Krystle Clear

Obama's New Nominee

2010-05-10T14:05:00.003-04:00

As many of you know, Obama has announced a new nominee for Supreme Court to take the place of ailing Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Unlike his first nominee (Sotomayor), his newest nominee, Elena Kagan has almost no paper trail of judicial rulings because she has never sat on a bench.

Also, unlike Sotomayor, Kagan is deemed to be much more moderate. My research on Kagan is ll preliminary at this point, but expect more information on her later. This is what i do know: she's female, she's white, she's young (relatively), and she is "progressive." Pretty much par for the course with the Obama Administration.

If you'd like to find out more about this nominee, please check you the SCOTUS Report published by the Federalist Society /http://www.scotusreport.com/. They have all of the latest updates and information about the new nominee.

Much Ado About Nothing in Arizona

2010-05-05T18:05:00.001-04:00

There has been much conjecture about what the new Immigration law out of Arizona will mean for Latin American immigrants. Will this lead to racial profiling of Mexican Americans? Will this force Hispanics to hold their immigration papers at all times? Is this little more than Gestapo tactics of a xenophobic public? These are the things the left and illegal apologists would like you to believe about the law. Most of the country hasn’t read it, and doesn’t even know what is in it.

The fact of the matter is that this law is the first example of a state FINALLY taking the immigration issue seriously when Washington won’t. Arizona is in the middle of a war zone. Phoenix has the highest kidnapping rate in the entire country. The boarder to Mexico has been the site of deadly crimes, drug smuggling, and an influx of illegal immigrants (or undocumented workers as the Obama Administration would like to call them). Mexico is, essentially, in a civil war that is spilling over our boarder. It is long past the point where we need to do something drastic about this problem.

First, let me address the questions I have posed about this legislation. On the issue of racial profiling, it is true that this law will affect Hispanics more than anyone. I’m not here to deny that. However, racial profiling is not exactly the right word for what will happen. First of all, the bill states that this law only comes into effect if a person has been stopped or apprehended already. For instance, this is not an example (like many from the left have been claiming) where anyone, for any reason can be asked to produce their immigration or citizenship papers. What would happen is this. Let’s say you got pulled over for speeding. Then, it would be within the power of law enforcement to ask you to produce proof that you are legally allowed to be in the United States. Considering being here illegally is BREAKING THE LAW, I really don’t see what the issue is. No one can be stopped because of their race. The End.

Will Hispanics have to hold immigration papers at all times? Only if they plan to commit a crime. And even then, one’s legal status can be determined without papers. This law only allows Arizona to take more control of the situation for themselves. Since Washington will not deal with the problem (and recently has not admitted much of a problem at all) then Arizona has a responsibility to its citizens (both Hispanic and not) to protect them from these illegals that mooch off the system and are bring crime into the state in droves.

As for the Gestapo claim, anyone with a brain knows that is little more that liberal rhetoric as usual. Note to the world, being here illegally not only makes you exempt from American civil rights but also makes you a criminal. Why should they come here legally if we are just going to turn a blind eye when they say disrespect to our laws and come here illegally. I find it interesting that the left get’s their panties in a twist when the government takes action to insure our security calling it “big brother” but they seem to have no problem whatsoever with government takeover of the economy, education, and basic everyday parts of our lives.

Xenophobia in America is an overly dramatized claim by the left and pro-illegal groups as well. In fact, this law will help with relations between legal immigrants and American citizens. If we would actually crack down on illegal aliens, those Hispanic Americans who move here, legally, can live in peace and harmony with their fellow Americans. At the end of the day, ALL people on BOTH sides of this issue should put blame where it’s due: on the illegal aliens that have no respect for our boarder or our laws.

While people are getting their panties in a twist over this new law, why not ask this question. What if your child had been murdered by an illegal immigrant? Would you still think this was not worth dealing with? I hate to break it to the illegal apologists, but I don’t care how hard it is to live in Mexico. You come here LEGALLY or don’t come at all. And as a sovereign nation, America has every right to ensure the safety of its boarders and its citizens.

In fact, the left should take another look at the constitution and framing of our government. There are basically two main jobs of the federal government: to protect and defend the borders and to facilitate interstate commerce. The end. Not to bailout banks, not to prop up the economy, not to provide universal healthcare or any other service.

In every other country on the planet, proof of legal immigration or visas are required. Why should it be any different in the United States? Actually, I know why. Democrats do no give a crap about the Hispanic community. The “outrage” over this bill is for two reasons. 1) Democrats want the Latino vote and 2) They want “multiculturalism” as opposed to the melting pot (mostly because Democrats excel at race politics where Republicans fail). Keeping the Mexican population high, naturalizing the illegals, and keeping them happy (i.e. welfare, healthcare, turning a blind eye to rampant crime) will ensure millions of votes for the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, in case anyone forgot, we are in a war on terror. How is it smart to have an unsecured boarder and millions of “undocumented” and untraced people living here? This is common sense 101. Why is no one talking about this? We are so concerned with protecting the non-existent rights of illegals, but why are we not concerned at all with protecting our sovereign borders in a time of war?

I’ll leave you with this thought. Imagine that you can’t be assured that English will be spoken to you anywhere you go. Imagine that your child is at risk for kidnapping by drug cartels. Imagine that your home is not safe from invasion by illegal aliens. Imagine that you have a friend who has been killed by an illegal drunk driver. Imagine that your tax dollars are going to house illegals in jail, pay for their healthcare, and pay for their children’s education. Does that sound like a safe America? Why should we protect law breakers?

I’m all for ensuring that this law does not devolve into racial profiling on a ridiculous scale (though there are safeguards in the law to avoid that), but how can a sane person not expect Arizona to crack down on this issue? Do you think that if Canada was in a civil war we’d just open our boarders to them? Why are Latin Americans an exception to our laws? Is vote pandering really worth our lives and livelihoods? Why make such a fuss about a law that simply forces citizens to carry photo ID (a thing that is already a necessity for daily life in America). Supporting this bill does not mean you support racism. It means you support a country where the inhabitants respect our laws, plain and simple.

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

2010-04-30T12:22:00.003-04:00

Much to discuss lately. Look for a post on the Arizona Immigration Law in the next few days. But, until then, I wanted to share an email I received from a College friend. I don't usually share these things because I figure everyone has gotten them, but I thought that this one was not only funny, but also very insightful.

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

"One man with courage makes a majority." ---Andrew Jackson

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The buck stops here." ---Harry S. Truman

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" ---John F. Kennedy

And now for quotes from today's Democrats

"It depends on what 'is' is." ---Bill Clinton

"That Obama--I would like to cut his nuts off." ---Rev. Jesse Jackson

"Those rumors are false. I believe in the sanctity of marriage." ---John Edwards

"I invented the internet." ---Al Gore

"The next person that tells me I'm not religious--I'm going to shove my rosary beads their ass." ---Joe Biden

"American is--is no longer, uh, what it--it could be, uh what it once was...uh, and i say to myself, uh, I don't want that future, uh, uh, for my children." ---Barack Obama

"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go." ---Barack Obama

"You don't need God anymore. You have us Democrats." ---Nancy Pelosi

"Paying taxes is voluntary." ---Harry Reid

"Bill is the greatest husband and father I know. No one is more faithful, true, and honest than he." ---Hilary Clinton

"We won't know what's in it until we pass it." ---Nancy Pelosi

Oh democrats...you are a constant source of fun for those of use who see through your nonsensical bullshit! As John Wayne said, "Life is Tough. It's even tougher when you are stupid."

Keep your eyes peeled for my Arizona Immigration post, coming soon!

Hate Speech or Political Capital?

2010-03-25T13:36:00.005-04:00

As many of you have heard, Ann Coulter's speaking engagement at the University of Ottawa was cancelled after the police feared for her life as leftist students charged the building, blocking entrances and holding sticks and stones, threatening her life. Fun Fact: did you know that Coulter has never had to cancel a speech due to security reasons before?

You might be surprised by that, considering there are many American colleges that breed irrational liberals and have "hate speech codes." But at the end of the day, America is (luckily) a center-right country. Canada is not. In fact, before her speech, Coulter received an email from the Provost of University of Ottawa warning her that "hate speech" is a crime. Want a definition of hate speech? So did I. The law forbids "promoting hatred against any identifiable group."

Ummmm, okay. What the hell does that even mean? Does that mean that if you say, publicly, that you hate neo-nazis, you will be arrested? Or, if you call the KKK racists, can they haul you off to jail? Or how about the MANY hateful protests against Jews and Israel that take place on Canadian campuses almost every week? Is that punishable with a fine? Apparently not, because the University of Ottawa has been host to numerous anti-semitic protests and speakers with no such warning. In other words, "hate speech" is only "hate speech" when it offends a liberal. In fact, isn't a warning to Ann Coulter about how she should give her speech really a "hate crime?" Wasn't the Provost singling her out for her political beliefs and then threatening her with jail time if she didn't play by his rules? Oh yeah, "hate crimes" can only be against liberals too.

This story comes along side the supposed racist and sexual orientationist comments Tea Partiers yelled at Democrats as they paraded passed the group on Sunday. First of all, let me clarify, there is no evidence of these supposed comments. There is only the word of the democrats who, in a calculated move, chose to walk passed the Tea Party movement with cameras rolling. *note no cameras picked up racial slurs*

It is interesting that the Left wants to take this approach. They want to label conservatives as "racist" or "homophobic" or "sexist" and "violent." The irony is that, not only is that untrue, it would be the pot calling the kettle black if it were. First of all, the Tea Party movement is not a "republican" movement. As someone who has attended a few Parties, there are many non-republicans that attend them. Secondly, its not a white movement. Many black conservatives have been "keynote" speakers at these Tea Parties. Thirdly, they are not homophobic or sexist as men and women are equally represented, and gays are more than welcome.

Violence is the most laughable accusation. When was the last time you heard of a conservative riot? Never? Yeah, i thought so. In fact, the Tea Party Movement is the largest non-violent civic movement since MLK Jr.'s civil right's movement. If you want to point a finger to violent protesters you are going to have to look to the left of the political spectrum. You know, people like Bill Ayers (oh, i forgot, we aren't supposed to bring that up, it's "hate speech"). It is the anti-war nuts that threaten violence and burn effigies. It is the anarchist movements that need to be broken up by the police. The Tea Party people just want to have a voice since their government is no longer concerned with what they have to say.

Furthermore, where was the outrage when mainstream columnists were saying they wanted to "kill Bush?" Why was there no crying in the streets when the "truthers" audaciously said Bush planned 9/11. It seems to me that the only thing you are allowed to speak out against is conservatives. If you speak out against liberals you are a racist, bible beating, bigot, who hates gays and women.

What are conservatives supposed to do? Sit back and watch Pelosi, Reid, and Obama drive the country into the shitter? Are we not allowed to have an opinion? Why is it that when Islamic extremists hijack planes and murder 3000 of our citizens the liberals are the first ones to say "What did we do to make them mad?" but when thousands of Americans get together to protest government takeover of our lives they don't ask "What did we do to make them mad?"

The short answer is that the terrorists and the liberals have the same enemy. America. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? Anyway, let's leave this hate speech crap alone. Let's just talk about FREE speech. As long as I'm not slandering anyone, I can say what I want. Dems sure as hell say whatever they want. Come on Dems, stop playing the victim (even though it's the only role you know) and just own up to the fact that you passed a putrid bill that most of the country opposes, and good luck to you in November.

