Backwards America - Part 2

on Sunday, December 23, 2007

Here's some pleasant news just in time for the holidays:

Poll: 27% of Americans think the Christmas season should focus LESS on Jesus Christ

...and to confirm, here's a screenshot from the pollster's website:

Who in the world are these people!? 81 million Americans think that a holiday that celebrates the birth of Christ... should focus less on Christ. Un-believable

Betcha anything Barbara Walters sides with the 27%.

Backwards America - Part 1

on Thursday, December 13, 2007

For months on end now I tear my hair out every time I read news stories about how certain Americans have their thinking totally backwards... Instances like when libs say American soldiers are losers, that 9/11 was committed by American insiders, or when tax-funded schools prohibit students from displaying American flags in their lockers or on their clothing. I've been wanting to hit stories like these all at once, but since they are becoming so commonplace I have instead decided to start a segment called "Backwards America." Whenever some useful, liberal idiot out there has their brain wired backwards be sure to check in here and hear all about it. And with that, let's get started...

Today's occasion takes us no further than Capital Hill where your worthless Congress (once again) has pandered to a few small minority groups while stabbing the rest of us in the back. Just a day or two ago a resolution to honor Christmas and the Christian faith hit the floor - and nine Democrats voted against it. Now I'm sure some atheist out there is thinking, "But Mike, not all of us in America are Christians, LOL!" True, but then why did those same 9 Dems vote 'YES' to support earlier resolutions to honor the holidays of Islam and Hinduism? I'd love to hear Pete Stark answer that one. After all, about 80% of Americans are Christian and Congress is elected to represent the rest of the American population. So why are they voting against our values and beliefs?

What in the world is wrong with these people?! How did they get elected and who voted for them?! Something is seriously wrong when political correctness demands an honoring of two religions which had no part in our nation's founding, while simultaneously demanding the disavowing of the very religion that is the founding principle of this land of freedom that these politicians call home.

Blogger-in-Chief 'Allahpundit' wisely puts it this way: "The left sometimes seem to have it in its mind that the Establishment Clause contains some sort of equal protection component that makes it okay to endorse minority religions, however symbolically, while scrupulously resisting the faith of the majority lest it burst into theocracy. No such doctrine, boys."

Political correctness in this country is smothering everything you and I believe in.

On a similar note, Barbara Walters is mad that she got a 'religious' Christmas card from the Bush family. Watch this:

Huh?... Barbara, Christmas is a religious holiday, hun! The hint is in the holiday’s name, you insufferable dimwit. Seriously, only a liberal could get offended when somebody wishes them a Merry Christmas. Hey Barb, are you offended that the Kabaa in Saudi Arabia features banners with Koranic verses? In your words, "Wouldn’t that offend everyone who isn’t Muslim?" Or what about when the Empire State Building was recently lit up in green to celebrate Ramadan? I didn't hear you complaining then! But when somebody sends a Christmas card with a Bible verse, oh, that's way out of line.

I'll bet anybody $100 that Barbara will never say a word about any Hanukkah, EID, or Divali cards she has gotten this season.

By the way Barb, at least the Bush family sent you a card, regardless of your constant public criticism of them. Did you send one to them?

Holiday Spending - Democrat Style!

on Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Most of us know that the holidays is a major time for spending, but Nancy Pelosi has shown us how to take that to a whole new level.

Reports today have released figures stating that your Speaker of the House, Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, has spent $16,000 of your tax dollars... ON FLOWERS FOR HER OFFICE!!

Pelosi has spent $3 million of your taxes in her first nine months in office, 67% more than her predecessor, Dennis Hastert (a republican), spent during his first nine months as Speaker.

Included in that $3 million, Pelosi has spent:

1) Over $60,000 of your hard earned tax money on personal travel - a figure which doesn't even include her worthless frolicking to the Middle East and Europe.

2) $10,000 to a former Clinton White House speechwriter for one, single speech she delivered to the Israeli Knesset.

3) $20,000 to a lawyer to help her "transition" into her latest post as Speaker.

4) Over $2,400 to a makeup artist for her makeup during the week of her swearing in.

...all of which is your tax money. And remember, these are the same people who blew away your Social Security. And who think they can cheaply run nationalized health care.

UPDATE: Oh yeah, Merry Christmas:

NBC Hates the Troops

on Sunday, December 9, 2007

...but are any of you surprised in hearing that? You shouldn't be after NBC's decision this week not to air an ad from Freedom's Watch, a conservative group that supports both President Bush as well as our troops' presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Freedom's Watch wanted to run ads on NBC thanking the troops for their service during this holiday season, but NBC rejected the ads saying they were "too political."

Oh really?...

See the ads for yourself:

You're right NBC, saying thank you is way over the line... Good call for refusing to run the ads thanking those who risk their lives for you every day. I now see that saying a mere "thank you" during the holidays is way too political. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

NBC said their decision to not air the ads was based on an internal, "decades-old" policy stating that airing the ads would "violate the network's prohibition on controversial issue ads." In other words, NBC has a policy that prohibits them from airing messages that are too political or controversial. But if that's the case then I must pose the following question to NBC: If you refused to air ads thanking troops because they are "too political or controversial" then why did your network (NBC Universal) air the following ad from John Edwards on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show (which you also own) mere days within 9-11 and just minutes after Bush's speech to the nation regarding the war in Iraq?

...or what about the ad from that aired during the Today Show (which you also own, NBC) asking Americans "how many more troops will die" (which you can see here).

CAN YOU HONESTLY SAY THAT EDWARD'S/MOVEONE'S ADS AREN'T POLITICAL OR CONTROVERSIAL?!? Give me a break, NBC! You allowed John Edwards' to spew that crap within an hour of a presidential address about 9-11 and Iraq and then you approved MoveOn's filth to penetrate your airwaves on one of your most popular shows - but then you refuse to air a humble ad thanking the troops while they are away from home during the holidays because it's "too controversial." Shame on you.

A further investigation by a research group has found that one of NBC's lawyers behind the decision is a major Democratic supporter and has contributed at least $45,000 of his own cash to support people like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. Shocka!

UPDATE: In light of all this dirty laundry, no wonder NBC has decided to run the ads after all.

Stop Breathing to Save the Environment!

on Friday, December 7, 2007

Global warming fanatics are losing it. Just a few days ago the top link on Yahoo news was: Divorce causes global warming. A few weeks before that, a woman in Britain made headlines when she had herself "fixed" so that she couldn't have any children. Why, you ask?? Because she said having children is "selfish" and destructive to the environment. Australian researchers are even trying to replicate a bacteria found in kangaroo stomachs and then place it in cows because kangaroo flatulence is "better for the environment."

These people have lost their minds.

Is anyone else getting the feeling that EVERYTHING is being blamed as either a cause or an effect of global warming? British professor Dr. John Brignell does. In fact, he has painstakingly compiled a website that has around 600 links of news articles blaming everything on global warming.

Some of the links are totally hypocritical. For example: Global warming causes avalanches to be reduced AND avalanches to be increased. Global warming causes bananas to be destroyed AND bananas to grow better. Global warming causes coral reefs to shrink AND coral reefs to grow. (Check out the list for yourself, I'm not making this up!)

Meanwhile, to combat the evil forces of rising pollution, leaders from 187 different nations are flying to a resort in Bali for a UN conference to discuss the Kyoto Protocol and global warming. But researchers estimate that the pollution caused by those flying to the convention will be equal to that of 20,000 cars in one year. So in other words, global warming leaders are causing massive amounts of pollution... in order to discuss reducing pollution. Makes sense, doesn't it?!

And while you all let that sink in, I'm going to be reading about how global warming is causing Christmas gingerbread houses to collapse.

Your Lying, Hard-Working Democrats

on Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Democrats were so giddy when they took back the House and the Senate last year. Nancy Pelosi and her dog Steny Hoyer proclaimed that in their "first 100 hours in power" they would eliminate worldwide poverty, cure cancer, and put chocolate milk in every school drinking fountain in America.

But as is the case with modern Dems, their promises turned up empty and their first 100 hours resulted in bupkis. As time passed, Pelosi and her cronies continued to vow that they "really would work harder than the Republicans, dude!"

