the cavalcade of "bring 'em home" chants from our leftist elected officials. On the Minnesota front, Democrat challenger to Senator Norm Coleman, Al Franken (aka Stuart Smalley) has made troop withdrawal a hallmark of his campaign platform.

According to MSNBC, "Iraq appears on track to establishing sustainable security — a key step toward withdrawing U.S. troops — the top U.S. military officer said Monday after visiting the newly quiet Sadr City section of the capital."

So tell me again why we want to withdraw now, as Iraq appears well on its way to becoming a bastion of democracy in the Middle East? Why would we throw away not the hard-fought successes we've gained in the past five years, but the four-thousand plus deaths of our fighting men and women.

I guess what they say about liberals and Democratic enablers is true: human life really is unimportant, especially if it's an American life. But, try to tell me that those opposed to freedom and democracy (see: Al Qaeda, or any other Islamic group of murderers, Guantanamo Bay detainees) lives are NOT more important in the eyes of the Left.

Because it ain't true.

You see, the Democrats have hedged their bets; they've allied themselves with the terrorists in a perverse arrangement whereby Islam uses the Democrats, and the Democrats conveniently forget that this "religion of peace" fundamentally opposes women's rights, multiculturism, alternative lifestyles, etc.

Yet, the Democrats, so blinded by the hatred for George Bush, as well as that of Christianity, have offered up their multicultural umbrella, in the hope that the poor Islamists will join them.

Minnesota Update: Poor Stuart Smalley

Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley feels the need to defend Al Franken's boorish behavior, all the while failing to point a finger at the real culprit.

In case you're unaware of the Minnesota senate race, Democratic challenger Franken is attempting to usurp Republican Senator Norm Coleman.

According to Kinsley, we've all become a little too sensitive to jokes about raping women and three-way sex with women (the latter, I could care less). Really, fella? I wonder why that is? I wonder why we've become so "sensitive?"

Let me proffer a guess: you and your fellow liberals have empowered everyone to be "sensitive;" of course everyone to you and your fellow elitist liberals, consists of every minority and alternative lifestyle group.

The notable exception: Christian American, which is not protected from the politically correct police.

And now you actually have the gumption to blame someone other than the "cultured sophisticates" in your party; those who look down at their noses at humor itself. With that said, attacks against President Bush for being a Christian redneck is perfectly acceptable within the confines of your narrow world.

Personally, when I was in junior high/high school, I found his Stuart Smalley skits on SNL mildly humorous. But what I find more comical is the notion that he would contemplate running for office; "Senator" Smalley, now THAT is high comedy.

Star Tribune: $4 gas has drivers eyeing pump's accuracy

I just don't get people sometimes. While I understand how the insane gas prices have made us all a little testy, isn't time we blamed the right people? Rather than blame the oil companies, who make their prices based on supply and demand (Economics 101), it's time to cast aspersions at the real source of the problem: the environmentalists and their Democratic handlers.

According to the Star Tribune, drivers "are calling Minnesota's Department of Commerce to report suspicions that they're not getting as much gas as they're paying for."

You're right, fellow Minnesota drivers. We're not getting as much as we paid for. Thanks to the environmental movement and lie known as global warming, we're forbidden to cultivate our own resources, whether it's oil in Alaska, our vast coal supply, or nuclear power. Rather, the Left would rather us practice conservation, depriving us of the happiness of road trips, boating on the lake, or RV trips.

For those of you planning on voting Democrat in this election, does your beloved party represent you or groups like the environmental lobby, which doesn't give a rat's ass about working class folk like you or me?

Here's the complete story:

$4 gas has drivers eyeing pump's accuracy

Associated Press

July 7, 2008

ST. CLOUD, Minn. - There's nothing like $4 gas to make drivers pay attention to the numbers on the pump. And more of those eagle-eyed drivers are calling Minnesota's Department of Commerce to report suspicions that they're not getting as much gas as they're paying for.

A year ago, drivers called investigator Jeff Anderson maybe once a month to report suspicions that a pump was faulty. Now he gets about two to three calls a week.

The state said most pumps are within its standards for accuracy. The St. Cloud Times found that during the year leading up to April 1, 2008, about 6 percent of gas pumps failed inspections in Stearns, Benton, and Sherburne counties. That works out to about a dozen pumps each month during that year.