Pajamas Media

2010-03-09T18:03:00.005-05:00

I received an email today from Pajamas Media asking me to post this video on my blog. I'm more than happy to do so because I couldn't agree more with it. Check these guys out at www.pjtv.com

"The left seems to think it’s got to be good for us if it increases government power. But liberal policies increase the same cycle of dependency that leads people to let Washington control their lives. Watch the latest ZoNation and comment here"

*I'm not at all computer savvy, though i run a blog, so i'm not exactly sure how to upload this video so it will play on this page. Regardless, follow the link, it will take you to the video.

Israeli Apartheid Week

2010-03-05T09:47:00.006-05:00

Many Americans reading this blog might be unfamiliar with "Israeli Apartheid Week," so let me give you a little background on it before explaining why it is so toxic. Beginning in Toronto, this college-campus based movement has spread to over 40 cities in the world. The "mission" of Israeli Apartheid Week is "to educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns as part of the growing BDS movement." In the full mission statement (written in July 2005) the mission includes "full equality of Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and to end the colonization of all Arab lands--including the Golan Heights, the Occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip." That is what the mission statement says. What they really want is to spew anti-semitic rhetoric, and bully people into agreeing with them.

This is a group of college students who have been so brainwashed by their liberal professors that they don't know which end is up. It's criminal the way these elitist professors use their students in their own political wars, but that's life. It happens in the States just as much as it does in Canada (sadly). These students are impressionable and growing up in socialist cities in liberal universities. Really, they have barely any chance to hear common sensical arguments. It almost makes me feel bad for them. Almost. But the hateful speeches and protests they organize against the Jews and Israelis make it impossible for me to feel anything but contempt for these hopeless neophytes.

If you question my assertion of anti-Israeli sentiment on campus, think about this. York University in Toronto (where IAW started), the union leader for the faculty called on the President to ban pro-Israeli professors. What's more disturbing is that this was only reported as a "big deal" by Jewish news papers. At the University of Toronto, students have been known to, frequently, protest Israel and Judaism all over the campus without so much as a second look by administrators. These are not random events. In fact, being anti-Israeli at a Toronto University is damn near the most popular position there is.

Now, back to the ridiculous Israeli Apartheid Week. I'm all for free speech, so if these people want to get together and remove any doubt of their stupidity, have at it. However, journalists and scholars treat this even as legitimate, and that is the real problem. A bunch of clueless students protesting something they don't even understand is normal at college campuses around the world. And liberal media siding with these idiot students isn't that unheard of either. But in this case, it is particularly egregious for the following reasons:

1. The Term Apartheid: First, and foremost, this week-long whine-fest is poorly titled. According to dictionary.com, apartheid means "any system of practice that separates people according to race or caste." If one knows anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you could drive many holes through the "apartheid" argument. Here are just a couple.

1) The Palestinian territories are at the request of the Palestinians themselves (remember Land for Peace).

2) It is the Palestinian rhetoric that denounces Jews as inferior, not the other way around.

3) Israelis have shown a history of working together with the Palestinians, and only proceeded to put up walls when terrorism caused them to fear for the security of their people. That is not apartheid, that is national defense.

2. The Lack of Discussion: This might seem a laughable notion in a time when college campuses are brainwashing grounds instead of learning centers, but the fact is that universities are supposed to encourage open discussion. These IAW demonstrations encourage just the opposite. If you so much as like an Israeli person, you are not allowed to speak, and might well be stoned. I'm not suggesting that these people would be open to discussion. They are obviously unhinged. But legitimizing and event that doesn't even allow the opposition to be heard is a bit dictatorial, don't you think.

3. The Argument that IAW is not "Anti-Semitic": Anyone who buys this is a total moron. But there are plenty of journalists making that claim. They say, its one-sided, but its not anti-semitic, it's just anti-Israeli. Example, Thomas Walkom, Toronto columnist, writes, "it's also hard to accuse Israeli Apartheid Week of being anti-Semitic when small Jewish organizations, like Independent Jewish Voices, are sponsors." Ummmm, first of all, i'm surprised he could make it out of college with that kind of logic. Is that to say that because some black people hate other black people that if YOU hate black people it's not racists? Come on! There are Jewish people who stand against Israel (though very few), that does not mean the activities at IAW are not Anti-Semitic. The Palestinian people are not "freedom fighters," they are jihadist taking back land for Allah.

It is a well known principle in Islam that land conquored for Allah must not be lost to "infidels," which is what the Israelis are. Moreover, demonstrators at IAW are often seen wearing traditional Hamas scarves. I'm sure that Mr. Walkom would not find Hamas to be "anti-semitic" either. They just "want their land back," right? This goes back to a long standing principle. Only conservatives can be racists or anti-semitic, and IAW people are liberal. Therefore, anti-Israeli protestors cannot be racist or anti-Semitic. Of course, it's completely illogical, but when did you last hear a coherent argument by a leftist radical? Forget the fact that the Nazis were a leftist political group (an argument better saved for another day).

Of course there are more reasons why this gets under my skin, but these are the big reasons why anyone should be concerned if Israeli Apartheid Week comes to a town near you. Just remember this; It wasn't the Israelis that decided to blow themselves up. It wasn't the Israelis that elected terrorists as government. Only in the West could people be so out of touch with reality that they could support Hamas and it's supporters over a country that is just trying to survive.

Forget for a moment that Israeli was the land of the Jews until they were forced off of it. Forget that they were re-sanctioned the land of Israel after the Holocaust, to ensure that the Jewish people would always have a safe haven if ever such a vile plan was plotted against them again. Forget that the Muslims would have the Holocaust done 20 times over to rid themselves of the infidels. Just think about it legally. The Jews were given Israel by the British and the UN. It is theirs. You might not like it, but thems the facts. Get over it. And while you're at it, why not sit down with the Palestinians and ask them to stop being petulant children, put on their big-boy pants and deal with Israel in a diplomatic and grown-up fashion. I'm pretty sure history proves the Israelis are more than willing to work together.

Famous Conservatives and Other Useful Information

2010-02-11T10:20:00.003-05:00

So my fiance and I stumbled across a very interesting website (www.newsmeat.com ) last week that tells you which political campaigns different celebrities have donated to over the years. We came across this website while trying to find out if Peyton Manning (the greatest quarterback of all time) was a Republican. We both figured he was, but we wanted to know for sure. Turns out, HE IS!! YAY!

Anyway, I became obsessed over this website for the next few days trying to uncover who the Hollywood Conservatives were. I decided i should share what i discovered. These are the famous conservatives that donated at least 80% of their political contributions to Republican/Conservative campaigns, or have shown a marked change of heart from liberal to conservative campaigns.