But surprise, surprise... they lied yet again.

The official 2008 calendar for the Democrat controlled House has been published. How many 5-day workweeks should we expect from our hardworking Dems all next year? How about 3.

You know, you'd like to think that when you have one of the lowest approval ratings in the history of the House you wouldn't take more vacation time. But then again, Democrats never really have been intertested in actually getting anything done, have they now?

As a personal side note, I wish I could make Pelosi's tax-payer paid salary of about $200,000 a year and only have to show up to work Mon-Fri only 3 times a year...

See the 2008 Congress calendar for yourself here.

Here's a video which I think sums up this post perfectly:

News Flash: Bush Made the Right Decision After All!

on Wednesday, November 21, 2007

For years now, critics of President Bush have hounded him for his decision to block the use and destruction of infant embryos in government-funded stem cell research. They argue that he alone has single-handedly stopped progress toward medical science that would allow us to create organs, cure disease, and reverse paralysis. Many have hated him for this decision.

Turns out he was right after all.

Since scientists could not use government funds to use embryos in stem cell research, they were forced to find an alternate path in their research -- and now it sounds like they found it.

Thanks to Bush's stick-to-it-iveness, researchers in Wisconsin and Japan have found a way to create stem cells from your own body using nothing more than skin cells. One of the greatest things about the discovery is that tissues or organs grown from the stem cells could be transplanted into the person who actually donated the skin cells and not be rejected. There are still kinks to work out, but thanks to Bush, killing baby embryos is no longer necessary.

This news has been flying under the radar for some time now, nice to hear that the MSM has finally started to catch on.

It's A Sign From God

on Monday, November 12, 2007

After leaving a press conference on Sunday (Veteran's Day), Hillary begins to exit the stage. As Hillary approaches the American flags, they collapse at her feet for no apparent reason. What you are about to see is pure poetic foreshadowing:

How perfectly symbolic and approprite! America would surely fall in a similar manner if Hillary becomes president. This is clearly an omen of things to come.

Headline Haven

on Sunday, November 11, 2007

Here are the top headlines from the weekend:

Hillary Clinton's Phony Q&A Session - This past week, the Clinton crew was in Iowa trying to muster up support for her heavily damaged campaign. As is common in many campaign speeches, Hillary took a handful of questions from the audience following her usual bland rhetorical sermon. One of the questions posed to Clinton: What would you (Clinton) do to stop the effects of global warming?

A fair question, but many have asked... was the question even real?? According to college student, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, the questions were planted. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask].” So Muriel simply did what they told her to and asked the dumb global warming question as Clinton's staffers gave hand signals to Hillary so she'd know who to call on.

When asked about the student's accusation, Mark Daley, Clinton’s Iowa Communications Director, responded by saying, “It’s not a practice of our campaign to ask people to ask specific questions,” and further denied that audience members are given specific questions.

But when directly asked if his statements meant that planting does not occur in the Hillary campaign, Daley said that they don't occur “to the best of my knowledge.”

Ah but alas, as is common with the Clinton's shrouded campaign of lies, Hillary's campaign spokesman Mo Elliethee later admitted that the campaign had indeed lied and had, in fact, planted the question. Crooked.

UPDATE: The evidence has been found! Here is a screenshot of the girl who asked the question winking and smiling as she gives the microphone back to the Clinton aide. Conicidence??:

A second student has also come forward claiming that he was a Clinton plant as well - Story still developing...

Multi-Millionaire Hillary Hates Little, Poor Women - Hillary - the self-proclaimed spokeswoman of the struggling, working-class woman in America - stopped off at a diner for breakfast during her same tour in Iowa... and then stiffed the struggling, working-class waitress by not leaving a tip. In the words of Stephanie Tanner, "How Rude!"

John Edwards Gets Boo-ed Off Stage - At a recent John Mellencamp concert, the singer talked to the crowd about how his generation had failed to accomplish many of the things they’d set out to do — you know, good and noble things like legalize marijuana and such... Shortly thereafter, Mellencamp motions for John Edwards to take the stage. According to a link I found through HotAir, Edwards addressed the audience amid several boos and then was forced to shut his mouth and step aside as the boo-ing continued. In the words of one fan at the concert: "The crowd is mostly booing at this point. 'I came for a concert,' one man behind me yelled. 'Refund. Refund,' another chanted a few rows back... Edwards stood on the darkened edge of the stage until the song was over, then exited. Mellencamp didn’t say anything at the song’s end, and there was a swell of chatter among the audience members [as Edwards exited in embarrasment amid several bras skewn across the stage]. Ouch.

In Case You Missed It...

on Wednesday, November 7, 2007

I know I already posted something on global warming today (see post immediately below this one), but this was just too good to sit on so I just had to post it for you all tonight:

Below are some bold words from John Coleman, a renowned meteorologist and the founder of The Weather Channel. The following quote from Coleman concerning global warming was taken from his website earlier today:

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend."

Wrong Again!

Do all of you remember about 6 months ago? Late Spring... when all of the global warming fanatics were ranting and raving about how warming sea temperatures and such were going to produce a devastating hurricane season. "Look out!" they preached, "We're going to have several more hurricane Katrinas this year alone, and that's just the beginning!"

Boy were they wrong! Actually "global warming" and "rising sea temperatures" have produced one of the slowest and weakest hurricane seasons on record. And I have data from a major university to back it up:

Check it out. Out of the last 30 years, only 3 of them have been less active than this current year so far. And we've only had ten total hurricanes since Katrina - and only 5 this year! So where are all those hurricane-obsessed global warming zealots now?...

(Cue chirping crickets sound bite)

Folks, this is getting out of hand. Even the moonbat media is preaching this stuff to you and your kids like it's a religion. Did anybody see the Cowboys-Eagles football game on NBC this past Sunday? Well they tried to go "green" that night during the halftime show by turning off all the lights in the studio as NBC pawn Bob Costas tried to do the show via candlelight. Here are some screenshots. (PS - Thanks again to HotAir for all this...)

Ok, so let's see. We have a HUGE 200 inch LCD screen running behind Costas, we have news diva Matt Lauer standing in some remote arctic location doused in hundreds of square feet of bright artificial light (which requires electricity), we have powerful heaters keeping the crews warm and camera equipment running at an operable temperature, we have tons of electricity being used to run the cameras and other sound and communication equipment, we have candle smoke polluting the air in the studio, and to top it all off, NBC burned full tanks of jet fuel to fly Lauer and the camera crews/equipment to the remote location. Yup, turning all of those studio lights off really saved one heck of a lot of energy, NBC. Way to be green! How pathetic...

Look, I'm all for recycling and turning off lights when you leave the room to save power and such, but can you see how this global warming thing is all just a fad? NBC obviously isn't concerned about trying to save power. They're just pandering to the left in an effort to be "popular, dude."

Besides, is this crusade to stop something we can't fully control even worth the cost? Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to help curb the human-caused global warming "crisis."

Meanwhile, the Democrats in Washington are whining that they don't have the hundreds of millions of dollars they need in order to provide health care to children. Hmm, I wonder where they could get that money from...

Red Flag Alert

on Tuesday, November 6, 2007

In doing my normal rounds of political news reading this morning, I stumbled across a nice gem of info. Folks, this has just been a bad week for Hillary and if ever there was a red flag warning us of the secrecy and corruption to come if Hillary becomes president, it's this. Here's the latest news headline:

"Hillary's Secret 1990s campaign papers won't be available to the public until 2009, long after elections have passed."

Now why would she do that? What has she got to hide?

So what do those papers contain anyway? Well, a friend of the Clintons was allowed to interview close to 130 Clinton campaign aides back in the 1990s and her notes from those interviews filled 4 ginormous binders of juicy info. But the library that houses the papers states that they can't be released because "they are still being processed." Folks, that's a blatant lie. In the library's 2005-2006 annual libraries report, the library put on record that the documents are "nearing completion." And the leading archivist of the project implied in 2006 that the project was finished.

And now for some undisclosed reason, they say that the documents won't be completed until 2009. Something's fishy here.

