Diet update; Salt Lake City mayor.

Day two and three of "the diet", as I like to call it, were successful. I stayed on it. So stay tuned.

----------------------------

As many of you are aware, President Bush recently paid a visit to Salt lake City, Utah to deliver a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars at their annual convention. Salt Lake City's mayor, Rocky Anderson, instead of being a decent host and representing Salt lake and the entire state of Utah in a dignified fashion, held an anti-war rally. The speech is long and full of Democratic Party talking points so I'll just give you a few of the highlights (for the full text of the speech, you can go here) : deseretnews.com

"And who among you loves your country so much that you insist that our nation's leaders tell us the truth? So let's hear it: "Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth!" Because if we had had the truth, we wouldn't be here today."

This screed was very early on in the speech. I've heard the audio and you can hear the venom and vitriol in Mayor Anderson's screaming (yes, he was screaming). The claim that the Bush administration lied is false as has been proven time and time again. Mayor Anderson is a very intelligent man. He knows this. If he truly believes the poisonous leftist propaganda he is spewing, then perhaps he isn't as smart as I thought.

"Let no one deny we are patriots. We support our nation's troops. Let's hear it for our nation's troops! We have so many veterans here today. Let's here it for the veterans! We are grateful to our veterans who have sacrificed so much for our freedoms."

Mayor Anderson may believe he supports the troops by opposing the war, but it is simply impossible to do both. I believe Mayor Anderson doesn't want to see our troops hurt. But there is a big difference between wishing good health to our servicemen and actually supporting them. Let's put it this way, if we showed our troops in Iraq the text of Andersen's speech, do you really believe that our troops would feel they were supported by him? I don't think they would. It's like saying "I support (then) presidential candidate John Kerry (in 2004) but I voted for President Bush." If you voted for President Bush, you really didn't support Kerry, did you?

"So to James Evans and these folks who financed this massive radio campaign these last few days, let them understand that blind faith in bad leaders is not patriotism. A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating president."

No one--and I mean no one--is telling people concerned about our country to "sit down and be quiet". This is a lie perpetuated by Mayor Anderson and his lefty buddies. And no one is showing "slavish, blind obedience" to our leaders. This is rhetoric of the worst kind. Perhaps Mayor Anderson should listen--honestly listen--to conservative talk radio where dissenting opinions--from callers and guests on the left and the right--our heard every single day. The right in this country have been critical of the Bush administration on a number of fronts--including the war in Iraq. There is strong disagreement on many issues among conservative talk show hosts. And can not think of one talk show host--not Hannity, not Limbaugh, not anyone--who has shown slavish and blind odedience to the administration. Just the opposite. All conservative talk show hosts have questioned the war in Iraq. And while most support it still, not every one of them does and some do so reluctantly. And, just to point out a fact, the administration isn't dishonest, Mayor. Show me exactly where they are dishonest? These accusations without example are easy to make, harder to prove.

"What incredible ineptitude and callousness for our President to talk about a Crusade while lying to us to make a case for the invasion and occupation of a Muslim country!"

Dude, you need a history lesson. Crusade is the most appropriate term for our war on terror. The Crusades several hundred years ago were justified as it was Islam--just like today--that declared war on Christianity first by invading Europe and putting people to the sword who refused to convert to Islam.

"In September, 2002, President Bush made the incredible and absolutely false claim that "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam."

Um, Mayor, that's Bush's opinion, not necessarily policy. Your claim that Bush's words are a false claim is a false claim.

"Our President and Vice-President, along with an unquestioning news media, repeatedly led our nation to believe that there was a working relationship between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, a relationship that threatened the United States."

Is this Mayor Anderson fella serious? The news media attacked the president daily during the lead up to war and scoffed at any connection between Al Queda and Saddam. There was a connection, arguably not a strong one, between Al Queda and Saddam. A prominent Al Queda leader was granted refuge in Iraq before the war, for hell's sake! Mayor Anderson lies again--or he is extremely ignorant.

"President Bush, by the way, finally admitted nine days ago on Aug. 21 during a press conference that there was no connection between the attacks on 9/11 and Iraq. It's terrific that the President has now admitted what others have known for so long — but where is the accountability for the tragic war we were led into on the basis of his earlier misrepresentations?"

There you go again. The administration never claimed there was a connection between 9/11 and Saddam even though Saddam was quite giddy with happiness after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. This is a lie perpetuated by the left and the mainstream media. Find me a quote by any official in the Bush administration stating a connection between the two. While there was a connection between Al Queda and Saddam, there is no evidence Saddam had anything to do with 9/11--and the president never made that case!

Anyway, Rocky goes on to scream--literally--about President Bush's lies. Lies which cannot be proven, folks. Rocky also accuses the right of slandering those who disagree with the war as unpatriotic. This simply isn't the case. Few, if any, prominent Republicans or conservatives have accused the left of being unpatriotic. However, the left accuses the right of being unpatriotic all the time. Anderson does it in his speech with phrases like the first one I use in this blog entry where Anderson is quoted as saying that people on the right blindly follow the administration and that isn't patriotism.

Rocky was on a local radio show last night talking about the speech. He lauded himself for his bravery in speaking out againts Bush. He claimed he was one of the few in the nation--other than Newsweek, Time Magazine, the New York Times, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, all of Hollywood, and nearly every one of the over two-hundred and forty Democrats in congress--who dared and that those who believe the war is wrong can now speak up.

I'm simply stunned at Mayor Anderson's ignorance.

Oh, by the way, the reason why Utahns were so upset that you spoke out against President Bush during his visit is not because we don't want to hear dissent, it's because what you said in your speech, just like you did two years ago when President Bush visited last time, were lies. Lies and venom and vitriol and garabage. You weren't respectful at all. It's about respectful dissent, you clown of a mayor. It's not about acting like a spoiled first-grader and namecalling and throwing a fit, which is how you acted.

That's all.

The guy is so full of himself. It's quite breathtaking. He may be the most arrogant politician in the USA.

Day one of my diet plus Super Bowl prediction.

Yesterday was day one of my diet (for a look at my trails and tribulations with my weight, read previous post). It was a success. Thus far, I'm having no problems on day two. I'll update tomorrow.

----------------------------

Every year for the last twenty years I have made my Super Bowl prediction right before the start of the regular season. Tomorrow, the NFL's regular season starts. This year I've had a bit of a problem picking the champions of the AFC and NFC. The AFC is filled with strong teams: Denver, Kansas City, possibley San Diego, possibley Oakland, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, maybe Baltimore, Cincinnatti, New England, and possibley Miami. That's ten teams but only six will make the playoffs. Which one to choose? I will immediatley discount the "maybes" so Oakland, San Diego, Baltimore and Miami are out. Pittsburgh had a miraculous season last year being the sixth seed and grabbing win after win on the road. In a tough AFC, I don't think the chances of Pittsburgh repeating are good. New England isn't the same team they were when they won three Super Bowls in four years so I reluctantly exclude them. Cincinnatti hasn't proven to me that they can play defense so they are out. So we're down to KC, Denver and Indy. KC is an intriguing choice because the presence of new head coach Herm Edwards alone will likely make the defense better. And KC certainly doesn't have problems on offense. Denver is a good choice as well as they were one win away from the Super Bowl last season. They are strong on offense and defense. As for Indy, they went an amazing 14-3 last year including the playoffs. As badly as they played against Pittburgh in the second round of the AFC playoffs, they still almost won. They've lost Edgerrin James but their running game still looks good. And they've added Mr. Clutch, kicker Adam Vinatieri. Had they had the King of Clutch last year, they probably would have beaten Pittsburgh. He could be the difference. I predict he will be the difference. Colts win the AFC.

The NFC is not nearly as strong as the AFC. In my mind, there are only three teams worth talking about in the NFC: The defending NFC champs Seattle, plus Carolina and Dallas. It would be easy to pick Seattle because they were so dominant in the NFC last year. And they have pretty much the same team returning this year. Carolina, with the addition of receiver Keyshawn Johnson, makes wideout Steve Smith even more dangerous. But it's the addition of Terrell Owens in Dallas that I believe will give the Cowboys the NFC title. Owens is the most talented player ever to line-up as receiver and he's only one of three players in the NFL that can score from anywhere on the field (Tomlinson and Vick are the other two). TO gives Dallas so many more options on offense now. Bill Parcells will take advantage of it. Dallas wins the NFC.

Super Bowl Prediction: Indianapolis Colts versus Dallas Cowboys. I'm not going to predict a winner.

Incidently, last year I picked Indianapolis and Philadelphia. Guess I really screwed up on that one, eh?

The many purposes of the blog; weight loss is one.

When I first set up this blog, I set it up with the intention of it not just being a political blog or a sports blog or a blog about my personal life. It is supposed to be all of those things. I've tended to write about poloitics most of the time but that isn't the sole purpose of this blog. In that spirit, and for the forseeable future, this blog will be my weight loss diary.

I'm putting a lot on the line here as I'm not comfortable sharing intimate details about my life. I'm overweight (at least I think so--my friends and family don't understand the fuss) and I feel the need to lose the extra pounds. Three and a half years ago, I weighed 245 pounds and, over the next eight months, I dropped 50 pounds. I was down to 195. But since then, I've put the weight all back on and then some. I now weigh 256 pounds and I'm not happy about it. I know what to do to lose weight, I know what works (Weight Watchers). It is just a matter of will.

My goal weight is 200 pounds. I remember what it was like when I weighed around 200 about 3 years ago and it felt good. I know that keeping a journal of my weight loss--with goals spelled out--will help me (I hope) and sharing my struggle with the 3 of you that read this blog may give me the incentive I need to lose the weight a second time.

