The Better Wing

THIS SITE HAS MOVED

2006-09-26T16:46:00.000-04:00

You can now find me at http://codyoconnor.blogspot.com

Update

2006-09-24T14:53:00.000-04:00

--updated, 3:41--

My first post is finished, make sure you check it out.

--

Okay, the template is finally finished and everything is tested and working properly. You can take a look here. I hope to have the opening post written by the end of today.

But while I'm starting up my new site, before I can move I've got to figure out what I'm going to do with this one. I would really like to see a Conservative blogger take my spot and keep the site going. I don't really care who you are, heck you can even have your own blog and repost here as long as your a Conservative and a good writer. If your interested, send me an e-mail at xdude99999@yahoo.com and get you set up and ready.

If that doesn't happen then as I said, I'll just have my last post say that this site has moved and you can find me here, and all of that stuff. I would like to do that instead of deleting the blog since I have a years worth of writing, plus my readers may not know where to find me anymore.

With that said, I will have my first post up soon where I will tell you everything I want the blog to be about. Then from there I'll be doing an advertising campaign to rack up some readers right off the bat.

In case I don't have anymore updates on this blog I'd like to say that I had a great time here and you've all been a great audience.

hope to see you over at http://codyoconnor.blogspot.com!

Things Coming Soon (please read this)

2006-09-23T12:45:00.001-04:00

The truth is, my blog has been on a downward slope for the past few months. I've been posting less and less and I've lost about 20 weekly readers.

Now as a Capitalist instead of whining and complaining, I sat down and thought about what was wrong and how I can fix it. For the most part, there are two major problems. My motivation to write and your motivation to read, and the reason why was so simple it should have it me sooner.

Politically, I have changed. I've been saying it for months that I've been getting more Libertarian, and oddly enough that's when I started losing readers. With this particular blog I have put myself in a place where readers are expecting the writer to be a Conservative. I put myself in this hole from the beginning by simply naming the blog "the Better Wing". From there the website only got more Conservative looking with the name, template, links and the rest, while I have been getting more Libertarian.

So what's the answer to why I am losing motivation to write? Just from something as small as the blogs name I have constricted myself to one thing. Conservative politics. I'm not supposed to have independent opinions, or talk about movies and technology. Therefore the less I care about Conservatism, the less I have to write about. Then you lose your motivation to read because for a year you've come here expecting to see Conservative political posts, and when I do anything else, it's not what you want.

It's the last thing I wanted to have to do, but here's my solution. I'm shutting down The Better Wing and moving to a new blog. Let me emphasize that I am not done with blogging, I am simply moving websites.

I plan on making a new template over this week and when I'm done I will create the blog and this blog will either redirect to it, I will make my last post here have the link right there, or I will put someone else in charge of the site.

With my new blog you will see the real me. I'll feel more comfortable talking about what I believe in and talk about the non-political things that I like to do, but I assure you, you don't want to stop reading my stuff. You will see more quality and quantity once I'm rolling with this, and in the end I am very sure you will like the change.

But I do realize in the confusion I will lose some readers, and really sorry about that. I just can't keep pretending to be something I'm not. I'm not a right wing extremist who DVR's 10 political shows a day and reads books after books about politics. I have a life. Yes, I do spend a lot of time with politics and I always will, but there are other things I would like to write about as well, and maybe in the process I'll find an even bigger fan base. Who knows. I'm going to take the risk and hope things turn out okay. And beg that you still read my work.

I'll keep you updated!

Spaceballs Coming to G4!

2006-09-22T06:30:00.000-04:00

--story--

"G4, which is now available in 59 million cable and satellite homes nationwide, has exclusively licensed the first run of SPACEBALLS - THE ANIMATED SERIES for the U.S. market to premiere in fall 2007. Mel Brooks who created the comedy classic SPACEBALLS, is teaming, via his Brooksfilms Ltd., with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. (MGM) Berliner Film Companie GmbH and the G4 television network, on the animated series."

Can you say awesome?!

Sorry

2006-09-15T16:35:00.000-04:00

I know, I know. I promised a political post, but I just can't bring myself to write one right now. I'm busy, I'm tired, my computers being dumb, and I have the worst cold ever. I really do apologize, but I just don't feel like doing anything right now. Soon though.

I feel kind of bad that I haven't done much lately, but I do have more Snakes on the Titanic posters if it makes you feel any better. Here you go.

I'll have a real post soon, I promise.

Photoshop

2006-09-13T18:37:00.000-04:00

Hello Better Wing-nuts! Politics suck don't they? Well, that's why I've been away for a while. But, I do have something I want to show you and then maybe you guys can convince me into writing another political post tomorrow. Any ways, here's what I wanted to show you.

Yep, I made that myself. I'm just amazing aren't I? Fantastical. I know what you're thinking though, "But this is Cody, he's the one who made that stupid Katie Couric picture." Yes. I think it's safe to say that I've improved in photoshop a bit since that. And just for that good old nostalgia I'll show it to you again.

There was one other thing I wanted to show you while we're on the topic of photoshop. Remember Allah-Mentos? The Jihad Maker?

I wonder what would happen if you put one of those in diet coke?

President Bush Shot! In Film Terms Anyway.

2006-09-02T10:27:00.000-04:00

--story--

"It is about the polarisation of America in all the events post 9/11." Said a spokesman for the new British docudrama directed by Gabriel Range.

So, you think. A film about polarized politics. What could that be about? How the antics of radicals in the Republican and Democratic party are both leaving mainstream America? Hardly. A film about how the R's and D's disagree even when they agree? Not really.

It's a film about president Bush getting shot. And the way they do it is in no way a tasteful documentary. In the Liberal wet dream, ahem, "docudrama", President Bush is "Surrounded by a crowd of panicking onlookers, the American leader is pictured just seconds after being gunned down by a sniper following an anti-war demonstration. Held up by a secret service bodyguard in his dying moments after being shot in the stomach." says This is London.co.uk.

And just to make the Libs even happier, with computers they paste Bush's image on that of the actor so it really looks like him getting shot. It's a leftist dream scenario.

And it doesn't exactly get better from there. After the event, those evil Conservatives blame poor innocent Muslims before there is any evidence. Then there are a bunch of interviews showing how it's Bush's fault he got shot (yeah I know) because it's his fault he polarized the country.

No, I've got news for you. It's people like you Mr. Range that are responsible for polarization in this country. You are the ones that sat at a table pondering ways you could smear the president even more. And I don't even like Bush that much! But thanks to you, people think it's all black in white. You either worship Bush or you want him dead. You've left no middle ground for the rest of us.

Real Americans listen to people with common sense, not those with R's and D's. Until people like you drive the two sides so far apart there's enough empty middle ground to open up a Wal-Mart Supercenter. Then where are the people to turn? All of the moderates are driven out, and America in turn loses faith in the whole government. And that my friend, is not president Bush's fault. It's the outside constituents and others that are pushing the parties apart because politicians simply follow the polls. I believe this movie will play a part in deluding constituents into extremism, forcing the parties apart and driving moderates like myself completely crazy.

Liberal Propaganda in the Media

2006-08-30T10:49:00.000-04:00

We all know that stations like CBS are known for lying about the news to make Liberals look better. It happens all of the time, and who's surprised they're at it again. But never could I imagine that they would use photoshop to physically make liberals look better. If the camera adds 5 pounds, then photoshop removes about 50. Just take a look at this altered photo of Katie Couric.

Personally I am completely disgusted that CBS would lie to me about Katie Courics weight by showing me this "forged document". I'm kidding of course, this is one of those stories that you can't help but laugh at. I don't think people are going change the station to NBC because Katie is fat. They're going to change the station because she's uber annoying. But if CBS can do propaganda, so can I. Tell me if this picture makes you want to watch Katie on CBS.

And you always said Nancy Grace was the scariest person in news.

Summer Movie Reviews

2006-08-22T11:19:00.000-04:00

The summer is reaching an end and if you're like me, over the summer you did just about everything you could to get your mind off this Israel/Hezbollah craziness. I've gone to camp, bought the life consuming game, Oblivion, and gone to the movies, a lot. Lets just say that out of the movies that are out now I haven't seen four of them. Mostly because they're crappy CGI movies, but that's another discussion.

Now both you and I know that I'm no movie reviewer, but because I've seen so many movies this summer, I might as well give it a shot, eh? Here's what I'll give you a quick blurb of. Pirates of the Caribbean 2, World Trade Center, Snakes on a Plane, and Accepted.

First we have Pirates of the Caribbean 2. This movie was huge, both in the box office and in length. Ugh. I'm sorry but the movie is two and a half freaking hours long and that isn't enough time to squeeze in something I like to call an ending. But that's not my only problem with the plot, because like most sequels, pirate two's story just doesn't raise the bar. In fact, if Pirates two was playing limbo it would win by going the lowest. Don't get me wrong, the classic pirate action is there, but does no one else notice the story? It has more holes than a slab of swiss cheese.

The first thing you'll start to notice is something I like to call a genre imbalance. The first part looks like a bonnet film, the second a comedy, the third a paranormal suspense, and then a story-less thriller. My God I was confused. And it's only worse when you realize that the entire plot is told by a woman with an accent you can't even make out.

So why was this such a big film? Simple. The girls go to see Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom. Now I'm not gay or female, but I just plain don't know what girls see in them. Johnny Depp is ugly, then dressed up to look even more ugly, and Orlando Bloom is ugly and a bad actor.

If it wasn't for the great action and the great acting by Johnny Depp (which is unfortunately negated by Bloom's terrible acting) I'd give it a low score. But even though you're confused to the point of exploding, you are still on the edge of your seat. Though the movie did wonderful in the box office and had great critical acclaim, let me be the first to say that the movie is just average. 3/5.

The next film I saw was World Trade Center, a tribute film about 9/11. If you don't know who the story revolves around and focuses on it's two cops that get caught in the rubble of the World Trade Center building. We follow both the cops under the rubble and their families trying to find out what's going on.

Now, I really hate to say anything bad about a 9/11 tribute, but I did have a few problems with the film. Again, I hate to say this, but two hours of cops being caught under rubble is, well, kind of boring. But worse than that, by the movie focusing on the rubble, it takes focus off the terrorists. You don't even see the plane in the movie. So naturally the movies antagonist is rubble. Not Islamofascists. That's how I felt after seeing the movie anyways. It seems like a PC tribute almost. Not putting the terrorists in bad light, and not even showing the plane, leaving 9/11 conspiracy theorists completely unopposed. What kind of tribute is that?

But apart from the message, it wasn't terrible. There was some good acting, special effects, and plot elements in the movie that made a two hour movie about two guys under some rocks more interesting than you would think. 3/5.

The other two reviews will be added to this post shortly.

1 Year Anniversary of TBW!

2006-08-14T17:34:00.000-04:00

Wow. It's been a whole year since I first created my blog, TBW. Over that year, writing has improved, positions have been changed, and debates have been had. And as my blog grows, so does my enjoyment of updating it. While this is a great milestone for me and my blog, it musn't be forgotten how much help I've gotten from my readers, and my friends.

I still can't belive it's already been a year, I should feel like a professional blogger or something. Instead I feel like it was yesterday when just started out by posting neoconservative talking points straight from other pundits. But no matter how I feel, the truth is, my blog has been successful. I frequently update with posts and they are read by approximately 100 people. And again, it's you I have to thank for that.

If you're a long time reader, try checking out the better wing archives and read some of my classic posts. And again, thanks.

A Two Front War

2006-08-09T11:52:00.000-04:00

The votes have been counted and Ned Lamont has beaten Senator Joe Lieberman 52 to 48. What does this mean? Bad news for the Republican party, and America.

But why should this Connecticut primary be discussed by me? A Mainer? Because it proves that with the help of nutjob sites like the daily kos, a person can win any election if he's against the war in Iraq. In fact, you don't have to have a position on any other topic. And unfortunately, I think we're going to see this become a pattern from now till 2008. Any Democrat is going to get elected just by saying "I'm against the war."

That's why Conservatives, Republicans, and Neolibertarians, can't afford to not vote. We have just seen how Liberal organizations like the daily kos can rally enough libs to get any person elected. That is why it is up to us, the alternative media, from today until the last person has voted in 2008, to make sure we don't have a Democratic president who will lose us the war on terror.

Soldiers fighting for our country are certainly important, but don't forget about the importance of the blogosphere. With hard work, we can make sure the people understand the importance of the war in Iraq, and why leaving could get us killed. Without us bloggers, politicians could make horrible decisions that make our troops less safe! Or American civilians less safe!

People must understand that civil war in Iraq if we leave, is the least of our problems. If we leave Iraq, we no longer have a strangle-hold on Iran. The country that Iraq, Afghanistan, and yes, Dubai, all border. It would leave them open for obtaining then using weapons on us and Israel! All that could happen if we let a Democrat run our country. But there is still a chance that won't happen, but only from the help of bloggers and the alternative media. We need to spread our message to the people so they understand, and don't make the mistake of voting for a Democrat.

You don't have to be a soldier to fight for our country. The media war is just as important, and someone has to fight it. Right now that someone is us, the bloggers. We must understand that we can only beat Islamofascism if we win on both fronts. Soldiers fighting the enemy without, and bloggers fighting the enemy within. Then, and only then can we win this war on terror. So for the sake of our country, keep fighting bloggers. You're more important than you may know.

This One's a Gem

2006-08-08T09:51:00.000-04:00

Ok, I was just doing some blog surfing, and I got to the Daily Kos and I found a few chuckles that I would like to share with you. This quote was from Mr. Kos himself.

"We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean," -Markos.

What!? I knew this guy was a nutjob, but to hear him put the words centrist and Howard Dean in the same sentence, just shows how far some of these Liberal bloggers go. But apart from the fact that the guys an extremist, can you read that quote and not laugh? I mean really. Just because he's the only Democrat that agrees with the constitution of the United States when it comes to the second ammendment, doesn't make him a centrist. Just because he doesn't believe socialism always works, doesn't make him a centrist. I am just appaled at how extreme the left has gotten nowadays. But if Howard Dean is the new centrist, I don't even want to know what is considered a Liberal. And God help us if one gets elected. It could mean Communism in America for all I know.

Sheehan's Comeback Tour!

2006-07-28T09:54:00.000-04:00

--story--

Known for her CD's "Socialist Cindy", "Moveon.George Bush", and the hit single "Bush Bash", fans have been wondering what happened to the Pop(ulist) star Cindy Sheehan and the Gold Star Families for Peace band! For months, fans have been without Sheehan's "performances" and people want to know where the Waco Wonder has gone.

Well, Entertainment Tonight (aka MSNBC) has announced that the Waco Wonder has bought her own stadium in Crawford Texas and is preparing for another dazzling comeback tour this August. She will be performing from August 16 through September 2. Get your tickets at ticketmaster today because she's selling out fast (to Latino dictators anyways).

Guest appearances are subject to change but you can expect that sometime during the tour there will be an appearance by the secret service, and maybe even the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Be sure to bring a notepad for autographs.

But also before you go, make sure you have a Cindy approved t-shirt including the top seller "9/11 was an inside job". Just don't try to get in there with a hair and makeup kit, try using Cindy's approved "Smelly Liberal Scent" bodyspray.

See you all there!

The Dumbest Thing I've Ever Seen

2006-07-25T11:04:00.000-04:00

--story-- (but make sure you have some Tylenol around before you read it)

"An air service businessman on Monday was sentenced to eight months in federal prison for secretly videotaping Michael Jackson as the pop star flew to Santa Barbara with his attorney to surrender in a child molestation investigation."

Someone get me a can to puke in. A guy secretly tapes the child-molester; without sound mind you, and he gets 8 months in the slammer. Yet the child-molester who was getting taped can mess around with little boys and not have to spend one day in prison.

Now let me say, what this guy did; taping Jacko, wasn't right. And yes it was punishable. But why does he get 8 months in prison for taping someone without sound, yet a child-molester does not have to go to prison at all!? Why are the priorities in courtrooms so off? The scales of justice in this country are about as balanced as Fox News. Since when was taping someone worse than hurting a child?

Unfortunately, this kind of event isn't isolated. Too often are child-molesters under-punished, and other crimes, not nearly as bad receive much worse punishment.

And no one seems to care. We're too worried about flag burning and stem-cell research to notice what has happened to our legal system. But maybe it's not just the courts that have their priorities off, maybe it's us too. When banning flag burning is more important than keeping kids safe from these monsters, maybe we have to look at ourselves and wonder.

The media needs to change their focus, the politicians need to change their focus, we need to change our focus, and the legal system needs to change their focus. Put on some glasses America.

Not too much new...

2006-07-19T21:11:00.000-04:00

I do apologize for the slowness, I really only have a few blurbs I wanna get out, nothing article worthy.

First, the Middle East is on fire, what's new? I really don't wanna talk about it anymore...

Bush's first veto, I happen to disagree with. Now don't get me wrong I'm as pro fiscal responsibility as you get but he vetoed a bill I have no problem with. Stem-cell research. I'll let you know right now I'm not a Conservative on many scientific topics except for Global Warming and a few other things. And I have no problem with stem-cell research. The religious right likes to say "but it's killing innocent lives."
Uh, no. It's killing cells with no more feelings than a house plant so we can SAVE innocent human lives. Can you get more "pro-life" than that?

Now if you're a new reader, I'll say again that though I have some very Conservative stances, I also have some Libertarian leanings. Probably the best description for me is Neolibertarian.

Nothing else newsy that I really want to get out right now. Sure the Israeli's and the Palestinians are duking it out, but how much more can I say before I just start copying and pasting entire posts?

So apart from news. My book, I'm still thinking about it and I may go with a different topic that I know more about and I know on my blog I have a "podcast" link with no actual podcast. Well, I'm seriously considering starting one soon. The only thing setting me back is supplies. I need a pair of microphones that can plug into a computer for less than 800 bucks. More on that soon.

Not a whole lot left to say, fellow Better Wingnuts. Except that I recommend that you freeze yourself inside an ice cube before you get a heat stroke. Up in Maine we're getting up into the 90's and 100's.

Islamofascism's true colors

2006-07-12T09:46:00.000-04:00

Not too long ago, the Israelis were in the process of a raid across the Gaza border. To kill civilians? To oppress the Palestinians? No. To keep the people of Israel safe from Islamic fascist scum. Terrorists. Now unfortunately there were civilian casualties, but in response came something much worse. Palestinian "militants" (aka Islamofascists) kidnapped an Israeli soldier. Then when the Israelis invaded for the sole purpose of getting back their soldier, two more are kidnapped. This just shows Islamofascism's true colors, and how vicious they are compared to their enemies.

As I have said before, knowing the "who" and the "what" are important, but it means nothing without the why. Why did the Israelis drop that bomb? They were trying to kill murderers who if left alone would kill Israelis until the day they died. Why did the Palestinians kidnap that Israeli soldier? Oppression? No. Greed? Yes. Don't get the two mixed up. I have said before that the Muslims have clear demands and they will not stop until they are met. They want Israel as their homeland, which means all Jews out, all Muslims in. They also want all of the terrorists held in Israeli prisons released. Every single one of those religious extremists; those brutal killers, released. Just listen to what Hamas' spokesman, Osama Hamdan had to say.

"We have proven to this enemy (Israel) that the one option is the release of Palestinian, Lebanese and Arab captives. All captives, without exception,"

It's clear these scum have demands that Israel cannot meet, therefore, when I think realistically, as much as I hate to say it, I do not see peace as something the Jews and Muslims can share. These Muslims are still living in the dark ages, where all they know is violence, and they simply won't stop until they are killed. But what does that have to do with our war on terrorism? The Islamofascists in Palestine don't have many differences compared to the ones in the rest of the Middle East. You've heard about some of the horrible things they've done to Americans. Therefore my same point stands for them. Peace between us and them is not an option, their demands are too unrealistic, yet they won't stop until they are met.

Let me make it clear to you, I am sick of playing along in this PC warfare against Islam. I am sick of the double standards held by the people in our own country making it impossible to win a war. I'm sick of Liberals and their Democratic talking points about the war on terror. The Muslims had their preemptive strike on 9/11, and when we hit back in Iraq, and Afghanistan, there's no justification. Forget the fact that we don't target civilians like they do. The Geneva convention. When was the last time you saw Muslims complain that they were breaking it while they watched on Al-Jazeera as Americans got their heads sawed off!? And we're complaining about putting panties on the heads of terrorists! I am sick and tired of it, these guys are crazy! They don't follow international laws or treaties. They kill you for being an infidel, and they do not stop until they are killed themselves. Yet we just don't get it yet. God forbid we racially profile our enemies. Because not offending people is more important than saving lives. And God forbid we even say we're in war against Islam, or Islamofascism at least!

What has happened to us these days? They say, "but not all Muslims are terrorists."
True, but almost all terrorists just happen to be Muslim. With the exception of Mr. Bush of course, according to Harry Belefonte. Sorry, but in World War II, I imagine there were some Germans that weren't Nazi's, but that didn't hold us back from us fighting them. And guess what, we won! That's why we don't speak German right now. Unfortunately, if we don't get our act together, we will however be speaking Arabic.

You know what, maybe Palestine needs to be "wiped off the map". Give the innocent a solid month to escape then bomb the hell out of the place. Then while the bastards are on the run, pick off the terrorists. That is how you win a war. Not being PC, killing the enemy. I know I just pissed off every single Liberal on the planet right now, and I don't apologize for that. I know you want to tell me "well it only creates more terrorists,"
Bullcrap. Sitting in a country and neither killing them nor meeting their demands makes more terrorists. "So then we should meet their demands,"
Yeah, I know exactly what would make them happy, us; the infidels, all killing ourselves! That just might work. The only way to become safe from the raghead terrorists, is to kill them. Again, look at WWII. We try to isolate ourselves, we get attacked, we attack the enemy and and they stop. It does not make more enemies.

It seems that the only outrage from the left is things we supposedly do wrong, yet when a Muslim scumbag saws the head off one of our soldiers, they don't make one single fricken peep. Republicans, aren't as bad, but it's all politicized. "Look, Iraqi's are voting, now vote for me!" Politicians in general care more about themselves and their jobs than their country and it's safety. We need someone who does care more about this country, and truely understands the nature of Islam and the importance of our war against it. Someone who has the balls to fight this damn war! If they could find the right candidates, I would support Unity '08. Lieberman and Giuliani, I'd vote for them. They could fight a non-PC war. And they could lead us to victory.

I know what I have said in this post is going to piss a lot of people off and make many people look at me as a nutjob. And as an independent thinker, I truely hate to sound like an extremist, but what other options do we have? Just tell me. Look at history and you'll see what works when you're fighting a war. It's not isolationism, it's not negotiation, it is kicking the bad guy's ass! Wake up America, people want to kill you for not following their religion. And all you can do is complain about WMD's or a preemptive strike. Wake up. Look at reality. We can't lose this war on terrorism, on Islamic terrorism.

Free Forum Friday 7/7/06

2006-07-07T13:45:00.000-04:00

Okay, today is the first of the weekly "Free Forum Friday" which will basically be a forum for people to discuss, debate, ask or comment on and topic, news story, or anything else. You can talk about anything here with no rules or conditions. But as a conversation starter I will give you a few topics to think about.

North Korea. What should we do? Do you think they pose a great threat? Global War on terror. How should we be fighting it? London Bombings anniversary, and the foiled terror plot on tunnels in New York today. What are your thoughts on that? Or the '06 elections. Which party and which politicians you like the most. But don't feel limited to those topics, it is a Free Forum, so have fun commenting. And happy Friday.

Worse than Flag Burning

2006-07-05T11:54:00.000-04:00

Any regular person who follows politics and watches the news becomes accustomed to seeing horrible things, though some horrible things you can never become accustomed to. Every night people sit at their TV's and watch as people drown in floods, die in wars, and get attacked while the criminal gets little punishment. Because we see these horrible things so often, a hurricane is something you can brush off unless it brings a storm near you and it disrupts your satellite TV and you can't watch your American Idol. Let me be honest, I'm more worried about getting an in-grown toenail than seeing another hurricane hit Florida. Being selfish isn't exactly abnormal however, it's just your primitive Darwinism. Survival of the fittest. When it comes to other people, it's quite easy to forget their troubles.

However, there are some horrible things that happen that aren't so easy to brush off and that is when people harm things you believe in. One of the first things that comes to mind is the American flag. The American flag is more than just a piece of cloth with a design on it, it has meaning. The flag represents the things that America stands for, and the American people cherish. Freedom, liberty, happiness are some of the things represented by the flag. Things that are cherished so much by the American people that they will fight for them, they will die for them. It would wrong not to be upset when you see that flag desecrated. But even though your initial reaction is wanting to ban it, perhaps that's not such a good idea after all.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'll be the first to say that the people who burn our flags should be burned themselves, but lets get something clear. When people desecrate flags; people like the Westboro Baptist Church, they aren't destroying what the flag stands for, or what America stands for. The only thing that would destroy what the American flag stands for, is the banning of flag desecration.

Call me whatever you want, but I believe my stance is what's right, and what's patriotic. Let me tell you why. What did I talk about earlier? About what the flag stood for? Do you remember what I said? Was it freedom, and liberty? Yes. That's what this flag is about, and that's what this country is about. This flag stands for freedom. The freedom to salute the flag, or burn it. Ironically, allowing someone to burn an American flag only strengthens its meaning. Banning its desecration however, destroys its meanings.

It limits our freedoms in this country, and freedom is what our flag represents. By banning flag desecration, it no longer represents that. You can fly your flag all day, but it would no longer mean anything. Except for socialism maybe. If that's what you want to put in its place. Seeing as though you are making owned flags; private property, into government property that is controlled.

