Conservative Bastion

Conservative Bastion Moving

2008-12-08T22:42:00.000-08:00

Check out our new location: http://conservativebastion.com

Howard Dean: the Fear-Mongering Hate-Filled Intolerant Left-Wing Nazi

2008-08-17T11:05:00.000-07:00

Howard Dean is at it again. In case you have not heard, the chairman of the DNC has (once again) referred to the Republican Party as the “white party.” Some people are trying to pretend it was an accident, but we know the truth. He has done this before, and we expect this type of classlessness from the man that once made fun of Rush Limbaugh for being addicted to pain killers.

They usually say follow the money trail, but in politics, sometimes you need to follow the fear trail to see who benefits. Don’t fool yourselves. This type of rhetoric is meant to do one thing and one thing only: instill fear into the hearts and minds of minorities toward the Republican Party.

The fact is that President Bush is just as much the first Hispanic president as Bill Clinton was the first black president. His policies are the most pro-Hispanic in the history of the United States. He has been in favor of a guest worker program since before he became president, he has appointed Hispanics to positions of importance, and he has transformed (at least momentarily) his party from being one that got a fraction of the Hispanic vote (21% in 1996) to one that got 44% in 2004. Throw in the fact that Bush also got 44% of the Asian vote in ‘04 and you have a scary situation on your hands.

Dean knows that if this type of progress could ever cross over into the black community, the Democratic Party would have an almost impossible time winning any national election. So what have Dean and his cohorts decided to do to fight this trend? What they do best - abort this baby before its born! They have decided that injecting race and insinuations of racism are the best way to keep the colored folk in line.

Ironically, they are doing this while still being able to maintain the argument that it is McCain and the Republicans who have gone negative. It is true that McCain is bringing up Obama’s lack of experience, poking holes in his faulty energy policy, and the fact that Obama was wrong about the surge. However, those are not fear tactics. Those are debatable issues that are at the forefront of this election.

Obama on the other hand is trying to scare people into thinking Republicans are trying to scare them.

In July, Obama had this to say about Republicans:

So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky.

Unfortunately for Obama, these comments reflect a land of make believe. No one of any significance has made any of these points an issue.

For the party run by Howard Dean, that doesn’t matter. Which makes one wonder…does Dean really believe that Republican Party is a white party? If you take blacks out of the picture, the two parties are relatively close in terms of their racial makeup. The black population is by far the most skewed racial group in favor of one party. So if anything, wouldn’t the Democratic Party be the black party? If so, is that better or worse than being the white party?

The ironic aspect in this whole situation is that Dean comes from a state where 98% of the population is white. Since he comes from a white state, he and his state, must be bad for minorities. If it was a good place for minorities, more would live there. Therefore, he and the whole state of Vermont are racist. Of course that line of reasoning is childish, idiotic, and disingenuous at best. Too bad that seems to be the very line of reasoning the Democratic Party is using to inject fear into minority communities towards the Republican Party.

How Dumb is Obama?

2008-07-27T20:10:00.000-07:00

A lot has been made about a recent comment by John McCain in which he more or less stated that Iraq and Pakistan shared a border. Of course, that is really funny to the Obama supporters because they tend to be slow and forgetful and they get off on making fun of McCain's age. These people who are so quick to attack someone's soundness of mind and/or intelligence are the same people who cried when a bunch of people were outsmarted by a piece of paper in Florida.

Anyways, all that aside, it still isn’t as funny and some of the mistakes B.O. has made. You don't know what I'm talking about? Hmmm I wonder why that is? COULD THE MEDIA BE BIASED?

…in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."

So in this instance, Obama didn’t know the name of the city or state he was in. Is that a senior moment? Is that because he is a moron? I am guessing it’s both. That’s not all though. He also made a pretty bad mistake regarding the basic geography of his own state when speaking as to why Hillary Clinton held a lead in the Kentucky primary.

Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.

For the Obama supporters who don’t know, Kentucky shares a border with Illinois and does not share one with Arkansas. So the moron doesn’t even know which states share a border with his own state.

Don’t be mad at me America. I warned you about this a long time ago. I told you over a year ago that if Obama was elected he would be the first mentally challenged candidate.

2008-05-06T13:48:00.000-07:00

If you haven’t heard, a Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) community in Texas was raided a couple weeks ago. I am not sure about the exact reason their community was raided, but it stemmed from an anonymous phone call that reported child abuse. If you don’t know who the FLDS are, don’t worry. The media has done a great job doing the same smear job they did on the Branch Davidians. According to the media, the FLDS are a "cult" that live in a "compound" and have "wacko religious beliefs". Or, if you are fairer, you could say they are a "group" that lives in a "tight knit community" that has an "alternative lifestyle".

There is already some backlash against what has happened, but it is definitely a minority view in the media. The original phone call that voiced the complaint to the police of which the raid was based off of has turned out to be fraudulent. Not to mention, just because one person in a particular place is accused of a certain crime does not (or at least should not) give the right for the authorities to separate EVERYONE from that community from their children.

To give an example, the US has an illegal immigration problem, but that does not give the right of the police to storm in to immigrant communities and detain everyone until they can prove their innocence. If that was done in the US, there would be (with little doubt in my mind) violent retaliation. I don’t see the difference from that scenario and what has happened to the FLDS.

Back to the media…It is interesting how the media changes terms for certain situations in the news. The term cult is a subjective one. What is the definition of a cult? The real definition is debatable. However, it seems people are generally willing to use the term for any group of people they don’t particularly like. For instance, I recently saw a protest outside one of the Scientology “churches” in which one of the protesters had a sign that stated “Scientology is a cult.” If you listen to talk radio, I am sure you have heard the conservative commentators refer to the Obama followers as a cult. I would personally consider environmentalists as part of a cult. Sure they don't have a charismatic leader, but they have a lot of weird beliefs that defy logic. They certainly have a stronger and much more negative affect on society than the FLDS (as has been demonstrated by the recent food riots/shortages).

The fact is that the media uses the term cult in a derogatory manner. The question is why? Why not use it for environmentalists? Why not use it for scientologists? Why not use it for the jihadists? I am not saying they should use the term cult for all these groups. What I am saying is their willingness to use it in one instance over another does not seem to make sense. There is no rhyme or reason behind it.

You may think I am kidding, but I am not. Let's look at some of the things the FLDS are accused of...it is an impressive list, but I have included by rebuttals to give everyone perspective.

1. The men have sexual relations with more than one woman

All sorts of men have sex with more than one woman. In fact, the hypocrisy here is almost absurd. Let's say I am a normal everyday guy. I can go out and have random sex with as many women or men that I want, and nothing will legally be done to me. However, if I decide to commit to multiple consenting women in a serious long term relationship, my house will be raided by heavily armed police who will break up my community and take my kids away. To paraphrase one conservative radio host said (I forget which one) Hugh Heffner’s living arrangements are good enough for its own cable TV show, while the FLDS living arrangements are good enough for a police raid.

2. They are weird

They sure are a bunch of weirdoes. That is true. But is anyone weird enough to have their kids taken away, their homes referred to as a compound (so if the police decide to shoot and burn everyone inside, it won't sound as bad...it was a compound for goodness sake!), and their community slandered all across the American media without a trial (yet), fair or otherwise?

3. They dress funny

Seriously, why do the media even bring this up? It is almost embarrassing. It is irrelevant. Did they expect to find them dressing like Paris Hilton? In fact, anyone who has kids that dress like Paris Hilton should have THEIR kids taken away.

4. Teenage girls are having sex

First of all, I am not sure how much of this they have actually proved. That being said, I don’t think young and underage girls having sex is a problem that is isolated to the FLDS. Furthermore, I think it is very safe to say that underage girls having sex with older men is definitely not exclusive to this particular community. Has anyone been watching the sex epidemic between teachers and their students? It seems like there is a new case every month. One case of an underage girl having sex with an older man does not justify raiding an entire school and slandering every teacher at that particular school (or taking away the children from every teacher from that school for that matter). So why raid the entire FLDS community?

5. Underage girls are getting married

Last time I checked, 16 year olds could get married in Texas as long as they have the consent of the parents. I could be wrong about that, but I am pretty sure I am not.

6. We don't agree with their lifestyle

Most people would find the marriage arrangements the FLDS are accused of to be troubling. Minors sexually involved with adults, living situations where the people involved cannot legally be married, and the general creepiness of it all. The problem is none of this exclusive to this group of people and they are getting undue stigma for one reason or another. For instance, can you think of any other institutions that have been involved with rather large sex abuse scandals involving minors? Bill Maher mentioned the Catholic Church as a culprit on his HBO show. That is true, but there is also another institution that has had problems recently: our public school system. Story after story of teachers having sex with underage students have bombarded the news cycle the last few years. Some would say it’s different because it’s not systematic. That is true, but there have been systematic cover-ups in which teachers known to be sexually involved with students are simply asked to leave their school district but do not lose their teaching license.

The most interesting parallels can be drawn with gay marriage. Gay marriage and polygamy are both not legally recognized. It is interesting that the government would choose to invade houses of polygamists but not the homes of gays. The argument I hear gays use is that you cannot stop people from living with each other, loving each other, or having sex with each other. I agree with all of those statements. The government should not be involved with any of those issues no matter how demented and perverted the people involved are. It gets gays off the hook, why not polygamists?

So let’s play devil’s advocate. Let’s say everything I just listed is irrelevant. Let’s say the only thing that matter is that there are underage girls sexually involved with adult males. If that is all that matters, the media needs to stop talking about all these other issues because it is then irrelevant.

Also a fairer pursuit of justice should be followed for all adults who are sexually involved with minors. That means all these catholic priests and public school teachers should have their churches and homes raided. It also means NAMBLA (now these people are creepy) should have their headquarters raided with armed police.

Why does any other this matter? It matters because we are supposed to have equal protection under the law. It is not right to target certain groups just because they may be outside the mainstream, especially for circumstances, motivation, and evidence as ambiguous as in this particular case. If the “weirdoes” of the FLDS can be essentially persecuted for being “weird”, then you open an ugly door for future or already existing “weird” groups.

Global Warming is Already Killing People!

2008-04-16T11:20:00.000-07:00

Since all this global warming fear mongering really became mainstream (mostly because of hurricane Katrina and Al Gore's movie) the US has shifted its energy policy to adopt bio fuels (mostly corn ethenol) in an attempt to cut down on our use of oil.

This is from the UK new website the telegraph:

The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits.

"The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Mr Diouf says world grain stocks have fallen to a quarter-century low of 5m tonnes, rations for eight to 12 weeks. America - the world's food superpower - will divert 18pc of its grain output for ethanol this year, chiefly to break dependency on oil imports. It has a 45pc biofuel target for corn by 2015.

So basically, we are starving people today, so they won't drown because of melting ice caps tomorrow.

Not to mention...

Brazil has the world's biggest reserves of "potential arable land" with 483m hectares (it currently cultivates 67m), and Colombia has 62m - both offering biannual harvests.

The catch is obvious. "The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid," said Professor John Beddington, Britain's chief scientific adviser.

Basically, if we stay the current course, we will be forced to cut down rain forests in order to keep up with our energy needs.

I don't understand how anyone could still believe these global warming ass holes.

Are We Still Debating Darfur?

2008-02-12T14:45:00.000-08:00

I was watching CSPAN a couple weeks ago and saw a guy by the name of Coby Rudolph of the Save Darfur Coalition. The guy, bless his soul, is still trying to bring attention, and presumably, American intervention into Sudan. I know certain people are trying to make a big deal about the situation there, and rightfully so, but do we really want to intervene in a civil war in another Islamic country?

I thought this debate was over a long time ago. I thought we didn't want to send American soldiers to intervene in foreign conflicts. I thought we were supposed to just leave the Muslims alone because intervening just makes them hate us even more. I thought optional wars were bad.

Let me guess. We will be greeted as liberators and won't have to do much fighting...that sounds familiar.

Do these people (mostly liberals) realize that this is the same logic that President Bush used to invade Iraq. The same! Isn't it ironic that the same people who would so easily call him an idiot, also easily adopt his foreign policy?

Do you realize these people in Sudan have been fighting each other for decades? American cowboys are not going to be able to ride in and save the people there over night.

When we invaded Iraq, the economic costs and time table were downplayed. The people advocating the war thought it would be easy and over in a couple of months. Unfortunately, that was not true.

The Darfur advocates are making the same mistake. While watching CSPAN, there was no mention of costs or a time table, or even a specific strategy of how to save the people in Darfur. It is a two word argument: save Darfur.

How about not. How about we don't save Darfur. Why don't we finish what we started and save Iraq and Afghanistan. How can you advocate the start of a third war when we are barely winning (some would say losing) two others. Who in their right mind would want that?

I know the Darfur advocates want to save people and have good intentions, but so did the people wanted to invade Iraq. Prior to our invasions, Iraq and Afghanistan were both just as messed up as Sudan is right now. So what makes Sudan so important?

It isn't important. Unlike Iraq, there aren't even fake reasons to intervene in Sudan. Unfortunately, that is reality.

If we ever do invade Sudan, expect more of the same. We will send too few troops, who start as peace keepers. As time passes we will realize we need a little more force and will move to a more aggressive strategy. This will inevitably make the Muslims mad and will create a new wave of radicals who come from all over the Islamic world to kill us. We will have two choices when this happens. We can run like we did in Somalia, in which case the whole thing would have been useless. Or we can stay, and have it turn into another Iraq.

All of this so we can achieve what national goal? To feel better about slavery? When we invaded Iraq, they said there were dozens of dictators, so why focus on Saddam. Regarding Darfur I would say there are a many civil wars with no significance to American interests, why Sudan?

Don't Give Up Now

2007-09-27T20:58:00.000-07:00

Clinton is responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Bush.

How could you forget?

According to the most outrageously high estimates, the Iraq war has killed 700,000 civilians. The most accurate account that actually ties names to the people who have died has a number of around 80,000. Don't get me wrong. Both numbers, regardless of which one is closer to the truth, are tragic. What makes it worse is that those numbers should be lower and would be if it wasn't for the undeniably poor execution of the war.

However, don't forget that 500,000 children alone died in Iraq during Clinton's years because of US led sanction against Iraq.

Again, another tragedy.

What is the point of this blog...

Understand that Iraq was a danger to the US and its interests. You may not like that, but it was a reality to the point that a Democratic administration chose US interests over the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children. Not to mention, our lack of action allowed Saddam to stay in power and kill and terrorize God knows how many others.

You may not like the Iraq war, but unlike economic sanctions, the war has a chance of actually creating a better Iraq in the long run. Remember that the next time you want to sound smart by saying you think the president and his policies are moronic.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html

Bush Maid Da Unemployment Rate 2 Lo!

2007-08-26T15:04:00.000-07:00

Normally a high unemployment rate is seen as bad, and a low unemployment rate is good. However, I just read an article that suggests otherwise.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports the mountain West region - covering eight states along the Rocky Mountains - has the lowest overall unemployment rate in the nation. The region hit an all-time low of 3.4 percent in May.

Wow that Bush economy is kicking ass right? WRONG!

The problem has created longer hours and tougher working conditions for current employees.

That sentence wants to make me rip my eyes out. For those who don't understand the current situation, let me explain.

President Bush entered the White House in 2001 as we all know. At the time everything seemed good. The economy was strong (at least that’s what we thought at the time) and unemployment was near historic lows.

Then 9/11 happened coupled with the Internet bubble which set our economy back. Many dishonest people along with many retarded Democrats blamed it on Bush.

President Bush then cut taxes in an attempt to strengthen the economy. Ever since then more retarded Democrats have been complaining that those tax cuts only helped certain people and blablabla.

The fact is, tax cuts are not an over night fix. In fact, there is no way to fix an economy over night. All you can do is put in place the right policies and hope for the best. It can take months or years to get out of an economic mess.

Anyways, eventually our economy started to grow again and the unemployment rate came down. Where the Dems happy? That is rhetorical...most Dems are not happy people. Everyone knows that. In fact, polls have shown in the past the Republicans generally have a more positive outlook than Democrats. Back to the point...

Since they couldn't complain about economic growth or unemployment, they started complaining about wages. Frankly, what they complain about is true. Until this past year, much of the economic growth was not reflected in wages. What they won't tell you is that this is normal. If your company starts making money today, will you give all your employees instant raises? Such knee jerk reactions can lead to economic instability and should be avoided.

Addressing the wages issue, this is what the article said:

In Utah - where unemployment rates have been hovering around 2.5 percent - amusement parks, trucking companies, telemarketing firms and others have been paying bonuses of hundreds of dollars or more to find workers.

This trend has led workers in Utah to see "a 5.4 percent average wage increase in 2006", according to the article.

So now that they can't complain about wages staying stagnant, they have had to change the argument again. The unfortunate thing about all of this is that this is how our economy works. It is normal. It is in no way new or exclusive to the Bush economy. When an economy is in recovering, it starts with economic growth, which leads to falling unemployment, and ends with wages going up. These retards need to wise up...and that is all they are...retards.

All the while there are still people out there saying we need illegals to do our work for us. We already have a bunch of people in America making just so so livings, and we want to let more illegals in whose only effect on the economy will be to suck up our tax dollars with their generous use of our safety nets, and depressing the wages for working class people...great plan morons.

Hurray For Immigrants!

2007-08-20T19:47:00.000-07:00

I am sure you have heard of the execution of three college students in New Jersey by a couple scumbag illegal immigrants…

They sure are good at doing "work" Americans wont do. Lynchings have been out of style for a while now. It sure looks like they are doing their best to set us back 50 years.

I must be honest, there is no real evidence to suggest that these were racially motivated crimes other than the fact that the people committing the crimes were Hispanic and the victims were black.

However, you know if a group of whites did this to any group of minorities that it would automatically be considered a hate crime. In fact, many of these logic devoid “immigrant rights” losers think that simply wanting to enforce immigration laws is racist. They call the Minute Men racist with absolutely no evidence to suggest that they are.

While Mexicans are protected from illegal immigrants invading their southern border, they cry racism when America does the same thing they expect their government to do. Lets face it, anyone who can honestly hold those beliefs is too stupid to be an American. Deport them all.

Back to the point…using that logic, this must have been a hate crime. Of course that assumption is backed up by many crimes that are known to be race related between blacks and Hispanics. Lets face it, the same people (Hispanics) who say Americans are racist for not wanting them in this country aren’t exactly the most tolerant people on the face of the planet.

Speaking of deportation…we finally got rid of Elvira Arellano. It’s good that mess is finally over. You can read her story here if you don’t know. The best part about her being deported is that she actually looks like an alien.

Creepy.

WTF?

2007-08-10T16:50:00.000-07:00

Ho hum lets let all the fucking scum from south of the border come into our country with no restrictions. If you disagree you are a racist. Even though many of these animals apparently have no self control.

Prosecutors in Essex County, New Jersey, are struggling to explain how a suspect in the execution-style slaying of three friends in Newark was granted bail when charged with assault and child rape earlier this year.

Jose Carranza is an illegal immigrant from Peru. It is rare for illegal immigrants to be granted bail because of the flight risk.

The 28-year-old pleaded not guilty in the Newark slayings today and is held on $1 million bail.

I know what you are thinking. You want to say this is the exception, and not the rule. When 20 percent of our federal prison population is born outside the country, I think it is time to admit there is a problem. No one should be allowed to enter this country unless they have a college degree. No one! We don't need any more animals. America has enough homegrown scum.

It is time to deport every single illegal. They are here illegally. They do not belong here. They have no right to be here. Some will say some shit about how this "used to be our land". It is a fallacy. Should British people just waltz into India and say they have a right to be there because it used to be their land?

These fucks think they have a claim to the western hemisphere. Why? Apparently, they all forgot that their mostly white skin and Spanish language comes from the same place most Americans came from: Europe.

Let's face it, most of these losers lack basic education. For that reason, along with the fact that they are not citizens should exclude them from any debate deciding the fate of their immigration status. We need to do what is best for America, not what is best for a bunch of poor people who happen to speak Spanish.