Acuff, Roy (country music singer)
Adams, Bud (Tennessee Titans owner)
Adelson, Sheldon (casino mogul)
Aikman, Troy (former NFL quarterback, sportscaster)
Ainge, Danny (former NBA player, Boston Celtics executive)
Anderson, Bradbury (Best Buy ceo)
Andretti, Mario (former Indy car driver)
Anschutz, Philip (oil/railroad/sports/entertainment mogul)
Austin, Denise (fitness guru, TV host)
Autry, Alan (actor, politician, former football player)
Azinger, Paul (pro-golfer)
Barrett, Greg (Intel chairman, ceo)
Belichick, Bill (NFL head coach)
Benson, Tom (New Orleans Saints owner)
Berkman, Lance (baseball player)
Bernard, Crystal (singer/songwriter, actress)
Berra, Yogi (baseball player)
Bidwell, Bill (Arizona Cardinals owner)
Biffle, Greg (NASCAR driver)
Black, Shirley Temple (child movie star, U.S. diplomat)
Blaine, David (magician)
Bliss, Mike (NASCAR driver)
Blyleven, Bert (baseball pitcher)
Boesky, Ivan (financier, ex-con)
Boone, Pat (singer, producer)
Borgnine, Earnest (actor)
Bowden, Bobby (FSU football coach)
Bowen, Julie (actress)
Boxleitner, Bruce (actor)
Brandon, David (Domino’s Pizza ceo)
Bruckheimer, Jerry (producer)
Brunell, Mark (NFL quarterback)
Buck, Jack (sportscaster)
Burton, Jeff (NASCAR driver)
Burton, Lance (magician)
Busch, August III (Anheuser-Busch chairman 1977-2006)
Busch, Kurt (NASCAR driver)
Bush, Billy (celebrity reporter, radio personality)
Buss, Jeanie (LA Lakers executive)
Buss, Jerry (LA Lakers owner)
Cagney, James (actor)
Cain, Dean (actor)
Campbell, Glenn (country music entertainer)
Capra, Frank (filmmaker)
Carey, Drew (comedian, game show host)
Caviezel, Jim (actor)
Cazalot, Clarence (Marathon Oil ceo)
Chandler, Kyle (actor)
Clancy, Tom (author)
Clark, Carol Higgins (author, actress)
Clark, Mary Higgins (author)
Coleman, Dabney (actor)
Collins, Cary (actor, TV host)
Collinsworth, Cris (former football player, sports commentator)
Coors, Pete (Coors Brewing Co chairman)
Coughlin, Tom (NFL coach)
Coulter, Catherine (author)
Crenshaw, Ben (pro-golfer)
Criqui, Don (sportscaster)
Crum, Denny (basketball coach)
Cryer, Jon (actor)
Dell, Michael (Dell computer founder)
DeLorean, John (DeLorean Motor Co founder)
Dent, Buckley (former NBA player)
Deirdorf, Dan (former NFL player, sportscaster)
Ditka, Mike (NFL coach/player)
Doherty, Shannon (actress)
Doyle, Jerry (actor, political candidate)
Drexler, Clyde (NBA all-star)
Duvall, Robert (actor)
Earnhardt, Dale Sr. (NASCAR champion)
Elway, John (former NFL quarterback)
Esiason, Boomer (former NFL quarterback, sportscaster)
Eszterhas, Joe (filmmaker)
Evans, Sara (country music singer)
Evert, Chris (tennis champion, commentator)
Farr, Jamie (actor)
Feliciano, Jose (recording artist)
Flair, Ric (pro wrestler)
Flanigan, Joe (actor)
Floyd, Raymond (pro-golfer)
Forstmann, Tim (financier)
Francesa, Mike (sport commentator)
Foxworthy, Jeff (comedian)
Gabor, Eva (actress)
Gans, Danny (entertainer)
Garner, Phil (baseball player/manager)
Gatlin, Larry (country music singer)
Gibbs, Joe (NFL coach, NASCAR team owner)
Gordon, Jeff (NASCAR driver)
Gowdy, Curt (sport broadcaster)
Grammer, Kelsey (actor)
Grant, Amy (singer)
Hagar, Sammy (singer)
Haggard, Merle (country music singer)
Hampton, Lionel (bandleader, musician)
Hanna, Jack (TV animal presenter)
Harvick, Kevin (NASCAR driver)
Hasselbeck, Elizabeth (talk show host)
Hayes, Woody (football coach)
Hedren, Tippi (actress)
Helton, Mike (NASCAR president)
Hernandez, Keith (former pro baseball player, sportscaster)
Heston, Charlton (actor, NRA president)
Hilton, Rick and Kathy (Hilton hotel heir)
Hoge, Merril (former NFL player, sports analyst)
Hope, Bob (actor, comedian)
Hopper, Dennis (actor)
Howe, Gordy (NHL hall-of-famer)
Huizenga, Wayne (Miami dolphins owner)
Irwin, Hale (pro-golfer)
James, Kevin (actor, comedian)
Jarrett, Dale (NASCAR driver)
Johnson, Jimmie (NASCAR driver)
Keith, Toby (country music singer)
Kelly, Jim (former NFL quarterback)
King, Don (fight promoter)
Kite, Tom (pro golfer)
Knight, Bobby (basketball coach)
Kosar, Bernie (NFL quarterback)
Kravis, Henry (financier, billionaire)
Kulkis, Mark (porn producer)
Lacy, Alan (Sears chairman, ceo)
LaHaye, Beverly and Tim (Christian activist, author)
Lamas, Lorenzo (actor)
Lampert, Edward (Kmart chairman)
Lauder, Ronald (former Ambassador, investor, philanthropist)
Landry, Tom (NFL coach)
Leach, Robin (TV personality, producer)
Leiter, Al (pro baseball pitcher)
Limbaugh, David (conservative columnist, attorney)
Linkletter, Art (TV personality, spokesman)
Locklear, Heather (actress)
Lords, Traci (actress, former porn star)
Love, Davis III (pro golfer)
Lynn, Loretta (country music singer)
Maddox, Tommy (former NFL player)
Manning, Peyton (NFL quarterback)
Marino, Dan (former NFL quarterback)
Martindale, Wink (game show host)
Mayfair, Billy (pro-golfer)
Mayfield, Jeremy (NASCAR driver)
McCarver, Tim (sportscaster, former baseball player)
McCombs, Billy Joe ‘Red’ (co-founder of Clear Channel)
McEntire, Reba (country music singer, actress)
McGinley, Ted (actor)
McGraw, Dr. Phil (TV psychologist)
McMahon, Vince and Linda (WWE chairman)
Mears, Rick (race car driver)
Menard, John (founder of Menards)
Mize, Larry (pro-golfer)
Montaban, Ricardo (actor)
Myers, Joel (AccuWeather founder, chairman)
Nabors, Jim (actor, singer)
Newton, Wayne (Vagas entertainer)
Norman, Greg (pro-golfer)
Norris, Chuck (actor, martial arts expert)
O’Hurley, John (actor, game show host)
O’Reilly, David (ChevronTexaco chairman, ceo)
Owens, Buck (country music singer)
Palmeiro, Rafael (baseball player)
Pearlman, Lou (record producer)
Penske, Roger (Penske racing team owner, Penske Corporation chairman, ceo)
Petty, Richard (NASCAR driver)
Perot, Ross H (Texas billionaire)
Prince (recording artist)
Raimi, Sam (director)
Reeves, Dan (NFL coach)
Reid, Andy (NFL coach)
Reinemond, Steven (Pepsico chairman, ceo)
Rich, John (recording artist)
Ricketts, Tom (Chicago Cubs owner)
Rivers, Joan (comedian)
Rodriguez, Adam ‘A-Rod’ (baseball player)
Romanowski, Bill (football player)
Ryan, Nolan (hall-of-fame pitcher)
Sajak, Pat (game show host)
Sambora, Richie (rock star)
Sandler, Adam (actor, comedian)
Schilling, Curt (former pro-baseball player)
Schlafly, Phyllis (author, activist)
Schott, Marge (former Cincinnati Reds owner)
Schroder, Rick (actor, rancher)
Schulze, Richard (Best Buy chairman)
Schwab, Charles (Charles Schwab Inc. chairman, ceo)
Scoggins, Tracy (actress)
Scott, Lee H (Wal-Mart ceo)
Scully, Vin (sportscaster)
Seaver, Tom (baseball hall-of-famer)
Sehorn, Jason (former NFL player)
Selleck, Tom (actor)
Shanahan, Mike (NFL coach)
Simonyi, Charles (software exec, space traveler)
Sinatra, Frank (actor, singer)
Sinise, Gary (actor)
Sirico, Tony (actor)
Sloan, Harry (MGM chairman, ceo)
Smith, Jaclyn (actress)
Smoltz, John (pro-baseball pitcher)
Snyder, Daniel (Washington Redskins owner)
Sorbo, Kevin (actor)
Spillane, Mickey (author)
Stack, Robert (actor)
Staubach, Roger (NFL hall-of-fame quarterback)
Stein, Ben (economist, actor, writer)
Stevens, Connie (entertainer)
Stewart, Jimmy (actor)
Stewart, Tony (race car driver)
Strait, George (country singer)
Summerall, Pat (sportscaster, football player)
Surnow, Joel (producer)
Tarkenton, Fran (hall-of-fame quarterback)
Taylor, Jack (Enterprise rent-a-car founder)
Toms, David (pro-golfer)
Torn, Rip (actor)
Trebek, Alex (game show host)
Turner, Norv (NFL coach)
Valentine, Bobby (baseball player/manager)
Van Patten, Dick (actor)
Vanderbilt, Gloria (heiress, fashion designer)
Voight, Jon (actor)
Walton, Jim (Wal-Mart billionaire, Arvest Bank ceo)
Waltrip, Darrell (NASCAR driver, sportscaster)
Waltrip, Michael (NASCAR driver)
Weldon, William (Johnson & Johnson ceo)
Williams, Andy (entertainer)
Wilson, Gretchen (country music singer)
Wyman, Jane (actress)
Wynette, Tammy (country music singer)
Yamaguchi, Kristi (figure skater)
Yan, Martin (celebrity chef)
Yoakham, Dwight (country singer, actor)
Young, Steve (hall-of-fame quarterback, football analyst)
Zanuck, Richard (producer)
Zimblaist, Stephanie (actress)
Zucker, David (producer, screenwriter)

These are the famous moderate conservatives, or people on the fence. This means they contributed 45-79% of their donations to conservative or Republican campaigns.

Akkad, Moustapha (producer, director)
Ali, Mohammed (boxer)
Anka, Paul (singer/songwriter)
Barker, Bob (game show host)
Cherry, Mark (television writer, producer)
Cornwell, Patricia (author)
Danza, Tony (actor)
De Laurentiis, Dino (producer)
Dees, Rick (radio host, song writer)
Diller, Phyllis (comedian)
Eastwood, Clint (actor)
Ferguson, Chris ‘Jesus’ (pro poker player)
Fossett, Steve (adventurer, financier)
Gifford, Kathy Lee (talk show host)
Gilbert, Melissa (actor)
Goodell, Roger (NFL commissioner)
Haley, Alex (author)
Hughes, John (writer, producer, director)
Johnson, Don (actor)
Nugent, Ted (rock star, hunter)
Palmer, Arnold (pro-golfer)
Peppard, George (actor)
Ratzenberger, John (actor)
Robbins, Tony (self-help guru)
Rodriguez, Paul (comedian, actor)
Rogers, Fred (children’s television host)
Schultz, Charles (cartoonist)
Schwarzenegger, Arnold (actor, politician)
Seymour, Jane (actress)
Shula, Don (NFL coach)
Sills, Beverly (opera singer)
Stallone, Sylvester (actor)
Talese, Gay (author, journalist)
Travis, Randy (country music singer)
Trump, Ivana (author, model)
Williams, Hank Jr. (country music singer)
Woods, James (actor)
Zadora, Pia (actress)

*note: this list is not a complete list of Famous Conservatives. This list only consists of those people whose contributions were recorded on newsmeat.com

Now on to the media. Obviously we know that the media is mostly liberal. Or at least, it is mostly funded by liberals. This is the list of Conserviatves, Moderates, and Liberals within the media (again, this is only a list of people whose contributions were recorded at NewsMeat. As we know there are some liberal offenders that are not on this list).

Media Conservatives

Boortz, Neal (radio)
Bruce, Tammy (radio)
Buckley, William (National Review)
Carlson, Tucker (pundit)
Cavuto, Neil (FOX)
Cunningham, Bill (radio)
Dobbs, Lou (CNN)
Drudge, Matt (drudgereport.com)
Forbes, Malcolm (Forbes Magazine)
Forbes, Steve (publisher)
Fund, John (WSJ columnist)
Gallagher, Maggie (columnist)
Hannity, Sean (FOX)
Hiller, David (LA Times)
Hinderaker, John (blogger)
Holmes, Amy (GOP strategist)
Kasich, John (FOX)
Kinsolving, Les (radio)
Kristol, Bill (Weekly Standard)
Kudlow, Lawrence (radio, CNBC)
Liddy, Gordon G (radio)
Limbaugh, Rush (radio)
Mays, Lowry (Clear Channel)
Napolitano, Andrew (legal analyst)
North, Oliver (radio)
O’Rourke, PJ (satirist, journalist)
Podhoretz, John (Pundit)
Quinn, Jane B (columnist)
Ruddy, Christopher (NewsMax)
Samuelson, Orion (radio)
Scaife, Richard (Pittsburg Tribune)
Scarborough, Joe (MSNBC)
Watkins, Joe (radio)
Williams, Armstrong (pundit)

Media Moderates

Abernathy, Jack (FOX ceo)
Bernard, Michelle (pundit)
Dickerson, Nancy (CBS)
Insana, Ron (financial analyst)
Regan, Judith (FOX)
Singleton, William (AP, chair)
Smerconish, Michael (radio)
Sulzberger, Arthur Sr. (NYT)
Westin, David (ABC)
Wright, Robert (NBC)

Media Liberals

Albrecht, Chris (HBO)
Borowitz, Andy (satirist)
Bradlee, Ben (Wash Post)
Chernin, Peter (News Corp.)
Cramer, Jim (CNBC)
Cronkite, Walter (CBS)
Ebert, Roger (Chicago Trib)
Estritch, Susan (pundit)
Flynt, Larry (Hustler)
Freston, Tom (Viacom)
Gladwell, Malcolm (writer)
Grace, Nancy (CNN)
Green, Mark (Air America)
Grey, Brad (Paramount)
Gupta, Sanjay (CNN)
Hefner, Hugh (Playboy)
Johnson, John (publisher)
King, Gayle (editor)
Kuby, Ron (pundit)
Kushner, Jared (NY Observer)
Landers, Ann (columnist)
Littlefield, Warren (NBC)
Matthews, Chris (MSNBC)
Newmark, Craig (Cragslist.com)
O’Brien, Pat (tv personality)
Pauley, Jane (talk show)
Rhodes, Randi (radio)
Saban, Haim (media mogul)
Savage, Dan (editor, pundit)
Scheer, Robert (columnist)
Schultz, Connie (columnist)
Shriver, Maria (NBC)
Silverman, Ben (NBC)
Steinem, Gloria (activist)
Stengel, Richard (Time)
Tobais, Andrew (communist)
Van Susteren, Greta (FOX)
Wenner, Jann (Rolling Stone)
Wintour, Anna (Vogue)

And now, just for fun, a list of the biggest liberal offenders in Hollywood. These are the people who have donated the most money to liberal politicians or campaigns over the years. Their contributions are from the tens of thousands all the way up to millions of dollars. Most of these will probably not shock you.