It's on the line. I start today. Thanks for your help.

Idiots on parade

If you want a good idea of what the left really believes, check out this article and the response it has generated at newsarama.com. Comic book writer/artist Frank Miller simply states that America should win the war on terror and adds “I draw and write comic books. One thing my job involves is making up bad guys. Imagining human villainy in all its forms. Now the real thing had showed up. The real thing murdered my neighbors. In my city. In my country. Patriotism, I now believe, isn’t some sentimental, old, conceit. It’s self-preservation. I believe patriotism is central to a nation’s survival.”

The lefty idiots immediately attack Miller as a right wing kook and, of course, the responses to the article quickly degenerate into namecalling (not legitimate namecalling), more lefty lies about the War on Terror and Iraq, and, ultimately, Miller, of course, is compared to Nazis. What is so hysterical about the response from the left is they feel somehow Miller's comments are an attack on their patriotism which they are offended by even though they readily admit patriotism is a silly notion! And then they imply (and I infer) that Miller is the one that is unpatriotic. In this context, Miller is belittled because Miller believes himself to be patriotic and the responders believe Miller is not patriotic and attacked their patriotism which they (the responders) think patriotism is silly in the first place!

Take a look. And you tell who is being unreasonable, Miller or the comic book kooks?

Full disclosure: I read comic books.

Global warming versus Islamonazism.

Al Gore spoke at the MTV Music Video Awards the other night. A former vice-president of the United States of America has stooped lower than any former vice-president I can think of. Nixon was once vice-president and a failure as a president but even in the darkest days of the Watergate-era, Nixon never--never!--helped celebrate an institution that has done so much damage to society. Twenty-five years of MTV has reduced women to nothing more than sex objects. Yet MTV touts itself as progressive and for womens' rights.

Think about how absurd that is. There is nothing progressive about the dehumanization of women.

Al Gore spoke about the alleged threat of global warming and how it's the biggest danger to humanity. He received cheers. I guess if your anti-global warming, it's okay to dehumanize women.

Kinda like Islamonazis and the way the dehumanize women--and non-Muslims. No, anti-global warming zealots are not on the level of Islamonazis--not even close--but it's a good segue.

Islamonazis commit terrorist acts almost daily in India. They've recently committed (or attempted to commit) terrorist acts in Germany, the United Kingdom, Thailand and the U.S. Earlier this week an Islamist terrorist used his SUV as a weapon and ran down fourteen people in San Francisco (a terroist act the mainstream media has covered up). A year ago (October 1st, 2005), a Muslim student tried to blow up the football stadium at the University of Oklahoma during a game in which 84,000 people were attending. Then there was the DC sniper case a few years ago.

And 9/11.

And Al Gore says global warming is the biggest threat facing humanity? While there is some evidence for global warming, it takes three enormous religious leaps of faith to come to the conclusion that global warming is the threat Gore says it is.

First, you must believe global warming exists (not a huge leap of faith because there is some evidence for regional warming in different part of the globe--I guess that could be global warming of a sort).

Second, you must believe human beings caused it (huge leap of faith--volcanic explosions do more damage to the environment than human beings have ever done).

Third, you must believe that it threatens our very existence (this is the biggest leap of faith because there is not one shred of evidence that human-caused global warming--if real--would be able to threaten the existence of mankind).

Al Gore and his ilk are dangerous because like an Islamonazi, they are true believers. You can't reason with them because it is not about facts, it's about faith.

For those of you who fear Christians and Judeo-Christian values, tell me which is more dangerous: A Christian or Jewish "zealot" who believes in the Ten Commandments (no stealing, no murder, no lying, etc.) or an anti-global warming zealot who will try to destroy the economy by stopping alleged toxic emmissions, take your land in the name of enviromentalism, and curb your rights in the name of progressive policies?

I have no answer, no solution. I don't think Al Gore and most anti-global warmings folks are evil, but they are most definitely morally confused.

Human evil--Islamonazis and their kind--are far more dangerous to the survival of mankind than global warming.

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day

"What the arms-control faithful really want is a world without violence -- not a world without weapons. These are the ideological descendants of the authors of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which purported to outlaw war. But we can't have a world without violence, because the world is half male and testosterone causes homicide. A world with violence -- that is to say, with men -- but without weapons is the worst of all possible worlds for women. As the saying goes, God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal." -- Ann Coulter "How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)"

Quote of the day.

"If any other industry were doing as much public harm by producing a similarly substandard product, the press would be screaming for the government to take action." -- Glenn Reynolds of instapundit.com referring to the mainstream media and their anti-Semitic one-sided reporting of the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

Even more Survivor!

I do no not want this blog turned into a Survivor Blog.

But in response to even more absurd handwringing and pants-wetting about the new season of Survivor, I'll add this:

I do not pretend to understand why a racially segregated Survivor is a big deal. This is TV, after all, and anyone who watches Survivor knows that the segregated tribes will only be segregated for the first couple of episodes. After that, you'll see the four tribes become two tribes.

As I stated the other day, Survivor has always been about segregation. Last season the original tribes were segregated by sex and age. In past seasons, we've seen tribes segregated by sex and by popularity.

The idea that a TV show--a GAME show of all things--will set back race relations fifty years is absurd.

Does anyone really believe that only whites will be rooting for the white team and so on?
The answer is no. Most men (black, white, whatever) will be rooting for the team with the hottest women. And from a cursory glance at the CBS website, it looks like that'll be either the white team or the Asian team. Most Americans in my estimation don't care much about race. I could be wrong.

If Survivor shows us anything about race this season, it'll be how racial categories are meaningless. Have you seen the contestants? Not all the black contestants are that black, some of the Hispanic contestants look white to me (yes, I know, the term Hispanic is supposed to denote ethnicity, not race).

The reaction by many to this season of Survivor--which no one has even seen yet--is over-the-top. As I reported in a earlier post, I heard one local radio talk show host call it "just about the most despicable thing he's ever seen". I wonder if he really believes that. It seems in the history of crimes against humnanity, Survivor rates pretty low.

People need to sit back and think about what this really means in the greater scheme of things: Nothing.

Go blacks!

More Survivor plus some Star Trek..

Last night as I drove home from work I listened to a local radio talk show. The hosts were discussing the upcoming season of Survivor in which four racially segregated tribes will square off against one another. The host--in a moment of sheer stupidity--said "it was just about the most despicable thing he's ever heard of".

Moron. Idiot. It a @#$%! TV show, for heavens sake. This is the kind of over-the-top nonsense the media--and in this case--television viewers are engaging in with what should be a non-issue. I might add there is some inconsistency here from folks critical of CBS for this move. Ever watch a television comedy over, say, the last thirty years? Ever notice how many of those half-hour sitcoms are mixed racially?

Not so many, huh?

So I ask what the Hell is the big deal and why is this any different?

----------------------

When I was fifteen, I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation. I became a huge fan of the entire Trek universe from the classic series to The Next Generation and even on up through Voyager and Enterprise. I rarely missed an episode, I worshipped Spock and even recorded over four hundred--four hundred!--episodes of Star Trek.

I was obsessed with it.

I was an idiot. Star Trek is truly an awful concept set up in an awful universe with awful characters and horrendous storylines. With the exception of three or four seasons of Deep Space Nine, Star Trek is completely unwatchable to me now. How could I have been so foolish as to get sucked in to the idiocy that is Trek? Why couldn't I see the destrutive moral relativism and backward socialist values shown on The Next Generation back then? How could I have stomached the anti-capitalism (re: anti-freedom) screed so prevalent on Deep Space Nine? What about the silly techno-babble and pseudo-science? I'm actually nauseated by the fact that I used to love Trek.

Do you know what showed me the light? It wasn't my conversion to conservatism that saved me (I was still in denial even then), it was real science fiction that saved me. It was shows like Lost and Babylon 5 and Firefly and, especially, the new Battlestar Galactica that showed me the light. After watching the first few episodes of Galactica, I suddenly realized how infantile, how juvenile Star Trek really was. I mean, Galactica is real. Not true, mind you, because its obviously a science fiction show. But real in the sense that this is how real people act. This is how real people handle impossible circumstances. This is what people would really be like in the future. Same thing goes for Firefly and Babylon 5. It's no coincidence that Ronald D. Moore, Galactica's producer, created the only watchable trek series in Deep Space Nine. Now free of the ridiculous restraints of the Star Trek universe, Moore has made what is possibly the best science fiction television series ever. His ideas are challenging. He takes on modern issues in a real way, not a superficial, cowardly way like Trek almost always has done.

You want controversial issues handled intelligently? Galactica tackles abortion and comes to the conclusion--surprising for television--that because of humanity's dire circumstances, abortion makes little sense and is thusly outlawed. They're saying, yeah, when things are going great and our society is in no danger of becoming extinct, we can afford liberal silliness. But when the crap hits the can and you're out of toilet paper, only good ol' pragmatic classic conservatism will save the day. Meanwhile Trek's take is stunningly stupid. The crew of the Enterprise finds out that a bunch of colonists have secretly and without permission cloned them (the crew) and what do they do? They simply and stupidly murder the fully grown clones!

That's just one example.

So, to sum up this, uh, rant: Galactica good. Star Trek bad.

Go blacks!

Survivor segregated.

So the new season of CBS's Survivor will have four tribes segregated by race (black, white, Asian and Hispanic). This has caused quite a stir in the internet community.

I'm a Survivor fan, I admit it. I guess you could call it a guilty pleasure of sorts. I've followed the show from the beginning. (Important note: I'm not a reality show fan and I still maintain my boycott of reality shows. Survivor is most certainly not a reality show. It is simply a game show that lasts thirty-nine days).