You have to ask yourself what is more important? Saving a few flags from being burned yet destroying its meaning or giving it a bad one? Or letting people do what they want with their private property and still retaining the flags meaning that is freedom? Not only is banning flag desecration a step toward socialism, but it really isn't a necessary discussion. How often do you see people burn flags? Honestly. The hippy decade is over, the Vietnam war is over. Rarely do you see our flag burned. Yes, it does happen, but rarely. Before taking your initial emotion as what's right, just piece together the facts, and put your priorities in order. This ban isn't really what you want, not if you're a true patriot.

To sum up my point in one sentence, it's simply this: Banning flag burning is worse than flag burning because it destroys its meaning, freedom.

Happy 4'th of July

2006-07-04T20:10:00.000-04:00

Hey, my fellow Better Wing-nuts. I hope you all had a wonderful fourth of July today, mine was fun. We had a party and the whole family was there, then later on it hailed for some reason. We, and probably you saw the Discovery takeoff today, and we got to laugh at North Korea's pathetic attempts at scaring us.

I started writing a post on flag burning but I decided it wasn't an appropriate discussion during the fourth of July weekend, so I will post that one in a day or two.

Also, I feel I need to keep in touch with my fellow bloggers more so a few things. First I will be having a weekly Free Forum Friday where I'll ask some questions for a conversation starter but other than that its whatever you want to talk about with no rules or guidelines. Talk about news, talk about me, talk about you, or whatever. So be looking for that. Also, I will be checking up on your blogs a lot more often too.

No updates on my book yet. I have a lot going on now so it might be a while before I have time to sit down and think about what I want, print out research, and set up the books look. But when I do get started I will make sure to keep you updated and tease you with a paragraph here and there.

Well, I think that's about it, I should be back in the political game tomorrow with what will probably be a controversial post on the topic of flag burning.

Farewell until then.

I could use a little help

2006-07-01T11:08:00.000-04:00

Okay, I've been going on these link counting sites a lot recently. Sites like Technorati and TTLB and I seem to be having a problem and I'm wondering if anyone could help me. I know I am linking to listed sites, and I know that listed sites are linking me, but these link counting sites just aren't counting my links! I don't know what I'm doing wrong. Is it because I don't use blogrolling? My template is custom made? I have something wrong in some account? I just don't know, and I'd really appreciate it if I could get some help here. Because I do feel pretty bad when websites tell me my blog sucks, even if it really doesn't.

TBW taking a new direction?

2006-06-28T14:53:00.000-04:00

Recently I have been taking my blog in a direction I really don't want to go, and that is the quantity of quality posting. I've been making my posts into more of, "here's a link, and the paragraph below is my opinion on it." You get more posts done that way, but you start to feel unsatisfied with your work and your blog. I know the short and sweet blogging style is what gets you more readers, and for the people who like it that way, that's fine. I have nothing against you, but it's just not my style.

For a few days I've just sat there thinking about where I want to go with my blog, and what will make me happy, it's not these short but frequent posts. I want to go back to writing longer posts. Posts that resemble columns, not e-mails. Posts like my highly controversial "What did you learn today son" .

After discovering that was what I wanted, I started to ponder on what I would write about, and after a while I came up with a great thesis. Ignorance is not a bliss. It would be a writing about how a knowledge of history is very important in understanding current issues, and how an ignorance of history could lead an entire country down the wrong road. When I finished understanding my thesis I sat down and wrote a few bullet points on things that could apply to it. To make it short, a lot. Wars, economy, immigration, and just about every other policy made by the leaders of our country. This writing would take every debate, every idea, plan, action, and policy, and it would relate it to history to show where we are right, and where we are wrong. What will work and what won't. Of course, a thesis like this I realized was too much for just a blog post. This would require months of research, and writing. And it would be too long to read in one sitting. No, this wouldn't be a blog post, this is book worthy.

Right now I am at a point where I need a lot of feed back from my readers. Do you like the thesis? Would a book be too long for you? Would you spend the money for the book, or are you a "freegan"? Do you think I could even get it published, and then figure out how to sell it online? Do you think I should wait a few years before I tackle something this big. And apart from the book thing, which direction should I take with my blog? Short frequent posts, or weekly column type posts. I really want to know what you think. Feedback from my readers is always very important to me, but now I need it more than ever. Please, it doesn't have to be much, just a short comment. Share some knowledge, give an opinion, or just say "go for it". I don't care. And I know a lot of you out there just read my blog, and you never comment, nows your time. I'm enabling anonymous comments so there won't be a hassle. Just let me know what you think about this. Thanks.

McCain is...right?

2006-06-25T08:16:00.000-04:00

--story--

At a speech to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, the Arizona Senator who is usually called a RINO, is trying to sound like the only real Conservative in the GOP. In his speech, senator John McCain preeched Conservative values that the Republican party has seemed to have lossed, claiming that, "Republicans intent on safeguarding power in Washington have drifted from the values of the Reagan presidency and ushered in an era of reckless spending and government growth that threatens to drive them from office," McCain said.

In his speech he made it clear that Republicans have lost many of the values of the Reagan legacy by increasing the size in government and spending too much. The senator said, "Why has our party, the party of small government, lately adopted the practices of our opponents who believe the bigger the government the better?"

Normally, I would be in support of someone who has Conservative economic values and moderate social values, and is a strong follower of Reagan values. If I had forgot McCains' past, I would support him. If I didn't think he was playing politics, pretending to be Conservative, just as Hillary Clinton pretends to be moderate so he could get more votes, I would support him. Too bad I think a little deeper than McCain wants me to.

I would love to see Republicans find Conservatism again, even if McCain has to help them do it. But that doesn't mean I would ever vote for him. Because I can't forget. I can't forget his stance on torture which makes sleep deprivation torture, making it extremely hard for us to fight the very war he supports. I can't forget his bill on immigration; crafted with Ted Kennedy, that only makes it easier for illegals to cross the border. I can't forget his bill on campaign finance reform that restricts your freedom of speech.

Sure, I'm glad John McCain is trying to get the Republicans back to their Conservative routes, but when I remember his stances in the past, and the fact that he's playing politics, I can't support him. It doesn't matter how similar ideals we share. He's been wrong on too many important issues, he's made too many terrible bills, and politically he's conducting the BS express so he can be president in '08. Him pretending to be a Conservative is not going to gain my support.

500 Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq Since 2003

2006-06-22T09:31:00.000-04:00

--story--

"WASHINGTON: The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday."

Here's yet another story that puts Iraq in good light, and yet another story the Democratic party will completely ignore. Just like the many documents of Saddam/Al-Qaeda links, Taliban links, and everything else that proves Iraq is relevant in the war on terrorr and the invasion was justified. The fact that Saddam posed us a threat, the fact that Saddam did help terrorists, all ignored by the Liberals. Now, it is shown we have found lots of weapons and it still doesn't matter. Every day the left complains about Iraq, and how there were no WMD's and every time it is shown there was, it is completely ignored.

Man, I get PO'd when I see the Democrats lie about something as vital as a war against a relentless enemy, putting our country in danger, just so they can be "right", just so they can get re-elected. Power is more important than our country. I've been sick of politicians as a whole for a long time. They all have their own illegal operations with lobbyists, they all lie to the people for power, and it disgusts me. But this just proves that the Democratic party are the worst of them all. Lying and putting our country in danger is a price they're willing to pay to get themselves more power and they won't stop at anything.

Democrats should be ashamed, deeply ashamed. And if these souless bastards get the White House in 2008 we're all going to be in trouble. Protecting our country is not a priority, only protecting their jobs. I'm just plain disgusted.

A few Blogthings

2006-06-21T13:05:00.000-04:00

I'm zero percent redneck. Thank God.

You Are 0% Redneck

I'll slap you so hard, your clothes will be outta style.
You ain't no redneck - you're all Yankee!

How Redneck Are You?

And here's another one I took.

You are Agnostic

You're not sure if God exists, and you don't care.
For you, there's no true way to figure out the divine.
You rather focus on what you can control - your own life.
And you tend to resent when others "sell" religion to you.

What's Your Religious Philosophy?

Perhaps I don't fully fit in with the Conservative culture of today, but philosophy comes first. I still have many Conservative beliefs, and I don't have to be a cowboy to hold them. Maybe I'll talk about Conservative culture in depth on another day. Where I am, where others are, and where I think people should be.

Can we Ever do Things Right?

2006-06-18T15:20:00.000-04:00

Well, if you hadn't heard, there has been 3 suicides in the Guantanamo bay prisons recently and of course, the Libs are having a field day. To them, this is the number one reason why Gitmo should be shut down. But then again, no matter what happens and what Americans do at Gitmo, it is turned into something we did wrong. Whether it's story manipulation, or flat out fabrication, the Liberals and the Liberal media will never stop finding ways to make us look bad at the Guantanamo bay prisons. And it begs the question, can we ever do anything right there, can we ever please the left?

The answer is a big bold no. If a prisoner goes on a hunger strike, it's our fault if we don't do anything about it. But if we try to force feed them, it's our fault because force feeding hurts. One trial a year per prisoner isn't enough, there must be more, and when there's multiple trials a year per prisoner, that isn't enough. The trials must be held in America. No matter what happens, the Liberals, civil Libertarians, and McCain-ites will never be pleased. Because in their mind, having lights on all day and dimmed at night is considered torture. But when the left can't find anything to manipulate when it comes to Gitmo, they just make things up. The UN for example had plenty bad to say about Guantanamo bay, but did they actually go there to see for themselves if it was true? No. Even though the facility is open for journalists, reporters, inspectors, and the Red Cross, they don't even bother checking their "facts". Instead they run on just rumors that are usually started by the prisoners themselves. And they're real trustworthy aren't they? I've got news for you, they're lying, the Koran tells them too! They don't stop fighting after being taken prisoner, they use psychological warfare on us, like lying for example. And every time the left buys into the lies, the terrorists have a better chance in this war.

Psychological warfare is exactly what these suicides were about. But don't ask me, ask the Muslims themselves. They claim that three "brothers" (Muslims) must commit suicide to get Guantanamo bay to shut down. These suicides had nothing to do with "despair". It's just another one of their strategies for fighting the war. And if you Liberals want to buy into their strategy, then you are just helping the terrorists! Why don't you understand?

The guards working at Guantanamo bay are not to blame for anything surrounding these suicides. They did not torture them to the point where they would kill themselves, and it's too bad no one from the Liberal media actually wants to go to Gitmo and discover that. Instead they would rather lie. And even though a few journalists have gone there and spoke the truth after, the Liberals just claim it's a government cover up. The torture chambers are actually underground. That's funny, I always thought it was hard to dig under sea level, let alone build torture chambers! No, the truth is, the guards are treating these prisoners very nicely, and the only reason these suicides occurred is because these terrorists are trying to fight a war in ways we haven't seen before.

Please America, think about what I've said before you urge us to shut down Guantanamo. Because when Liberals cry, people die.

More on Me

2006-06-11T20:58:00.000-04:00

As promised, I'm going to write a post about where I stand on a multitude of issues and where that places me politically. Hopefully by the end of this post you'll have a better idea of who I am, and what I believe in.

In my last post I labeled myself a Conservatarian. Since I made up the word, it may be a good idea to explain what I mean by that now. First, if you hadn't guessed, Conservatarian is the words Conservative and Libertarian put together. Well, the philosophy is just that, two ideas put together and the best of both is pulled out. Economically, things don't change, at all. Conservatives and Libertarians both agree on a free market. It's the social issues that differ, and it's the social issues where I differ between both ideologies. I agree on some Conservative social issues and some Libertarian social issues, and then there are some issues by both that just repulse me.

The first big social issue is gay marriage. This is one of those issues where I'm not really for or against it, I'm sort of taking a third and probably more Libertarian option. I say, let them get married, but don't call in marriage, just call it a civil union. Okay, marraige is between a man and a woman, fine, I'll give you that, but what's wrong with civil unions? Shouldn't everyone be happy when marraige is untouched, and the gays have their own thing? Supposedly not according to Conservatives. This is one of those issues where I just plain don't understand where the Conservative viewpoint is coming from. Okay, I know you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, but if that's the case then I don't know if you're going far enough. My teacher made a good point to me a few days ago that if you want to protect marriages sanctity, don't you have to not only ban gay marriage but ban divorce as well? I wonder if Bush would stand up to protect marriage if it included divorce, since that's a greater cause of marriage being disrupted than anything else.

Another big one is abortion. I agree with Conservatives completely with this issue, and I believe only a true Libertarian would be pro-life. Think about it, Libertarians preach about this idea that every person deserves liberty, and the only time the government should step into their lives is when they plan on disrupting someone else's right to liberty. Don't you think killing a baby is disrupting it's chance at liberty, something all people deserve?

Then there's the death penalty. With this issue I tend to lean against it, but not because I don't want to see murderers fry, it has more to do with statistics. It has been proven to not be a deterrent for criminals. In a lot of cases the prisoner turns out to be innocent. And in the end it costs more in terms of trials to put a guy to death than leave him in a cage all of his life. Any reasonable person should think that's enough to be against the death penalty, but as I said earlier not even for ethical reasons. When it comes to people like Saddam Hussein I would love to let him get the chair.

Next we've got illegal immigration, an issue where I stand firmly Conservative on. Sure this idea of everyone has these liberties and no one can trample on them unless you plan on disrupting another persons liberties sounds nice, but how far can it extend? We can choose to have a free country that has borders to keep out diseases, drugs and criminals (who probably intend on disrupting our liberties) or we could have global anarchy. You take your pick.

When it comes to prostitution and other things in the bedroom between consenting adults I believe the government has no right to intrude. Now don't get me wrong, I believe prostitution is one of the most immoral things out there and I don't want people to do it, but on the other hand I still don't think it's right for the government to say people can't do it. It's not inflicting on others liberties is it? Nope.

Legalizing drugs however, I stand with the Conservatives and for this reason. When you are high on drugs you stand a much greater chance of disrupting someone else's liberties. Be it a car crash, rape or whatever. There is no denying that a man on drugs will more likely disrupt others liberties than a man who's not.

Censorship is something I am strongly against, especially being a blogger and all. Again, I agree with Conservatives that morality is important and should be supported, but by whom? I'll tell you right now I do not want police enforcement on morality. It's just so ridiculous. If you don't want your kids to see something, then you be the person to censor it. I believe it is not the governments job, but the parents job to keep children away from things immoral. And if a kid wants to go to an R rated movie, it should ultimately be up to the parents if that's okay or not, not the staff at the theater. I believe each and every family should be able to choose how they want to live and what they want to see, I do not want big brother making up our minds for us.

Okay, those are some of the big issues and as you can see I am pretty well balanced on social issues and Right on economic. So first I could not be a Liberal or Statist with my economic views so that leaves me with social views that would make me Conservative or Libertarian. Well, I'm pretty well split on social issues, so I must be a Conservatarian, huh?

A day for Celebration!

2006-06-09T07:54:00.000-04:00

Good news everyone, raghead #2 is officially dead! We dropped a 500 pound bomb on Zarqawi's Arab ass! Today and for days to come we should all celebrate this country, it's military and it's leaders in this great success in our war on terror. All of us, both Republicans, Democrats, or whatever else should celebrate now that we are all safer from terrorism, our military is safer from terrorism, and the whole globe will now be a more peaceful place. Today is a checkpoint in our war on terrorism, we're now at a point where success is getting closer and closer and we all should celebrate.

I'll tell you how I'm celebrating. First, I know I have been very critical of the Republicans lately, but because it was their leadership that helped in bringing down this raghead, I've got to cut them some slack. Lets be honest, what they've helped do has made the world a safer place. Sure, I still wish they'd stand up against illegal immigration and government size and budget increase, but for at least a few days I can appreciate them and the good things they've accomplished. So in honor of them, I once again don my Republicans kick ass shirt.

But this is more than just politics, our whole country should be singing "America, f**k yea." The tune from Team America; a movie I just love. In case you haven't seen the movie or heard the song I'll post the lyrics, and I promise I'll censor the f-bombs so you don't get too uncomfortable...

America, F**k Yeah lyrics
America...America...America, F**K YEAH! Coming again, to save the mother f**king day yeah. America, F**K YEAH! Freedom is the only way yeah. Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer to, America, F**K YEAH! So lick my butt, and suck on my balls. America, F**K YEAH! What you going to do when we come for you now? It's the dream that we all share; its the hope for tomorrow, F**K YEAH!
McDonalds, F**K YEAH! Wal-Mart, F**K YEAH! The Gap, F**K YEAH! Baseball, F**K YEAH! NFL, F**K, YEAH! Rock and roll, F**K YEAH! The Internet, F**K YEAH! Slavery, F**K YEAH! F**K YEAH! Starbucks, F**K YEAH! Disney world, F**K YEAH! Porno, F**K YEAH! Valium, F**K YEAH! Reeboks, F**K YEAH! Fake Tits, F**K YEAH! Sushi, F**K YEAH!Taco Bell, F**K YEAH! Rodeos, F**K YEAH! Bed bath and beyond (F**k yeah, F**k yeah)Liberty, F**K YEAH! White Slips, F**K YEAH! The Alamo, F**K YEAH! Band-aids, F**K YEAH! Las Vegas, F**K YEAH! Christmas, F**K YEAH! Immigrants, F**K YEAH! Popeye, F**K YEAH! Democrats, F**K YEAH! Republicans (republicans)(f**k yeah, f**k yeah)Sportsmanship! Books!

Take that Zarqawi and your buddies!

Everyone have a happy Zarqawi's dead day, I'll see you all real soon because that post about me is still coming...

Where's Jayson of all people?

2006-06-06T19:50:00.000-04:00

It's 6/6/06 and as I suspected, George Bush did not become the antichrist and spread his tyranny across the globe by nuclear warfare. In fact, the only game of global domination Bush has ever played is Risk. I guess that's one more Liberal theory down the hole. But I am a bit concerned about one thing, where's Jayson of all people? Remember, the one who ran a blog called Bush is not the antichrist? He should be having a field day right now, being able to virtually bitchslap Liberals who actually believed Bush was the beast. Well, if he's not able to capture the moment, and prove the theme of his blog right, then I'll gladly bitchslap some Liberals...

(Also, I am working on the post about me, as I promised. I'll have it out tommorow. You'll all know what a Conservatarian is when I'm done.)

I'm a Conservatarian

2006-06-02T21:56:00.000-04:00

Okay, I just took another one of those political ideology tests and I think this is the most accurate one I have taken so far:

If you're having trouble interpreting the graph, I'm Conservative on economic issues, and moderate on personal issues; enough to make me a Libertarian it seems, but still on the right side of the wing of course. From now on I will be calling myself a Conservatarian (another original word by me, I should make a list) and in a few days I'll write a post explaining to you why that is. What are the issues that make up my opinions. So look out for that.

I also want to apologize for the short posts I've had recently, I've just been really tired with reviewing for finals and whatnot, but with Summer vacation coming up I'll be back in gear soon.

Oh, and if you want to take that test yourself go to this site.

Iraq War Vet Sues Moore

2006-06-01T07:40:00.000-04:00

--story--

"A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11.""

...

"In his interview with NBC, Damon was asked about a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans. He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11" - Moore's scathing 2004 documentary criticizing the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - makes him appear to "voice a complaint about the war effort" when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that comes with the injury he suffered."

...

"In his lawsuit, Damon says he "agrees with and supports the President and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind.""

...

""It's upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all of that," Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, said."

...

"Damon is seeking $75 million in damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation. His wife is suing for an additional $10 million in damages because of the mental distress caused to her husband, Lynch said."

-AP

Wow, what can I say? Other than Michael Moore is a lying sack of crap? Oh, I could say he's a lying sack of crap 59 times over. But before you slam me, I have seen his BS movie so I know for a fact it's filled to the top with quotes taken out of context, and all out lies. But my favorite part of the movie where he is most anti-American is the Iraq montage. He says something like " We striked a peaceful country that never did anything to us," while showing footage of Iraqi kids on slides and then us dropping a bomb. He has too done things to us, like those planes he shot down for example. But the kids on slides thing is the most offensive, there is genocide going on in this "peaceful" country and he shows us footage that is probably from after we invaded? Just do yourself a favor and pretend he doesn't exist. I know it's hard since he's large enough to be one of Earths moons, but at least try.

If Only it Were a Memorial Week

2006-05-29T11:41:00.000-04:00

On this Memorial day, there are three things I want to talk about. One of course, is what we're supposed to be remembering. Two, the memorial day weekend blockbusters. And three, why it's so darn hard to get to my room and type this post.

First off, is what's really important to this day, remembering those fallen soldiers who fought for this great country. From the Revolutionary war to todays Iraq war, our military has been there to protect what America stands for. The principles of freedom, democracy, liberty, in all forms. Whether it be economy, property, or even religion, it is this country, the United States of America that has been the second, but the best in giving these freedoms to all of her citizens. These amazing rights and liberties would not be able to stand if it wasn't for the military that has been here to protect them, and it is today that we honor and remember those who died protecting these principles.

Of course, Memorial is more than just that, it also plays a part in American culture for the beginning of Summer. This is the day when you open up the pools, fire up the grill, and of course go to the drive in for the Memorial day weekend movies. Well, if you know me, I've got an opinion on everything. Yes, even the Memorial day weekend movies. First off, I know more people go to the movies on this weekend, but come on, three blockbusters a comedy and a horror movie? It's too much, and there needs to be some spreading here. In most cases, all of the good movies will come out at the same time in certain times of the year, while the crap ones take up the entire rest of the year. So for about 9 out of 12 months you've got your generic horror film of the month, a remake of a remake, a low budget comedy, and possibly a computer animated flick. Not much, and to be honest, I barely watch any movies during this time period, because most of them just suck! Then you get to Memorial day weekend and boom, 5 good movies come out at the same time, and it bugs me. A regular person may watch one movie per week if that, maybe two during this week, but they won't watch five. So unless you are keen on seeing all of them and Monday through Friday is movie night, you won't be able to see them all. With the regular one movie a week deal, they will be replaced before you see them all, and you won't be able to watch them until they come out on DVD about a year down the road! And these are good movies too! I feel your pain. I've already waited too long to see Scary Movie 4, and that ones out. Now I've got three other choices for movies I really do want to see but I know I'll only will be able to see one of them. There's Mission Impossible III, X-Men III, and the Da Vinci Code. Well I think, as an agnostic I could live without a religious movie, even if Tom Hanks is in it. But MI-III and X-Men III? I don't want to see just one of them! So, there are only two solutions, extend Memorial day weekend to Memorial day week, or spread these blockbusters out a little bit.

As for my Memorial day weekend, it has been alright, but it could be better. The grill has been cooking, the sun has been shining, (yes, even in Maine) and even the smell in the air tells you what day it is. However, a little house work can be quite the distraction. This past week has been nonstop home improvment. We've painted the bathroom, fixed plumbing, replaced some flooring, and even painted the stairs. Well, painting the stairs wasn't good for me. My room happens to be on the second floor of the house, and this also happens to be the spot where the only computer is. So I thought, a few hourse without the computer won't kill me. Oops, little mistake. Apparantly someone forgot to prepare the paint so it would dry faster. So the stairs that were painted yesterday morning are stilll wet about 28 hours later. So I was stranded downstairs away from my computer for an entire day. Well, on day two, I just couldn't take it anymore. I pulled out a ladder and placed it up against my porch and climed up onto the porches roof which is as high as the bottom of the second floor. From the porch I got to my bedroom window and climbed through. So there you have it, right there in print. You can say it, I'm a nut. I broke into the second floor of my own house just so I could work on my blog. You better have enjoyed this post! Have a good day off, and don't forget to remember!

Such a Slow Blogging Time it seems...

2006-05-26T18:39:00.000-04:00

It seems recently that blogs have really slowed down, which is a little ironic I suppose. Right now things are going on that could piss anybody off. Illegal immigration, media, whatever. But the thing is, even though it's recent news, we've all talked about it already, plenty. Sure illegal immigration is a huge problem now, but it has been a problem for 20 years and it has been blogged about for at least 7. There's nothing new to say, so what are we to do, repost things? No. We move on to new things, but the problem is, there isn't anything new going on. Every thing in the news now seems to be stories that we have all blogged about more than we need to. Immigration, the war, NSA spying, yada yada. It's old news. Blogging isn't about old news, it's about bringing in new ideas, and sharing new information. Not repeating talking points and copying and pasting old articles from cnn.com. So with this happening the result is many slow blogs, mine included. And I'll tell you right now, the only way you will get me to write anything more about illegal immigration is if you hold a knife to my throat. I am done with that story.

So what's a blogger to do if there's nothing to blog about. Well, I have two things you could do, and I probably will soon do. The first, write a book. Books are so much different than blogs. Unlike blogs, books aren't news based so you're free to bring up anything you wish, even something no one else has talked about. And speaking of talking, what about starting a podcast? Sure sitting down to think about something has it's own pro's, but you'd be surprised what spontaneous thinking can do for you. Ideas, jokes, topics, all can come to you and you don't have to worry about thesis's, or topic sentences, therefore you usually have less pressure leaving you to get out more points that can be missed by blogging.

Those are some ideas for you to keep yourself in the political game without being either bored or frustrated without a way to express it. As for me, you can bet a book and podcast is in my future. With the free time of summer vacation I will start a book as soon as a thesis comes to me, which I probably will discover spontaneously while recording my podcast, which you can tell will come by looking at the links at the top of my template. My blog, of course, won't die, ever. It will just be lighter topics, less political, less talking points. That sort of deal.