The D-List

Abrams, JJ (producer)
Baldwin, Alec (actor)
Bing, Steven (producer)
Chase, Chevy (actor, comedian)
Claiborne, Liz (fashion designer)
Clooney, George (actor)
Damon, Matt (actor)
Danson, Ted (actor)
David, Larry (writer, producer, actor)
DeNiro, Robert (actor)
Devito, Danny (actor)
Douglas, Michael (actor)
Fonda, Jane (actress)
Gordy, Berry (record producer)
Hanks, Tom (actor)
Henley, Don (musician)
Hoffman, Dustin (actor)
Howard, Ron (director)
Katzenberg, Jeffery (Dreamworks co-founder)
King, Steven (author)
Klein, Calvin (fashion designer)
MacFarlane, Seth (animator, writer)
Midler, Bette (singer, actress)
Newman, Paul (actor)
Norton, Edward (actor)
O’Donnell, Rosie (actress, comedian)
Reiner, Rob (director, producer)
Rice, Anne (author)
Robbins, Tim (actor)
Springer, Jerry (talk show host)
Streisand, Barbara (singer, actor)
Wasserman, Lou (Hollywood mogul)
Weinstein, Harvey (Miramax co-founder)
Williams, Robin (comedian, actor)

If you have any Conservative Celebrities to add, please let me know. Just make sure to include a source that proves their "conservativeness."

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

2010-01-28T14:43:00.004-05:00

It might come as no surprise to you, but Barack Obama is a liar. Yes, he's a politician, and yes, lying usually comes with the territory. However, the lies that Obama is spewing seem particularly heinous given the circumstances that got him elected.

Obama won the 2008 election by pinning everyone's hopes and dreams to his chest and promising a "new tomorrow" in Washington. Imagine the disappointment of the millions of people who voted for him, now that they realize he isn't a moderate looking for change, and he isn't the messiah that will bring about a "new America." He's little more than a charismatic politician with leftist ideas.

During his first year as President of the United States, there have been few bright moments. Sure, he gave an impassioned speech during his Peace Prize acceptance that reminded the global community that, at times, War is necessary to fulfill the purpose of peace (Duh!). But, for the most part, his year as Commander in Chief has been peppered with scandal, disappointment, and attempts at large scale government take over in some of our most important industries (i.e. automotive, health, banking, etc.)

This is likely the reason the Democrats not only lost two gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, but also why the seat held by Ted Kennedy for so many years is now held by a Republican for the first time in many decades.

Obama knows he's in trouble, the question is, does he know what he needs to do to fix it? If his State of the Union Address is any indication, Obama's ideology has blinded him to what the people want and need. Sure, he made assurances that he'd look out for small businesses (something that only the truest idiot could believe given his record), but Obama spent a great deal of the speech blatantly lying and playing the blame game.

First lets talk about his tax cuts to 95%. What kind of moron even buys this? There have been no more tax cuts because the American people are still living and working under the BUSH tax cuts. The real issue I have with this tax cut nonsense, though, is that it uses phony numbers. First of all, not even 95% of the population even pays income tax. Secondly, he conveniently forgets to mention how much he would RAISE taxes on what he considers "wealthy" (you know the people who actually create jobs and keep the economy running).

Then there is this moronical double talk about the "strength of the American people." I know the American people are this country's strength, and I'm betting you know it too. The question is, if Obama really sees it that way, why does he think all of the world solutions come in the form of government drafted legislation? Why won't he let the American people do what they do best? Rise above it and innovate?

One of the most atrocious lies is his assessment that he strives for "bipartisanship and transparency." Give me a break. We have heard this all before, during the campaign. Still we have several massive bills unilaterally drafted by the dems and put to a vote before the American people (or even the congress people themselves) had a chance to read them. Or how about the "no pork" promise that was shattered just days after Obama took office. Or "cracking down on lobbyists" when Obama filled his cabinet with them.

What really gets under my skin, and the most appalling bit of the SOTU address, though, was his chastisement of the Republican Party, insinuating they are the party of "no." Oh yeah, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black. He (and the dems) claim that the Republicans don't want to help, they just want to block anything the liberals are trying to do. That is completely untrue. Sure, there are things that the Republicans will not stand for (as they shouldn't in deference to their constituents), but the Republican Party has tried to work with dems, especially on the healthcare bill. The problem is that before Scott Brown entered the picture to allow Republicans to use the filibuster, no one even considered asking the Republicans what they thought on the issue.

Obama didn't just blame the Republicans for the political suicide march the Democrats have been on since last January. Bush was also very much to blame according to our fearless leader. We can't blame him for anything because all the problems we are having were inherited. Bullshit. Sure, Bush took some wrong steps when the economy went bad, but Obama has taken that and run with it. If you look at the straight numbers, Obama is on course to raise the debt by more than ten times what Bush did. The "Blame Bush Routine First" routine is getting old really quick.

Of course, Obama claims he will enact a spending freeze...but it will have to start next year because of the economy. I wonder what the excuse will be next year? As my fiance once said, "to a liberal, freezing government spending is like taking crack from an addict."

It seems most Americans were not impressed with the speech either. Sure the liberals love him no matter what. After all, he's one of them. And of course, Republicans don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. The interesting thing is, though, that Independents are no longer impressed by the rhetoric with no action. They spoke in Massachusetts a few weeks ago, and come November they are about to speak across the country. Obama is not who they thought he would be (though if they had just listened before the election, I could have told them that), and his smooth speeches are wearing a little thin.

Its bad news for the democrats, but really, pushing an liberal ideology on a country that is center-right is never a good idea. They never learn though. To a liberal, the fact that there are intelligent people out there who disagree with them is something that cannot be fathomed. It is just that kind of hubris that will be the downfall of the democrats over the next 3 years.

2009 Election--The GOP Is Back

2009-11-04T12:24:00.006-05:00

After the devastating hit the Republican party took this time in 2008, last night's election was a proud moment for the GOP. Not all of the outcomes were a complete surprise. Not only had Bob Mcdonnell been leading the state of Virginia by double digits for the entire race, but its a long standing tradition in Virginia to vote for a Republican Governor when the President is a Democrat. The Democrats have made great pains to repeat this statistic over and over again since it became clear they were going to lose Virginia.

While that is true, its not the whole story. Let's look at Virginia individually. If you take a look at the map, district by district, the Dems took a big hit last night. In places where Obama carried a district by a large margin, Bob McDonnell beat out the Democratic Candidate, Creigh Deeds. Furthermore, Obama came to Virginia to "get out the vote" for Deeds, and Deeds numbers dropped. That is not a good sign for our Fearless Leader.

New Jersey was a much closer race, and that is not so surprising, given that New Jersey is a faithfully Democratic state. Given that, Chris Christie putting up a fight would have been an interesting story in itself. But he didn't just put up a fight. Christie won the liberal New Jersey, even after Obama had made several trips to try and resuscitate Jon Corzine's failing campaign. This is the race that Democrats should be very worried about. Christie's win in New Jersey shows a trend that will not help Dems keep the House in 2010.

I think the left is very worried about these results, even as they try to downplay their importance. For one, The Democrats are overstating the rift in the Republican party, even calling it a Civil War. They site the New York-23 special election for U.S. House as "proof" that the Republican Party is "at odds" with itself. Of course that is complete bull, and if you look at the facts, you can see that all the New York-23 election shows is that Republicans are sick and tired of RINOS, and conservatives will be winning primaries across the country in 2010.

In New York-23, the Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, was selected by a small group of elites in the Republican party. She is a liberal who supports, for one, the controversial "card-check" legislation that would strip workers from their right to a secret ballot in Union votes. It is not hard to understand why conservatives were unhappy with her. So they put up their own candidate, Doug Hoffman, who ran on the Conservative Party. Her support plummeted and eventually she dropped out of the race, but not before having her name printed on the ballot. Like a typical RINO, she threw her support behind the Democrat (because these "moderate" Republicans believe this nonsense that only Democrats can get elected). Still, with her name on the ballot, splitting the ticket, Hoffman recieved 45% of the vote. That is substantial.

RNC Chairman had his feet held to the fire last night by CNN about his support of Scozzafava. With eloquence I've not seen from him before he explained that the system let down the Republicans of New York-23. They were not given the ability to pick their own Republican Candidate, and he, as RNC Chair, had to support the Republican. But this is an important part of the debate. If the people of New York-23 had a primary, would the ticket have been split? Would Scozzafava have been the nominee? The answer to both of these questions is a solid NO.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, in all his infinite wisdom said of the race "Anger only gets you 45%." First of all, since when is Conservative and Anger synonymous. Secondly, if "anger" can get Conservatives 45% of the vote in 2009, imagine what it can do in 2010...or 2012. I know Robert Gibbs is an idiot, but come on, how can he say that with a straight face?

The real problem for the Democrats isn't even directly about these three elections. It is about who votes. Barack Obama won the 2008 election because he got people to come out and vote for him within voting blocks that rarely vote (i.e. Blacks, Hispanics, and Young people). That is a great strategy to win a first election, but to win reelection it is suicide. Obama banked on getting people excited to raise voter turnout. What happens when, 4 years from now, he has hundreds of unfulfilled promises lying at his feet? Does he really think he will get the same amount of "unusual" voters to turn out? By 2012 his newness will be worn off, the novelty of his skin color will be gone, and he will still have to motivate people who don't usually vote to do so. If he can't, he will be a one term president.

On the other hand, this election shows us that the Right is indignant. THEY are now the ones willing to come out and vote. They are the ones who will "fight for the cause." And if that trend continues, not only will Dems lose control of the House in 2010, but the President will be looking for another "community organizing" job.

This is the problem you are faced with when you base your campaign on emotion and empty promises rather than real issues and strategies. Eventually the emotion will wear out and people will want action. If Obama can't provide that (and it seems that he can't) he will, not only piss off the right, but also hurt his ability to get lefties to make their way to the voting booth in 2010 and 2012.

Not Evil Just Wrong Film Review

2009-10-20T16:00:00.002-04:00

Sunday night my fiance and I crammed ourselves into a tiny conference room in Downtown Toronto to watch the World Premier of "Not Evil Just Wrong." One might wonder why such a small room was the venue chosen for this premier in a city of over two million. Spend 5 seconds with the Enviro-Nazis that make of the population of Toronto and you might better understand.

As a little background on my experience with this documentary, I must go back to the CPAC conference this February. Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney (the filmmakers) were two guest speakers in the main room on the last day of the conference. My friend Erin and I saw that they would be speaking on the issue of climate change and knew we had to stay and watch. For the next hour they had the audience in stitches as they showed clips of their newest documentary project. I knew that i had to see this movie.

While the venue was small, there was still an amazing turnout. People, sadly, had to be turned away. The good news is, that even though the Toronto Government has done its best to brainwash this "global climate change" agenda into the masses. In the 3 short months I've been here I've seen it all over the place. They don't build enough roads to force people to take public transit. They won't pick up your trash but every other week. They only allow you to throw out one container of trash. They have banned all weed killers. These are just a few of the government controls on the lives of people in the name of "climate control."

While i was in line i heard conversations around me that made me feel like i was back home again. People were sick and tired of the government take over in that name of this climate phenomenon that many scientists don't even agree is taking place. It was beautiful.