Does anybody find this to be coincidence?? Here are the facts: Hillary keeps ranting and raving about her "experience" in government matters during her vacation in the White House - and yet actual written records of her actions in D.C. won't be released until after the election. And not just the papers I mentioned above, but 77 million pages worth and 20 million emails worth of documents from the Clinton era have never been released to the public. Now why would that be? Maybe because she doesn't want you to know that she failed at virtually EVERY project she headed up during her husband's tenure as President. Or maybe she doesn't want you to find out that she, in fact, has ZERO leadership experience in an executive setting. Maybe she doesn't want you to see that her original health care plan failed miserably, or that the Clinton's campaign was so corrupt that 73 House and Senate witnesses have pled the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses actually have fled the country to avoid testifying about the Clinton's and other Democratic campaign fundraising.

Whatever the reason, this should be a huge red flag warning you to stay away from Hillary's campaign of corruption. She is trying to hide documents that will expose her for what she really is: a corrupt, inexperienced, lying politician bent on doing whatever it takes - regardless of how shady or illegal it may be - just to make it into office so she can raise your taxes, squash your freedoms, and ruin your life.

Vacation's Over

on Monday, November 5, 2007

Don't worry kids, I'm still alive.

I just started a new job a few weeks back which has been quite demanding of my time and I also had 5 tough midterms during that same period so this blog had to go on hiatus for a few weeks - but that's all finished up so you can start checking here regularly again as I will continue posting all the time once again.

Now I thought about doing a post highlighting some of the recent events of the last few weeks... but that post would've been 15 pages long cuz there's so much. So instead I'm just gonna pick up where I left off as if I hadn't missed the last few weeks. Anyway, here's the latest embarrassment from the Dems-

A few days ago the Democratic presidential hopefuls held another pathetic debate that would rival most 1980s game shows. I finally switched it off after Kucinich and Richardson began raving about the existence of UFOs... yup, just like I said, pathetic. Once again this proves how Democrats have absolutely NO vision for the future of this country. Let's remember that there is a war in the Middle East, Iran has vowed to "wipe Israel off the map" and is currently developing nuclear capabilities, Islamic fascists are infiltrating all levels of government and education across the world - and yet all your Democratic candidates can debate is UFOs!!

It is absurd that people in this country actually want to vote these losers into office! Look, if we're gonna spend time talking about aliens then let's talk about the illegal aliens that actually DO exist in our own borders. Seriously folks...

Hillary's performance in this single debate has severely hurt her campaign. She has lost huge support and funding simply because her demagoguery has finally caught up with her. She refused to take a stand on any particular issue. In fact, here's a video put together by John Edwards' camp ripping Hillary for her embarrassing performance at the debate:

Did you catch that? She refuses to take a firm stance on anything! And yet she's the front runner for the Democratic nomination - and if you all don't do your part to prevent her from reaching office, then she will become the most powerful person in the world. I'd hate to be her campaign manager and clean up after the mess she just created.

Obama also played the appeasement card by saying that we aren't doing enough to keep children alive and healthy. Hmm.. Well I have a question for you then Mr. junior Senator, if you are so worried about the health and well-being of children, then why are you in favor of abortion? After all, close to 50 million abortions occur in the world each year, and several million abortions have happened in the U.S. since you've been campaigning to "save the children." Obama = two-faced phony.

I can't wait for the next Democratic debate featuring arguments about Big Foot and Nessie.

The Democratic Matters Party

on Wednesday, October 3, 2007

A few days ago, Harry Reid cowardly pandered to the extreme left yet again by proposing a Senate censure against Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh mentioned the words “phony soldiers” in reference to soldiers who claim to be soldiers (but in fact aren’t) in a false effort to get free money and other benefits from the government that they haven’t rightfully earned. Rush never said all of the troops were phony, but that didn’t stop Reid and about 40 other Democrats from calling him to the table in a biased effort to silence him while purposely attempting to intimidate other conservative talk-show hosts and their advertisers. And all this simply because Rush’s views are different from those of Reid and his cronies.

Here are Reid’s exact words from the Senate floor regarding Limbaugh:

“Last week, Rush Limbaugh went way over the line, way over the line. While I respect his right to say anything he likes, his unpatriotic comments I cannot ignore. During his show last Wednesday, Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This one was unremarkable, indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years, until he crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq, and I quote, ‘phony soldiers.’”

Hmm. Now I don’t listen to talk radio much simply because I don’t have the time. But I have been following this story because, for me, this is THE single greatest evidence of the ‘Liberal’s Caliphate’ to control the media by forcing it to show only a liberal point of view. Here’s why:

Rush has a 20+ year track record of supporting the men and women in uniform and has supported the Iraq war from day one, but as soon as he says one little thing that they can twist and distort in an effort to falsely slander him with – they try to censure him. But wait, Mr. Reid… If you can’t ignore his “unpatriotic comments,” why is it that you never censured the following Democrats for their anti-soldier remarks:
  • John Kerry – “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
  • John Kerry – “American soldiers [ have been] going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, [and] women”
  • Jack Murtha – U.S. Marines have "killed innocent civilians in cold blood"
  • Barack Obama – Our troops are “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians”
  • Hillary Clinton – Believing General Petraeus requires a “suspension of disbelief”
  • Dick Durbin – Our American troops are “Nazi’s”

In fact, Mr. Reid himself has boasted several anti-troop remarks:

  • Reid – “The war is lost”
  • Reid – “20 minutes ago in the Senate…we killed the Patriot Act.”
I've just gotta ask...

Why didn’t you censure these individuals, including yourself, Harry? Why haven’t you censured Rosie O’Donnell for her hideous remarks against our troops? Or Sean Penn? Or Michael Moore? Or Keith Olbermann? Or ABC for their network special on "phony heroes" that aired just days before Rush's comments?

In fact, when the Senate put forth a resolution condemning for printing a despicable ad which trashes our troops and their leader, Gen. Petraeus, why did you vote AGAINST censuring them?!?!?!

Oh, that's right, because you are bowing to the alter of these left-wing groups as you blindly fulfill any task they put you to – regardless of how utterly insane it may be! You've become a puppet dangling from the fingers of Markos Moulitsas.

It makes me sick. Not surprisingly, those that voted against censuring all voted for censuring Limbaugh. Hmm. ‘Nope, there’s no liberal agenda here in Washington! No bias here!’

Can you see what’s happening here? Leading Dems in Washington have sold their souls to a couple of liberal websites started up by a bunch of deranged college hooligans who are only in their twenties. This is frightening, kids. Your Democrat controlled government has turned their backs on standing for ethics and values. They no longer serve you and they no longer serve the troops who protect them. Instead they only serve and grovel at the feet of a few anti-conservative groups like MoveOn, Media Matters, and the DailyKos – and they will continue to only serve the deep pockets of the Devil himself, Mr. George Soros.

Shameful. Just Shameful

on Saturday, September 22, 2007

Just a few days ago a resolution hit the Senate floor expressing support for both the troops and for General David Petraeus - the man whom the Senate unanimously voted into his position as Commanding General of the Multi-National Force in Iraq by a vote of 81-0. Here's an excerpt from the resolution's text. Read it carefully:

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;
(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and
(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group

Sounds worthy. But check out who voted against the resolution that supports both the troops and Gen. Petraeus:

There you have it kids, official proof that Hillary Clinton does not support the troops. Hillary, (who, by the way, still reportedly hasn't returned the dirty Hsu money as promised) appears to have sold her soul to in a cowardly attempt to retain her funding from the Devil himself, George Soros. Sad to see that Hillary (who wants to be your commander-in-chief) would rather side with the extreme left in order to score political points rather than support the troops that she herself wants to command. What a disgrace.