I'm fine with tribes segregated by race. They always start the season with two to four tribes which are, obviously, segregated. They've segregated tribes by sex, by popularity, by age, by age and sex so why not race? Race relations will hardly be influenced by a popular game show. So those of you who are upset, settle. It's TV and TV is not the real world--err, no pun intended.

Lighten up. Watch and enjoy. Go blacks!

Great article on "world opinion".

Dennis Prager has written an extemely important and timely article which you can read by going to townhall.com.
Prager has a knack for clarifying the differences between the right and the left. In his recent article, he nails why America (and Israel) should not pay attention to "world opinion.

Hurricanes and dikes.

My work computer--which I share with five other employees--has its homepage set to msn.com. One of the flashing haedlines reads: "Grim warning from hurricane chief; megadisaster worse than Katrina will hit U.S. someday".

Why is this a headline? Why is this news? Do the media widely believe that Katrina was the hurricane to end all hurricanes? I guess when you believe that global warming is a serious threat to mankind (yes, I said mankind!), you'll believe anything.

------------------------------

Some conservatives are acting stupid. Many are disillusioned by the Republican party and are threatening to not vote come November. Apparently, they want to send the GOP a message by putting, by default, Nancy Pelosi in as Speaker of the House and Ted Kennedy in as Senate Majority Leader.

How stupid can you get? How childish. "I can't get my way! The Republicans in congress won't give me what I want! Wahhhh!" This foolishness seems to be fairly widespread. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but I don't expect miracles out of our GOP representatives in congress. This is what I expect (and I'm paraphrasing Dennis Prager): I expect the GOP in congress to be a dike (not that kind of dike). I don't expect a dike to give me tax breaks or make me laugh or be my best friend. I simply expect a dike to hold back the sea. I expect a dike to stop the waters from over-running my home, my family, my country. I expect the Republicans in congress to keep the Democrats out of power. Because as much as people cry about the GOP, if the Democrats get into power, the dike will burst and your home, your family, your country will be overrun.

Vote Republican, keep the ocean at bay.

Say what?

As I do nearly every morning, I was listening to sports talk radio. One of the local morning sports shows features a guy by the name of David James (he also happens to be a sports anchor on the local CBS affiliate KUTV). David James is a funny guy and his impersonations and observations can be quite humorous. However, a serious NBA analyst James is not. Not only was he beating up on the Utah Jazz for having a very successful season in spite of two serious injuries to two of there three top players, James ran down the list of who he thinks are NBA title contenders now that the season is all but over and, frankly, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Spurs (check), Pistons (check), Nets (huh?) (James went on to trash the Heat, of all teams, as a pretender).

A few things are just so wrong with his "analysis". Maybe I missed it, but where on New Jersey's roster is there a hall-of-fame caliber big man? Maybe James hasn't been paying attention to the last sixty (sixty!) years of NBA history but a hall-of-fame caliber big man is the one position a team must have in order to win an NBA championship. Michael Jordan and the Bulls being the only dynasty that is the exception. The last seven NBA champions should have been the first tip to those who ignored the first fifty or so years of NBA history: The Spurs had Tim Duncan and David Robinson in '99 and Duncan in '03 and '05; the Lakers had Shaq is '00, '01 and '02; the Pistons had Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace in 2004. It's simple. Unless you have Jordan on your roster, it is virtually impossible to win an NBA championship without a hall-of-fame big man--usually a center--on your roster. Even though Jason Kidd is still the best point guard in the league and even though New Jersey finished the season very strong, the Nets are most certainly not a title contender.

As already noted, James went on to trash the Heat in his half-assed analysis. How absurd! The Heat came within one two-minute stretch in the fourth quarter of game seven of the Eastern Conference finals last year to advancing to the NBA finals. And that was before the Heat made several smart off-season personnel moves to add depth and offensive punch to the team. Shaq plays for the Heat and that should be enough to grant the Heat automatic title contender status. But according to James, a team that almost beat the Pistons--the defending champs last season--and then went on to improve the via trades and free agency (while the Detroit Pistons did not) is not a contender. Maybe I'm nuts, but I don't think James thought this one out well.

David James's idiotic analysis aside, there are only three contenders for the NBA title this year: the San Antonio Spurs, the Detroit Pistons and, yes, the Miami Heat. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the history of the NBA.

Demagoguery from the Right on Illegal Immigrantion.

The rhetoric on illegal immigration has reached a fever pitch. Some of the demagoguery from the right is over-the-top. It's hysteria. Because of the hysteria from some on the right, there are some radio hosts I will not listen to anymore especially those whom were also hysterical over the Dubai ports deal and the Harriet Miers nomination. There are some conservative columnists and talk show hosts who have only been hysterical on one of the three. Fine. I can give them a pass. But to those who have been hysterical on all three, I say good-bye. Your emotional ranting and fear-mongering have driven this right-wing Christian conservative Republican away.

Bill Bennett, you've done a lot of good things. But I'm done listening to you're dumb remarks about Harriet Miers (according to Mr. Bill, she isn't smart enough to be a SCOTUS justice). Mr. Bill also lied about what the Dubai ports deal was all about (he kept saying the UAE was "taking over our ports" when in reality the company from Dubai was taking over a few terminals in our ports). And now he wants all illegal immigrants to be deported. All twelve million. Mr. Bill says the current senate legislation is amnesty. He's dead wrong. It's not amnesty to pay a fine for a misdemeanor. Yes, it's a misdemeanor for someone to illegally enter the country. People who committ misdemeanors are not normally considered criminals. But Mr. Bill and his ilk want them treated as such. Forget that it is literally impossible to deport all illegal immigrants. Forget that even if you could do so, you'd be breaking up families (children of illegal immigrants born in the country are U.S. citizens). Forget that most Americans who committ misdemeanors have to pay a fine, but that's not good enough for Bill Bennett. I'm done with Bennett. I'm done with the shrill conservative columnist Michelle Malkin. I'm done with Joseph Farah of worldnetdaily.com (this guy is a real whacko). I'm done with anyone--anyone--who demonizes illegals and wants to criminalize (as opposed to "misdemeaorize") millions of people who love and appreciate America more than most Americans do.

It is far better to create a path to legalization for most illegals. Let them pay a fine and start the process of legalization. It is not amnesty to force illegals to pay a two-thousand dollar fine and start a citizenship process which will take six years. Paying the fine for illegally crossing the border is called taking responsibility for your actions. I thought conservatives were for that sort of thing.

Now go away. I'm tired.

Super Bomb.

Super Bowl XL is over. And while I'm happy for Bill Cowher and the Pittsburgh Steelers (is there a more classy organization in the NFL?), the game sucked. Both teams were sloppy; Roethlisburger--normally a mistake-free QB--had a horrible game and the Seahawks couldn't make a field goal or manage the clock well.

Perhaps the last eight Super Bowls leading up to XL spoiled me. I mean, we've had some of the greatest games in Super Bowl history over the last eight years: Elway's helicopter dive to beat the Pack in SB XXXII; Dyson's goal-line reach that fell short against the Rams in XXXIV; the Patriots three-point victories in XXXVI, XXXVIII and XXXIX. Things have been good recently. There is certainly no other eight years period in SB history as good as these last several years have been. But the Steelers and Seahawks dissappointed. The referees let us down. Even the Rolling Stones sucked.

I'll feel better next year when the Seahawks meet the Broncos in XLI in Miami.

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.

"If conservatives complained about CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Vogue, Reader's Digest, NPR, etc. etc. half as much as liberals scream about Fox News, even I would say conservatives were getting to be a bore on the subject."

Great quote but why does Ann cite Readers' Digest as a liberal publication? They've always seemed pretty conservative to me.

Jonah Goldberg Quote of the Day.

"The myth — oft-repeated by Jim Carville and others — that America was beloved by the world until the Iraq war or George Bush is hogwash. Anti-Americanism — in France, in Greece, throughout the third world — has been raging for a long time and actually increased with the defeat of Communism and on Bill Clinton's watch. That's not to say it was Clinton's fault in any significant way. It was merely a fact of life. Iraq is an excuse for America-bashing among nations that clearly couldn't be counted on no matter who was in the Oval Office."

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.

"Guns are our friends because in a world without guns, I'm what's known as "prey." All females are. Any male -- the most sickly 98-pound-weakling -- could overpower me in a contest of brute force against brute force. For some reason, I'm always asked: Wouldn't I prefer a world without guns? No. I'd prefer a world in which everyone is armed, even the criminals who mean to cause me harm. Then I'd at least have a fighting chance." -- "How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)"

George W. Bush is a conservative.

There are many of my fellow Republicans and conservatives who don't consider George W. Bush a conservative (i.e. he isn't their kind of conservative because, in the wake of the Miers nomination, he didn't nominate their kind of conservatve justice). The notion is absurd but is common nonetheless. Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard puts such nonsense in it's place in a recent editorial:

Bush, of course, is a conservative, but a different kind of conservative. His tax cuts, support for social issues, hawkish position on national security and terrorism, and rejection of the Kyoto protocols make him so. He's also killed the ABM and Comprehensive Test Ban treaties, kept the United States out of the international criminal court, defied the United Nations, and advocated a shift in power from Washington to individuals through an "ownership society." On some issues--partial privatization of Social Security is the best example--he is a bolder conservative than Ronald Reagan, the epitome of a conventional conservative.

Right on Fred!

Ann Coulter Quote of the Day.

I dug up this hilarious quote from Ann Coulter awhile back. Coulter wrote this during the 2004 election campaign:

"Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it accidentally manifests itself in one of their own."

Heh.

President Bush nominates Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS.

The only qualification a Supreme Court nominee need have is that he/she will be a strict constructionist or an originalist.