As far as the movie is concerned, it had all of the statistical data needed to basically put global warming nuts in their place. It challenged the "indisputable" facts that Al Gore presented in his book and movie "An Inconvenient Truth." McAleer and McElhinney do a brilliant job of juxtaposing the right material to make the best impression on the audience.

However, while the facts and figures in the movie are compelling, it is the emotional root of the story that makes this documentary unique. Most anti-global warming movies are so steeped in the facts (and believe me, there are plenty of facts to disprove global warming) that they can become dry and disconnected. "Not Evil Just Wrong," at it's core is the story of the American dream. The filmmakers take the time to put a voice and a face to the American people that global warming legislation would effect.

Moreover, "Not Evil Just Wrong" exposes environmentalists for what they really are: elitists with an anti-human agenda. In one scene, the filmmakers ask tree huggers (i mean environmentalists) at a conference "what would you tell the millions of Americans who will be out of work if clean coal is shut down?" The answers were funny and disturbing at the same time. One suggested they get a better education (with what money i'm wondering). One person (a enviro-lawyer) gave an unintelligible answer about how their lives will be enriched if they helped the earth. One girl (probably no older than 22) said that they should realize that if the earth is healthy, they will be healthier, then she said "and i'd probably smack them."

This is a key part of this debate. The people who fight for shutting down factories are people who never have to worry about money, who never have to wonder how they are going to put food on the table. These people are elitists, many living off mommy and daddy in college, who think that all "worthy" people agree with them and that middle America is something to be avoided anyway.

Roy Innis (Chairman of the Council of Racial Equality) goes on to explain how this global warming legislation would actually put more strain on the poorest in our country, whit minorities being hit the hardest. He's not wrong. Things like Cap and Trade would be extremely detrimental to our economy. When the economy goes south the poor are hit the hardest. Perhaps it is part of the liberal agenda to get more people on government assistance so they can take over even more people's lives. I wouldn't put it past them.

One of the other key components to the argument is that environmentalists have little regard for human life, in some cases they even hate humans (though they never seem to want to take THEMSELVES out of the picture). The filmmakers travel to Uganda and speak with a woman who lost her son to malaria. There is a really funny scene when this regal African woman is arguing with an American environmentalist about the use of DDT as a preventative measure to malaria. The Americans come off as callous and stupid (as they are in this case). This same American woman went on to say, later, that Uganda without birds would be like Elton John without a piano. So, we are clearly working with a genius here.

The problem is that these environmentalists see people as a cancer, a parasite. They hate middle America, they hate human beings, they want to push their agenda in anyway possible. Which is likely why they fabricate false data to assert their absurd claims. "Not Evil Just Wrong" calls these environmentalists out on their inconsistencies, hypocrisy and callousness. Its definitely worth watching. DVDs are still available on the website, and the filmmakers are calling on the conservative community to host viewings of the film in a "tea party" like manner.

See the website at: http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/index.php

Watch the trailer at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHMOEVRysWE

Conversations with Canadian Liberals

2009-08-15T09:46:00.005-04:00

Okay, so I've officially be in Canada for two weeks, and it almost makes me wish i was back in the bowels of an all women's liberal university again. I never thought my head could hurt so bad just by trying to explain a rational argument to a group of people before.

At least at Hollins (my alma mater) students were held to some standard of rational argument in a political debate (though admittedly, not much). Among the "adults" in Canada I've found that liberal arguments amount to little more than Michael Moore logic and infantile insults.

It was Saturday night and my fiance planned a BBQ for his friends to celebrate our engagement. My fiance and I are both conservatives, but the vast majority of his friends are liberal because, well, its Canada. Coming across a free thinking conservative in Canada is like finding a 4-leaf clover. It's hard to do, and when you've found one, you should pick it up and take it with you for good luck.

Anyway, of course the topic got turned to politics and specifically the OBAMACare plan. Because I am a rational, intelligent, non-socialist I abhor the president's plan to rape and pillage our healthcare system. No surprise, the liberal Canadians find Obama's plan to be ingenious (no doubt because they are sick of being constantly out performed by their American neighbors in the field of medicine).

From healthcare we jumped to Obama. According to Canadians, American's love Obama and so do they. Number one reason why? It's not policy. Nope, the Canadian liberals love Obama because he is "a good speaker and leader." Well woohoo! Seems they are struck dumb by the packaging the same way Americans were in 2008.

Of course that lead to a lengthy discussion of George W. Bush from which the nicest thing i heard about our former President was that he was a moron. Of course ask a Canadian liberal to explain the Bush Doctrine, or talk about policy, or give a real life example of their hatred and they can't do it. No, they point to speeches Bush made and mispronunciation of words.

But, wait a minute. Wasn't it their beloved Obama that thought there were 57 states? And didn't Obama give a lecture about the need for asthmatic children to have "breathalyzers"? And isn't it Obama (not Bush) who can't even give a 15 minute address without his teleprompter? When posed these questions, the liberal Canadian will become agitated and strike back with some sort of attack on Bush or, my favorite, the argument that only a leader loved by the whole world can be a good leader for America.

And this is the crux of the argument. Canadian liberals do not like living in the shadow of the United States. They could give two craps about policy they just want the American President to pretend Canadian liberals are important (which, lets face it, they are not). Obama does a good job of acting as if he "needs" the rest of the world. He's plays his role as "World President" well. It's his ACTUAL job (American President) that he can't seem to figure out how to do.

Add that to the Canadian media which makes the U.S. media look like upstanding citizens, and rampant misconceptions about American culture and you have the Canadian liberal who does not understand the real world (especially not the United States). One of my favorite parts of the evening was when i was informed that most white people in the United States are fearful of blacks and are racists. Funny coming from people who live in one of the most culturally segregated cities i've even been too. Not to mention, Torontonians have their fair share of racist leanings...just ask one of them about the "Jamaican" community.

It was an interesting experience being bombarded with such political mental retardation. Being who I am, i couldn't just not argue my point, but i did finally realize what it was like to argue with people who have ZERO idea what they are talking about. I guess this was another lesson to remember about picking my battles, we will see if it sticks.

Let's Not Meddle

2009-06-23T12:26:00.004-04:00

It seems that those crazy democracy lovers in Iran have foiled Obama's plans to sweet talk the Iranian government. How dare they? What is more disturbing is the way Obama has decided to spin the situation in Iran, forgetting the virtues of freedom and democracy and catering to the emotional lowest common denominator.

My favorite moment from today's press conference was Major Garret's question: "What took you so long to say you were appalled and outraged by the situation in Iran?" to which Obama didn't have much of an answer. Of course he didn't. There is not excuse for Obama's slow reaction to the protests, and his lack of condemnation of the Iranian government. He claimed he was consistent, and he has been...consistently wrong in how he's dealt with the situation.

Many media commentators are looking at today's press conference as a change in Obama's language on the issue of Iran, citing his use for the word "condemn" in regard to the violent actions of the Iranian government against the protesters. There is a key flaw in this logic. Why will he condemn the violence against protesters, but not the regime that murders raped women, gay men, and does not pursue the condemnation of those guilty of "honor killings" against their own daughters?

What Obama is doing here is focusing the media and public attention on the violence of the protests and neglecting to talk about what is really important: a lack of condemnation from him on the actual Iranian regime.

In my humble opinion, Obama is seeking, not only to be the savior of the American people (good luck), but to be the savior of the world. Because he believes that preemptive military action (the Bush Doctrine) is foolhardy, cowboy-like, and all too "American", he feels the best way to deal with ALL regimes is through sweet talking them the way he sweet talked his way into the White House.

Now, clearly there are a million holes in his logic, not the least of which is the fact that you cannot use negotiation and diplomacy with a regime that is totally irrational and set on principles that are completely foreign to your own. But Obama is a true ideologue. He believes in the power of his words, and why shouldn't he? Words are all that got him elected. He had no record, no polices, nothing but a "Hope and Change" mantra, and it turned the hearts of the people into mush (and their brains too). Why couldn't that also work with Iran, or the Palestinians, or Syria?

For one, because those countries/people don't respect Obama any more than they respected Bush. Possibly more importantly because the Middle Eastern nations that take issue with the United States do not really do so for some liberal notion of imperialism, but rather because the West is a good scapegoat to allow them to continue to be corrupt and dictatorial with their people.

Obama mentioned the U.S. scapegoat today in this press conference. Ironically he seems to have missed the point of the scapegoat argument. Obama seems to believe that we are justly made a scapegoat because the United States becomes too involved in international affairs. He seems to believe that the United States is partially to blame for poor relations and terrorism. Ummm, wrong. We are made a scapegoat because these governments do not want their people actually investigating what THEY are doing. By Obama claiming that the United States needs to stay out of the Iranian issue because we don't want to be a "foil" he just comes off as confused about the entire political situation in Iran.

If the leader of the free world will not stand up for democracy and freedom, who will? Sure, he will admit that violence against protesters is wrong (which is basically like saying murder is wrong...duh). But will he put the heat on the Iranian government for further investigation of the election? No. Will he cut off all possible diplomatic relations with Iran until the violence stops? No. Will he demand that Iran stops its nuclear program? No. Will he do anything to force Iran's hand? No. So, really, what HOPE for CHANGE is he giving the Iranian people? None.

Benedict Arlen

2009-04-28T22:36:00.004-04:00

Today, Sen. Arlen Spector (D-PA), switched parties from Republican to Democrat. Most of you, who keep up with the goings-on in Washington on a daily basis, already know that he wasn't much of a Republican to begin with. However, his announcement to switch was a slap in the face to Conservatives and Republicans everywhere.

He claims "the party has moved further and further to the Right" which is why he feels more comfortable as a Democrat. Hmmm, that's interesting because Mr. Spector was first elected in 1980 as a Republican and that was the same year Reagan won the presidency in a landslide. Let me get this straight, is Arlen Spector saying that the Republican party today is further to the right than it was under Reagan? If so, then I think Arlen is confused.

But this really has little to do with ideology. Sure, Arlen Spector was never a conservative. He was always a Maverick that leaned to the left. However, it was Arlen Spector who, a month ago, said he wouldn't leave the Republican Party because they needed him. It was Arlen Spector who suggested in 2001 that it should be illegal to switch parties in the middle of a term when Jim Jeffords went from Republican to Independent.

What this is about is clear. Arlen Spector, in the hype of Obama's approval ratings, and the fear-tactics of the Administration on the economic crisis, decided to vote for the Stimulus Bill along with 2 other Republicans in the Senate. This vote allowed the pork filled legislation to pass and pissed off the Right. Since he voted 'aye' on the biggest spending bill in history, his numbers have taken a nose dive in the Republican Primary against Congressman Pat Tomey.

Spector wants to keep his job, and as it is clear real Republicans won't vote for him, he thinks he should try his luck at the democrats. Now, this is somewhat bad news for the Republican party. For one, it puts us closer to a filibuster-proof Senate. Secondly, while mavericks are allowed in the Republican party, they are not in the Democratic party (just look what happened to Lieberman when he didn't tow the party line). Spector's votes will be liberal because Harry Reid and the left who cut him a deal will insure they are liberal.

There is a bit of good news though. Spector's obvious grasping for anyway to hold on to his job is pretty obvious and will, likely, not go unnoticed by the Pennsylvania electorate. Hopefully, that will give a REAL conservative (Tomey) the chance to fill that seat. Secondly, purging the party of Republicans-in-name-only (RINOS) isn't really a bad thing. What needs to be the focus of the Republican party is to get Conservatives in office, not a large number of moderates/liberals.

