Hail to the King (baby)

When with the gorram socialists figure out that the way to get rid of something is not to ban it?

Look, I pity Charles, I really do. In the whole DI-Charles split thing, I was with him all the way. I know, I know. Not a popular thing to do.

Hell, I felt bad for him with the whole Camilla thing, too. He should be able to remarry at this point without a lot of garbage.

Yet, here's something Charles and the other socialists don't realize, or aren't willing to admit: forbidding remarriage and forbidding McDonald's aren't that much different. The point with both is government interference in personal choices. Both are wrong. Both are over-extensions of government power.

Makes you glad our forefathers could stand to live without tea for a little while. Otherwise, Charles might be our king with this woman as queen.

This NEVER gets old

Pointing out the hypocrisy of the left is just one of the fun things about my job. The rather lengthy excerpt below is from Drudge today. Enjoy it. Revel in it. Bask in it's globally-warmed goodness:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

Nashville Electric Service/Gore House
2006
High 22619 kWh Aug – Sept Low 12541 kWh Jan - FebAverage: 18,414 kWh per month
2005
High 20532 Sept - OctoberLow 12955 Feb - MarchAverage: 16,200 kWh per month
Bill amounts
2006 – $895.60 (low) $1738.52 (high) $1359 (average)2005 – $853.91 (low) $1461 (high)
Nashville Gas Company
Main House2006 – $990(high) $170 (low) $536 (average)2005 – $1080 (high) $200 (low) $640 (average)
Guest House/Pool House
2006 – $820 (high) $70 (low) $544 (average)2005 – $1025 (high) $25 (low) $525 (average)

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact: Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431 editor@tennesseepolicy.org

What the Liberal Media isn't Telling You - Part 1

Among other things...

Not everyone hates George W. Bush, especially not all Republicans.

DDT is not as dangerous as malaria.

Phil Gramm behind him.

Democrats pander to the evangelical block as much as Republicans.

Al Sharpton and Strom Thurmond

Interesting.

As I understand it, then, we have a guy who was a racist in 1948 and ran for president on the one hand, and a guy who is a racist and ran for president in 2004 on the other hand. Let's compare:

"White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." - Al Sharpton, 1994.

"We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights." - Strom Thurmond, 1948.

Now, several things strike me initially:

• Both are full of crap
• Both were products of their age (although one renounced racism later in life)
• One of the two seems to be talking about philosophical principles
• One of the two seems to be homophobic
• One of the two has really bad grammar
• Both assume their race is better than the other race.
• Both were Democrats when they ran for president (Dixiecrat was a democratic party offshoot, remember)

So, bitter irony that the two are connected on more than just one level?

I have to say, it would really have been fitting had Sharpton's ancestors been slaves of Robert Byrd's ancestors.

New Oscar Category

I can only assume there's a new Oscar category entitled "largest pile of crap."

Hollywood doesn't lean to the left, oh, no it doesn't.

Jimmy Carter needs to shut the frack up, and go back to building houses.

I am so fracking tired of Jimmy Carter.

I was four when he was elected president. I still remember sitting in line for over an hour for gas at the height of his presidency. A seven year-old in a 1974 Buick in the middle of summer with no AC is an unhappy seven year-old. I was tired of Jimmy Carter by the age of eight.

I don't remember the hostage crisis, per se. I do remember them getting off the plane after being released, though, and someone saying how great it was that Reagan got these folks home (the conventional wisdom holds this to be true; Iran was afraid of the incoming administration, who they believed would have used force to get the hostages. And they were right to do so.)

Carter's recent book was, of course, more than a little bit of a fiasco. The moment you start comparing Israel to Apartheid-era South Africa, you've gone down a bad road. People are going to get sick of that really really quick.

But here's what is sticking in my craw today. Carter has never believed in the long-standing tradition of ex-presidents shutting the frack up, and once again he's decided that he needs to criticize the current administration. This time his invective is aimed at Dick Cheney (my hero, by the way; he shoots from the hip, political future be damned. He can be honest politically, because he just doesn't care to be elected to anything ever again).