Frankly, it doesn't bother me that Ms. Meiers has never been a judge or that the bulk of her legal career has been spent in private practice (that's a plus, in my opinion). She is obviously a good lawyer. After all, one does not become the head of the Texas State Bar Association by being a mediocre attourney.

And keep in mind that as the president's counsel, she was part of the vetting process that led to Pricilla Owen, John Roberts and Janice Rogers Brown receiving federal judicial appointments.

The president should be lauded for selecting someone close to him--someone he trusts--for the Supreme Court. He is well aware of his father's legacy of Justice Souter. The president and his father talk about it and George H.W. Bush describes Souter as one of his biggest mistakes as president. Presidenr George W. Bush will not make the same mistake. To make sure he doesn't make that sort of mistake, he is nominating someone he trusts. The president knows Harriet Miers and he knows she will be a justice that moves the court to the right. President Bush is not taking chances. He's nominating someone who shares his judicial philosophy.

I support President Bush and his nomination of Harriet Miers.

Idiot of Last Week.

In a speech to college Democrats on Friday, Howard Dean said the following:

The president and his right-wing Supreme Court think it is 'okay' to have the government take your house if they feel like putting a hotel where your house is. We think that eminent domain does not belong in the private sector. It is for public use only.

The president and his right-wing court?!?

First of all, none of the nine justices of the Supreme Court were appointed by President George W. Bush.

Second, It was the four liberals along with moderate Anthony Kennedy on the SCOTUS who rules it was okay for local government to take away private property. The three conservative justices--Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia--along with moderate O'Connor ruled against such unconstitutional measures.

Third, only a moron would conclude that four liberal justices + two moderates + three conservatives = a right-wing court.

Either Dean is completely ignorant or he thinks college students are.

John Stockton: Great point guard but not the best.

Well the "Stockton is the best point guard ever" knuckleheads are out in force.

While Stockton is definitely one of the fifteen or twenty best players in NBA history, it is absurd to say he's the best point guard. That title belongs to Magic Johnson or Oscar Robertson (if you decide to count Oscar as a point guard). Those who say, "He's the all-time leader in assists and steals so that makes him the best" are intellectually dishonest. You are purposely selecting statistics to bolster your argument. If you cared about the facts, you'd also mention that Stockton is the second all-time leader in turnovers! You'd also note that Magic has a higher assists-per-game average. Magic didn't play anywhere near as long a Stockton so the assist totals aren't close.

But knuckleheads are on both sides.

Those of you who bash Stockton because he never won a championship don't get it. Athletes who play team sports should not be judged by how many championships they've won (or didn't win as the case may be). That's unfair and it doesn't say anything about individual greatness. Basketball is a team game and it takes a team to win it all. There are many factors as to why some great players never won it all: Lack of great players around them, level of competition, unsupportive ownership/management, injuries, etc. Not all of those applied to Stockton, of course, but you get my point. Team championships do not automatically equal individual greatness.

One idiotic myth perpetuated by Jazz fans--most of whom are complete morons in my experience--is that Stockton is the best pure point guard in NBA history. What nonsense. The "pure" tag is used to bring Magic and Oscar down while raising Stockton up. It's stupid. Stockton cannot compete for best point guard ever if all things are equal so Magic and the Big O must be brought down by applying the pure label. Look, Stockton fanatics, it's no insult that Stockton is the third best point guard in league history. Move along home, morons.

Stockton is the third best point guard in league history. And that's okay.

Jonah Goldberg Quote of the Day.

"To his critics, it seems, Bush's error is that he offered too many reasons to go to war, except when he offered too few. When the news is that no WMDs have been found, WMDs become Bush's only reason to go to war. Back when the WMD angle had yet to be verified, the problem was that Bush offered too many rationales. Which is it?"

Ever get the feeling that the left doesn't like President Bush not because of his decisions but because, well, he's President Bush--a Republican!

Ann Coulter Qoute of the Day.

"In the United States, more than 30 million babies have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade versus seven abortion providers killed. Yeah -- keep your eye on those Christians!"

Yeah, Christians are the dangerous ones--give me a f--king break. We don't murder children by the millions!

Jonah Goldberg Quote of the Day.

Jonah Goldberg is a conservative syndicated columnist. And he's very quotable. So I will occassionally dig up Jonah Goldberg quotes for the pleasure of the three people who read this blog. Enjoy!

"Take the two leading liberal columnists at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. As we all know, one's a whining self-parody of a hysterical liberal who lets feminine emotion and fear defeat reason and fact in almost every column. The other used to date Michael Douglas."

Ann Coulter is viciously funny.

This was part of an exchange on Hannity & Colmes last night. The guests in this segment were Michael Reagan and Ann Coulter. I found the exchange incredibly humorous:

COLMES: Michael, I want to ask you something you just said about Dick Durbin which was really unfair. You're accusing democrats of being against him (John Roberts) because of their religion, that is outrageous that you would even suggest that. Dick Durbin is a Catholic, Patrick Leahy is a Catholic, and he never said there was a litmus test. He in fact asked the same question John Cornyn asked, whether he could separate his personal believes in what the constitution says, and (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

REAGAN: Alan...

COLMES: That suggests that democrats are just people because of their faith.

REAGAN: Alan, I wrote an op-ed piece, interesting, over a week ago and it'scoming to play out pretty well, that the Democrats will accept him if he becomes a bad Catholic. See, now...

COLMES: Now, that's ridiculous.

REAGAN: A bad Catholic. But they will not take a good Catholic. I'm sorry, but that's a fact...

COLMES: A good Catholic, according to whom? Do you determine what a good Catholic is?

REAGAN: A good Catholic, according to the Catholic Church, how about that? Ask Schulman, you're neighbor.

COLMES: Well, I'm not one to tell people whether they're good or bad at practicing their faith, maybe you think you can determine that.

Ann, I...

REAGAN: No, but there's a standard and the Catholic — it's interesting, there's only one Catholic Church, it pretty well stands, you know, stands pretty solid where it feels on abortion and what have you, and so if you're a Catholic who becomes pro-choice, then the Democrats will, in fact, accept you, which means they will accept a bad Catholic.

COLMES: What if you're a Catholic — what if you're pro-death penalty and you're a Catholic where the church says that they happen to be against the death penalty? Can you be a good Catholic and for the death penalty?

COULTER: And if you if you kill a girl at Chappaquiddick you're really good.

COLMES: Pardon me, Ann.

COULTER: I said if you kill a girl at Chappaquiddick, you're really in.

COLMES: That's a low blow. That really is a low blow. You should be above that.

REAGAN: Oh, you're really in. You can stay in forever.

COULTER: What do you mean a "low blow?"

COLMES: You really ought to be above that?

COULTER: Why? Did or did he, Senator Kennedy, or did he not kill a girl at Chappaquiddick? What, we can't mention it?

HANNITY: All right, thanks Ann, appreciate it. And Michael, thank you.

Funny stuff. Ann's "And if you if you kill a girl at Chappaquiddick you're really good." line had me laughing hard. The nice thing about Ann Coulter is that she's there to remind us all that Democrats are FLAMIN' HYPOCRITES!!! Aw, Ann. I love you.

Further proof that college is a fantasy land isolated from reality.

I stumbled across an article written by one Matt K. Murphy in response to a supposedly fair anti-Bush study by a Robert S. McElvaine, a historian. Murphy evicerates McElvaine and his leftist professor pals.

The Opinions of Brilliant Idiots -- Matt K. Murphy

And here is a link to McElvaine's original "study" that drew Murphy's ire:

Historians vs. George W. Bush -- Robert S. McElvaine

It's a good read and Murphy reveals how absurd and out-of-touch many in academia are.

Calvin Coolidge: Underrated President.

I've been doing a lot of research on Calvin Coolidge, the 30th president of the United States, and I've come to greatly admire the man and I now think he is one of the best presidents in American history--I'm talking top ten.

But everytime--everytime--a presidential poll is run, historians rank Coolidge near the bottom (generally bottom four). Is it a liberal thing? Not really. Modern conservatives rate Coolidge rather low, too. I think most have just accepted what everyone else has been saying about Coolidge and have failed to research the man for themselves.

So I will attempt to educate all three of you who read this blog with the following article which explains better than I why Coolidge was a great president:

A NEW LOOK AT CALVIN COOLIDGE
Remarks by Peter Hannaford

Coolidge should be an icon to libertarians and conservatives.

More links to pro-Coolidge articles to follow...

Steve Young is probably the best QB in NFL history.

The question is not what Young could do but rather what Young couldn't do.

Well, folks, what couldn't he do?

Steve Young is the most perfect quarterback the NFL has ever seen. He's the only QB in history who was consistently accurate from five yards to fifty. No one ran better. No QB in NFL history ran for more touchdowns (43). His 2.17 touchdown to interception ratio is the best in NFL history. When Montana came up, the Niners were the only team running the West Coast offense; teams were not adept at defending it yet. But by the time Young was starting, every team in the league was geared to stop the West Coast offense. Yet Young has the highest pass completion percentage in NFL history.

Some will point out that Young only won one Super Bowl as a starter which hardly compares to guys like Bradshaw and Montana (who won four apiece). That is NOT a legitimate point. It is grossly unfair to heap the failures and success of a team onto one player. Simply put, championships should not be a consideration when ranking great players in team sports. It's absurd.

Steve Young is the greatest quarterback I've ever seen. I didn't see Bradshaw and Tarkenton and Unitas in their heyday but in the twenty years I've followed the NFL, Young is clearly the best QB I've seen. Elway, Favre, Marino, Manning and, yes, Montana not withstanding.

President Bush picks a white guy to replace O'Connor--thank goodness!

Now hear me out.