**Take note that several of Hillary's pathetic cronies in the Senate voted against supporting the troops as well (Harry Reid, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Robert Byrd, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, etc). Also notice that, once again, Obama is too cowardly to pick a side and decides to not vote. Why am I not surpirsed at his cowardice anymore?**

Hat Tip: HotAir (To whom I always turn when I need a pic of a Senate or House roll)

Bin Laden is Alive. Really. (PS - Not Really)

on Sunday, September 16, 2007

Look how easy it is to fudge a Bin Laden video.
(Make sure you watch the whole thing)

Hat Tip (Allahpundit)

Hillary's Campaign of Corruption

on Saturday, September 15, 2007

Check out Hillary's latest cabinet of kooks:

1) Norman Hsu -
As if the Clintons didn't have enough scandals under their belt, here comes yet another embarrassment. But just who is Norman Hsu? It comes as no surprise that the Clintons have, once again, turned to the Chinese to funnel money into their campaign for world domination presidency. But this time they may have pushed the envelope a little too far - even for a Clinton. Hsu is, more or less, a businessman whose life has been riddled with fraud and scandal. He reportedly led several illegal Ponzi schemes (similar to a pyramid scheme, except you pay off older investors with entry funds from newer investors) and even bankrupted a handful of companies at which point he admittedly became involved with the Triad gangs. In 1992 he plead guilty to a grand theft charge, but on the day he was supposed to appear in court for sentencing, he fled the country and hid in Hong Kong for several years. After returning to the United States 2 bankruptcies later, Hsu invested in several more companies and ultimately became a large supporter of the Democratic Party. In the last 3 years he has raised over $1 million for the Dems and became a well-known 'bundler' to the tune of $850,000 for Hillary. This $850,000, which Hillary has used to support her run for presidency, came from Hsu's illegal business tactics for which he was supposed to be jailed.

But now I ask, why is it that a man who has been a fugitive on the run for 15 years has been able to donate to Hillary without her knowing that he was a fugitive? Answer: She knew he was a fugitive all along. But that has never stopped a Clinton from taking dirty money before, has it now...

Just a few short days ago, Hsu (again) skipped out on his court appearance, posted bail, and went on the lam once more, but was caught before he could get too far. During this time, Hillary has been backed into a corner. Her campaign has defended this mishap by claiming that they run background checks on all supporters like Hsu, but said that they ran a "flawed background check" on Mr. Hsu in that they left out his two middle names when doing his search so nothing bad ever turned up on him.

Liar liar, pants on fire...

Ok, first of all, you don't run a background check by name only. A background check requires exact, specific information including items like: A Social Security Number (or if they don't have one, a taxpayer ID number or I-551 documentation), a birthdate, an address, etc.. So there is no way in Hades that Hillary can dodge this by stating that the background check was "flawed." That's impossible. So the claim that they misspelled his name is a complete lie - and Hillary knows it. And secondly, just how effective are these in-depth background checks if they don't even notice that they are looking up the wrong guy!?

Hillary's camp has known about Hsu for a very long time. In fact, a campaign director for Hillary publicly stated that they have been looking over Hsu's public records for some time now. So how can one honestly believe that they didn't know anything about this guy?

Fact is she knew he was dirty the whole time, but she wanted his money and influence anyway. After all, if the Wall Street Journal and numerous right-wing bloggers can find out all this dirt on this guy, then why not Hillary Clinton - a United States senator and government official with unlimited resources to gov't records?!

2) Sandy "Docs in my Socks" Berger -
Hillary Clinton has announced that her National Security Advisor is none other than... Sandy Berger - the very same man who plead guilty to stealing and destroying classified documents related to the Clinton administration’s anti-terror efforts (or lack thereof), immediately before Bill Clinton’s testimony to the 9/11 commission. Berger on numerous occasions snuck into the National Archives and stuffed classified documents into his pants, jacket, and even into his socks in an attempt to destroy them before Clinton's mistakes became known to the public. At first, he too lied in an attempt to cover up the scandal, but ultimately plead guilty to the charges. He was forced to pay a fine and, in an attempt to avoid cross-examination by the Bar Counsel, he surrendered his license to practice law.

And now Hillary wants him to be your National Security Advisor.

Something is terribly wrong with this girl.

**This post's sources are (like all my other posts) left out to avoid clutter. But let me know if you need 'em and I'll send 'em your way**

Osama Still Bin Dead

on Monday, September 10, 2007

I already stated in a previous post that I think that Osama Bin Laden is dead - Well guess what, I still do!!

Osama has reportedly put out a new video which features a bumbling rant that rivals most liberal blogs - Osama: "Argh! Taxes, corporations, global warming, and mortgages!"

Keith Olbermann must've written the transcript for Mr. Bin Laden's tirade.

However, the true message of the video lies in the ultimatum offered by Bin Laden himself: "Join us, or we'll kill you."

Ah, but which form of Islam are we to embrace, oh gracious one? If it's Shi Islam, which hierarchy are we to follow? The Lebanese of Hussein Fadhlallah, the Iranianone of Khamenai, or the Iraqi with its four great Ayatollahs? Or if it's Sunni Islam then which doctrine do you recommend? The Shafi'i, the Hanafi, or the Salafi doctrine?.. Also, how will you regulate and moderate our conversion?

But he didn't clarify that for us, did he? Clearly the 'sheik' is full of it. It's quite obvious that Bin Laden has no intent on ever sparing the lives of Americans - the great 'infidels.'

But let's look more closely at the video itself. As I already said, I still think he's dead. Here's why:

Check out the following picture:

Take a real good look at the two faces. How can one honestly think that it's the same guy? Several things don't add up. For example:
1) Osama has a serious kidney infection which makes him look very ill and requires him to be on regular dialysis. Yet the man on the right, to echo numnerous sources, looks perfectly healthy.
2) When the U.S. attacked Tora Bora several years ago, Bin Laden was severely injured - almost killed, actually. In the attack, his left hand was crippled. But once again, the man on the right uses the injured hand without issue.
3) The shape of Bin Laden's face on the left is like an upside-down triangle. The man on the right has a face shaped like an oval.
4) The location and shape of the cheekbones don't line up.
5) The Osama on the right's eyebrows are thicker, darker, and hang at a different angle.
6) The nose is totally different.
7) The mouth and size of lips are different as well.
8) The video is quite blurry. Maybe so that you can't tell that it's not really Osama.
9) Finally, the beard. It's an obvious fake, but this doesn't necessarily mean it's not him. He could be hiding in a region like Southeast Asia where Muslims generally don't have beards. As this picture of a beardless Osama shows, he could walk around completely unnoticed if he shaved.

And even if it IS the real Osama, notice that the video freezes at about 1 minute and 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 and remains frozen until the end. That adds up to less than 4 minutes out of a 25 minute video in which you can actually see Osama move. Now why would they do that? Maybe the video freezes because Osama is so weak and ill that they had to do several takes because he couldn't speak for more than 30 seconds at a time. There are noticeable frame cuts at 13:19 and 13:25 - clearly some editing has been done to fudge the video.

But that's beside the point; Let's conitinue...

This is not the first time that As-Sahab, as well as other militant websites, have put out fake videos of Bin Laden to make the world think he is still alive. I can remember at least three instances of this - one of which I have already posted about. After all, why would they post 3 fake videos, and then a real one years later. If Osama is supposedly still alive, why not post real ones the whole time?? Why make fake videos with look-alikes if Osama was alive back then?

Some of you may be saying "But wait, Mike! The media and a few authorities have said that the video is authentic! So there!"

Riiiiight... Do you mean the same media and authorities that thought the last 3 As-Sahab videos were real (which turns out weren't)? Or maybe you're referring to the media that bought into this image:

Feb. 1, 2005. Remember this picture? The media went into conniptions when they saw this. They broke regular programming to announce special reports that Jihadists had captured a U.S. soldier and were going to decapitate him if Bush didn't meet their demands. Hmm. Take a closer look at the picture. That, my friends, is a G.I. Joe doll. A doll! And the media totally bought into it! So I'm not too surprised to hear that folks at CNN or Reuters think that this is the real Osama in the video. After all, they were fooled by an obvious doll - so why not a look-alike with some phony beard?

Why Universal Health Care Sucks

on Thursday, September 6, 2007

Miq al-Moor has a new anti-American movie out called “Sicko.” When first reading the title one might assume that this is some sort of autobiographical sketch of Moore. But alas, once again Moore’s documentary about American health care grossly distorts the facts, exaggerates a false view American ethics, and argues that anybody who disagrees with him is a ‘moron.’

But instead of focusing so much on the film itself, I would like to broaden the approach to include all of those who believe that universal health care (UHC) is a solution to the health care problem in America.