Its upsetting to see Arlen join the dark side, but if he's the kind of man who will sell out his party to get elected, we don't want him anyway. With the sort of job the Dems are doing and Obama's blatant misunderstanding of domestic, economic, and foreign policy issues, i'm pretty sure 2010 isn't going to be as tough on the Republicans as 2008 was. We can live without him. The question is, can he live without us?

Here's to You Miss California

2009-04-21T22:06:00.004-04:00

I'm sure you have all heard about the incident with Miss California at the Miss USA pageant this year. While her response to Perez Hilton's question about gay marriage was not as articulate as it could have been, her opinion was clear. She respects the right people have to love whomever they want, but she, herself, believes marriage is between a man and a woman.

Its not a totally earth shattering opinion to have. In fact, its the majority opinion of the population of the United States, and clearly the reigning opinion of her state, as they voted for Prop 8 which banned gay marriage.

I, personally, believe that gay marriage is equitable to interracial marriage and that two consenting adults, no matter what their gender, should be allowed to marry one another. However, I also believe that people should have the right to have their own opinion on this issue and that having a non-PC opinion should not open you up to ridicule and hate-speech.

Since Miss California expressed her opinion on the gay-marriage issue, Perez Hilton (who is little more than a parasite dying to be famous through a second rate gossip column) has called her vicious names including a "stupid bitch." That's very mature. Not to mention, its a little difficult to take him seriously as a man concerned with tolerance when he uses such hate-speech about a poor young woman who merely answered the question she was asked the way she felt it should be answered.

What is more interesting about this whole story is that Miss California's opinion on gay marriage is the same as almost all politicians in Washington, including Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. While Miss California was brave enough to be open about her personal belief, people like Obama have tried to divert attention from their true opinions. Perez Hilton, along with nearly every gay rights group both support gay marriage and Barack Obama.

But wait...Obama doesn't support gay marriage. What gives? Basically, Obama kept his opinion on the issue close to the chest and the gay rights groups wanted to believe that Obama supported them. It's a case of denial. In fact, if Miss California is a "stupid bitch" because she believes marriage is between one man and one woman, what does that make Obama? I'll leave that to Perez Hilton to answer, but my guess is he's a little more concerned with getting celebrities to hang out with him than he is about relevant political issues.

Personally, I think Miss California should be commended for daring to say what she thought rather than taking the easy, politically correct route. Even as a supporter of gay marriage, I would have been very disappointed if she had not stood by her conviction and just gave the answer that Perez Hilton wanted. It was a set up, and i think she passed the test with flying colors.

Foreign Policy is Lost on Obama

2009-04-16T13:41:00.006-04:00

With all of Obama's fear-mongering over the economy, he's tried to take the public view off of Foreign Affairs. Sadly, it seems to be working for the most part.

Why is he doing this? Likely for two reasons. 1) Because Obama's been hammering the economic "crisis" home to get his leftist spending and legislation passed without question and 2) Because Barack Obama made it clear during the campaign that he doesn't have a clue about U.S. Foreign Policy.

This is not the time to let U.S. Foreign Policy take a back seat to leftist political ideology. We are dealing with serious problems abroad and Obama is making it more and more clear that he either, doesn't know what to do (scary) or he's unwilling to do the right thing (scarier).

For just a small taste of what we SHOULD be paying attention to:

1)The War on Terror: Or, is it the "Overseas Contingency Operation?" Either way, Obama doesn't seem concerned with dealing with "man-made disasters." Though, admittedly he's changing his tune on the Patriot Act, allowing the CIA to do their jobs...for now. The problem is that the leader of the Free World (which he is, sadly) is weak on the greatest threat to freedom.

2) The ongoing problem of Pirates in the Gulf of Aden: Luckily Obama did the right thing in ordering the action that saved Captain Richard Phillips. However, what he does next is most important and we've gotten little more than empty rhetoric on this issue so far. However, it IS funny that the Administration is openly calling the Pirates "criminals" but we are not allowed to use the term Terrorism anymore.

3) North Korea: They have nuclear weapons now. They are looking for a way to launch them. What is the White House doing? Little. Of course, as a true Globalist, Obama's looking to the UN to make a statement, but true to form, the UN took over a week to even denounce North Korea's attempted launch of an ICBM. I guess that's another nuclear state we are not worried about. You know, if we just leave them alone, they will leave us alone, right?

4) Iran: They want nuclear weapons. They are actively working toward them. Now Obama is talking about dropping the condition that they halt their nuclear program before meeting. Now what does the United States have to gain from that? They are irrational, have promised to blow our great ally (Isreal) off the map, and the government is made up of Islamic extremists. Why do we want to meet with them again? Because we want them to like us? Because we think they will do what we want, if we just have a nice tea with them? Talk about delusional. It wouldn't be so bad if Iran wasn't vying for the role of "leader of the Islamic world."

5) Israel: They are one of our strongest allies, and a friend in the heart of the Middle East. Apparently that is unimportant to Mr. Obama because he's doing everything in his power to make it seem like Israel and the U.S. are not friends, though we are. He never had a strong stance on the Isreali-Gaza conflict earlier this year. He's yet to extend a hand to the new PM of Israel, Netanyahu. I guess all those ties he had to PLO whackos are finally making sense now.

6) Durban Conference: You might not know what this is. The Durban Conference is the "UN World Conference Against Racism." It met in South Africa in 2001 and quickly turned into an Anti-Semitic, Israel Bash. The United States and Israel quickly walked out of discussions and boycotted. Well, now its time fro Durban II and Obama and the State Department are "rethinking" the boycott. Are you kidding me? Doesn't Obama know that often you make the greatest statement by saying nothing at all? This is sick. This Conference is nothing more than a racist Jew-Bash. Why would Obama even consider going? Canada, Israel, and Italy have already decided to boycott. If Obama attends this abomination, we should all be embarrassed.

These are just a FEW of the issues, not included the two wars were are currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. When was the last time you heard about either of them on the news? Instead we are being told we are in an economic crisis. Its not so bad that we shouldn't spend, but its bad enough that Obama should have a free ticket to pass all of his VERY IMPORTANT leftist spending.

And do you know what the Obama voters are saying about all of this? Nothing. Cause likely they are not even watching the news. "YES THEY DID" elect Barack Obama as the first black President...now that that's over they can get back to things they understand...which is clearly not Politics or Foreign Policy.

TAX DAY TEA PARTY!

2009-04-02T20:59:00.005-04:00

I know, I know...I haven't updated in a while. And this one will not be a long one. I just wanted to get the word out about the TAX DAY TEA PARTY 2009! Its happening all over the country. People sick of the government reaching into their pockets to pay for failing private sector jobs!

What would our Forefathers do? Right now, go to google and type in "(your city) tax day tea party" and be a part of the no longer silent majority that is sick of politicians stealing our money for the "greater good." Don't let the stimulus, ominbus, and cap on worker pay! Stand up for your rights as an American, or those rights might soon be gone!

I will be attending the Roanoke Tax Day Tea Party, I hope that all over the country we can turn out in massive numbers. If the crazy anarcists can protest for NOTHING than we should be able to demonstrate for the things our Forefathers fought for!

For help on sign ideas visit: http://www.marshbaby.com/teaparty.html

The King and the Jester

2009-02-25T18:35:00.005-05:00

I'm sorry it's been such a long time since I've posted a blog entry. Classes started up, and things have been busy. On top of that, I haven't had much to say. Well, that's not entirely true. I've had plenty of opinions on the Spendulous Bill, Obama's "f*** you" to the defense department, his promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay, and many other bad policies of the Obama Administration over the last month. I simply decided, a few weeks back, that I cannot blog about everything Obama does that is stupid, or I'd have to spend every waking hour updating this thing!

Instead, I'm going to talk about something positive tonight. With great patience and perseverance, I sat through the entire speech Obama gave before Congress last night. I listened to his same old campaign rhetoric, watched as Nancy Pelosi nearly popped out of her skin in excitement, rolled my eyes along with my fellow conservatives when Obama stepped into the liberal muck and slathered it on thick. I did this, not only to prove to myself that I could, without becoming violent, but also because I was waiting for the REAL agent of change to show up. I was waiting for Bobby Jindal.

Obama might have campaigned on the statement of "hope" and "change," but it is the true conservatives in the Republican Party what believe in change. Obama is continuing the same bad policies of Bush and and playing the same old Washington politics, but there are men out there who truly believe in change. Men like Bobby Jindal. He might not speak with the affected voice of a preacher. He might not talk to us like we are pupils in his classroom. He might not have a slogan like "Yes We Can" but Bobby Jindal said, in 10 minutes, what Obama couldn't say in over an hour.

Critics are saying that Jindal's delivery was rough and he stuttered. They claim he's performance cannot hold a candle to Obama's. It is true that Jindal stumbled over a few words. It is also true that he does not speak with the same gravitas as Obama. Sure, Jindal had no audience cheering him on, or supporters at his back. But what Jindal said to the American people was not rhetoric for a campaign. It was not empty words and promises. What Bobby Jindal said, can be summed up in one line from his speech, "the strength of our country is not in our government...it's in our citizens."

This is the message that the Republicans have lost. With all of George W. Bush's good points (and there are many) he did not hold true to the Reagan principles of small government and less government spending. These are the essential principles of a successful Republican party and we lost them. The great irony is that Obama looks a great deal like Bush when it comes to the economy, only he calls it "change" and the minions believe it.

Last night i saw a true leader emerge. However, it was not our preacher President, putting on a show for his liberal choir. He was merely the Court Jester last night. The real leader, was a humble man from Baton Rouge, LA. He reminded America, last night, what it means to be an American. He reminded our government what the American people are capable of and what they deserved. He left the rhetoric at the door, and, in my opinion, looked far more Presidential than our current President, who can't seem to remember that he's no longer on the campaign trail.

I have great hope for my party. We will bounce back, and we will be the catalyst for change that works. Hopefully we will be lucky enough to have a man like Bobby Jindal, with the record of change, leading the charge against the big government bureaucrats on both sides.

Stimulus or More Liberal Spending?

2009-01-28T12:56:00.003-05:00

Suffice it to say that I'm one of the proud Conservatives who does NOT believe a stimulus plan is either necessary, nor likely to work. That being said, it is clear that the leftist government is not going to let us go without spending billions (possibly trillions) on stimulus plans because their recollection of history has them believing that government spending leads to economic security (even when this had never worked).

So, we are going to get stuck footing the bill for a stimulus plan. With dems in control of the House and Senate and a leftist in the White House, we don't have many other options. The lefts answer for everything is "spend more money." However, this stimulus plan is beyond absurd. Republicans who oppose it might be labeled as "being difficult" or "being soar losers" because of the economic "crisis."

Moreover, Obama and the democrats claim to want bipartisanship, but are unwilling to listen to the Republicans in the House and Senate who are pointing out many problems with this stimulus plan. Sure, they throw a few tax cuts in there to pretend they are working with conservatives, but they don't even reach Obama's "plan" to have 40% of relief in the form of tax cuts. The bill would offer a payroll tax cut of $500 to individuals who earn less than $75,000 a year, and a $1,000 credit to married couples who earn less than $150,000 a year. If that is tax relief than I'm the Queen of England.