Obama Turns World Against US

2007-08-03T15:17:00.000-07:00

What do you think this picture is portraying? I am sure you think this is a protest in a Muslim country regarding President Bush and his policies. At least that is what most people would probably think. It is actually a protest regarding some comments that senator Obama made within the past week.

For those of you who missed it, the senator from Illinois said he would basically invade Pakistan in order to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He didn’t quite use those words, but that's effectively what it would be if he sent US troops into Pakistan without permission.

Most experts believe that Osama is hiding in an area along the Afghanistan and Pakistan border. President Bush has avoided entering Pakistan at the request of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. Apparently, President Bush has calculated it is better to keep Pakistan on our good side and sacrifice capturing bin Laden in the short run in return for long run cooperation with the worlds second most populated Muslim country and the only country with an Islamic majority that is a nuclear power.

Of course, there are many problems with Obama's tough stance against Pakistan. For instance, the population of Pakistan (165 million) is about six times that of Iraq (27 million) yet the geographical size is only twice as much. What does this tell us? Pakistan is densely populated. There would be a lot of urban fighting. Therefore, fighting in Pakistan would involve substantial collateral damage and could very possibly create more enemies than invading Iraq.

Another problem is that it is the second most populated Islamic country. With that comes a diverse range of religious views similar to what exists in Iraq. With that comes instability. The government in Pakistan has a fragile hold on the country as it is. If we were to invade, it could erode the support that the current (pro-US) government has and create a vacuum that would most likely be filled by a faction of religious fanatics.

This would pose an enormous threat to the United States and the world. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing the world needs is for those weapons to fall into the hands of extremists who have proven they have a willingness to destroy innocent life to further their cause.

Obama’s statements have been heard in Pakistan, and as one can imagine, he is not doing anything to improve America’s image there.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Obama: the wrong candidate at the wrong time for the wrong job. He is obviously clueless about this situation and is a danger is US national security.

Democrat(s) Divider, Not Uniter

2007-08-01T13:53:00.000-07:00

After all the garbage we hear from Democrats who supposedly want a president who unites the country, rather than divides it, you would think they would put forth some effort to pretend to believe that statement. What am I talking about you ask?

Well it turns out that North Dakota Congressman Earl Pomeroy called President Bush a "clown" in an internet video. Certainly this isn’t the most offensive or controversial thing said about the president, but consider the fact that this man is an elected official rather than some schmuck on the internet.

Why is it a big deal? It really isn’t. No one cares about the congressman from North Dakota. No one knows his name. I still don’t know his name even though I just wrote it in the last paragraph. So this could have something to do with getting attention from the national media.

The only reason I even mention this incident is because we hear Democrats all the time saying how President Bush had a chance to unite the country after 9/11 and he failed to do so because of his divisive policies. That is only half true.

Had Iraq turned out as anything but a complete hellhole, the country would not be divided right now. No matter how much the extreme anti-war crowd likes to think, people do not care about us not finding WMD. They don’t even care about being lied to (even though I don’t think that is what happened). They care that America is losing a war. That’s it. If Iraq had been a relatively normal place prior to our invasion, then that would not be the case. Americans don’t want to go around invading normal countries. Iraq, despite attempts from the left to paint the picture otherwise, was nowhere near normal. It was a hellhole dictatorship run by sadistic psychopaths. We had a chance to do some good there, and Americans are open to that (which is why so many want to go into Darfur).

The point is that there really aren’t that many (if any at all) uniters in high leadership positions right now. In fact, I would say that there is a serious leadership deficit in the US. Why are there no leaders who are true uniters? The fact is, no one on either sides actually wants a uniter. Unfortunately, the people who actually pay attention to politics despise the each others outlook on life and the world.

The last thing conservatives want is a so called conservative who can "understand" abortion, high taxes, and gun control. Liberals are the same way. They don’t want to elect someone who believes we have the right to bare arms (even though it is spelled out in plain English in our constitution and you have to border on mental disability to not see that), or that gay marriage is wrong (how dare you judge someone else!), or especially the idea that low taxes are ideal.

So I guess my point is that liberals need to stop pretending. Everyone knows conservatives don’t want compromise (it’s a stereotype whether it’s true or not). Liberals, who are probably even less open to compromise, need to acknowledge that they are just as divisive, and add just as much of the shrill comments to the debate (if not more) than conservatives.

Bush Crackdown of Corporate Malfeasance

2007-07-27T20:22:00.000-07:00

Today I was browsing YouTube when I came across an Al Jazeera video featuring a woman whose beauty surpasses that of most of the FOXNEWS babes.

After seeing the video I decided to go to the Al Jazeera English website and see what kind of stories I would find on it. For the record, I have been there before, and I don’t consider it a terrorist network as some have labeled it.

Anyways I came across an interesting story regarding US corporate presence overseas.

A US jury has decided that an American coal company was not responsible for the killing of three union leaders at a Colombian mine in 2001.

The jurors in Alabama on Thursday rejected charges that coal giant Drummond had hired right-wing paramilitary gunman to kill employees and union leaders in La Loma.

Ok so far so good…

The case was seen as a test of whether American firms can be held responsible in US courts for alleged misconduct abroad.

This is kind of an absurd statement for anyone who knows Americans. We like money, but most people in America would not put corporate profits over human life.

There are about 15 similar cases pending in US courts against corporations for alleged human rights abuses committed overseas.

The action began in 2001 under an 18th century law which allows foreigners to sue American firms in a US court.

Did you just read what I read. In 2001 you say? Isn’t that about the time George W. Bush became president? I am being facetious of course. It is ironic that George W. Bush could be responsible for this push for corporate responsibility. This is the same man from the same party that many liberals say pander to corporations and their interests.

I don’t know what else to say…just more proof that liberals live in a fictitious world I suppose.

Vick Indicted for Dogfighting

2007-07-18T18:51:00.000-07:00

You know it must be pretty gruesome when I take the side of an animal over a human, but the info that has been released about Michael Vick and his dogfighting ring left me no choice.

When a Bad Newz Kennels dog was wounded in a losing fight, NFL star Michael Vick was consulted before the animal was doused with water and electrocuted.
That's just one of the gruesome details that emerged Tuesday when the Atlanta Falcons quarterback and three others were indicted by a federal grand jury.

That is pretty disgusting, but that’s not all…

About eight young dogs were put to death at the Surry County home after they were found not ready to fight in April 2007, the indictment said. They were killed "by hanging, drowning and/or slamming at least one dog's body to the ground."

WTF?

Fights would end when one dog died or with the surrender of the losing dog, which was sometimes put to death by drowning, strangulation, hanging, gun shot, electrocution or some other method, according to the documents.

I never really liked Michael Vick as a player, but now he will pretty much be universally hated throughout the league. Dogs are like children to most people and these accusations will ensure he hears it from opposing fans all season long…maybe even the rest of his career…depending on how this case is resolved.

To keep things in perspective and to illustrate how some animal freaks lose all sense of logic when discussing situations like this, read this post by one of the readers to the article I linked this story too.

About the only thing more repulsive than torturing animals for entertainment are the people who try to defend his actions. There is no defense for such heinous acts. Period.

I would agree that there is no defense for such heinous acts, but I can sure think of a lot of things worse than torturing animals. For one, torturing humans...rape...murder...etc.

So don't go thinking I have gone PETA on you. I still believe PETA is a terrorist group and most of the true followers of that organization will most likely be in hell.

Democrats are Warmongers

2007-07-09T20:19:00.000-07:00

I think I know why Democrats are so pro-Mexican immigration (that’s right, pro-Mexican immigration, not pro-immigration…there is a difference).

I was in a discussion with a friend a week or two ago and somehow the idea that “Republicans like to start wars” came up. For some reason, this triggered something in my brain to actually think through all the major US wars and who was actually president during those times.

As you may or may not know, Democrats have been the party of war throughout our nation’s history. Think about it:

Mexican American War – Polk (D)
The Civil War – Davis (D)
The Spanish American War – McKinley (R)
WWI – Wilson (D)
WWII – FDR (D)
The Korean War – Truman (D)
Vietnam – Johnson (D)
Iraq II – Bush (R)

I know what you are thinking, Davis didn’t start the Civil War, it was Lincoln. Well that is true, but the South (which is/was part of America) started the Civil War and their president was Jefferson Davis, so he gets credit for starting it, not Lincoln.

Ironically, every one of these wars has some sort of conspiracy theory behind it that some people believe proves the war was started maliciously.

It is one of those things I always knew, but didn’t quite put together for practical and current event purposes. For instance, everyone knows that the neo-cons are all Democrats who have been forced to abandon their party because of its radical anti-war sentiments.

Anyways, the point is, I eventually went all the way back to the Mexican-American war and realized that James K. Polk, (Democrat) was the president who is responsible for “stealing” away half of Mexico.

Let’s face it, the Democrats have a very embarrassing history. It is no wonder they cater so hard for the rights of blacks and Hispanics…because they are the ones that screwed over blacks and Hispanics in the first place. So of course they should be the ones to make amends.

Tax Evaders Lucky Clinton Not President

2007-06-25T00:59:00.001-07:00

Apparently there are a couple government haters holed up in New Hampshire somewhere.

To avoid serving prison sentences for tax evasion, Ed Brown and his wife, Elaine, have locked themselves off from the world on their own terms.

From behind the 8-inch concrete walls of their 110-acre hilltop compound, the couple taunt police and SWAT teams and play to reporters and government-haters with references to past standoffs that turned deadly.

Most assume people like this are crazy. I, on the other hand, tip my hat to them. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong against sticking it to the government. The reason doesn’t matter to me. It could be for constitutional reasons, a protest against the war in Iraq, or even because you are greedy. I honestly don’t care.

In fact, I was fretting just the other day because I assumed people like this had ceased to exist. These people are not criminals. Criminality is more accurately defined by the federal government taking away 20% of what you make.

Don’t get me wrong, government must exist, but if you look at what our government actually provides for us, and how much they spend, you will be pissed. Guaranteed. We have a $2.7 trillion budget. I can’t even imagine what that money is spent on (actually I can because I have seen the federal budget, but if I hadn’t, I would have no clue).

One side note:

These guys sure are lucky that Führer Clinton isn’t still in power. The last time a standoff like this happened it didn’t end to well…

Hillary Exploits Poor for Profit

2007-06-16T21:51:00.000-07:00

A very uninteresting story about the Clintons and their hypocrisy towards the stock market surfaced this week.

Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton liquidated the contents of their blind trust upon learning it contained investments of $5 million to $25 million that could pose conflicts of interest or prove to be embarrassing to her presidential campaign.

The blind trust and a bank account valued in the same range place the Clinton's total wealth at between $10 million and $50 million.

The Clintons had to disclose the contents of the blind trust in April under instructions from the Office of Government Ethics and sold the assets in May, according to a disclosure form filed Friday. The Clintons have had a blind trust continuously since 1993 and had no control over its transactions.

So why is the stock market good enough for the Clintons, but not for old people saving for retirement? Why does Hillary not want people to have the choice of personal investment accounts as opposed to the current Social Security/Ponzi scheme?

People can make a big deal about her owning Wal-Mart and oil company stocks. Sure Hillary may be a hypocrite by blasting those companies for their business practices while at the same time profiting from those “shady business practices”. Sure she is no better than an evil Republican who probably runs the company, but who really expects anything different? Maybe some young Democrat/Socialist who actually believes the crap that comes out of Democratic leaders mouths, but no one else.

What really gets me is that this woman will use fear mongering to stop the progress of economic freedom in our country while she makes money using her millions in the stock market.

Let me make this clear. No one can stop any American from investing in anything. However, when many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, losing 6% to a Ponzi scheme with no option of using it for a real investment does have a serious effect on the average persons economic wellbeing. Don’t forget that the 6% you pay into Social Security is matched by your employer for a total of 12%. Imagine that. A world where equivalent to 12% of your pay is set aside in the stock market every time you get paid!

Unfortunately, because of the unwillingness by many to reform (especially Democrats), we see that 12% go into a black hole and must invest additional money into a real retirement account. Freedom of choice is the only way to solve this issue. Hopefully one day Democrats stop lying to themselves and their constituents and give us the freedom to invest our money the way we choose to.

Czech Republic President Rips Environmentalists

2007-06-14T17:51:00.000-07:00

Vaclav Klaus…a.k.a. president of the Czech Republic…a.k.a. freedom fighter…had an op-ed published in the Financial Times yesterday. It is Drudge often links to comments he makes about global warming and that is what this particular op-ed was about. One gem of a quote in particular:

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

When global warming is put into terms such as “global planning” it definitely opens my eyes to just how creepy this whole thing. There is nothing wrong having allies and working together for a common goal, but when it involves centralized economic planning (especially when the effects will be unquestionably negative to the overall economy) it is scary. We are essentially handing over our economic future to other countries obsessions with the environment.

Thankfully, the American political leaders have been wise enough to avoid such religiously ignorant environmental policies. However, if Democrats get their way, it seems like they would be willing to sell out our future in a second.

Some say there is nothing wrong with sacrificing some economic growth for the environmental preservation. The problem with that is that our environment is fine. By all measurements, our environment is cleaner today than it was 30 years ago. The same can not be said throughout the rest of the world, so perhaps they are the ones that should be focused on sacrificing their economies to clean up their own mess.

Cleaning up the environment hasn’t been enough for the Greenies though. They got rid of pollution, now they want to get rid of C02 which they say causes global warming. It may actually do that, but their solutions are often childish and exhibit some of the worst problem solving skills I have ever witnessed.

I have already presented several possible solutions to global warming on this blog, but environmentalists seem to run from the easier fixes. This trend leads many to believe that this isn’t about the environment, but about politics…most notably, anti-corporate and anti-capitalism interests.

Not all environmentalists fall into that classification of course, but enough of them do to the point that the motives of environmentalists must always be challenged.

Back to the original point…

We, as people, should be weary of anything that involves massive centralized planning. The reason for this is that centralized planning cuts the little guy out of the equation. The more we are afraid of X, the more aspects of our lives the government will take over and control for us.

To be fair, that doesn’t just apply to the environment…it could also apply to terrorism. However, that is a different blog for a different day…and probably for a different blogger.

Canadian Goes Wild

2007-06-12T13:53:00.000-07:00

Drudge reported a weird story out of Canada about a 12-year-old girl killing her family to be with her boyfriend.

The girl and her then 23-year-old boyfriend were arrested after her mother, father and brother were found dead on April 23, 2006, with multiple stab wounds in their Alberta province home. The boy also appeared to have been strangled.

During the trial, which started this week, prosecutor Stephanie Cleary read to the jury an email written by the girl, 12 at the time, to her boyfriend a month before the killings, local media said Tuesday.

"I hate them so I have this plan. It begins with me killing them and it ends with me living with you," the email said.

The prosecution also plans to show the jury a drawing found in the girl's school locker, apparently depicting the murder and her escape in her boyfriend's truck.

There aren’t a lot of details here, but I found it interesting that the girl drew a picture of the killings before they actually happened. Don’t ask how, but the Conservative Bastion has attained a copy of the drawing:

And there you have it. The Conservative Bastion has taken you into the mind of a crazed psychopath. Check back at the Bastion for full coverage of this story. Updates will be available as the trial moves forward.

Great Going Fag

2007-06-11T17:15:00.000-07:00

This is old news, but it came up in a conversation I was having yesterday. The topic was the word “fag” and the recent “scandals” involving the word.

The fact is, liberals and other fags like to ban words that make them mad or offend them. This is no different from the way conservatives act, so I don’t hold that against them.

The main difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is the outright liberal hypocrisy. To them, saying “fag” is a mortal sin that requires admittance into rehab or a reeducation camp. However, when conservatives get offended by nudity during the Super Bowl, all we hear from liberals is that conservatives are shoving their values on others.

That is just one example, but there are plenty of ways that Hollywood offends conservatives. How about the seemingly concerted and contrived effort to take the name of the Lord in vain as much as possible? Most religious people I know don’t even make a peep about the blatant use of “God”, “Jesus Christ”, and many variations thereof mixed with plenty of expletives.

Personally, I don’t think I will ever stop saying the word “fag”, and I won’t apologize for it. However, if the fags decide to call a truce and stop using the name of the Lord in vain, I may be able to come to the table for some sort of peace talks and ceasefire.

Until then, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it...and here is an example of the use of the word "fag" in a tasteful manner.

Illegal Immigration Butt Lovers Unite

2007-06-01T21:42:00.000-07:00

I – the greatest debunker of dishonest political thinking of the 21st century (so far) – have found another great loophole in the modern American liberal political philosophy. Prepare for intellectual nirvana...

This is from Wikipedia regarding globalization:

Globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres.

For those of you who don’t know, many liberals oppose globalization for a number of various reasons. Some don’t like it because they believe it empowers corporations while simultaneously suppresses the poor. Others don’t like it because they feel globalization has effectively “Americanized” the rest of the world. The idea is that because America is the richest country in the world, our cultural icons (music, books, movies, etc.) are shared with the rest of the world and stomp out local talent. In other words, it makes the world a less diverse place (which is the biggest sin of all for liberals).

This idea also extends to industry. After all, how can an upstart fast-food restaurant in…Mongolia let’s say…compete against a McDonald’s franchise?

So what does globalization have to do with immigration? Well I am glad you asked. You see, the reason globalization exists is because of free trade.

Everyone acknowledges this. People who are anti-globalization are also anti-free trade. People that are for free trade don’t see globalization as a problem.

What some people don’t understand is that also the biggest pro-immigration people in the world are free trade believing conservatives. Don’t believe, read ‘em and weep.

You see, to the economic conservative, people should be allowed to do whatever they want (economically speaking) as long as what they do is consensual and profitable. This means that corporations should be allowed to pollute (within reason) as long as consumers are still willing to buy their product. The idea is that if the pollution were really that bad, consumers would take a stand and not buy from the company in question.

This type of philosophy gives corporations like Wal-Mart a pass despite charges that they underpay their workers. Again, the logic behind it is that if Wal-Mart were that bad, no one would want to work there, and no one would shop there. In other words, if you don’t like Wal-Mart, don’t shop or work there…after all, they aren’t bothering you.

Unfortunately this logic gets a little contradictory when welfare exists, but that is another subject for another day.

Back to immigration…free trade conservatives take the same stance on immigration as they do with everything else. In there mind, if one person is willing to give another a job for a price that is agreed upon by both parties, then no one should be allowed to stop them.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to agree with immigration for another set of completely illogical, and often a cry-me-a-river set of reasons.

1. Immigration made America great

This is a very "conservative", knee-jerk, "stuck-in-old-ways" take on a modern issue…especially by the self-proclaimed liberal party.

2. Families will be separated

This is a pretty lame excuse. If someone breaks into your house and starts sleeping in your bed, do they now have a right to bring over their whole family because otherwise “we would be breaking up families”? Does anyone actually believe this makes any sense?

3. They do jobs Americans won’t do

This is my favorite. I will admit that I haven’t been to New England lately, but I can’t imagine how bad those states must be. Think about it. Without illegals doing all the work Americans won’t do…who’s cleaning the toilets up there? Who’s mowing the lawns? Who does construction? Yes, I am mocking you. Illegals don’t do work American’s WON’T do…they do work Americans DON’T do.

Imagine a town of 100,000 people. It is a decent sized town and has everything a normal town would need to survive. Now picture 10,000 people moving into the town rather rapidly. What would happen? Well there would be thousands of jobs almost instantly created. With 10,000 more citizens, you will need more teachers, firemen, policemen, construction workers, restaurants (and therefore cooks, waiters, and dish cleaners), mechanics, etc.

Would the new citizens be doing jobs the old citizens weren’t willing to do? Does that even make any sense?

All this even makes less sense when you couple it with the liberal stance on outsourcing.

The common argument is that the US is losing jobs overseas to cheaper workers. This is funny for a couple reasons. First of all, unemployment is at historical lows. All the outsourcing in the world would not hurt our economy.

Second, and more importantly, liberals don’t want jobs outsourced, but they claim that we have more jobs than we can fill here in the US.