Before continuing, I want to make it clear that I admit that private American health care has its flaws. There are numerous problems which many other sources have addressed. But the purpose of this post is to show that the implication of UHC would have a devastating negative impact on America and that the current health care system is superior to UHC in almost every way. Below is a detailed breakdown of some reasons that UHC causes more harm than good:

1) UHC is NOT “free” health care
Not by a long shot. Recent estimates show that setting up UHC in America would cost about the same amount as the cost of the Iraq war, if not more!! Democratic presidential candidates have also stated that resources would be pulled from things like defense and education to help fund their multi-billion dollar “free” health care plan. Another estimate states that income taxes to the American worker would increase an extra 20% (that averages out to be between $510 and $1020 a month)! That’s about the same, and in most cases, less than most premiums cost for an entire family. So in other words, “free” health care would cost more than what most of us are paying for private health care right now. Also, since when does the government manage your money properly?? Name me one branch of government that functions efficiently and spends its money wisely. Just one. UHC would likely be just as inefficient.

2) I have a hangnail – Quick, I need a doctor!
Co-pays and deductibles are put in place to discourage people from going to the doctor for minor problems. Most people don’t want to pay a $30 co-pay just to have a physician look at their stubbed toe. But when a person can see a doctor anytime for anything without cost to them, they see a doctor all the time. As you may already know, I work in an emergency room. Just a few weeks ago we had a lady come into the ER for… a papercut! No joke. But since she didn’t have insurance, it was at no cost to her. She had nothing to dissuade her from going to the ER for such a minor issue. This type of abuse would happen on an epic scale if UHC was implemented. I also happen to know of a man (who again, doesn’t pay for his own health care) who visited a doctor about 50 times in a 2 year period. Once again, he has nothing to dissuade him from visiting the doctor for minor ailments like headaches or mild diarrhea. More patient visits cause longer lines at the doctor’s office – which brings me to my next point…

3) Less doctors = longer lines
I come across at least one liberal blog each week that tries to argue that this fact isn’t true. Well, it is. UHC always produces a shortage of physicians. Why, you ask? Because why would somebody want to go to college for 14-16 years just so that they can make $70,000/year. I wouldn’t. I could make that much after 4-6 years of college in some other field. Fact is, current doctors work hard to build a practice because, for him, it is a business; It’s how he makes his living... and when he works harder and studies more, he makes more money. But when the gov’t steps in, they control his salary and end up paying him less which violates free market principles. He no longer has incentive to build a private practice, provide superior care, attract new patients, and make more money. As a result, less people choose to become doctors. Less doctors, combined with increased visits for trivial problems, results in long lines and even longer waiting lists for people like you and I who need to see the doctor for more serious issues.

4) Fewer effective drugs
Drug companies would be hindered by price controls and regulations that would stem from UHC and soon they would be forced to cease research and development of new medications. Research for cures to cancer, Alzheimer’s, AIDS, Parkinson’s, etc., would be severely road blocked. American start-up drug companies would not be able to afford to compete with gov’t mandates, so the market would then be reduced, research would slow to a halt, and the pharmaceutical market would be dominated by a few established monopolies.

5) Hillary Clinton chooses whether you die or live
Hillary, among many other trillion-dollar promises, has promised UHC if she is elected president. What you don’t know about UHC is that the gov’t chooses whether or not you can have a specialized procedure. Need a lung scope? The gov’t will decide if you can have one. Want a C-section instead of a natural birth? Hillary will decide that for you. Need a heart transplant and you are over the age of 70? Well, the gov’t has decided that, since you’re old, you don’t get the surgery and finds that it’s in their best interest that you just die off instead of costing them thousands of dollars. Good Luck! (That's a true story, by the way.) And even if you are lucky enough to make the long waiting list for a procedure, remember, access to a waiting list is NOT access to health care.

6) Destruction of an entire economy
I have had a difficult time finding the exact number of Americans who work in the health insurance industry, but I know for a fact that it is in the millions (several hundred work in our hospital alone!). And if UHC takes over, all of those people will be out of a job. And I can promise you that millions of jobs WILL NOT be created in Washington to replace the ones lost.

7) Sub-par medical treatment
The quality of treatment decreases when UHC is implemented as Doctors Unions don’t govern quality control. Medical schools also need to keep their tuition flowing in if they want to survive the doctor shortage that UHC creates. Sometimes this results in accepting less qualified applicants. Weaker applicants generally make weaker physicians. And, as previously stated, a physician has little incentive to provide you with the best care you’ve ever had. This results in decreased quality of care to you and your family.

8) What?! Campaigning Democrats are demagogues? Say it aint so!
This is one of the best examples of demagoguery I have ever seen from the left. Dems have been calling for health care reform for years now. But it wasn’t until a study came out a few months ago stating that 41.2 million Americans are uninsured that Hillary, Edwards, and Obama said that they would provide health care to all Americans via united health care. In their minds it was like, “We can win 41.2 million votes if we promise health care to all those who don’t have it! Let’s do it!” Clearly, they saw this as simply another issue they can politicize and spin to their advantage to, as they see it, win an election. Well I’ve done a little homework and it turns out that the “41.2 million” number is distorted. Here are the actual facts:
Those 41.2 million people "without healthcare" in the U.S. are roughly 13.7 % of the entire population, which means that a whopping 86.3% of Americans actually HAVE insurance. Also take note that the 41.2 million figure includes people who were without healthcare for at least part of the year surveyed, meaning that some of those actually do have healthcare, but were in between jobs or something. Also, according the U.S. census, approximately one-third of that 41.2 million people live in households with an income over $50,000. And half of that third have an income of over $75,000. This means that at least one-third of those 41.2 million are people who can afford to buy healthcare but are choosing not to. Another third of that 41.2 million are people who are eligible for public health insurance programs but have chosen not to sign up for them. That leaves only about 13 million people (out of a nation of 300 million citizens) that don't have immediate access to healthcare. That's only about 4% of the entire population of America, a number far smaller than the 41.2 million originally sounds.

Once again, I admit that the current health care system is far from perfect and needs some reform – but universal health care is NOT the way to fix it. In fact, it may be the worst of all the options we currently have available. What we need to do is repair the system that we already have in place. How do we do that? Well here’s what Mitt Romney did while serving as governor in Massachusetts:

To briefly sum it all up, Romney modified a state fund that reimburses hospitals when they treat patients who can’t pay due to their lack of health care (the federal government has a similar fund). With it, they channeled the funds into another account to help float the costs medical premiums to citizens of Massachusetts. Romney then contacted the private insurers directly and asked them what they could do to lower premiums. They responded by stating that Massachusetts has several expensive mandates that force them to push premiums up. They basically said, “Get rid of the government mandates on us and we’ll be able to drop premiums.” So Romney, as governor, did just that. Premiums fell, the fund was set up to help cover costs, and citizens were soon able to afford private health care. If the plan continues as follows, every citizen of Massachusetts will have private heath care within the next decade – and all without raising taxes!!

A similar tactic could be used in a federal setting. Access to private health care could be available to all Americans without raising taxes or causing the other negative effects listed above. But people like Hillary don’t get that. They love Stalinist techniques in which they gain control over every aspect of your life. Do yourself, your family, your doctor, and your paycheck a favor by not supporting those that support united health care.

**Once again, I leave out my data sources to prevent clutter, but will make them available to all who request them**


on Saturday, September 1, 2007

Sorry kids, it's been kind of a slow week as far as politics go so I haven't had anything good to post. That being said, here's the latest:

My wife recently came across an article in which some idiot goes for the red herring approach by stating that President Bush's home uses as much energy as Al Gore's. I suppose that the purpose of their failed article is to get all of King Gore's critics to stop calling out Gore's hypocrisy by saying, "But hey, Bush's house uses lots of energy too, so there!"

Ah, but the difference is that Bush doesn't go on world tours on a campaign to get you and I to never drive a car or flick a switch again. Gore does. See the difference?