Most egregiously, this bill is overflowing with pork that will force tax payers to pay for things that are in no way useful to stimulating the economy, even if you do buy into the argument that spending can stimulate. How do these examples fit into stimulating the economy or even creating jobs (though that is not the Governments job).

$44 million for repairs at the Agriculture Department headquarters in Washington.

$200 million to rehabilitate the National Mall.

$360 million for new child care centers at military bases.

$1.8 billion to repair National Park Service facilities.

$276 million to update technology at the State Department.

$500 million for the Transportation Security Administration to install bomb detectors at airports.

$600 million for General Services Administration to replace older vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles.

$2.5 billion to upgrade low-income housing.

$400 million for NASA scientists to conduct climate change research.

$426 million to construct facilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

$800 million to clean up Superfund sites.

$150 million for the Coast Guard to repair or remove bridges deemed a hazard to navigation.

$6.7 billion to renovate and improve energy efficiency at federal buildings.

$400 million to replace the Social Security Administration's 30-year-old National Computer Center.

$50 million outlay for the National Endowment for the Arts

$87 billion to help states with Medicaid costs that would allow states to expand their family planning services.

$726 million for an after school snack program.

I think these numbers speak for themselves. And is it any wonder why Obama and his buddies in the House are pushing this through as quickly as possible? Because anyone with half a brain sees this stimulus package for what it is: A liberal spending agenda masked as a necessity for the good of the economy. They are pushing through spending on products that the American public would not support and calling it "stimulus." It's 100% bull!

I hope you will call you're Senator and demand that he/she vote down this bill which in nothing more than stealing from the pockets of the American people to force a liberal agenda on us all.

Congrats America!

2009-01-24T11:48:00.004-05:00

This is an editorial from the London Daily Mail, though i cannot locate the author, called "Obama Victory." It's brilliant. Witty ant true, this editorial is a fresh look at what some of our neighbors across the pond. It gives me hope that not all people in Europe have succumbed to the Obama-Mania. Enjoy!

Obama's Victory--A British view

A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, the US mainstream media who abandoned any sense of objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance, hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.

A victory for Hollywood , the most dysfunctional community in the world. Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros, Moore, and Sarandon. Victory for those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager political fashion.

Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and opposition. A victory for those who believe the tate is better qualified to raise children than the family, for those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the tears on the face of a leftist celebrity. A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure, unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.

Congratulations America !

Obama Disillusionment Syndrome

2009-01-21T00:28:00.005-05:00

I read and interesting opinion piece about how many of those who suffered from Bush Derangement Syndrome are now at risk for suffering from a new brand of political disease: Obama Disillusionment Syndrome. As funny as it sounds, its likely true. The Obamamaniacs had their day today, but in the end do we know what Obama stands for anymore today than we did yesterday? The masses wanted Bush's head on a silver platter, for reasons none of them could seem to express intelligently and now they are trowing themselves at Obama for no more logical reasons than a useless slogan like: Hope and Change.

This is the key problem with Obama (besides his absurd political beliefs). Because of his ambiguous speeches and his lack of knowledge of the issues, his fan base (and that what they are...fans) projected their own hopes and dreams onto him. What will happen when he can't be everything to everyone? What will happen when the truth comes out: He is not a Messiah, he is a politician. He does not care about the poor, he cares about Barack Obama.

After the reception he recieved today, and all of the screaming girls throwing their panties at him, and all of the obsessive fans crying at his feet, he only has failure ahead of him. And it's a long, long way to fall. The American people have set him on a course he cannot handle. They have pinned their every dream to his chest, and when he cannot meet their needs, what will happen?

There are two option, the way i see it. 1) The people will stubbornly hold on to this man, unable to admit they were wrong. 2) They will turn on him (not the far left, of course, there is no reasoning with those people) and he will have won the battle, but ultimately he will have lost the war.

My money is on the second option. Even if the media is in love with Obama, even they can only cover the truth for so long. Once the Honeymoon is over, and Obama can do little to make the "change" he promised, even MSNBC won't be able to save him.

Farewell, Mr. President!

2009-01-15T22:01:00.004-05:00

Tonight, in his Farewell Address, President Bush showed that character and integrity that those of us with our heads screwed on straight have noticed all the time. This man led us through our some of our darkest days, in the wake of September 11th. He took an unpopular stand against terrorists and those who sponsor them. He has been our Commander in Chief and has led us with honor in spite of the tough decisions he's been faced with.

Many might not agree with our President, but no one can question is character and patriotism. No one can, with a straight face, argue that George W. Bush has done what he thinks is right, even if that has been unpopular.

His fortitude and patriotic service led to the Bush Doctrine that celebrates freedom and liberty and abhors tyranny and oppression. This doctrine, like Truman's of the late 40's, has set the tone for Foreign Relations for the United States for many year to come. This doctrine takes it upon the United States to spread democracy and liberty to the rest of the world because it is Mr. Bush's philosophy that all people are entitled to freedom, not just citizens of the West.

This Doctrine, while mocked by the left, will live on to shape Bush's legacy. He will leave with an approval rating in the 30s but the impact he has made on this country, and more importantly the world, will not go away when Obama takes office. His legacy will grow and take shape long after he steps down as president, and much to the dismay of the left, President George W. Bush will be remembered as a fighter for freedom, a beacon of hope to the hopeless, and a man of integrity who did what he thought was right in the face of great opposition. I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather leave unloved, than leave the Office of the Presidency having done nothing to protect and defend the American way of life.

Let us also not forget that George Bush kept our country safe from terrorist attack for 7 years. This is not because the terrorists gave up, but because our President held vigilant watch over us, and ensured that terrorists would not attack us again.

And don't forget what Bush has done for the AIDS effort in Africa. Even Bono admits that no other president has done so much to help the cause of fighting AIDS. Though his practices might not have been popular with the liberal crowd, rates of AIDS have dropped drastically in Africa and we have Bush and his policies to thank for that.

Thank you Mr. President. I am honored to have voted for you. I feel safer knowing you've paved the way for future leaders to deal with terrorism. I am proud to live in a nation where you were our President. Your character, honor, and integrity are symbol to us all. We will miss you!

Freedom of Choice, or Imposed Morality?

2009-01-12T20:15:00.006-05:00

I've just discovered a very scary bill, backed by the left, that is making it's way around the House and Senate. It's called The Freedom of Choice Act. It would, if passed, invalidate every restriction on an abortion before the stage of viability, in every state, even those previously found consistent with Roe v. Wade by the United States Supreme Court, such as parental notification laws, waiting periods, requirements of full disclosure of the physical and emotional risks inherent in abortion, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Let me first say that I am pro-choice. I believe the Row V. Wade was ruled on shaky constitutionality, at best, but I can't say I'm unhappy with the recognition of a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to be a mother, in the same way men have always been able to choose. Having said that, this bill is scary and completely unconstitutional. It is one thing to force a pharmacist to fill prescriptions for birth control or the morning after pill, as it would be anarchy to allow pharmacists to make a moral judgment on the perscriptions they fill. What if they are morally opposed to Vicadin or Oxy-Cotin, for instance? But it is QUITE another to force surgeons to perform abortions if the are morally opposed to the practice.

What does this mean for America? First of all, it is an example of the Democratic House and Senate trying to skirt public desire to pass liberal legislation now that there is an incoming liberal President. These "morals" that the left are pushing are not congruent with pubic opinion, but rather fit into the left's idea of what society should be. Some would call that social engineering. And it's interesting that the political party that condemns the right as "christian fanatics" and that thinks Republicans are trying to push morality on the masses, find it completely fine to push their own moral agendas.

And what does this mean for doctors? If the "big brother" democratic government is going to force doctors to perform abortions, no matter what their moral opposition to the surgery, then isn't that an infringement of his/her most basic constitutional rights? Even if I'm pro-choice, i cannot fault a person for being pro-life? Trying to protect unborn children is not a crime, is it? I guess according to Obama and the leftist nuts in congress it IS a crime.

And, finally, what will this mean to the medical industry? If Catholic Hospitals shut down, as they have threatened to do if this passes, the country's medical industry is going to be in dire straits. What is the left trying to do? Do they really thing imposing this sort of thing will be beneficial to the country? They cannot be that dumb? Do they really want to ostracize their Catholic voters? That's not smart?

And what about Roe v. Wade? The left declares that the ruling is under attack ever other minute (though one should keep in mind that Roe v. Wade has never been challenged, even under a Republican Congress and President). Don't they realize that by aggravating the pro-life community, which makes up more of the population than you might think, they are putting Roe v. Wade in danger. There is no way that the pro-life movement or the republican party would let a ridiculous bill like this pass into law unchecked. Therefore, its constitutionality will be rules upon (and will be foudn unconstitutional). Since one already has to squint to see the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade, the right will not stop at this bill. They will, once they win a Supreme Court battle on the Freedom of Choice Act, move to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Don't the democrats realize this? Of course they wouldn't care. They are far left ideology, with Messiah Obama as their leader. They believe in a secular progressive world where all religions are allowed but Christianity, where morality is only the morality of the left, where socialism reigns supreme, where America is an apologetic country and Europe and Canada walk all over us. These things seem stupid, right? Well that's the leftist agenda, and if you think Obama is "really a moderate," you should know that he considers this bill "extremely important" and would "sign it immediately" should it make its way through the House and Senate. Interesting...

What Are You Fighting For?

2009-01-11T22:39:00.002-05:00

This is an open invitation for anyone who understands the Pro-Palestinian movement to clarify exactly what you are fighting for.

It can't be for innocent lives, because Israel was attacked first and have lost civilians in this on-going battle with the Palestinians. Not to mention, looking at these anti-Israeli rallies, most are calling for the destruction of Israel, not caring what happens to the Israeli citizens.

It can't be for a desire to spread freedom through the world, or the Middle East. Because Israel is the only country that allows for gay rights, women's rights, Arab rights, Christian rights, etc. Palestinian authority figures, on the other hand, support a tyrannical theocracy that would force conversions to Islam an all its inhabitants...and don't get me started on how women in the region would be treated.

It can't be because Israel is an "illegal" state, because the UN (who these people look to for all important international relations cues) mandated its creation from land that the British held ownership of.

It can't be because Israel is the only entity to endanger the Palestinians because Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan were all given the opportunity to take in refugees, and refused to do so.

It can't be because they want a two state solution because the only player in this game who has worked for that goal has been Israel. Not to mention, these pro-Palestinians are not calling for a two-state solution, but rather a destruction of Israel(Good Luck with that). That is not a two-state solution, that is eerily like a movement over 60 years ago that called for the irradiation of the Jews from Europe.

Someone, anyone, please explain it to me because from a rational standpoint...there is not argument against Israel in this case. That is, unless you support the idea of wiping Israel off the face of the earth, and if that's the case, then how is it that Israel are the barbarians?

Political Correctness Will Be the Death of the West

2009-01-08T22:57:00.003-05:00

Western civilization has overcome many murderous movements (Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, Imperialism, etc), due in large part to our overwhelming understanding of right and wrong and our ability to combat these forces dead on. This is no longer the case. The greatest threat to Western society, and to the world, is Islamism, and we are not taking it seriously.