I have no problem with women; I have no problem with women judges; I don't even have a problem with women supreme court justices (at least in theory--O'Connor and Ginsburg haven't been good justices). What I do have a problem with is any seat on the Supreme Court becoming the "female seat" or the "minority seat" or whatever. President Bush was under enoromous pressure to replace O'Connor with another woman (or a Hispanic). Even the First Lady suggested that Bush should fill O'Connor's vacancy with a woman. And while their were plenty of qualified female candidates--we're told that Judge Edith Clement was the runner-up to Judge Roberts--I'm glad Bush picked the person he thought would make the best justice. And in doing so, the president struck a deathblow to the nonsense of having seats on the supreme court reserved for specific types of people based soley on an accident of birth.

We know that if President Bush has the oppurtunity to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist or Justice Stevens or any other Supreme Court justice, sex, race and ethnicity won't be a consideration (conservative values will be but then that's the right of the president).

Say what you want about the president, but he does not pick people to fill jobs in government positions based on race or sex. He picks those he thinks will do the best job.

Because I like lists: The Top 10 Presidents of the United States.

1. George Washington - He set the precedent for all future presidents. It could have been disastrous for the young republic. But he did things right (though even Washington couldn't avoid controversy). Author and historian Larry Schweikart said it best, "It's hard to imagine, say, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson setting the same kinds of incredible precedents that Washington set, both for decorum and for efficiency. Adams would have (as he later did) alienated half the country, and Jefferson would have lacked the diplomacy to pull the Federalists along."

2. Abraham Lincoln - After the South left the Union and threw a tizzy fit because they couldn't get their way in regard to slavery (make no mistake, the South left because of slavery--the states's rights idea perpetuated by neo-Confederates is a myth), Lincoln did the right thing going to war to keep the Union together. Yes, he expanded the powers of the federal government but he had no choice. His detractors, many of whom favor small government, need to look at Lincoln in the context of the times. Lincoln did what needed to be done.

3. Thomas Jefferson - With the Louisiana Purchase, he doubled the size of the United States. Jefferson believed in small government and believed that people should govern themselves. He also banned the slave trade as president and had the vision to fund the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

4. Ronald Reagan - I don't think Reagan's greatness can be exaggerated. With his economic policies (i.e, tax cuts) he gave us the strongest economy we've ever had. On top of that, he put the Soviet Union out of business bringing hope to not just millions of Americans but millions of people worldwide. Always positive, Reagan made his enemies--both domestic and foreign--look foolish.

5. Grover Cleveland - Robert Higgs, Research Director for the Independent Institute, said this of Clevelsnd, "He kept the country at peace. He respected the Constitution, acknowledging that the national government has only a limited mission to perform and shaped his policies accordingly. He fought to lower tariffs; preserved the gold standard in its time of crisis; and restored order forcibly when hoodlums disturbed the peace on a wide front during the great railroad strike of 1894." Though I disagree with Mr. Higgs on many fronts, he nails my opinion of Cleveland perfectly.

6. (tie) Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge - It's hard to seperate Harding and Coolidge because Coolidge was an extension of Harding. A former Reagan economics advisor said this about the Harding/Coolidge term: "In another 50 years, Harding will look much better than he does today. His most sensational move was to name Andrew Mellon, the Pittsburgh banker, Treasury Secretary, which is why the Twenties roared. Mellon was the best Treasury Secretary after Alexander Hamilton. Harding's second great move (which preceded his Mellon pick) was to name Calvin Coolidge his running mate. Coolidge is derided because he didn't advocate Big Government, but he was Reagan's hero. RR was in high school in the Coolidge years, when Coolidge best expressed the ideas of low tax rates producing greater tax revenues than high tax rates. It was Mellon who inspired the JFK tax cuts of 1964 and the Reagan Revolution that followed. The only reason Harding is reviled by today's historians is that he MUST be entombed along with Hoover (and Coolidge) in order to elevate FDR." My thoughts precisely.

8. James Monroe - Monroe had one of the greatest cabinets ever assembled and he had the wisdom to let his cabinet secretaries do what they did best. The Missouri Compromise managed to keep the young republic together and the Monroe Doctrine laid the course for generations to follow.

9. Harry S. Truman - Did little to slow down the ineffective New Deal programs of FDR and, overall, he was fairly weak when it came to domestic issues. However, his dealings with the Soviets and Chinese at the beginning of the Cold War were extraordinary in vision and scope. Every Cold War president that followed Truman owes him a debt.

10. William McKinley - Karl Rove, George W. Bush's close friend and advisor, said this of McKinley (which I wholeheartedly agree with), "He modernized the presidency, he modernized the Treasury to deal with the modern economy, he changed dramatically the policies of his party by creating a durable governing coalition for 40 years, he took a special interest in finding the rising generation of young leaders and putting them into the government, he attempted deliberately to break with the Gilded Age politics, he was inclusive and he was the first Republican candidate for president to be endorsed by a leader in the Catholic hierarchy."

Maybe I'll post a "worst ten presidents" list later this week--Carter, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon Johnson, Jackson, Nixon, Ford, Buchanan, and Wilson will all be on it

More thoughts on Judge John Roberts.

As I've looked at other conservative blogs and websites, I've been dumbstruck by just how many conservatives are doubtful about John Roberts's conservative credentials.

They keep comparing Roberts to Souter.

I don't believe there is any evidence that Roberts is another Souter (who was George H.W. Bush's greatest mistake as president).

Roberts does have a conservative record. He is pro-business and, while he isn't the pure constitutional traditionalist many conservatives wanted, Roberts believes the Supreme Court should not legislate.

Comparisons to Souter are invalid. Souter did have a record, in spite of what some conservatives claim. The first Bush administration did not do their homework. If they had, they would have realized that Souter was a conservative in only the strictest definition of the word. He was a pragmatic conservative in the classic political sense. That means Souter felt that dramatic changes to the law was not good for society. He was truly conservative in that he did not like change which is why I believe he ended up becoming part of the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had over the last forty years become increasingly more liberal (liberal in the modern sense) and Souter went with the flow--which is conservative in definition, if not philosophy.

There is no shred of evidence that Roberts has a judicial philosophy similiar to Souter's. If any current Supreme Court justices should be compared to Roberts, it is Rehnquist. Rehnquist is a mainstream conservative who has consistently been a good conservative justice. Roberts appears to be in the same mold.

I continue to praise President Bush's decision to nominate Judge Roberts. If nothing else, Roberts is more conservative than O'Connor. And if President Bush fills every Supreme Court vacancy with someone more conservative than his or her predecessor, I'll be happy.

President Bush chooses John Roberts to replace O'Conner. Yeah!

I admit, I was worried that President Bush would choose a "consensus" candidate to fill Justice O'Conner's shoes. While I have the utmost respect for Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, replacing a moderate with a moderate would have alienated much of Bush's conservative base and would have been a letdown (if Ginsburg or Stevens retires, Gonzalez would be a fine replacement). But President Bush did the right thing and now we have the conservative Judge John Roberts awaiting confirmation by the senate.

But will Roberts be confirmed?

Already, the pro-abortion whacko left is attacking Roberts as "extreme" and "anti-choice". It will likely be a fight to get Roberts approved by the senate. But with this nomination, President Bush has proven that he is willing to get down and dirty to see that judges who care about the constitution and the history of the United States make it to the Supreme Court.

Despite heavy opposition, Roberts has a couple things going for him:

1. Unlike Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens, Roberts has actually read the U.S. constitution.

2. Roberts is affable and even some hardline liberals have lauded his honor and integrity over the years (this won't make much of a difference to many on the left as the smear campaign is already underway).

Roberts has written in the past that he feels the Roe v. Wade decision was wrongly decided. While some may consider that extreme, Roberts knows that the founders did not intend for abortion on demand to be a constitutional right. Why? Because the constitution doesn't say anywhere that abortion is a right! Kinda obvious, huh?

Anyway, kudos to President Bush. He did the right thing.

But will the senate follow suit?

More dumb comments from the left.

I read the following on a blog called Rhetorical Imprints:

Out of roughly 1 billion Muslims, how many are involved in legitimate terrorist activities? 10,000? I'm not a terrorist expert or anything, but even that number seems a little high. If that number is roughly correct, that means that only .00001 percent of all Muslims have any connection to terrorism.

It is the height of arrogance to think only 10,000 Muslims are involved in terrorist activities--there are more than 10,000 Muslim terrorists in Sudan alone! While the number of actual terroists may be relatively low in the Muslim world, what about those Muslims who support terror? I daresay--and this is a conservative estimate--those Muslims who applaud terrorist activities against Israel, the U.S. and non-Muslim nations and people in general number in the millions. There is plenty of evidence for this number. Consider the hatred Muslims in Sudan show Sudanese Christians. Government sanctioned Islamist gangs rape and murder thousands of Sudanese Christian women and children every year. Consider the Palestinians. A huge portion of Muslim Palestinians (one-fourth of Palestinians are Christian and over the years not one single Palestinian Christian has ever participated in a suicide bombing) would (and do) kill there Jewish neighbors in the name of Islam. Even in "moderate" Jordan and Saudi Arabia, there exists extremist Islamist movements whose membership numbers in the thousands. And, yes, they support terror. As the saying goes in nearly every nation in the Middle-East "We will kill the Jews on Saturday and then the Christians on Sunday". The author clearly and without serious thought pulled the number 10,000 out of his ass. There is no basis for the number being anywhere near that low. One need only look around the world to see that.

One could argue that nearly all adult Muslims support terrorist activity. Most not directly, of course. But as long as the vast majority of Muslims continue to look the other way and won't speak out against their Islamist brethren, they (the so-called moderates) are allowing the extremists to lead the so-called religion of peace. Their silence encourages the extremists.