And, just for the record, the Camp David Accords were not Carter's doing. They were a combination of the groudwork laid by Kissinger and Sadat's trust of Kissinger. What's especially telling here is that Kissinger got his nobel peace prize in 1973, and Sadat and Begin in 1978. Carter's was awareded twenty four years AFTER Sadat and Begin.

Freedom of Speech, again

""I pointed out to [the teacher] there's a limitation … to free speech," Butte said."

I recognize the logical limitations on freedom of speech. You can say I am purple, for example. If I am not purple, I can take you to court with a slander suit, and the court can (and should) tell you not to tell people I am purple. Here, though, my being purple is not open to opinion. It is a verifiable subject.

I happen to agree with the whole shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre as well. If my words are false and lead to injury, I should be held accountable. Having a fire or not is also an objective fact, although the law should (and does) allow for some room for error in the event of a mistake. If I am actively subverting the government (which is what Holmes was convicting someone of in the famous theatre quote), I should also be held accountable. I should redress my grievances lawfully.

However, here is where it ends for me. Don't lie. Don't deceive people intentionally. Don't try to overthrow the government. That makes sense to me.

But here's my problem. When did arguing a religious or political opinion fall out of the realm of freedom of speech? How can we pretend to be an open and tolerant society if we prevent certain groups from expressing their opinions? I'm as offended by the KKK as I am by most of what Al Sharpton says, but by God I want them both to be able to speak openly in a free society under the protection of the Constitution.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Not Voltaire, but still profound.

Since when should any particular diplomatic option be off the table?

It amazes me, truly. What exactly is it that Blair and the democrats (minus Lieberman) in the US think that it is that will stop Amacrazynutjob? Sadaam, for all of his bravado, was more dedicated to Lenin than to Allah. If UN threats couldn't move him, they won't move Iran. Especially if there is no threat of force.

TR would have invaded Iran by now. Actually, if TR had had nukes, there probably wouldn't have been an invasion, but instead the newly liberated Iraq would have a brand new parking lot, albeit a glowing one.

Reagan bombed Lybia (Qadaffi, actually, was the target) for blowing up ONE disco. Lybia now has no problem cooperating with UN rules about WMDs.

We know now that the Iranian millitary has been supplying bombs to terrorists in Iraq on many occasions. Why is Ahmadinejad still alive? I want to see pictures of this clown on my TV either inside of a pine box, or at least with a bruise above his left eye and a blood-soaked turban on his head, just like Qadaffi in 1984.

It's getting scary.

According to some poll, Americans would like to see either Clint Eastwood or Oprah as president.

Dirty Harry (no, not THAT one) I can see, although his radical Libertarianism (Angie would love him!) goes too far, and he's been opposed to the war on terror (Iraq theatre). But Oprah? Say it isn't so.

However, those things pale compared to one little tidbit that goes by almost unnoticed:

Apparently, 27% of people think Hollywood is, politically, neutral. OK, fair enough, a quarter of people are morons. I get it. 42% of people recognize the truth: Hollywood is decidedly left-wing. But here's the really scary thing today: 5% (that's one in twenty for you other humanities majors) of respondants said that most hollywood films lean conservative. Who are these people, and which movies have they been watching?

The vast majority of Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq based on the "faulty" WMD intel. Now, of course, they tell us they were duped by the President, that they never would have voted for the war if they had known that there were no WMDs.

Meanwhile, today, Iranian president Akillinfidelsismyjob admits that Iran is pursuing NUCLEAR (not chemical, not biological, but freakin' NUCLEAR) capabilities. Iran is run by kooks who are far more radical than Sadaam, and probably guilty of even more crimes against humanity than he was.

OK, the question for the day for all of my liberal friends is this:

If democrats supported the invasion of Iraq because of suspicion of WMDs in the light of Sadaam's thumbing his nose at the UN Security Council resolutions, why are they so anxious to prevent any action against Iran?

What do YOU think? Yes or no? Should we give Iran the full-court press, up to and including an invasion?