Anyways, I hope the best Summer to all of the bloggers out there, and hope you all can find the right media to get your points across. Not to mention, avoid boredom. But if all else fails, and blogging no longer works, you should try out RPG's. They also consume your life. Cheers.

Bush Speaks about Immigration, I Speak about Bush

2006-05-16T07:41:00.000-04:00

Last night was Bush's big immigration speech. I didn't watch it because I'm extremely busy (okay, I was watching 24), but I did read the transcript, and in this post I'll give you most of Bush's speech, and between speech segments I'll give you my own commentary on it.

The first thing that I noticed is how Bush is trying to play both sides on this issue. A lot of what you'll see is "illegal immigration is bad, but illegals aren't bad people." More on that as I go through the speech though.

"The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display. On the streets of major cities, crowds have rallied in support of those in our country illegally. At our southern border, others have organized to stop illegal immigrants from coming in. Across the country, Americans are trying to reconcile these contrasting images."

So this is how it starts out. He shows both sides, which is fine, but then he pretends both sides hold ground, and Americans are evenly split on the issue. It's politics, surely, but still a bad move. I see he's trying to play both sides to get votes for the Republicans and improve his polls. But here's the thing, most illegals are voting Democrat, plus most of his base won't vote Republican if they won't secure the border! Anyways, lets continue and see more of this two-faced speech. In fact, I'll color the text accordingly to help you out. Green will be good parts, and red will be bad, making it easier for pro-Bush bloggers to take the speech out of context.

"We must begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system. For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders. As a result, many who want to work in our economy have been able to sneak across our border and millions have stayed.
Once here, illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many use forged documents to get jobs, and that makes it difficult for employers to verify that the workers they hire are legal. Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities. These are real problems, yet we must remember that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are decent people who work hard, support their families, practice their faith, and lead responsible lives. They are a part of American life but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law."

Another example of Bush having a good moment, then balancing it with a bad one. Because it's just how politicians work now. The Republican party comes before the country, and your defense comes before the countries defense. Luckily the Republicans will get what they had coming when all of the illegals with phoney ID's vote Democrat. It'll be even bigger if we let illegals become legalized with Bush's guest worker policy, and it grows into a guest voter policy. You'll see Bush, you're making a big mistake.

This next quote will make your head spin.

"We are a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly and fair. So I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish five clear objectives."

Yikes. Well, I'll start from the top. He's right how we're a nation of laws, but the next sentence makes me forget he ever said anything good. It even negates everything good he's done in all of his 6 years in office. He's now regurgitating the lies by illegal immigrants themselves. Good job Bush. Lets get this straight right now. As far as I'm concerned, every country is a nation of immigrants except for Africa, where the human race begun. Africans immigrated to Europe and Asia, and guess what else? The Spanish immigrated to Mexico, and even the "native" Americans weren't native; they crossed over from Eastern Asia when it touched North America! So don't you give me this nation of immigrants bullcrap again, because by the definition you and the illegals gave, so is Mexico, and yes, even the Indians were immigrants. Lets continue through the rest of the paragraph now. Next he claims his goals aren't "condradictory", and we can "be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time" Does any of this make you think of Clinton? Listen to how he is manipulating words and purposefully being vague. We can be lawful and welcoming, neither lawful, or welcoming can be defined in this quote. Lawful means enforcing the laws, which means closing the door to illegal immigration. Welcoming, is giving them a chance to cut in line, get a welcome basket, and a pat on the back by politicians and businesses. How can it be both ways? You either enforce the laws or you don't Bush, don't tell me you can do both. You can kinda enforce the laws, and kinda be nice, You can even build a wall on half the border and a tunnel on the other; but you can't be lawful and welcoming, not when it comes to illegal immigration. He continues by saying we can be "secure, orderly, and fair". Again, no specifics. He didn't say "we're going to protect the border, but have first class busses with air conditioning to take them back Mexico" Again, he was vague so he could play both sides more easily. What does he mean by fair, does anyone know? Fair as in, I get half, you get half? How can you be specific there? There's no way you can play both sides on this issue and be specific! Lets continue.

"First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers and terrorists."

You're right Bush, the border should be shut to illegal immigrants, too bad it's not something you're ever planning on doing though. Nothing is actually wrong with what he said here, only that I highly doubt he'll ever actually do any of this.

"I was the governor of a state that has a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. So I know how difficult it is to enforce the border, and how important it is. Since I became president, we have increased funding for border security by 66 percent, and expanded the Border Patrol from about 9,000 to 12,000 agents. The men and women of our Border Patrol are doing a fine job in difficult circumstances, and over the past five years, we have apprehended and sent home about 6 million people entering America illegally."

And after being sent home they come right back. This paragraph sounds great, but that doesn't mean much. From what I've seen, everything he's done hasn't been working. I'm sick of Bush and his supporters speaking so highly about the national guard thing, because as I've told you, it only sounds good on the surface. You know what these guardsmen are doing? They're helping to secure this "virtual wall" by watching cameras and doing the majority of their work in offices. They won't even have weapons! Sorry, but I won't be happy until Bush builds a wall spanning the entire border, north and south. Walls work. Not guest worker programs, not virtual walls and weaponless national guardsmen. If you want support Bush, then make a wall.

"Despite this progress, we do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that. Tonight I am calling on Congress to provide funding for dramatic improvements in manpower and technology at the border. By the end of 2008, we will increase the number of Border Patrol officers by an additional 6,000. When these new agents are deployed, we will have more than doubled the size of the Border Patrol during my presidency."

This one almost got a red coloring, mainly because it sounds good, but really it's not. We're wasting tons of money to send soldiers to the border without allowing them to do their job. They can't shoot intruders or even have guns. It's all about this virtual border watched over by these soldiers. Listen, I have no problem with the national guard helping out at the border, but it just plain won't help until there is some kind of a wall there first. It seems like Bush has the order backwards. Logically it should go, wall, soldiers, guest worker program. He's got it reversed.

"At the same time, we are launching the most technologically advanced border security initiative in American history. We will construct high-tech fences in urban corridors, and build new patrol roads and barriers in rural areas. We will employ motion sensors infrared cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles to prevent illegal crossings. America has the best technology in the world and we will ensure that the Border Patrol has the technology they need to do their job and secure our border"

Okay, this is more with the virtual border thing. Sorry, I'm still not convinced. I don't care how many lasers and cameras you have, people will always get through without a wall. Again, lets get our priorities in order. Okay, the speech gets really nasty again next.

"One way to help during this transition is to use the National Guard. So in coordination with governors, up to 6,000 Guard members will be deployed to our southern border. The Border Patrol will remain in the lead. The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities that duty will be done by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year. After that, the number of Guard forces will be reduced as new Border Patrol agents and new technologies come online. It is important for Americans to know that we have enough Guard forces to win the war on terror, respond to natural disasters, and help secure our border."

As I said, the national guard is a waste. They're watching cameras and alerting the border patrol, who are the people we really need more of. We don't need this whimpy plan. Stop this virtual wall crap. If we're going to put the national guard on the border, I do not want them doing the jobs of security guards. They should be out there with tanks and helicopters scoping the damn border, not cameras! Does no one else see this? Oh well, lets get to the next part where he plays both sides.

"The United States is not going to militarize the southern border. Mexico is our neighbor, and our friend. We will continue to work cooperatively to improve security on both sides of the border, to confront common problems like drug trafficking and crime, and to reduce illegal immigration."

It's a shame. I think we should have more troops on the border than Iraq. Sorry Iraq, but when we're in a national security crisis, we come first. I hate to be unreasonable or impatient, but can't this transfer to the Iraqi's happen a little bit faster? Before there are 50 million illegals here? On to the next sentence that pisses me off. Mexico is a friend? Maybe I'm not up with the times, but I never thought "friend" meant someone who trespasses on your land and took your jobs and services. It just gets worse and worse, huh? Onward.

"The steps I have outlined will improve our ability to catch people entering our country illegally."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Man he's funny.

Well it's 10:00 at night and I'm only half way through this depressing speech which by the way gets worse and worse. I don't want to bore you so I'll give you short quotes from the rest of it and finish it off, because I don't want my articles to be too long.

"Second, to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program."

Bull. To secure our border, we need a wall. it's that fricken simple.

"Third, we need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire."

Yes. I have no objections here.

This next one may be the funniest of all.

"Fourth, we must face the reality that millions of illegal immigrants are already here. They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it. Amnesty would be unfair to those who are here lawfully and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration."

So if amnesty is all of a sudden bad, then why do you support it? And don't tell me you don't, push aside the word manipulation and doublespeak, and it all boils down to amnesty. Automatic path to citizenship, or kinda hard path to citizenship, they're both amnesty.

The next four or five paragraphs are just more "reasons" for the guest worker policy and it's more of the same. So there it is, where Bush stands and where I stand. And if you're a Conservative calling me a Liberal right now, just wait a minute. Bush is no longer a true Conservative like I am. He's not a fiscal Conservative, he's not a small government Conservative, he can't even be Conservative on illegal immigration! Me, I'm the real deal. I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Bush-bot. I open my own eyes and make up my own mind based on a true Conservative ideology. I dislike Bush from a Conservative standpoint, not a Liberal one. But after this speech, who the hell does like Bush anymore? Answer, the people who didn't hear the speech.

There's Something About Fox

2006-05-12T07:59:00.001-04:00

Like many Conservatives I watch Fox news frequently, but unlike many Conservatives, I'm starting to get tired of it. It seems like a once good station has just gone down the crapper.

I just got DVR recently so I can now record tv shows, and one of the shows I have scheduled to tape is Hannity & Colmes. If you're wondering why I have to tape a primetime show, it's because my favorite radio show comes on at the same time (Rusty Humphries) , but that's aside the point. The next morning I will flick on the tv, sip my coffee, and watch my taped program. Here's what it was like one morning. Like most DVR users, I skip commercials, but unlike some DVR users, I skip boring parts of shows too. So one morning I put on Hannity & Colmes. I skip the commercials until the show comes on. The first three segments they talk about the Duke rape case, I fast forward all three segments. Ready for something interesting I play the next one just to find out the next segment goes to the Aruba case. I skip this too. When I reach the next segment I could swear they would talk about immigration or gas prices. No. Next they talk about another teacher who is accused of statutory rape. So I skip it and the commercials. When the show returns the topic is about how another Kennedy gets drunk. Oh, like that's news. I skip that too. For the next segment, it was finally done, it was back to politics, but as suspected the guest would be Newt Gingrich or Judge Nepaletano. Oh, what a surprise, I was right. I skip that too. And all of a sudden I notice I had skipped the entire program of Hannity & Colmes, a once great debate show! That's how boring, useless, and redundant it was! Of course when the show ended it was time for Greta Van Susteren to drone on about the same exact topics. Repeat this crap for months on end, and you've got the new Fox news. Conservatives, is this really what you want?

After thinking about how to act, I thought I would take care of the problem Bill O'Reilly style. Boycott something. But that something isn't France, or Aruba. I think it's time to boycott Fox. But why, you ask? You've got to understand that it's all about numbers in tv and radio. Right now the Fox viewership is high, giving them the impression they are doing something right. That couldn't be more from the truth. The only reason people still watch Fox is because they don't have anything better for an alternative for Conservative programming. This isn't true either. By now, all other stations have at least one Conservative show, so boycotting Fox wouldn't be too hard. You can get your news from the internet, but here are some opinion shows you may like. Now, I'll be honest, two of these shows I have yet to watch, but by boycotting Fox, you can bet I will be watching them instead of O'Reilly or Hannity. For CNN you've got Lou Dobbs, who comes on at 6-7 p.m. ET Monday-Friday. For CNN Headline, there's the brand new Glenn Beck show from 7-8 p.m. ET Monday-Friday. And for MSNBC you've got Joe Scarborough Monday - Thursday at 9-10 p.m. ET.

There's three shows for you in primetime that can fill the gap from Fox. But if you choose to stay with Fox, there will still be that gap, because Fox isn't the same. Great debate shows are now covering stories you can't debate. Law shows cover stories from months or years ago, with nothing recent. And the news itself is off in the way it makes unimportant stories, more important than the actual important ones.

So please, if you want to save Fox, then the best thing you can do is stop watching it. They will notice the drop in viewership and find out something is wrong. Because of that they will change, for the better. And the Fox news you once knew will come back.

The Better Wing 2.0 Finished....for the Most Part

2006-05-05T21:26:00.000-04:00

Okay, the links and archives pages are now up. At this point you can check out my favorite blogs as well as my other ones, and you can check out a list of my best written work. Although the pages are up, you may notice a bit of difference between the pages, and some differences within the pages, because even though I'm done I do have a few glitches I need to fix. But it shouldn't be too much of a bother. Even though it may not look as pretty as I hoped, it does have everything you need and it all works properly. Well, I hope you all enjoy the updates. See yeah!

Big Oil, Or Big Government?

2006-05-02T07:58:00.000-04:00

A lot of people have been complaining about gas prices, and I have no problem with people doing that, as I do as well. But the problem is, is that the scapegoat for this problem is the wrong people. Many people have been putting the blame on "big oil", and they have been saying the oil companies are "price gouging" and "exploiting a gas crisis", and it has been called "coorporate corruption". Why don't we take a step back so we can see where the corruption really follows to.

If you take a look at the actual numbers for gas prices and where the money is going, you can clearly see that it is in fact the government who is making the money in this. For most of my research in this I used a website called gaspricewatch.com and because the gas tax differs for each state, I will use Maine. Not just because that's where I live, but because that's where it seems the most outragous.

The average price for gas in Maine right now is about $2.90 per gallon. Lets find out where that money is going. 25.2 cents per gallon goes to the state government, and 18.4 cents per gallon goes to the federal government which adds up to 43.6 cents per gallon in government taxes.

In the end, in most cases the government is making more money on gas than the oil companies. I don't believe there is any price gouging going on here with "big oil". The reason they're making profits is simply because the demand is high and the supply dipped after Katrina, but by no means were they price gouging. If you ask me, I think the government is tax gouging!

In the state of Maine, there are more taxes than tax-a-chussets. Sales tax, income tax, every tax you can think of is high in this state. But do they need all of this taxing? Certainly not. The state right under Maine, New Hampshire is very similar to Maine in many ways, yet they're taxes are very low. Obviously the state government is taking money they don't need, and spending it on things they don't need. So why do we need such a high gas tax here? Not only that, but why do some congressmen propose upping the gas tax because they think big oil is making too much? Obviously the money isn't needed, it's only wanted. Our greedy corrupt government is tax gouging and it is killing us.

Here's an idea Mr. president. Why not cut the federal gas tax. We all know there has been hysteria over gas prices and the people are actually scared. Don't you think they'll buy more and help the economy if they know they don't have to worry about gas prices? But unlike the state government, the federal government may actually have to cut some budget to pull this off. I hate to say this, but Bush isn't doing a great job with the economy. Pork barrel spending is at 27.3 billion dollars since 2005, he hasn't vetoed a thing, and he's running on a huge deficit. With all of this going on, Bush's other tax cuts will not last, and neither would gas tax cuts if these problems don't get fixed.

News Update

2006-04-26T14:19:00.000-04:00

First off, I apologize for the lack in update, but believe me, even though I haven't been posting, I have been working. I thought I had finished the template but I ran into a problem and I have to add some things and it'll delay the finishing of the template by a few more days. Post-wise, I have plenty of ideas and things I want to write about, and if I can, I will make them up real soon. So be patient, I'm working, even if you don't see it.

The Better Wing 2.0

2006-04-17T13:07:00.000-04:00

Okay, the template for The Better Wing 2.0 is under construction as of now. So far I have finished the blog page. The links and Archives pages will be up this week, and the podcast page will be up....when I actually make a podcast. See you all soon!

Post # 100!

2006-04-17T10:41:00.000-04:00

Well, this is the 100'th post for The Better Wing, and first off I'd like to thank all of my readers for staying loyal to my blog, and keeping it alive. To celebrate this checkpoint, in the next few days, The Better Wing 2.0 will be up and running, which is really just a prettier template. I'm not exactly a web-designer so don't be surprised if the site is down for a few days, but by the end of the week the template will be ready. Thanks everyone!

Are Cops Getting Lazy or What?

2006-04-15T09:40:00.000-04:00

--story--

"Woman Fined for Crossing Street Too Slowly"

"An 82-year-old woman has received a $114 traffic ticket - for taking too long to cross a street.
Mayvis Coyle said she began shuffling with her cane across Foothill Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley when the light was green, but was unable to make it to the other side before it turned red.
She said the motorcycle officer who ticketed her on Feb. 15 told her she was obstructing traffic."

-LOS ANGELES (AP)

Okay, so an elderly woman is given a ticket for obstructing traffic, because we all know that most 82 year olds can cross 5 lanes in 20 seconds. But if cops really wanna "crack down" on traffic obstructers, then instead of giving tickets to elderly women, they should give tickets to people like this:

Right? Also, on the topic of illegal immigration I'd like to show this picture to all of the Democrats who are against illegal immigration before they decide how they're going to vote next election.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin for the bottom two pictures.

Is This Really Me?

2006-04-12T17:45:00.000-04:00

One of the signs held up during pro-illegal immigration protests

Apparently anyone who is against illegal immigration nowadays is just a racist bigot, and I'm tired of hearing it. It's coming from illegals and even far left Liberals. In this post I will do my best to prove to you that being against illegal immigration is not racist, and that there is much reasoning behind being against illegal immigration.

The first part of this accusation that anti-illegal immigration is racist comes from the idea that all illegal immigrants are Mexican, they are the reason behind this "bigotry". And I'm against illegal immigration, because they're Mexican. Actually that isn't true, there are illegal immigrants from all over the world, even Asia. So this isn't about race, or ethnicity, it's about the law! It's not like if a whitey crossed the border I'd be any more sympathetic. Sorry, it's against the law, and to play the race card when something is this simple *cough cough* Cynthia McKinney is just being racist yourself. I'm not racist and I'm not xenophobic, all I am is a person who supports law enforcement. So don't tell me I want them out for racial issues, because you know that's false, the law is there for a reason. If we just let anybody into the country you're going to let in terrorists, drug dealers, gangsters, and people carrying diseases that we have eliminated here. Again, the law is not racist bigotry, it's simply to protect our country.

Of course I've already played into another one of their traps by saying illegal immigrants bring crime, and drugs. That's just racist. First off, I use the term illegal immigrants, not Mexicans, so my beliefs couldn't even be passed off as racial. Second, they're just the facts. No sugarcoating, no lying. Illegal immigration does lead to crime, drugs, and diseases. For crime, just look at MS-13. They are a gang of illegal immigrants who have been killing people. But it's not isolated like that. 29% of prisoners in America are illegal immigrants. As for drugs, on the border the when border patrol catch people, they take things like drugs and weapons from them and they keep them in a giant warehouse. You heard me right; boarder patrol has an entire warehouse filled with confiscated drugs and weapons. For Diseases, look at Tuberculosis. A disease we thought we had eliminated, but thanks to illegal immigration, that's not the case anymore. And I'm not even saying all Mexicans are drug lords and gangsters, I'm just saying a lot of illegal immigrants are, and they aren't all Mexicans. Do you really think it's racist to say illegals are a bad influence on our society?

Oh, but they're working right? Of course, some are working. But first I want to just let you know that around a million illegals have been protesting for weeks on end, and I find it incredibly hard to believe they can retain a job by pulling that one off. But I won't deny, yes, some are working, but is that a good thing really? No. Despite how some say they are taking jobs we won't do, I disagree. They are they taking entry level jobs young Americans will do, and because of it, unemployment for Americans will rise due to the fact that employers pick the person who will work for the least amount of money.

But people don't seem to care if they're taking jobs, because they feel sorry for someone who moved here because they couldn't support themselves in Mexico. Sorry, but if you didn't know, Mexico despite the high poverty, is a very rich country. So you may be asking, why doesn't the Mexican government help the poor in their country? Simple, they don't have to. The government has realized America has stupidly accepted the responsibility of Mexico's poverty, and the corrupt government enjoys that. If they don't have to help the poor with all of their money, then they can keep it for themselves and that's that. As harsh as it may sound, we shouldn't take in their poor. Eventually Mexico will realize America will no longer solve their problems and they will be forced to do it themselves.

I just gave you all of the reasons why me and most of America is against illegal immigration, and why that stance is by no means whatsoever, racist. Hopefully some of you will drop most of your charges against people like me, and stop calling me things like a racist bigot. Unfortunately, I doubt that will ever happen.

It's a lie

2006-04-10T20:18:00.000-04:00

Time and time again you hear people like John McCain, president Bush, and others say that illegal immigrants are taking the jobs that we won't. It couldn't be more false, and I only need to make one point to prove it false.

For the past couple of weeks, as you should know, there has been major protests by illegal immigrants who want amnesty. Just the other day there were protests in dozens of places, and there were 500,000 protestors just in Dallas. Last week and now this week, protests took place during work days, during work hours. So I ask, if the illegal immigrants are taking jobs we wont, then explain how thousands of illegals can miss a week of work to go protest? Simple, most of them just aren't even working, because there is no way you can miss a week of work and obtain any sort of a job. So does anyone know why people, even Bush, continue to make this lie? That illegal immigrants are taking the jobs we don't want. Why? It looks pretty clear that the illegals aren't taking any jobs at all. But when you think about it, why would they need a job, they get enough freebies from the government. It's clear that all they are doing is corrupting our society and taking our money from the taxpayers.

I know there are those radical laissez faire types who put economy above the law, but here me out for a minute. If they aren't giving anything, labor or money, then you tell me what the plus side of illegal immigration is! Yes I realize some illegal immigrants are still working, possibly higher depending on how my theory works, but the statement about them taking jobs we won't is still a lie. There are plenty of people who will take those jobs, they are entry level jobs made for young Americans to start with. Those, are being stolen from them, is that a plus? Not only that, but they are driving down wages, and if anything is going to further separate the rich from the poor, it's that sort of exploitation. Is that a good thing? No. There is no plus side. There is only bad and it will get worse by the day. But who cares if illegals block up traffic, raise crime and drug problems, and raise taxes? Apparantly not congress because they just went on a two week vacation. God help us all. I just hope there's one good politician left, just one. One person who wants a wall on that border. That one politician will get my vote in 2008.

NEW BLOG!!

2006-03-28T20:12:00.000-05:00

Okay, for a long time I've been wanting to start up a humour blog, so just the other day I did. It's called Xenophobia, and you can find it at http://xenophobiablog.blogspot.com

Just so you know, the views I express on that blog are not always the views I actually support, it is a humour blog, if you need anymore of that type thing just read the disclaimer. Anyways, to go with my joke blog I will of course continue this blog to get my serious opinion out there too.

To all of my readers, I thank you for your readership, I wouldn't even be typing this if I knew nobody cared. So yeah, go check out my new blog, you won't regret it, I swear.

Democracy Prevails

2006-03-26T08:41:00.000-05:00

--story--

"POLICHARKI, Afghanistan — An Afghan court has dismissed the case against a man on trial for allegedly converting from Islam to Christianity for lack of evidence, an official said."

If you know and talk to Liberals on a daily basis, you'll know that when the issue of Afghanistan is discussed, they simply dismiss the existence of a real Democracy by citing the following story. Former Muslim of Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman, recently converted to Christianity, and because of it, he was put on trial for his "crime" and it was looking like we would get the death penalty. People on the left would tell you that this shows how Democracy doesn't and can't exist in Afghanistan, and our efforts were a failure. Well, to be honest, they made a very good point. One even I couldn't debate, because it was that simple. Someone was going to be killed for taking advantage of what a Democracy offers. So I just would think, give it time, things will turn out okay, I know it. In the end the people of Afghanistan will choose Democracy over Sharia law.

Well, it turns out I was right. Just recently, the courts have dismissed the case and the trial is over. There will be no execution for the now Christian, Abdul Rahman. As of right now he is still in prison, but again, in time, Democracy will will grow stronger in the country of Afghanistan. I know it will.

Remember this when people tell you the war on terror can't be won, and Democracy will never work. They're wrong, it is working. It may be a slow process, and there will be rough times, but in the end the people will choose freedom, because it really is the best option. Also remember this when people tell you the people of the Middle East don't support what we're doing. If people support us enough to convert to Christianity, we must be doing something right. Of course this will all be denied one way or another. I'm sure someone will capitalize on the fact that the case was dismissed due to "lack of evidence". Don't buy into it. I can tell you that without a doubt in my mind the court was just trying to look big and tough, because there really was plenty of evidence to prove he converted to Christianity. He begged his prison guards for a Bible. It's not like he's hiding anything, he's a proud Christian who wants to give Democracy a chance. And soon others will follow, maybe not converting, but certainly practicing their new freedoms. And over time Afghanistan will open up more and more to these freedoms, no matter what the pessimists tell you.

Time for Another Port Scandal

2006-03-24T21:57:00.000-05:00

--story--

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- One of Americans' favorite beach destinations, the Bahamas, is getting a new U.S. arrival -- sophisticated equipment to detect radioactive materials in shipping cargo."

Oh, how wonderful, right? Hardly. Sure, we've got some machines going to ports in the Bahamas, (that we import things from every day) and it could be a great step toward port security. Too bad the people running the port security in the Bahamas will be going to the Chinese. Boy, I feel a whole lot more safe now.

Well, if it makes you feel any worse I'll try to give some more detail on this right now. Well, first off, the ports getting these machines will be from a Chinese company which already raises eyebrows, but this company in particular has been a known risk for smuggling weapons. I really don't trust these guys. In fact I'd much rather have a bunch of Arabs from a country full of gambling and prostitutes run US ports than the Chinese. Remember, it's the Chinese who are against sanctions in Iran. But this isn't maintnence either remember. They won't be driving forklifts, they'll be in charge of security, and there will be no one else at the ports overseeing any of what they do. This is looking pretty dodgy so far.

