I decry that PC attitude in Britain, and we seem to be headed in the same direction---and we need to battle that headlong flight with everything we have.

It seems many people still haven't caught on that Islam is the bubonic plague of the 21st Century [as it also was a few hundred years ago.]  Don't bloviate with sugary platitudes trying to convince others that the radical Muslim is the problem.  The so-called 'good Muslims' don't exist.  If they did, they'd be leading the charge with change and horror at the realities of the 'other' Muslims.  The 'religion' itself does not preach peace.  [People like to cherry-pick from the Koran in an attempt to prove it is.]  It's mysogonistic.  It preaches death to Israel, Jews, and non-Muslims everywhere---and the violent Muslims are doing there best to achieve those ends.  The reason the Moors were in Spain was because the Muslims tried to spread Islam by the sword.  It took Charles the Hammer to get them out of Europe.  Islam preaches that the Crusades were unprovoked and the holocaust never happened.  It preaches that there's a 'heaven with 70 virgins' for each mass murderer.

Great Britain is fearful of offending these Muslims.  That's a dangerous way to live.  [Excuse me Mr Lucifer.  I'm sorry for praying for help against you.]  Fred Thompson states simply that the mindset of too many Brits is leading to these poor decisions at the local level [removing 'offense']---fueled by the seemingly unchecked influx of Muslims into the country.

His fear is the same 'mindset' taking over our local decision makers in the United States.  He isn't calling for the federal government of either country to step in.  He's decrying the individuals of so many cities and towns falling prostrate before the increasingly damaging political correctness.  Is it so strange to you that someone in politics is direction his comments to the people without calling for federal action?

In the United States, this is no time to attempt a Congressional coup.  This is no time to appoint yourself an ambassador to Syria [a Muslim country] ala Nancy Pelosi.  This is no time to claim the 'war is lost', the 'war is lost', the'war is lost!'  [Harry 'Chicken Little' Reid]  This is no time to be burying the descriptive term 'Global War on Terror.'  This is no time to be burying anything or anyone we don't have to---unless it's traitors.  This is no time to be crying impeachment for imagined crimes.

And this is no time to be acting divisive to the extreme.  The Democrats have a penchant for being divisive and obstructionist, and they need to grow up.  Dividing the Nation because of faulty thinking is not the way to go.  We need to speak with one voice to tell the world of Islam that we will stand strong and defeat our enemies.

President Madison said it well:  “It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none.”  Well said.

Now, here on Townhall, too many 'readers' aren't actually reading what they see.  They're scanning the essays to pick up buzz words and phrases, whether or not they understand the context surrounding them.

This leads to misrepresentation of concepts, pointless rant, and off-topic comments.

The Presidential election is in November 2008 and not April 2007.  I, for one, am quite happy with someone sitting back, saving money and energy, and generally enjoying the field's free-for-alls and 'bloodbaths' from the sidelines for the next few months.  There's still plenty of time to declare and start a run for the Presidency.  As for me?  I wish all the candidates would shut up for awhile and leave my ears alone.  

And if Fred Thompson does declare his run for the Presidency, what better way to prepare for the announcement then to write articles at Townhall stating his beliefs?  How else will he get his word out without an official run?  Few people are going to bother researching his Senate record, and the main-stream media won't report much truth about him.  So why not write on Townhall?  Fred Thompson isn't a Liberal.  If he was he'd be in small print on the Daily Kos.  

In answer to some readers:  The South wasn't a 'nation.'  It was a group of States trying to secede from the Union because of States' Rights matters.  The Confederacy was just that: a group of States trying to secede from the Union.  And the federal troops were not 'foreign' troops.  Fort Sumter was a federal fort, and part of the United States, as were the seceding States.  Brother against brother.  Remember?

There's a cult-religion in these here woods, and it's a pervasive one.  It's adherents proselytize on every street corner in America.  It's not recognized as a cult-religion yet, but it is one, and it's value system and beliefs sometimes defy the imagination.

It used to be that Liberalism was the defender of freedom for the individual and protector of human rights for everyone.  No more.  Below, I have shown the draft manifesto I found in the gutter near the local rendering plant one day.  It says a lot about this cult-religion.  [I wonder if there was a Conservative mole on the drafting committee?]

***

LIBERALIST MANIFESTO [sic for everything]   Daft Draft

[NB This document must be kept secret from the vast, right-wing conspiracy.  Those people and their habit of keeping things secret from the public is abhorrribibble.]

We gather together, without a defined God [because we don't really know anything about her]---in order to keep ourselves free from any taint of religiosity or anything like that---to promote ourselves our principles of Liberalism and stuff. 

