The ingrates on the Left

Travelling home from work on Leftist invention MASS TRANSIT, I peered out my window and spied an idiot sitting in his rusted out Chevy Blazer (if you live in Minnesota, you understand the concept of "rust"); said Blazer was absolutely covered with bumper stickers of varying liberal wisdom.

I believe the phrase, "liberal wisdom" is paradoxical in meaning.

The bumper stickers consisted of typical statements discussing the intelligence of President George Bush, the "war on the environment," "coexisting" with patrons of other religions, etc. One in particular caught my eye:

"Civil Rights: Don't Leave Home Without It."

A couple of thoughts come to mind at such "brilliance."

First, as Terrence Jeffrey so aptly states in his article, "This has been President Bush's primary aim ever since Sept. 11, 2001. And no matter what else Bush's critics say about him, there is one thing they cannot say: He allowed Islamic terrorists to hit our homeland again. In the almost seven years since Sept. 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists have failed to carry out a single attack inside our country."

Juxtapose that with the terrorist acts that occurred under the watch of President Bill Clinton: the 2000 USS Cole bombing, the 1998 dual embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the 1993 WTC bombing, the Khobar Tower bombings, etc. After each attack, our response was weak and ineffectual at best. Furthermore, when opportunity existed to either kill or capture Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno waffled, too concerned with 1.) how the world would view us; and 2.) the legal ramifications of either killing or capturing the terrorist leader.

Global opinion...we're hearing some of that familiar rhetoric now as Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama returns to the United States after his "tour" (think "rock star" which is how the public and the American press treated him) of Europe, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Barry wants to correct our image in the world after eight years of a Bush Administration not giving a damn, and rightfully so, of world opinion.

As stated in a recent BBC article, "'In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common,' he continued. 'In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role in our security and our future.'"

Look what world opinion did for us in the 1990's: between Clinton's philandering, and his emasculated responses to Islamic terror, terrorists reviled us for our immorality; moreover, they knew that any military retaliation to bombings, killings, etc, would be met with tepidness at best, further emboldening the terrorists.

So look where that has led us: to bitching and moaning from the Left that President Bush, in his efforts to prevent any further terrorist attacks in this country, has usurped the United States Constitution. The Leftist intelligensia has decried him for stealing their first amendment rights., for eavesdropping on all of our phone calls, for "spying" on us.

It's almost laughable...but it isn't when you see how liberals and their Democratic enablers are looking to restrict free speech through their reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. As the Heritage Foundation notes, "Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the 'fairness doctrine.'"

Note the following regarding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine:

"The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine 'inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate' (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress."

And now Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic cronies in Congress, rather than address real issues like opening up off-shore areas for drilling, wish to suppress our First Amendment Rights. As "Current FCC Chairman James Quello, has stated that, 'The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.'"

The article makes the following points in its treatise:

Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.

Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.

Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.

Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.

Once again, and doesn't history demonstrate this repeatedly, Liberals have displayed their hypocrisy and complete utter denial of the truth. God help us if Barry Hussein wins the presidency.

Message to Barry Obama: You're NOT running for European president

...so quit pandering to the weak, emaciated, spineless appeasers there.

Regarding the Iraq War and toppling Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime: we merely enforced 16 United Nations resolutions to which Saddam violated. Ousting the "Butcher of Baghdad" should have been done at some point in the 12 years prior to the 2003 United States invasion.

Furthermore, who's side is Obama on? In a pathetic attempt to grovel, Barry pandered to 200,000 fans at a rally in Berlin, undoubtedly appeasing those willing to cower and surrender, ultimately waiting for the United States to do their dirty work, than stand up for anything real.

We've heard from Barry, ad nauseum, that we need to emulate Europeans more; I'm assuming, besides adopting the horrors of socialized medicine, that includes the aforementioned appeasing, $10 dollar a gallon gas, shady deals with third-world despots, anti-semitism, and the inability (with notable exceptions: Britain, Poland, Bulgaria, etc) to combat terrorism and the intolerance associated with its "Religion of Peace."

Note this comment from Barry Hussein, courtesy of NewsMax.com:

"'Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English,' Obama told a Georgia audience, '. . . you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.”

Obama then quickly attempted to broaden and blur his statement, adding: “We should have every child speaking more than one language.

'It’s embarrassing,' he continued, 'when Europeans come over here, they all speak English; they speak French; they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is ‘Merci beaucoup.’”