"What we want is a gallon (of gas) to be a gallon everywhere," said Julie Quinn, assistant director of the Weights and Measures division of the state's commerce department.

Pumps are tested with a margin of error of 6 cubic inches, or about a quarter of a can of soda. For a regular pump at $4 a gallon, that's a margin of error of about 10 cents. New pumps or those that have been worked on in the past 30 days are allowed half of that margin of error.

Anderson tests the pumps by filling two five-gallon stainless steel containers to measure the gasoline. (He pours the gas back into the station's underground tank afterward.)

Pumps fail inspections for many reasons. Sometimes pumps give too much gas. Sometimes hoses leak. Sometimes the meter is broken.

The problems usually occur because of normal wear and tear, Quinn said. She said she's surprised more pumps don't fail, considering all the wear and tear they endure.

Anderson slaps problem pumps with a yellow tag or a red tag, depending on the severity. The red tag means it can't be used until it's fixed. The yellow tag means it can be used but must be fixed within 30 days. The gas station must pay for the repair. The owner does not receive a reprimand, no matter how many yellow or red tags the station gets.

"The station owner generally doesn't have the tools to know whether he is shorting people or giving gas away," Quinn said.

Anderson inspects about 30 to 40 pumps a day, or two to three gas stations. Most of the time, drivers get what they pay for, he said.

"Ninety-nine percent of times, the pump is right," he said. "I wish I'd find something that's off."

Sometimes a consumer's complaint is valid. A gas station in Waite Park, for example, last year had an inspection that was off by 130 cubic inches — meaning customers got about 4 1/2 gallons of gas for every 5 gallons they paid for. An inspector flagged the pump for repair. The station did not respond to a St. Cloud Times request for an interview.

That was the only pump off by that much in the three-county area, according to the data.

Sometimes the pumps give some gas away for free. At Rooney's Texaco in Belgrade, one test showed a pump was giving away as much as a quarter-gallon of gas for every five gallons pumped. It was immediately flagged and fixed.

It was normal wear and tear, said owner Russ Rooney.

"Once a year they come on in and test our pumps for accuracy," he said. "There's times it floats the other way. You just shrug and say, 'Shucks.'"

Barry Obama: "A Significant Realignment"

Those words were uttered in a recent speech by Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama regarding the election prospects for his party this coming fall.

What exactly does "Significant Realignment" mean? Well, let us hypothesize for a minute: assume Obama wins the presidency; couple that with more gains in Congress for the Democrats, and we're looking at an obscene policy shift to the left.

In other words, socialism.

The Democrats have on record, stated that we should mold our lifestyles, our government, and our morals to resemble that of Europe, whose countries are mostly socialist.

So here's what a Democratic president and Democratically-controlled Congress will do, as public servants:

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Public health care/socialized medicine, governmental oversight on restoring Social Security, more entitlements, reducing our energy output by 25% to reduce carbon emissions and comply with the Kyoto Treaty.

So how will this be accomplished? Well, the government needs to get the money somewhere...and guess what, it's coming out of our paychecks to the tune of at least 50% taxation. We're either in a recession or the cusp of a recession; experts on fiscal policy all concur that you don't tax your way out of a recession. Rather, it would sound fiscal policy to ensure the Bush tax cuts remain, while reducing taxes on small businesses.

Moreover, one way to fight a recession would be to produce cheap energy. In other words, develop our OWN resources, be it oil off our coasts or in Alaska, oil shale, or not to mention our near-endless supply of oil. But thanks to the environmental lobby, we're forbidden to cultivate our resources, thanks to the lie of global warming.

What else will a Democratic president and legislature accomplish? Continued appeasement of terrorists, "dialog" with maniacal despots like Iranian "president" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il, or further pandering to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, those groups opposed to the legal state of Israel. Finally, we'll see the Democrats unequivocally withdraw our troops from Iraq, ensuring that, just as the Iraqi government can sustain itself, sectarian violence is renewed as well as the return of extremist elements (e.g. Al Qaeda).

Are you ready?

"This (establishment-insert name of business here) bans handguns unless...

you're black, asian, native american, muslim, buddhist, hindu, etc. If you're a white Christian, you are expressly forbidden to carry a firearm on your possession, even if you have a conceal-and-carry license and have never committed a crime."