We agree to criticize and, like, attack those vile 'publicans and conservativees every chance we get, without regard to who's right or who's wrong about anything.

We agree to defend our belief system and actions in debates, even if it takes changing the subject whenever a valid question makes us uncomfortable.

We believe that all political polling data must come from approved Liberal sources, such as the Washington Post, New York Times, Slate, Ronald McDonald, and The Daily Kos. 

We believe that if, in any elections, the approved exit polls are different from the election results, we must assume fraud on the part of the non-Liberal.  If said exit polls are 1% different from the election results, there must be a recount in favor of the Liberal.  All chads should be hung until dead.

We believe that every vile 'publican and conservativee in private life or politics is always wrong in action, inaction, statement, and silence.

We agree to be as anti-American pragmatic as we can be, because we disagree with everything that's going on in this country, even if we did it.  We rather like the laws and government of Upper Mongolia instead.  Even France has better laws and national defense position than us.

We believe in tolerance of other religions, as long as they aren't Christian in nature.  We especially distrust Catholics and Fundamentalists because we don't understand them.  We don't want the Pope to run the United States.  All other religions belief systems are equal, except that Liberalism is more equal than others.

We believe in apologizing for everything the vile 'publicans and conservativees do and say at all times to all people and all countries, especially when they use words we don't like or can't understand or can't spell. 

We apologize to the late early omnipresent William Jefferson 'Bill' Clinton for the great wrong done by the House of Representatives in impeaching him way back when.  We offer the same apology to his lovely wife, the should-be-President Hillary Clinton---the smartest woman in the World---and her only begotten daughter, Chelsea, who-should-also-be-president.

We believe in the sanctity preferability of human life as long as it's wanted and out of the womb [and away from our knives and other weapons], especially if it's on death row for murder.

Mental illness in mass murderers must be addressed through counseling and not prison.  It's not their fault, but probably due to childhood abuse in not being spoiled but forced into personal responsibility.

We believe in diplomacy at all times.  Every problem in the World can be solved if we could all just sit down and get along.  Foreign governments are all legitimate, and we can believe and rely on their honor at all times.  Roving ambassadors for our country---providing they're adherents to our religion party-line beliefs---can come from the ranks of our Party in Congress at any level.  Our country will abide by any agreements they negotiate.

We firmly believe in mankind's sad causing of global warming, and assign to the United Nations the un-vetoable right to guide us in saving the globe from such global warming---as it sees fit---and other phony schemes business we might assign to it.

We believe in "An Inconvenient Truth", and the crap gems of wisdom it imparts.  Al Gore should be proposed for UN Secretary General.  He will be given a cubit zirconium ring as a sacred serious sign of his engagement.

We must continue a dialogue with our friends, the Islamic Terrorists Friendship Council, so that we can all live in pieces peace.  Besides, we still need their oil and gasoline for our SUVs.

We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil without additional oil drilling in or near the United States, use of nuclear power plants, use of hydro-electric power, or the use of our abundant coal---the latter which we need to hold the topsoil up above the salt mines.  We prefer and promote wind-mills, solar panels, and power plants run by really big batteries.

We believe these things tttrrruyuutthhs [that's a tough word to say, Rosie!] to be self-evidence, in alphabetical order:

    Privacy is a guaranteed right by the US Constitution, right next to the right to write right---er left. Right?
    The first amendment to the US Constitution applies only to Liberals and their prodg prag pradg children.
    The second amendment to the US Constitution was really meant only for a weak military or the PC Police, and not for the people in general.  But, the right to bare arms can be exorcised by anyone over the age of 75.
    Liberal politicians are never subject to the search and seizure of any of their drugs stash personal property.
    The sixteenth amendment to the US Constitution applies only to the rich, non-Liberals of the country---if any exist after our policies take effect.
    Any rights not in the US Constitution are reserved to the States run by the Democrat/Liberal Party.
    Murder Abortion on demand is a guaranteed right by the US Constitution.
    The US Constitution must be interpreted in the approved Liberal way, formally or informally.  The Supreme Court must be enlarged to insure proportional representation of blacks, women, trans-genders, gays, Native Americans, Creoles, Chinese, French, Canadian, Welfare Moms, Arabs, and other special interests the Congress may determine in the future
    Our country's borders must remain porous to help out the poor, unfortunate Muslims and Mexicans of the World.  Citizenship should be granted when the proper short form [or a post-it note] is mailed into the Immigration Department [free franking, of course.]
    The national voting age should be lowered to, like, eleven [11], the same age as for abortions without, like, parential consent.
    Salary for federal Representatives and Senators should be on a two-tiered basis, with the Democrat/Liberals receiving payment in the ratio of four to one [4:1] to that of the non-Liberals.
    Democrat/Liberal Congressman deserve retirement pay at age fifty [50] no matter how long they have served the public [heh heh], and at a rate equal to twice their Congressional salaries with a liberal expense account as voted on by the Democrat/Liberal caucus.
    Democrat Presidents may serve up to sixteen years without a new vote, especially if their last name is Clinton.
    Having to spend the night [or more than one hour] alone with Rosie O'Donnell is not to be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
   