Typical elitist-speak from Barry. I'm surprised the McCain camp hasn't jumped all over the elitist rhetoric. Barry has demonstrated repeatedly that he's grossly out of touch with the general American populace. Furthermore, he and his Democratic brethren, while pandering to the environmental lobby, are bleeding this country.

Advice to McCain: move on this.

He cheated on his wife with...with...HER?

According to the National Ledger, "Edwards literally ran away from them as they tried to confront him in the early morning hours as to why he was in the same hotel as Rielle Hunter."

Furthermore, according to the National Enquirer, "Edwards had a fling with this woman and the magazine claims there is a love child that has now been born."

Dude, my advice to you: if you're going to be a complete a**hole and commit infidelity on your wife, thus forever tarnishing your marriage (not to mention your credibility)...do it right.

Of course, maybe that's the best he could have done?

Al Franken and other Democrats: Denying the Truth on Energy

Message to Stuart Smalley: it's called "reality on the ground."

According to a story in KAALtv.com, Franken states, "(A)s far as a solution to combat high gas prices… 'We need electric hybrid cars. We need rail. We need to have a rail that comes down to the Twin Cities to Rochester. We need to rethink our whole energy system,' said Franken.

Al Franken agrees with offshore drilling but says it won’t solve all our problems."

It won't?

The boneheads on the Left urge us to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil; furthermore, they advocate fairly unreliable energy solutions, such as wind and solar power. The bottom line is this: oil is a vital cog to the health of our economy. You eliminate oil/gas, the economy suffers. Cheap energy helps our businesses and keeps more money in our pockets.

According to Foxnews.com, "

The area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, the U.S. Geological Survey announced Wednesday.

The USGS said technically recoverable resources are those produced using currently available industry practices and technology.

The Arctic accounts for about 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of the undiscovered natural gas, the USGS reported."

That's a start...

Instead, we have a laughable, completely emasculated Democratic congress, led by the worst Speaker of the House in the history of the institution, Nancy Pelosi, has refused to allow any votes that would allow a vote on offshore drilling or ANWAR. Furthermore, she knows that's what the people wants, but the seditious, enemy-of-the-people, environmental lobby is more concerned with the "view from the coast" rather than the health and wealth of the American populace.

Here's a message to the Defeatist party: at one time you purported to represent the working class citizen. Instead, your part has become so such saturated with radical fringe groups that you've now become a shell of our former self. Every day you stall on the energy issue (e.g. refusing to allow votes to come to the Floor; or refusing to lift the off-shore drilling ban) is more nail in your coffin.

This country is in serious trouble, economically; cheap energy could be a boost.

U of M Professor's Threat to Desecrate the Eucharist

Where's the respect, you ignorant, godless f*ck?

After threatening to desecrate the Holy Bible on his blog, Pharangyla, University of Minnesota biology professor Paul Z. Myers has now vowed to desecrate both the Holy Bible and the Koran. According to Catholiconline.com, "Professor Myers says that 'Thanks to all those who have demanded that I treat that silly book [the Koran] with disrespect, I’ll have to treat both equally.'"

To be honest, it doesn't really make me feel better. In fact, Myers should have the common decency to refrain from taking a big dump, or whatever other vile act he wishes to commit, on both the Holy Bible and the Koran.

One of the hallmarks of our society is our ability to TOLERATE other beliefs, whether it's religious beliefs, political beliefs, etc. In this author's humble opinion, Myers should demonstrate his supposed sophistication and avoid said desecration.

"'The latest threat by Myers only makes matters worse. Instead of treating Catholicism with the respect he has previously shown for Islam, he now pledges to disrespect Islam the way he pledges to disrespect Catholicism (once again!). This is his idea of equal treatment.'"

Some of us on the Right abhor the Islamic faith to such a degree that if Myers had proposed to desecrate the Koran, we might turn a blind eye to such a disrespectful act. Personally, I think it's important to employ the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) mantra when contemplating such acts. The Good Lord would want us to "turn the other cheek" and "love your neighbor."

There's a time and place to combat militant Islam; our just wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are evidence of that.

Compounding the "Myer's Problem" is that the University of Minnesota, in its Moral Relativism, has refused to excoriate Myers on the matter. According to CNA.com (Catholic News Agency):

"Daniel Wolter, the News Service Director in the Office of University Relations at the University of Minnesota, reiterated in an e-mail to CNA that Professor Myers’ views 'do not reflect the views of the University of Minnesota.'"