The Bush administration of course is trying to make us think we should feel safe with the Chinese in charge of the security of ports that export things to US ports every day. They are trying to make the claim that there is no way the Chinese could get any cargo past the scanner, because they can't disable it. It's a load of crap really. It's true that they can't disable it, but there are plenty of ways to get cargo through. I'll first show you a picture of the thing and then go on with the real risks we could face with this.

If you don't understand what this thing is supposed to do from the picture, don't worry about it. Basically what this thing does is drive by the ship and it detects any nuclear material. They claim they can't disable the machine, but it's not like the thing is an R/C car driven by some CIA guy. No, this thing is drivin by one of the Chinese, so who's to say they won't just, you know, miss a few ship scans, and instead do cookies in the parking lot. It's really that simple, because like I said, the Chinese have full control over security, not one American will be there. And if they want to scan the ship and still get stuff through, just take the crate out until after the scan. It's a pretty simple concept. There is no doubt in my mind that because of this deal, there will now be more nuclear material being smuggled into America, and because we check only 5% of our crates, most of it will make it straight through. I can see a scenario running through my mind right now. Iran pays off China to smuggle bombs into America to be retrieved by sleeper cells and there will be another terrorist attack.

Now I'm not one to say Bush would be behind any terrorist attack, but my God, he sure is making it much easier for them. I don't know what he is thinking! It's stories like this that make me lean towards believing that he really does care more about foreign business than national security. I'll be honest with you, this and other stories are really giving me a major case of Bush fatigue. I've been a huge supporter of the president, but the guy is just making it harder and harder for Conservatives to defend him with things like this. I can't wait until we get someone new in the presidential position, my first choice would be Rudy Giuliani if you were wondering.

A Hit Close to Home

2006-03-20T20:29:00.000-05:00

Just days ago a soldier from Iraq died. His name was Sgt. Corey Dan. You may be wondering why I am bringing up one particular death, well this one hit me close to home. You see, Dan only lived one town away from me, in Norway Maine. He went to the same school and had the same teachers. I never met the guy, but people I know, have. It's just incredibly tragic. Any death is tragic, and I especially hate to see people die in a war. It only gets worse when it gets this close though. I wish that was it, in fact I wish this never happened, but this story only gets more and more heartwrentching. When Sgt. Corey Dan left for Iraq, he was gone before he could see his newborn son. Now he can never see his son, and the child will go through his life without a Father. But it's not just his family who are agonized. His friends are just as heartbroken. He's had friends and best-friends that have gone back probably more than ten years, now they have no Dan, they just have tears. Usually I am the last person to get emotional in any form, but with this I just can't look at him like he's no more than a number. It's a tragedy. I think you all know where I stand on the war in Iraq, and I'll have you know that to me, this story isn't about the war. I won't use it as a success/failure scale, as some would. To me, this is just an incredibly sad story, and yes I will recognize him as a person instead of a number because I'm Conservative, not heartless. I see death as a tragedy, and I won't ignore it just to make the war look like something it's not. Yes, I agree with the war, but it's not lollypops and singing birds. People are dying there, and you can't deny it. Agreeing or disagreeing with the war is irrelevant, everyone should remember those who died.

This death was bad enough for me to hear, unfortunately it again gets worse. This Saturday at my school there is going to be a memorial service for Sgt. Corey Dan, and some of the biggest scumbags are going to show up. A small group of Christian radicals are going to show up at the memorial to preform a little protest. They apparantly go to a lot of funerals of killed soldiers to make the point that they are glad soldiers are dying in Iraq. Why, I don't know. I could go to their website, which is something disgusting like godhatesfags.com, but I don't even feel comfortable going there.

This is just disgusting. Families and friends of this fallen soldier are in agony, and all they want is a peaceful memorial where they can remember Corey, but they can't even have that. Instead, these "Christian" scumbags have to disrupt the memorial with signs saying how they are glad he died. Christian my ass. These guys are as Christian as much as Muslim terrorists are Muslim. They just want to justify their doings in the name of God. Well, I hope these little punk bastards burn in hell. And that's certainly not where Dan is going, as they claim. Dan is in a better place. When these people die they will go straight to hell, right next to where the terrorists land who suicide bombed in hopes of 72 virgins. You have no idea how angry these people have made me. My ears are burning red as I type. This is just outragous. But what do I do, have a counter-protest? No. I'm not going to politicize a funeral, no matter which side I'm on. I'll go to the memorial, and I'll remember Corey Dan. I won't just watch these bastards ruin the memorial though, I just won't be holding up a sign or chanting a slogan. If anything I will flip them the bird, or tell them, the only people God really hate are people like you.
But I won't disturb the memorial, that would be a dishonor, because the real reason for it is only to remember Sgt. Corey Dan.

What did you learn Today, Son?

2006-03-08T17:51:00.000-05:00

Dangerous teachers. The topic has been discussed times before and brought to the news even today. No, I'm not talking about pedophiles; I'm talking about the teachers who cram their views down their students throat. These aren't just any views though. It's one thing to hear a teacher praise the Lifetime channel; it's quite another when they dilute their students minds with bigoted political views. What do I mean by this, is it that I am intolerant of different opinions? Not quite the case. When you turn opinion into fact in front of a class you are destroying a students chance to make up their own mind, because every day we've been told that the teacher is always right, and to disagree is a big no no. Me, I'm well-informed politically, but that doesn't mean the rest of the class is, no matter how old they are! There will always be students that will take every word in and believe it. To me, I think political rantings carefully inserted into class lectures is just a low way to ensure more votes toward your way, even more low than the big scary corporations. What's next I ask myself? Are we going to let illegal immigrants vote? Then I remember how that's already in talks.

Maybe some of you aren't concerned about this problem, and it's probably because you grew up when schools were good. Back in the day you had the three R's. Reading Writing and Arithmetic. Now in schools, we have the three C's. Condoms, Communism, and Carter. I'm sure you got a laugh out of that, but the sad thing is, is that it's true, only it gets worse the deeper we go. In the news you'll hear the occasional story about a wacky teacher who defecated on a student in the name of art or someone actually likes Hillary Clinton, but even though the media reports on the subject rarely, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen often, because it does happen often.

At this point I'm going to bring in some personal stories about experiences I've had with crazy teachers just to show that even in a high school within a large forest (some people call the place Maine) you can find some of the craziest people. First I'll start with religion. I'm starting with this one because it is part of the school curriculum, not a teachers ranting. In my first year in high school we learned about the religion of peace, Islam. Not for a lesson, not for a week, try a little less than a month. During this month we got really in depth into how Islam works. The five pillars, Muhammad, all of it. You can quiz me. After that month I learned more about Islam than I have ever known about Christianity. You can find more about that teacher here. Fast forward a year. I'm in class and we're discussing the controversy of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and the so called separation of church and state "rule". During the discussion I could easily tell which side the teacher was on, and how ironic is it that later in the year we learned about Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism. But "under God" has no place in school. Finally, when I realized that two religions had been left out I figured out what they really meant by separation of church and state. It's really separation of Christianity and Judaism from state. How clever.

It's one thing when a teacher makes a little Republican joke, or has a private conversation with me about politics, but sometimes it goes too far. I'll tell the story as accurately as I can remember.

I get to school at 7:15 in the morning; there are a good 15 minutes of social time before the first period starts. During this time I converse with my good friend Robby Miller (aka Darksaturos) and he explains to me how his French teacher doesn't want him to make fun of Osama Bin Laden. For that occasion I changed my AIM avatar to the Muhammad cartoon. After a session of mocking some of the comments made on our blogs the bell rang and it was time for the first period. For me it is a study hall in which I have access to computers. During this time I read the some of my favorite blogs (Raving Conservative, Gayle's Friday evening post, America Under Attack, Eye of the Storm, In the Pines, But I can hear You, and a few others). When the period ends it's off to period 2, another study hall (I'm making up for it next year with every period filled). I sit down at a table with two of my friends, one being a big Liberal. Me and the Liberal began to talk politics and I talked to him about how I was boycotting Bill O'Reilly because he's for the Dubai ports deal. Of course my other friend completely ruins the conversation by talking about some gay porn he accidentally found. Trying to stay political I asked him if he meant he stumbled in to a theater showing Broke Back Mountain. After a good laugh my friend continued on about the ports deal saying how he doesn't think any Arab should run our ports. I'm against the deal because of a criminal history and the Liberal is racially profiling! Soon after the topic swayed, into a discussion of Communism. My friend, who is an open supporter of it explained himself. He started out with the usual big evil corporation argument to put down capitalism, and then followed by saying how many poor people Capitalism creates. I replied by stating how 1 out of every 5 people in the entire world is a Chinese peasant. Knowing he couldn't win with that strategy, he swiftly moved from bashing Capitalism, to defending Communism. But before he could say the word "sharing", my other friend interrupted with more sexual comments that I don't even want to write down. We soon got back to the discussion and he explained how he thought it was both a good economic and social system. First I debunked the economic part. I told him how in Communism businesses are state owned so there is no competition and therefore no improvement in the product, leaving the consumer with an expensive piece of junk. But that's not the worst of it, personal economic freedom is very limited and I told him I wasn't even sure if there was a Chinese word for profit. I then explained to him how Communism being for the workers is about as accurate as calling Islam the religion of peace. From there, my other friend took hold of the conversation and you don't want to know where it went. The bell rang and it was now time for period three, an actual class this time. During the class I logged on to the internet and tried to go to a site called newgrounds but it was censored by the schools web-blockers. I loudly said, "How dare those Commies censor the internet."
That comment grabbed some attention. The person next to me, who is abnormally hairy, and possibly even resembles Karl Marx himself, turns toward me and says "Communism isn't really that bad you know,"
"What do you mean, they're keeping me of newgrounds!" I replied.
"Yeah, but I mean, everything is fair and--,"
I angrily interrupted him "You know, you are the second guy to defend Communism in front of me today!"
Saying it a little loudly I got the attention of a classmate from across the room who took my side saying it's a failed system. I thanked him. At this point my angry ranting had gained the teachers interest. He said something like this, "Why does everyone jump to hating Communism?"
"Because it's bad," I replied.
"But I think you're simplifying something so complicated. I don't think you know enough about it to be talking about it like that."
Defiantly I said, "yes I do."
At this point the entire class had turned their heads, and some even pulled their chairs in as if they were going to start chanting "fight, fight, fight,"
"Okay," he said. "Explain Communism,"
Without any hesitation I explained the system and what it looks like in Communist countries. Surprised I knew what I was talking about, the teacher went into defense mode and asked me "what are you basing that information from?"
I said, "From what is really happening in countries like China and North Korea,"
He then repeated "But you're simplifying it."
"Not even the workers that Communism is supposed to be for, like Communism."
"How do you know?"
"That's why so many people try to escape Cuba,"
"I don't know if you can make these arguments if you don't know what Communism really is, it's more complicated than that, have you read Marx's stuff?"
"I know what it is, and I have studied Marxism too,"
"So you think Communism has all these problems, but Capitalism has problems too,"
"No doubt, but much, much less. Besides, I think you are simplifying such a complicated issue,"
"But what's so bad about Communism? It works doesn't it?"
"Well, I guess that depends on your meaning of "works", because when I see a group of people being deprived of food, freedom, and even life, I wouldn't say it works, and I wouldn't say the people like it either,"
"But again, what are you basing this on?"
"What's really happening in Communist countries. In North Korea the people have very little food, very little freedom, and free tickets to public hangings."
Everyone in the classroom had been closely watching as I took on the Communist sympathizing teacher. At this point a classmate said to the teacher
"Geez, you get fired up about this,"
The teacher replied, "I do get fired up when people simplify a complicated issue."
After that he left the room. I thought, how typical for a left-winger. When you're losing, drop an insult and then leave. Maybe, I thought, I would soon have enough extremist teachers to be able to make a school teacher black-list.

This happened to me just yesterday, and I tell the story for a reason. It would be one thing for a teacher like this to debate with me about Communism privately, but in front of the class there is a problem. Uninformed classmates will hear the discussion and automatically side with the teacher because he's a teacher and he must know more than any student. Don't tell me a teachers' discussions have no impact on their students, remember, I talked to two Communist students in one day. Because of this teacher and other extremist teachers, students will grow up with dangerous ideologies. Of course the Liberal elites will just tell you they are only trying to get you to think. That's baloney. The only thing these Liberals and Commies are trying to do is change your opinion, and if you disagree, you don't know what you're talking about. I also tell this story to show how a teacher this radical can be found in even some of the smallest places. I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least one case like this in every high school and college in America. Every day students are being brainwashed into believing radical agendas, and in 40 years when our president sells nukes to Hugo Chavez, you'll know why.

Enemy, Ally, will it Matter?

2006-02-23T18:19:00.000-05:00

Continuing with the port story, I have to explain UAE/dubai more because people on both sides have givin facts about the UAE and they are both right. People against it have given facts about how the UAE has helped terrorists, and people for it have given facts about how the UAE has helped us. So who's side is the UAE on? There's no telling. They may be allies, and they may be back-stabbers, but no matter which they are, I don't think they should be able to maintain our ports. But that makes me a racist right? No. No matter which side they are on, we will have an increased chance of getting attacked if this goes forward, I'll explain.

First, lets say they aren't trustworthy. They really do hate America; they are just covering it up. In the past they were bad, maybe they haven't really changed, they just want to pretend to be friends with us. When they get the ports, they will probably hire someone from Al-Qaeda as soon as possible and send them to America to work at the ports. Not such a stretch, they could get a phoney ID and workers VISA and they're in. A terrorist will now have full access to our ports. Sooner or later they will have have him bring a bomb to work, supplied by a sleeper cell. Then, he will blow up the port. But that's just one port, what if all six ports were attacked at the same time? Like I said, it would be an economic 9/11. In my earlier article I explained in greater depth how easily this scenario could occur, but I didn't give my scenario for how we could get attacked if they were friends.

Now lets say they really are our allies. When we let them maintain our ports it will anger Al-Qaeda. The reason for this is because of a few factors. The first, and this one is from the 9/11 commission, is that we had a chance to kill Osama, but we couldn't because we didn't want to kill the people from Dubai he was working with. So at some point they were business partners. If you don't know, Muslim radicals hate infidels, but the only people they hate more is moderate Muslims who tolerate infidels, especially Americans. If this happens, Al-Qaeda will look at it like this. Dubai back-stabbed them to work with American infidels, making them moderate Muslims. This will invoke rage among the members of Al-Qaeda. Osama warned us he was planning another terrorist attack, if this goes through he'll most definitely bomb the ports, not only to kill infidels, but the back-stabbing Dubai guys, and again, hurt the economy. But how could Al-Qaeda do this? I don't know. I still don't know how they could have pulled off 9/11, but they did. All it takes is one mistake on our part and they could do it, or we could not take the chance of this deal to secure our safety. As you can see, even if Dubai is an ally, we can't do this because of Al-Qaeda.

The way I see things, no matter who's side the UAE is on, we will have a great chance of getting attacked if this goes through. Yes, even if they really are allies. If they are allies, we can explain to them that it isn't their fault, it's because of Al-Qaeda. They should understand if we explain it clearly.

We as Americans need to do everything we can to stop this deal from going forward. If we want to prevent a potential economic 9/11, both Conservatives and Liberals must come together to support this position. Do everything you can. If you have a blog, write in it. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly, stop until they come to their senses on this. Write to a congressmen. Do anything you can. We have to stop this as soon as possible or I fear we will see a dark time in our future.

Port Problems

2006-02-22T12:19:00.000-05:00

Up until recently, London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. (P&O) has run six of our ports here in America, now, they have been bought out by Dubai, a United Arab Emirates (UAE) owned company. This, has stirred up some controversy where both the Democrats and the Republicans are split. Now, I have to decide who to trust. Is it Hillary Clinton who is against the transaction, or is it Jimmy Carter who is for the transaction. It's a political scrambled egg really. At this point, the only way I can think clearly is if I put politics behind me and look at whats best for the country. I could hate Hillary Clinton on everything, but if she's right once, I can't oppose her because she's wrong every other time, same with Jimmy Carter. So instead of listening to to the staunch Republicans who always agree with the president, I had to step back and take a close look at what's going on. I've looked at who the UAE is, what they will be in charge of and all the things that involve the transaction, not the politics. After researching, and looking at it both ways, I've made my decision, this can't go through.

Before I can make my case though, I first must describe what's going on in detail. First I'll talk about what the UAE will be in charge of. Since the story broke, the majority of people, and even political pundits have misunderstood what is really going on, and if you are one of those people, then sit tight and I'll get the truth out to you. First off, we have six ports that up until recently have been controlled by P&O, a British company, those ports got bought out by a company called Dubai, a company owned by the UAE (we'll get to who they are in a bit). At this point I want you to let go what you know from this point on because it's probably wrong, probably you are thinking that Dubai is literally taking over the port and there will be no Americans in sight. That's not what's happening. You will find Arabs working in the ports if this transaction goes through but they won't be doing things like checking bags, watching cameras, or being security guards. What they will be doing is basically grunt work. They'll be doing things like moving cargo, checking the ships fuel, and port maintenance. It doesn't sound like too much, and this is as far as the people who are for the transaction look. But if you give me another paragraph or two, I'll explain why this really is a bad idea.

The people who are for this transaction are calling people like me racist because they are under the impression that I don't want the UAE to do this only because they are Arabs. This is not true. Sure they are Arabs, but they have connections with terrorists. My opinion wouldn't change if PETA bought out P&O (just for an example, not that they would). PETA is not a race based group, so why would I be against this, because they fund places like ELF who are terrorist organizations. The same is with UAE, they have funded terrorists, we can't trust them. Lets give a few bullet points here.

Some of the UAE's financial institutions laundered the money for the September 11 terrorists

Many of the hijackers traveled to the United States through the UAE.

It's a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi peninsula, a vital partner in the War on Terror since the 2001

When the international community is attempting to bring Iran's nuclear abilities to a halt, the United Arab Emirates are talking about expanded trade opportunities with Iran

A country that still sees the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan

Fails to recognize Israel as a sovereign state

As you can see, the UAE is a pro-terrorist company, simple as that. I don't want these people out because they are Arabs, I could care less what their race is, I want them out because they are not only terrorist sympathizers, but terrorist helpers.

I think I did a good job explaining who the UAE is, but now people will still say "but what can they do, they aren't in charge of security," You're right. I'm not worried about bombs or terrorists getting smuggled through a ships cargo, that could never happen even with the UAE in charge. I'm worried about something else. If the transaction goes through, UAE guys will be inside the ports working. If a terrorist wants to bomb the port, all he has to to is wave an ID card and he's in. Sure the people will need background checks to get the job, but that doesn't mean Al-Qaeda can't send a clean guy over for the job, or even a person with a phoney ID. It's very possible. What could happen is one of these terrorists could get a job here, literally put a bomb in their lunchbox on the way to work, and nobody would know. He could easily blow up the ports. Why would blowing up these ports be a big deal? Not too many people would die, but our economy would crash if we couldn't import or export as much. It would be an economic 9/11. Call me a fearmonger, but the chances are very real. This could happen if we go through with the transaction.

I've explained the story and given the problems with it, and our own president, who has way more information on this than me, wants to go through with the transaction. In fact he said he will veto any legislation to stop this transaction. Is he out of his mind!? The first time Bush uses a veto he's going to use it to stop this, and not a pork-filled, money consuming, worthless program? He's crazy! There is absolutely no way I can support this president if he is going to stick with this position. In fact, if he does try to veto any bills trying to stop this transaction, I'll call for his impeachment on the grounds of treason. Sound a little harsh? Good. Like I said earliar, I have to look out for what's best for this country, and if that means opposing a Republican who wants to do something that could hurt our country, then I'll do it.

Saddam starts Weight Watcher program

2006-02-15T06:18:00.000-05:00

--story--

Okay, not really, but he's going on a hunger strike.

"Saddam Hussein told the court during the latest session of his trial Tuesday that he was on hunger strike to protest
tough stances by the chief judge."
-Fox news

Oh, poor little Saddam is getting treated badly. We're being way too tough on one of the few humans responsible
for over a million deaths, because of course his life is way more important. But the court is apparantly big
enough for more than one baby,

"Saddam's half-brother and co-defendant Barzan Ibrahim entered the court Tuesday shouting "Long live the Baath," referring to Saddam's former ruling party. For the second straight day, the former head of Saddam's intelligence
service wore a long-sleeved undershirt and long underwear to show his rejection of the court. When
Abdel-Rahman told him to "Shut up,"
Ibrahim replied, "Don't tell me to shut up. I am a person like you — even better than you." "
-Fox news

See what happens when judges are mean? They bring out peoples baby side. Could you imagine a conversation
like this,

Prosecutor: Saddam is it true you killed over a million people?
Saddam: No it is not true, if you say it again I will not come back to this court!
Ibrahim: Yeah! This court is the nefew of a dirty
person!
Saddam: Yeah! dirty, like a Kurd!
Prosecutor: Are you aware we have evidence to believe you DID kill over a million people?
Saddam: It's not true, I say! I only killed nine-hundred-thousand! Not one million! It is a big difference!
Ibrahim: Tell 'em Saddam! He's just crying over spilled milk, he's the son of a mother...wait, that one won't
work...
Judge Abdel-Rahman: Mr. Ibrahim, you are speaking out of turn, once more and I will ask you to leave.
Ibrahim: You can't say that to me! I'm better than you! You are just the daughter of a fisherman!
Judge Abdel-Rahman: Why don't you shut up and let this continue!
Saddam: No! I do not want this to continue, I want to leave so I can get a foot-massage.

Anyways, back to the whole hunger strike thing. Does Saddam really think
this is going to work? He's basically saying "You will not try me for the death penalty, or I'll kill myself," Isn't
that intelligent? I think I speak for the majority of Americans and Iraqi's when I say, let him die. The only reason
to keep him alive would be to interrogate him, but thank's to John McCain, that probably wouldn't be possible. So what can we do, other than let him die? Send him to Gitmo to get force-fed? Oh such terrible torture, the ACLU
would break him out in a minute. How dare you force someone to eat food and keep themselves
alive! But that's another story for another time. We need to leave
him to die, simple as that. Forget the trial, it takes
too long. Forget the death penalty, it'll cause the ACLU to sue people for
in-humane treatment (forget how Saddam treated his people). And forget torture (which apparantly includes
force-feeding) because stupid McCain has taken that one off the table for us. Let the idiot die! It's our best, and
easiest option.

Cartoon Madness

2006-02-09T17:15:00.000-05:00

As I speak, radical Muslim protestors are rioting around countries in Europe, killing, kidnapping, bombing, and slaughtering people over nothing more than a simple cartoon. I have chosen to show one of the cartoons not in attempt to offend anyone, (although these riots make me angry enough to want to) but to show how rediculous it is that these violent acts have occured just because of this,

There is no doubt that this cartoon is offensive to Muslims, and their anger toward it is understood by me, but not what they're choosing to do with the anger.

They could have a protest against the cartoon, but instead the have a protest against Europe, with threatening signs.

They could have a protest at the Danish embassy, instead they bomb it.

All of this over a simple cartoon, yes a cartoon that justifies anger, but not a cartoon that justifies violence. But why are these Muslim extremists protesting this cartoon? Because the cartoon depicts them as violent and they don't believe that, so what do they do? Protest with violence, they might as well go out and say "the cartoon was right. I really am smuggling a bomb in my turban."

We see offensive cartoons every day. Cartoons that could invoke anger. Heck, if the president reads the Washington Post then he knows exactly what I'm saying. But you know what I've noticed over all of the people who get offended by cartoons? They forget about it, everyone does that but Muslim fundamentalists. Have we seen Bush put on camo, grab a sniper rifle and pick off certain Democrats? No! Nobody else is rioting like this, and certainly nobody is killing. We never saw American soldiers riot and kill people when they saw this cartoon,

And we never saw Jews riot and kill people when they saw this cartoon,

But that cartoon makes more than just one point. Don't forget that the people who made this cartoon are the same type of people who are out there burning Danish flags as I speak. This is beyond arrogance, and beyond hypocrisy. This is religious elitism. Muslims can can mock Christian or Jewish infidels all day and no one speaks out, but if someone makes a cartoon mocking Muslims there is a frag-fest. These Muslims think they are just plain better than everyone else, which is why we don't, and can't negotiate with Muslim terrorists, we kill them.

It's Truth Time

2006-01-30T18:52:00.000-05:00

I'm finally back posting after a nice long weekend of skiing at the mountains and boy did I miss a lot! Some of the biggest Liberal arguments have turned out to be false. Three arguments have finally been proven to be wrong and they have to do with Saddam's WMD's, the Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection, and the UN's inspection in Iran. Now of course Conservatives have been discussing these things for far too long, but now we can finally see who was right all along with the cold hard facts.

The first lie that I will put away is the "Saddam didn't have WMD's" one. For years Conservatives have had to respond to these arguments with things like "well if you can't find your remote you never had a remote, right," and a few other things that just didn't cut it. But the fact is, is that Liberals had nothing on their side either other than "well he obviously destroyed them." But now the facts have come out and it looks like the Conservatives come out right on this one.

A person called General Georges Sada has come out with a book called "Saddam's Secrets" and he has revealed all of the facts we've been waiting to know. But how is he legit you may be asking, just read the book description.

