A parting shot.

Cindy Sheehan is going home.

I've always given my support to freedom of speech, even when I disagreed with it. I have always supported Cindy Sheehan's right to get out there and display her beliefs. As long as free speech doesn't mean violence or subversion, I'm quite glad to hear that there are a variety of voices out there. Even when others say things I don't like, I see it as an opportunity to express my own views.

Now, on her way out of public life, Cindy Sheehan has exercised her freedom of speech once again to say something quite interesting:

""Goodbye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I cant make you be that country unless you want it."

You see, I've said before that antiwar folks very often just hate America. When I say something like that, everyone else gets up in arms and says "you can't question my patriotism just because we disagree!" Historically, I've backed down, because I really am not comfortable challenging someones motives. I can challenge their beliefs or actions, but motives are internal, and between them and their God.

But when someone like Cindy Sheehan puts it all out there, you've got to wonder: how many people on the left really do hate America, and feel like it has to be made into a better country through things like protest? Cindy Sheehan will do a lot more towards making America better now that she's going home, trying to mend her family ties and, one hopes, become a hard-working productive citizen.

UNITED we stand.

I knew then, on September 15 of 2001, when I first saw the goofy liberals printing "United We Stand" bumper stickers that the waves of emotion would eventually die down and they would return to their American-hating ways. I knew they'd wind up accusing Bush of warmongering, even though war in Iraq was over a year and a half away. I kept silent, because I believed that I should have given them the benefit of the doubt.

Boy, was I wrong:



You see, the fact of the matter is that good politicians say things that are politically expedient. I know that should seem obvious, but sometimes I forget. You know, like when our country was attacked by militant Islamic fundamentalists. Does anyone out there on the left remember that?

I believed then (naively, it would seem) that just because people like John Edwards didn't agree with me on most political issues didn't mean they didn't love their country, or that they wouldn't prefer their own country to their country's enemies. But to declare how united we are in the midst of the crisis, it would seem, was just another bumper sticker for John Edwards.

O'Reily knew it then. This is one of those times I wish he'd been wrong.

Crap.

I'm of a mind that celebrities have the same right as anyone else to speak their piece when it comes to politics. Make no mistake; I believe that Rosie, Alec, and even Sean Penn can say whatever the hell that they want to say. (The obvious exception being that Alec can call Cheney a terrorist, but when he calls his daughter a pig his visiting rights probably ought to be limited.) At the same time, I've got the right to shut them off, to boycott their movies or shows, and to refuse to support networks that promote their views. At no point do I feel like the government needs to intervene, even when folks are spouting lies about our president and about our troops. Except in the most rare of circumstances, such as those handful of areas outlined in the United States Constitution, I don't really think that the government needs to get involved in much at all.

However, Sheryl Crow thinks that the government is needs to tell me how many squares of toilet paper I should use in one sitting. Now, without being too graphic, let me just say that my physiology makes it literally impossible to use less than 5 squares on a good day. I'm sure that Sheryl recognizes these sorts of situations must exist, so I assume that, because she doesn't "want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights," Sheryl would promote a system whereby, if I provide a notarized note from my doctor, I could be allowed a few extra squares. Of course, my TP license would have to be renewed on a regular basis, to make sure that the situation hasn't resolved itself. After all, it wouldn't be fair to everyone else if I got to keep using 5 squares.

Now, I used to have quite a bit of respect for Sheryl. She went on the USO tours, and was relatively mellow about the whole government-is-the-answer thing, preferring to take the individual responsibility route. I don't know if it's Laurie David's influence, or if she's just gone off her rocker the way that celebrities are prone to do. Truthfully, I don't much care. With this, I've lost respect for her.

The hypocrisy of the left on the issue of the environment has been covered elsewhere, but let me just point out that there are a hell of a lot of ways that Sheryl could reduce her carbon footprint, apart from restricting my use of TP, starting with the crap she needs for a tour. Hell, I'm not even calling for the government to force her to do anything. I'd like to see her announce that she's dropping 1 if not 2 busses. I'd like to see the plan for using all of that food and drink she demands, without having any go to waste. Nope, that would be too difficult. Better to have the government force Bob Younce use 1 square of TP than to disappoint her bass player.

Blinded by Ideology

We are less than 24 hours after the massacre at Virginia Tech.

Memorial service plans haven't even been finalized for the 32 victims of a derranged murderer.

Yet liberals are foaming at the mouth about gun control.

Now, I know us conservatives aren't supposed to have a heart, especially during a crisis. I know that that we've all got ice in our veins. I know we want to oppress women, starve old people, and make sure that minorities suffer. Hell, we're more often behind a crisis than not. I think I even remember seeing Cho at one of our super-secret meetings where we try to figure out how to keep stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

Still, I've noticed something about my comrades in the vast right-wing conspiracy: none of us are turning the tragedy in Virginia into a political issue. We're not calling for immigration reform, educational reform, or loosening of gun control. Nope, we're just sad, like most Americans, as we mourn the loss of our countrymen.