All numbers aside, why don't we hear the same exhortations after an abortion clinic bombing by a radical Christian pro-lifer? Can you imagine someone asking, "How do we determine which Christian is a decent person and which is a terrorist?"

The above is a silly statement. How many Christian pro-lifers have killed abortion doctors? Only twenty-five verifiable instances of serious violence against abortion doctors has been documented in the U.S. and Canada in the last thirty years. And not all of those twenty-five cases were committed by Christians nor were all twenty-five cases murder (or attempted murder).

Why should all members of a faith be expected to denounce, and even apologize for, the actions of a fringe element? Again, do we hold all Christians responible for the actions of Eric Rudolph or David Koresh? I'm absolutely perplexed by this kind of behavior.

Now that is a ridiculous statement. First of all, members of a specific religion should protect their religion from those who would destroy it from within--i.e. radical elements of their faith. Those who stand by and allow evil to flourish are committing evil themselves. In that way, moderate Muslims are committing a sort of evil.

Second, when one little incident involving a Christisn who allegedly does something bad is the name of Christianity happens, Christians are expected to denounce him. And they do.

Third, Eric Rudolph--the only example nuts like the author can come up with--isn't Christian! He's a pagan who has denounced Christianity. None of his terroist activites were committed in Christianity's name. You got me on Koresh, though. Congratulations.

Anyone want to make a prediction regarding the first reported incident against a mosque or an innocent group of Muslims? And so the cylce of senseless violence continues.

Have you read the reports on violence against Muslims in the U.S.? It's almost nil. One or two alleged incidents happen and the media headlines read "Muslims under assault!" or "Rash of violence against Muslims continues!" Absurd.

However, since Sept. 11th, 2001, the acts of violence Muslims have committed against Jews in the U.S. has skyrocketed. Ah, the religion of peace.

The Democratic Party: The Party of Corruption.

This is a history lesson, folks. It's a brief history of the Democratic Party. The real history of the Democratic Party.

Martin Van Buren founded the Democratic Party in the middle 1820s. Though many of the those early Democrats were disgruntled former Jeffersonian Republicans, Van Buren's claim that the Democratic Party's foundation was based upon Jeffersonian principles was a falsehood. Jeffersonian Republicans believed in a small centralized government. Andrew Jackson, the first Democratic president, clearly did not. That old scoundrel Jackson--the worst president in U.S. history--expanded the powers of the presidency and ignored congress and the courts whenever it suited him. Jackson's presidency laid the groundwork by which nearly every Democratic president has followed. Corruption, lust for power and contempt for the constitution have marked almost every Democratic administration since.

Corruption and lust for power are part of the Democratic Party--it's been institutionalized and you cannot seperate the Democratic Party from it. All you have to do is take a look at the most recent Democratic administration. President Clinton and his cronies got away with more corruption--thanks in part to a left-leaning media who looked the other way--than President Nixon ever dreamed of. Nixon's downfall was trying to cover-up the watergate break-in. Compared to the stuff--stuff we know for a fact--that the Clintons got away with, the Watergate break-in--which was done to expose members of the Democratic National Convention who were running a prostitution ring--seems almost unimportant by comparison. Think: Hillary Clinton's office covered up the death of Vince Foster (I'm not saying Foster was murdered), Bill Clinton lied under oath and was disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar, Al Gore held fundraisers in houses of worship (which is illegal) and the Clinton administration received campaign donations from foreign sources. These are all facts. And that's just the Clinton administration. Need I point out the ineptitude of Carter? The corruption in FDR's administration (we know now that communists held high positions in FDR's administration--and FDR knew it)? The power-hungry and disasterous economic policies of the LBJ and Wilson presidencies?

The Democratic Party is synomonous with corruption.

When I look back at Democratic presidents, I can only find two I would call great: Cleveland and Truman. Not Wilson who was a white supremacist and who's policies badly damaged the economy. Not FDR who's policies prolonged the Depression (keep in mind that he kept Hoover's economic policies in place his first six years in office). Just Cleveland and Truman.

That isn't much to hang your hat on if you're a card-carrying Democrat now is it?

Dennis Prager exposes one of the left's biggest lies.

Check out Dennis Prager's recent column where he decontructs the one of the left's biggest lies: The left doesn't support the troops and should admit it.

Christianity is better than Islam--by far.

In spite of the constant attacks on Cristianity by the left, Christianity is the only thing standing in the way of radical Islamists's quest for world domination (for those of you who don't know, Islam is the religion of beheadings). It was that way several hundred years ago during the Crusades--there are morons who blame Christianity for the Crusades forgetting that the Crusades were simply a response by European Christians to Muslim aggression--and it's that way now.

Visit leftist blogs, though, and you'd think Christianity is as dangerous as Islam (if not more so). But that is a fantasy conjured up by the left. No evidence supports their ridiculous notion. There exists plenty of evidence to the contrary, however.

Even if we somehow come to the whacky conclusion that Christianity was the aggressor during the Crusades, what happened hundreds of years ago is hardly relevant today. Christianity has apologized for any abuses that happened during the Crusades. What is relevant is how Islam and Christianity treat human beings today.

In many Islamic countries if you're homosexual, you're condemned to die. In America (and it's American Christians who are the ones who receive most of the anti-Christian hatred) if you're homosexual, you are allowed to do just about anything you want--even if it literally kills people.

In Islamic nations if you're Christian, you will likely be persecuted and perhaps even killed because of your beliefs. In America, if you are Muslim (or any other religion), you're allowed to worship just about anyway you like.

In Islam, if you write a book saying bad things about Islam, you might have a warrant for your death issued. In Christianity if you write a book saying bad things about Christianity, you might be chastised by Christians but never threatened and certainly never killed.

Oh, and if you piss off Christians, you don't have to worry about passenger jets being rammed into buildings. Piss off Muslims and you'd better keep an eye out for low-flying aircraft.

A lot of people will say that those Muslims who commit abuses aren't following Islam and/or practicing an extreme version of Islam. First, go read the Koran. Muslims are intructed--commanded even--to commit horrible abuses (please don't bring up Bible passages that allegedly state similar things because you have no idea what you're talking about). But that aside, it does not matter what the Koran states. It's what the practitioners of Islam do that matters. And while most Muslims are rather ordinary folks, a huge portion of Islam is extreme and wants to destroy and enslave everyone who isn't Muslim.

My condemnation of Islam goes far and wide and includes not just the extremists but the so-called moderates as well. Moderate Muslims have said little condemning there extremist brethren and deserve to be chastised for their silence.

Simply put, Christianity is better than Islam. If we converted all Muslims to Christianity, the world would be at peace.

Idiot of the Day.

In yesterday's evening broadcast of NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams had this to say about the Iranian president-elect and allegations that he (the new Iranian president) may be a terrorist, "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."

Congratulations, Brian, you're the Idiot of the Day.

A glimpse at a possible Supreme Court nominee: Michael McConnell.

I'm intrigued by the some of the names being bandied about by Supreme Court watchers as possible replacements for Chief Justice Rehnquist or Sandra Day O'Connor or John Paul Stevens (the three most believe are most likely to retire soon). One name that keeps popping up is Judge Michael McConnell of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver and a University of Utah law professor.

McConnell opposed Roe v. Wade because, as he states in a 1998 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, "The reasoning of Roe is an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously." The Supreme Court "brought great discredit on itself by overturning state laws regulating abortion without any persuasive basis in constitutional text or logic."

McConnell believes that the court's first mistake was finding a right of privacy in the Constitution. "But the right of privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution," McConnell wrote. "Various judges, according to the Court, had found 'at least the roots of that right' in the First Amendment, in the 'penumbras of the Bill of Rights,' in the Ninth Amendment or in the 'concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.' This vague statement is tantamount to confessing the court did not much care where in the Constitution this supposed right might be found. All that mattered was it be 'broad enough' to encompass abortion."

But McConnell is no partisan conservative. He's an intellectual conservative who holds some opinions that clash with mainstream Republican beliefs. For example, in Bush v. Gore, McConnell felt that the Supreme Court should have given Florida more time to do a proper recount.

McConnell also opposed the impeachment of President Clinton writing that, "The inviolability of elections may be the most important constitutional principle that we wave. The best test of whether presidential misconduct rises to the level of impeachment is whether members of his own party are willing to join in the motion."

McConnell's reasons for not supporting the Bush v. Gore decision and the impeachment of President Clinton I find valid even though I disagree with him. When I look at McConnell's legal views overall, I find him to be a strict constitutional contructionist not swayed by partisanship nor beholden to any politcal party. While conservative, it's important to note that he's not a demagogue. While some Republicans and conservatives are wary of McConnell turning into another Justice Souter if appointed to the Supreme Court, I don't think that's likely. I believe McConnell would make a fine Supreme Court justice.

Most miss the point of the anti-flag burning ammendment.

The ammendment is about giving congress the right to decide whether or not to ban flag burning. The Supreme Court over-stepped their bounds when they handed down their decision in '89 and many in congress simply wants to correct this mistake. Congress should be making the laws, not the courts. This is the constitutional, correct thing to do. I seriously doubt that flag-burning will be banned. Besides, if it is, we are only talking about a fine for desecrating the flag. This whole thing is not about banning flag burning. It's about restoring congress's constitutional duty. It's amazing to me that people think this ammendment will ban flag burning. It won't. It gives congress the right to decide if flag burning should be banned. Get the difference? Good. Now go away. You're bothering me.

Supreme Court nominees.