"He was Saddam Hussein's top military advisor . . . and a truth-teller in a regime where truth was relative. He was also a devout Christian in an anti-Christian country. For the first time, General Georges Sada shares his amazing journey and speaks of the military secrets he was asked to keep. Secrets that only those closest to Saddam would know. But God's work in General Sada's own life is no secret. From his years of covert military operations, to his dramatic conversations with Saddam and other world leaders, God has enabled Sada to make a difference, even when lives hung in the balance. In this exclusive book, the General paints a picture of Hussein, his regime, and his country that is at once personal and truthful, compelling and sobering . . . Guaranteed to draw national attention."
-Saddam's Secrets, book description

This man was closer to Saddam Hussein than many other people, and he knew more about his military actions and plans more than all other people. You can't tell me he's lying when he says what I'm about to tell you he says.

He says that Saddam transported his WMD's to Syria just before the Iraq war. Of course this has already been proven before, 2 years ago actually, now we have someone from the inside who can finally confirm this and make it common knowledge, not bigoted opinion.

The next lie that I'm going to expose and disprove is that of Saddam having no connection with Al-Qaeda. At this point the Liberals will most definitely spin this making it seem like I said something like Saddam having no connection with 9/11. It happens every time I try to discuss this, there is no 9/11 connection, but there is a connection with Al-Qaeda. Look at the following story.

Documents show Saddam trained terrorists

So what we've got is that Saddam had terrorist training camps in Iraq, and in there, thousands of terrorists were trained. 8,000 to be exact. This story is actually disproving a few lies here. First is the fact that Saddam did have connections with Al-Qaeda, next is the fact that the Iraq war was related to the war on terror, and the war in Iraq did not lure terrorists to Iraq to kill Americans, the terrorists were already there.

No longer can the Liberals tell you "Bush lied, people died," or "The real war on terror is in Afghanistan, not Iraq," and not break out in sweat, because they're wrong and they know it.

There is one last lie to be disproved today and this is the one that means the most to our future and it has to do with Iran. The Liberals believe the chief of IAEA; Mohammed El-Baradei, when he says Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Lets start from the top here. The UN is currently inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities and it is fact that Iran is keeping the UN out of certain areas. But Mr. El-Baradei the great, doesn't seem to care too much. He still wants to look at this investigation subjectively. Even when the UN finds hidden plutonium he is not concerned. Now don't forget this plutonium was not supposed to be visible to the UN, it was hidden by the Iranians. Surely if they were using it for energy like they say it wouldn't be hidden right? It's clearly fact that Iran is hiding materials from the UN because they know it's breaking UN seals, but now that the UN finds some hidden materials, they don't even care anymore. Mr. El-Baradei is not to be trusted when it comes to nuclear inspections. He knows Iran is hiding materials, he's even found some of the controversial materials, but he insists on trusting that the program is for energy.

There is no doubt that Iran is hiding materials and working on nuclear weapons, now it's just a matter of time before they finish making them and during that time we need to try everything we can diplomatically, because if we leave Iran alone as some Liberals suggest, our only option may be military action, and the Liberals don't want that.

For this very special occasion where three Liberal lies have been debunked I finally have the chance to use my new, and original word to associate Liberals with. I call them liemongers.

Links from-
Amazon.com (book: Saddam's Secrets)
worldnetdaily.com
news.telegraph.co.uk

The 2005 'spike' list

2006-01-18T12:22:00.000-05:00

World Net Daily has released the top 10 underreported and unreported news stories of the year. Here is their list:

1. Failure of the 9-11 commission to investigate "Able Danger."
2. Successes in rebuilding Iraq.
3. Cover-up of David Barrett's probe of Clinton IRS and Henry Cisneros.
4. The impact of illegal immigration on the U.S. and its security.
5.The truth about Terri Schiavo and her death.
6. Sandy Berger's slap on the wrist for stealing classified documents.
7. The fact that WMDs were found in Iraq.
8. Atrocities of radical Islam.
9. Islam's impact on French riots.
10. Good news about the economy.

-WND

I strongly suggest you check out the link, the entire story includes supporting detail on each of the 10 stories they gave.

Don't tell me he isn't making Nukes

2006-01-18T10:54:00.000-05:00

Apparently the new Liberal argument seems to be "he doesn't even have nukes." This makes me wonder, do these morons know the difference between Iraq and Iran? Or is it all the same. Just because we couldn't find Saddams weapons, somehow, no other dictator is making or storing any either. This pathetic argument isn't going to fly at this blog, the truth is way to apparent to be missed. On that note, here are some images of Iran's nuclear material and facilities.

No big deal here, it's only a little bit of uranium. They're probably just using it for fireworks or something.

Natanz nuclear complex? I don't see it. It's just a big Wal-Mart, right?

uranium conversion, huh. Don't be so paranoid. They're obviously making flower vases out of glass.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: A Threat

2006-01-15T16:18:00.000-05:00

Here is a collection of photos of (and connected to) the Iranian president; Ahmadinejad, as well as a few quotes by him. After viewing this you should be able to answer this question, do you really want to let nuclear bombs get in the hands of this guy?

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

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad giving a presentation about who he wants to defeat at the World Without Zionism conference (2005)

Iranian students are protesting calling for more freedom. How does the regime respond?

The Iranian nuclear facilities

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

Quotes by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

At the World without Zionism (2005):

-"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world "

-"Israel must be wiped off the map."

-"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

-"There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world."

"Death to America!”

“[The United States and Israel] are cheeky humans, and they think that the entire world should obey them, ... They destroy Palestinian families and expect nobody to object to them.”

"The government supports the resumption of work at the uranium conversion facilities and we will continue,”

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

This is an evil man, no matter how you look at him. Some Liberals are telling me that Bush is worse than the Iranian president, just give me the quote where Bush calls for genocide or the death of a country and I'll believe you. Otherwise you're just a stupid bigot.

Look out Iran! The UN might threaten to do something

2006-01-12T20:39:00.000-05:00

The president of Iran; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a "dangerous defiance" according to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. What he's done is resumed his "nuclear research" even though he's broken UN seals at a uranium enrichment plant. Am I surprised he's doing this? No. Is this the first time an evil leader has broken UN rules and the UN is too weak to enforce them? No. Is the UN going to be able to solve this problem? Unfortunately, no. I will explain why they can't and what we should do.

The UN will start off diplomatically as they are, and as I expected, Iran decided to defy them and continue the program. After a few months of negotiations the UN will probably realize that this strategy won't work, and by then the nukes will be completed. Finally, the UN will impose sanctions on Iran, but at that point it won't matter. At this point we will be the ones who have to decide what's going to happen.

That's what's going to happen if we don't realize that the UN is useless, and its always been useless. In almost every case where a potential war has come up, the UN fails at diplomacy. They fail because they are too weak to be the "world police". Heck, circus clowns could do a better job as the world police. If the UN was too weak to make negotiations with Saddam, then why would it be different with Ahmadinejad? It wouldn't, this guy is not a pushover, he's the next Hitler. Don't believe me? Take a look at this picture and with your two index fingers, cover up the left and right side of his mustache and tell me who it looks like.

Let me ask you a question. Do you want to wait for the UN to fail again while this guy finishes up a nuclear stockpile? Or do you want military action before it's too late? Because once you've got nukes, people don't mess with you.

If we don't do something Iran could do one of two things.

The first and more obvious is to drop a bomb on us.

The second and more likely is to intimidate countries so they can do things like demand money, raise oil prices, and basically hurt our economy while helping his.

I don't think we can wait for them to have the ability to do those things, we've got to take action. If we do take military action however, I would like the approval of the new Iraqi government because if the Iraqi's hate us we've lost that war.

This is a really big problem. A widely ignored problem, but a really big one nontheless.

Iraq, Iran, and People who can't keep Secrets

2006-01-10T17:52:00.000-05:00

I know many Americans are cheering on the success in Iraq as voting goes better than expected, and I stand with them, but I still have a few deep concerns regarding the Middle East that I want to explain.

My first concern is that we make too much of our military strategies public. Of course you've heard me ramble about the NSA story for far too long and you know that I think that was unacceptable, but we have other things being disclosed by the Pentagon itself that in an almost un-noticeable way is just as bad. The one I've had the most problem is the announcement of troop reduction. Now don't get me wrong, I think they are making the right decision to reduce the troop amount when we near the end of the war, but I don't think the information should be disclosed. Why you ask? A few reasons. First, terrorist Al-Zarqawi saw the move as a weakness and called it a victory for Al-Qaeda. Remember when I told you how pulling troops out would give the message to the terrorists we were weak? I'll pull the quotes right out of an older article of mine to show you.

From the article "What do they Want? What can we Do?" 11/14/05

"As I've said before, if we just cut and run from the wars we are in the terrorists will view us as weak and they will want to remind us why we left by means of terrorism."

My prediction wasn't too far off either. Not long after the announcement of troop reduction we had the most bloody day in Iraq with over 100 deaths. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Now I repeat, I have no problem with troop reduction, I just think announcing it was a bad move.

My next concern is about the Iraqi election, and it relates to our problems with Iran.

As well as the elections went, it's looking like we will be seeing Shiite Iraqis take the government, and it may not be so great for us.

Lets elaborate a little. We're giving government power to Shiites, now where this involves Iran is the fact that the majority of Iran is made up of Shiite Muslims. Iran right now is building nuclear weapons and threatening countries like Israel and the U.S. . One of two scenarios could happen, I'll give the good one first.

If things go better than I expect then the Shiites of Iraq will hate the Iranian president even though he's a Shiite. That is a possibility because a lot of Iranians don't like their president. In this scenario, if we had to go to war with Iran (god forbid) the Iraq government wouldn't stab us in the back.

If things don't work out that way then we are in a bad situation, let me explain. When (not if) Iran has prepared their nuclear stockpile they will most likely use it. Why? They have been buying nuclear materials from Russia so my guess is that instead of selling them, they will be using them. And the president has expressed hate toward America and Israel. With that problem we would be left with a choice. Go to war with Iran and see Iraq implode from an uproar in insurgency and a new non-democratic government. Or stay in Iraq and watch Iran "wipe Israel off the map." The only solution to this problem is one I can't see happening, and that's to see another country go to war with Iran. Sure the Canadians complain about us being the world police, but now that someone else has to pick up the tab, maybe they'll have a new respect for our obligation. Or maybe they'll just hate America whether we protect them or not. Then we've got the U.N., the people who are supposed to be the world police, but never actually take up the job. Will they do what they were made to do or will they expect America to do their job again. The only country I could see invading Iran would be Britain, and I'm not even sure if their army would be enough for a country as bad as Iran.

Now judging by my paragraph lengths, even a staunch optimist would say the glass is one quarter full, but I can't give up my faith in the military and the Iraqi people now, no matter how hard things go. This war is far too important to give up on.

Unfortunately our politicians haven't brought up this issue. An issue that could lead to more death than anyone wants. Like the politicians care about these Hitler wanna-be's in the Middle East. They are far too concerned with Alito's opposition to a womans right to choose. I guess I fail to see why your right to choose still matters when someone is aiming a missile at you. You just wait until Iran and (Mother) Russia decide to abort America, (without parental consent mind you) then maybe things will change.

NSA leak is Getting the Investigation it Deserves

2005-12-30T14:10:00.000-05:00

--story--

I called for an investigation and an investigation we shall be getting. It looks like the FBI is going to investigate the NSA to find the person who leaked the existence of the classified phone tapping program.

The New York Times Spokeswomen; Catherine Mathis was speechless when she was asked to comment on the upcoming investigation. Why? Because she knows who the leaker is, and the NYT is hoping that if they just lay low people will forget who published the story and the FBI won't investigate the New York Times too.

Anthony Romero of the ACLU however did have something to say about this. He said "President Bush broke the law and lied to the American people when he unilaterally authorized secret wiretaps of U.S. citizens. But rather than focus on this constitutional crisis, Attorney General Gonzales is cracking down on critics of his friend and boss,"

What law did he break Mr. Romero? Are you telling me that none of your activist lawyers know the laws? Constitutional crisis? Are you telling me that none of your lawyers who use the constitution as a cape to swoop down and protect terrorists know what's in the constitution? Even if this was somehow illegal, (which is unlikely) he's protected under the constitution. Article two proves that the President's power as the Commander-in-Chief provides him with the necessary constitutional authority to circumvent FISA during a time of war, because Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America makes the President Commander in Chief with the responsibility to protect the Nation. This authority extends to the "independent authority to repel aggressive acts... without specific congressional authorization". But if this is not a case of presidential authority, then it is most definetly a case of civil liberties, well, that's what the ACLU wants you to think. I'd like to ask Mr. Romero what civil liberties he has lost since this program has been put in place, compared to what civil liberties would be lost if Lyman Faris succeeded in blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge, which would have happened if it wasn't for Bush's phone tapping program. The right to life is a civil liberty right? But you can't expect too much from these twisted fools. If Faris did succeed in blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge the ACLU lawyers would quickly strap on their constitution capes and step into their diversity boots to fly down and protect Al-Qaeda telling us to be more open-minded to thier opinion and lifestyle.

Perhaps Mr. Romero should have a long discussion with constitutional law professor Peter Rubin who actually knows what he's talking about. He, unlike the ACLU lawyers, actually knows U.S. law. He know that Bush's actions were legal under the constitution and how leaking this information is a crime. If I couldn't expose the ACLU's upside down thinking, this man could.

To put things in to perspective of how radically left the ACLU is, I'll let you know what two Democratic congressmen are saying about this.

Jane Harman of California said regarding the leak, "its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities."

And Peter Hoekstra of Michigan said, "These politically motivated leaks must stop,"

Too true Mr. Hoekstra. The intentions of this leak (at least on the part of the New York Times) were to hurt Bush, but in fact the exact opposite has come! His polls are actually going up now that people know the president is doing his job by keeping us safe! Of course the leak was irresponsible and illegal and the terrorists now have time to adjust but in the wake of the NYT's effort to damage the Bush administration things have only been going better for him!

President Bush has called this leak "shameful," and the ACLU has responded calling Bush's program shameful. Why might that be? Because we should all have open hearts when it comes to terrorists. Well, if it wasn't for Bush's program a lot more people would have open hearts, and I'm not talking about having a high level of tolerance.

quotes and information from FOX News: here

Protected or not Protected

2005-12-24T13:39:00.000-05:00

--Story--

When it comes to putting this country in danger the New York Times doesn't think twice. It looks like the people over at the NYT thought our enemies still didn't know enough so they figured it would be a good idea to leak more. I'm beginning to think the New York Times hates America more than Al Jezeera does. I am going to explain to you what things are legal and what things aren't legal.

Before I make my case about the NYT and how Bush's actions are legal I want to explain the story a little better first. The NYT released classified information on December sixteenth and because of it a lot of bad has come. First the patriot act became more controversial (but still passed) and the elections in Iraq were forgotten. But most importantly our enemies knew not to use phones because thanks to the NYT they knew if they called a known terrorist they would be listened to. If that wasn't bad enough the NYT does it again. Now they are releasing more classified information about how the NSA is spying on e-mails too. So again our enemies will have the chance to adjust.

I have called for the investigation of the New York Times and people have said that you can't do that because they are protected by Freedom of the Press. That is a complete lie. It took thirty seconds to do some research and prove that wrong. Here is the encyclopedia description of Freedom of the press.

"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public speech for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting.
It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution. In the U.S. this right is granted by the
1st amendment to the constitution.
With respect to governmental information, a government distinguishes which materials are public or protected from disclosure to the public based on classification of information as sensitive, classified or secret and being otherwise protected from disclosure due to relevance of the information to protecting the national interest. Many governments are also subject to sunshine laws or freedom of information legislation that are used to define the ambit of national interest."

It is perfectly legal to try the New York Times for their illegal act. I'm not making this up, if you don't believe me then you can take a look at U.S. law. Which states, "whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person classified information, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to ten years. This statute is not limited in application to only federal government employees." Got it? They broke the law and can get fined or ten years in prison. Their acts were no doubt illegal. What Bush did however was legal.

Democrats are telling me Bush is violating civil rights and Republicans are telling me it's government intrusion. The only problem is that they can't prove what he's doing is illegal, because it's not.

Lets look at a little bit of law called FISA that the left is using against Bush.

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
of 1978 prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between or among "foreign powers".

FISA is codified in 50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811, 1821-29, 1841-46, and
1861-62[1]. The subchapters of FISA provide for:

Electronic Surveillance
Physical Searches
Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes

The Act was enhanced by the USA Act (part of the USA PATRIOT Act) of 2001, primarily to include terrorism on behalf of groups that are not specifically backed by a foreign government."

So that's mainly what FISA is but lets look at a subchapter to get more specific.

"The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, the surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided
it is only for foreign intelligence information and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party."

You can look at this from a few different angles. You could say you can't spy on Americans, or you can look at it a little bit closer. You can ask yourself, what is considered a U.S. person? A U.S. person is considered a citizen or a permanent resident to the U.S. and I find it hard to believe that a suicide bomber would be either of those. Some are illegal immigrants. And some get a green card for work or college. But very few become U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Very few.

But even if I were wrong on this case, article two of the constitution grants the president the power to override laws during a time of war if it is needed for national security and to win the war.

Of course even though it is legal people are also saying it's unconstitutional which is also untrue. They are saying it is breaking the fourth amendment. This is what the fourth says.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

Notice that word between against and searches? Unreasonable? Yeah, don't forget about that word, it's an important one because the searches are reasonable. The calls are to known terrorists and we tap into them for national security. That would be enough to convince me but you can't forget that we are involved in two wars right now! Things change at at time of war!

So now you know the danger the New York Times has put us in, how what they are doing is not legal, and how what Bush is doing is not only legal but necessary.

Treason by the Times

2005-12-18T18:39:00.000-05:00

If you've read the two previous posts on the topic of the NSA story then you'll know that the program was leaked a year ago and not reported until now, it seems to be placed suspiciously, and why it was exaggerated. Now I'll continue on this topic.

A year ago the program was leaked to the New York Times, the White House asked them not to publish it because it put our safety at risk.

The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.
-Quoted from Wikipedia

So for a year the NYT kept quiet and even though the White House asked them not to report the story because it put our safety at risk they did anyway a year later. Not only is that considered treason but it was carefully placed to cover up the successful Iraq elections, and disrupt the Patriot act renewal.

I've already talked to you about the careful placement during important events and how the story is exaggerated in the two previous posts, now I'll talk to about how the New York Times is commiting treason.

Lets take a close look at this.

The NSA tapped into the international phone calls of known terrorist supporters to obtain information. With this information we have been able to stop multiple terrorist attacks. This program kept up safe. Then the New York Times found out about the program thanks to an illegal leak by a person who should be investigated. The White House asked the New York Times not to publish the story and they didn't. For a year. They waited until the perfect time to do the most harm to the US. The renewal of the Patriot act and success in Iraq. Publishing the story would be one thing but at that time makes it worse. And to elevate it the story was exaggerated to help demonize the Bush administration. Add this all up and you have a really big case of treason.

It's illegal to leak information about secret government agencies but when doing so does as much damage as this you are putting the country in real danger and that is called treason. If you don't understand the danger I'll explain it for you. Now with this leak, the terrorists know about how the NSA is tapping into phone calls and they will be extra cautious about their communication. They will do things like have special words that have a different meaning. Apple pie could mean dirty bomb. Now the NSA will have a hard time obtaining information needed to stop terrorist attacks putting this country in real danger and you can thank the New York Times for that.

Unfortunatly this is all being ignored and the wrong people are being blamed. Instead of blaming the people who leaked this and put your life at risk, the person who wanted to keep your life safe is getting blamed. You watch, the people who actually broke the law will be ignored as the impeach Bush rallies increase.

I want you to just listen to me when I tell you that it's not Bush's fault, he's not breaking the law. It's the fault of the person who leaked this information to the NYT and to the NYT for publishing it. What they did was treason and nothing less and I want an investigation.

I want an investigation of how the New York Times got the story, who was behind the publishing of the story, who was behind when the story would be published, and who wrote the story.

And then I want to see punishment.

What are they trying to hide?

2005-12-17T20:02:00.000-05:00

Recently it has been reported that Bush has authorized the NSA to tap into phone calls on 32 occasions and congress was very quick to jump up and object to this. This makes my wonder if the lawmakers know the current laws and if they are hiding something.

Firstly it's not illegal. The White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of all 32 occasions. You do not need a court order to spy on international calls, not to mention with all of the calls we knew they had connections with terrorism organizations. Read it again. Not one part of this program was illegal. The only thing that was illegal was when someone leaked the existence of this program.

Second, they aren't spying on you. The people at the NSA do not sit in a chair tuning in to phone calls to hear your gossip, no. They find calls that are suspicous. Like for instance if someone calls up Iran from a phone booth. Now I don't know why these congressmen are paranoid about this. Unless they plan on blowing someone up they don't have anything to worry about. If these people are illegally downloading movies, buying prostitutes, and viewing kiddy porn, they have every right to be paranoid if they think the NSA makes detailed scans over every person and what they have done. But the fact is, is that they aren't. The NSA has priorities. They would rather stop a terrorist than a pervert.

Still don't believe me? Lets look at what the NSA is. It's the National Security Agency and their job is to give the nation security, who would have guessed! Now places like the NSA and the CIA do something called spying. They obtain information used to protect the country. They don't however obtain information to find out about how many prostitutes you bought last week. Lets put this in terms any moron can understand. Remember Halle Berry in Die Another Day? She was an NSA agent who snuck into a party in an ice castle not to find out about the personal lives of as many people as possible but to find out about the satellite that could shoot laser beams from space. Now if you missed that because you were too busy drooling over Halle Berry, all I can say is that you have really bad taste, but that's beside the point.

The point is that your perversion does not threaten the security of this nation like a dirty bomb does, and the NSA knows that.

Third, over four years this has only happened 32 times! This means that they don't check calls willy-nilly. They check calls that talk about plans to harm the U.S.!

So what's the congress so worked up about? Could it be that some of them are doing something illegal? Accepting bribes anyone? Of course if they knew the facts they would have nothing to worry about, but then this is congress we're talking about. Of course some congressmen don't break the law but they probably think all of their calls are listened to and all of their e-mails are read, and again if they knew what they were talking about they wouldn't have anything to talk about.

So with this case and with the Patriot act they are basically choosing between not getting caught doing something suspicious (which wouldn't happen anyways) or having a chance of a terrorist attack. But what a surprise, they make the selfish decision rather than helping to protect Americans.

Timing is everything

2005-12-17T11:55:00.000-05:00

By now you should all know that Bush may be in trouble for allowing the NSA to spy on Americans, -if not, here is the story - but what you may not know is that it is old news.

Let me just pull a segment out of the story to show you what I mean.

"President Bush has personally authorized a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States more than three dozen times since October 2001, a senior intelligence official said Friday night."

Before I continue I want to remind you that this is legal according to the official.

The official said that, "since October 2001, the program has been renewed more than three dozen times. Each time, the White House counsel and the attorney general certified the lawfulness of the program, the official said. Bush then signed the authorizations."
He continued "The president has authorized NSA to fully use its resources — let me underscore this now — consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution to defend the United States and its citizens."

So as you can see this is old but you could be thinking, it was probably kept a secret until now. Nope. It was leaked one year ago but the media waited until now to cover it. Why you ask? a few reasons.

The Patriot act needs to be renewed and to do that congress needs to vote it in and this is the perfect story to make congress think twice before voting yes. Without the Patriot act America is less safe and if you want to be cynical about things, bad news means good business for the newspaper companies.

Voting in Iraq went well. The Iraqi police force were successful at keeping violence very low, many Iraqi's voted, and everything just went better than expected. If you've been paying attention to the news you'll notice that this story was covered and then covered up by the NSA story. It seems like whenever Bush does something successful the media has to find something bad and exploit it. And yes I believe this story is exploited, and done so purposefully to make Bush's success forgotten.

Lets just take a look at what this is.

Bush legally gave the NSA permission to spy on suspicious people on just 36 occasions over 4 years.

But if you don't carefully look at it you'll think the NSA is spying on everyone illegally all of the time and it's not true.

The only thing that could be considered illegal is the leaking of what the NSA is doing!

Not only is this exploited and exaggerated but covered 1 year after the actual leak to cover up Bush's success and stop the Patriot act!

This media spin is an outrage.

I'm It

2005-12-16T09:15:00.000-05:00

I recently got tagged by Rebekah and if you haven't been living in a cave you should know what that means by now. But for those who don't I'll just go over the rules of the game real quickly.

Here are the rules of the game. When you are tagged you must blog about 5 oddball habits that you have, then you must tag 5 more people.

Here it goes:

1) I have obsessive compulsive disorder but at the same time I'm a lazy procrastinator. I'll find myself doing stupid things like straightening the remote to a perfect 90 degrees and putting it parallel to the magazines, but when it comes to things like my room it's a mess because I'm too lazy to take the time to clean it up. The only time I'm truly OCD is when I'm doing something that takes no energy like playing a video game. But with something bigger like a writing, animation, or even a homework assignment I'll start it but won't be able to finish it sometimes.

2) I'm a proud Republican, a little too proud. Sometimes I go to school and wear a large badge on my shirt with the Republican elephant. Once I put two Republican elephant stickers on my shirt and told random people (that I didn't know) that I had elephant nipples. Not only is this fun but it brings out the left wingers who say the funniest things (I'm not making these up)

"Republicans are dumb f**kers,"
My response: I would never do a moron, or a Democrat for that matter

"Republicans have no morals,"
My response: Clinton was a Democrat you know

"Why don't you care about global warming?"
My response: because it's freakin' freezing

"The whole government are Nazi's,"
My response: Wow, thanks. You have just enlightened me with an amazing fact, that would be left unknown if it wasn't for you.

"so have you found the light yet?"
My response: yeah, have you?