Stop the Crackpot

Please.

Everyone else has blogged it, so you don't need me to. But the fact of the matter is that whack-job conspiracy theorists like this, while I support fully their freedom to speak, need to not be paid to spew their crap on TV.

Fire can't melt steel.

Radical Christians are MORE dangerous than Radical Muslims.

This woman is from another fricking planet. She needs to be kicked to the curb. I can't believe there are people who fall for this crap! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Conspiracy

I spent some time this past weekend at Wrestlemania with my good friend, Doc.

Doc was, actually, the first of my little circle of friends in high school to start listening to Rush, back in 1989. Back then, Rush was just as edgy, feisty, and revolutionary as ever. He was taking the country by storm, filling the vacuum for conservative thought that left when Reagan left office. At the time, I was apolitical at best, and a populist at the worst. My intellectual rebirth wouldn't occur for another three years, and while Rush was entertaining, most of what he said just sort of passed over me.

Well, the last 20 years or so haven't been the kindest years to Doc. He's been through quite a bit, and has come out the other end a survivor who's ready to move forward. On balance, he doesn't seem too worse for the wear. He looked healthier this weekend than I've seen him in close to a decade. He's talking about going back to college, and about quitting drinking. He's being an extremely responsible father to his little guy. However, something has gone horribly awry.

Doc has become a liberal.

Now, something you need to know about Doc is that he's always liked to live close to the edge. He likes to say things that make people squirm, at least a little bit. He's always joked about conspiracy theories, such as the Catholic church being responsible for Kennedy's assassination. The more outrageous, the more he liked to talk about it. I always thought it was a joke.

So, imagine my chagrin when we were discussing the Iranian hostage situation and he said, "well, the British shouldn't have been in Iranian waters. They knew what they were doing, they deserve whatever the Iranians do to them."

I asked, of course, what he thought of the GPS data that showed that the Brits were in Iraqi waters. He said, "What makes you think we can believe that? Who put out those numbers? The British government, who are trying to cover their asses. I don't blame the Iranians one bit, after everything we've done to their neighbors in the last couple of years."

I knew the conversation was about over. I asked, plainly, "so, you believe that there is a British conspiracy to hide their soldiers' true activity?" A "yes" answer later, I knew that there was no reasoning with him on this one, and that it was time to talk about Wrestlemania.

I've found you just can't argue with someone who is dedicated to a pet conspiracy theory, no matter how many facts you throw at them.

Resistance and Agitation in the Birthplace of Freedom

Philly has a problem.

Like the leaders in most major metropolitain areas, the leaders of Philadelphia have decided that it should be against the law to smoke in a resturaunt. Motivated by millitant anti-smokers, backed up by doctors who have been politically radicalized, and leftists whose sole motivation is to concentrate government power, these bans have gone off in way too many places around the country.

Now, by way of disclosure, let me tell you that I used to be a smoker. I didn't start smoking until I was in my 20s, and I've quit and restarted a couple of times. I'm not smoking now, and have no intention of starting again. Any time someone cordially asked me to put out a cigarette, I did so with a smile. Anytime someone was nasty to me about it, I blew smoke in their face. Sometimes, being polite is really all you need to do to get your way.

But here's the thing: smoking is an individual choice. If I don't want to be around smoke, I don't go around smoke. If I don't want to eat in a resturaunt that has smoke, I don't go to that resturaunt. It is as simple as that. In this regard, I vote with my feet.

But this isn't good enough for some. No, they "look forward to the day when we can just say 'it's all smokefree, why bother?'"

I'll tell you why bother. Because this is America. This is a country that was founded on the freedom of individuals to do as they please. This is a country that prides itself on the liberty of its citizens to make sometimes stupid and irrational decisions.

The good news is that, just like those boys down the road in Boston who decided to make a big stink over some tea a while back, there are those in Philly who have the fortitude to stick it to the man, say "screw you, hippie, I'm letting people smoke in my four walls if I want to, you Nazi leftist pig!"

May their spirit, and the spirit of Edgar Friendly, wash over us all.

Why the Party is hanging Al Gonzales out to dry

I think I've figured it out. It's starting to make sense.

It's the same reason that Nixon didn't dispute the election in 1960 and Gore did 40 years later. It's the same reason that Nixon resigned and Clinton didn't. (That's an intentional comparison, by the way, for you liberal readers. I know you guys hate being compared unfavorably to Nixon).

It's the same reason that Republicans always seem to balk at defending their own from wrongdoing. And here it is: Conservatives are morally superior to liberals.