But I'd like to delve into this a little further if I may. After a laborious search, I was able to dig up some info on both Gore's and Bush's homes. Here's what I found:

Gore's Home Mansion on Steroids:
Gore's home is about 10,000 square feet, roughly 4 times the size of the average American's home. It's also well-known that Gore's home uses more energy (electricity and gas) than the average American uses in an entire year. The Department of Energy states that the average American household uses 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, yet Gore used about 221,000 kWh in 2006 - that's more than 20 times the national average!! And in August of last year, Gore drained over 22,600 kWh - more than double what you and I use in an entire year! His natural gas bills averaged close to $1,100 per month and Gore paid $30,000 in energy bills in 2006 alone.

Does that sound like an energy fanatic's house to you? Someone once wisely said, "Gore is willing to talk the talk, but not walk the walk." Clearly he is doing this solely for political and personal financial gain.

Bush's Home:
Bush's ranch in Texas in much more moderately sized at 4,000 square feet. One architect has stated that Bush's home utilizes "every 'green' feature that current home construction can provide." A closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps that heat and circulate water at a year-round temperature of 67 degrees Fahrenheit. This water runs through pipes throughout the home that provide both heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. This water is recycled over and over again and the pumps use no fossil fuels (natural gas). This innovative system also only uses electricity at a rate of about 25% of conventional heating/cooling systems. Rainwater from the roof and gutters is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern for later use. Wastewater for sinks, showers, etc., is purified and then sent to the same cistern where it is re-used in the home.

Well now, looks like Bush's home isn't so environmentally unfriendly after all...

...and as for the writers of the original Bush hating article mentioned above... you've been served.

Nobody Died When Clinton Lied... Oh, Wait, Yes They Did!

on Thursday, August 23, 2007

Many of us remember the 2006 interview that former President Clinton did with Chris Wallace. During the interview, Wallace questioned Bill whether or not his administration worked hard enough to capture/kill Bin Laden. In response, Clinton, red-faced and all, erupted and yelled while pointing his finger at Wallace, "What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.”


Well it just so happens that Michael Isikoff (one of the two men who first broke the Lewinsky story) has just uncovered more evidence of Clinton's pseudologia fantastica. Many assumed Bill was referring to a December 1999 Memorandum of Notification in which he authorized the capture (but not death of) Osama Bin Laden. The direct text from the inspector general's report states, "There was never any ambiguity (regarding Clinton's orders). “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone."


Except the difference between me and the leftist bloggers is that you will never hear me blaming Clinton for 9/11 (even though they love to pin 9/11 on Bush).

Democrats: I've Never Managed Anything! Vote Me into the Oval Office!!

on Monday, August 13, 2007

Sorry kids, I've been fairly ill for several days and haven't really been able to post anything... I'm all drugged up on Sudafed right now so the following post might not "flow" as well as other posts (if ya know what I mean), but here it is anyway:

Neither of the top two Democratic presidential hopefuls have never managed anything in an executive setting - ever!

Hillary - Has never managed a city, a state, a township, a payroll for a company, or even a taco stand during her life. She has argued that she gained tons of managerial experience during her husband's term in the White House... but if you ask me, flying around the world in Air Force One on an 8-year tax-funded vacation is hardly what I would call "managerial experience." The only thing she "managed" during her husband's term was a failed attempt to socialize medicine, which, by the way, was quite arguably the single biggest reason why the Republicans took over for the next 12 years!

Obama - Has also never run or managed anything since a journal during law school. He is easily one of the most inexperienced politicians to ever run for president (as his recent comments about Pakistan have shown) making him unfit to be the face of our foreign policy. His track record shows a severe lack of governance. He's also too spineless to even vote in any controversial senate bills as of late and also just informed us that his presence in upcoming debates will be "limited." The man is obviously a coward, yet he asks that you vote him into the oval office as commander-in-chief of a nation at war...

In contrast to the experience (or lack thereof) of the leading Democratic candidates, check the record of both Rudy and Romney - the top two Republican candidates:

Romney - One of the most successful businessmen this country has ever seen with a self-made net worth of $250 million. Served as CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm, and is the co-founder of Bain Capital, an extremely successful private equity investment firm. Romney also served as the CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake Winter Olympic games and went on to save the 2002 Olympics from scandal and disaster. Despite the initial fiscal shortfall of $380 million below benchmark, the Games, under the leadership of Romney, ended up clearing a profit of $100 million. The man performs in any position in which he is placed. Romney later went on to win election as a Republican governor in Massachusetts - the bluest state in the Union. As governor he eliminated the deficit by 60%. He also balanced the state's budget and widened health coverage without raising taxes (which issue I shall address in a later post).

Rudy - Quite arguably "America's Mayor," who for nearly 8 years led a complex city whose population is greater than 40 out of the 50 states (can't say that for any of the Dems listed above). Crime and abortions drastically decreased during his tenure as mayor and Rudy is well known for "cleaning up" Times Square. Due to his level of involvement with 9/11, Rudy (who personally managed the 9/11 emergency response) now has direct experience in dealing with a global crisis. He also cut New York's crime rate by two-thirds and helped to restore New York's economy.

It's quite easy to see that the Dems are grossly unqualified in the field of executive management.

PS - The Hat Tip for this post goes to my brother, Thomas

Where's Al Gore Now?

on Friday, August 10, 2007

I know what you're thinking.. "Two posts in one day! What's the deal?" Well I'm trying to post more often so be sure to always scroll down whenever you check this blog in case you miss a post.

Anyway, I just got word on a nice precious jewel of information concerning all of the global warming shenanigans. I just had to pass it along to you all...

Al Gore and all the other nutroots who believe in human-caused global warming have argued that we have seen the world's hottest temperatures in the last decade. They claim that 9 out of the last 10 hottest years have occurred since 1995 - proof that human-caused global warming exists, right?


A NASA scientist has just discovered that a Y2K glitch skewed the temperature data. Just before the year 2000, a temperature sensor used by NASA was placed right next to two air conditioner units that supposedly threw off the data (the A/C units were blowing hot air directly at the sensor). Several scientists called for an investigation into the A/C 'scandal' and that's ultimately how the glitch was discovered.

Here's the graph of NASA's temperature data in which you can see the Y2K spike:

So it turns out that the warmest year on record is actually 1934, loooooong before King Gore began his crusade to stop all world citizens from ever driving a car or flicking a switch again! In fact, a third of the top 10 list of hottest years comes from the 1930s and 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Also, 4 out of the last 7 years are below the year 1900 and don't even make the list of top 20 hottest years - further evidence that the world doesn't have a fever.


Now, is this the biggest discovery ever in the whole global warming fiasco?.. Hardly. But it sure ought to take the wind out of the sails of Al Gore's minions for a while.

On second thought, probably not...

More Hypocrisy from the Left

I can't help but smile every time someone tries to call Mitt Romney this election's leading flip-flopper regardless of the fact that you can count the number of times he has changed his candidatorial opinion on one hand, even if you have had a few fingers amputated.

In light of that, check out Hillary's latest daily mood swing:

As I already noted in a previous post, Hillary's opponent Barack Obama recently stated that it would be "a profound mistake" to ever use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His direct quote: "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Hillary slammed Obama for his remarks and said that his comment shows that he is too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief. "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," remarked Hillary.

But wait...

Just last year Hillary did an interview with Bloomberg in which she defiantly proclaimed almost in Obama's exact language, "I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table" and added regarding the discussion of nuclear weapons, "I think that's a terrible mistake."

That makes at least 3 flip-flops from Hillary this past week alone! The girl better take it easy before she pulls a muscle from all the gymnastics she's been doing.

Most Democrats Would Rather You Die than Say Something

on Wednesday, August 8, 2007

The Democratic Party is more worried about being politically correct than they are about you staying alive.

For instance, several months ago a store clerk at a Circuit City store was concerned when a group of men (who came to be known as the Fort Dix six) brought an 8mm tape to be converted to DVD format. The tape showed close to a dozen men shooting weapons and shouting the takbir, Allahu Akbar. When the clerk reported the suspicious information to the FBI, thousands of critics, mostly on the left, slammed the clerk stating that he was racist and "Islamophobic" and should have just kept his mouth shut. Our friends at CAIR condemned both the clerk, as well as the media, for linking the thwarted attack on Fort Dix with the Islam religion...