"Democrats are for the little people,"
My response: I think I heard you wrong. I think what you meant to say was that the Democrats use the little people.

"At least I have a heart,"
My response: I should hope so! You can't live without one.

3) I listen to talk radio a LOT. I'm talking 7 to 8 hours a day! Of course I do other things at the same time but when I said politics was an obsession I wasn't lying!

4) Sometimes I'm shy, then other times I won't shut up. I think it mostly has to do with my current mood and setting/situation but I think it counts as being "oddball".

5) I purposely do things to tick off people who are "thug" types. I've done things like purposely bump into "thugs" and then when they call me a fag I just say laugh and say, that's the best you can come up with? You types are such morons! Another time a group of "thugs" were running from the cops and when they ran pass me I yelled HEY and when they turned around I smiled and gave them the bird. Another time I was bugging a "thug" and he said he would "mess me up" and I said, look out, this guy is going to mess me up. Then I told the person next to me in a voice he could hear, he's just scared. And another time I was talking to my friend about a video game and some "thug" said sarcastically, wow that's so cool. I respond, it's more cool than you'll ever be. As you can see I'm either brave or stupid, whichever I haven't gotten myself hurt yet and I'll still be spending time putting down the "tough guys" because it's just so fun.

So there you go, there's my 5 oddball habits. Look out because I have to tag 5 people now.

Worse Than Torture (cartoon)

2005-12-13T15:38:00.000-05:00

I'm getting a little tired of being so serious all of the time so once or twice a week I'm going to make a political cartoon. I will still be making thought out articles, but when I get sick of talking politics I'll spend some time making fun of politics. So here's my first cartoon. Worse Than Torture

Nice Plan

2005-12-05T16:59:00.000-05:00

Recently I've been wondering why all of a sudden the Democrats have been attacking the War in Iraq more than ever and I think I finally get it.

At first we didn't know how the war was going to go, but by now it is going very well and the people who aren't deluded by the Liberals know that.

We've gotten rid of a dictator, liberated millions created infrastructure government and law
enforcement but the Democrats are saying we've made no progress at all.

They say we need to pull out immediately and it will be a good thing and I finally understand why most Democrats have waited until now to say it. They know that if we pull out sometime early next year the Iraqi government will be ready, as well as the police force and every other aspect of the country. Normally we would slowly start to bring soldiers home as Iraq stepped up. The Democrats tell us we are failing and need to pull out so if we listen to them and pull out, everything will go fine because at that point any exit strategy would go well, and it'll look like the Democrats were right and they'll do better in 2006. At that point the American people will think peace and freedom came in Iraq came because we left before it was too late, not because we gave them peace and freedom. Bush will look like the Devil. Murtha will look like a saint. And boom, 08 goes to the Dems.

These Democrats don't care about winning the war and help the millions of Iraqis experience freedom, they only care about getting more seats and beating the Republicans.

This has NOTHING to do with Iraq! This is about Bush, and them getting elected in 08! How low can these people go!

And don't you dare tell me I'm wrong because politicians have gone to Iraq and told the truth about our progress and then Democrats (excluding Joe Lieberman) go there, see the progress and lie about it so people think the war is useless, Bush is awful and a Democrat is what we need to save the country.

This isn't about the War! It's just another day of politics for these sick-minded scumbags! Yes I'll say it, they are all big fat scumbags.

Howard Dean, scumbag. John Murtha, sumbag. Nancy Pelosi, scumbag. Bill Clinton, scumbag. John Kerry, scumbag. Ted Kennedy, scumbag. Should I continue? Okay. Richard Durbin, scumbag. Hillary Clinton, scumbag. Al Gore, scumbag. John Edwards, scumbag. Harry Reid, scumbag. Chuck Schumer, scumbag. Dianna Feinstein, scumbag. Barbara Boxer, scumbag. And I could go on and on and on.

They all make me sick.

But it's not like this is a first with the Democrats. They will do anything for more power. Lie, screw millions over, delude the public, anything, as long as they can get more power they will do it every single time. Remeber Tom Delay? He wasn't guilty of anything, the Democrats just didn't like him so they needed to find an excuse to get him out because he hurt the chance of Democrats getting more power. I could go on but these two examples give you enough proof.

I chose to be a Republican for more reasons than opinions on abortion and gay marraige. It's mostly about having a good attitude, responsibility, maturity, and honesty. Democrats have none of those things. And I'm not saying this to put down Democrats, they're just like that. History proves it, and the near future will prove it too.

And I don't hate Democrats for opinions on certain issues. It's the way they act. They need to grow up and do their job right.

Getting back on the topic of the War. We are at the point where we are finished and we are just waiting for the elections which is happening in 9 days, and an okay from the Iraqi police force. We are really that close to the end and I'm guessing we will start pulling troops out in January or February. So just stop complaining. It was one thing when we first went in and didn't find weapons but at this point we are at the home stretch and the troops are coming home soon. They only want to take credit for what Bush did so they can make the Republicans look bad and so they can get elected.

Why else would people complain about how bad we're doing when we are really doing good and almost finished? Not to help anyone. Not to save anyone. Just to use in 08 elections.

These Democrats are just sick.

Terrorism 101

2005-12-04T11:57:00.000-05:00

You may think you know what terrorism is, but I've noticed that many people have yet to understand it's true concept.

The goal of a terrorist is not to in fact kill as many people as possible, the goal is to strike fear into as many people as possible. They only have to kill one person to scare millions and it's working on us. They don't need to kill us all to beat us. They only have to scare us to beat us.

Look at what they are doing with the War in Iraq. The terrorists try to kill about one person on a daily bases until people are so frightened they give up. And it's working. There actually aren't many terrorists in this world and they know that if they were in a guerrilla war they would lose. They are outnumbered. So they fight the war as cowards. They hide from the troops, pick one soldier off and leave. The news crew comes in, reports it and millions of people become scared, so scared they think we're actually losing this war and need to leave before we finish. We would actually be less scared if they killed 2000 of us in one week than if they spread it out for two years. Again, they only have to kill one to scare millions.

People seem to forget that we are in a war and not only that but one with the least amount of deaths ever! As much as I hate to see a soldier die in battle I know what happens in wars. People die. But with this war people fail to understand that if we leave now the 20 million Iraqis are at risk of dying too. We have to finish.

Their best tactic is terror and it seems to be one that we have a hard time overcoming. And now every one of our enemies in the world knows that all it takes for them to win is to kill 2000 people and they'll give up.

So what do can we do to overcome our weak point? A few things.

First there are some people that need to immediately pull out of Iraq. No, not the soldiers, the journalists. They write a story about every single death there is. Imagine what it would be like if that happen during WWII when we were against the Nazi's. Every time a Jew was gassed or an American was shot it would be headline news. The American people would think we were in over our heads and should get out before more people die. Then we would pull out and Hitler would succeed in killing every single Jew. More people would have died. That's what could happen here. We could finish the war, saving 20 million Iraqis from an evil dictatorship so they can live in peace. Or we can pull out and watch the Democracy crumble as an Anarchy emerges. If they're lucky someone would stand up as the new dictator stopping the chaos, but continuing the killings and we would be back at square one.

Next we need to stop being scared. We need to realize that we outnumber them, we are winning and the only thing they're winning is the media war. But without the journalists they won't even have that. No longer will we be afraid of an attack because we know the cowards wouldn't stand a chance with us based in the middle of the middle east. We will not say terrorists in fear, we will say it and chuckle, say how pathetic are they anyways. Laugh right at them when they think their cowardly tactics will work. Show them that they can't scare us, they can't terrorize us, and they can't beat us. They will know that they no longer have an upper hand. They can't manipulate the media, terrorize us into losing the war, or even be feared. Just laughed at.

Finally we need to scare them, not by their means because that is in-human, but scare them nonetheless. First we will send more troops into Iraq complete with armored tanks, RPG's, missile bearing helicopters and jets, Snipers, and the like. They're already outnumbered, so lets really show them what we've got. Next we will continue to humiliate captured terrorists in Abu Ghraib and send the photos to Al Jezeera to be shown to the other terrorists on TV. They will turn on their television every night to see photos of terrorists with panties on their head, lipstick, shaven legs, turd smeared on their face and just about every other non-violent way of humiliating the few captured and it will actually scare the terrorists who watch it.

When will all of this happen? As soon as everyone in America understands the things I've talked about and agrees with it. We can't have people out there protesting the war, the media making it look like we're loosing and us not fighting to the best of our ability.

We can beat these terrorists, the first step is to stop being scared of them.

Just me talking about stuff, like usual

2005-12-02T19:04:00.000-05:00

I don't really have anything in particular that I want to talk about so I'll just go off on a rant and see where it goes I guess.

Bush's speeches

Well, Bush had two speeches and I'm frankly disappointed by both of them. The first, on illegal immigration sounds nice, but it's just lip-service, what we're really getting is the guest-worker program giving Mexicans MORE of a reason to come here. With the second speech he discussed the war in Iraq. Not much new here. Stay the course, stay the course, stay the course. Nothing new, more of the same boring stay the course. I wish I could be Bush's speech writer, I could help this president really make the case for war, why we're there, what we're doing, what's our goals, instead of simply stay the course.

Have a PC, PC (censored)mas

As Christmas nears so does the "secular" movement. Secular is the politically correct term, try commies. These guys are really going over the line now. It would be one thing to have an all or nothing policy with celebrations but that's not the case. It's just Christmas.

Right here in Maine the Liberals (mainly the MCLU) have struck. In Portland they put up the Christmas tree but it had to be changed to the holiday tree, yet right down the street they erected a large Menorah which got no attention by the Liberals. Separation of Church and State or a direct attack on Christianity, you tell me.

Bill Clinton

I'm sorry but after eight years of this guy I don't want to hear from him anymore. He's spent the last month or so attacking the war in Iraq and the president just so he can make sure he has a good legacy. Got news for you buddy, your term is up and your puppet master (Hillary) won't ever become the president. You had your chance to take on terror and you let us down, a few times actually, so don't slam the president when he's doing the job you should have done nearly a decade ago!

John Kerry

John Kerry last week (paraphrased)
"I think we need to send more troops into Iraq so we can win this war,"

John Kerry this week (paraphrased)
"We need to pull our troops out of Iraq,"

Oh just shut up Kerry!

Joe Lieberman

As much as his name suggests he is the only Democrat who isn't lying right now. He went to Iraq and when he came back he told the truth, he told us about our success in Iraq instead of thinking he had to do what all of the Democrats are doing. Thanks for doing what's right Joe, instead of what's Democrat, good job!

See guys success in the War in Iraq is not a Republican conspiracy!

John Murtha

If his face doesn't scare you enough his crazy ideas will! Don't feel you have to pull your punches with this guy because he's a war hero, he's not pulling any punches on us.

Why does this guy get all of the publicity anyways, what about the war hero's who do support the war and don't think the U.S. military is "broken".

MSM

They love the mentally disabled Liberals but don't care about the sane. They'll put on Sheehan every chance they get but will refuse to show the other side. They'll show the bad and not the good. What do you call all of this, I call it treason. Enough said.

Cindy Sheehan

She still won't go away. She's got a new book out called "not one more mothers child,"

Lets see if it's about Casey or Republicans...

"The American Imperialists have a long and bloody history of occupying countries that never attacked us, whether it was Germany (those kikes were asking for it), Viet Nam (Jane Fonda is my idol) or Afghanistan (9/11 was an inside job), the United States has brought nothing but death and destruction to trillions of kite-flying children. It is my solemn hope that one day we will all be able to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, because it is then and only then that this illegal war on poor, innocent freedom fighters will end!"

"Rather than leave the so-called "looters" to finding the big-screen televisions and bling that they so sorely needed in peace, our Dictator-in-Chief (who was selected and not elected) sent in his jackbooted thugs to "restore order" and "distribute vital food and supplies." Those filthy RethugliKKKans claim to be for equal rights, when we all know damn well that they are trying to sabotage the legacy of the late, great civil-rights crusader Margaret Sanger!"

Grieving mother or crazed bigot, you tell me.

Howard Dean

Never mind, I'm sick of the guy. He went on Lettermans' show and Bashed Joe Lieberman for telling the truth about Iraq. Sickening...

Liberals

Now to be referred to as "lefty-loosies". Their heads have screwed off and their brains have fallen out. You can call them lie-mongers if you prefer that more. I'm open-minded to any new anti-Liberal insults by the way.

Quotes by me

"The only agenda the Liberals have is to attack the Conservative's agenda,"

"I'm pro-choice on a lot of things, abortion isn't one of them,"

"Liberal ideas is an oxy-moron,"

"If Liberal=X and Moron=X Liberal=Moron,"

"whitey is on your side, it's the Chinese that are oppressing all of us,"

"Howard Dean is a moron,"

--Cody O'Connor

XM Radio

I'm getting it for Christmas and I can't wait. Now I'll get more Conservative talk radio than ever!
----------------------------

Have a nice weekend and a nice Christmas season!

The Double-Standards of the ACLU

2005-11-25T21:07:00.000-05:00

The ACLU has been busy complaining about the abuse going on in the Abu Ghraib and if you hadn't heard the whole story you would have no complaints.

Right now some of you think this when you think of the Abu Ghraib prison:

US soldiers are torturing prisoners and it's wrong.

Regardless of your personal political stance I'm going to ask you to just open your mind for a minute and hear the whole story.

The US soldiers were not the only ones to occupy the Abu Ghraib prison, from 1984 to 2002 Saddam occupied the prison.

During the time Saddam occupied Abu Ghraib he tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Kurds and Shiites.

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

Saddam's Abu Ghraib occupation, 1984 to 2002

purpose for occupation:

To store Kurds and Shiites for torture

The people were:

Abused

Tortured

Raped

Killed

These specific things happened:

Fed prisoners shredded plastic instead of food

They became test subjects to chemical and biological weapons

beheadings in front of other prisoners

Amputations

Hooks were used for hanging people by the hands for beatings

devices for electric shock used

Justification:

Saddam didn't like Kurds and Shiites

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

When the war in Iraq (2003) began Saddam evacuated the Abu Ghraib prison and soon later the US used if for their purposes.

US Abu Ghraib occupation, 2003 --

Purpose for occupation:

To store and interrogate Islamic terrorists

The people were:

Interrogated by psychological means

These specific things happened:

One of a series of photos taken by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib. The hooded prisoner had wires attached to both hands and his penis, and was reportedly told that he would be electrocuted if he fell off the box he was standing on; the wires were not actually electrified.

Justification:

No physical harm actually done

Not torture but interrogation

Usually used to obtain information. Almost all of the times actually.

Guards that did abuse prisoners with no hopes of getting information were not views expressed by the military and weren't supposed to take place. This didn't happen often though.

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

So you could say we are still breaking civil rights, but by now you know there is a justification and it's nothing compared to what Saddam did, not to mention, unlike Saddam, what we're doing is all psychological!

The ACLU did not say one thing during the 18 years Saddam occupied the prison and tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib. But during the 2 years of non-violent incidents done by people the military did not condone and didn't happen often, the ACLU would not be quiet.

Not only is this a double-standard but it makes us look bad when people don't even know what Saddam did.

All of this makes me wonder who's side the ACLU is on.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2005-11-23T17:51:00.000-05:00

I hope everyone has a happy Thanksgiving.

Unfortunately Bush's Thanksgiving might not be as happy.

That's right, upon going back to his ranch in Crawford for Thanksgiving, media whore Cindy Sheehan followed. Her protest will go on for Bush's full Thanksgiving break. Bush will be inside his Ranch eating turkey and cranberry sauce while Cindy media whore Sheehan sits outside protesting.

This is just getting to the point where I just wish the media would give her the bird and cover something important. She was a grieving mother a few years ago, not any more, now she is just a radical anti-war nut who won't go away.

Of all the times she could protest, why does it have to be on Thanksgiving? Why can't Bush spend time with his family like every other person in America, without people protesting you.

What's next, is she going to protest when Bush comes home for Christmas too? Is she really that bad, I think so. So of course she is trying her hardest to ruin the holiday for Bush, but what about her family? Is a protest more important than time with your family? To her it must be. That's why she can't be called a grieving mother, if she really cared about her family she would be having Thanksgiving with her family.

Don't fall for her trap anymore, she's only using her son now, yet she was doing that from the beginning. Protesting during Thanksgiving only proves that politics is more important than family and no one is going to make me feel different.

Every time she protested and something came up I said this has got to be the final blow, but she jut kept coming back, thanks to her support from Moveon.org and the near-traitorous media.

So I've been thinking, what could make her stop, what really would be the final blow? Simple. All Bush needs to do is welcome her in for Thanksgiving dinner, hug her a few times, maybe even cry and send her on her way. After that she could never get away with the things she called him and it really would be the end for her.

Getting into the Thanksgiving spirit, maybe we should list a few things us Conservatives are thankful for.

A president who has the balls to take on terrorism no matter what the left or the UN says about it.

The success in the wars (don't listen to what the media tells you)

Tom Delay may get his job back

Scooter may get his job back

Liberal shills are being exposed (thanks to phantom driver)

Talk Radio (I'd go crazy without it)

Fox News (except for Greta Van Susteern who is STILL talking about Scott Peterson)

Sanity (something Howard Dean will never have)

blogger.com (It gave regular people a voice to the public)

Texas

And lastly we should all be thankful for Thanksgiving!

Happy thanksgiving and for those who don't celebrate thanksgiving, have a happy holidayless day off (how's that for PC?)

See ya!

Why the Anti-Decision Centrists are Hurting America

2005-11-21T18:45:00.000-05:00

For a long time I have been against what the Liberals are doing, but just recently I've been more concerned with what the Centrists are doing, and not doing.

But there are two different kinds of Centrists, one that I don't have a problem with. Most Centrists call themselves Centrists because they agree with the Liberals on some thing and the Conservatives on others. People like John McCain. But then there are the Anti-Decision Centrists (and the Reform Party).

These Anti-Decision (Reform Party) Centrists will hate the left no matter what, they will hate the right no matter what. They will hate any politician no matter what. They will hate any administration, any government, government program, government agency. They hate everything about the country that a politician has talked about. If a politician talked about Microsoft, they would hate Microsoft. If a politician talked about French fries, they would hate French fries.

Why? There is no valid reason for all of the hate, other than the fact that partisanship may be involved.

So what's so bad about partisanship? Do you know what America would be like without partisanship? Can you think of anything? Probably not and there is a reason for that. If nobody believed in anything, we wouldn't be America. We would be an extension of Engand where what the king said goes and there would be no opposition to him because there would be no other opinions or beliefs.

How do they get away with all of this hate you might ask? Simple, they say they will reform everything.

But there is a problem with that concept. They will try with all of their might to deal with issues that no one has taken a side on because they refuse to be partisan.

So they aren't really left with much to reform are they.

They can't touch the economy because that would be partisan. They can't touch any social issues because that would be partisan. And the list goes on and on.

They will only reform things that will make both the left and right happy, so what are they left with?

Federal deficit (both sides agree here)
National debt (both sides agree here too)
Term limits (Not worth the time to take sides on)
Campaign finance reform (less money spent on campaigns, no complaints here)

Now believe me when I say it, that is all they want to work on. Of course those are good things to reform, but you can't ignore other issues. Economics, social, security, foreign policy, and just about every other issue you can think about. The only things they will make decisions on is spend less and change term limits. Hello guys, if you want to be part of the government you are going to have to tackle a lot more than that.

That is why we can't let these people get into the government. We can't give power to people who won't do anything with it, it's like giving a CD player to a deaf person. Pointless. But unlike the deaf person with a CD player, these people have the responsibility to help the people and they won't do it. There's something wrong with that!

So whether you're a Liberal, Democrat, Conservative, Republican, Libertarian, Greenist, Constitutionist, or just an Independent, please don't support the Reform Party. Reform sounds great, so does money. You could ask for Reform and get 4 issues fixed. And you could ask for money and get a quarter. Both ways you are dissapointed.

Say no to the Reform Party.

What do they Want? What can we Do?

2005-11-14T18:38:00.000-05:00

For a long time I've talked about what the Muslim terrorists are doing, but the more important thing to know about is why they are doing it and how we can stop them.

Last week, I listened to the interview of a Muslim terrorist and after listening I can safely say that most of our problems with terrorism has something to do with events in Israel.

During the interview you could easily pick out what they want and why they are angry and
almost all of the reasons had to do with Israel. He said that the Muslims wanted the following things before they would stop the terrorist attacks:

No walls or checkpoints

All of the Jews to leave Israel

America to not be pro-Israel

Now I don't believe they would stop there, but those are the big reasons that have to do with Israel. I fear that they won't stop until they destroy western culture, homosexuality, women's rights, and maybe more.

But back to the main point, the biggest problems with terrorism is in Israel. Of course there will still be countries that hate us anyways but I believe that if we can somehow solve the problem in Israel we will solve most of the terrorism problems in the world.

But how do we solve the terrorist problem? There are many theories out there and I will try to take a fair look at all of them.

Some people say we should negotiate with the terrorists to see what they want, and as you see right here, they will not compromise until the three above stated objectives are met. The problem is that those objectives could never happen. We won't stop being pro-Israel because it's the Palestinians who are bombing the Israelis', not the other way around. The Israelis' will not let up on borders because they will be bombed. Just like when Israelis' pulled out of West Bank trying to cut down on bombing, the bombing continued when they finished. If they take the walls down they will do the same thing, keep bombing until that one big objective is met. That objective is to have all Jews leave Israel. Simple as that, they won't stop until all of the Jews leave and that will never happen.

I think after hearing that we can all rule out the negotiation option.

Some people think isolationism is the best policy. We could finish the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan quickly, stop being pro-Israel and just stay out of other peoples way. This may stop the terrorism problem in America, but the problem is still there with other countries. Although we may be safe from attack, Israel, Europe, and Australia wouldn't be, and I believe that over time we would still be in danger of terrorists attacking us. Firstly they absolutely hate western culture and believe that the root of that problem is in America and is spreading to Europe, Israel, Australia, and in some places in the Middle East. They fear that a culture they hate would spread to their countries in the Middle East if they don't do anything. As I've said before, if we just cut and run from the wars we are in the terrorists will view us as weak and they will want to remind us why we left by means of terrorism.

I think we could cross isolationism off the list too.

People have told me that taking care of this problem by using military only creates more anger and more terrorists. That may be true, but I don't think we have any other options. We have people who are asking for something impossible by wanting the Jews to leave Israel and even if we were to meet their objectives I believe they will still bomb us because of our western culture and commit jihad against Christianity. There is no pleasing them, there is no compromise, there is no hiding , there is only war.

Now believe me when I say it, I don't want to end terrorism by war, but as I've reviewed earlier, I don't think there is any other way.

I don't necessarily think we need to go to another war yet, especially until we finish the one's we're in, but there is things we can do now in our situation.

First, more soldiers should be stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Next I want the CIA to send out special ops to obtain information of the whereabouts of terrorists.

From there we will have air strikes on terrorist bases making sure civilians are not near.

Next, George Bush will meet with Ariel Sharon to explain why negotiation will not work and opposition is the only way.

Tell him to:

Strengthen walls and checkpoints

Encourage more Jews to immigrate to Israel

And we will be behind Sharon 100% with full support being more pro-Israel than ever.

Then and only then will we be able to completely end terrorism. The other theories will reduce the terrorism, but only this one will stop it.

PCP Overdose

2005-11-12T13:09:00.000-05:00

It looks like the people of Wal-Mart have been overdosing on PCP (political correctness pills) lately.

Recently at many Wal-Mart stores, door greeters were no longer able to say "Merry Christmas" to their shoppers, they had to say "Happy Holidays" instead.

This is not some huge coincidence by politically correct door greeters. The Wal-Mart officials made sure the phrase "Merry Christmas" would no longer be spoken in any Wal-Mart and would be replaced with "Happy Holidays".

Now this wasn't something the door greeters wanted to have to do, but it was either be PC or be SOL. There is nothing wrong with saying Happy Holidays, but when you restrict it to that you are simply breaking the first ammendment, and your freedom of religion.

Thankfully, a Catholic Civil Rights group threatened to boycott Wal-Mart if they didn't stop being PC, and as a result, Wal-Mart apologized and said they would not leave Christmas out, nor would they with any other holidays.

I realize not everyone celebrates Christmas but isn't everyone entitled to their own individual beliefs, even door greeters? Wouldn't it be appropriate for a door greeter to say Merry Christmas if they're Christian and someone could say Happy Channukha back if they're Jewish? I believe everyone is entitled to celebrating their own beliefs if it's not imposing them on another person, and saying Merry Christmas to someone is not imposing a believe, just celebrating it.

Maybe saying Happy Holidays would be more appropriate, but if you don't have the right to celebrate your own beliefs because not everyone is like you, then there is a problem. Especially if it turns into a slippery slope effect and Wal-Mart were to stop selling products relating to any specific holiday at all. That would mean no Christmas trees, Santa stuffed animals, Christmas books, Christmas cards or anything Christmas and the same for other holidays. Only just general, generic, Happy Holidays.

Now Wal-Mart isn't the only place that's on PCP. Although they decided to stop, you will find that many businesses don't let their employees say Merry Christmas or have Christmas related objects at their cubicle, only general Happy Holidays stuff. I've even heard stories where employees at businesses got fired for not being PC. Like I said, these people get two options. To be PC or to be SOL. All of this just because for some reason people think the word celebrate is synonymous with impose.

America was built under one huge belief. Freedom of religion. It is against what America was built for to lose your right to celebrate your own beliefs. Again I say celebrate, not impose. To impose a religion is the opposite of what America is, but imposing is not the same thing as celebrating. To celebrate Christmas you will have a Christmas tree, listen to Christmas music, go to a Christian church and say Merry Christmas. To impose you are asking that other people should do the same.