Now, I know. The liberals always lambaste conservatives for claiming to be, or feeling, morally superior. Yeah, it has a negative connotation. But, I don't think that it has to be all that bad. I think that it is all right to have a higher moral standard. I think that it is OK to call a spade a bloody shovel. If someone does something wrong, liberal or conservative, a conservative should be able to stay true to conscience and say, "you did something wrong."

Does this mean that conservatives don't have moral failings? Nope. Does this mean that they don't have just as many moral failings as liberals? Not at all. But it does mean that they have a sense of guilt. They have a sense that behaving badly is not all right, even when they do it themselves.

Just because Newt was having an affair at the same time as Clinton doesn't mean that Newt was right to do it and Clinton wasn't. Both were abhorrent. But, eight years on and Newt has said, "my affair was a moral failing on my part. It's something I've had to repent of and make up for." Bill's wife is still talking about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" who outed her husband's affair. Clinton has done nothing that would suggest contrition. Newt has.

Does contrition make it right? Again, no, it doesn't. Nothing makes it right, that's the point. Just like firing judges on a purely political basis, if that's what Al Gonzales did, was not right. No, it's not as bad as firing all 93 judges, including one who was investigating your business dealings. But the conservatives have this moral compass that tells them that corruption is corruption regardless of who commits it. Liberals don't.

Now, is it premature for Sununu to call for Gonzales to resign? Yeah, it is. The facts aren't all in yet. There is no reason that he should see Gonzales as red meat, at least not yet. That's at least as political and reprehensible as firing judges on political grounds.

Manufacturing Dissent

The AP has an interesting piece today on a documentary film made about liberal filmmaker (redundant, I know) Michael Moore. Among the more interesting nuggets:

• Roger Smith, then-CEO of General Motors and the focus of Moore's debut Roger & Me, actually met with Moore, not once, but twice.
• These meetings were not reported in the media until three years after Roger & Me was made.
• Michael Moore proved even more elusive than Roger Smith, with the two documentary makers making multiple attempts to interview Moore with no success.
• The two documentary makers are both self-proclaimed liberals who are, as a result of making this film, disappointed and disillusioned with Moore.

The most amazing part about this to me? That anyone could be "disappointed and disillusioned" with Moore in the first place, as it implies some sort of admiration to begin with. Most sane liberals abandoned Moore after Farenheit 9/11.

The Lunatic Fringe

From the Las Vegas Review Journal:

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

Now, I don't know who the editors are at the Las Vegas Review Journal, but it is nice to see that someone else out there gets it. I mean, for crying out loud, if Republicans had sworn off every left-leaning media outlet, there would be no White House press corps.

What is it that these nutjobs at Moveon.org are afraid of? They claim that Fox News is not a legitimate media outlet, yet the bureaucratic mouthpieces of NPR and PBS are somehow direly needed. Moveon.org claims to want NPR and PBS to be free of "partisan meddling," but they just don't get it: ANY outlet that is controlled by government is, by its very nature, partisan.

It's like the same loonies that think that funding elections publicly will remove corruption from the process. Hello? Is there any government-funded program that is not inherently prone to corruption? These dingbats disparage our Armed Forces during a time of war, and seek to defund our mission in Iraq.

Look, I'm all about liberty. Really, I am. I believe that we get the government that we deserve. But the fact of the matter is that there are a hell of a lot of really, really stupid people out there on the left, and they've got a much sexier message than those of us on the right.

After all, what sells better to the working class: "We want to raise your wages through the force of law," or "if you work harder to improve your station in life you can?"

The truth isn't always easy, and it isn't always popular, but it is still the truth.

The Daily Kosmonaut

I'd just like to see liberals live by their own rules for once. They can say "faggot" but Ann Coulter cannot. They can create fake polution offsets and burn more electricity than anyone, but God forbid I run my furnace above 68 degrees.

Liberalism is the embodiment of hypocrisy.

The web is not perfect

I'm not sure why I didn't find this sooner:

A response to Annie Defranco from 1993.

Could not have said it any better myself.

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Mike Adams has an interesting piece at TownHall.com today.

It amazes me what goes on in the name of intellectual freedom. Like I said before, there ought to be few limits on the freedom of speech. It comes down to the issues of relatively minor violations of the law (in the case of libel) or relatively major ones (in the case of treason).

So, would you think that someone who provides training manuals and videos to our enemies would be guilty of treason? Apparently not in Ohio. There, they let you teach at Kent State.

This guy needs to be arrested publicly (not in the middle of the night, like the Taliban would do), given a fair trial (unlike what would have occured under Saddam), and given a death sentence (Via a relatively painless lethal injection, unlike Nick Berg's death sentence) if convicted of giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

Can anyone honestly defend this guy? I'd love to hear anyone try it. Please. Five bucks (via Paypal) to anyone with even a slightly reasonable argument.

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

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.

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?

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.