MIND POLICE

This article refers to a 23-year-old man who was arrested Friday on hate-crime charges after he threw a Quran in a toilet at Pace University on two separate occasions, police said.

Now, as objectionable as throwing someone’s Koran in a toilet may be…IT IS NOT A CRIME. This person did not punch someone or shoot someone or harass someone and THEN throw the Koran in the toilet. It’s called free speech, and it looks like this person did nothing wrong. We can however burn the American flag in the name of free speech and that’s protected of course. Liberals always scream separation of church and state yet anything that might get some Muslims mad is somehow exempt from that rule. Like how it is not allowed to pray in public schools but if you want to put a footbath for Muslims at a taxpayer funded college, well that’s cool.

What is a “hate crime” anyway? It’s the thought police, it’s a silence of free speech, and it’s using the word ‘hate’ have people think twice before they say what they want to. Dare I say sometimes hate is justified? I hate people who rape children. I hate murders. I hate how the Democrats are trying to secure defeat in Iraq. That’s warranted and protected, isn’t it? Yes, or course it is. Unless you talk against a Muslim. Again, they are exempt from the rules.

Oh, and why is it not a “hate crime” when anything Catholic is defaced? Remember the cross in the jar of urine. Or how about the “painting” of Mary defaced with dung? Oh, that’s right, it’s in the name of art! Silly me, art is great free expression and cannot be condemned because of the gray area art encompasses. Dare you criticize that, well, you just don’t get the complexity of the message the artist is sending. We are awaiting what CAIR thinks about this; somehow I don’t think they’ll take the side of free speech...

QUEEN BEE BEAUTIFUL

Queen Bee Pelosi is the 4th most beautiful person on Capitol Hill according to thehill.com.

Name: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)
Age: 67Hometown: Baltimore, Md.
Political Party: DemocratD
ating Status: Married to Paul Pelosi

It is rather uncomfortable calling the 67-year-old House Speaker HouseNancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.), mother of five and grandmother of six, “hot.” So we let
others decide. There is a Facebook.com group called “I can’t say why, but I
kinda think Nancy Pelosi is cute.” There’s another group there, too, but its
name is too crass to print.Moreover, Pelosi has become a fashion icon in
colorful Armani skirt-suits.Robin Givhan, the Washington Post fashion critic,
earlier this year wrote, “She looks polished and tasteful … dignified and
serious [and] she also happens to look quite good.” A copy of a Chinese Sea
Pearl ring that Pelosi has been wearing sells on eBay. Opening bid: 88 cents.No
question that wealth, posh homes and a loving family have helped smooth the
rough edges of life.Nevertheless, it is puzzling just how the first female
Speaker of the House stays so fit. She is always working and traveling, rarely
exercises and reportedly noshes on Ghirardelli mint chocolates. Maybe Pelosi was
right when she told The New York Times, “Ice cream for breakfast is a good
thing.”

I’ll tell, I didn’t know she is 67. I guess for her age she looks good. This will probably make Hilary jealous though and Bill might have a new prospect. We’ll see!

BRILLIANT PICTURE

It just makes so much sense. HAHA. Credit to RushLimbaugh.com

THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS!!!

Symbolism over substance at its best! Lizzy Edwards gives up tangerines in order to fight global warming. "We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit. The Politico article is posted here.

Lizzy talked about 'sacrifice' in order to fight global warming. Apparently giving up tangerines is a tough decision for her. Perhaps tougher than realizing her husband is more of a woman than her? I bet you there are some commy libs out there that would love to institute a tangerine ban. That is when I say, "Get the hell away from me. If I want to eat tangerines I am eating a tangerine. And if I want to take a tangerine and not eat it and let it rot, I'll do that too. Stay out of my business!"

The sick part is that she really believes this is going to have a huge impact to save the fever-ridden planet. Oye, where does it end!