Chancellor Jacqueline Johnson, in a blatant display of leftist, pie-in-the-sky, elitist ignorance, has herself demonstrated 1.) an absolute disregard for organized religion; and 2.) implied that Myers is acting in the name of Science.

"She said personal and intellectual engagement at the school is done in 'in the framework of intellectual and critical inquiry, not from a platform of name-calling and derogation.'"

Growing weary of the Global Warming hoax? A review of the case AGAINST global warming

Anyone else getting tired of global warming politics being shoved down our collective throats? It's the far-Left's modus operandi to force their blithe, abhorrent agenda on us, whether it's the aforementioned global warming garbage, alternative lifestyles, open borders, socialized medicine, etc.

Three aspects of the global warming "phenomenon" drive me crazy:

1. The politics of the global warming hoax have seeped into our very existence, so much that conservative public servants are hoping to ride the wave of its popularity by sponsoring their own legislation to combat climate control.
2. The far-Left idiots in the environmental lobby are willing to murder millions of power, all for the sake of "clean air." They value "Mother Earth" over its children. Because of ethanol, for example, BLOOD IS ON THEIR HANDS.
3. The environmental lobby have so deeply infiltrated the ranks of the Democratic Party that its elected officials dare not lift the moratorium on the off-shore drilling ban or ease government regulations in order to help its traditional voters: working class Democrats.

According to the obnoxiously liberal Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

"Tougher gas mileage standards and a move beyond corn-based ethanol could help Minnesota exceed its goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2025, according to a study by the University of Minnesota's Center for Transportation Studies."

"Transportation accounts for 24 percent of Minnesota's total greenhouse gas emissions, which, by definition, are a key cause of global warming."

Let's establish something right off the bat:

The notion of global warming is an absolute joke. Note the following points from respected author (Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies) and talk show host Gregg Jackson (Boston WRKO). Arm yourself with information when some sanctimonious far-Left buffoon starts to pontificate on, for example, the perils of the polar bears.

1. If carbon dioxide is responsible for increasing temperatures on earth, how do you explain the observed temperature increases on Mars where there are no automobiles, airplanes, or industrial plants emitting CO2?

2. If human induced carbon emissions are responsible for the slight half a degree Fahrenheit rise in the earth's temperature since the 1970s, how do you explain the temperature increases during the Medieval warm Period from 900-1300 prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine?

3. If man is primarily responsible for increased levels of atmospheric CO2, how do you explain the Ordovician Period, about 450 million years ago, when the CO2 level was approximately 16 times higher than it is today? How do you reconcile CO2 levels 95 million years ago which were approximately the same as they are today since man wasn't even on the planet?

4. You claim that there is a Global Warming "consensus" and that the issue of human induced global warming is settled and that immediate action to significantly reduce anthropogenic global carbon emissions is required ( i.e. Kyoto). While the vast majority of climatologists do agree that the earth has warmed about one half a degree during the past century and similarly acknowledge that the earth is always warming or cooling, there is no similar "consensus" view among climatologists that human activity is primarily responsible for it. When you claim that there is a "consensus" among scientists that humans are largely responsible for global climate change, which scientists are you referring to? How many have said that man made carbon emissions are responsible for climate change? Are these "scientists" to which you refer well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate? Finally, over 17,000 American scientists- two thirds with advanced degrees specializing in physics, geo-physics, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, environmental science, chemistry, and biochemistry, have signed a petition disputing the "consensus view" that man is responsible for climate change. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm . If there is a scientific "consensus" that human carbon emissions are responsible for "global warming" how would you characterize the scientists who signed this petition? Are they merely heretical "deniers" in the pocket of Big Oil companies?

5. If man made carbon emissions are responsible for global warming, why did the temperature actually increase during the beginning of the 20th century prior to the greatest increase in carbon emissions after 1940? And why did the temperature actually decrease from 1940 to 1970 during the greatest increase in carbon emissions?

6. It is often asserted that human induced global warming is causing glaciers around the world to melt. Isn't it true however, that glaciers usually always melt or recede after cooling periods end? And isn't it also true that glacial retreat is highly selective in that glaciers are advancing globally in certain locations such as the Greenland Ice Sheet and retreating elsewhere (like the Alpine glaciers which have been retreating since the early 19th century)? If global warming is causing the glaciers to melt, isn't global cooling responsible for glaciers advancing?