Doesn't it feel like the liberal, political correct, madness essentially is stating that?

It's been a few days since the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Washington DC law banning handgun and obviously the Liberal Demogogue is in an uproar.

GUNS KILL PEOPLE, they cry!!! Banning guns reduces crime!!! Sure it does, idiots.

It's high time this country woke up to the lies liberals are spouting, whether it pertains to the myth of global warming, the claims of the Iraq War as "an illegal war," or that the United States is the cause of terrorism.

Thank you Supreme Court for restoring a semblance of common sense to our lives by overruling this gun ban; it's high time we stop emasculating the good citizens of this country while arming the criminals. Naturally, liberals hector those of us that truly understand the Constitution that the 2nd amendment only safeguarded the rights of a well-armed militia.

Hopefully this will shut them up. For the "intellegensia" that the liberals represent, they're not really quite short on common sense. In their perverse world, persons of all shapes, colors, and beliefs cohabitate peacefully; in said world, we negotiate; we engage in dialog. There are no need for wars, for guns, for bombs. In said perverse world, we rehabilitate criminals, we trust them to not make the same mistakes made in the past, to not prey on children, elderly, women, or the weak.

But this is the real world.

Attacking McCain's "Patriotism"

Is it any wonder that the Liberal smear machine, led by Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama, is attacking the credibility and patriotism of rival John McCain?

In the age of Defeatism, when a liberal (Obama) has to perversely explain how his patriotism is a different brand of patriotism, it all oddly makes sense. Recently, we've had conservative-turned-liberal, General Wesley Clark, explain how McCain is NOT a war hero, or isn't patriotic.

Just because McCain's fighter jet was shot down during the Vietnam War, just because he was held captive in the Hanoi Hilton, just because he SERVED HIS COUNTRY, does not a war hero make, according to Clark. This coming from a man who's tenure as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO was cut short due to integrity and character issues.

" He continued, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Now of all times, with the flood of defeatist, godless liberal pummeling the very foundations of this country, we need a hero, someone with a vision to assume the mantle of leadership carried by President George W. Bush, someone NOT worried about "inflaming" the sensitivities of islamo-fascism, someone not afraid to tap into our vast energy resources, someone who return the great Republican party back to FISCAL CONSERVATISM.

As for Obama, he's imploring voters to take his word that despite refusing to wear an American flag pin, calling for a speedy withdrawal of troops from Iraq, pandering to Islamic terrorists, etc, that he IS patriotic (don't forget his wife's run of denigrating remarks of the United States as well):

"Barack Obama yesterday sought to portray himself as a mainstream American patriot and put his Republican opponents on notice that he would "not stand idly by" when others questioned his support for the US flag."

McCain might not be the most idyllic Republican nominee. Often he has not ingratiated himself to fellow Republicans with his proclivity to stepping across the proverbial aisle and working with Democrats on a compromise legislation. But with all the bluster Obama has raised regarding "change" and "unification," it's in fact McCain that has demonstrated unity and compromise.

What Liberals Will NOT Tell You about the Iraq War

I came across this article in Commentary Magazine. Unfortunately, for sanctimonious liberals, it reveals (as if those with commonsense didn't already know) that your glorious leader, Bill Clinton, warned anyone who would listen about the threat posed by one Saddam Hussein.

"It is too often forgotten, not least by historians, that George W. Bush did not invent the idea of deposing the Iraqi tyrant. For years before he came on the scene, removing Saddam Hussein had been a priority embraced by the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton and by Clinton’s most vocal supporters in the Senate:

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

These were the words of President Clinton on the night of December 16, 1998 as he announced a four-day bombing campaign over Iraq. Only six weeks earlier, Clinton had signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow—an initiative supported unanimously in the Senate and by a margin of 360 to 38 in the House. “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom,” Clinton had declared. On the evening the bombs began to drop, Vice President Al Gore told CNN’s Larry King:

You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. [emphasis added]

What these and other such statements remind us is that, by the time George Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the United States was already at war with Iraq, and in fact had been at war for a decade, ever since the first Gulf war in the early 1990’s. (This was literally the case, the end of hostilities in 1991 being merely a cease-fire and not a formal surrender followed by a peace treaty.) Not only that, but the diplomatic and military framework Bush inherited for neutralizing the Middle East’s most fearsome dictator had been approved by the United Nations. It consisted of (a) regular UN inspections to track and dispose of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) remaining in Saddam’s arsenal since the first Gulf war; (b) UN-monitored sanctions to prevent Saddam from acquiring the means to make more WMD’s; and (c) the creation of so-called “no-fly zones” over large sections of southern and northern Iraq to deter Saddam from sending the remnants of his air force against resisting Kurds and Shiite Muslims."