We hereby appoint and anoint the following individuals as elders of our Democrat/Liberal religion Party, with the power to speak on behalf of all of us dues-paying members and change their comments depending on the above approved polls:

Hillary 'Twang' Clinton; Bill 'I Didn't Have Sex With That Woman' Clinton; Al 'Stickman' Gore; Nancy 'Travelin' Nan' Pelosi; Chuckee Cheese Schumer; Harry 'Lost' Reid; Eddie 'The Swimmer' Kennedy; Robert 'Fling the' Byrd; Barack 'Mr Experience' Obama; Joey Biden; Barbara 'The' Boxer; Rosie 'Mouth' O'Donnell; Barbra 'Color Me Dumb' Streisand; Tom Cruise-o-matic; Robert Red-ford; Diane Feinstein; Carolyn Maloney; Sean 'Ambassador' Penn; George 'Lib$$$$' Soros; John 'The Rant' Murtha; Tom 'Mr Syria' Lantos; Barney 'Do I Dare?' Frank; Major 'Minor' Owens; Charles 'Home on The' Rangel; Aaalll Shhhharptin; Jesse Jackson Five; Jimmy 'the Carpenter' Carter; Maxine 'Muddied' Waters; Cynthia 'My Pulitzer Ha Ha!' Tucker; James 'Always a Kind Word' Carville; Cindy 'I Know Everything' Sheehan; Al Frankenstein; Don Imus; and Howard 'the Duck' Stern.   

Signed: [Rosie has the list!  It's restricted so those vile 'publicans and conservativees can't keep it secret.]

***

Early last week, I confessed my sins to the Right Reverend Joseph Motther, and he gave me a difficult penance.  Father Motther told me to pray for the downtrodden, or I would sure as h*e*l*l end up in H*e*l*l.  I did my best, but still feeling guilty, I went to sleep and had a dream.

I dreamed that I was wandering the Elysian Fields riding a maidenform donkey who, true to his type, didn't know where he was going.  We meandered about until we came upon the factory noted above [run by Ms Berenice], and I sold the donkey as raw material for glue.  Among the many rings in the field, I found the above noted document---and present it for your perusal.  Yet, I must continue to endure the vitriolic donkey called Rosie badgering my every dream.  Oh, won't you please help me?

***

The above wasn't hard to put together, but it was actually difficult to throw a lot of good things out to keep the piece reasonably short [there's so much raw material provided by said Liberals.]  After having researched this and my 'Korn on the Kos', I continue to thank my lucky stars that I'm on the sane side of reason.  And if anyone is offended by my disdain for Liberals---well, that's too bad.  You Liberals are all pro-choice.  Use it to leave the mush-headed group you call home.  On the other hand, I deny having anything to do with the above.  It was used without my permission.

Please send all complaints to AlG2000 at the Daily Kos.  Don't bother me here, or you'll just be proving some of my points.

Entertainer Sheryl Crow and "An Inconvenient Truth" producer, Laurie David, have joined together with Australian Scientist, Roger Short, to promote two powerful ways to combat man-made global warming.  In a separate venue, this triumvirate will be selling signed photos printed on re-cycled toilet paper and pulped sage brush.

Ms Crow and Ms David want us to reduce our use of toilet paper in an effort to control this man-made global warming.  Ms Crow suggests using no more than one square per bathroom visit, or three squares when needed.  "I propose to put a limitation on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting [sic]...[paper napkins] represent the height of wastefulness."

When reminded that much of both products is made from re-cycled paper---thus reducing the blight on the environment---Ms Crow had no comment.  She waved her brown-stained fingers with the Marlboro Lite and sipped her Bombay martini.

I'd like to see [from afar] someone who can manage to get by using only three squares of toilet paper on a maximum visit to the bathroom---but I won't be shaking his hand anytime soon.