To clarify. To the liberal mind:

Outsourcing = bad/evil

Illegal immigrants coming into the country to "do jobs American’s won’t do" = good

So which one is it. Are we losing jobs to workers overseas or do we need to bring in more workers because we don't have enough people in our country to meet our labor demand?

What’s that? Is that the sound of liberals crying? Seriously, I don’t mean to turn everyone’s world upside down…I really don’t.

For those of you who still aren’t getting it (and part of that is me going off on subjects that aren’t directly related) illegal immigration = globalization. Think back to the definition of globalization as given by Wikipedia…

Globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres.

Game. Set. Match.

Immigration Bill Debated

2007-05-31T23:04:00.000-07:00

For those of you who care more about Anna Nicole Smith, Lindsey Lohan, and Paris Hilton than the wellbeing of the greatest country God ever gave man (and the country you happen to live in) there is a proposal in both houses of congress for “comprehensive immigration reform”…whatever that means.

I actually like the bill and hope it passes, however the bill itself is not my largest concern.

My beef comes from immigration itself. Personally, I don’t think enough questions are being asked regarding the immigration issue.

It seems like everyone and their mom is hung up on the idea that immigration made America great and is part of a long tradition we have, therefore, we need to continue it.

In my not-so-humble opinion, both of those statements are fallacious.

Immigration occurs in every country around the world. Some could argue as much or more so than the immigration that has taken place in the US. Yet, no other country is as prosperous as our own. The fact is that our economic prosperity brings in more immigration – not the other way around. The true source of our prosperity comes from a lack of government intervention in the individuals life.

Of course illegal immigrant butt lovers (an industry term) would have you think otherwise. It seems as if they think our economy would tank were it not for illegals.

Dumb.

It is one thing to think that immigration is what made America great. A lot of people have that view and it may be more debatable than I let on in the couple previous paragraphs. However, the idea that we should allow immigration to continue just because it worked in the past is completely devoid of reasoning.

What makes it worse is that many of those who want to continue the mass migration we have seen the past few years don’t seem to want to answer questions about how our policy should shift to keep up with the times.

What am I talking about you ask?

In the 1800s, no real skills were needed for most jobs. Therefore, the “give me your tired and huddled masses” theory worked. Any Joe Shmoe who was willing to work his ass off could succeed. Those days are gone, and we must adapt.

In general, you need an education to get a good job in today's world. In other words, we don’t need Joe Shmoes anymore. Sorry. Today America has a science deficit. Logically, you would think the politicians could put 2 and 2 together and bring in more immigrants with science degrees to make up for our domestic deficit.

Unfortunately, this concept seems to have escaped most politicians. They act as if more landscapers and janitors are going to drive the future of our economy. They won't.

Congratulations retards, you have allowed America to take one small step for Mexico, and one giant leap in the wrong direction. In an age where we need serious professionals, we have imported a population that has a disproportionate disposition for criminal activity, lacks a pride and commitment to education, and one with no allegiance to America.

Sorry to sound pessimistic, but when I see 45 million Hispanics that wave American flags, speak English, and have jobs that require more than eight years in school, then I will become a believer.

Until then, I have to say that the solution to the current problem is to pass the current bill being debated in both houses of congress, then completely cut off immigration to America from the western hemisphere.

Why?

Part of the problem with their assimilation is that they can get up, go to work, have fun, and go home again without seeing more than a handful of passersby that speak English. No one will assimilate in a situation like that. It isn’t human nature.

Pelosi Rejects Tradition of Freedom for Fascism

2007-05-17T08:08:00.000-07:00

The fascist state is alive and well under the Democratic congress. Their power grab is the greatest threat to freedom since Nazi Germany invaded Poland and started WWII. A brief synopsis of their latest public disdain for freedom:

Republicans claimed victory Wednesday in a flash-pan fight with House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over 185-year-old House rules that allow the minority
party to block legislation.

So what was so important that the Democrats would overthrow 185 years of tradition?

"House Democrats wanted to change the rules to make it easier to raise taxes,"
Cantor [Chief Deputy Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia] wrote. "They
wanted to change rules on minority floor rights that have been in place since
1822. They failed."

Seriously...WTF?

Are We Ready for the First Mentally Challenged President?

2007-05-09T09:24:00.000-07:00

If George Bush is stupid, then Barack Obama is retarded…

Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.

The death toll was 12.

First of all, notice the excuses the liberal controlled/fascist media makes for Obama. It is sickening. When Obama fumbles his words, it is because he is “caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech.” Nice try. When the President does it, it is because he is dumb ass. A dumb ass, by the way, with a 1200 SAT score which would place him in the 95th percentile of intelligence.

As a fair-minded person, I realize this was just a simple mistake. Normally this type of event shouldn’t even make the news. However, if I were to hold Democratic politicians to the same standard that many Democrats have held President Bush to, then Obama is literally retarded. So much for Barack being articulate.

When Liberals Exist

2007-05-07T14:41:00.000-07:00

For those of you who don’t already know, France has elected a conservative. Seemingly on cue, some liberal cry babies/terrorists started riots. No doubt they are complaining of stolen elections, fascism, and environmental ruin. Regardless of their violent actions against democracy, they prove that liberals everywhere only like elections when they go their way. Here is a small tidbit of some liberal scum trying to violently overcome a democratic election.

RIOT police fired tear gas into an angry crowd gathered at the Place de la Bastille in Paris following conservative Nicolas Sarkozy's presidential election victory yesterday, one of a handful of incidents reported around France.

Two police unions said firebombs targeted schools and recreation centers in several towns in the Essonne region just south of Paris.

Police dispersed a group of angry leftists in Lyon, in southeast France. Similar incidents were reported in Grenoble, at the foot of the Alps, and Rennes and Nantes in the west, BFM TV said.

You don’t see conservatives in civilized countries turning to violence when they lose an election. Here is an actual picture of one of the freedom-hating-liberal-terrorists.

Looks like the terrorist is having a pretty good time with the dog.

In Honor of Illegal Immigrant Day

2007-05-02T11:03:00.000-07:00

Being fair and balanced, the Conservative Bastion is posting two videos we found regarding the immigration issue. Both are enjoyable. Actually, we will report you can decide, but we are pretty sure everyone will like these. Especially the one showing the illegals bombarded with rubber bullets.

Spare me the sob stories. I've been shot with paintball guns at close range. They don't feel good, but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Anti-American Parade Day

2007-04-30T08:06:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow is May 1st and the day that ungrateful illegals have chosen to arrogantly “protest” for immigration reform and labor rights.

Last year I wrote about the top 10 reasons to clamp down on illegal immigration. This year, I will give advice to the illegals because – unbeknownst to them – those protests hurt their cause. Apathetic Americans, like myself, were turned into rabid anti-illegal immigrant fanatics after their classless display last year. They are going about this all wrong and here is what they should do.

Get rid of your Mexican flags. I’ll be frank, if my family had waved the flags of the USSR or the Philippines they would been laughed at. Why would you be proud of a country that has screwed you over? That really is the key question.

If these people wanted and deserved to be Americans, they wouldn’t have had to be told to wave American flags instead of Mexican flags. The fact is that many of these people are Mexicans first (among other nationalities).

No matter what anyone says, waving a foreign flag in a domestic protest can only be viewed one way: arrogant. Can you imagine the spring break college kids bringing all their American flags to Mexico and then protesting against ANYTHING whilst obnoxiously waving their flags? It makes me sick just thinking about it.

The illegals and their supporters should not have protested at all. Some may think that is crazy, but anyone who listens to what President Bush has actually said on the subject knows that Bush is practically the first Hispanic president.

It is really awkward and embarrassing that so many Hispanics could be so hostile to their greatest ally. Maybe if they learned English they would understand what it is he actually wants to do.

Instead they thought they would get all activist on us and make a difference. Not smart. Now they are getting deported in larger numbers than they were before the protests.

Don’t play the race card on this one either. That is a dumb cop out. After searching the headlines at Google for 3 seconds, I found a story about a crack down on illegal Albanians.

The fact is that white illegals are non-existent. When there is a crack down on white-collar crime, people don’t say the prosecutors are anti-white. Please use common sense.

My advice to the illegals is simple

• Learn English

• Work hard

• Don’t collect welfare

• Only have as many kids as you can take care of – this takes into regard both money and time

• Get an education and make sure your kids get one

• Love America

If you do that, you should be fine. Anything else just pisses us off.

Was Bill Clinton a Nazi?

2007-04-27T09:26:00.000-07:00

The point has been made over the past few years that President George W. Bush is a Nazi/Fascist. This is the typical rhetoric of childish liberals who cannot conjure a legitimate argument against a political opponent, thus resorting to baseless name calling.

However, some have tried to legitimize this claim by describing the main features of fascism and giving examples of how President Bush and Republicans have met those standards.

You can find one such article here. However, upon a brief review of this list, the Conservative Bastion has realized that these arguments could easily be made about any and every American president. Naturally, we decided to take the article verbatim, and write a rebuttal using President Clinton’s record in order to paint him as a fascist. Do we really think he is a fascist? No. Our point is to show how easy an argument like this is to make. Furthermore, if this is the standard that a liberal would use to call someone a fascist, then their beloved first black president, B.J. Clinton, is a Hitler incarnate.

Here goes nothing:

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Whether you like to admit it or not, nationalism has always been strong in America. The one exception may be during the Vietnam era, although nationalism still existed.

This is the liberal god Howard Zinn himself - accusing the Clinton administration of harmful nationalism.

In our time, it was the liberal Bill Clinton who sent bombers over Baghdad as soon as he came into office, who first raised the specter of "weapons of mass destruction" as a justification for a series of bombing attacks on Iraq. Liberals today criticize George Bush's unilateralism. But it was Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who told the United Nations Security Council that the U.S. would act "multilaterally when we can, unilaterally when we must."

This is Bill Clinton arrogantly exclaiming that, “there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.”

Pure American arrogance. He seems to be saying that America is the all-knowing beacon of truth in the world and that we could not possibly learn anything from a foreigner. Just sickening.

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

Anyone who has been alive and conscience knows that the biggest violation of human rights in the United States over the last 20 years occurred in Waco, Texas at the hands of the federal government. The unadulterated murder of unarmed men, women and children by government is inexcusable in any country, but is especially disturbing when it occurs in the country that is supposed to be the freest in the world.

Not to mention, the crimes against humanity perpetuated by the Clinton administration in North Korea, Iraq, among other places.

Not to mention, his domestic spying.

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

I know Democrats and liberals like to pretend that Republicans have all these scapegoats they blame for everything. First of all, even if the point has any credence at all, it is not at the level of anything in Nazi Germany (so why call Bush a Nazi when the comparison is extremely insensitive and unwarranted). The only president ever to approach that type of oppression in modern America is FDR with the interment of the Japanese.

More recently, Democrats have turned to the wealthy, large corporations, and “extremist Christians” (see Waco Massacre) as a source of scapegoating.

Of course there is the Microsoft situation. What a shock...Democrats scapegoating large corporations...NO WAY!

More on scapegoating…

Some political conservatives scapegoat drug sellers and users, clapping them in prison and sacrificing them upon the altar of public opinion. Some religious conservatives scapegoat homosexuals, declaring AIDS to be "God's punishment." Then some homosexuals scapegoat their critics as "homophobes" because they criticize dangerous behavior. Many want to scapegoat, and others, self-deluded, self-righteously believe they are scapegoated. Everyone is always pointing their finger at someone else, forgetting the truth of the saying, "Take the log out of your own eye before you worry about the speck in your brother's."

And…

Actually, if you took the scapegoating out of inherently scapegoating philosophies -- such as socialism, leftism and liberalism (with its "us vs. them" attitude and politics of class envy), they would all collapse. Leftism is indeed ultimately based on envy -- everyone is supposed to be "equal" to avoid that envy. But only that which is identical is equal. Two quarters are equal because they are identical. This, obviously, doesn't apply to people, unless you stick them on some Procrustean rack.

Of course, why use a minority as a scapegoat when you can just use your enemies. Remember Shrillary and her “vast right-wing conspiracy” comment?

This is a classic example of political hack blaming someone else for a scandal that they brought on themselves. Rather than saying, "my husband is a sexual deviant that needs some psychiatric treatment", she blames conservatives. Stand up job Shrillary...stand up job.

4.) Supremacy of the Military

This is almost laughable. Believe it or not, the US still had the most powerful military in the world when Clinton was president. This argument is much easier because there are so many liberals out there that have defended the way Clinton treated the military. So not only do I win this argument, I win it using the words of liberals. Also see here, here, and here.

5.) Rampant Sexism

Another laughable charge. B.J. Clinton is possibly the most sexist president in modern history. It is well documented in things like books. Sexual deviants tend to put sex before people. When you do that you tend to lack respect for the people you are engaging in sexual activity with. Since Clinton is a sex addict and gets sex whenever and from whomever he can, he presumably doesn’t respect any women. Don’t believe me, please read the following:

No respect for women whatsoever

Their Lives by: Candice Jackson

Why do feminists support Clinton?

6.) Controlled Mass Media

I am going to barf. Does anyone really argue against the idea that the news media has a strong liberal bias? Can anyone really argue otherwise? The fact that most liberals think Fox News is bias practically proves the point. Fact: there are more liberals on Fox than conservatives on all the other major TV outlets combined.

For additional info, read any of the following links:

Bernard Goldberg

Media admits they are liberal...

I think it is safe to say that if any politicians control or benefit from undue positive coverage by the mass media, it is most certainly liberals – not conservatives.

7.) Obsession with National Security

I don’t even know what this means. Obsessed with keeping the country safe…if that makes me a Nazi, sign me up. However, Clinton, to his credit, was obsessed with national security.

Pure obsession

So obsessed he had his former national security adviser steal classified documents out of the national archives in his pants.

Repeated bombing of Iraq

So desperate to bomb someone he bombed an aspirin factory

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined

This is a tough one. Mostly because what constitutes a religion or a religious idea is debatable. One could argue it is anything that gives one a greater purpose or meaning in life. The fact is that morals and religious ideas permeate the American and every other government around the world. You cannot separate morals from law. The notion is absurd. That being said, one of the strongest and fastest growing new age religions – environmentalism – is very much pushed by the Democratic party through legislation and other government action.

Read more:

Environmentalism is a religion

Clinton institutes environmentalism as state religion

Attacks Bush for not keeping with his religious/fascist policies

Then of course, there is all the religious rhetoric that Clinton used in many of his speeches.

Does the fact that Clinton mentioned God in his speeches mean that religion and government are now intertwined?

No, but it is the standard the George W. Bush seems to be held to.

9.) Corporate Power is Protected

Who knows what this is supposed to mean, but believe it or not, all the corporations that are around today were around when Clinton was president too. Not to mention, all those corporate scandals in the early years of Bush’s presidency actually occurred with Billy was president. It wasn’t until they were brought to light under the all-knowing guidance of George W. Bush that these corporate criminals were prosecuted and convicted.

Capitalist/corporate pigs stole and connived under Clinton's watch and were brought to justice under GWB

Free trade, long thought of as pro-business and anti-worker, was one of Bill Clintons stronger points.

10.) Labor Power is Suppressed

More nonsense from the left, but labor didn’t do all that well in the 90’s for a variety of reasons.

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

George W. Bush has greatly increased the spending for education at the federal level. A fact that is indisputable and one that actually upsets a lot of conservatives.

Meanwhile, Al Gore (Clinton's VP), has taken a strong stance against intellectual debate. The message has been picked up by the media outlets that they (Democrats/fascists) control.

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment

Oh those libs and their obsession with gun control…do I even need to post links for this?

Not to mention

Obsession

with crime and punishment

is evil

13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

The Clinton Legacy:

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

More found here and here...

14. Fraudulent Elections

Republicans tend not to bitch as loudly and as obnoxiously as Democrats do, but there is just as much evidence that Clinton stole the 1996 election as there is that Bush stole 2000 or 2004.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The only conclusion I can come to after this careful and fair analysis of Billy “B.J.” Clinton and Democrats, is that they are just as much Nazi’s and fascist as any Republicans I know.

MSNBC Hosts Moonbat Mania

2007-04-26T17:11:00.000-07:00

I did my best to watch the Democratic debate on MSNBC tonight, but I had to quit after half of the participants stated by a show of hands that they did not believe in the global War on Terrorism.

To me, that is like saying, "I don't believe in the Cold War." Of course, some moonbats actually believe the Cold War was all hype too.

It's sad. No matter how much I would like to vote for someone other than a Republican, the Democratic candidates make it absolutely impossible.

Chris Dodd and Biden need to check into Dr. Kevorkian’s office.

Obama and Richardson are by far the most tolerable.

Hillary married a sexual deviant, which doesn’t say much about her judgment or her personal integrity.

Edwards actually made sense on a couple things tonight…unfortunately he promotes economic divisiveness and looks like a bobble head.

The last guy I had never seen before. He said something about getting rid of a standing army which I half way agree with, but since I don’t know his name, I will never know where to find more information about him.

My advice for Democrats running for president:

• Don’t talk about the president violating the constitution and then try to ban guns – it makes you look very dumb.

• Shut up about global warming. If you want to diversify our sources of energy, then do it, but don’t hide behind global warming. More importantly, don’t do something so drastic that if it turned out that global warming was a scam, you would be viewed as a complete failure. Any environmental policy should be based on hard facts rather than conjecture by some weatherman that lives in his mothers basement.

• Don’t be so negative. I know you hate the president, but you don’t need to turn every single question you answer about what you would do into something about how President Bush screwed up. Biden insinuated that Bush was responsible for the situation in North Korea. That is retarded.

• Don’t use socialism to solve our healthcare problem. Not only would it hurt our country, it is unnecessary. There are plenty of pro-market reforms our country can adopt that could help lower prices.

• Don’t raise taxes. Why would you even think that is an option? 2.5 trillion in tax revenues isn’t enough?

• Shut up about your homosexual and other social agendas and let the states decide. Not only is it constitutional, but it is the path of least resistance.

Some of you readers are probably thinking that I am basically asking for them to be Republican. That is not true. They could easily follow my guidelines, get their agenda done (the reasonable part) and not be so divisive while doing it.

Glboal Warming - Doomsday Called Off

2007-04-25T13:20:00.000-07:00

This is probably the best documentary on global warming that I have ever seen. If you are interested in hearing the argument against the Al Gore view of global warming, then I suggest you watch it.

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Death Stats in America

2007-04-18T09:58:00.001-07:00

Some basic statistics on death in America. These statistics are from 2003 and 2004 and can be found here on the CDC website.

Top 15 Causes of Death in America

1. Heart Disease……………………………………………………654,092 deaths
2. Malignant neoplasms…………………………………………550,270
3. Cerebrovascular diseases……………………………………150,147
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases………………………123,884
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)………………………108,694
6. Diabetes Mellitus…………………………………………………72,815
7. Alzheimer’s disease……………………………………………65,829
8. Influenza and pneumonia………………………………………61,472
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis…………42,762
10. Septicemia…………………………………………………………33,464
11. Intentional self-harm (suicide)………………………………31,647
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis…………………………26,549
13. Essential (primary) hypertension…………………………22,953
14. Parkinson’s disease………………………………………………18,018
15. Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids………………………16,959

Deaths by guns

Homicide 11,599
Suicide 16,859
Accidents 752

In other words, you are more likely to kill yourself with a gun than be murdered by one.

Also, you are at least four times more likely to die in a car accident that to be murdered by a gun.

It is easy to say we should ban guns, but if we do that, we should ban a host of other things we use daily.

Let’s ban junk food. No more soda. No more cookies. No more fast food restaurants.

Let’s ban tobacco and alcohol.

Let’s ban cars.

Let’s ban depressed people so that they can no longer kill themselves.

Banning a substance, object, or idea is not what we should do in a free society. We need to educate.

Nazis Outlaw Baby Murder

2007-04-18T09:16:00.000-07:00

It's a bad day for liberals. They will no longer be able to murder unborn babies in their third trimester.

Those Nazis are always holding people down. How dare they take away the right of a mother to killer her child in her third trimester. She should be able to do that anytime she wants! I think George Bush just hates women and freedom…and he sucks.