Liberals who scream that George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al. are war criminals, seem to forget the following:

1. Saddam violated several UN resolutions calling for full transparency of his weapons program, with military force the ultimate consequence.

2. Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who also were both Democratic presidential candidates, looked at the same intelligence that the Bush Administration looked at; they ALL drew the same conclusion.

3. Bill Clinton referred to predatory, rogue nations looking to acquire WMD as an "unholy axis." Yet, Bush has taken endless heat over the term, "axis of evil."

I hate to break it you (actually I don't; anything to wipe that smug, latte-creamed, smile off your elitist face), but your accusations of an illegal war are wholly and absurdly ungrounded.

The Liberals' War and Who the REAL War Criminals Are

We've heard ad nauseum from the liberals and their Democratic enablers that the Iraq War is Bush's War, Bush's Vietnam, if you will. Since we're casting blame, isn't it fair to say that global warming, skyrocketing oil prices, and the impending energy crisis consists of the Democrats' war?

Those of us on the right also been chided ceaselessly for engaging fear-mongering and exaggerating the scope of the collective terrorist threat; we're laughed at when we say we're fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we're not fighting them here.

Yet we've heard that "global warming" is the most dangerous fight we'll make in our generation. I spied a liberal bumper that stated, "At least the war on the environment is going well."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This misinformed, misguided obsession with ethanol thanks to a collective hatred of big oil has shot food prices through the roof. Furthermore, a concerted misinformation campaign regarding the dangers of "drilling" have led us to beg despots in Saudi Arabia to pump more oil. Furthermore, it's too costly to provide additional refining capacity.

So your war has created food shortages and starving people AROUND THE WORLD, and $4.00+ plus per gallon gasoline prices; why, because people like Al Gore lied about the threats of global warming. They told us that there was a consensus in the scientific community; there was no consensus. In fact, thousands of scientists dispute any evidence that man has created global warming. Despite threats of persecution in the scientific community, scientists are speaking out.

If the environmentalists had their way, our society would set itself back two hundred years, pre-combustible engine period. Yet, what the environmentalists and their Democratic enablers FAIL to realize, is that cheap energy is the key to this economy. We hear Republican presidential nominee John McCain discussing real, viable options to solving the energy process: increased drilling, more refinery construction, more nuclear power, etc.

What is Democratic presidential nominee Barry Obama's plan: more solar and more wind power; more conservation.

Yeah, right.

Resident liberal know-nothing, John Nichols in The Nation (the same publication that misinformed us that our troops in Iraq were committing widespread atrocities) writes that those congressmen and senators that opposed Bush's Iraq War spending bill are acting responsibly. Of course those like Pelosi and Reid who are stalling, all the while pandering to the environmentalist lobby, regarding the issue of tapping into our vast energy resources are responsible elected officials too, right John?

Let's face it, environmentalist buffoons, your time is coming when obscene amount of public pressure will force even your Democratic stooges to tap into vast energy reserves, conceding that your global warming concoction is a damn hoax.

You liberals and your pie-in-the-sky mentality have accused Bush, Cheney, et al. of war crimes...how about those elected officials that ignored the threats and the now emerging reality that people are starving thanks to you.

Who are the war criminals now, you fools?

The Liberal Double-Standard

Have you ever gone to Newshounds.com? I was alerted to its presence, sort of like Ben Kenobi being alerted to Darth Vader’s presence in Star Wars, regarding a statement FOX News anchor Brit Hume made about Democratic presidential nominee and resident liberal messiah Barry Obama.

Allegedly, Hume made disparaging comments or twisted the truth about the Golden Child. The bottom line is that I got a real kick out of the way the liberal Newshounds.com rushed to Obama’s defense.