Australian Professor Short, on the other hand [thankfully], is an esteemed reproductive biologist who points out our error in judgment in cremating our dearly departed.  He suggests, that in lieu of cremation, we bury our loved ones in cardboard boxes at the bases of trees.  The decomposing bodies can then return nutrients to the growing trees, thus returning nature to a pristine existence [its a rain-forest out there!]  [Uncle Fred's visage on the blossoming buds above his cardboard boxed body are a plus for the relatives.]

To reduce her own carbon footprint, Ms Crow, a singer, has reduced her touring entourage to three tractor trailers, four buses, six cars, and a partridge in a pear tree.  

Furthermore, Ms Crow has reduced her demands for the promoters of her shows to supply her with the basic necessities of life.  For each show, among hundreds of other things, she requires: 12 bottles of Grolsch Beer, 6 bottles of local beer, 1 bottle of Australian cabernet [probably in honor of Roger Short], 1 bottle of good merlot, and 1 bottle of hard liquor---the type depending on the day of the week, but to include: Maker's Mark Bourbon, Bombay Gin, Courvoisier Cognac, champagne, silver tequila, Absolut Vodka, and appropriate fresh and bottled mixers; a pack of Marlboro Lites, disposable lighter, [8 Ming Dynasty ashtrays], 8 pairs of black sox, 6 postcards with stamps, 1 bar of soap, and two turtle doves for her pear tree.  The promoters can clean up the mess later.

Ms Crow has kindly agreed to provide all towels.

Personally, I'd suggest more soap since she's only going to be using three squares of toilet paper.

Today, I decided to look over the Daily Kos in detail---or at least as much as I could before becoming brain weary.  I say that now, but I really tried to look the site over with as neutral an eye as I could call forward.

Daily Kos looks okay, I guess [too many broken links], but it's all blog, diary [blog], and 'commentary' on the subject noted---though often, there's real difficulty in reconciling off-topic articles and off-topic comments with the stated subject.]   I read through a number of blogs, diaries, and postings until my mind asked me, "Why are you wasting my time?"  And navigating around it is a nightmare.  The orange motif gets to you rather quickly, if the illogical programming doesn't get there first.  Do the Kos programmers and designers work part-time for the IRS?

Kos's search engine sucks.  It's just plain hard to navigate, and when it does deign to provide listings relative to the search, it doesn't sort them in any way.  But I did persevere in three things. The 'About' page claims that diaries on Kos were written by Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.  Going back five years [the beginning], I searched all over the place, in every corner of Kos I could.  No sign of any of them.  They must have written in disappearing pixels.  And when I entered Hillary Clinton's name for a search---why, my computer froze.  I can't blame it.

The Daily Kos seems to not like Hillary Clinton very much---"...but she's better than any of the Republicans..."  Apparently, the Kos crowd is for Barack Obama.  Sorry, I have no sympathy for them.  I still haven't heard anything specific or good from Obama, but he's black, and I guess the Liberals have to vote for him to maintain their racial neutrality.  [But, just check out what Hillary and Bill had to say to the two State Senators in South Carolina.  I won't repeat it here.  It's too--okay, I will.  Basically, they claimed that having a black at the top of the ticket would ruin the Democrat Party.  They wanted South Carolina's Democrat vote.  Way to go, smartest woman in the world.

I read of the writer claiming he was wrong in criticising David Obey, the Democrat chairman of the House Appropriations committee.  Apparently, Obey had insulted protestors about the proposed US [Democrat] concession to a loss of the Iraq war.  Obey had also claimed that "liberals are idiots" and only he knew how things work re the Iraq withdrawal.  It was claimed he was under stress---presumably from dealing with the big bad republicans, I suppose.  I guess his explanations to the Lefties were accepted, since he's now back in their good graces.

I found the Kos writing to be vacuous, generalized and idealistic, constantly denigrating Republicans---especially President Bush---downbeat, and nothing on the site proposes any sort of solution to anything--but still professing in word and attitude the Liberal's 'superior' position in the scheme of things.  Many posts were incomprehensible or even more vacuous than the rest of the site.  Comments, diaries and stories with specific concepts remain lost in the great somewhere.  I couldn't find any.

Many of the comments posted included quotes from 'famous writers' having little or nothing to do with the article---which had little or nothing to do with the announced subject.  The comments then showed little of any interest, except maybe a cheer or two.

I submit the following:

"Markos Moulitsas Zúniga -- the founder and head guru of the popular political blog "Dally Kos" picked up the recent USA Today, saw Senator Barack Obama's face, and since "Kos" as he's called gets about $4,900 a week from Hillary Clinton , he decided to do what any fanatical supporter of the New York Senator would do: misquote Senator Barack Obama."  Since this was dated April 1, of course, we have to look at it somewhat askance.  I wonder how much of it is true though?  I wouldn't put anything past Hillary.  And see below.