At least one place has cut down on the PCP, but it is a very addictive drug and it's spreading very fast. But don't worry, the doctor is in and I'll be curing the PCP addiction everywhere.

(More to come on general political correctness and why I have a problem with it. If you don't understand where I'm coming from, it will all be explained to you in the next few days.)

Riots, Iraq, and a Terrorist Attack

2005-11-10T10:29:00.000-05:00

A lot has happened with terrorists lately and I'll try to go over it all now.

First, we've got riots in France that has gone on for 15 days now, spreading to over 300 towns and some places in Germany. Oh what a surprise, the riots happened because of Muslim radicals, who would have guessed? Now if this isn't a hint that America may be in trouble then maybe the next few stories might be.

Next we had terrorist bombings in Jordan. They bombed three hotels that were American. And guess what, they were Muslim terrorists.

Also we've got Iran's president saying they should "wipe Israel off the map" and guess who supports him? Muslim terrorists, what a surprise.

So obviously you can tell that the terrorist have been busy and that makes our war in Iraq more and more vital, and I'll tell you why in a minute. Instead of talking about taking care of terrorism, all our congress can do is investigate pre-war intelligence. Thanks guys I feel safer already! Listen, maybe they're right, maybe we did go to war with bad intelligence. Maybe they are right, but frankly, at this point I don't give a flying rats arse on WMD's and whether they existed or not, they don't matter at this point. We've captured Saddam so it's not like if there were WMD's he could use them. So please just drop it, maybe it was a subject to discuss back in '04, but right now we've got terrorism on the rise and we aren't doing anything but looking at why we went to Iraq!

Lets just forget about why we're in Iraq right now and think about what we can do in Iraq to stop the dramatic increase in Islamic terrorism. We've got a riot that's been going on for 15 days, a 9/11 for the people of Jordan (I've heard rumors that for the calendar in Jordan the date was 11/9 on the day of the attacks, if someone can confirm that it would be appreciated), Iran calling for genocide, and all we care about is Scooter, Alito, and pre-war intelligence.

Now, I promised I would go over the importance of the war in Iraq now, so I will.

First, we are in a country that is bordering Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, 3 of the biggest homes for terrorists. So right now we have a sort of a base where we can keep an eye on those countries and if they do any sort of attack on America it would be pretty easy to move troops into that country, or simply drop a bomb by some of the jets we have there.

Also we are keeping the war there instead of letting it come here. As I said a minute ago, we have our eye on nearby terrorist countries preventing them from attacking us.

Next, a more obvious one is that we are killing terrorists over there, and that's definitely a plus.

Now the terrorists know all this. They know that they won't have much of a chance attacking America if we could easily invade their nearby country, so obviously, they want us out of Iraq.

The way they are doing this is scare tactics. The death count is the big one, the big number 2,000 is scaring the war supporters off. People like Cindy Sheehan (who the Islamic media supports) are indeed helping the enemies efforts, in fact the terrorists can just sit back and watch as Sheehan does the work for them with hopes that America pulls out soon.

If we were to pull out there would be a lot of bad things happening.

First, the Iraq government would quickly crumble leaving Iraq in an anarchy and the most successfully way to take a country out of an anarchy is a new dictatorship, unfortunately.

We no longer have that eye one the countries bordering Iraq making it easier for them to attack us.

And as I've said before, I do believe that pulling out of Iraq will get us a terrorist attack, I'll explain my reasoning for that now.

If you pay attention to Israel you'll notice that what happens there is usually what will happen here next. If you've ever heard the analogy "like a bird in a coal mine" this would definitely work with Israel. Not too long ago Israel pulled their people out of the West Bank in hopes of reducing the suicide bombings, as soon as they pulled out, the bombings began again. The terrorists were reminding the Israelis why they pulled out, fear.

That, I believe will happen to us if we don't finish the war in Iraq.

I know some of you think the war in Iraq is just for Iraq, and maybe in the beginning it was, but not now. It's more than just Iraq, it's stopping terrorism in the middle east for good. This war is much more important than you may think.

Double Hi-jacked

2005-11-04T19:28:00.000-05:00

Of course most Conservatives know that being called a neo-con is not a compliment. The dictionary definition of neo-conservative is to be opposed to liberalism. But the thing that baffles me is that there is a group of people like these neo-cons only on the other side of the aisle even bigger than the neo-cons, and they don't even have a correct name.

Strangely, the dictionary definition has nothing to do with opposing Conservatism.

Here's the definition:

A political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth.

So right here at the better wing for the first time, I will be coining a new meaning for the term neo-liberal.

Here's my definition

A form of Liberalism that is generally opposed to Conservative ideologies and is more concerned with Conservatives than other political subjects.

Copyright, Cody O'Connor. November 4, 2005.

So now that I've covered my new meaning I'd like to go a little more in depth on the nature of a neo-lib and why I named this article "Double Hi-jacked".

Back in the good old days we had good Democrats, people like FDR. Years later those good Democrats were Hi-jacked by the farther left Liberals with presidents like Carter, LBJ, and Clinton. Up to this day, those Liberals have been Hi-jacked by neo-liberals who's only agenda is to slam the neo-cons agenda. These people started to sprout out during the Bush presidency and they have spread far and wide since then.

We've got neo-lib congressmen. People like Howard Dean where all I hear about from him is how "Republicans can't make an honest living"

We've got neo-lib celebrities who show up at anti-Bush/anti-war rallies and slam the president.

We've got regular people in the American community who I would label neo-lib. Just recently I talked to two people who think the Cheney heart attack "gag" is really funny.

The point is, is that they are everywhere you look. Television, radio, books, newspapers, classrooms, congress and everything else and they're all doing the same thing. Bashing Republicans.

But lets get something straight here, the Democrats just did their thing and left the Republicans be. When the Liberals took over they would talk badly of Republicans only when necessary and they would back it up. But now that we are in the neo-lib era the Liberals talk badly of Republicans and Conservatives at every single given chance, whether they can do it for a good reason or not. And if they can't back it up it's all just emotion.
(aka hate with no valid reason for it)

Honest Liberals and Democrats are very few and far out now. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Joe Liberman. I'm sure there are a few others, but they don't get all the attention like the neo-libs now do.

So why is it the hateful ones that now get all of the attention and credibility? Is that really what this nation is turning into? Two sides hating each other while the honest ones with reasons to dislike sit back?

I think they've gotten off easy because they haven't yet to be called what they are, neo-liberals. The Conservatives have been tuned into enemies by some just because a crowd hears the word neo-con and everyone knows and fears the evil neo-cons. Them and their agendas, their war plans, Halliberton, and the such.

So why can't we fight fire with fire? Here at the better wing I will use the term neo-lib until a large portion of the blogoshpere realizes that it isn't a good thing to be. Then just maybe we will give the honest Democrats a chance to talk and the people who hate Bush because he can't say nuclear will lose their spotlight and receive a name similar to the one they've been giving us.

So many Conservatives have been shut out by the media because nobody can trust a "neo-con", so if we can do the same thing then we've got all of the extremists out of the spotlight and inside the gap between the left and the right we may be able to find some middle ground.

It's fire with fire and I think it will overall be better for our country.

We've Got Bigger Problems

2005-10-29T11:58:00.000-04:00

I'm sure plenty of you are expecting me to write all about Scooter's indictment. Sorry brother but you're going to have to keep on searching because out of all the current events, this is nothing. Let me explain.

We have some guy who almost no one knew about until he got indicted, and all of a sudden he's big news. Just out of nowhere someone who isn't even important enough for anyone to realize his existence and when he gets indicted everyone's writing about him. Not me. The media has done an overkill on this story already and if you just look at it for a minute, it's not at all important. So what if the vice's adviser steps down? He'll get replaced sooner or later, and nothing will change. The economy won't change. The presidents decisions won't change. Nothing will change.

On this story the media has over-reacted. But there is something more dangerous than that and that's under-reaction, or no reaction at all.

Right now there are two huge stories going on and both are being covered up by the media to make room for Scooter.

Story #1

The president of Iran says Israel needs to be wiped off the map. Maybe you don't realize it's importance so I'll repeat myself, the president of Iran is calling for the genocide of the jewish people in Israel.

So where are our Jewish congressmen when we need them? Why can they make Scooter such a big deal and forget about the new Hitler? Where's Dianne Feinstein, or Chuck Schumer? Both Jewish, both in important positions, and both running their mouths about Scooter instead of Hitler the second.

Again, they're over-reacting on the oh so important Scooter, and have totally fogotten about someone who wants to kill all of their people!

Story #2

The president of Syria denies government involvement in the murder of a lebanese official. America pushes UN into investigating.

This is another war waiting to happen right here! The UN investigates, they will most likely find nothing, we will push the useless idiots aside and find out for ourselves.

While on this subject I want to remind where I'm coming from with the reason for being in Iraq. It's the strategic standpoint. We're bordering both Syria and Iran, obviously two countries that will soon be getting involved with us.

Another under-reaction here.

So now I ask you to please forget about Scooter for a minute, he'll get replaced and everything will be dandy. It's not so simple with our war on terror. If things continute the way they are going, Syria and Iran will be major problems in the very near future and you can't indict Syria and Iran and get them replaced.

Whitey Isn't Keeping You Down!

2005-10-28T09:11:00.000-04:00

If there is one thing about human nature that bugs me more than anything, it's people that
think their race means anything other than physical appearance.

Recently I've seen a few occasions where black people have called Bush racist, called white people oppressors, and even one man has called for the complete genocide of the white race.

The first person I'll talk about is Louis Farrakhan. He was the leader of the recent Millions
More Movement and to put things into simple terms, he's just a racist as the KKK.

Like some people like him, Farrakhan believes the whitey is keeping the blacks down and
they hate and want to kill black people. But I'll go over what else he believes

1)

Bush bombed the levees in attempt to kill off black people.

2)

The white race was created by a mad scientist who was angry at black people. The race was created for the purpose of keeping black people down. This new race was "an ugly mutation".

3)

Whitey is keeping the black people down purposely.

4)

The white race is inferior and soon they will die down and black people will rule "once again"

5) (my favorite)

He says he was taken away by a flying saucer up to a mother wheel where he met his idol,
Elijah Muhammad who told him to believe what he does now.

Today Farrakhan ranks among the most influential black figures in America. His October 16, 1995 “Million Man March” drew several hundred thousand attendees. Though officially billed
as a day of atonement” a significant portion of the event focused on America’s historical and allegedly continuing assault on black people. “The real evil in America,” Farrakhan said that
day, “is the idea that under-girds the setup of the Western world, and that idea is called white supremacy."

The Million Man March featured a roster of guest speakers condemning the racism and
injustice that they said permeates American society – from the criminal justice system, to employment practices, to education, to money lending, and to virtually every other
conceivable aspect of life.

I'll give you a few quotes by him now.

“I heard from a very reliable source that under that levee there was a 25 foot hole, which suggested that it may have been blown up, so that the water would destroy the black part
of town, and where the whites lived, it would be dry.”

“FEMA is too White to represent us and so is the Red Cross.”

“Listen, Jewish people don’t have no hands that are free of the blood of us. They owned
slave ships, they bought and sold us. They raped and robbed us. If you can’t face that, why you gonna condemn me for showing you your past, how then can you atone and repent if somebody don’t open the book with courage, you don’t have that, but I’ll be damned,
I got it.”

“I call them the so-called Jews because to be a Jew you have to adhere to the statutes and laws that create the special relationship. How can you be a Jew and promote homosexual marriage?”

"If we dig, we run into the Jewish pot of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.”

"White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet."

"It is not accidental that the Black male is in the condition he is in...Conspiracy because of a "...conspiracy of our government against the Ourck male" along with "...our [Blacks'] failure to accept responsibility for our actions..."

And those are the "nice" quotes out of the bunch. I could have found ones that are much
worse.

Another person (I can't find his name) had a racist speech. I will paraphrase this one.

"I want you to understand, the white people want to kill you [black people]. They want
to kill you. They don't care about your job or education, they want to kill you. It's part of
their plan. The only way to stop their plan is to extreminate the white race, there's no other way.

*applause*"

That's right, a call for the genocide of the white race and worse yet people applaused him.

Lets get something straight right now. White people do not want to kill you, they do not want
to keep you down. This whole "whitey's the oppresor" thing is a big conspiracy.

In fact, nobody is keeping you down, you are keeping yourself down by believing this
conspiracy. You believe the white people are keeping you down and you'll never succeed
so you never try to succeed because you think the white people are keeping you down.

No one deserves blame but you. You need to realize that nobody wants to keep you down
and nobody wants to kill you. You just believe that it's that way.

When has a black person ever been denied a job because they were black? Really when? If anything they'll get the job because they're black.

If any of my readers are black I want you to know that 99% of white people have nothing against you nor do they keep you down. If you want to be successful, all you have to do is
apply yourself. Don't blame the white person for anything because it's not their fault. It's
your fault for believing that and not taking responsibility for your actions. Don't be lazy,
if you want to be successful you can. It's just as hard to be successful as a white person as it
is a black, all you have to do is try.

I will end this article with a quote by Abe Lincoln.

"Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position.
Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal."

The Death Penalty Can Save Lives

2005-10-23T11:54:00.000-04:00

As much as it sounds like an oxymoron, in the future it could be true.

This is what I'd like to see happen in the near future.

Step one

Improve on DNA research and hold better trials. This way, we will always know we will have the right guy.

Step two

First, we will do away with the lethal injection and replace it with a bullet. I have a few reasons why. First, a bullet costs about 13 cents which really cuts down on federal spending. Also, the lethal injection will kill off organs that could get used, I'll get to that in a minute. Lastly, it's just plain easier.

Step three

Next, I would like to see something I like to call the CP donor plan. What it is, is when we give a criminal death, we use their organs to give to people that need them.

I think the organ donor plan is genius. There are sick people around the country just sitting in a hospital waiting for someone to get in a car crash so they can use that persons organs. With the death penalty organ donor, those patients have a better chance of living. The death penalty can save lives. There are plenty of poor people who deserve to live unlike the psycopaths in prison.

I do think a lifetime in jail would be a worse punishment, but my idea could actually save many lives and only take a few. And it's not like anyone cares if a murderer dies.

But this isn't a matter of morality, cost, or punishment. It's a matter of gaining important organs to be given to patients that need them.

Now obviously I am for the death penalty, and I'll give you those reasons shortly, but if we apply this plan, I think we could save lives, and what could be better than that?

I am for the death penalty because if you can catch a murderer or someone who applies for that punishment you are

A) Protecting the people from a dangerous man.

B) giving the victims family what they want

C) giving the criminal what he deserves

But if we apply my idea we will be doing this too

A) saving lives

B) saving money

What more could you ask for?

Regarding the Last Post

2005-10-20T14:31:00.000-04:00

Some people are under the impression that I'm going Democrat, that's not true, let me explain.

I am no longer a "Bush Republican" but I am a real Republican. You don't have to like the manager to like the team.

Not that I hate Bush, but I have been seriously disappointed in him in the last month or so. Hopefully he'll get back on track soon!

I'm just an honest Conservative and I don't always agree with the mainsteam opinion of my fellow Conservatives.

Just making sure everyone knows I'm not going left, ever! If anything I'm going further to the right.

What happened Bush?

2005-10-19T19:04:00.000-04:00

Lately I have been very disappointed in our president, and I'm wondering what went wrong? I used to like him but he has moved the Republican party out from under my feet. I haven't left the Republican party, the Republican party left me. The Bush administration is doing everything against the Conservative ideology.

He is not a fiscal Conservative. He's spent more money than any other president ever! He's more like a fiscal Socialist.

He is not against illegal immigration. Just lately he told us he would keep all illegals out. It's a lie. Actually what he is doing is keeping all illegals out that aren't Mexican. He's being a reverse racist.

Out of all of the qualified Conservative lawyers and judges, Bush picks Miers. What is he afraid to make new friends or something? Is Bush shy? So shy that he would like to be with his long time friend than someone who is qualified?

George Bush has blamed Israel for taking back peace plans with Palestine. The Israelis took back their peace plan when Palestinian bombers murdered two little Israeli girls. The leaders of the Palestinian people have said they will never stop the terrorist attacks until Israel leaves their country completely.

George Bush has destroyed everything the Republican party stands for, and the Republicans are too proud of Bush to realize that they are standing for a man who is acting more like a Democrat than anything else!

Thank god for the Conservatives though. The Conservatives aren't scared to be honest like the pro-Bush Republicans are. If we see Bush doing something against Conservative principles, we point it out!

I really liked Bush for the first few years of his president. He stood up to terrorism after 9/11 and he did something about it. Clinton did not go to war with terrorism after the '93 bombings. Bush did and it was the best thing he's done. Whether Bush lied or not, I don't know, but I also think the war in Iraq was a good idea and so far has been a success.

But as of now it seems like he's just giving in to the Liberals. Now you have to realize that George W. Bush has received more discrimination during presidency than any other president. Whether he did something right or not, it was always made that he did something. Whether it was his fault or not, it was always made his fault. And by now he's just given in. Thrown in the towel to the left. And now that he's doing things the left should be proud of, they are only discriminating him more than ever! And because of this, he has lost all he had that was good in his first term.

Now don't get me wrong, unlike the Democrats I don't want Bush to fail. He just is, and the Republicans are cheering him on like idiots.

Well as a Conservative I won't stand for it and I am not afraid to say something about it.

The Big Picture

2005-10-18T14:32:00.000-04:00

There has been a question going around more and more about Iraq. And the question is, why Iraq? Why not another country?

Well other than the things I've already gone over, things like Saddam, There is an even more important reason for why of all countries we are in Iraq.

It's a strategic advantage. Iraq is right in the center of the Middle East, bordering countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Jordan. Most of the countries of the middle east, not to mention places where terrorism is at large. And not only that but Afghanistan borders Pakistan and Iran. We've picked the two best countries strategically.

Lets go over why it's good strategically.

The first reason is the fact that we are luring the terrorists out of their caves to go to Iraq. And there is a better chance of them coming to Iraq because they are close to it.

But why is it a good idea to lure them to Iraq? As of now our military is not in "enemy" territory. We can set up camps, traps, and other things without fear of Iraqis stopping us. If we aren't in enemy territory, then we have an upperhand.

If this war is going to really take down terrorism, then being in neutral grounds is the way to do it.

Some people will say that when we leave, the Iraqis will be left with a bunch of terrorist to take care of. Not true, they're mostly here because of us, and when we leave, they will too. And I know some are trying to kill Iraqis to, but by the time this war is finished the terrorism will be less of a threat and the Iraqi police will be completely ready.

People will also ask me, so if terrorism is worse in places like Iran or Syria, then why are we in Iraq? Because Iraq was not big on terrorism and it was easier to make neutral ground than any of the other countries. Then those terrorists will come into Iraq in a far less overwhelming way, not to mention we have the upperhand by being in the neutral ground.

So that's why strategically Iraq was a good choice.

Affirmative Action: the Investigation (2)

2005-10-15T13:49:00.000-04:00

Some of you are unsure what Affirmative Action is really about and insist that it really isn't being used in this situation, they're only using the word. Well the encyclopedia has only one definition for Affirmative Action. Also in the encyclopedia they describe how it's implemented, how it is being used in schools and other places, and lots of other things. It's really an important read if you want to fully understand the importance of this investigation

Encyclopedia: Affirmative Action

After extensive searching through the school's policy database I have found two articles that may convince you that Affirmative Action is being used.

Here's the first policy

In response to An Act to Promote Equity of Opportunity for Women in Administrative Positions in the Public School System (PL 1990, Chap. 889), the Board of Directors affirms its commitment to the strict prohibition of discrimination in employment on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability and to the principle of affirmative action to obtain wide and representative candidate pools.

In accordance with state law, the Superintendent shall implement a procedure designed to ensure nondiscriminatory practice in recruitment and hiring for all positions requiring administrator certification, as well as to result in selection of the most qualified candidates. This procedure shall be reviewed periodically.

Moreover, upon each occasion of administrative vacancy, the Superintendent shall review the procedure and make appropriate adaptations as may be warranted by special circumstances. In the case of a vacancy in the Superintendency, the Board shall review the procedure, adapting it as appropriate.

In accordance with state law, the district's Affirmative Action Plan shall include: a description of the status of the school system's nondiscriminatory administrator hiring practice; plans for in-service training programs on gender equity for teachers, administrators and the Board; and the relationship of the above to the State's five-year goal for the employment of women in administrative positions.

Basically what they are saying is that they want diversity in in the administration, and would rather have more women in that position than whoever is best for the job.

Next is the procedure

It says what you can do if you think you are being treated wrongly because of race etc.
But four questions are still open for investigation.

1) What do they consider to be treated wrongly in school based on race etc.

2) How difficult is it to recieve approval from the Affirmative Action officer?

3) What happens if you do recieve approval from the Affirmative Action officer?

4) How do they plan on "preventing discrimination"? Treating everyone the same, or treating some better?

By next time I'll have more articles, examples, and possibly an interview.

To be continued...

Affirmative Action: the Investigation (1)

2005-10-12T14:14:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I read a pamphlet about a section of our schools that caught my attention.

OHTS does not discriminate in its education and employment programs on the basis of age, race color, national origin, gender, handicap, religion, and marital or parental status and complies with Title IX of the education amendments of 1972, Title VI of the civil rights act of 1964, section 504 of the rehabilitation act of 1973, and the Americans with disabilities act of 1990. Inquiries regarding title VI, title IX, 504, or ADA may be made to the Affirmative Action officer, OHTS.

These people are saying they will not discriminate, but I am under the impression that they will go out of their way to treat these people nicer than the average white man.

For those of you who don't know Affirmative Action is when you basically treat everyone but the average white man better, because you think they deserve something.

Now this whole thing has to do with a special portion of the school where you have to be accepted into the classes based on grades, attendance, and an interview. But they add a secret thing in there called affirmative action, and it takes people like me to find it. If you're normal, you have to have good grades, attendance, and a good interview. But if you're disabled, or gay, or black, then you'll get in the class no matter what.

When I brought up the subject yesterday few people believed me so I've started an investigation. So far this is what I've got.

I obtained the sign up sheet for these classes, where you put down some of your information so you can get added to the list to be interviewed.

Of course it asks for names addresses and phone numbers, but some of the questions caught my eye.

Sex:

Race:

Are you a Single Parent: (asked to the parents of course)

Remember this part of the pamphlet:

OHTS does not discriminate in its education and employment programs on the basis of age, race color, national origin, gender, handicap, religion, and marital or parental status

So if they aren't going to discriminate, then why do they need this kind of information? Not for the interview. Not for contact information. For Affirmative Action.

They want to know this so if you are of a minority or different race, then you'll get in the class no matter what.

I've got one other piece of information.

I know a person who is disabled (has no arms or legs) who got into one of these classes in his Freshman year. The troubling part is that you aren't supposed to take these classes until you're a sophomore, under no exceptions. Except Affirmative Action of course.

That's all I've got from my investigation so far. In the coming weeks I'll be doing some interviews, collecting more information, getting more proof, facts, explanations, and more.

To be Continued...

The Schools are Going Left

2005-10-11T16:58:00.000-04:00

So I was reading a little sidenote on the bottom of a pamphlet for our school, this is what it said.

OHTS does not discriminate in its education and employment programs on the basis of age, race color, national origin, gender, handicap, religion, and marital or parental status and complies with Title IX of the education ammendments of 1972, Title VI of the civil rights act of 1964, section 504 of the rehabilitation act of 1973, and the americans with disabilities act of 1990. Inquiries regarding title VI, title IX, 504, or ADA may be made to the Affirmative Action officer, OHTS.

So what does this mean? It means a lot of things. It starts out saying it won't discriminate people, then it says questions can be answered by the affirmative action officer. Affirmative action is discrimination in my opinion because you are treating people better based on race, gender, religion, etc. So they are being Liberal oxymorons because they are saying they won't discriminate anyone, but they will go out of their way to make them feel better because they are different.

Now this whole thing has to do with a special portion of the school where you have to be accepted into the classes based on grades, attendance, and an interview. But they add a secret thing in there called affirmative action, and it takes people like me to find it. If you're normal, you have to have good grades, attendance, and a good interview. But if you're disabled, or gay, or black, then you'll get in the class no matter what.

This is the first step of the schools going Liberal and it is truely disgusting to me.

Borders, Borders, Borders!

2005-10-11T15:53:00.000-04:00

(Note: this article is also on Blog America, but the Better Wing got jealous so I put it on here too)

This is a topic, a topic much more important than abortion, or capitol punishment. Our borders are wide open. People are running into America with no intention of making it a better place. Some people are so sick of the government ignoring this they take the job into their own hands, and they get no recognition, they get criticized for being racist.

They are not racist. Most of these people coming into America illegally have no intention of doing it for work. They want free government money. That's right, not only are we leaving the borders open but we're giving out money to the people who sneak in illegally. 10 billion a year to be exact. That's taxpayer money. You work so these people can take your money when they are able bodied. And yes they are able bodied, they have to make
a walk through desert and rivers to get here, they don't need the money.

But they're not just coming over for money. They could break the law in Mexico and
come into America and be off the hook. Or they could go to America, do some drug dealing, and come back to Mexico and be off the hook. Now the Canada border is also open, but nowhere near as bad. So the people that want the illegals to stop taking your money, breaking the law, and just causing havoc and leave are racist? No, it has nothing to do with race, like I said, the Canada borders are open too and some of the same things are happening there. These people want to help clean up America and you don't like it? Maybe you just don't understand, you're still under the impression that they're there for work, right?