More rambling from the senior blowhard from Massachussetts:

"It is ridiculous for some to claim the founders would not have wanted consultation," said Senator Kennedy on the Senate floor. "Before any person can be appointed, we have to consider what's best for the whole country ... No president can avoid the requirement of advice and consent," he said. The Democrats desperately want President Bush to consult with them on Supreme Court nominees.

First of all, since when do Democrats like Kennedy consider what is best for the country?

Screw 'em.

The President has no obligation to consult the minority opposing party on his nominations. Do you think for one minute that a Democratic president would consult senate Republicans if they (the Republicans) were the minority? Hell no. And a Democratic president should not have to. Advise and consent simply is the process of an up or down vote. Nothing more. Yet Democratic senators are crying about :sniff, sniff: being left out. Boo-hoo.

Screw 'em.

The president should have the right to have his nominees voted on without the threat of a filibuster or other dishonorable tactics loved by Democrats. There is no guarantee that some of President's Bush's nominees will be approved by the senate in a straight up vote. There are some Republicans who will not like some of the president's nominees while there will likely be a few Democrats who do like most, if not all, of President Bush's nominees. Just let the president--any president--submit who he wants. Then the senate can have hearings and vote. That's the way it has always been done with Supreme Court nominees and that's the way it should still be done.

Senator Durbin is a traitor.

Senator Dick Durbin is a traitor to the United States of America. He should resign. I don't want an apology (it would be meaningless from human filth like Durbin), I want him forced from his position by he fellow senators.

Tuesday, on the senate floor, Senator Dick "Turbin" Durbin said the following:

On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. ... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Boo-hoo, Durbin, you big fat baby, so it was a bit cold or perhaps a tad hot. And rap music was being played. But you think that's analogous to what the Nazis did?!? You're scum, Durbin, you're not much better than a Nazi yourself. If it was up to me, you'd be tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison for using language that will likely get Americans killed. Under the law, you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater; you cannot yell "American soldiers are Nazis" in a world that wants to see America destroyed. Your words incite are enemies and give aid and comfort to those who would destroy America (no, no, I'm not talking about your Democratic colleagues, I'm talking terrorists). You may as well join the terrorists since you are one by proxy anyway, you piece of crap.

If you had any decency whatsoever, you'd resign. I'd write more but I'd regret it: I'm not human scum like you.

Isn't the Democratic party a wonderful, loving, open-minded organization? Howard Dean hates Republicans, Senator Byrd compares senate Republicans to Nazis and now this nonsense.

Bill Russell is no Kareem nor Wilt.

There are certain absurdities sports fans and the sports media hold on to and won't let go no matter how illogical those viewpoints are. On the eve of the NBA finals, it's perhaps appropriate to point out some of the absurd notions that permeate NBA fandom and media:

Absurd notion #1 - Bill Russell is the greatest center in NBA history. While certainly Russell is one of the greatest, virtually the only argument Russell fans can put up as to why he's the greatest is the number of championship teams Russell was on (eleven). These fans fail to note that there are many factors as to why some teams win championships and some teams don't. To lay it all on one player is idiotic. Do I really need to point out who Russell had around him on those Celtic championship teams? Early on, when Russell was new to the league, the Celtics already had the seasoned backcourt of Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman and forward Tom Heinsohn--all three Hall-of-Famers. Those three were instrumental in helping Russell win his first few NBA titles. Cousy and Sharman retired soon into the Celtics dynasty but Sam Jones and K.C. Jones stepped up and the Celtics hardly missed a beat. And then there was John Havlicek--one of the best players in NBA history--and the Celtics continued their eleven-titles-in-thirteen-years championship run. Certainly Russell deserves a place among the NBA's greatest centers but his stats, his dominance just don't hold up to the Big Two: Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Compare the dominance and offensive capabilities of Russell to Wilt and Kareem and Russell just doesn't hold up. Russell averaged eighteen points a game in his best offensive year and has a career average of fifteen points per game! Compare that to Wilt's career average of thirty PPG--including a season where he averaged fifty (fifty!) PPG--and Kareem's career average of almost twenty-five PPG and it isn't even a contest. Yes, Russell was dominant on defense but then so were Wilt and Kareem. Sure, Russell was great rebounder but Wilt was his equal on the boards. Kareem wasn't the rebounder Russell was but then Russell only shot forty-four percent from the field (an embarassing average for a center)! No wonder Russell racked up the rebounds! And, of course, Kareem had the most dangerous shot in basketball history--the skyhook. Russell never had a shot.

So stop ranking Russell number one. The number of championships he has means nothing except that he was surrounded by other great players. When it comes to the number-one slot, it belongs to Kareem or Wilt.

I'll attack the purveyors of absurd notion #2 later this week. Utah Jazz fans, look out.

Leftists are stealing the site of World Trade Center.

Through the efforts of the American left, the World Trade Center memorial is about to become the International Freedom Center which will say little or nothing about the heroic efforts of the police, firefighters and rescue workers who sacrificed their lives. Nor will this so-called Freedom Center be a memorial to those murdered on 9/11. Instead, the Freedom Center will become a "tribute to freedom around the globe in a post-9/11 world". This means, of course, that nearly every exhibit will include a good dose of America bashing. The IFC's own mission-statement includes this load of crap:

MISSION AND VISION

The International Freedom Center - a multi-dimensional cultural institution combining history, education and engagement – will be an integral part of humanity’s response to September 11. Rising from the hallowed ground of the World Trade Center site, it will serve as the complement, and its building as the gateway, to the World Trade Center Memorial, playing a leading role in the Memorial’s mission to “strengthen our resolve to preserve freedom, and inspire an end to hatred, ignorance, and intolerance.”

This is so wrong on so many levels. And guess who is behind this nonsense? Far-left Columbia professors, a group headed by the ACLU and George Soros. Anti-Americans all. I encourage all clear-thinking Americans to rally and put a stop to this absurdity. The WTC memorial should only be about the heroes and victims of 9/11. It should not be used as soapbox for the left--or the right, for that matter. The memorial should belong to all Americans. Please contact your representatives in congress--because this is being partially funded by your tax dollars--to put a stop to this atrocity.

Amnesty International protects terrorists.

I'm a bit late on this story, but here goes:

Recently, Amnesty International compared the military prison at Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet Gulag. The left is infamous for making outrageous comparisons but this one really is absurd. Thousands upon thousands of ordinary Soviet citizens were murdered in the Soviet Gulag while Gitmo houses a few hundred terrorists. This Gitmo/Gulag comparison is simply idiotic. Amnesty International is a worthless organization that clearly has an anti-American agenda and to further that agenda, they ignore real human rights abuses. The Executive Director of Amnesty International, William Schulz, even admitted that Amnesty's accusations of human rights abuses at Gitmo are imagined when he said that they "didn't know for sure" if the military was running a gulag. So these accusations come out of left field. This admission by Schulz shouldn't come as a shock, really, since the left is truth-challenged when it comes to just about everything. If Amnesty International was really interested in human rights, they'd go after the the racially-motivated abuses by Muslim Arabs in Darfur where women are gang-raped and murdered everyday by members of the religion of peace. Where is Amnesty International on this one? They're more worried about what U.S. military prison guards at Gitmo may have done to terrorists than they are about what terrorists do to innocent women and children. Large-scale gang rape and murder just isn't a priority to Amnesty International. Protecting terrorists is.

Mark Felt isn't a hero.

Am I the only one sickened by the media lionizing Mark Felt aka "Deep Throat"?

There are some serious questions that need to be asked about Mark Felt and Watergate. For example, if Felt was really interested in bringing the Nixon administration to justice, why did he circumvent a legitimate FBI investigation? The fact that Felt went to two reporters suggests justice wasn't his motive. More like revenge. Remember, upon J. Edgar Hoover's death, Nixon passed over Felt for the FBI's number one job. It should also be noted that Felt did many of the same things (i.e. illegal break-ins) he accused the president of. In fact, Felt was convicted for illegal activities including illegal break-ins. This guy didn't care about justice. He had an axe to grind and conspired with Woodward and Bernstein to remove President Nixon. It was a coup d'tat. Going back to the 1950s, the media disliked Nixon intensely. After all, Nixon went after all those commie buddies the media had--including Alger Hiss. Felt and Woodard/Bernstein used eachother to take down a man they hated (albeit for different reasons). It's that simple. To lionize this rat is disgusting. And hippocritical to boot. Remember how Linda Tripp was treated by the media? She did the same thing Felt did but the media destroyed her (rightly so but Felt should suffer the same fate). But wait! The difference is, of course, that Nixon was a Republican and Clinton wasn't. I'm certainly not saying Nixon was a school-boy. I consider Nixon to be one of the worst presidents in U.S. history and I feel he deserved to be taken down--but not by an illegal coup. It should have happened through an FBI investigation and, subsequently, through the House and Senate of the United States. It should have happened properly and legally. As it is, Felt is as bad as Nixon--worse, really, because Nixon eventually came clean. Felt lied to everyone for thirty years. He should be hated and despised, not lionized.

Oh brother...

In a recent blog entry at www.msnbc.com, MSNBC "news" personality Keith Olbermann, who wouldn't know a fact if it smacked him across the head, wrote some pretty ridiculous things about the controversey over White House spokesman Scott McClellan's comments regarding Newsweek. Some highlights in silliness include:

"Of course, everybody in the prosecution of the so-called ‘war on terror’ has done something dumb, dating back to the President’s worst-possible-word-selection (“crusade”) on September 16, 2001."

Actually, Keith, crusade is the most appropriate term the president could have used. I wouldn't expect Mr. Olbermann to know much about the Crusades other than what he reads from Left-Wing Weekly but all five Crusades were a response by Europeans to Muslim aggression. Like European Christians in the middle-ages, we were attacked by Arabs in the name of Islam. Call a spade a spade: Any response to Muslim aggression should be called a crusade.