But wait a minute, weren't these men shouting Islamic prayers and referencing both Allah and phrases from the Qur'an? How is this not connected to Islam?

Other groups like the ACLU, the Muslim American Society, the American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Sharpton, and scores in the Democratic Party have criticized and even threatened the clerk.

For what?!?! He saw a bunch of guys doing something suspicious and reported it... AND IT TURNS OUT THAT HE WAS RIGHT TO DO SO!!

In the same mode, last year the "Flying Imams" were arrested on suspicion of plotting a terror attack on an airplane. Before boarding, an Arabic-speaking female passenger heard the Imams repeatedly invoke “Bin Laden,” and “terrorism,” and then reportedly told the gate attendant that she (the Arabic-speaking woman) did not want to fly on that plane anymore. In addition, the men began chanting several Jihadist prayers and asked for suspicious items once boarding the plane (e.g. seatbelt extenders, regardless of the fact that these men didn't need them). The flight attendants also reported that the men refused to sit in their assigned seats, but rather in pairs at the front, middle, and back of the plane. Witnesses also state that several of the men only bought one-way tickets and checked no baggage. The Imams, who were kicked off the plane, have blatantly defied these allegations...

You know, I feel pretty safe to say that, regardless of whether or not you support Bush's terror policy, I think that all of us would be worried if we were sitting on an airplane with all that going on.

But no-ooo-ooo... Instead, the same groups listed above, as well as the NAACP, publicly support the "John Doe" lawsuit in which the Imams are suing some of the passengers for "discrimination." In fact, CAIR is even helping to provide the Imams with legal council.

After months of deliberation, Representative Steve Pearce (a Republican, mind you) introduced a bill that ultimately was written into a homeland security bill that would protect citizens like you and I from being sued after reporting suspicious behavior.

So who voted against the bill that would protect you and I? Check out the 'NAY' votes from the Senate roll call vote on the John Doe amendment:

Count 'em: 39 Democrats ALL voting in favor of terrorist plotting, instead of protecting you and I. Notice, not one Republican voted in favor of groups like the Fort Dix six or the Flying Imams - only Democrats.

Nice to know the Dems are looking out for you, isn't it?

Jobs Americans Won't Badly as Illegal Immigrants, that is

on Tuesday, August 7, 2007

An interesting bit of light has been shed on the bridge collapse this past week. Normally I try diligently to avoid fueling the media's facination with always trying to pin the blame on somebody whenever tragedy strikes, but this info is just too good to pass up:

So just who is building our bridges?...

Answer: Tarrasco Steel

You may ask, "So what does that have to do with anything?" Well it just so happens that the owner of this company has been arrested and charged with hiring illegal immigrants on bridge projects that they (Tarrasco) have done in several states. At least 26 illegal immigrants have been arrested for providing fake social security numbers to Tarrasco. Several of these men had either improper, false, or no welding certifications at all!

So a warm thank you goes out to all those who support illegal immigration! Your "bi-partisan, open-borders policy" has endagered - and even taken - the lives of many Americans.

Look at this, I'm gone for one week and everything falls apart...

on Friday, August 3, 2007

Have you ever had that experience where you walk into a messy room and there is so much to clean and organize that you literally just don’t know where to even start?.. That’s how I feel. So much has happened in the 2 weeks that I haven’t been able to post that I don’t even know how to address it all, but I’ll try my best to highlight the lowlights:

1) The Fringe festival in Britain is about to debut a musical entitled, "Jihad: The Musical," which will feature songs like "I wanna be like Osama" and is acclaimed as "a madcap gallop through the wacky world of international terrorism."

…I'm speechless…

One group is calling it a "tasteless portrayal of terrorism"… Right, as opposed to a tasteful portrayal of terrorism. Idiots…

Here is the link to watch the Osama song. Why all of a sudden are there flashbacks of "Springtime for Hitler" running through my head?

If I may add one more thought on this, there IS a point where these so-called 'artists' can no longer do absolutely anything they want while hiding behind their veil of claiming "but it's art!" even though they produce offensive and even violent works of art, this play for instance. To illustrate this point, here is a disgusting comic from some moonbat artist published in the late 60s:

2) On a similar note Capcom is about to release Nintendo Wii’s version of Zack & Wiki. It’s been known for a long time that the media is notorious for spewing leftist propoganda, but now they are using video games a method to influence your children, the largest playing audience of this game I might add. This game, for instance, includes Islamic propaganda and contains references to Islamic religion and even the Islamic prayer "Allahu Akbar."

3) Presidential hopeful Barack Obama warned that if he is elected president, he would order US forces to hit extremist targets on Pakistan’s frontier with Afghanistan if embattled military ruler President Pervez Musharraf failed to act.

Oh yea, that’ll work.

He later added, “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” then said, with a pause, “involving civilians.” He then quickly added, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”


So let me get this straight: Obama wants us to surrender and pull out of Iraq, then invade Pakistan, then surrender there too. Sounds like Obama has just had his ‘jump the shark’ moment.

4) I just have to throw something in here about Hillary. Just this past week Hillary Clinton became the official puppet of both Kos and MoveOn and deserves the gold medal for demagogue of the century.

Hilary’s weekly flip-flop: “We must not act unilaterally in Pakistan — wait, Barack said what? Okay, then we should

5) Mahir Sherif, attorney for Nuradin Abdi (who just barely pleaded guilty in Ohio to plotting a terror attack on a shopping mall), says his client only admitted guilt because the ignorant infidel jury would not have grasped the subtle nuances of his plan to commit mass murder. He said, “A fair trial here would not be possible because Americans “have no or limited understanding” of why Muslims are angry.

In other words, you and I are too dumb to understand the “higher calling” of those who in their own self-righteousness like to blow other people up.

6) Libya has released the 6 Bulgarian medics convicted of infecting Libyan children with HIV. (Libya has also confessed to torturing the medics.) Just by sheer coincidence, Bulgaria has waived $57 million of debt owed to it by Libya. They call it bookkeeping, I call it ransom. Look, I love Bulgaria (after all, I did live there for 2 years), but their government is full of a bunch of spineless pansies making it one of the weakest governments in the world.

7) John Edwards, crowned king of the nutroots, criticized Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company’s Fox News Channel has a right-wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company. Edwards demanded that all Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp.

That’s funny… Mr. Edwards, I believe that you yourself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul’s companies. I hear that in addition to a $500,000 advance from HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corp., you also were cut a check for $300,000 for expenses… And of this money you have only returned $1,000.

Demagoguery at its finest.

Osama Bin Dead

on Tuesday, July 17, 2007

… and has ‘bin’ for some time now according to analysis of a “recent” video published by As Sahab. Even though the video is 40 minutes long, Bin Laden only gets a 50 second clip from a 6-year-old video, and this is his first appearance in over 3 years – further evidence that Osama is pushing up daisies. Take a look at the picture at the top of the posting:

Clearly you can see that the footage is actually from a video that was shot for a 2001 pre-9/11 propaganda video. (For the record, this isn’t the first time that Bin Laden videos and audiotapes have been fudged to make both his minions as well as the world believe he is still alive and well.) Also, the ‘new’ clip shows Bin Laden is using his left hand. However, in the U.S. led attack at Tora Bora in late 2001, Bin Laden’s left side and hand were critically injured and he never moved his left hand in any video from that point on. The ‘new’ clip shows Bin Laden praising martyrdom by stating that:

By him in whose hands my life is! I would love to attack and be martyred, then attack again and be martyred, then attack again and be martyred.

Oh, how I would love to grant him his wish. I mean, if he is so excited about dying then why doesn’t he just jump out in front of a group of about 10 marines? What a coward.

Could Bin Laden’s cronies be setting up the announcement of his death by propagandizing that OBL actually wanted to die?

I hope the virgins he received in heaven looked and sounded like Hillary and Rosie.

** Scary side note -
Listen to the words from al-Zawahiri in this week’s video clip:

Have I not conveyed? Oh God be my witness.
Have I not conveyed? Oh God be my witness.
Have I not conveyed? Oh God be my witness.