The Virginia Tech Massacre & Gun Control

2007-04-17T14:40:00.001-07:00

By now you all know about the massacre that took place on the campus of Virginia Tech yesterday. Rather than regurgitate some of the facts of the case, I rather regurgitate some of the political arguments being made regarding this subject.

First there is the killer: Cho Seung-Hui, a permanent resident originally from South Korea. The first point to be made is obvious: we need to screen the people immigrating to this country. We need to check for IQ, education levels, physical diseases, psychological diseases, and ideological beliefs. None of this willy nilly everyone come in and get a job who can. That is how monkey’s conduct immigration policy, not the most powerful country in the history of the earth.

However the other subject that has come up is the one of gun control. “If only we banned guns, this wouldn’t have happened”, at least that’s what some people think. Only a reactionary could come to such an emotionally driven conclusion.

Gun control is a strange subject for the Conservative Bastion to write about. Unlike drug policy, abortion, gay marriage, tax policy, foreign policy, and even animal rights, this issue should not be debatable.

The reason it should not be debatable is because we are guaranteed the right to bare arms as American citizen. On top of that, it is arguably the most important right we have. Why is that? Because without the right to bare arms, this country would not exist. If the Found Fathers had not had guns with which to protect themselves, the British would not have given the 13 colonies up. Rather than being the lone superpower in the world that we are today, we would probably just be India-lite.

I know some of you aren’t convinced, so let me put it this way…

To all the people out there who hate President Bush, and there are a lot of you out there. Do you think the President is a Nazi or a fascist? Of course the Bastion thinks that is nonsense, but we are well aware that many out there believe that.

Here is some historical perspective for you…the Nazis, when they invaded France and other countries, confiscated all firearms. Why do you think that is? Do you think that is because they had the wellbeing of the people at the top of their priority list?

NO!

Firearms threaten centralized power. Without arms, there is no way for a person to protect themselves from abusive power.

We can clearly see that in American history in the South with blacks and the KKK.

All this talk about hunting and hunters is nonsense. This has nothing to do with hunting. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting…at all…AT ALL.

The right to bare arms exists so that citizens can protect themselves against foreign and domestic threats, not so they can eat meat (although that is a positive byproduct of the right).

Furthermore, banning guns will not solve this problem. This attack occurred in a gun-free zone. A lot of good that gun-free zone did those students. The fact is, unless you can completely lockdown an area, a gun free zone makes no sense. For instance a courtroom is ok to keep “gun-free” because you can relatively easily control who comes in and who doesn’t, and you can search those who do enter the building.

However, that is much harder to do at the national and state level. In fact it is impossible. If we can smuggle humans and drugs across the border, then we could smuggle guns. So if America were to ban guns, the effect would be that all law abiding citizens (people you wouldn’t mine possessing a gun) would lose their guns. While all criminals would either keep their old guns or buy smuggled guns from Mexico.

This is an interesting point in itself. Many liberals are pro-drug legalization or de-criminalization. How you could come to that conclusion about drugs and not about guns is beyond me.

In conclusion remember this. Guns are an inanimate object. That means they aren’t inherently evil or good. Rather it depends on the individual using the object on how it is used.

So what is the answer to stop this kind of thing from happening again? First of all, you can’t stop this kind of thing from happening unless you live in a totalitarian state. However, the best way to minimize situations like this would be for the Federal government to adopt a concealed weapons program. The program would give people a tax incentive to go through a police type background check and screening process that would allow them (if they passed) to carry a concealed weapon with them at all times wherever they go. In effect, they would be off duty policemen and women.

They also may want to look at making it illegal for there to be a gun-free zone without some sort of perimeter and screening process set up. You don’t see people going on shooting rampages in military bases or at gun shows. They choose schools for a reason.

The last few years has brough us many debates over freedom vs. security. Liberals love to pretend to be the brave ones who stand on the side of freedom over security. Not this time. Frankly, I rather have President Bush wiretap every single phone I use for the next 20 years than give up the rights of Americans to bare arms for the next five.

Nappy-Headed Ho Should Get Prison Time

2007-04-12T12:47:00.000-07:00

Conservative Bastion to Don Imus...come in Don Imus. This just in. Your nappy-headed ho comment from last week may have been out of line, but there is someone very deserving of that label this week. Her name is Crystal Gail Mangum.

WOW...that's one nappy-headed ho alright!

For those of you who don’t know Crystal, she is the nappy-headed ho who falsely accused the Duke lacrosse players of rape.

The way I see it, anyone who knowingly falsely accuses someone of a crime should go to prison for as long as the accused would have had they been convicted. Since she accused three guys, she should probably get life in prison.

This would be a great deterrent from future nappy-headed ho’s behaving in a similar manner.

Republicans Better in Bed

2007-04-11T13:00:00.000-07:00

This is an older news story, but still relevant, and still very accurate:

American Sex Lives 2004, a new "Primetime Live" sex poll conducted in conjunction with the ABC News Polling Unit, is among the most comprehensive surveys of its kind in decades and establishes a new, detailed picture of sex attitudes and behavior in America today.

Here are the results:

Of those involved in a committed relationship, who is very satisfied with their relationship?
Republicans — 87 percent; Democrats — 76 percent

Who is very satisfied with their sex life?
Republicans — 56 percent; Democrats — 47 percent

The poll analysis also reveals who has worn something sexy to enhance their sex life:
Republicans — 72 percent; Democrats — 62 percent

When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more
Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had.

I guess random and rampant sex doesn't bring happiness after all. Ok, maybe that isn't fair, but the fact is, Democrats are depressed people. They are too negative. Everything in the world sucks (look at the way they talk about the president or big business) and there is always something to blame for their problems.

Are Republicans really better in bed? Probably not. What this survey shows is a general outlook on life.

Just be happy with what you have, which is a lot, considering we live in the freest and richest country God has given man. So lets keep America the way it is. Vote Republican.

Global Warming Caught Off Guard

2007-04-10T10:24:00.000-07:00

DAMN GEORGE BUSH!!!

April is currently tracking as the coldest April in 113 years - a dramatic
change from last years #1 warmest ever. Even after some late month moderation,
April 2007 will likely keep the month in the top 7 coldest in history.

WHAT KIND OF MIND GAMES IS HE PLAYING WITH US!

First he makes the oil companies rich by invading Iraq, now he has coerced Mother Earth – through whom all blessings flow – into reversing global warming!

***SCREAM***

Seriously the global warming hysteria – as seen above – needs to stop.

Now I admit that the above quote doesn’t mean all that much. It’s like in sports, one game doesn’t mean anything. So is the weather. One month or even one year means little in terms of climate. This knee jerk reaction stuff needs to stop. It isn’t science – it is fear and politics.

If April had been the warmest on record, or one of the warmest on record, we wouldn’t hear the end of it. Now that it’s one of the coldest, we barely hear anything.

Unemployment Rate 4.4%

2007-04-06T15:08:00.000-07:00

The unemployment rate is at historic lows despite President George Bush constantly trying to hurt brown and black people.

…the economy added 180,000 new jobs, dropping unemployment to a 4.4 percent rate that matched a five-year low.

Geez this economy sucks…so does G-Dub. I hate him so much! More from the article:

The rate for women held steady at 3.8 percent. The rate for men declined to 4 percent.

I’m not an expert statistician, but if the unemployment rate is 4% for men and 3.8% for women, how is the overall unemployment rate 4.4%? Oh...I forgot about the transgender freaks.

The unemployment rate for Hispanics dropped to 5.1 percent, a three-month low,
while the rate for blacks climbed to 8.3 percent, a three-month high.

Hmmmm…I wonder why this article doesn’t mention the unemployment rate for Asians? Actually…no I don’t. The reason they don’t mention the Asian unemployment rate is because it goes against the liberal media storyline of discrimination against minorities. Blacks and Hispanics have above average unemployment (so says the media and popular opinion) because of racism and lack of opportunity.

Unfortunately, Asians are more successful financially than whites. This obviously instantly defeats any argument used by libs regarding racism holding down minorities. That is, unless every single white person in the country got a memo that said to discriminate against blacks and Hispanics, but to leave Asians alone. I think the truth is clear, but rather than change their talking points, the libs simply ignore the fact of Asian success.

So why do blacks and Hispanics struggle financially? The answer is simple, but is too politically incorrect to mention in most places. However, here at the Conservative Bastion, we have the cojones to tell the truth.

The main difference is cultural values.

Being fully exposed to all cultures in America, let me enlighten you to the differences. *Note* these are generalized differences.

Asians and whites expect their children to go to college.

Blacks and Hispanics do not.

Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to grow up without a father.

Whites and Asians tend to have a father in the home.

Whites and Asians stress learning proper English.

Blacks and Hispanics do not. Every black person that I have ever known that spoke English well told me they were given crap for it by other blacks. They were often told something along the lines of, “you speak like a white person”. This is not a compliment.

This kind of attitude illustrates a major problem with blacks. If being educated makes you white, and white is bad…then you are screwed.

Hispanics…where to begin! I don’t know if it is out of pride or what, but these people like to hang on to the old language. They have duped the whole country into the idea that knowing two languages is a good thing. Frankly it is a waste of time unless you are an international businessperson or a translator.

A simplified language that every citizen can easily learn is what separates primitive cultures from civilized ones. If you have to go to school for years to learn the language(s) of the land, then you are wasting time, money, and human labor. Let’s face it, not that many Americans of any color are great at English. Average people have a hard enough time with one language. There is no point in having two.

To summarize…if you want to be successful in America, go to college, learn proper English, don’t have children in an uncommitted relationship (i.e. save it for marriage) and stop making so many fucking excuses.

If you can’t figure out a way to pay for college, then you are probably to stupid to make it in life anyways.

Lastly…

On the economy, just 38 percent approve of the president's stewardship while 60 percent disapprove, the poll shows.

Proving Americans, despite living in the best country God gave man, lack basic reasoning skills.

Clinton Lied, Babies Died

2007-04-05T13:23:00.000-07:00

There’s a verse in the Old Testament somewhere that goes something like this:

'Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands'

This text refers to the fact that King Saul of Israel was a warrior, but the up and coming –and soon-to-be King David – was a maniac.

The same is true for US presidents. After a few minutes of research today, I discovered that Bush has killed his tens of thousands, and Clinton his millions.

This is in stark contrast to popular belief that President Bush is a warmongering, oil hungry, monster whose only purpose in life is to make money off of the deaths of poor people…especially if they are brown or black.

What’s that? You don’t believe me? Well here you go…

Bush’s Kill Count

▪ 69,000 dead in Iraq…that includes Coalition as well as civilian deaths.

▪ 5,000 dead in Afghanistan…that is just an estimate, but includes civilians and Coalition forces.

Honestly, off the top of my head, I can't think of any other killing sprees that George Bush has gone on. Email me if you know of some that I have missed. If anyone tries to tell me 9/11, I will personally report you to the Bush secret police.

Clinton’s Kill Count

▪ 3 million dead in North Korea…in a stroke of genius, Bill Clinton imposed sanctions on North Korea that starved 3 million people to death. Great going bud.

▪ 500,000 babies dead in Iraq…UNICEF says so, so I guess it is official…Bill Clinton is a baby killer.

To sum up the final death count of each presidency, let me preface it with saying that there are probably dozens of other instances where these two presidents have had serious negative effects that led to death. However, I don’t know everything, so I only counted the major conflicts I knew about.

Also, I understand that American presidents have a lot of power. No matter who is president, people will die somewhere in the world in a circumstance where you could make the argument that they were directly or indirectly responsible.

In other words, I don’t think either is actually a murderer. I do believe, however, that people that call George Bush a Nazi or fascist are extremely annoying and woefully misinformed. This blog is meant for those who believe George Bush is bad, but think Clinton is good.

Thankfully, such black and white childlike logic doesn’t exist here at Conservative Bastion, and we are doing our best to educate the masses in the most balanced and fully informed way possible.

Clinton Final Score: 3.5 million dead

Bush Final Score: 74,000 dead

P.S. As for the whole "Clinton Lied, Babies Died"...read this.

Michael Crichton Owns Environmentalists

2007-04-04T12:15:00.000-07:00

Why is Michael Crichton so freaking smart? Follow the link and you can read the rest of this speech. The speech is 3 1/2 years old and he has since written a book on the subject.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

Beautiful.

Liberal College Kids Get Violent

2007-04-04T10:37:00.000-07:00

Liberals really know how to be nice and accept others despite their personal beliefs…

White House Advisor Karl Rove was the target of a protest on the American University campus Tuesday night, News4 reported.

Rove was on the campus to talk to the College Republicans, but when he got outside more than a dozen students began throwing things at his car, an American University spokesperson said.

I have two points:

1. I would be willing to bet that these kids don’t even know what Karl Rove does, or why they hate him. Rove is a boogey man for liberals, and just like the boogey man, they fear him because they have been told to. They don’t actually know him or anything about him.

2. The end of this article mentions that there were no arrests made. This is no doubt a byproduct of the inherent understanding and compassion of real conservatives. Rove understands that these kids are mindless morons with no understanding of how things actually work. His forgiveness for the transgression of a few dumb college kids is admirable. Personally, I would have got out of the car and busted some skulls.

Thank God Al Gore Lost in 2000

2007-04-03T10:15:00.000-07:00

This news is a month old by now, but it just recently caught my attention. The following comments are from Al Gore regarding media coverage of global warming.

"I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action," Gore said. "There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly — and I say 'rejected,' perhaps it's the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen … balance as bias.

I think I understand why liberals hate Fox News so much now. Balance is bias. Of course!

"I don't think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, 'It may be real, it may not be real,' is unethical.

In other words, giving both sides of the story is now bias. You must only report what Al Gore wants reported. Anything else is unethical. All hail King Gore – his word is law. Don’t you dare question him.

I think I have made my point. Anyone that calls President Bush a Nazi can now be fair and balanced and call Gore one as well. I am waiting for your responses.

Rosie O'Donnell Flip Flops on Kindness and Acceptance

2007-04-02T10:38:00.000-07:00

The Fat One has a hard time keeping her mouth shut…

On her blog at Rosie.com, Ro accused [Bill] O'Reilly of being a totalitarian puppet of News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch, as she put it, in her lower-case verse, "like 1984/molding the facts/2 suit the needs/of big brother rupert." And Rosie also revealed that when she and co-host Joy Behar made reference on "The View" to a sex scandal involving O'Reilly, they were told they had to can it about O'Reilly or else "bill o would 'go after' all the hosts" of their show.

Comments like this really annoy me. This is coming from someone who says they are liberal. Liberals love to talk about how nice and understanding and nuanced they are. However, comments like this show that the concept of liberal understanding, tolerance, and niceness are over hyped.

Let me elaborate.

Anyone can accept someone who is exactly like them. For instance, here at Conservative Bastion, we have an easy time accepting religious, conservative, and obnoxiously patriotic people. We don’t, however, have an easy time accepting liberals, gays, and brown people (it’s a joke calm down).

Because of this, conservatives often get labeled as closed minded or hateful.

Ironically, obese lesbians like Rosie prove that liberals are no more tolerant than conservatives. Sure she accepts gays, browns and liberals, but that is who she is. Of course she accepts those people. The question is whether or not she can accept Christians, conservatives and people who are prejudice.

Just a refresher, this is what she had to say about Christianity not too long ago…

…radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America.

If by radical, you mean people who are willing to kill civilians to advance a political cause, then of course she is right. In which case, radical lesbianism would be just as much a threat to this country and radical Islam.

Fortunately, the neither radical Christianity, nor radical lesbianism exist in this country. If anything, it’s the eco-terrorists who threaten this country, not Christian terrorists.

You see, the Fat Slob suffers from something that liberals often pretend to hate.

The fact is, she sees the world in black and white.

There is no other explanation as to why her comments and views could be so radical. It is because she thinks she is right, and everyone else is wrong. I can actually respect that, but don’t give me that “nuanced” bullshit or that lame “you see the world in black and white when it is in many shades of grey” speech. That is the absolute lamest speech ever. Everyone thinks they are right and the other guy is wrong. Everyone sees the world in black and white.

The fact is, she accepts people like her, and thinks people who aren’t like her are wrong or strange. In other words, she is human. There is nothing about liberals that makes them nicer or more tolerant. It is a lie. A damn good lie, but a lie nonetheless.

*****************************************************************************

I recently witnessed lesbian doublespeak firsthand on the Bravo network. There is an interesting show called Work Out on that channel that shows the life of a lesbian woman, Jackie, who runs a gym in L.A. Her mother is a conservative Christian and believes homosexuality is a sin. Her mom, however, still loves her ***SHOCK*** and was visiting her in L.A. in one of the episodes I saw.

Long story short, Jackie’s friends are all gay and were ganging up on her mother in hopes to convince her that she was wrong about homosexuality. It was interesting to see how patient the mother was and how mean and obnoxious all the gays were.

Perhaps the most interesting scene was when Jackie talked about her hopes of one day having a child and mentioned that she hoped to instill in the child (paraphrasing) love, acceptance, and some other liberal nonsense word. I say nonsense because they act as if conservatives raise their children with the hopes of them being filled with hate, oppression, and stupidity.

The fact is that she really just wants a child that accepts homosexuality and liberal ideas. Not someone that is truly universally accepting.

Another Reason I Hate Environmentalists

2007-03-20T08:58:00.000-07:00

For those of you who keep up with this kind of a thing, the following excerpts are taken from an article about James Hansen – a scientist who has claimed the Bush administration is trying to censor him. This man is the basis for many people referring to George Bush and his ilk as Nazi’s. Here are the best parts of the Washington Times article.

A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years.

Wow…1,400 interviews! Maybe this guy SHOULD be censored and put back to work. He has too much time on his hands.

…Mr. Hansen conducted 15 interviews in the month after accusing the Bush administration of censorship.

I can already smell the idiocy on this guy. Only a true moron can give 15 interviews in one month, be silenced once, and think that there is a conspiracy to shut them up.

Mr. Deutsch [Hansen’s boss], who was 23 at the time, said Mr. Hansen was prohibited from doing the interview because of his prior refusal to notify NASA officials when he was granting interviews, not for political reasons.

Citing what he called his "constitutional right" to give interviews, Mr. Hansen admitted violating NASA's press policy but defended his actions.

"It's a very rare case of where you got it on paper," Mr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch's e-mail, claiming the blocked interview was not an exception. "This thing was going on all the time."

Free speech gives you the right to speak without going to prison. However, if your employer tells you not to say something or talk about a certain topic, and you do it, they have the RIGHT to fire you. Liberals like this get under my skin. They have no understanding of what the first amendment actually says, and they seem to think it means they can say anything without getting in trouble.

Granted, now no one can say “fag” without going to rehab…

Mr. Hansen refused to denounce earlier comments he made referring to the White House as a "propaganda office," and saying, "It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States."

"I was referring to the constraints of speaking to the media," Mr. Hansen said, when asked about his comments.

I am honestly beginning to question this guys intelligence. If Bush was a Nazi, Hansen would have been dead before he gave one interview. That's right, he would be dead.

Republicans questioned him about his ties to prominent Democrats.

Mr. Hansen received a $250,000 grant from the Heinz foundation, which is controlled by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat. Mr. Hansen was a vocal supporter of Mr. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

What a surprise. It turns out that this political hack received money from other political hacks of the same persuasion. If you don’t like scientists receiving money from oil companies, then you have to be against this.

For his part, Mr. Hansen explained that he has not always disagreed with the administration's environmental positions, offering approval for increased research into nuclear power and praising the White House's support for a methane gas program.

"It is a success story, and the administration should be given credit for it," Mr. Hansen said.

WTF…that almost makes me laugh. It sounds like someone really made him rethink what he was actually saying during his testimony. He went from calling Bush a Nazi to calling the administration a success story.

I think he is dumb and I hope his lazy ass (giving interviews all day) isn’t on the government payroll anymore.

Bush Uses Jedi Mind Trick On Fake Terrorist

2007-03-15T16:09:00.000-07:00

President George W. Bush appears to have used an old Jedi mind trick on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Now before I get to this story, I must preface this blog with a short reminder.