Newshounds.com embodies the collective liberal mindset. Anytime someone on the right, or someone with a good head on his/her shoulders, impugns or even attempts to demand accountability for a series of verbal gaffes and questionable decision-making of said Golden Child, we’re met with fierce resistance, including name-calling, brow-beating, condescension, etc. On the whole, it’s been interesting to watch the liberals “valiantly defend” their nominee.

This sort of deranged behavior typifies how liberals fail to grasp history, especially mistakes they’ve made in the past or statements they’ve made to which they NOW contradict themselves. See: Iraq War/Saddam Hussein/Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Moreover, Nevermind the fact that Liberals accosted a Republican president for eight years; yet, as soon as those of us question the integrity and experience of a Democrat, we suffer from “Barachnophobia,” or as Newshounds states, we’re racist, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Muslim, etc.

It’s ALMOST comical, but it isn’t.

Attempting to Enlighten a Liberal

Originally, I wanted to title this piece, "Attempting to EDUCATE a Liberal," but I soon realized that a sizeable chunk of liberals are diplomats, professors, and other educated folk; despite my own master's degree, a liberal would show their educational prowess by browbeating me while resorting to name-calling.

I came across an article today in the Washington Post, which despite the source, was fairly non-partisan in nature. The article consists of emails from people on both sides of the political spectrum admonishing the opposing candidate on the recent Supreme Court decision to allow terrorist detainees to REQUEST a hearing in court.

Note some of the emails:

motorfriend said, "Before exploring the fine points of combatting terrorism, McCain owes the American people an apology for what he and his party have done to this once proud country. War criminals, liars, frauds, traitors . . . words cannot begin to capture the magnitude of their crimes."
dsrobins predicted that "...John McCain will lose the election in November. McCain, like Bush, wants to keep Americans terrified about what might happen next..."
kogejoe said, "It's funny how McCain is trying to project his own party's problem on his opponent. How does he even have the gumption of accusing Obama of a "9/10 mindset" when 9/11 happened on BUSH'S WATCH?... There are now more terrorists in Iraq than before we attacked them. Talked about "failed policy."
carolm62 said, "...When we infuriate the world by acting like evil tyrants, as when we deny a prisoner the basic right to answer to the charges leveled against him, why should we be surprised if people seek revenge? McCain is fostering terrorism, not defeating it."
rcc_2000 wrote, "...Yeah, we've heard the GOP "tough on terror" talk before and all it has brought us is a more unstable, dangerous world. Fact is the GOP has been the terrorists best friend and advocate. I guess the GOP and McCain do not think they have screwed us up enough."

My initial reaction to the above emails was one of sheer disbelief; but I soon realized that in our country today, the Liberals are arrogant and ignorant as they've been since the Vietnam War. These comments demonstrate your typical defeatist, Blame-America-First mentality running rampant among Liberals. Furthermore, the world's ills, especially those perceived in the Islamic world are OUR own fault, or President Bush's fault for that matter. Moreover, if you read the comments above, not only are the readers ingrates for freedoms fought and died for by our military, but they essentially either compare our President, his administration, and our military to some of the world's worst tyrants, or they believe them to be worse.

Unbelievable. While you Leftist swine drink your lattes, our fighting men and women are waging a heroic, epic conflict against terrorists who would you gladly usurp your rights. NEWSFLASH Liberal: these people that you have blithely embraced while offering them a chair at the negotiation table, laugh at how naive you are. They are USING you, all the while abhoring your godless, secular ways.

They've hated us BEFORE Bush; how soon you forget arguably the first volley in the War on Terror, the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis, the suicide bombings in Lebanon during the early 80's, the endless airplane hijackings during the 80's and 90's, and nonstop terrorist attacks that occurred during the Clinton Administration.

9/11 happened during the first year of Bush's presidency; but the planning, training, and financing occurred during the Clinton Administration, all because he had neither the fortitude nor heart to actually extract Osama bin Laden or deal EFFECTIVELY with every terrorist attack that occurred either on our soil (FIRST WTC bombings) or against American interests abroad (e.g. '98 Embassy bombings, Khobar towers, USS Cole, etc).

Give me a break.