SOPHISTRY!!! THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK

This is a quote from Senetor John Kerry (D, MA) from this article from the AP:

In Washington, Sen. John Kerry, said Bush "is trying to scare the American people into believing that al Qaida is the rationale for continuing the war in Iraq." But Kerry said Bush presented no new evidence to back that up, and added: "The president is picking the wrong rationale for this war. Al-Qaida is not the principal killer of American forces in Iraq."

The Dems now say al-Qaida was never in Iraq prior to 9/11 and because of that there was no justification for going to war (never mind the fact that the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly for the “Use of Force in Iraq”). Lets assume for one second Kerry and the other Dems are right (and their not); wouldn’t the fact that al-Quida is now in Iraq justify being there? Isn't that the justification they wanted? Doesn’t that mean Iraq is of some importance since al-Qaida is in fact fighting us there?

Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Al-Qaida's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri has himself declared so! He has also said, "A US bill calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq is proof of Washington's defeat." Someone in the media should really ask Senate Majority Leader Harry "American Gothic" Reid if he agrees with Zawahiri's comments. My answer is that he does! Mr. Reid is the one who has said "the war is lost" on multiple occasions!

Anyone who says the actions of this Democrat Congress (whose approval rating is around 15% mind you, lower than the Presidents) is not emboldening our enemies is smoking something the Dems wish was legal. Also, what is this “principal killer of American forces in Iraq” line? If al-Qaida isn’t the number one killer, it means some other group is. Again, his justification for leaving can be easily refuted. Well Mr. Kerry, if the largest killer of our military is what you want, then let’s continue to find and kill them all as well! Give victory a chance!

OUR ENEMIES ARE THE SAVAGES

I refer you to this article that explains how Iran is cracking down on ‘slack dressing that targets both men and women whose clothing and haircuts are deemed to be unIslamic.’ "The police will act against those whose trousers are too short, have skin-tight coats, shirts with Western logos and Western hairstyles." Women in Iran are already obliged to cover all bodily contours and their heads but in recent years many have pushed the boundaries by showing off bare ankles and fashionably styled hair beneath their headscarves.

Now, let me ask you, where are all these do-gooder, good intentioned lib groups that claim to be advocates for minorities and the weak because they are oh so open minded and tolerant? Take this particular issue and ask yourself, where is the National Organization for Women (NOW)? We should also ask why they (NOW) don’t rail against rappers who treat women as objects and hoes rather than people (keep in mind all these rappers are libs too). Well, I’ll tell you why NOW won’t go after this and fight for what’s right. The last thing they want to be called is discriminatory, or Islamophobic, or racist; so they stay out of the fight and target America for the obviously unjust place it is. I mean, c’mon, women can’t do anything here; vote, work, go out in public without being covered head to toe. Oh that’s right, men and women aren’t paid exactly equally so we must suck big time, eh? Of course, America must be so closed minded, intolerant, and overly traditional.

GET REAL.

Societies are not created equal, and these ‘advocacy groups’ try to dummy down America and the individual rights it offers to get it on an equal playing field with other countries, i.e. the Middle Eastern ultra-intolerant Islamic countries. This is the basic premise of multi-culturalism; having every country/ideology (except conservatism)/culture as equal entities. Also, why isn’t GLAAD in this fight against radical Islam? In most Middle Eastern countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, a homosexual male or female is automatically executed inhumanely (stoning, hanging, ect) just for being gay! But of course, it is we in America who are really the intolerant ones. I mean, gay marriage isn’t allowed in all 50 states. We must be inherently evil, right? Again, they don’t want to be called is discriminatory, or Islamophobic, or racist. In lib world, being called any -ory or -phobic word is the worst thing imaginable.