Interesting how he repeats the phrase 3 times. According to Islamic Law you are required to warn your enemies 3 times before you attack them. Note also that Bin Laden repeats his wish 3 times as well. Could this be the ‘greenlight’ to their terrorist agents in the field that they can now execute their attacks on America?**

Today is Opposite Day

on Sunday, July 15, 2007

Much of our country seems to have their mentality about terrorism completely backwards. Here are just a few recent examples of this phenomenon that I have been quite perplexed with:

1) Rosie O'Donnell - Rosie makes it so easy for me to pick on her. Recently she posted pictures on her blog with her daughter dressed as an Islamic militant stating that she thought it was "funny." Oops, I'm sorry, I almost forgot that the inhumane crimes executed by those same Islamic extremists you mimic are hilarious - Good one, Rosie!! Later she was forced to backtrack her intended 'statement to America' (as she usually does) by saying that her daughter was simply "dressing up." If that were true, then why is her daughter posing like a terrorist? Funny you say?...

Speaking of jokes, she also became the laughingstock of late night TV when she stated a while back that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America"... Could that statement be any more wrong? Rosie, I'm sure you're just bitter that most Christian religions won't allow you to marry, but calling Christianity "just as threatening" is about as backwards as it gets. As I have already mentioned before, certain progressives like Rosie O'Donnell would be wise to remember that homosexuals (like Rosie) are to be punished by death according to Islamic law! Ironic, isn't it? Since when do Christians mandate such a law, Rosie?

Another thought on O'Donnell: Several times she has called all Americans "terrorists" while simultaneously calling Al Qaeda soldiers "heroes" as well as "brave men, women, and children." Congratulations, Rosie, you've got it backwards once again! Look, if we Americans are such terrible people, why don't you just pack up and move off to Afghanistan to live with the "brave heroes" Rosie? It's becoming ever more apparent that you just shoot your mouth off because you're addicted to publicity.

Unfortunately, a handful of liberal pundits attempt to defend every retarded word that exits her fat mouth.

2) Hollywood - Hollywood is notorious for slanting left. I'm constantly amused by how involved in politics many actors and actresses are, when they themselves clearly don't understand the most basic principles from PoliSci 101. In fact, almost all of these individuals have no particular expertise, education, or experience in the areas in which they become “spokespersons” and recent info has shown that most of these celebrities have no more than a high school diploma.

In the recent past, scores of celebrities have joined the Hollywood bandwagon (more like paddy wagon) of "impeach Bush" while defiantly proclaiming their "knowledge" on topics like terrorism and global warming. Let's see how backwards and hypocritical some of their "knowledge" is:

Cameron Diaz -
In 2004 Diaz appeared on Oprah and clumsily worded the phrase, "Women have so much to lose... I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. If you think rape should be legal then don't vote. But if you think you have a right to your body and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote." Brilliant.

While it's perfectly fine that Diaz acts as an 'activist' for women and hates rape, she should have thought twice before she dressed herself on a recent trip to Peru. While visiting Machu Picchu in the Andes, Diaz was spotted wearing a purse with the phrase "Serve the People" written in Chinese - perhaps the Chinese Communist leader Mao's most famous political slogan. But wait Cameron, weren't Mao's policies the exact OPPOSITE of what you were campaigning on Oprah earlier? After all, the Maoist Shining Path insurgency brought Peru to edge of chaos in the late 80s/early 90s with a campaign of massacres, assassinations, bombings... AND RAPE! Nearly 70,000 people, including tens of thousands of women, died in the struggle. Here is one more example of Hollywood's "do as I say, not as I wear" ideology.

Let's continue. Here is one more example of Hollywood's constant stream of political fashion blunders...

Kirsten Dunst -
Hollywood idiot Kirsten Dunst proclaims that she is obsessed with the Democratic party and is an outspoken opponent of both war and the Bush administration. Yet she was just featured in Teen Vogue wearing a new 'Breezy Global-Chic Scarf.' What you didn't know was that this 'chic scarf' is actually a kaffiyeh, originally a Palestinian symbol of terrorism and intifada. Way to go Dunst! Nothing says you're an opponent of war more than wearing the original terrorist scarf! Once again, Hollywood preaches one thing, and then imprudently prances around helping to endorse the very thing they supposedly preach against. They've got it all wrong once again.

**In light of all this, Dunst remains a member of Democratic Party supporter Richard Blackwell's fabulous, best-dressed fashion list. Unbelievable**

Danny Glover -
Mr. Glover, along with many other Hollywood nitwits, has signed a letter supporting Communist dictator Fidel Castro and has been an outspoken supporter of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez! Why?!? Although Chávez has tried to conceal the evidence, the U.S. News & World Report, as well as numerous U.S. government officials, claim that the Chávez administration allows alleged terrorist organizations to operate within Venezuela's borders, including both the anti-American Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya. Whose side are these Hollywood stars really on?! Hmm, supporting dictators that support anti-American terrorist organizations - they really do have it completely backwards, don't they?! I think Forrest Gump’s momma said it best when she said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

3) Professors and so-called 'Educators' - Just because Pink Floyd said, "we don’t need no education" doesn't mean that we actually need to implement the idea. Just yesterday British newspapers reported that schools will no longer be teaching about Winston Churchill, but rather will replace the curriculum with teachings on global warming and GM foods... (I'm speechless) ...Churchill, voted the greatest ever Briton and is quite arguably considered one of the saviors of WWII, will no longer be taught in the public classroom. Both Gandhi and Martin Luther King were also removed from the curriculum. Nice move! There's no better way to battle both the fascist Islamic ideology and the terrorist forces that haunt the streets of the UK than to stop teaching about Churchill and start teaching about global warming and GM foods. Backwards again. No wonder Al Qaeda is reportedly gaining strength...

4) Political Correctness - Why is our media so afraid of calling people what they really are? It seems that lately people are scared to say the word 'terrorist' and instead use the more politically correct term 'insurgent.' Oh, I'm sorry. We don't want to hurt the little terrorists' feelings now, do we? Give me a break! If a man straps a bomb to his chest and runs into a market with the sole purpose of getting the largest body count he can, that man is a terrorist. Not a 'freedom fighter.' Not a 'revolutionary.' Not an 'insurgent.' A terrorist. Unfortunately, both our media and our politicians fail to see how nice they are to the very people who have sworn an oath to kill them. And based on the latest intelligence that an attack is coming before the end of the summer, I hope they learn it soon.

Why Pelosi Won’t Call for the Impeachment of Bush

on Thursday, July 12, 2007

Cindy Sheehan has lost it!

No, no... not her mind (she lost that years ago), I’m talking about her support from much of the left. Several days ago, Sheehan threatened Speaker of the House Pelosi stating that, if Pelosi doesn’t formally endorse the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney, then she (Sheehan) will announce her candidacy to challenge Speaker Nancy Pelosi to represent the 8th District of California. So far, she hasn’t followed through with the threat…

Wow! It’s almost as if Sheehan thinks that she is the head of her own political party! In fact, her comments were so out of line that one of America’s leading left-wing blogs (The Daily Kos) actually banned her from posting any further on their website. Their words to Sheehan: “Sadly, and respectfully, it’s you who have changed, not us…” and continued by stating that “[we] can’t support your misguided effort here - and in particular after [we] see the superiority and condescension of your statement today.”


Sheehan apparently offered her ‘resignation’ from Kos in a statement which you can read here:

Now, here’s why Pelosi won’t formally call for the impeachment that Sheehan so desperately wants. Sometimes people forget that, as Speaker of the House, Pelosi is third in line for the oval office… If Bush and Cheney were impeached and ultimately removed from office, Pelosi would technically be President of the United States of America and, quite arguably, the most powerful woman in the world! Calling for impeachment would only show that Pelosi is power-hungry and, therefore, she would become the laughingstock of every late night TV show, not to mention the focus of almost every political blog in America. Even the liberal media would have a heyday with this one!

Pelosi is smarter than this (it took every fiber of my soul NOT to insert an intelligence joke here…). She knows that she can’t call for impeachment by herself, but rather that she should be the absolute LAST one to join the parade. Unfortunately for her, by the time the liberals in power get their act together, Bush’s term will be up anyway.

Trust me, Pelosi won’t call for impeachment. So you can all stop calling for it.