7. The UN's own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found no statistically significant increase in sea levels corresponding to man's greatest amount of industrial activity and resulting carbon emissions during the last century. What empirical evidence can you cite that substantiates the common claim that "man made global warming" is responsible for rising sea levels?

8. If man made global warming is as "catastrophic" as you predict, then why don't you Democrats who control the Senate, vote to ratify the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty which was signed on November 11, 1998? Why are Democrats not holding a vote to ratify such an urgent global treaty? And if Kyoto is supposed to reduce global carbon emissions why are "Green" Europe's emissions rising at twice the rate of the US- a non-Kyoto member?

9. Only 2% of "greenhouse gasses" result from combustion emissions from SUVs and power plants. Since 98% of all greenhouse gasses - which make the earth habitable - are naturally occurring, how will reducing man-made carbon emissions have any meaningful impact on the earth's temperature? Can you cite one piece of empirical scientific evidence that restricting man made carbon emissions would reduce the earth's temperature? What would be the cost?

10. There are thousands of scientists who have concluded that there is substantial scientific evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide can have beneficial effects on natural plant and animal environments of the earth. It is a well known fact that in similar "warming periods" such as the Medieval Warm Period that residents of Greenland prospered and that this period of even greater "warmth" that we are experiencing today could lead to unprecedented economic prosperity, overall well being, and reduced mortality. What evidence do you have that increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are "catastrophic?"

Australia's "The Age:" Iraq War was a failure

According to Australian "The Age," "Iraq is an example of a profound failure of US policy. Afghanistan must not fall victim to a similar failure by either of the rivals for the White House."

It was?

Our invasion to remove a psychotic murderous despot who violated 16 U.N. sanctions was a failure?

The fact that we established a DEMOCRACY in a hotbed of theocratic, human-right violating, totalitarian countries was a failure?

How was it failure? Because we couldn't convince feckless European countries with close ties to Saddam to assist in the military option?

Some points:

"Senator Obama, who opposed the war from the outset, says he will withdraw America's combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010. "We made a strategic error," he says of the invasion."

First, Obama was not a Illinois senator during 2002, which precluded him from taking a stance on the Iraq War. More than likely he, like his Democratic brethren who authorized military action in 2002, he would have voted FOR said military action. Second, undoubtedly the Bush Administration made strategic errors AFTER we topped Saddam's Baathist regime; but let their be no doubt that the invasion and the way our military prosecuted the war was NOT a strategic error. One could almost grant the opposition that it would have been better to leave Saddam as a counterweight to the growing Iranian hegemony, but a moot point exists.

Second, we in the United States hear too often from foreign countries that we have not ingratiated ourselves around the world. For that matter, we have tarnished our image by "occupying" a Muslim country, say some.

Of course, those dissenters forget that according to the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (DAC/OECD), "the United States remains the largest donor of "official development assistance" at $23.53 billion in 2006."

Those same naysayers also forget the the billions of dollars in foreign aid we give during global catastrophes; for example, we gave over two billion dollars in foreign aid, the most of any country, in response to the 2004 tsunami that struck Indonesia, Sri Lanka, etc.

Or the critics disregard the fact that we deposed of a violent thug in Saddam Hussein, a man who used chemical gas on Kurdish dissidents in Halabja (just one event in a campaign where Saddam called for the extermination of the entire Kurdish population; he ultimately butchered 182,000 people), killed 148 Shiite militants in 1982, murdered 8,000 members of Masoud Barzani's clan (leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, reduced the population of the Shiite Marsh Arabs from 250,000 to 30,000 through starvation and forced migration, and ultimately murdered approximately 500,000 Shiites in the aftermath of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Furthermore, according to About.Com: Civil Liberties:

"Although most of Hussein's large-scale atrocities took place during the 1980s and early 1990s, his tenure was also characterized by day-to-day atrocities that attracted less notice. Wartime rhetoric regarding Hussein's "rape rooms," death by torture, decisions to slaughter the children of political enemies, and the casual machine-gunning of peaceful protesters accurately reflected the day-to-day policies of Saddam Hussein's regime. Hussein was no misunderstood despotic "madman." He was a monster, a butcher, a brutal tyrant, a genocidal racist--he was all of this, and more."

So where's the love? Why is the United States vilified? It is because the appeasers in ineffective Europe and other supporters of Saddam's murderous regime did not want the thug deposed? Is it because they did business with the man, despite numerous United Nations sanctions? Or could it be they despised the United States for finally growing a set and usurping the murderous tyrant?