It really frosts me when I see liberals and Democrats and their selective moral outrage. It seems that if America isn’t to blame, there isn't any point of bringing it up. Any atrocity the enemy commits (yes John Edwards, there is an enemy, believe it or not), they are marginalized because ‘they are just an oppressed minority and if it weren’t for Bush going after them they wouldn’t want to hurt us. “They are mothers and father too,” said the Rosie (the previous line was said in a very unmanly wuss voice)’

It bugs the hell out of me the lib media will not, absolutely will not, report enemy atrocities, but when a few naked terrorists are put in a pile we are somehow worse than them (the media also seldom reports that the soldiers who did this at Abu Ghraib were punished for their actions, and rightfully so. We at least realize when we are wrong and rectify it, unlike the terrorists). Our men have been beheaded and Iraqi women and children raped by Al Qaeda, but when was the last time you saw media outrage at that? Oh that’s right John Murtha, only our soldiers “rape women and children in the dark of night. Or how about this:

The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited
to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each
instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David
Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He
stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, "What did he say?" Wallach
said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then
their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked.
Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

That’s right, the enemy bakes kids and serves them to their parents and this isn't on the front page of the New York Slimes or any of the major letter (ABC, NBC, CBS) or cable networks? Who are the savages, the unjust ones, and the animals cowering by hiding in caves? It’s not us. On 9-11 our brave servicemen didn't run out of the WTC, they ran into it. We are a brave nation and challenge evil. Liberals seldom realize this. If they really want to wage a battle against intolerance, radical Islam is the place to start. Their hatred of Bush and America blinds them to the point where they, the so-called ‘purveyors of morality’ won’t even condemn baking children. If it weren’t for talk radio, this story along with countless others would have never been seen.

Defending Tax Cuts & Reagan

My good buddy Capt Sack responded to my last post, A Roaring Economy. It was a good post; I’m not going to lie. I commend Capt Sack on asking honest questions to promote serious debate. There is way to little of it going on. Most “debate” now consists of an obligatory cliché one liner followed by a character assassination. Here is what the Capt replied with:

The rich pay more money, but a lower percentage of their overall gross than the
middle-class or working-class does. $10,000 in taxes to a family of five making
$80,000 on Long Island means far more than $2,000,000 in taxes to someone making
$30,000,000 a year as a Wall Street hotshot. I know it's an extreme example, but
the rich do have far many more tax loopholes than the average joe does. Paying
the most doesn't necessarily mean paying your fair share.The truth is, the
solution is a flat tax. Without the complications of the tax code, everyone pays
their fair share. It would be a fairly low rate to be fair (for federal, well
under 20%, if not even under 10%, depending on the numbers). Then, there's no
bull. You want kids, a house, a fourth house for your yacht? No tax breaks,
period. It's all a fairer world, so no one can really complain about their tax
thresholds and tax bills. Ohh, and Reagan killed unions. He hurt blue-collar
America more than any other President.

First, as far as tax loopholes go, the rich certainly have more. There is no disagreement with that point. However, I would argue that the rich deserve those loopholes and the cuts they get. They are the ones helping in creating jobs and still contributing most to the system. One person’s achievement is not necessarily another’s loss; we do not operate under a zero-sum game. Onerous taxes have a direct correlation and deterrent affect on income and wealth of jobs. Taxation doesn’t create wealth and prosperity, but more money in the peoples pockets sure do.

“Paying the most doesn't necessarily mean paying your fair share.” And who decides that? What is a fair amount for a rich person to pay? It depends on your ideology I suppose. I believe the American people, in general, are overtaxed, not under taxed. Also, why does someone who works for their money, illustrates their excellence, and helps the economy owe the slackers, the ones who fall behind? The point I was trying to make is that the economy is great right now, and tax cuts and rate reductions and Bush do not get any credit for it.

Lastly, a point was made regarding the 80’s and death of the blue-collar worker. I must reiterate the 96 straight uninterrupted months of economic growth. 20 million long-term jobs were created, ranging from blue collar to white collar and service workers. Because of these newly created jobs the number of people living in poverty decreased by almost 4 million from 83-89. But most important, lets not forget about the Reagan Democrats, who were mostly white, socially conservative blue-collar workers from the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his hawkish foreign policy. In 80 and 84, this group was very important in establishing his landslide victories.

Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, analyzed white, largely unionized autoworkers in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. (last paragraph taken from wikipedia)