I want to move to Texas.

I want to live in a place where they have a newspaper called the Liberty Post.

Where signs that read "we don't call 911" hang in convenience stores.

The state that used to be it's own frackin' country.

Home of Willie Nelson, George W. Bush, and the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders.

Final resting place of Davy Frickin' Crocket.

Tony Blair is an interesting figure.

On the one hand, he is as left as they come in terms of British politics. As leader of Labour, he's going to naturally be to the left of most Democrats in the United States on social issues as well as economics. Yet, he has been a staunch ally of the United States and President Bush in the war on terror.

Until now.

I can't fault the man for falling to political pressure. The fact of the matter is that, if a Democrat in the US had faced the same kind of opposition that Blair has faced in the UK, we'd have been out of Iraq before you could say "fat bloated bastard."

I guess it speaks to the testicular fortitude of George W. Bush that we haven't announced a timetable.

Hillary, however, has.

If you haven't got 'em, you just haven't got 'em.

Hillary wants the Confederate flag removed from the South Carolina statehouse grounds. Something bothers me about this.

OK, I know, I know. I've heard it. The Confederate flag, even if it doesn't represent slavery or racism to Bo and Luke Duke, it does represent slavery or racism or something to Jesse Jackson and his friends, so it's offensive. It's about reception as well as intention. Fine, fine. I disagree, but I'm tired of this particular argument for a while. We can revisit it another time.

I'm not even upset at the hypocrisy of Hillary. She never suggested removing the Confederate star from the Arkansas state flag, or pulling down the "lone star" Republic of Texas flag down off of the Texas Statehouse grounds. (Although, that would be a fun one to watch. Can you imagine the hell that Hillary would catch?)

And, honestly, the "support the troops from South Carolina by removing the Confederate flag, yet let's demand Bush bring them home without victory" argument is, by any logical estimation, flawed at best. But, that's not new, we've seen it a lot from Hillary. And I'm sure we'll see a hell of a lot more. That doesn't especially bother me today.

Nope. My big problem is this:

Hillary Clinton is a Senator. From New York. She thinks she needs to dictate to another State, South Carolina, what it should and should not do with its flags.

Hillary Clinton wants to be President. Of the United States. As which she, we should assume, would actually think she had the power to dictate to a state, like South Carolina, what it should do with its flags. Now, that is scary, my friends.

OK, so... as I understand it, it goes like this:

1. Boy likes to watch Band of Brothers.
2. Parents throw WWII-themed birthday party
3. Other parents throw a hissy fit, declare it inappropriate.

I played toy guns, toy swords, toy anything when I was a kid. I'm not particularly a violent person. Statistically speaking, most guys my age played with toy guns. We watched Rambo at 13 years old or younger. Yet we're not yearning for war.

But, if our nation is attacked, we believe it ought to be defended. And, if the whole world believes that a nation whose leaders sympathize with those that attacked us has WMDs, we believe it ought to be put out of business, whether or not we find the WMDs (after all, Iraq is a desert the size of California - there are lots of places to bury things).

And, it's endemic. The fact of the matter is that, at one time not that long ago, roughly 3/4 of Americans believed we were doing the right thing in Iraq. Now, that's more like 1/3 or a little more. People have just plain been worn down by the liberal media's anti-war agenda. I'm sorry, but when more people believe Michael Moore than Don Rumsfeld, something is seriously wrong.
Meanwhile, my congressman is worried about further regulating peanut butter manufacturer, and saying that salmonella in a few batches of PB means that our security is at risk.

On top of that, Nancy Pelosi is appointing bribe-taking congressman to the house homeland security committee. Oh, and she's also declared the War Powers Act invalid, all by herself.

She is third in line for the presidency.

If we aren't bombed to the fracking stone age by Iran in 20 years, I will be thoroughly surprised.

I think maybe I get it now. The Democrats and liberals are so set on this global warming thing that they're just going to get us all blown up to save us from the disasterous effects of global warming.

Maybe Bush will have the guts to just nuke the moon on his last day in office before Hillary takes over.