"The news organization turns to the administration for a denial. The administration says nothing. The news organization runs the story. The administration jumps on the necks of the news organization with both feet — or has its proxies do it for them."

"That’s beyond shameful. It’s treasonous."

So Keith Olbermann thinks the Bush administration are a bunch of traitors. Lovely. No wonder the White House has a problem with the media. Can you blame them (the administration, not the media)? Olbermann and his ilk love throwing around terms like "unpatriotic" and "treasonous" yet when a conservative hints that a liberal may not be acting in the best interest of the nation--a legitimate point--liberals immediatly cry foul and accuse the right of McCarthyism.

So much for tolerance.

"While places like the Fox News Channel (which, only today, I finally recognized — it’s the newscast perpetually running on the giant video screens in the movie “1984”) ask how many heads should roll at Newsweek, it forgets in its fervor that both the story and the phony controversy around it are not so cut-and-dried this time."

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Other than the obvious insecurity complex Olbermann exhibits with tired attacks on Fox News, Olbermann shows a complete ignorance when it comes to George Orwell's 1984. In that book, it's the tolitarian left that is the villain (you know, guys like Olbermann). I think it's much more likely that Countdown is being shown on those screens.

"Either way — and also for that tasteless, soul-less conclusion that deaths in Afghanistan should be lain at the magazine’s doorstep — Scott McClellan should resign. The expiration on his carton full of blank-eyed bully-collaborator act passed this afternoon as he sat reeling off those holier-than-thou remarks. Ah, that’s what I smelled."

Ah, I see. McClellan is soul-less. Nice. Coming from a godless commie heathen like Olbermann, this doesn't mean a whole heckuva lot, does it?

Holier-than-thou remarks? Keith, Keith, Keith. Do you ever listen to yourself?

Oh brother...

Pop singer acknowledges kids aren't born "gay".

Recently, pop singer Moby had this to say about homosexuality: "As a matter of fact, I was talking to my friend Laura, who sings on [my latest] record, and we're both getting to the point where we want to start families. We're convinced that if we have children, we're going to do everything in our power to make them gay."

How refreshing to hear this sort of thing from someone so far to the left. Finally, someone on the left is acknowledging that homosexuality isn't completely inherent.

But one has to question Moby's parental credentials. Why on Earth would any loving parent encourage a male child to be gay? That's nearly a death sentence what with the AIDS virus ravaging the homosexual community. Maybe I'm nuts, but I think children should be encouraged to engage in activities that won't kill them at age forty. Like--I dunno--monogamous heterosexuality.

Moby may be a good singer but people who encourage children to be homosexuals should not be parents. Period.

What's in a name?

I'm fascinated by names. Years before my wife and I had our first child, we'd already heavily discussed possible names. It was important to both of us to name our children after relatives. But we didn't want to use outdated or old-fashioned names just for the sake of naming our chilren after a relative. We wanted good, solid traditional names for our kids. But we wanted to avoid trendy names even if they were traditional, too. So the challenge was to find a family member whom we liked and who also had a traditional name as long as the name was currently not trendy.

So we named our first kid Robert after my grandfather.

But the middle name was important, too. My father-in-law's first name is LeRoy so we decided to give my son the middle name Roy. However, I wanted more. With a common last name like White, my wife and deceided that my son should have two middle names. So I gave my son my middle name as a second middle name.

When we had our second child, a girl, we decided to name her Mary after my wife's grandmother. For Mary's middle name, we decided on Kathryn which is both my sister's name and my great-grandmother's name.

I think it's important to name children after family members who have been important and beloved figures in your life. It's a way to pass on a family legacy and pay homage to your past. I think it isn't done enough, frankly, and I think more people should name their children after family members.

But my brother has a different view. He, like me, thinks middle names should be for family members but first names should be unique to that family. I guess it's all where your coming from: I'm named after a relative, he isn't.

The Portrayal of McCarthyism in Comic Books.

In a recent storyline in the comic book JSA (Justice Society of America) by DC Comics, the modern-day JSA traveled back in time to save the JSA of the early 1950s. It seems a time-traveling villain by the name of Degaton has it out for the JSA and he has traveled to the 1950s to destroy the team of that era so that the modern team will never exist. And what is Degaton's mode of destruction? Is it a bomb? Or will he murder the team members one-by-one? Nope. Degaton will be using Senator Joe McCarthy to permanently dismantle the JSA in the name of protecting America from communism.

Other than being an extremely predictable storyline by using McCarthy as the villian, the view of McCarthy as a threat to democracy is absurd. McCarthy is an easy target for anyone writing about the 1950s but nearly everything written about Senator McCarthy is libelous. Joe McCarthy was a patriot who was defending America from a very real threat: Communism. While McCarthy came into the game too late to really be of any use (we now know communist agents had already done irreperable damage to America before McCarthy got involved), his crusade to root out those who would sell our secrets to the Soviet Union was admirable.

Yet McCarthy is painted as a man who cared little about the truth and was going around falsely accusing people of being communists and trying to unjustly detain or imprison those same communists. Contrary to nutty claims by the left (who were sympathetic to the commies), no one was detained or imprisoned without due process. McCarthy was correct in that dozens of government employees were communists or communist sympathisers. The same lefties who had a tizzy fit about Joe McCarthy did not get worked up over New York Times columnist Walter Duranty covering up the crimes of Joe Stalin.

I like the writer of JSA (Geoff Johns) but his facts are in question. Especially when he tries to tie McCarthy in with the House Un-American Activities Commitee (HUAC). McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC. Here's a little tidbit leftist "historians" gloss over: Senator McCarthy was (duh) in the Senate! The 'H' in HUAC stands for House as in the House of Representatives!

Where is the disdain for John F. Kennedy? Kennedy, who was a U.S. representitive and a U.S senator in the 1950s, was so anti-communist (yeah!), he made Joe McCarthy look like Alger Hiss. Kennedy was enthusiastically along for the ride in any attempt to root out communists in our midst. But Kennedy was a Democrat so I guess he gets a pass.

Leftists do not care about the constitution.

If leftists truly cared about the constitution, they wouldn't misquote it so often. How many times do we here leftists ignorantly (or malevolently) spout off about "seperation of church and state" when that phrase appears nowhere in the founding documents of our nation? How many times do we hear leftists wanting to trash the second ammendment? If they truly cared about the constitution, why then do they say these things? The answer is, of course, they don't care about the constitution.

To be clear, I'm not talking about true liberals like Senator Joe Lieberman. I'm talking about the left. The nutty, bigoted, hate-filled left. You know of whom I speak. The folks who have been physically attacking conservative speakers like Pat Buchanan and David Horowitz on college campuses. The folks who defend Ward Churchill. The folks who buy "Kill Bush" t-shirts. The folks who want to hold modern American Christians responsible for what European Christians did five-hundred years ago. Do you know how stupid that is? How bigoted and hateful that is? But this is the modern American left. The folks who think that those who view things as black and white are idiots yet they (the left) view Christianity as black, secularism as white.

Next time you think about bashing conservatives, think about this: Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill and their ilk can say the most idiotic, hateful things yet they never, never worry about being attacked. They don't need to hire bodyguards. But conservative speakers get attacked often. And some are forced to hire protection. The left is totalitarian and they don't tolerate disagreement. That's why you never hear guests that hold opposing viewpoints on Air America. But you hear opposing voices all the time on conservative talk radio. Dennis Prager and Sean Hannity have guests who disagree with them on their respective shows several times a week. Michael Medved only has guests who disagree with him (with rare exceptions). Conservatives tolerate dissent. We welcome dissent. The left doesn't want to hear that. They won't hear it.

Our universities are no longer about a universe of ideas.

Recent letters-to-the-editor in my local paper have me shaking my head at what people choose to believe. In response to a column published last week in the Ogden Standard-Examiner, many readers are taking the author of the column to task for pointing out the obvious: Colleges have become "monoversities" preaching only one viewpoint--a leftist viewpoint--as acceptable. These nuts who are writing into the paper and proclaiming that universities are open to all viewpoints are fooling themselves and ignoring the vast body of evidence that shows colleges to be havens for extremist leftist professors.

Over the last forty years, colleges have become increasingly hostile and intolerant to conservative ideas. Speech codes have targetted conservative ideas as "hate speech" in an attempt to silence anyone who isn't a leftist nut. Look at what recently happened at Colorado University and Harvard. These two cases illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. At Colorado, Ward Churchill spews out all sorts of extreme leftist nonsense even referring to victims of 9/11 as Nazis. He even lied about his racial background to get the job in the first place. Yet few of his colleagues have condemned Churchill and not one has asked him to resign.

Meanwhile at Harvard, an official spoke off the record about how he thinks men and women just might be different (what a concept) and he's suddenly on the hotseat and being asked to resign by nearly every leftist in the nation. His colleagues are asking him to resign. What is even more absurd about this is that the Harvard official's comments were off-the-record while Ward Churchill's comments were during a very public speech!

Professors in the social sciences are continually teaching kids to hate America. I've had these professors and they outweigh the conservative pofessors I've had by a six-to-one margin. And I know for a fact that the few conservative social science professors I've had are harassed by their colleagues for daring to have an opposing viewpoint. And the university I attend is considered conservative! It makes me wonder what kind of crap is happening at liberal colleges!

Ninety percent of our colleges have speech codes which try to enforce leftist intolerance in the name of social diversity and cultural sensitivity. So when it comes to the only diversity that really matters--intellectual diversity--only the left is allowed to speak.

Those who are defending colleges as "open to all viewpoints" are intellectually dishonest and sadly out-of-touch.