Most learned people already know that George Bush is the worlds’ number one terrorist and that he planned 9/11 and that the whole War on Terrorism is part of an elaborate scheme by him and his Nazi/Republican allies to take over the world and make money off of oil.

Therefore, anyone attempting to confess to a terrorist plot must be a fabrication of the Bush Administration. All the Osama bin Laden videos, all the terrorist attacks prior and post 9/11, and all the Muslims that riot when they see cartoons they don't like - they are all Nazi/Republican propagand.

Back to the original story…George Bush has upped the quality of his propaganda this week by some how convincing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into confessing to the 9/11 attacks.

This conspiracy is getting more and more complicated, but I’m sure my boys at Loose Change will figure out a way around this one.

Maybe Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is being paid millions to confess to crimes he had nothing to do with...or maybe Bush recruited him from day one and planned this whole event seven years in advance!

***************************************************************

In all seriousness, how low does your IQ have to be to believe 9/11 was a conspiracy? The answer must be somewhere in the 80's.

To All The Pseudo-Environmentalists

2007-03-14T11:29:00.000-07:00

Here is a nice list of questions for all those who are environmentalist posers:

Do you like the idea of nuclear power?

Are you a vegetarian?

Do you use public transportation?

Do you live in Southern California?*

Do you live in the city?

Do you think Al Gore is dumb?

Do you want to forsake your Christianity (or whatever other religious beliefs you subscribe to) and join a new religion based on fear and environmentalism?

If you answered no to any of these questions, then you are part of the problem. So please…pull the plank out of your eye before you pull the splinter out of mine.

*You may wonder what Southern California has to do with any of this. The fact is, Southern California does have the best weather. You can get by with little or no heating or cooling bills, which drastically cut the amount of energy someone uses. So if you live somewhere where it snows, has intense humidity, or regularly gets above 100 degrees, then you are part of the problem. Unfortunately this is just about everyone except for Southern California.

Mexican Makes Good Joke

2007-03-13T09:37:00.000-07:00

Mexican’s proved they have a devilish sense of humor recently. You can read it here in the New York Times:

Just a few days before President Bush was scheduled to land here on Monday for bilateral talks, the Mexican Foreign Ministry sent an angry diplomatic note to the United States.

The note complained that United States Border Patrol agents had crossed the border and ventured a couple of dozen feet into Mexico to put out a rapidly spreading brush fire. “Even in emergency situations, the Mexican authorities must be notified immediately, without exception,” the note said.

This must be a joke. Regardless of its seriousness, I have decided to write a letter to the Mexican Foreign Minister. Here it goes:

Mr. Foreign Minister,

I recently read about how angry you were when American Border Patrol agents crossed the Mexican border without permission or notification. I understand where you are coming from. Nobody likes it when a foreign country allows its people to enter their country unannounced and uninvited. Such actions are rude, arrogant, and illegal. I would be happy if my country were to notify Mexico of any future border incursions by its citizens – assuming you are willing return the favor.

Go to hell,

David Quijano

I have a feeling that we are pretty close to forming an international consensus here.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that most Americans would rather have a few Mexican Border Patrol agents cross over into our country to put out a fire as opposed to 12 million illegal immigrants. Just a guess.

So excuse me if I don't sympathize with this moron. Your country is in much greater violation of international law than the US is.

An Inconvenient Rebuttal

2007-03-13T08:31:00.000-07:00

The New York Times ran an interesting article in their science section regarding Al Gore’s fairy tale epic: An Inconvenient Truth.

The article does a very good job addressing many of the main points that pseudo-scientists like Al Gore try to bring up when talking about global warming. What’s more impressive is that these responses come from actual scientists and not politicians with delusions of grandeur (remember, Al Gore still thinks he invented the internet).

So without further delay, here are some of the best bits of the article as I saw it. If you want to read it, you better do so today, because New York Times articles are only free the day they are publicized. After that, you are required to have a subscription.

Addressing the idea that there is a scientific consensus regarding global warming:

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Addressing the idea that climate change is somehow new or unheard of:

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

***SHOCK***

Do you mean to say that not all global warming deniers (sounds like holocaust deniers) are followers of Fuehrer Bush and members of the Fascist Party of Amerika?!??!!

South America: The Second Worst Continent in the World

2007-03-08T17:08:00.000-08:00

President Bush is currently visiting a number of South American countries. It seems to be going as one would expect…

Thousands of students, environmentalists and other protesters, some waving communist flags, gathered in the business district of South America's largest city ahead of Bush's arrival.

Apparently the history textbooks in Brazil haven’t been updated in the past 20 years. They seemed to have missed the part of history that showed us that communism was the most oppressive and deadly form of government in the history of mankind. They also missed the part where the rich people in the Soviet Union were less well off than poor people in the United States. Maybe the President can get some money sent down there so they can update those books. Pronto! They are in danger of embarrassing themselves if they keep holding such silly protests.

Bush played down the protests in interviews ahead of his trip with Latin American news organizations.

"I am proud to be going to a part of the world where people can demonstrate, where people can express their minds [did President Bush make a joke?]," he said in an interview with Univision. And he told CNN En Espanol: "The trip is to remind people that we care."

I don’t understand how President Bush maintains his composure with this kind of nonsense going on. If I were him, I would probably completely write-off South America. Frankly, the people there are ridiculous. They all want to come here and make more money, but they all have a certain degree of antipathy for the US.

How do I know? I talked to a few of these retards in my lifetime. They exist. People that come here for school or work but believe America is an imperialist oppressor. It drives me insane.

Chavez, aligned with Cuba's Fidel Castro and a fierce critic of Bush, is marking Bush's trip with a rival tour of the region.

On Saturday, the Venezuelan leader will speak at an "anti-imperialist" rally in a soccer stadium in Buenos Aires, Argentina, about 40 miles across the Plate River from Montevideo, where Bush will be holding talks on Saturday with Uruguay's president, Tabare Vazquez.

I honestly wonder how many illegal immigrants are breaking down the fences to get into Venezuela? This point has been made a thousand times, but I have to bring it up. No one wants to go to any of these South American countries. They don’t have immigration problems. You think they could use their brains enough to understand that their countries aren’t beacons of hope, while America is. So why are they so against our economic policies (capitalism and free trade) when their economic systems may as well have been written by monkeys? It only seems logical for them to adopt our ways (economically speaking). Their superstition against capitalism and free markets is getting really old. Part of me wants to say: “to hell with you and your voodoo economics, do things your way, you are on your own.”

Silva, in turn, has said he will press the U.S. Congress to repeal or scale back the 54-cent per gallon U.S. tariff on sugar-based Brazilian ethanol. Bush and Silva also were expected to talk about efforts to salvage the World Trade Organization talks - the so-called Doha round - that collapsed in discord last summer over farm subsidies and other disputes.

Speaking of voodoo economics…why the hell is there a tariff on sugar-based ethanol. That is outrageous. Here we are, claiming to want to diversify our energy sources, and one of the most proven alternatives is being hindered by caveman economic polices. All I'm saying is that Democrats (for their own sake) better not be the ones responsible for this.

Among those participating in Thursday's protests were environmentalists and social groups who oppose the biofuels project, fearing that Brazil may clear pristine jungle to ramp up sugarcane cultivation. Greenpeace activists hung a huge banner warning against increased reliance on ethanol as an alternative fuel on a monument to 17th century Portuguese explorers and conquerors.

Are they for real? Is this the next step in the environmental movement? First they are against the oil companies and want to move to alternative fuels. Now they want to get rid of the alternative fuels. I really do hate environmentalists…almost as much as they hate the President.

Bill Maher is on the Edge of His Seat

2007-03-05T13:28:00.000-08:00

Bill Maher, the man who openly wished Al-Qeada had successfully killed Vice President Dick Cheney, must be feeling extra giddy today:

Doctors found a blood clot in Vice President Dick Cheney's left leg on Monday but he was not admitted to a hospital and will be treated with blood thinning medication, his office said.

So close Bill! Maybe next time! Good luck with that whole wishing death on nationally elected politicians thing! Way to stay positive and nonpartisan. You are truly above the fray.

Drew Barrymore Enlightens the World

2007-03-04T20:27:00.000-08:00

This is from askmen.com regarding Drew Barrymore:

Drew Barrymore claims she is "a sexual, free, f***ing nudist wood nymph" when it comes to sex.

The actress, who recently split from her long-term boyfriend The Strokes drummer Fabrizio Moretti, insists she has a very liberal attitude towards sex which she is proud of.

Drew - who has hinted she is bisexual - said in an interview with Jane magazine: "I'm a sexual, free, f***ing nudist little bird running around and a wood nymph when it comes to sexuality."

Drew has also revealed she wants to have a family.

Sounds like you're doing a bang up job. Keep up the good work Drew. Wait...there's more.

Despite her previous failed relationships, the 'Charlie's Angels' star is still looking for 'Mr. Right' to settle down with and have babies.

She added: "I would definitely like to have a family one day. I don't know when or with who, but I don't picture myself alone or bitter.

"When I get old, I am not going to be wearing polyester pants either. I'm going to wear old Levis' and Birkenstocks.

Awwww...well just keep doing what you're doing. Eighth time's the charm right?

The way I see it, we should all have sex with about 25 people before we get married. That way we can properly test our sexual compatability with every possible body and personality type and every combination thereof.

From those 25 partners, we should have kids with about three so we can make sure we keep all our options open. After all, some people aren't going to be good parents. This way, you can pick who you would like to spend the rest of your life with from the best of three. It's a sweet deal.

I know what the readers of the Conservative Bastion are thinking:

WTF, shouldn't we follow the time tested formual of sexual prudence. Doesn't it make sense to have a limited amount of partners to avoid STD's, broken hearts, and broken homes.

My answer: NONSENSE! You have to be open-minded like me. We should have sex with as many partners as possible (like animals) because it feels good.

And with that...I would like to end this post with a visual aide...

**Sigh**

Sexual morals only a degenerate could love...

Bill Maher is Officially a Terrorist

2007-03-04T08:59:00.000-08:00

This just in: Bill Maher has officially joined Al Qaeda!

You can read about Bill Maher’s official announcement of his newly found Al-Qaeda membership here. It cracks me up when some liberals get mad when their patriotism is supposedly challenged. For the most part, I don’t think this actually takes place, but it should in this case. Here is a snippet of what he had to say…

But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.

Another patriotic gem…DON’T YOU EVEN THINK OF CHALLANGING HIS PATRIOTISM!!!

I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

Way to keep it classy Maher.

Essentially Maher is rooting for Al-Qaeda terrorists to be successful in their attempt to assassinate of a nationally elected figure. In other words, he hates democracy.

For a refresher, Bill Maher is the same guy who said in 2001 that the terrorists of 9/11 were brave warriors. He got a lot of crap for that statement, but frankly I agree with him. It might sound unpatriotic to commend the bravery of the enemy, but there is no way you can say that someone willing to sacrifice their life for a cause is a coward. As Maher said at the time, they are “moral cowards”, but extremely brave in terms of battle.

This, however, is a totally different situation. He has now chosen his side in the war on terrorism, and should probably be deported to Europe or wherever the hell his family came from. This guy is scum.

Did Bush Balance the Federal Budget?

2007-02-23T11:46:00.000-08:00

There’s some new and interesting news out in the Christian Science Monitor regarding the federal deficit:

Despite the ongoing costs of US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outlook for the federal budget has grown substantially brighter.

Tax revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist calculates.

Already, the federal deficit is shrinking toward about half the size that it has averaged since 1970, when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product.

This really underscores how Clinton was able to balance the budget. It has a lot less to do with his fiscal discipline or the fact that he raised taxes, and had a lot more to do with the strength of the economy.

That is why I personally get extremely annoyed when people say that Bush has ruined the economy with his deficit spending or whatever nonsense they manage to get out of their mouth.

The fact is the economy is now improving and the budget is practically balancing itself. When the economy was bad, that was when the deficit was huge. A bad economy will lead to bad business. When business is bad, they make less money. When they make less money, they pay less taxes. You would think that this is pretty self-explanatory, but many American’s don’t have the smarts to figure it out on their own.

Environmental Fear-Mongerers Target Children

2007-02-23T06:43:00.000-08:00

Bush’s “fear-mongering” doesn’t keep anyone up at night (probably because he doesn’t actually fear monger) but a new study in the UK suggests that environmentalists are using fear to indoctrinate children into their way of thinking.

Half of young children are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern, according to a new report today. A survey of 1,150 youngsters aged between seven and 11 found that one in four blamed politicians for the problems of climate change.

Yes we all know it’s Bush’s fault that China and India have better economies now. Their better economies allow them to buy things that the West has (like cars) and these things cause global warming.

One in seven of those questioned by supermarket giant Somerfield said their own parents were not doing enough to improve the environment.

If you can’t scare the crap out of adults, you might as well target the kids.

The most feared consequences of global warming included poor health, the possible submergence of entire countries and the welfare of animals.

Please not the animals!!!

Pete Williams, of Somerfield, said: "Concerns over our environment dominate the media at present and kids are exposed to the hard facts as much as anybody.

I think this study proves that kids are NOT exposed to the hard facts. If global warming were a true threat, wouldn’t the people with the best judgment (adults) be the most worried about it? Sorry if I don’t trust the judgment of a bunch of rug rats in the UK.

While many adults may look the other way, this study should show that global warming is not only hurting the children of the future, it's affecting the welfare of kids now.

The only way global warming is affecting kids is through environmentalists use of fear and terror. Their anxiety is not rational and wouldn't exist were it not for the overzealousness of environmentalists.

By raising awareness amongst today's young, hopefully we are improving our chances of reaching a solution.

Translation: If we can blame rich people, big business, and American’s for more of our problems, we can reach our socialist goals.

Another example of why I hate environmentalists…but not quite as much as they hate the rich.

Myth Buster

2007-02-18T22:21:00.000-08:00

Calling all the misinformed!

There is so much misinformation out there on Iraq, that I thought I would just sit down here and pick apart some of the nonsense that so many of the young kids have floating around in the alcohol soaked brains.

• America did not put Saddam in power.

• The US did not provide Iraq with WMD. No one did per se. Some American firms sold chemicals to Iraq that can be used to make chemical weapons, but they played a small role compared to many other countries.

• Saddam did support terrorism.

• Saddam was never a “friend” of America. We just wanted to make sure they didn't lose their war with Iran.

• Our military support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war was very limited (as in 100 helicopters). In fact, America’s military contributions to Iraq are a footnote compared to what Russia, France and China provided them.

• Iraq was considered a state sponsor of terrorism by President’s Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. However, when G-Dub brings it up, people call him an idiot and a liar. It makes me wonder who the stupid people really are.

• Saddam was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of about 1.5 million Iraqis. Of this number, approximately, 1 million died (numbers vary) because of Saddam’s willingness to use his countries money on himself rather than taking care of his people. Ironically, he was able to dupe many dumb Westerners into believing these deaths were due to President Bill Clinton’s enforcement of economic sanctions. Of course, we know this is false. Saddam was given more than enough money through his oil for food program to take care of his people, but decided to buy palaces instead. The remaining 500,000 are a result of the Iran-Iraq War, the Persian Gulf War, and Saddam’s use of murder as a political tool (again numbers vary).

• If one does the math, approximately 60,000 Iraqi’s died every year under Saddam. It makes the current situation in Iraq look like a day at the park. Not really, but numberswise, there is an improvement in post-Saddam Iraq as opposed to when he was in power. Not to mention, rape is no longer an institutionalized form of punishment. That is good too!

All in all, I think you are probably much smarter having read this blog. Continue to read, and continue to allow me to shift that Bell Curve, and your politics, to the right.

Global Warming Part II

2007-02-13T19:52:00.000-08:00

Nazi scientists...er um...scientists that dare try to counter current claims of global warming have discovered something rather interesting:

A U.S. study suggests two of Greenland largest glaciers are melting at variable rates and not at an increasing trend.
The study, led by Ian Howat, a researcher with the University of Colorado National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory, shows the glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005.
But then, fewer than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of discharge.
Howat says such variability during such a short time underlines the problem in assuming glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily occur at a steady upward trajectory.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

***************************************************

More common sense, this time from India:

Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.

He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

Imagine that…

***************************************************

ROFLMAO:

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”
The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

***************************************************

And lastly, check out this gem from the President of the Czech Republic:

Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate.

Bravo…

Environmentalists Piss Me Off

2007-02-12T12:04:00.000-08:00

This from your friendly neighborhood envrionmental militant:

Even if man’s activities such as burning fossil fuels didn’t contribute one bit to global warming, the burning of fossil fuels is fraught with plenty of other perils including other environmental damage, geopolitical instability, and the ultimately limited nature of the resource.The debate over global warming’s cause doesn’t change those facts, and the need to develop the next generation of alternative energy technologies is a very real need no matter what course the debate over global warming and its cause may take.

Wow....then why do you even talk about global warming? I'll tell you why - these people know that fear mongering is the only way they will get their agenda accomplished.

I think it is funny that a "green" technology company can promote global warming and it is considered science, but when an oil company dares argue against the validity of global warming, everyone cries foul.

Five Reasons Liberals should Detest Welfare

2007-02-09T15:33:00.000-08:00

1. “Don’t shove your morals down my throat!!!”

If you know anyone that is liberal or ever watch the news, then you have heard the “don’t shove morals down our throat” argument. For those of you who have read this blog consistently, you know I debunked this years ago in what is now known as the moral values fallacy. Yes – I am proud to say that if you Google “moral values fallacy” the first page that comes up is my article on the subject.

Back to the point. Liberals say they believe in the “don’t shove your morals down my throat” doctrine, so let’s hold them to it. Why are they forcing their morals of helping the poor on everyone else? Everyone has their opinion on how best to help the poor, so why should a government monopoly (welfare) exist?

I say that people should choose who they give money to. I already know what the liberals reading this are thinking:

If we don’t force our morals on people, then nobody will help anyone!

You self-righteous son of a bitch. How dare you think that. Rather than argue that ludicrous point, I will point the readership of the Conservative Bastion to a book called Who Really Cares by Arthur C. Brooks. Long story short, conservatives give more money to charity than liberals. Read ‘em and weep.

2. “Freedom of choice!”

I don’t believe in abortion, but I believe it that it is a choice that an individual needs to make for themselves and that others and government should stay out of such decisions.

That’s how one argument goes in favor of legalized abortion. Personally, I couldn’t disagree more because that decision ends a human life – which is murder. However the argument does work for welfare. Personally, I believe it is a good humans’ responsibility to give resources – not just money necessarily, but time and used items – to those who are less fortunate.

I don’t think, however, that Big Brother should decide who gives, how much they give, and to whom they give. That is micromanaging someone’s finances. If your mother had as much say over your finances as Big Brother, you would think she was very overbearing. Yet we accept the fact that the government somehow knows best.

This flies in the face of facts and history since the government has spent trillions on welfare and hasn’t put a dent in the poverty levels.

3. “Don’t be simpleminded, be nuanced like me…”

How many times have we heard the libs say Bush’s arguments are simpleminded and ignore the nuances. Sometimes it gets to the point where it is comical. One man’s nuances is another mans nitpicking I suppose. Sometimes I think liberals just like the word “nuance”. I can understand them – I like it too.

However, there is no case of ignored nuances more prevalent in American politics than in the way we treat poor people. The liberal line of logic goes something like this:

Rich people have money. Rich people can use money to buy things. People like things. Poor people don’t have money. Poor people can’t buy things. Poor people are sad. Poor people need money.

It goes something like that anyways. Whatever the line of logic, it ends with poor people need money. That is why welfare – the main way the government helps the poor – involves handouts. After all, poor people need money, so let’s give it to them.

Thankfully, I, along with many nuanced conservatives understand that this is false. You know the problem with poor people? They have freedom of choice – that is the problem. As long as people have the freedom to make bad choices, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to drop out of high school, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to get pregnant with no husband to support them, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to abuse mind-altering substances, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to refinance their homes every six months, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to buy cars that are above their means, poverty will exist. As long as people have the right to buy 30 lottery tickets a week when they can barely make rent, poverty will exist.

The fact is that most poor people have made big mistakes in their lives – and more often than not, they repeat those mistakes.