No, they're coming over to be malicious, work just keeps the food on the table if the welfare checks come a day or two late. And then people will of course tell me how
keeping these people in their own country will hurt our economy. Like I said, very few of them actually work and if they do I'm pretty sure they're working at gas stations and convenience stores, not Microsoft. A few less workers is something we can live with if it means keeping freeloaders and lawbreakers out.

Sometimes I wonder if the word "illegal" is just dropped by some. They're not
immigrants, they're illegal immigrants. And I'm for immigration, if you want to legally come into our country and have good intention then you are welcome, but if you can't
take the time to sign a few papers and come in the right way, then you are breaking
the law and you need to stop.

These illegals can get drivers licenses. What does that mean? A lot. Once you get your drivers license it doesn't matter if you're legal or not anymore because if you've got your license then everyone thinks you are legal. And you can do a lot with a license. You can
get a plane ticket, vote, buy a gun, and other things. Not only that but you can get an
ID even easier which broadens your capabilities even more. You can get welfare, social security, food stamps, and other government handouts.

The illegals are also slowing down our schools and filling up our prisons. More illegals in school means not only more teachers, but more teachers trying to help kids that don't
even fully understand the English language. They are wasting our prison space where we need to feed them and take care of them. Both of these things are paid for by the
taxpayer.

Some will still call me racist by saying I think they're all criminals. They are all
criminals, they snuck in illegally! Not only that but most of them have criminal records other then that!

So what's their next argument? You're blowing it out of proportion. Sorry, I'm not. This problem is real. If you want to know how big this is, on average 375 people come into America illegally on a daily bases. These people are breaking the law, taking our money, and more. But not only that but what they're doing is a slap in the face to the people who immigrated here legally. They signed the papers, took the tests, paid their fee, and got in the right way.

But there is something even worse then the 10 billion a year from these people or the lawlessness. Just because the countries adjacent to us are Mexico and Canada, doesn't mean the only people coming in here illegally are Mexican and Canadian. Do you know how easy it is for an Islamic terrorist to fly to Canada, sneak across the border, obtain a drivers license and ID, and set off a bomb. Very easy. In fact some of these people are in America right now, just waiting for the time to bomb us.

Now do you all understand how important it is to close off the borders? Very. It could mean millions of dollars or even millions of lives if we don't.

Test

2005-10-11T15:00:00.001-04:00

This is a test. This blog is really screwed up, thanks.

B

2005-10-11T15:00:00.000-04:00

O

2005-10-11T14:59:00.001-04:00

G

2005-10-11T14:59:00.000-04:00

R

2005-10-11T14:57:00.000-04:00

Test

2005-10-11T14:49:00.000-04:00

This is just a test. This blog is really screwed up, thanks.

My Political Profile

2005-10-08T12:05:00.000-04:00

This is my political profile if anyone cares. Everyone else should take the test and say what they got in the comment section. It might be a little fun.

Cody's Political Profile
Overall: 90% Conservative, 10% Liberal
Social Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal
Personal Responsibility: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Ethics: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal
Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

How Liberal / Conservative Are You?

Genius!

2005-10-08T08:10:00.000-04:00

Some Democrats are supporting Miers and cheering her on, then the Conservatives say "wait a minute, if the Democrats like her then somethings wrong here," and they go against her.

But the Democrats don't really like Miers, because they know if she is a good friend to Bush then she will most likely go right.

So why are they supporting her you ask? They are playing a little mind game. If they support her then most likely the right will go aganist her. Since the Republicans out number the Dems, if they get them to turn against her then when the time to vote comes both the right and left will vote against her. It's a genius plan isn't it.

Well, lets not fall for it guys, I want you to support her because being a close friend to Bush she will listen to him and bring the courts to the right.

Please tell all of your Republican friends about this trick so we don't fall for it. Thanks!

Blog America

2005-10-06T15:54:00.000-04:00

I just created a new blog today. It's called Blog America. It's going to be a look at security, terrorism, laws, politics, government and all other things related to America (including non-political). It will be a blog that both Democrats and Republicans should enjoy, because it's not a blog for partisanship like this one is, it's a blog for America. I would like to make this a large team blog. I want everyone that loves this country to join. You don't have to be an active poster but because having non-partisanship is difficult for some of us, it may be better to hear from as many perspectives as possible. I repeat, if you're an American I want you to join this blog. You can support your country, say how to make it better, or just report news.

If you have questions or comments please leave them. And if you want to join this blog please leave your e-mail address here or on Blog America.

Well, here's the web address

http://blogforusa.blogspot.com

Support Bush

2005-10-03T06:37:00.000-04:00

My friend Robby (aka darksaturos) is currently writing a letter to Bush that supports him. He is asking that if you support him too, you should give him your name and e-mail address so Bush will know that he has lots of support. Also if you want to add something to the letter you can request that too.

We've been quiet for too long, I'm done sitting here while people call my leader a terrorist, he needs our support!

So if you're interested, check out my friends blog.

http://darksaturos.blogspot.com/

Sheehan is a Terrorist

2005-09-30T17:56:00.000-04:00

Apparently Sheehan's 15 minutes of fame (aka 1 month) wasn't enough. At first she had a protest against Bush, that got little attention. She couldn't settle for that though, so during Bush's vacation she has a 3 week stake-out. Then hurricane Katrina stole her spotlight completely. So what does she do? She complains about there being soldiers in New Orleans. Is that the dumbest thing you have ever heard? Okay lets just take out all the soldiers and leave the people to fend for themselves, and then when they all die we
can blame Bush for being racist. That's what you want right? Or do you want to get
rid of the U.S. military completely?

Days later Sheehan lost the spotlight again during hurricane Rita. So what does she do? Right after the hurricane she holds a rally in front of the capitol to get her attention back. But a protest wasn't enough, Sheehan was thinking, maybe I'll get more attention if my protest is "illegal". That's right, she didn't sign the protest permit to make it legal, so she got arrested,
and as you can she from the pictures, she's pretty darn happy about it. Why? Because she's now extended her 15 minutes of fame to 18 minutes.

So by now you can tell that she's desperate for attention, listeners, support, kind of like how Air America is desperate.

But that isn't the important part, the important part is that
she is not only completely wrong, but she is supporting the
Islamic terrorists.

First I'll give you one of her speeches with my reactions,
and then I'll tell you about the treason.

(applause) Do you guys mind if I sit down too? This has been a pretty amazing day. Oops, did I do that. Oh, okay. I was watching Jon Stewart the other night. I haven’t watched TV for a long time and he had Chris Wallace on from Fox News, I think, and they were talking about what’s happening out here and they were talking about well Cindy’s gone, her mom had a stroke, and then they said that Joan Baez gave a concert last night and Jon Stewart said, “Well apparently they are trying to
stop Vietnam.” You know and that kind of offended me because maybe if we had really stopped Vietnam, Iraq wouldn’t have happened (applause). You know we, I think it
was such a long struggle that after Vietnam, I’m not going to take any credit or blame for this because I was really young, it was just like well we got our troops out now we don’t have
to make sure they never do this to our kids again. And I am going to make sure that after
our troops are brought home from Iraq, and they will be brought back, that we’re going to keep the Camp Casey movement going and we’re gonna make sure that our kids are never sent to fight a war for power and greed. (applause)

If people like you didn't exist we would have won the Vietnam war. And call me crazy but I was under the impression that Vietnam and Iraq we're completely unconnected. Do you think this is just a game? We lost the last the last hand of poker and we're trying again? It's not that simple, we're there for a few reasons, and I'll tell you right now none of those reasons include power or greed. If this was about greed we would have tons of oil by now right? We're not there for the reasons that you think. We're there to remove Saddam (check) give the Iraqis a non-dictatorship government (check) kill terrorists
(going well as of now) Save Iraqi lives (check) find weapons (not yet). To me it looks like we're giving, not taking.

I’m thinking, I’m thinking probably, probably the country is kind of going to take me
at my word from now on. They are going to know that I’m not going to give up and today was really hard when I came in and saw Casey bigger than life over there.
I miss him so much
and I miss him more every day, but like that song “Joe Hill,” Casey’s not dead. I see
him in all of your eyes and Casey will never die. And they can kill the body, but they can’t kill the love and the spirit, and no matter how hard they try they can’t do that.

And people think George Bush's grammar is bad? She sounds like a 13 year old bubble gum chewing cheerleader.

I want to tell you a little bit about Casey because this whole movement is because of
him and because of the others that have sacrificed themselves. The hardest thing for
me to hear, I don’t care about them talking about me being a crackpot or a media whore, or a tool of the left, you know. I’m like if I truly was a media whore do you
think I would like maybe get myself fixed up a little bit before I went on? That doesn’t bother me at all, but what bothers me so much is when they say I am dishonoring my son’s memory by what I’m doing, that my son would be ashamed of me or what they really like to say is that I’m pissing, or shitting, or spitting on his grave. And look what Casey, look what Casey has started. You know, I’m here because of Casey, we’re all
here because of Casey and you know literally there is, there is over 2000 of our brave young people and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and I know they are behind us, and I see them, all their faces on your faces.

But Cindy, you are a crackpot, media whore, tool, and left wing nut job. And not only are you dishonoring your son, but every member of the army, every proud American, and every
one of the Iraqi's who love us because they are no longer scared of getting killed by Saddam. You call us the terrorists, you confuse innocent Iraqi's with terrorists, and you call our president, the leader of our country a "f**king hipocrite,". If you want to know
the truth, you are an immature, ignorant moron.

But Casey was such a gentle kind loving person. He never even got in one fist fight his whole life. Nobody even hated him enough to punch him let alone kill him, and that’s what George Bush did. He put our kids in another person’s country and Casey was
killed by insurgents. He wasn’t killed by terrorists. He was killed by Shiite militia who wanted him out of the country, when Casey was told he was going to be welcomed
with chocolate and flowers as a liberator. Well, the people of Iraq saw it differently. They saw him as an occupier.

That is completely wrong. George Bush didn't kill anyone, but he did save thousands of innocent Iraqi's who you just confused with terrorists. The Shiite's and Kurds love us,
they love us! You are completely wrong Sheehan!

He used to call me every day from Ft. Hood. I miss that. And Karen knows like probably for almost a year after he was killed every time the phone rang I’d think, “Oh that’s Casey.” And so it just like hits you about 50 times a day that you’re never going to talk to them, or see them again. And that’s why I do what I do, because I can’t bear the thought of another mother having to go through the pain that I’m going through. And that’s the only reason I do it. So that’s what we’re here for. We’re here because we want to make it so our kids, their deaths stand for peace and love, and this is what is at Camp Casey. And you know some people are saying, “Oh what are guys trying to do, recreate the sixties?” Oh yeah, peace and love is a really bad thing. You know it’s been something that’s been missing in our country, decades and I’m not ashamed, you know, I’m not ashamed to say that this is a place where you can come and feel loved. You know this is the place where the end of the occupation of Iraq started. This is the place where America comes to say, “We’ve had enough – enough. You might be able to lie to Congress. You might be able to lie to the media, but you’re not lying to us anymore.” And this is it, this is where it’s going to begin and we’re not going stop today, we’re not going to stop on the 31st. We’re not going stop ever, ever. will make sure that this keeps on going. We won’t have a war, another war, in 30 or 40 years, where we’ll be saying, “Oh this is another Iraq.” You know, no, it’s not going to ever happen again. It’s not going to just be me. It’s going to be me with the millions of people who are behind us, making sure that that will happen. And you know when this is going to stop? This is going to stop when the mothers say, “No, I’m not giving my son, I’m not giving my son to you so you can kill him to line your pockets,” and that’s when it’s going to stop.

So that was most of one of her speeches, now I'll show you a few quotes by her.

“The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush.”

“George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son.”

“9/11 was Pearl Harbor for the neo-conservatives’ agenda.”

"I DEFINITELY think that we should support war resisters in the military"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine, and you'll stop the terrorism."

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine, and you'll stop the terrorism."

"We’re not letting them intimidate us. If we get killed out here, know that the Secret Service killed us."

"My first born was killed violently for a neo-con agenda that only benefits a very chosen few in this world."

"You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East. You tell me that, you don't tell me my son died for freedom and democracy...You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine"

"I don't believe his phony excuses for the war. I want him to tell me why my son died. If he gave the real answer, people in this country would be outraged — if he told people it was to make his buddies rich, that it was about oil."

"Is there anyone in America who cannot yet see that Donald Runsfeld is a liar... that he, as with Hitler and Stalin... will say anything so long as he thinks it will help shape the world to his own liking?"

"Our country has been overtaken by murderous thugs... gangsters who lust after fortunes and power; never caring that their addictions are at the expense of our loved ones, and the blood of innocent people near and far... The US government is now ruled by murderous hypocrites... criminals who should be arrested, charged appropriately, confined behind bars... In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the dwindling multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants."

"Every member of Bush's executive branch (past and present) and every member of Congress who voted to give George the authority to invade Iraq have innocent blood on their hands. For the next State of the Union address, maybe the hypocrites in Congress should shamefacedly display blood-soaked hands, instead of proudly wriggling fingers stained with ink to symbolize sham Iraqi elections."

"We can't let somebody rise to the top who will pardon these war criminals. Because they need to go to prison for what they've done in this world. We can't have a pardon. They need to pay for what they've done."

"When I was growing up, it was Communists. Now it's terrorists. So you always have to have somebody to fight and be afraid of, so the war machine can build more bombs, guns, and bullets and everything."

"I know several people who are being court-martialed, and they need support--they need monetary support, they need our moral support, and they need to know that we’re with them... We need to encourage more people to do this."

"Why does Terri Schiavo deserve to live more than my son, Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan?"

Notice how often she uses the word "oil" and "neo-con" in most of the quotes? I did. Notice how completely wrong she is? I did.

Okay, now I'm going to talk about treason. Right now she is commiting treason which is against the sedition act of 1918. I'll show you the sedition act now.

Section 3:

Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval force of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States, and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment services of the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the Unite States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of war, and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive and violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy or the flag of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service...

Section 4:

When the United States is at war, the Postmaster General may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that any person or concern is using the mails in violation of any of the provisions of this Act, instruct the postmaster at any post office at which mail is received addressed to such person or concern to return to the postmaster at the office at which they were originally mailed all letters or other matter so addressed, with the words "Mail to this address undeliverable under Espionage Act" plainly written or stamped upon the outside thereof, and all such letters or other matter so returned to such postmasters shall be by them returned to the senders thereof under such regulations as the Postmaster General may prescribe.

Sound familiar? I thought so. Sheehan has called Americans terrorists, disrupted with the war, sided with the enemy, and so on, and so on. To make things short she is comitting treason and should be in jail for 2 years, and if she comes right out of jail to a similar protest, throw her in for another 2, maybe more.

I have no sympathy for this woman, I hate her. I have sympathy for her son, but not her. Cindy Sheehan is a terrorist.

No. 2 Man no More

2005-09-26T19:08:00.000-04:00

U.S. Special Forces killed Al Qaeda's No. 2 terror mastermind in Iraq, Defense Department officials say.
Abu Azzam, who was believed to have been in charge of the financing of terrorist cells in the war-torn country, was killed during a raid in Baghdad Sunday. Azzam is thought to be the top deputy to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraq's most wanted terrorist.

Wow, this is very good news. Al-Qaeda's 2nd highest guy is now killed. It looks like we're making a lot of progress in Iraq. If we had pulled out, this rat would still be walking around.

But wait a minute, a member of Al-Qaeda in Iraq? It looks like the people who told me there was no connection are dead wrong, and now I've got even more proof.

Anyways, everyone should be very happy now that terrorism is a much smaller threat. In fact the U.S military deserves a big thank you from everyone.

Thanks guys!

WMD

2005-09-24T20:47:00.000-04:00

Today I will attempt to debunk the Liberal argument of there being no WMD's.

There are so many obvious facts that prove the existence of Iraq's weapons, lets go over them.

1)

Iraq actually bought weapons from us! They made the promise that,
"we'll use them to destroy our enemy,"
Well technically they didn't break their promise. Bombing the Islamic terrorists was what we had in mind, for them to bomb. Those are enemies of both the Iraqis and us. But instead of using the weapons on them, he used them on the Kurds and Shiites! Their own people! Sure they're enemies of Saddam, but it wasn't what we meant.

2)

Unlike some people who own weapons, Saddam actually used them. Yeah you heard me. How could he use weapons on his own people if he didn't have any!

3)

Saddam did not just "destroy them" when he knew America was coming over, he hid them. Think about it, if the biggest army in the world was going to invade your country, would you just throw your weapons away? No. He either hid them in his own country, or lent them to
Al-Qaeda.

And yes it is possible for them to be in the hands of Al-Qaeda. There are connections.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200407211107.asp

Still believe Saddam was weaponless? If you said yes, you are one arrogant person.

Mr. Liberal: But we didn't find any weapons, so that means there aren't any!

Wrong. Obviously Saddam hid his weapons when the UN came in, we knew he would do that. So if we let the UN tell us not to go because there were no weapons we would still have Saddam there gassing his own people, and laughing at the presidents face for being too stupid to forget the UN and go in anyways.

Iraq's size is 437,072 km big! Do you know how long it would take to go around with a metal detector, scanning every piece of bare desert, looking for the WMD's? I will attempt to do the math for this. We have say 1,000 UN guys with scanners, 10 people can scan one kilometer in one day. So if all 1,000 people are scanning, they can altogether scan 100 kilometers in one day. So if that cycle went on every day, nonstop. Which is very doubtful. They could scan the whole of Iraq in 4,371 days. That's over 11 years. And this is just hypothetical, in real life it would most likely take longer.

So did you really think the UN would find the WMD's? Of course not, and it's stupid to say they're not there just because the UN said so.

Hypothetically we could find the WMD's if we looked long enough. But in real life, that isn't going to work. The only way we will be able to actually find them is if Saddam actually tells us where they are.

Mr. Liberal: So if Saddam knows where they are, then why hasn't he told us yet?

Because he's not an idiot. If he were to tell us the location of the weapons it would ensure him the death penalty. Think about it, you're playing hide and seek with Saddam. But the rules are, if you find him you have to shoot him. You can't find him and you say "I give up," Do you think he would come running out saying "good game, your turn!" No! If I were Saddam I would prefer to live, wouldn't you?

Mr. Liberal: but... Um... Ah... You're lying! You don't know anything! You're just some right wing nut job who is killing Iraqi children!

I'm not lying, I'm stating the obvious. The truth is right in front of your Liberal face, and all you want to do is push it aside and keep looking. Come on guys, it really is this simple. He had weapons, he used weapons, he hid weapons, and idiots like you want to forget all that just for the sake of the Democratic party. Well I'll tell you right now, I don't do anything for the sake of anyone, I do it because I feel a lot better telling the truth than lying.

Mr. Liberal: You're still killing Iraqi children though!

Nice try but the only people we are attacking are Saddam's followers, and terrorism from across the border. You look pretty stupid standing for a stupid argument, loosing, then ending the conversation with a flame. Good day to you Mr. Liberal.

Mr. Liberal is a fictional character, but a realistic depiction of a Liberal.

Hypocrisy

2005-09-23T16:26:00.000-04:00

Liberals of course are known to be hypocrites, that is something I don't need to explain.
But there is something that they're doing that does all the explaining for me.

So this is how it goes, last year in my school we did a little activity that really angered
me. Half the class were Palestinians, half were Israelis, and all of a sudden we were
the puppets for a Liberal teacher. This is how it went.

He made the Israelis look bad of course, by letting them do whatever, but the pals
could only sit there and do nothing for 30 minutes. Already you're probably feeling
for the pals, stay with me though.

Then of course going according to the puppeteers plan, the pals would begin to
try crossing the border (a bunch of tables forming a circle) and they would get
thrown into jail. Now everyone is really feeling sorry for them, but it's not over yet.

Next the puppeteer had a pal be a homicide bomber, and all of the poor pals got
blamed for the event. It was of course the persons last option right, kill others?
But since one poor Palestinian bomber killed dozens of those stupid Israelis,
all of the Palestinian terrorists get blamed. Poor them. I swear to god that is how
the entire class (discluding me of course) felt, and that was just what the teacher
was hoping for, changing the minds of impressionable people to make them Democrats.

So classes after that we learned about how poor the bombers had it, how bad the
Israelis were, and so on and so forth. Then something happened that really got
me ticked off.

We began learning everything (excluding the violent parts) about the Muslim religion.
How it was created, what they do, and just about everything else but the fact that a
good amount of these "peaceful" people, liked to cut the heads off non-believers.

So basically they are teaching:

Muslim: good. Israeli: bad.

They will teach all this in school right? No one has any problems, right?

Here is where the hypocrisy comes in.

They will teach everything about the Muslim religion (except the terrorism part)
top to bottom without a single solitary problem. But if you suggest the teaching of
intelligent design, or so much as proudly say the pledge of allegiance, there is a big
problem. It's unconstitutional, It's evil, and on they go. But teaching the kids
about the Muslim religion and how great it is, is just fine.

Not to mention, that these kids don't know very much about politics and they will
believe the first things they hear. Then when they grow up they become enemy
supporting Liberals.
Like Cindy Sheehan who want to let the enemy free. Or like Michael Moore,
who wants America to be more like Canada. Or like Al Franken, who blames
the Republicans on everything. Do we really want more people like that in our world?
I know I don't.

No Jail 4 Bush

2005-09-21T15:59:00.000-04:00

Today I talked to an idiot who wants to give Bush the death penalty. Below is his reasons for why, and my replies.

"1. George W. Bush ordered a War of Aggression against Iraq. This constitutes a Crime Against Peace - for which Nazi leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg Trials - and violates the UN Charter."

this war was to get rid of Saddam and help the poor Iraqi people that got gassed by him.
I call that a war for peace. And the UN is not going to help anything, we captured Saddam,
and gave the Iraqis a democracy, That's more progress than the UN could make
in a century.

"Iraq never attacked the US or threatened an attack, so the US was not acting
legally in self-defense, which is permitted under the UN Charter."

We weren't attacking innocent Iraqi people. We attacked terrorists, Saddam,
Saddam lovers, terrorists from other countries, but not innocent Iraqis. What you're
saying is if a bully (Saddam) was beating up a kid (Kurds and Shiites) and
someone stepped in (America) and stopped them, they're wrong. No they are right,
you are wrong.

"Iraq played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack on the US and never
provided material support to any terrorist group that attacked the US, so
even the non-legal Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack did not apply."

Oh really?

www.talktorusty.com

On the side bar you will see a link that says: Links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda.

"At the time of the US attack, Iraq was nearing full compliance with UN
Resolution 1441 and prior resolutions requiring disarmament, and the majority
of the Security Council believed UN inspectors should be given more time,
so the US was not enforcing UN resolutions, as it claims."

Obviously Saddam is going to hide his weapons when the UN comes over.
Agree or Disagree? So if we sat there and did nothing, the UN finished, and left,
we would have probably been attacked in the next week. Agree or Disagree?

"George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in order to bring about a regime change,
which was never authorized by a UN resolution, and violates the UN Charter."

If taking down an evil dictator is wrong to the UN, then I don't care what they say anymore.
It was the right thing to do, if the UN doesn't like it, too bad. Maybe we should pull out of the UN.

"A Crime Against Peace is defined as "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a
war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any of the foregoing". By invading Iraq, Bush has
committed a Crime Against Peace."

That's all bullcrap. Maybe you would have been right if in fact this was a war against
peace. But it isn't.

"2. George W. Bush ordered the bombing of civilian areas like Baghdad
(with 5 million innocent civilians) and Basra. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds
of non-combatants, in violation of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949."

I saw the bombings on TV. They hit the buildings and that was it. If any
innocents died it was because they were too stupid to go to a different area after
getting informed by the president that this was going to happen. And it's pretty
hard to count the amount of bodies that got vaporized. People always exaggerate
the amount of deaths. Just with hurricane Katrina they said 100,000 people
would die when it's closer to 700. All this leads me to believe that there is no
way to prove your numbers, therefore they are wrong.

"Article 3(1): The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and in any place whatsoever with respect to [non-combatants]: (a) violence
to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel
treatment and torture."

1) we did not kill civilians. Can you fit that into your thick skull?
2) why do you want us to be so nice to the enemies?
3) If you're talking about cruelty in Gitmo bay, it's completely wrong. Talk radio
host Rusty Humpries actually went to Gitmo bay and discovered that they each
get a copy of the Koran, they have a soccer field, ice cream on weekends,
capn' crunch in the morning, movies and popcorn, places to pray, and most of all,
no violent interrogations.

So that was the discussion, I thought it was important enough to deserve an
entire post to help clear up this stupid idea that Bush is killing civilians in
an anti-peace war.

It Ends Now

2005-09-19T17:21:00.000-04:00

Today I will be settling the hurricane Katrina fault once and for all. No more biased articles, leaving things out, adding things in. It all ends right here, right now.

Everybody messed up one way or another. I know people on both sides of the political spectrum don't want to hear this, but there isn't one person to blame. I'm going to simply run down the list right now.

FEMA (bad response)

Bush (cut funding, a little late)

Every other president since 1920 (cut funding)

The governor of Louisiana (didn't give the federal government permission to help soon enough)

The mayor of New Orleans (Didn't use busses, no supplies at superdome, sheer incompetence etc.)

Everyone in the Louisiana government (lack of help, threats)

Cheney (very, very late)

Democrats (blaming it all on Bush)

Republicans (blaming it all on the Louisiana government)

Every single one of those people did something wrong and you all know it. Now PLEASE guys, stop bickering back and forth, you're both half right.