A quote from Ambrose Bierce:  "A Conservative is a statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them for others."  The Kos writers are amused about the Conservative part, but they pointedly ignore the Liberal part.

"Republicans are not a national party anymore."  Wishful thinking.

Daily Kos permits the posting of four letter words like F**k.

"Barney Frank is still my hero." Yuccchh!

Polling data friendly to the Liberal view is cherry-picked from the---undeniably fair and balanced---Washington Post.  The results not to their liking are ignored.

Bees are dying all over the planet:  No solution [or even discussion] given or hinted at; it's all because of 'global warming' affecting climate; or off topic rambles of no consequence.

"The Bush Administration is wrong in action, inaction, statement, and silence."  Doesn't leave much, does it?  That's okay, I guess.  After all, Nancy Pelosi is trying to act presidential.

The Daily Kos claims a lot of ad income helps it exist; if one subscribes, one could skip the ads.  I'm not a subscriber, just an intelligent slummer, and I saw no evidence of a single ad anywhere on the site.  So one has to wonder where the Daily Kos gets its funds.  Hmm?  Who's backing it?  See Hillary Clinton comment above.

The dKospedia "is written from a left/progressive/liberal/democratic point of view while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other sides."  I saw no evidence of a fair acknowledgement of the other sides.  [By the way, the correct party name is Democrat.  You'd think the left would know that.  And their beloved party is certainly far from democratic.]

"If the exit polls are different from the election results, there must be fraud."  Wow!  The media is the expert when it comes to elections, eh?  Polls never lie.

"If the exit polls are 1% different from the election results, there must be a recount."  People leaving the polls never lie to obtrusive media rats, do they?

There are numerous complaints about the 2004 Arizona law requiring voters to provide a photo ID or produce two IDs showing name and address.  Seems fair to me, but the Liberal writers are incensed about it.  Unfair to illegal immigrants, you know.

Fred Thompson is no Conservative because: he chaired John McCain's Presidential run in 2000; he co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold election reform bill; voted for President Clinton in his Senate trial; is a consistent federalist [with no specific proof of the latter assertion---or any for that matter.]  That's it.  That's why Fred can't be a Conservative, and we can't vote for him.  But, on the other hand, no one over at the Daily Kos is singing his praises.

Still, despite an occasional trip to the other side, Fred Thompson remains substantially Conservative.  His Senate votes very closely agreed with those of other Republicans.  Actually, McCain-Feingold was his major disagreement, though I think his explanation on Fox News certainly put that complaint to rest.  In fact, the Conservative Union shows that Thompson's lifetime Senate voting record is at 86%, the 14% lack due to the McCain-Feingold votes.

We consider Anthony Kennedy's writing of the majority position in the recent Supreme Court---deciding that the Federal ban on partial birth abortion is constitutional---as being a fine dissertation, justifying the vote.  That vote was a close, but it was the correct decision.  The left on Kos, however, has decided that Kennedy's writing is "grossing them out."

"[Justice] Kennedy [in his opinion]...returns to grossing us out.  With a stirring haiku about how 'respect' for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has with her child."  That's grossing the reader out?  Haiku in a Supreme Court opinion?  How sad for the left.

"...Bush...has stuffed the federal beauocracy [sic] with partisan religious ideologues who, in many cases have dubious job qualifications or almost no qualifications at all..."  Now, where does that come from?  Who knows?  The writer provides no sources, names, events, or positions, or anything whatsoever about the claim.

Then I came across a "story" [at least they properly classify it] in re On Life, Liberty and Livelihood.  The entire article was vague and difficult to follow.  It kept  repeating Liberal mantras with no specific facts one way or the other.  Sort of pie-in-the-sky, as it were.  Look! Up in the sky!  It's a bird!  It's a plane!  It's a pumpkin pie!

"...re-assemble a commonwealth..."  [Let's start over, I suppose.]

"...elected officials...serve in positions of trust of their [American People's] pleasure..."  This is again rather vague, but it would tend to support the President's right to fire eight federal attorneys.  Left hand not knowing what the right hand is saying?

"..If you value liberty then stop ending so much of it..."  Yet, this is exactly what the Liberals are trying to do with their restrictions on freedoms re: guns; protection of life; Conservative speech; Christianity and its religious expression; 'it's okay not to take your mental medication to keep you somewhat sane for normal life.  Don't worry about it.  We wouldn't want to violate your rights.'; Dr Kervorkianism; 'just talk the poor soul [maniac] out of his rampageism.  He won't hurt anyone if we talk softly to him.'; and so forth.