4. True compassion…

If someone you loved was in dire need, you wouldn’t send them to the welfare office.

One sentence KO.

5. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely

George Bush has too much power and he is abusing it.

My simpleminded foes. Here is a line of logic that makes sense.

Money = power. More money = more power. Power will corrupt. The more power one has, the more corrupt they can be. Therefore, more money = more power = more corruption.

If you want a less corrupt government, take away their money. That is the only way. You can not reform government to be subordinate. It is an untamable monster. This is why the Founding Fathers (in their infinite wisdom) pushed for limited government. Since welfare essentially makes up half of the 2006 2.6 trillion budget, it logical to target it.

******************************************************************

Rather than just being another ass hole critic, I will support what I have said with answer.

1. Pushing morals on other unnecessarily is a real issue. One way to avoid this in our welfare state would be to allow people to opt out of Social Security, and put that money in their 401k.

I know the arguments against this, and if you can honestly argue that you feel safer with Social Security than a 401k, then you are a fucking retard…excuse my French. The fact is, no one actually believes that. It is rhetoric used by Democrats to feel better about the fact that they have taken an anti-freedom stance on this issue. Every single Democrat in the House and Congress has money in the stock market. When the pull their money out, I will start to believe them.

2. Choice is the key word here. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind if the government said that we have to give 10 percent of our money to a certain type of cause. If certain people were helped by a soup kitchen when they were down and out, they could give it all to that soup kitchen. If others thought that their college was responsible for their success, they could give their 10 percent to their school or to a fund to help students pay tuition.

The beauty of choice is that when it turns out that soup kitchen or that college was found wasting money, funds would immediately drop off the next year. No one would continue giving their money to a cause that was careless with their money. The result would be a strong checks and balances system against fraud and waste.

And hey, just to make the libs happy, we would even let people still give their tax dollars to current government programs – like food stamps.

3. Wake up, we are never going to end poverty. With freedom comes responsibility. The best thing we can do to end poverty is to improve education. Let’s stop teaching hocus pocus global warming bull shit to the kids and start teaching them how to shop for a mortgage, the benefits of buying a house while you’re young, and about personal finance. Not to mention, how to speak English, read, and write.

4. Admit it, the best place to go for help is from family and close friends. That is what life is about. Making personal relationships with people you care about, then depending on each other when things get rough.

5. I don’t even know what to put here. Most liberals can’t admit that their welfare system creates a powerful government. Let me appeal to you now. There is a reason that wars like Vietnam and Iraq didn’t happen until government got bigger…frankly, governments had no money to fight wars before then. You could also make the argument that having a large peace time military has a lot to do with it, but that argument is for another day. Fact is, more money = more power, more power = more corruption, and all of this means less freedom.

The Hateable Minority

2007-02-06T06:57:00.000-08:00

And gays wonder why everyone “hates” them…

An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

I am not adamantly against gay marriage. I believe it is wrong and I would vote against it if given the opportunity. However, if there was a vote, and the people voted to allow gay marriage, I would not be upset. Worse things can happen.

However, actions like this by gay activists makes me want them to fail. This type of strategy is utterly obnoxious. Frankly, it hurts their PR. Normal people don't look at stunts like this and understand their point. They see stereotypical overly emotional gays.

This Just in: Global Warming is a Fraud

2007-02-05T21:12:00.000-08:00

In the past couple days, Drudge has posted two articles of major scientists who argue against man made global warming. Rather than pretend to be a scientist, I will quote from both of them.

The first scientist is "[a]strophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists..."

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

In other words, *gasp* the sun has more to do with the temperatures on earth than your SUV does.

The second scientist, Tim Ball, is a Canadian.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist.

ROFLMAO he must hate science!!! Ok, I'll try to contain myself...

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

The propaganda statement is gold.

…there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change.

Bold and direct.

There is much more, and I wanted to quote more, but I would basically be quoting the whole article. Read the damn thing and learn. Face it, you have all been duped. Global warming is the 21st century boogey man. It is a story you tell your kids before you go to sleep so that they don't litter, recycle, and conserve energy. In other words, it is a scare tactic - one that has been far too effective on thinking adults up to this point. Let's hope people wake up to this nonsense and stop wasting trillions and something that doesn't even exist.

Unbelievable

2007-02-03T16:47:00.000-08:00

In a classy statement of solidarity, a number of Democrats, independents, and Republicans bravely voiced their opinion on the troop surge Iraq in a recent poll:

Asked whether they want the surge to succeed, 34 percent of Democrats answered ''No,'' and so did 19 percent of independents and 11 percent of Republicans.

For clarification, this poll wasn't asking if you think the surge will succeed. It wasn't asking if you trust the president's ability to handle the war. It wasn't even asking if you agree with the war in the first place. All it is asking is if you want America to succeed.

Overall, 22 percent said they wanted America to fail while 15 percent said they didn't know. I'm not sure which is worse.

On one hand you have a terrorist sympathizer, and on the other you have someone who is too spineless to take sides in a war in which their countries safety is at stake.

I officially despise 22 percent of the American population.

Liberal Values: A Case Study

2007-02-01T07:06:00.000-08:00

This just in: liberals and their sexual revolution are mentally retarded. Another example of why sexual chaos is a bad. For those who can't remember, liberals are the people who always preach about how we should be kind to one another. One of their main points are that conservatives are meanie heads because they like to make a lot of money. Well morons, I personally rather have a boss that makes a lot of money than a boss that destroys my family. That's just me though.

If you wonder why I bring this up. Read this from the San Francisco Chronicle:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's re-election campaign manager resigned Wednesday after confronting the mayor about an affair Newsom had with his wife while she worked in the mayor's office, City Hall sources said.

Alex Tourk, 39, who served as Newsom's deputy chief of staff before becoming his campaign manager in September, confronted the mayor after his wife, Ruby Rippey-Tourk, told him of the affair as part of a rehabilitation program she had been undergoing for substance abuse, said the sources, who had direct knowledge of Wednesday's meeting.

Keep up the good work liberals. Your values are doing a bang up job.

Democrats Flip Flop on Bush Iraq Policy

2007-01-26T16:39:00.000-08:00

Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Democrats have been bitching about the idea of America being the world’s police. Their argument is that the world is a big and dangerous place, and that America can’t waste its limited resources on protecting random countries from one another or themselves.

This position has gained a lot of popularity lately, especially since July of 2006, when many deemed the current Iraq disaster a civil war. For a long while, I questioned the Iraq policy. Why should America “police” the world? After all, in the end, only one thing can happen. Eventually, something will go wrong in that country, and we will be blamed for it by local politicians so that they can save their own asses. At least this was my line of thinking for the last few months. That is, until the Democrats starting bringing up the idea of intervening in the Sudan.

I don’t want to drag this blog out longer than it needs to be, so I will get to the point. Here is a list of things that makes the genocide in the Sudan relevant to American national security.

…

Here is a list of things that made Iraq relevant to American national security in 2003.

1. Saddam Hussein – this man was more dangerous than Osama bin Laden in 2003. Why? Keep reading.

2. Fear of a WMD program

3. Failure to comply with UN weapons sanctions

4. Oil

5. Connections to terrorism

6. The fact that Saddam was still in power in 2003 weakened America. It showed that we were not willing to backup our word against a vicious dictator. That was especially dangerous in a post-9/11 world.

7. Saddam’s track record. Everything about Saddam was bad. At the time, he was the only world leader in power that had used WMD. He was one of only a handful who we believed had a WMD program. We know he sponsored terrorism. Billy Clinton knew it, and so did Jimmy Carter. Please don’t make me argue this one. Read a book. Perhaps the most insane of all the things Saddam did was during the first Gulf War. For those of you who can’t remember that far back, Saddam shot SCUD missiles at Israel after America started repelling the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. He did this because he was afraid he was going to lose power and hoped in coaxing Israel into a war. If Israel attacked Iraq, every Arab country would join the war on his side, and he…well, he was a crazy son of a bitch.

8. Also, don’t forget that Saddam probably hated America more than anyone else in the world. On September 11, Iraq was the only country not to send their condolences to the US. So I don’t get ragged on for that statement, I will site my source.

Then there was the whole trying to assassinate Bush 41.

I think you get the idea. Saddam was bad. I wish WMD weren’t hyped up as being the main reason for invading Iraq because it was only one of dozens of reasons to get rid of that guy.

*************************

People seem to think that intervention in Sudan will be a breeze. Well let me wake you up to reality…the Sudan is worse off now (in terms of violence) than Iraq was prior to invasion.

Liberals complain that Iraq is a civil war – that it is their fight and we should get out of it. Well what the hell do you think Darfur is? If we were to intervene now, we would be stuck in the middle of a civil war from day one.

One of two outcomes is possible by US intervention: hell and nothing.

1. We will go in there, get our hands very dirty, and probably piss off a lot of people in the process.

2. We will go in there, stand on the side while people kill one another, solve nothing, and waste resources.

These people are even less united than Iraqis. The country is split among Christians, indigenous beliefs, and Islam. However, and just as importantly, there is also a mix of blacks (52%) and Arabs (39%). FYI, Arabs hate blacks. Ok, that is a generalization, but that region of the world isn’t exactly enlightened, and racism is definitely prevalent there.

My advice:

If America needs to intervene anywhere militarily, it is Iran. The Sudan should be the last thing on our minds right now. After all, there are plenty of people dying all over the world, why should we choose the Sudan as our place to intervene?

If you didn't catch that, I am mocking the Liberal/Democratic talking points on Iraq. However, I think this point is actually valid here.

Intervening in the Sudan now would be like intervening in Spain during WWII. Ok, it is bad, that is true, but we have more pressing matters right now.

In the end, it seems like Democrats don't care as much about America being the world's police as they like to claim.

Left-Wing Terrorist Group Exposed

2007-01-25T06:55:00.000-08:00

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) in on trial and has some splaining to do.

Adria Hinkle of Norfolk and Andrew Cook of Virginia Beach, both workers for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, are being tried together on 21 counts of felony animal cruelty, seven counts of littering and three counts of obtaining property by false pretenses.

The prosecution asserted that the animals were killed maliciously and with intent, while the defense argued that Hinkle and Cook euthanized the animals humanely and they would have been put down at the shelter in Bertie County by the most acceptable method.

State of the Union 2007

2007-01-23T19:15:00.000-08:00

Every year, the sitting president gives the State of the Union address and every year we hear lofty ideas that go nowhere. This year was no different than any other. However, one concept of the president’s speech hit home.

For those of you who missed the speech, the president talked about every issue imaginable – Social Security, tax reform, healthcare, immigration, energy reform, and foreign policy. The latter was where the President made his strongest point.

In the last 2 years, we have seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East — and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution ... drove out the Syrian occupiers ... and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections — choosing a transitional government ... adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world ... and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity we should never forget.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia — and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

In other words, these are not just random events that just happen by chance. There are forces that actively promote the possibility of American failure behind each of these setbacks in the Middle East. The reason these specific countries were targeted was because they were inches from freedom. Freedom and totalitarianism are natural enemies. So naturally, anyone in favor of a theocracy would stop at nothing to destroy freedom in its infancy.

******************************************

To be fair, I can understand how someone could oppose the Iraq War. I completely understand actually. What really pisses me off though, is when I see people against the Iraq War (because “it has nothing to do with America’s security”) start clamoring for American intervention in Darfur. That almost makes me want to ROFLMAO if it wasn’t so Democratic (can be used synonymously with idiotic). I mean that literally. I'll blog about it another day.

DON'T BELIEVE REPUBLICAN LIES!!!

2007-01-22T21:11:00.000-08:00

Looks like the Nazi/Republican/Science Hating Party is at it again. These people will stop at nothing to "disprove" global warming. Apparently, there are pictures floating around the internet on some so-called "news websites" (that's Nazi for propaganda machine) claiming it snowed in Phoenix, Arizona this past Sunday. Here is one of the doctored photos…

Apparently, it snowed in Phoenix during last year's winter as well...so says the Republican/Fascist propaganda machine. I just wish they would stop asking questions – which for those of you who don’t know – undermines science.

Even if it did snow in Phoenix, it is just one event out of hundreds. It would prove nothing. It certainly wouldn't disprove global warming. Using snow in Phoenix to disprove global warming would almost be as stupid as...oh I don't know...using a hot summer or a hurricane to prove global warming.

As if anyone could actually believe it snowed in Phoenix. Why if that happened, it would make all of us believers look rather foolish.

James Spann Goes Off On Weather Channel

2007-01-19T16:47:00.000-08:00

Quote of the month:

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It
will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference
than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we
are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and
Northern Europe.

Imagine that. Climate history didn't beginning in 1860 (around the time that many fearmongering global warming fanatics quote as the time man starting warming the earth). Anyone who doesn't mind being educated and entertained at the same time should consider reading State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It is a fantastic book that addresses the real motivation and politics behind global warming.

You People Make Me Sick

2007-01-12T19:56:00.000-08:00

This from the tax Nazi's:

Pelosi had said nixing tax cuts for half-million-dollar earners "might be more
important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs
of America's children."

What the hell kind of people could actually agree with what Nancy Pelosi is saying here? These are the same people who buy into the "live and let live" motto. What business is it of yours if someone who works their ass off gets to keep the money they spend all day earning? The answer is that it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! If you want more money going to the government, then YOU give more. If you don't give more, but expect others to do so, then you are a hypocrite.

Hobbes Vs. Locke

2007-01-12T15:52:00.000-08:00

Long story short, I had to take the CLEP on Western Civilization II last week (yes I passed and am now a college graduate). In order to pass the test, I picked up a practice booklet.

Western Civ covers a long period in history and nearly every facet, but one of the points of focus was The Enlightenment. It was in this subject that this practice booklet triggered an idea in my head. How? It was while I was reading the sections of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It helped me see the differences between those two philosophers and how their differences can still be seen in American politics today. Here are some quotes from the book to illustrate my point.

Hobbes:

Left to their own devices, Hobbes famously wrote, people will create miserable lives for themselves and others the because they are naturally selfish, greedy, and shortsighted; their lives will be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” To solve this problem, Hobbes continued, people give their power to an absolute authority, the “Leviathan,” who keeps order and makes peaceful living possible. Though Hobbes quoted the Bible frequently – his title comes from the biblical book of Job – he had no use in his politics for theology. Thus, his philosophy is symbolic of the increasing secularization of Europe, which had begun around the early 1500s.

Translation:

Without Big Bother, some people will make bad decisions that will make their life harder. These people will be poor. Those who are fortunate enough to not be poor will maliciously exploit their fellow citizens economically. The reason this happens is because they are selfish, greedy, and shortsighted. You can easily see contempt for mankind by the rich in practices such as outsourcing, pollution, poorly manufactured products, a low minimum wage, etc. These motivators and their byproducts will lead to a life of poverty that lacks healthcare and other basic human needs [DVD players and XBOX 360’s exempt]. The only way to stop this is through creating a vast welfare state that can protect us from these evils. Some call it a welfare state, others call it big brother, but I call it the Leviathan. The Leviathan will make life as peaceful as possible.

P.S. Religion sucks.

Locke:

Of fundamental importance – in England and later in the English colonies that would become the United States – was Locke’s idea that a ruler could rule only so long as he or she kept the people’s trust. The ruler did this by respecting the inherent rights human beings possess to life, liberty, and property. And if a ruler trampled on those rights, Locke argued, the people had a responsibility to replace that ruler.

I don’t think this one needs a translation. The man whose political ideas inspired our Founding Fathers believed in the right to life [abortion bitches], liberty [somewhat open ended, but common sense can make decent boundaries here], and property [property is anything you own…more tax cuts please].

Let me ask a simple question. What is the meaning of conservative? This is what Dictionary.com says:

Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

In other words, conservatives want to keep things the way they are, and/or restore things to how they used to be. I think I have made my point clearly.

John Locke – a lover of freedom and the man whose ideas the Founding Fathers used to help found this country – belongs in the Republican Party. After all the Republicans are the conservative party, the Founding Fathers lived in the past, and the Republicans want to make things the way they were in the past.

Thomas Hobbes – promoter of big government – belongs in the Democratic Party.

To be intellectually honest, John Locke would definitely be defined as a libertarian. However, we all know that the Republican Party, despite its shortcomings, is much closer to being libertarian than the Democratic Party. Just face it. The Libertarian Party is where disenfranchised Republicans go while disenfranchised Democrats turn to the Green Party.

All that aside, Locke favored reason as the basis for his politics. Hobbes turned to control and power. I just reported, you decide.

Bush Sucks at Economics...(to be nuanced and intellectually honest)

2007-01-05T16:56:00.000-08:00

It looks like the Democratic congress is instantly improving the poor economy that George Dubya created.

…the government reported Friday that employers are still in a hiring mood, adding an estimated 167,000 new jobs in December. That was more than expected and left the unemployment rate unchanged at 4.5 percent, relatively low by historical standards.

Relatively low by historical standards is an odd way to phrase those numbers. I would say, “Low by any standard set in any region or time in the history of the world.” That’s just me though.

There is more good news though. Many have attacked the solid Bush economy numbers by saying all the new jobs are comprised of dish washers, burger flippers, and toilet cleaners. However, MSNBC has this to say:

While there may have been a basis for that concern several years ago, the increasingly tight labor market has seen strong growth of jobs that pay higher-than-average wages over the past few months.

To make it simple…

On average, the wages of American workers are rising.

Well that’s that. The scaremongering fanaticism we saw from Democrats over the last few years was dishonest and/or idiotic. Anyone with a basic understanding of how capitalism works knows that markets expand and contract – there is overinvestment and then correction. The economy works in cycles. It always has and it always will. Next time there is a recession, don’t blame the sitting president.

Frankly, it is like blaming Ford’s new CEO (Alan Mulally) for the company’s problems. A layman/ignoramus might blame the new guy for the company’s problems, but the fact is that there are many nuances involved in Ford’s demise. These nuances go back decades, not just a couple months or years ago.

I think it is fair to say that the overall US economy is more complex and dynamic than a single motor company. That being said, how in good conscience could any politician or responsible citizen blame a president for an economic shortfall? The whole point of capitalism is that business and state are separated.

The separation of business and state.

THE WORLD IS FLAT - GET USED TO IT

2006-12-31T09:08:00.000-08:00

Back in June, I received a book on CD: The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman. For those of you who don’t know, Friedman writes for the New York Times op-ed page on foreign affairs.

The book itself is a couple years old by now, but I never took the time to listen to it until yesterday. Its main focus is globalization and how America and Americans need to adjust in order to survive and excel in the new world.

As the title of the book denotes, the main point of his book is that the world is getting flatter. This is similar to the idea that the world is getting smaller, but with a twist. Friedman claims that in the past, economies worked from the top down – meaning that the big wigs at corporate headquarters and politicians made most of the decisions. He also argues that economic powerhouses like Europe, America, and Japan controlled the economic trends and capital and that technology is changing that.

To make a long story short, American investment and consumption of new technologies has helped make them very cheap. These new cheap prices make it possible for foreign companies and governments to “catch-up” with American technological superiority.

One example of this is the over investment in the telecommunications infrastructure during the dot-com bubble (yes the same dot-com bubble that made the American economy look great during the Clinton years). This over investment made the use of broadband internet relatively cheap for many foreign firms and helped promote the infamous practice of outsourcing. Friedman explains that one major example of outsourcing is through accounting firms in the US. It is a lot to explain, but to make a quick summary, US accounting firms send tax information to India and allow them to do the “grunt work” involved in filing taxes. This practice may cost some accountants their jobs, but it also helps create extra time for the remaining accountants to have more face to face communication with their customers and to help devise the best plan to avoid taxes. (Another testament that we should radically reform the tax code – there is an occupation whose main goal is to understand and avoid our way of taxing. It is incredibly inefficient and a letdown to the American people.)

In other words, our technology gives opportunity to other countries where none existed before. Without the telecommunications

Individuals are also benefiting from technology. Whereas it would be impossible for one person to have his own news program or newspaper 20 years ago, it is very possible today. Through digital cameras, audio recorders, computers, and the internet, one person can record an event or write about it, then post it online for millions to read with almost zero cost to himself and with little effort.