In fact, it the the same political correctness that was supposed to welcome Muslims, and help them to adapt that had created the problem of widespread Islamic fascism in our own country, as well as Europe. These people know how to use our legal systems against us, and scare opposition into silence.

Did you know that 40% of Muslims living in the United Kingdom wish to have Shariah Law implemented in Europe? That would mean stoning, amputations, mandatory veil wearing, and permission to beat your wife, just to name a few. 32% of Muslims in the United Kingdom believe Western society should come to an end. HELLO! ARE YOU LISTENING!?!?!

The problem is that European countries, in the attempt to liberalize and be politically correct, have made it hard to crack down on this growing Islamic problem. The European people are making as statement by going further to the right politically, but how can you fix this problem without infringing on the right of these people to practice their religion (even if it is crazy)?

This is not just a problem for Europe though. On the left-coast in San Fran, there has already been a push to remove the Holocaust from the curriculum as it might be offensive to Muslims. Ummmm, first of all, how is it offensive to Muslims? And secondly, Who the hell cares if it is?

This political correctness has got to stop. There is a right and a wrong here. Islamic extremest are WRONG on all counts, in all ways, with no exceptions. There was a time when we used to believe in right and wrong. Now, the media and the left tried to paint everything gray and make us feel morally ambiguous. This is why the Islamists might win. Not because we can't beat them, but because we seem to have lost the will to fight.

It amazes me that the people who fight so hard for the rights of Islamofacists are the same people that, if given the change, Muslims would have violently killed. Do you think Muslim states allow for gay-pride parades? Or interracial/faith marriages? Or women's rights? Hell no!

Wake up Western Society! Help us save our culture from being raped and murdered by a faction of people who should not even have a voice! If you don't there WILL be dire consequences because Islamofacists will not give us the same mercy we seem so happy to give them.

Leave Caroline Alone!

2009-01-07T20:44:00.002-05:00

For all of you out there giving Caroline Kennedy a hard time, leave her alone! Sure, she's unqualified. Sure, she's missed out on the last few elections. Sure, she talks like a crack head on speed. But who really cares? Is she any less qualified than her would-be peers?

Think about it. There are roughly 530 senators and congressman on Capitol Hill. Of those 530+ people, about 30 of them are worth a damn. Congressmen and Senators in Washington are part of the problem and appointing Caroline Kennedy or anyone else will not change that. When the Washington idiots become comfortable they stop working for the people. That is what has happened in the House and Senate.

If you think that Senators work for anything more than themselves, you are terribly mistaken. The Senate is where good politicians go to die. It doesn't matter what you stood for before, once you are in the Senate you principles and morals go to the wayside in the protection of the elite Washington bureaucracy. Therein lies the problem with the 2008 election. There were 3 too many senators on the ticket. Sarah Palin might have been the butt of everyone's jokes, but she was the only one with executive experience and her principles still intact.

So, give Caroline the seat. Frankly, one only needs to be able to walk upright to do the job of a Senator. She seems to have mastered that. Hell, the majority of the people she'd be working with are little more than trained monkeys, so what does it matter?

Honk If You Are Nervous!

2009-01-05T19:06:00.004-05:00

I know...I know...its in poor taste to criticize the President-Elect before he's even taken office. Whatever. I'm a concerned American so I'm compelled to point out a pertinent question that everyone keeps ignoring. What the hell is Obama going to do on foreign policy?

Now, we all know he was an utter embarrassment on all foreign policy questions during the debates (that was why he picked the ever brilliant Biden as a running mate). That didn't seem to matter much considering he was "oh-so-cool," but the campaign is over and now its time to be a big boy and deal with the problem that has faced George W. Bush for the last 7+ years: The Global War on Terror.

Sure, he wooed the American public with pipe dreams of "redistribution of wealth," paying for our gas and taxes, offering health care to the masses...but what good will any of these things do in a world polluted by the toxic affliction of Terrorism? On that issue, we are all still in the dark about what Obama could and would do.

Here's the problem: We've got a number of serious foreign policy situations falling right into the lap of Barack Obama on Jan. 20th, not the least of which is the situation in Gaza and a possible nuclear stand off between Pakistan and India. Call me a pessimist, but i'm not sure Barack Obama, with no experience, no reverence for this country, and no understanding of the magnitude of his new job can deal with these situations...nor can his entertaining side-kick, Biden.

We may not want to be the World Police, but the fact remains that we are the beacon the rest of the world looks to in these situations. And we are handing that responsibility over to a man who is best known for surfing, teaching law, and wearing he baseball cap backward at the gym? I'm nervous as hell...honk if you're with me!

Even more interesting is the populous response. While people were crying in the streets to get Obama elected, while people lined up for miles to hear him speak, while Obama turned out a record breaking vote; none of his followers are around to defend his inaction on these situations. None of of his followers are breaking down the door to talk about Israel/Palestine. None of his followers are even talking about his absurd economic plan. Seems to me they were CRYING for change, but they don't even really care what kind of change that is.

Obama was a movement, not a set of ideas. He was a symbol, not a leader. And because of this, he will be devastating not only to the economy but to foreign relations. We did not elect a man who can handle these problems. We elected a man to make us feel warm and fuzzy on Jan. 20th. But after Oprah boards her plane back to Chicago; after hotel rooms in Washington DC return to normal; after Obama redefines his "Yes We Can" speech to a "Yes We Did" speech, and after the "new" wears off, what will Barack Obama stand for? The answer is: We don't know. And the problem is, we don't have the luxury of time for him to figure it out.

The United Nations of Idealism

2009-01-03T23:43:00.005-05:00

Okay, I'll make this quick. Everyone is waiting on the edge of their seats to hear the statement from the United Nations on the issue in Gaza. Save the stress. I'll tell you exactly what that statement is going to be: They will call upon both parties to lay down their weapons and implement a ceasefire. I'm not a mind reader or a psychic...I just know that ceasefire is the UN's answer to everything.

And the idealists of the world will unite with the UN and call upon both sides to lay down their weapons for the "good of the people" mostly because the idealists of the world are too stupid to know how these ceasefires work. All that happens is Israel's hands are tied and the terrorists win. The end.

If Israel does not agree to a ceasefire, they are murderous evil-doers. If they agree, they are binding themselves to a system of rules that Hamas is not bound to, as they are terrorists, cannot be reasoned with, and are not even members of the United Nations. Hello, didn't we learn in Vietnam that you cannot fight a war against guerrillas and terrorists if you are playing by "rules" while they are not?

And how can we even put stock into an organization like the United Nations who supports the right of a leader like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak before them when it is Iran who is funneling money into the very terrorist groups who start this violence in the first place? The UN can't even stand up to Iran when it comes to their catastrophic nuclear program. I'm sorry...I really don't care what the UN thinks, or how they plan to "fix" the problem in Gaza considering their bureaucracy creates more harm than good most of the time.

Try explaining these logical factors to the "Free Palestine" crowed who would crap their pants after 2 minutes in Israel under attack. Its so irritating to clearly see the RIGHT in this situation and watch ignorant idealists fight for terrorist and those who support terrorist all because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside.

You tell me what "proportional response" is. What should Israel do? Should they strap bombs to themselves and walk onto buses, blowing up innocent men, women, and children? Would that be "proportional enough." Should Israel dumb down its military to be the same as Hamas'? Would that be a good strategic military plan? Should Israel just let these evil bastards attack them EVERYDAY and turn a blind eye? Would that make the whiners of the world happy?

No, seriously...i wanna know.

Here We Go Again, Israel...

2008-12-29T18:05:00.002-05:00

If anyone is wondering what will come of the current crisis in Israel/Gaza, please flip back to the summer of 2006 and take notes. Or, if you are REALLY interested, why not take a look at EVERY counterattack Israel has tried to wage against terrorist aggressors. You will find it doesn't work out so well for the Israelis. And, sadly, this counterattack will probably also fail.

It’s not a question of which side is right. Israel was attacked, and it is will within its right and duty to defend itself. Hamas started this particular mess, and Israel would be neglecting its duty if it did not respond. It’s not a question of who is more powerful. Israel's military and arms far overpower Hamas'. It’s not a question of death toll, Israel most often is able to kill more than those who attack it. This is a question of anti-Semitism, jihadist authoritarianism, globalization, and the liberalizing of the world.

If you don't agree, just look at the facts. Many argue, and logically so, that Israel was created as a safe-haven for Jews in a world that had just been tried and convicted of trying to eradicated Jewish people from the world. Guilt played a part in the establishment of Israel, but so did anti-Semitism. Great Britain and the UN were willing to provide a land for the Jews, not only to make up for the Holocaust, but also to rid Europe of Jews. This mentality, while not popularly recognized also explains why Europe has such a "hands-off" approach to Israel and its hardships.

Jihadist Authoritarianism is the movement that groups like Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups follow. This movement would like to see the eradication of Israel and the Jews as well as a global movement to convert the globe to Islam. It’s not popular to point these relevant facts out, nor is it popular to portray these groups in such a way that gives them any real power, but the fact remains: these terrorist groups hold the support of the Palestinians as well as MANY other Arab peoples in the region and are sponsored by states like Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan. Terrorism is real. We can't close our eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.

The toxic curse of globalization is the worst foe of Israel in this on-going bias in the Middle East. In this day and age, international opinion holds more weight than ever before (more weight than it should). Global politics are full of double standards against Israel, but the worst comes from groups like the UN, who is supposed to maintain impartiality, but rarely does. Take, for instance, the two major anti-Israeli resolutions passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations: UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 which declared "Zionism" racist. Zionism is basically the belief that the Jews should have a safe haven in the holy land. And the General Assembly resolution that declared a terrorist group (the PLO...responsible for multiple terrorist attacks, including the murder of Israeli Olympians in Munich) the legitimate authority of the Palestinian people and allowed them observer status within the United Nations.

More importantly, Israel's right to defend itself is dependent, now, on international support? Why is this? Why does the world side with Palestinians, even when it is the Arabs in Israel that fire the first shot, blow themselves up, and makes Israel is scary place.

I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do have some theories. First of all, this is a product of growing anti-Americanism in the world. Israel is a strong ally of the United States and therefore, they are in the wrong. Illogical? Sure, but when was the last time you heard and anti-American make a lick of sense? Then there is the obvious problem with the entire set up of the United Nations. For the ONE Israeli vote, where are SEVERAL Arab votes that have all promised to vote against Israel. Add that to the countless African Nations that can be bought, already hate America and its allies, and are being overrun with Muslims and you've got the votes you need to pass anti-Israeli resolutions. It’s not too difficult.

It comes down to this: For every Palestinian the media portrays as "mistreated" by the Israelis, there is an Israeli grandmother who has died at the hands of a terrorist. For every media picture of the "evil" wall that separated Jewish from Muslim populations, there is an Israeli child who didn't see her 13th birthday because of a suicide bomber.

The bottom line is this: Is Israel justified for kicking a little Hamas ass? HELL YES! Will the world admit to that? Sadly, I’m not holding my breath. Israel, the common sense thinkers of the world are with you. Fight the good fight. One day, we hope the world will wake up. Until then, we will have to deal with the drive-by media posing pictures of poor Palestinians in Gaza next to "evil" Israeli tanks, the reckless United Nations attack of Israel, and a global community too scared to stand up for what is right.