"...basic value of government is securing the blessings of liberty.."  Sorry, the basic value of government is the GUARANTEEING of the blessings of liberty---something God-given to all.

A John McCain misquote.  "Bomb Iran, Bomb Iran."  Frankly, that makes little sense.  His real comments were to the Beach Boys' tune, Barbara Ann:  "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran"  I doubt he meant it literally.  It was a joke, and I thought it was quite humorous.  But the left has no sense of humor unless there's a bashing of President Bush.  Perhaps, John McCain was thinking of President Reagan's comment about pushing the button.  It certainly helped scare the Soviets.  A few years later, their communist government collapsed.  But, I don't want to wait for this to happen in Iran.  That government is absolutely maniacal right now.

"...I have never been able to think of these school-shooter kids as monsters...just mentally ill...and in need of help..." and with the appropriate counseling, they'd be fine, of course.  Don't kid yourself, my friends.  All the talking in the world won't change a monster.

A diary was posted about the Evangelicals taking over the US Military---a terrible thing to the writer and his comment posters.  Most of the people complaining, though, were pagans and wicca. "...growing atmosphere of Evangelical Christian religious coercion and oppression of religious and philosophical minorities in the United States Military...and who speaks of God in the temporal realm?  Pat Robertson?  John Hagee?" [I had to look him up.]  Whoa!  Got any specifics? Quotes?  Names?  Events? Actions?  Of course not.

"...various ministries on the right inculcate children into the ideology of religious warfare..."  Wow!  More vitriol with no basis.  Did you parents sending your child to parochial school know that your kids are being taught guerilla tactics?

Kos I told you so, that's why!

In response to:  Pulitzer Racket by Brent Bozell
***

When I was a kid, I had a lot of respect and awe for the winners of the Nobel Prizes, Pulitzer Prizes, and Oscars.  I watched the latter every year with bated breath.  [I also voted for Miss Rheingold] For they were all awards for excellence in my young eyes.

As I grew older [past 12], I realized that there were a lot of somethings wrong with these awards.  [Of course, not the Miss Rheingold election---that was one of real consequence.]  Reality grew on me slowly---but it did grow.  And now, I see so much Liberal crap tied up into these awards---well, they are virtually worthless in my estimation.  C'mon now!  An award of excellence for Al Gore?

Now, we know that a lot of Liberals get these awards for being Liberal and promoting Liberal propaganda.  Can't refute that.  Do a little research, and you'll find the processes disgustingly unfair and slanted with just that result.

I've tried to watch, listen to, or read columns and articles by some of these prominent Liberals: Cynthia Tucker; William Raspberry; Michael Moooore; Maureen Dowd; Al Frankenstein; Ellen Goodman; Anthony Lewis; Tom Wicker---and of course those delightfully sensitive whackos on the radio, Don Imus and Howard Stern.]  I can't do it.  They turn me off very quickly with the misinformation, assumption of divinity, vitriol in their hate of anything Republican or Conservative [or in some cases, common decency], and basically poor or gutter-like writing or communicating skills.  And they're often hypocrites.  Remember when William Raspberry wrote columns that promoted gun control and getting all guns off the street and out of the hands of citizens?  It was shortly thereafter that he was arrested for having an unlicensed gun in his possession---and of course, he was released quickly with a slap on the wrist, and the story was conspicuously missing from the Liberal Press after the first, small print revelations.  [I imagine if he had been a Conservative columnist, we'd still be hearing and reading about it.]

Liberal Mantra: do what I say, not what I do.  And the mantra is normally written by its propagandists in many forms.  I just went over to Daily Kos---soiling my mind---and found little there but the usual vitriol against Bush and the Republicans and---oh yes, some reporting of rumors in an attempt to find someone [other than the shooter] to blame for the VA Tech tragedy.

Yes, Liberals do, as a rule, write nonsense, and they shouldn't be awarded anything for it.  Some see an improvement in their grammar and basic skills as the years progress---but most don't.  I wouldn't even give them an 'A' for effort because they usually fall flat in truth and reality.

I found out today an Australian scientist claims that cremation is causing global warming [the furnaces, you know] and we should bury our dead in cardboard boxes underneath trees so the decomposing bodies can nourish them to great heights.  I can just see Uncle Fred's countenance budding on a hundred branches.  Oooohhh!  Anyway, isn't there a scientific award just for him? [The scientist, not Uncle Fred.]  The Al Gore Award for Scientific Accuracy?  Or the Michael Moooore 'Truth' in Liberal 'Science' Award?