In this sense, the world is not a top to bottom one as it used to be – it is flat.

********************************************************************

In one section of the book, Friedman summarizes the future of the world with a nice quote:

"Girls, when I was growing up, my parents used to say to me, 'Tom, finish your dinner--people in China and India are starving.' My advice to you is: Girls, finish your homework--people in China and India are starving for your jobs."

In line with this quote, he also spoke of the education gap that is occurring between America and new emerging economies like India and China. The only thing I could think of is the fact that Americans can’t even choose where their children go to school.

This book laid down the facts. The future will be good for the world, but if America does not change its ways, it will fall behind India and China. At the very least, you will have many Americans benefit greatly from globalization, and many of the less fortunate (not those born poor, but those born in a bad school district) could possibly suffer.

********************************************************************

One last thing. For those of you who oppose free trade based on the fact that American firms exploit third world workers: you are retarded and lack a basic understanding of economics and free trade. If you find yourself in the moron category, please read this book or email me and I will send you the audio file.

Obnoxious Atheist Declares Religion Intolerant

2006-12-26T13:01:00.000-08:00

Richard Dawkins – one of those people who you can’t wait to see burn on the day of judgment – has a relatively new book out called The God Delusion. For more information on Dawkins, you can read his Wikipedia article. This is an excerpt from Amazon.com regarding his book:

The antireligion wars started by Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris will heat up even more with this salvo from celebrated Oxford biologist Dawkins. For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. But Dawkins, who gave us the selfish gene, anticipates this criticism. He says it's the scientist and humanist in him that makes him hostile to religions—fundamentalist Christianity and Islam come in for the most opprobrium—that close people's minds to scientific truth, oppress women and abuse children psychologically with the notion of eternal damnation.

Dawkins is right when he says that religion is responsible for much of the persecution the world has seen. However, there are other culprits: greed, malice, and most every non-religious or religious ideology conceived by man.

Communism is the main example of a godless ideology gone wild. Communism, which professed to be godless, was the least tolerant form of government the world has ever seen. In fact, it is much easier to find a tolerant society that is run by religious people than to find a tolerant society run by atheists. Throughout the 20th century, the atheists proved themselves incapable of running government with any for of decency or competence.

The fact that some atheists can ignore their own record is confusing. They are willing to judge all religious people based on a few bad apples, but are unwilling to judge themselves in the same way. In this sense, these types of atheists appear to be nothing more than the average emotionally deranged, self-loathing, basket case.

They claim to hate religion (a system of beliefs with a stance on God), hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and undue judgement, but that describes people like Richard Dawkins more closely than anything else you could come up with.

It is also interesting that he claims science and religion can not coexist. This is the "you are with us or against us" argument that makes many liberals angry towards President Bush.

It seems like Mr. Dawkins didn't receive enough hugs as a child.

Idiot Compares Enforcing Border Laws to Holocaust

2006-12-22T14:26:00.000-08:00

From Yahoo! News:

U.S. Hispanic groups and activists on Thursday called for a moratorium on workplace raids to round up illegal immigrants, saying they were reminiscent of Nazi crackdowns on Jews in the 1930s.

They accused the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of "racial profiling," or selective enforcement against Hispanics, for arresting 1,300 workers on immigration violations in December 12 raids at meatpacking plants in six states.

Articles like this make me want to curse. However, since this is the Conservative Bastion, I do my best to steer away from language that would alienate my readership. Lets take this one point at a time.

U.S. Hispanic groups and activists on Thursday called for a moratorium on workplace raids to round up illegal immigrants…

First of all, they are illegals, meaning they don’t belong here. This implies that if the government did anything but round them up, it would be neglecting its duty.

…saying they were reminiscent of Nazi crackdowns on Jews in the 1930s.

You are correct my historical ignoramus. It was just like the Nazi crackdowns of Jews…minus the part where they throw millions into concentration camps, steal their property and possessions, and then kill 6 million of them. Besides those minute details, it’s exactly the same.

They accused the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement of "racial profiling," or selective enforcement against Hispanics…

I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that 99% of illegals are Hispanic? For those of you who read my past blogs that argued against racial profiling for terrorism, I hope you are smart enough to discern the difference here. Terrorists are fighting a war against the US and will adapt to our profiling by recruiting new terrorists that don’t fit the stereotypical profile.

On the other hand, Hispanic illegals are here to make money. They have a much easier time getting here than people from other regions of the world because Mexico borders the US. Profiling illegals as Hispanic will not encourage anyone to recruit a different type of illegal. Either way, by the argument presented in this article, I wouldn’t be surprised that if every illegal were deported today, these people wouldn’t claim the same thing. These people don’t care about the fact that illegals are here, they want them to stay and will use any type of sick historical analogy to get their way…even comparing it to the Holocaust.

…for arresting 1,300 workers on immigration violations in December 12 raids at meatpacking plants in six states.

Yea big crackdown. Morons. There are 12 million illegals in this country…1,300 isn’t even a dent in that number.

I was pondering the whole Mexican/illegal immigrant question today, and something popped in my head. If Bill Clinton was the first black president, then George W. Bush is the first Hispanic president. No other president in US history has been so pro-Hispanic. What makes the whole thing even more absurd is that if you ask Hispanics if they thought Clinton or Bush was a better president, most of them would say Clinton. The fact is that anyone who supports tough border enforcement should despise President Bush’s policy on the border, and anyone who is pro-immigrant should love it.

Vegetarians are Smarter

2006-12-15T18:16:00.000-08:00

It isn't just an illusion, I am smarter than you...

A study of thousands of men and women revealed that those who stick to a vegetarian diet have IQs that are around five points higher than those who regularly eat meat.

Read 'em and weep.

Clinton Bugged Princess Diana

2006-12-10T11:28:00.000-08:00

Clinton bugged a lot of women, but it’s not what you think. A new report regarding the death of Princess Diana reveals some interesting information.

The American secret service was bugging Princess Diana's telephone conversations without the approval of the British security services on the night she died, according to the most comprehensive report on her death, to be published this week.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the death of Princess Diana, let me shift your position on the Bell Curve to the right.

Princess Diana died in a car accident in 1997. The president of the US at the time was Clinton. Using the logic of many Bush Administration detractors, there can only be one possible conclusion from the leaking of this information. Remember, it is impossible for anything bad to happen in government without the president knowing about – and most likely ordering it.

President Clinton obviously knew that this bugging took place. TRUST ME, HE KNEW. Apparently, he maliciously bugged leaders of other countries with a complete lack of regard for international harmony. He most likely did this without consulting the other braches of government, which makes him a dictator and a fascist. Unfortunately, we will never know how many leaders he bugged since he circumvented the law.

Foley Won't be Charged

2006-12-09T16:33:00.000-08:00

I hate to say I told you so...

According to Justice Department officials, it is unlikely that the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington will press forward on a prosecution in the Foley case.
According to several sources, prosecutors have had difficulty establishing probable cause of a crime. The barrier in getting past the probable cause threshold was the statute on transmitting obscene materials to minors. Under federal law, the age of minors receiving obscene materials is 16.

Call it immoral...call it dumb...call it whatever you like, but it appears that Mark Foley will not be charged because he did not break the law (or at least the prosecution doesn't think they would be able to prove it). In other words, the attacks on Foley were politically motivated...what a surprise.

Gore on Iraq: 'Worst Strategic Mistake' in US History

2006-12-06T13:43:00.000-08:00

Al Gore just proved he is the dumbest man to win the popular vote in a presidential election in American history.

Calling the Iraq war "the worst strategic mistake in the entire history of the United States" and "worse than a civil war," former Vice President Gore urged President Bush to find a way to get U.S. troops out of Iraq "as quickly as possible without making the situation worse" while appearing this morning on NBC’s "Today."

Here is a list of decisions in American history that I believe are worse than the decision to invade Iraq:

1. Slavery

2. Japanese interment camps

3. The 16th amendment

4. The Vietnam War

5. The Waco Massacre

6. Seccession

7. The Trail of Tears

8. Dred Scott

9. Roe V. Wade

10. WNBA

These are just decisions that we can all agree on. There are dozens of other bad decisions that could be debated as to whether or not they were worse than the decision to invade Iraq.

I couldn’t possibly understand where Gore is coming from on this one.

Global Warming Suffocates Canada

2006-11-28T20:52:00.000-08:00

RUN FOR THE HILLS!!! THE MASSIVE HEAT WAVE IS COMING!!!

The arctic deep freeze trapping Calgary is on track to break a 110-year-old weather record today, but the bitter cold is expected to ease in the coming days.

With a forecast low of -31C today, Calgary could break the -27C record set on this day in 1896.

But factoring in the wind chill, it will feel even colder to people who have to brave the elements, said Environment Canada meteorologist Ross Macdonald.

WHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!

Global Warming Flip Flops

2006-11-27T21:26:00.000-08:00

Last year, global warming wanted to cause hurricanes. This year, global warming (GW) has had a change of heart. I’m not yet sure what GW’s future plans are, but one thing is apparent: his strategy has changed – at least temporarily. Scientists aren’t sure if GW is on vacation, tired, or just fickle, but the hurricane numbers in 2006 are decisively down.

It was not the hurricane season we expected, thank you.

With cataclysmic predictions that hurricanes would swarm from the tropics like termites, no one thought 2006 would be the most tranquil season in a decade.

Barring a last-second surprise from the tropics, the season will end Thursday with nine named storms, and only five of those hurricanes. This year is the first season since 1997 that only one storm nudged its way into the Gulf of Mexico.

Where do I start? Scientists can’t predict anywhere close to the number of hurricanes in one year, but we are supposed to believe that they can predict the climate trends for decades to come?

Here’s more from the article explaining why there was a drop in hurricane:

Storms were starved for fuel after ingesting masses of dry Saharan dust and air over the Atlantic Ocean. Scientists say the storm-snuffing dust was more abundant than usual this year.

In the season's peak, storms were curving right like errant field goals. High pressure that normally hunkers near Bermuda shifted far eastward, and five storms rode the clockwise winds away from Florida.

Finally, a rapidly growing El Nino, a warming of water over the tropical Pacific Ocean, shifted winds high in the atmosphere southward. The winds left developing storms disheveled and unable to become organized.

As they say about the stock market: Past results are no indication of future performance.

I apologize for my skepticism, but there are too many variables and unknowns to make predictions for the climate change for the 21^st century. We can’t predict weather for the next month and we can’t predict the number of hurricanes for the next year. How could you trust the prediction for the next 50 years? I’m sorry, but if you believe in global warming…I laugh at you.

Here is a visual aid...

True Fascism…AGAIN

2006-11-23T21:57:00.000-08:00

For all those who call Bush a fascist…

Former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko has died in hospital after being poisoned.

A spokesman for University College Hospital said the ex-KGB agent has died after his condition had been deteriorating throughout the day.

The Metropolitan Police are investigating his death as "an unexplained death".

Mr Litvinenko's supporters have accused the Russian government of poisoning the 43-year-old, who had been given asylum and citizenship in Britain after fleeing Russia.

They said he was killed because he was investigating the murder last month of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was shot dead near her Moscow apartment.

This is only half of it. Apparently, there is another reason the Kremlin would want Litvinenko dead…

He was referring to allegations he made in a book, The FSB Blows up Russia, which accuses the Russian security services of causing a series of apartment block explosions in Moscow in 1999 that helped to propel Mr Putin into the presidency.

Basically, this guy was doing what the guys at Loose Change tried to do. However, there is a stark difference between what happened to the Loose Change kids and what happened to Litvinenko. One is dead, and the others are national celebrities. Wake up to reality please.

Dean Compared to Rumsfeld

2006-11-16T06:51:00.000-08:00

As much as James Carville annoys me, he knows what he’s talking about. He recently commented on Democratic party chairman Howard Dean:

“I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its incompetence,” one strategist, James Carville, said of Mr. Dean.

Wow. This is coming from a Democrat here. A Democrat comparing someone to Donald Rumsfeld is like a Republican comparing someone to Osama bin Laden. So why is Carville so upset?

…Mr. Dean wasted an opportunity to make historic gains by refusing to take resources out of his effort to build up parties in all 50 states and put them into Congressional races.

…Republicans held 14 seats by a single percentage point and…a small investment by Mr. Dean could have put Democrats into a commanding position for the rest of the decade.

“There was a missed opportunity here,” he said. “I’ve sat down with Republican pollsters to discuss this race: They believe we left 10 to 20 seats on the table.”

Those dumb Republicans. Pure incompetence. Thankfully, Dean, if Carville is to be believed, appears to be just as dumb and incompetent. To be fair to Dean, the Dems should have taken over the country in 2004. So it isn’t just Dean that is dropping the ball. One could argue that Terry McAuliffe (Democratic chairman 2001-2005) was less successful against the Republicans and therefore less capable than Dean. I would argue that Dean is worse for the Dems, but that Republicans are in a freefall in terms of their own capability. In other words, Dean was/is in the right place at the right time, and the leadership in both parties is lacking.

Kanye West is a Retard

2006-11-14T21:39:00.000-08:00

I present to you: THE STUPIDEST MAN IN AMERICA!!!

Rap star Kanye West was named Best Hip Hop artist, but still came off as a sore loser at the MTV Europe Music Awards.

West apparently was so disappointed at not winning for Best Video that he crashed the stage Thursday in Copenhagen when the award was being presented to Justice and Simian for "We Are Your Friends."

In a tirade riddled with expletives, West said he should have won the prize for his video "Touch The Sky," because it "cost a million dollars, Pamela Anderson was in it. I was jumping across canyons."

"If I don't win, the awards show loses credibility," West said.

The jester really is good at making us laugh.

Those Dumb Republicans: Part II

2006-11-14T16:59:00.000-08:00

Abramoff update:

Convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff is scheduled to report to federal prison tomorrow, over the objections of federal prosecutors who say they still need his help to pursue leads on officials he allegedly bribed.
Sources close to the investigation say Abramoff has provided information on his dealings with and campaign contributions and gifts to "dozens of members of Congress and staff," including what Abramoff has reportedly described as "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators."

There is so much going on here I don't know where to start.

You mean to tell me that there were/are six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators and the GOP could not expose them in the months and weeks leading up to the election? Talk about inept and poor leadership (or dumb if you prefer). Had this come out in October, we would still have a Republican majority in the Senate.

Assuming this is true (for arguments sake), it will be interesting to see how Democrats treat this apparent "culture of corruption". Will they aggressively investigate and prosecute their own? Or will they turn a blind eye on the scandal?

Let's hope all the bad politicians get what is coming to them regardless of party affiliation...and soon.

Those Stupid Republicans

2006-11-12T18:02:00.000-08:00

The Republicans lost control of both houses of congress last week for two reasons: Iraq and Katrina. What disturbs me both these issues could be seen from a mile away. I – a self-proclaimed political novice – knew what the Republicans had to do to retain power in this year’s elections. I knew since the end of 2005.

I knew that something had to be done about Iraq. Had Iraq seen improvements throughout the summer and early fall of this year, last week’s debacle would not have occurred.

I knew that the destruction of New Orleans was a problem that would hurt the Republicans (apparently they knew too...which is why they unloaded billions of dollars into the region).

I also knew that these two issues would be hard to fix overnight and that other action would be needed to get the public eye off these issues and onto issues that favored Republicans.

I am not saying this to brag. I am saying it to show how DUMB the Republicans are. If I knew what would happen, surely the Republican leadership knew. So why didn't they do anything? I don’t have an answer to that. Hindsight is 20/20, but here is what they should have done.

Explain the Katrina situation

Katrina, as stupid as it seems to me, was a real thorn in the side of the Republicans. Democrats were able to turn a natural disaster into a failure of the Republican Party. What the Republicans should have done is explain that a hurricane is unstoppable force of nature. They should have also explained that the failure of the New Orleans populace to remove itself from a disaster zone is more of a reflection on the people of that city rather than a reflection of political leadership. Instead the Republicans threw money at the problem, seemingly out of guilt. They should have also made it clear that the Federal government would not endorse rebuilding below sea level in New Orleans. Not only is it a common sense approach, but it acknowledges the fundamental mistake made in the whole Katrina mess. That mistake isn’t FEMA’s lack of preparation for a flood in New Orleans. It is building a huge city below sea level and next to the ocean.

Do something about Iraq

Iraq is the main reason Republicans suffered huge losses in last weeks elections. The Republicans should have done something to help better explain their position on the invasion of Iraq and their plan to pacify the violence there. The first thing they should have done is find the source of violence in Iraq. Is the violence caused by foreign fighters? Is it hatred between the Sunni and Shia? Is it gangs motivated by money? In order to achieve true peace in Iraq, this question must be answered.

For instance, if the main source of violence in Iraq comes from gangs, then education, an improved Iraqi economy, and keeping building infrastructure should be the main goals in Iraq.

If the violence is perpetrated by foreign fighters, the main objective of US forces should be to secure the Iraqi border.

If the problem is due to religious differences, then we should consider forcibly segregating the Sunni and Shia.

The Republicans in the House and Senate should have asked this question, answered it, explained their answer, and executed a plan to improve the situation in Iraq according to their answer a long time ago. They didn’t, and that is why they lost.

Do something about anything

Welfare reform, tax reform, Social Security reform, ending the death tax, ending the capitol gains tax, making the tax cuts permanent, and/or immigration reform. There was a litany of issues that the Republicans could have tackled. They did nothing, and paid the price. Normally I don’t mind a do-nothing congress, but when the Reps saw that they were poised to take a huge loss in the elections, they should have come together to get something done. It’s politics 101. If there is something bad on your record that is holding you back (Iraq and Katrina), do something that will distract from that negative. Passing some sort of reform is the perfect way to do that. Instead, the Republicans argued about immigration for the whole summer and did nothing.

Conclusion:

The 2006 “thumping” was a result of poor leadership in the Republican Party. The Democrats did not win because of their ideas. They won because of Republican ineptitude. Good riddance.

The Jester Speaks Out

2006-11-12T13:48:00.000-08:00

Proof we should laugh at entertainers who try to talk about politics.

Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely -- because he believes it promotes hatred of gays.

I think we should ban gays because they don’t respect religious freedom. What a moron.

Pray for a Miracle

2006-11-07T23:16:00.000-08:00

I'm going to sleep expecting Democratic majorities in both houses of congress. God help us.

Judgment Day for Republicans

2006-11-06T14:47:00.000-08:00

It doesn't look good. There is no reason to lie or pretend Republicans can hold on to both houses. It would be nice if the Republicans could pull off at least a tie in the Senate, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

The Party of the Uneducated

2006-11-05T16:03:00.000-08:00

This is from the WSJ op-ed page a couples weeks back.

The most recent evidence on this subject comes from the mid-1990s, in the University of Michigan's National Election Studies. These survey data uncover two facts. First, people who go to college are more likely to vote Republican than those who don't go to college. Adults 25 and under from Republican homes are, for example, 11 percentage points more likely to vote Republican if they attended college than if they didn't. And young adults from Democratic households are 11 percentage points less likely to vote Democrat if they've gone to college than if not.

Second, nearly everybody grows more likely to vote Republican as they age--but especially college graduates. It is no shock that the vast majority of people of all educational backgrounds from Republican homes vote Republican by age 40. It may come as more of a surprise that 40-year-olds with Democrat parents are far less likely to vote Democrat if they've gone to college than if they haven't. In fact, while three-quarters of the uneducated group still vote Democrat, the odds are only about 50-50 that the college graduates vote this way. And they've not all become skeptical political independents: Fully a third are registered Republicans.

It is ironic that Democrats are much more likely to support subsidizing college education, yet it appears the Republicans have much more to gain by it. We need more college graduates.

John Kerry is Dumb

2006-11-01T16:52:00.000-08:00

How did Kerry lose in 2004? I think that question has been answered in the last couple days...

Brazilian Politics

2006-10-27T13:43:00.000-07:00

I was reading the WSJ this morning and came across an article regarding

Brazil

’s presidential election. From what I read, I saw a similar formula to what we see in American politics. The poorer, darker, and less educated you are, the more likely you are to vote left. The richer, better educated, and lighter you are, the more likely you are to vote right.