One poster claims that, since the left controls the awards, left wing writers should be winning most of them.  Well, the last time I checked, being a Liberal [in its current or recent manifestation] was not among the original criteria for any of these awards.  As I remember it, the word "Excellence" was always bandied about.  And there aren't any Liberals of excellence---or at least I haven't come across any.  Propaganda is NOT excellence.  So again, why no excellent Conservative writers in the chase?  Too sane for the judges?

I once owned a book store, and after Maya Angelou won the Pulitzer prize, I tried to read her book of poems and autobiography.  They are unreadable, uninteresting, and definitely not worth the time invested.  I found the same problems with other Liberal authors---whose books never sold.

Let's get back to 'excellence' instead of 'ideology' as the basis for awards.  And, personally, I think my blog should receive and award from Joe Pulitzer or somebody.  At least it's not Liberal.

In reference to: Progressive Taxes Are Aimed Squarely at the Middle Class by David Strom
***

Taxes and Social Security are classed with sex and Religion as the subjects most people shouldn't discuss in public---at least, that's the way it used to be.  Now we talk about these subjects easily in mixed company---religion being the only one of the old group still in Limbo, usually if you're a Christian.

Yes, the original Social Security Program was meant to be self-sufficient and only to be used as a supplement to other pension benefits of 'we the people' [unfortunately, too few of 'we the people' had them.]  Social Security was born of the depression and the terrible challenge of living with no money.

We also know that, by itself, Social Security is and was self-sufficient.  You can blame Democrat controlled Congresses for the changes---and some Republicans lent willing hands as well.  [Don't get all bent out of shape.  That's the way it happened.]  First and foremost was the law that Social Security could only invest its surplus in T-Notes---which funds the Congress promptly spent, mostly in the poorly conceived War on Poverty.  [After 40 years, has poverty been eliminated?]

Congress likes big numbers and the ability to play with our money: thinking up expensive programs that might help 'everybody' [read: Democrat voters]; funding pork; funding Liberal institutions and monarchs of the airwaves; raising its own salary and perks; lining members' pockets; giving billions of dollars to foreign countries who don't appreciate it, unfairly criticise us, and/or hate us; paying interest on debt that covered its exuberant spending; etc.  As Everett Dirkson used to say "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money."  Don't laugh, everybody in Congress has the urge to spend our money, some more than others.

Now, we move forward to when Social Security stops running a surplus.  The money paid in by the younger workers is no longer sufficient to cover the pensions of the older generation.  And that's scary.  What to do?  Cash in the T-Notes?  Are you kidding?  That would require the Congress to start paying back the principal on some of its government entity debt.  No way, especially under the Democrats.  And remember, it's Congress, not the President, predominantly involved in spending money---in many cases whether the Executive likes it or not.

One suggestion---by that Bush fellow---is expensive in the short run for sure, but it will have positive effects in the long-term, where it really counts.  And that suggestion is permitting the younger workers to self administer some of their social security tax.  Most other solutions for the problem fall short.  Why should we have to pay more taxes because Congress won't pay back the Social Security Trust?  Others have explained these principles and facts much better than I can, especially in a short essay.

Back to income taxes.  A flat tax will never be accepted by the Democrats because it doesn't hit their real targets sufficiently---the rich, and the semi-rich, and the formerly rich, and those who want to be rich---you know, pretty much everybody.  It doesn't matter how fair it is, they won't allow it.  A tax on consumption won't be produced either because it hits the poor and middle class too much.  They didn't pay taxes before or only a small amount, and they certainly won't enjoy having to pay them on consumption.  Besides, how long do you think their proposed exemptions will last?

And do you think a flat tax rate would remain stable?  It just won't, not with the truth of the history of our Congress.  Our ten-percent-approval buddies will see new sources of money in the increases:  "What are you complaining about?  It's only a one [two; three] percent increase."  The same with a consumption tax.  It'll increase sloooowwwly.

David Strom covered the subject very well.  Even so, people like him will be ignored.  So, I expect the unfair and unproductive progressive tax system to remain in some form or another.  And the rates will continue to go up.  The Democrats simply can't learn such a simple truth that's proven by practice: lowering tax rates increases revenue.  They'll salivate at more money [they think] and rant around about soaking the rich again.  [Another scotch, Teddy?]