In Brazil, the leftists have power now. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is the “blue-collar” president and is being challenged by Geraldo Alckmin.

Just like in America, the leftists seem to scapegoat the rich minority for the problems of the poor. Here’s a little sample:

Mr. da Silva has further heightened class tensions by arguing that corruption cases in his government are being blown out of proportion because of his humble background. "There is a reason I'm being persecuted," Mr. da Silva said last week. "It's a matter of skin, of social origin." He rails against "a small minority that has leeched from the country for 500 years."

What’s also interesting is that there is a geographical split in the country. Just like the good old days in America, it’s north versus south.

Mr. da Silva is the overwhelming favorite of voters in the sprawling, arid Northeast, where he himself was born and people tend to be poorer, less educated and darker-skinned than those in the South. The South, which encompasses Brazil's most modern and glamorous cities and its media centers, has been considerably cooler to Mr. da Silva.

Perhaps the best bit of information this article provided was this:

College-educated Brazilians, like the students in São Paulo who recently dressed up as clowns to satirize Mr. da Silva, often look down on a president who quit school after the fourth grade. But the vast majority of Brazilians with only a basic education embrace him.

This proves two things:

1. All over the world, the uneducated vote for liberals. In other words, this is not an American phenomenon.

2. No matter what you think about President Bush, there are other world leaders dumber than him.

Abortion Vote in South Dakota

2006-10-19T18:21:00.000-07:00

This is what I consider the most interesting aspect of the coming election:

Abortion-rights activists in South Dakota took many by surprise a few months ago when they said voters should decide the fate of the state’s new abortion law, the most restrictive in the US.

Now, with a referendum on the November 7 ballot, their campaign has become the frontline in the long-running national debate on abortion.

A victory here would show that even in a conservative Midwestern state, the public will not tolerate a near-total ban on abortion. But a defeat would signal just how difficult a challenge campaigners face in trying to protect a woman’s right to abortion.

While they bristle at the attention, the South Dakota activists are counting on residents of this old frontier state to prove them right.

For those who don’t know, I am mildly pro-choice because I do not know of any other sane alternative. Throwing evil mothers or doctors in jail may be tempting, but it won’t be when we turn abortion into a situation similar to the war on drugs. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 53.6% (94,578) of the inmates in Federal prison are there for drug offenses. I understand that drugs and abortion are different, but I think its safe to say that when our drug laws were written, no one really expected this to become the priority of Federal law enforcement and imprisonment.

Making new and strict laws will have unintended consequences and we should think long and hard about any new laws that try to limit abortion.

That being said, I hope the voters pass this law. Not because I want to ban abortion everywhere, but because I think Roe V. Wade was a horrible decision. There is no constitutional right to an abortion. Abortion was in no one’s mind when the 14^th amendment was passed (I know because I was there).

I better watch myself, or I may become anti-abortion again.

If you don't want to ruin your day, don't go to Google, don't type "abortion", and don't do a picture search. It is too late for me. **GAG**

Back on point, this vote interests the hell out of me. I guess as a Republican, I don't have much else to look forward to. More on that next time.

Those Classy Libs

2006-10-18T13:13:00.000-07:00

Another classy example of the type of tolerance conservatives should emulate.

A ranking Democrat in the House of Representative is apologizing for saying an African-American Senate candidate "slavishly" supported the Republican Party.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said he meant no offense when he made the remark about Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the GOP nominee for the seat being vacated by longtime Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes.

Hoyer's statement was prejudice, degrading, and promotes groupthink. He compared someone whose views he disagrees with to a slave – insinuating that Steele is stupid or unable to think on his own. How could that statement NOT offend him?

While Hoyer apologized for the comments, he continued to criticize Steele's support of the GOP.

Why is Hoyer criticizing Steele’s support for the GOP and not his general beliefs or ideas? The answer is simple. Steele is a black Republican, and many blacks consider that as some sort of treason. In other words, you must think like them, or you are not truly black.

"But Mr. Steele continuously tries to divert attention from the fact that he is an unwavering supporter of the Republican agenda and of President Bush and Vice President Cheney."

I can only assume that Hoyer is “unwavering” is his support for the Democratic agenda. What’s the difference? Steele is a Republican. It is a sick attitude. The idea that anyone has to think a certain way based on the color of their skin is absurd. Some people need to wake up to the 21^st century.

If Mike Tyson can do it, anyone can.

The Future of Racism in America

2006-10-15T12:21:00.000-07:00

White racism is over – but a new racism is becoming more prevalent.

Four schools near Fontana High School went on lockdown Friday after a riot broke out at the high school.

Students said the brawl began at lunch after someone pulled a fire alarm, sending hundreds of students into an open quad.

Black and Latino students shouted racial slurs at one another and exchanged blows, students said.

Officers from city and county agencies — some in protective helmets wielding beanbag shotguns — helped school police break up the fights over the course of two hours.

Fontana police reported no injuries. Officials were investigating whether the incident was racially motivated.

For anyone who keeps up with the California news, you know this is not an isolated incident. Essentially, at least in California, there is a generation of young Hispanics and blacks who hate each other to the point of turning violent.

One of the articles I found on this story had this picture to go along with it. Apparently, it shows two black kids running from a mob of Hispanics.

Good luck solving this issue.

It is ironic that these types of problems happen in liberal California, but aren't as big of a problem in conservative/racist Texas.

Blame the Economy on Bush

2006-10-13T13:03:00.000-07:00

Some recent economic news needs to be blamed on President Bush…

The nation's unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent last month, down from 4.7 in August, and average wages rose by 4 percent over the previous year -- the best performance for both measures in five years.

Democrats have been arguing that wages have been rising too slowly under President Bush. They should know better than to blame the Bush for this, but they do it anyways.

After September 11, the United States was in a recession and nothing could stop that. There is no magical policy that Clinton had that Bush doesn’t know about. Once a recession starts, the only thing you can do is cut taxes, drastically increase spending, and hope for the best. Bush did both and we got out of the recession relatively quickly. It is hard to argue against this.

When the country goes in recession, it is usually because consumers stop buying. When this happens, companies make less money. When companies make less money, they have to cut their costs. Some companies lose enough money and are forced to layoff workers. Others may be able to survive by giving smaller than normal or no raises to their current workers. This is such a basic concept that it makes me sick to think that some people can’t figure this out on their own.

As the country comes out of a recession, companies start to make more money. As this happens, they can hire more workers. As the available labor force gets smaller, wages go up because companies must fight to get the workers of their choice.

Every time the US goes into recession, it takes a while to fully recover. You can’t fix an economy overnight NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. The national economy is complicated and has many factors influencing the direction it goes in. There is no magic bean or button that can solve the problem. You can’t attack Wal-Mart and force them to pay their workers more. That isn’t how it works.

I know my Democratic friends think that companies should raise their employees salaries first, then worry about balanced checkbooks later, but that leads to more ENRONS. You people can’t have it both ways. Businesses can’t just raise the salaries of their workers whenever they want.

This economy is growing, and everyone should be happy about that. We should also understand that growing an economy takes time. So chill out and be realistic about your expectations.

Democrats Lead in Fascist Takeover

2006-10-12T07:45:00.000-07:00

The mayor of Chicago recently advocated for police state. For those of you who don’t know, the current mayor of Chicago is Richard M. Daley. He is the son of the infamous Chicago mayor, Richard J. Daley. His father is known most for running his Democratic political machine in Chicago that stole the 1960 presidential election for JFK by getting the dead to vote. He was also known for being racist against blacks, corruption, and anti-democratic.

However, in all fairness, we should not judge Daley Jr. on his fathers sins. Anyways, this is what he had to say.

Security and terrorism won't be an issue if Chicago wins the right to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games because, by that time, there'll be a surveillance camera on every corner, Mayor Daley said Wednesday.

"By the time 2016 [rolls around], we'll have more cameras than Washington, D.C. ... Our technology is more advanced than any other city in the world -- even compared to London -- dealing with our cameras and the sophistication of cameras and retro-fitting all the cameras downtown in new buildings, doing the CTA cameras," Daley said.

"By 2016, I'll make you a bet. We'll have [cameras on] almost every block."

I'm not sure who we should blame for this, but I'm going to guess Bush is to blame. He is out of control. Now he is getting Democrats to buy into his brand of fascism. God help us. Stolen elections, police state, and nepotism...the Daley dynasty is almost a carbon copy of President Bush's "fascism". The second holocaust is right around the corner.

In all seriousness, my point is this: the Democratic record in Chicago more closely resembles fascism than anything Bush has done. There is no dispute over whether there was a concerted effort to steal election for Democrats in Chicago. It happened...PERIOD. There is only one political party in Chicago. Now with an all-out police state, the fascist recipe is all but complete.

North Korea Tests Nuke?

2006-10-09T21:26:00.000-07:00

It looks like North Korea has the bomb…or do they? They conducted a “nuclear test” this weekend, but there seems to be some question as to what caused the explosion.

Like earthquakes, large explosions send out shockwaves that can be detected on seismographs. Big nuclear bombs make big waves, with clear signatures that make them fairly easy to detect, analyze and confirm that they were caused by splitting atoms. But smaller blasts _ as North Korea's appears to have been _ are trickier to break down.

This leaves a couple possibilities. Either North Korea faked the test with conventional explosives, or their nuclear bomb turned out to be a dud. I suppose it is also possible that the test went perfectly well, and our instruments malfunctioned/Bush lied.

His agency estimated the North Korean blast at around 1 kiloton or less _ equivalent to the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT. For a nuclear device, that would be so weak that the French defense minister suggested that "there could have been a failure" with the North Korean reported test.

As much as I would like to believe they faked the whole thing, it seems unrealistic to believe they would fake a nuclear blast with such a small amount of explosives. Surely they know that they couldn’t fake a nuclear detonation with merely 1,000 tons of TNT.

This particular event aside, it is important to note why North Korea seeks nuclear weapons in the first place. Their goal is to create an impossible situation for the United States – and they have succeeded. More specifically, they want to make it impossible for the US to invade them, and that’s what they have – with or without the nuke.

For those of you who don’t know why this is read this, but here is a little sample:

The biggest military concern in striking North Korean nuclear facilities is the threat of North Korean counter-attacks. Seoul, the South Korean capitol, lies within range of North Korean long-range artillery. Five hundred 170mm Koksan guns and 200 multiple-launch rocket systems could hit Seoul with artillery shells and chemical weapons, causing panic and massive civilian casualties. North Korea has between 500 and 600 Scud missiles that could strike targets throughout South Korea with conventional warheads or chemical weapons.

Obviously, adding a handful of nukes to this already potent arsenal would do much for the North Korean military.

That being said, I am not sure if we should be afraid of North Korea. Kim Jong-Il knows that if he launches a nuke, his rule will end and he will die. He will not allow that to happen.

North Korea will only be a huge threat if they start selling weapons to terrorists. Until then, I think we have bigger problems.

Real Fascism

2006-10-08T17:00:00.000-07:00

Here is a little wakeup call for all the political know-nothings in the US. How many times have we heard nonsense about Bush controlling the media? Such a claim could only be made by someone with no grasp of reality.

Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin, was shot dead on Saturday at her apartment block in central Moscow, police said.

Chilling...to say the least.

"The first thing that comes to mind is that Anna was killed for her professional activities. We don't see any other motive for this terrible crime," said Vitaly Yaroshevsky, a deputy editor of the newspaper where Politkovskaya worked.

I could be mistaken, but I’m not aware of any journalist being killed for opposing President Bush’s policies.

Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, a shareholder in Politkovskaya's newspaper Novaya Gazeta, called the killing a "savage crime."

"It is a blow to the entire democratic, independent press," Gorbachev told Interfax news agency. "It is a grave crime against the country, against all of us."

This is kind of odd. If you read my post two weeks ago, you know that Gorby is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Politkovskya is quoted in the article regarding her views on President Putin: "I dislike him for ... his cynicism, for his racism, for his lies ... for the massacre of the innocents…"

This sounds like the Daily Kos talking about President Bush.

…she wrote in her book "Putin's Russia" which was published overseas but not in Russia.

This doesn’t sound familiar. Has Bush banned any books recently?

Her death came on the day Putin turned 54.

I am not aware of any anti-Bush reporters being killed for his birthday…

Bottom-line: Before you infer that Bush is a Nazi, look at history (or present) and put your ideas in some sort of context. Anyone can say anything about the President of the United States without disappearing or paying a fine. In fact, news reporters would probably see their ratings go up for doing it (as seen with Keith Olbermann).

Remember what drives the media in today’s world: money. Some (a.k.a. idiots/Democrats) say this is bad and proves that we should have a state run news media. We always hear them bitch and moan about PBS and NPR losing funding. (I feel like quoting JT, but I won’t.) I guess their basic idea is that if the government funds the news, it will ensure that there is no conflict of interest with advertisers and will help avoid the dumbing down of programming (again, I am just guessing because this makes no sense to me).

The problem with this childish idealism is that it neglects one important fact: everyone has something that motivates them. Every reporter, producer, and script writer has an agenda in every newsroom. If you understand this, then you will understand that money may be the lesser of many evils.

In a situation where you have state run media, one party could (theoretically) control the slant of the news. This is very bad and should be avoided at all costs.

This is almost what exists in Russia today. There aren’t a lot of news media options. That’s what allows one reporter who does speak out to be an easy target.

I don’t care what anyone else says, I believe the American media is still the best in the world. Even if it wasn’t, a lot of us can still get foreign news fairly easily (BBC, Al-Jazeera, etc.).

The only way to ensure a truly independent media is to allow anyone to report on whatever they want, whenever they want. If certain people can make money off of it, let them do it. It's not a big deal. The fact is that if you want to know information, you can learn it. You may want to avoid CNN or Fox News when it's time to find out good info, but there are many good sources at our disposal. Forget government regulations, it will only lead to more government control, which will lead to more dead reporters.

Drive-By Media Does it Again

2006-10-05T07:33:00.000-07:00

The drive-by media is at it again, and I have to admit, I fell for it too. The reason I waited to blog about the perverted congressman was because I didn’t want to get caught up in a bunch of hype. So of course, the day after I decided to blog about it, the truth comes out. It turns out that the sick instant message exchange I posted two days ago took place between the congressman and an 18-year-old. Yes, he was an adult.

All this aside, I am beginning to think that there may be many hypocrites regarding this congressman’s actions. Many liberals seem to think that conservatives go overboard when prosecuting the hot blonde teachers that rape their 14-year-old students.

The difference between these situations is that all congressman Foley did was talk dirty online with an adult…at least from what we know so far. Who knows how much of this case will turn out to be a bunch of nonsense. This is another botched story by the media. What a surprise.

Bush Recruits Superman to Fascist Agenda

2006-10-04T19:05:00.000-07:00

I, your humble correspondent, took this picture this summer in Hollywood. At first I thought it had something to do with the Superman movie, but after months of deep thought, it all came together. Bush has recruited Superman. It’s obvious.

Doesn’t it remind you of something else?

God help us…

Republican Congressman Exposed as Child Predator

2006-10-03T11:01:00.000-07:00

What a disgrace...

Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:23 PM): i have a cast fetish

Maf54 (8:01:27 PM): well tell me

Maf54 (8:01:32 PM): cast

Xxxxxxxxx (8:01:44 PM): ya like…plaster cast

Maf54 (8:01:49 PM): ok..so what happens

Maf54 (8:01:58 PM): how does that turn you in

Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:02 PM): i dont know

Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:04 PM): it just does

Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:08 PM): ive never had one

Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:16 PM): but people that have them turn me on

Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:27 PM): and if i had one it would probably turn me on

Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:29 PM): beats me

Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:32 PM): its kinda weird

Xxxxxxxxx (8:02:50 PM): but along with that i like the whole catholic girl look….thats our schools uniform

Maf54 (8:03:02 PM): ha thats wild

Xxxxxxxxx (8:03:14 PM): ya but now im hard

Maf54 (8:03:32 PM): me 2

Maf54 (8:03:42 PM): cast got you going

Maf54 (8:03:47 PM): what you wearing

Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:04 PM): normal clothes

Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:09 PM): tshirt and shorts

Maf54 (8:04:17 PM): um so a big buldge

Xxxxxxxxx (8:04:35 PM): ya

Maf54 (8:04:45 PM): um

Maf54 (8:04:58 PM): love to slip them off of you

Xxxxxxxxx (8:05:08 PM): haha

Maf54 (8:05:53 PM): and gram the one eyed snake

Maf54 (8:06:13 PM): grab

Xxxxxxxxx (8:06:53 PM): not tonight…dont get to excited

Maf54 (8:07:12 PM): well your hard

Xxxxxxxxx (8:07:45 PM): that is true

Maf54 (8:08:03 PM): and a little horny

Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:11 PM): and also tru

Maf54 (8:08:31 PM): get a ruler and measure it for me

Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:38 PM): ive already told you that

Maf54 (8:08:47 PM): tell me again

Xxxxxxxxx (8:08:49 PM): 7 and 1/2

Maf54 (8:09:04 PM): ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Maf54 (8:09:08 PM): beautiful

Xxxxxxxxx (8:09:38 PM): lol

Maf54 (8:09:44 PM): thats a great size

Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:00 PM): thank you

Maf54 (8:10:22 PM): still stiff

Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:28 PM): ya

Maf54 (8:10:40 PM): take it out

Xxxxxxxxx (8:10:54 PM): brb…my mom is yelling

Maf54 (8:11:06 PM): ok

Xxxxxxxxx (8:14:02 PM): back

Maf54 (8:14:37 PM): cool hope se didnt see any thing

Do Quit Your Day Job

2006-10-01T16:22:00.000-07:00

This transcript comes from a reaction that MSNBC leftwing propaganda fiend, Keith Olbermann, had to a Donald Rumsfeld speech a month ago. I wrote about the Rumsfeld speech when it happened. It was a great speech. Olbermann’s reaction would be comical if it weren’t for many American’s buying into his monkey logic.

The main message of that Olbermann seems to convey is that people who believe in absolutes are always dumb. He also voices his concern over people who challenge the intelligence, morality, and patriotism of others. To help illustrate this, he talks about the Bush administration being intellectually confused, their lack of morality, and how they are destroying the country.

In case you are wondering, no, it doesn’t make sense. It really is a debate between Olbermann and himself. You can also watch Olbermann in action on YouTube.

Olbermann’s nonsensical tirade begins like this…

The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

In other words, if you view the answer of certain issues in black and white, you are a quack. Last time I checked, that is an absolute. Therefore, by his own logic, Olbermann is a quack.

We’ll give him a break. Everyone makes mistakes.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence — indeed, the loyalty — of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land.

Ok that seems fair…right? His problem is that he later countered this statement and said…

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter.

He then flip-flopped back to his original position and attacked Rumsfeld again.

And yet he [Rumsfeld] can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emperor’s New Clothes?

And again…

That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

After this, he then decided to question Rumsfeld’s patriotism…

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

Again…

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.

Again…

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

And again…

Quoting Edward R. Murrow, Olbermann says that "never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: 'confused' or 'immoral.'"

I wonder how Olbermann justifies his "Worst Person in the World" segment? What a rollercoaster. It isn’t over yet though.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s — questioning their intellect and their morality.

Olbermann obviously suffers from a severe disconnect from reality. A monopoly on the facts? Is that possible today? Is he aware of the internet? What a douche.

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954.

I think Olbermann is confusing disloyalty with dissent. Again Olbermann evokes Edward R. Murrow...

“We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.”

So accusing the president of lying doesn’t mean its true…got it. More Murrow…

We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason…

Like believing that driving our cars will destroy the planet? Olbermann used one last Murrow quote…

… if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.

Right on Murrow. Like defending Wal-Mart’s right to conduct business against do-nothing politicians with economic ignoramuses as constituents?

The difference between liberals and conservatives is simple. Libs fear monger about economics, conservatives fear monger about terrorists. Terrorists kill, Wal-Mart sells you products for cheap prices. Decide for yourself who is on the right side of history and who is completely out of touch with reality.