So, let's give all Congress a fully paid, year's vacation in the Antarctic where the members can hmmfp, bloviate, tell dirty jokes about constituents, and orate to their hearts content and/or feed the penguins.  And, if Teddy's still around?  Don't worry, Mr Senator, there'll certainly be sufficient scotch with the supplies.  We could use that empty time in Washington applying tax revenue to pay down the debt and reduce the size and invasiveness of the government.  Now maybe, just maybe, we could send Congress down there every year for a year at a time.  

Bliss.

In response to: Hearing Footsteps: Thompson and Obama Gain on Rudy and Hillary
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
***
Every time I read a Dick Morris column, I'm reminded of a meteorologist.  His predictions apparently change with the rotation of the Earth, and they're usually wrong.

Morris still has an unhealthy fixation on Hillary and Bill Clinton.  You can tell because no matter the topic, he usually brings one or both of them into the presentation.  Grow up and expand your mind, oh guru Morris.

By the way, who is Eileen McGann, and why is she listed as co-writer?  Can't Morris even put a column together by himself?  Does she write the sections of the columns NOT about the Clintons?  And isn't Morris a highly paid advisor and pundit?  Shouldn't he be able to do these things by himself?  Anyway, he's highly paid but certainly not fairly paid.

Fred Thompson will run for the presidency because we need him, especially since he carries far less baggage than the other candidates.  And he's a heavyweight on the positive side.  I like his stated and active beliefs and political acumen.  He appeals to a more basic Republicanism than either Giuliani or McCain.  Romney looks good on paper, but I don't think he has the drawing or staying power to make it to the general election.

As for the Democrats:  the three front runners seem to be Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.  None of them can win the Presidency.

Hillary [the smartest woman in the world] is too polarizing.  Too many people dislike or even hate her.  And her presidency would be an extreme danger to the health and welfare of most Americans---and I think they understand that.  Liberalism is not as popular or 'basic belief' as the Main Stream Media might have us believe.  Hillary's being a woman may garner a few votes but nowhere near enough to get anywhere.

Barack Obama is only 36 years old, and most of his political experience has been in the Illinois Senate.  I believe he's way too young and inexperienced in politics and government administration to form a viable candidate.  The Presidency is not run with on-the-job training. Yes, he's black, but that doesn't concern me---though it may many others.  But, his politics bother me.  Considered the fair-haired boy of the new century [by Liberals and the Main Stream Media---but not by the average American], he'll automatically garner the votes of most blacks and the Liberal elites---but not nearly enough to run a close race with anybody.

And John Edwards?  It's not his age, 54, nor his looks, but his politics.  He supports most Democrat and Liberal positions, including affirmative action, abortion rights, and the 'reform' of health-care insurance [ala Hillary.] I examined his voting record and found Liberal/Democrat lockstep throughout.  He never saw a tax he doesn't like, nor did he care about family or the newborn [assuming they can actually make it to full birth] in his votes.

So, most Americans will probably not vote for any of these three, and I hope that paves the way for an easy and important victory for Fred Thompson.  I looked up his Senate voting record, and there wasn't much to disagree with.  For the most part, he voted with the Republicans as one would expect.  His Washington experience is far greater than one would think based on his later entertainment experiences---or maybe not.  He certainly has a charisma, doesn't he? 

I like Fred Thompson, and I'd prefer Uncle Fred to Uncle Hillary any day.

In response to: Slave Masters of the Mind by Mary Grabar
***

You make some valid points and observations Mary---and like you I think that 'Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome' [PTSS] is phony from the ground up.  I'm not black, and I can't speak from experience about race discrimination.  But my ancestors were subject to slavery and discrimination---just a little farther back in history.  Everyone can probably say the same thing.  Slavery wasn't only a black thing in history.  Many ethnic groups were subjected to it.

PSST is just another excuse for non-assimilation---a result due mostly to such factors as insufficient education and personal discipline, parental control---importantly fathers---lack of desire to improve oneself, and the ubiquitous welfare state of mind.  Almost every ethnic group has adapted into our melting pot---after all, we're a country of ethnics.  People born here, though, still have to learn and grow in order to live adaptive, productive lives.  Selling drugs [or yourself] on a street corner isn't productive in any way.

We live in a society which rewards new and innovative psychological disorders with government grants, book contracts, and not-guilty verdicts.  And the Liberal influence in education adds to biased and incomplete curricula and helps turn our children's heads to mush.  Nouns and verbs?  Adjectives?  Complete sentences?  The "children" certainly know the wrong words to use in normal language, thanks to Anglo-Saxon sources.  And without them and "like" [and several others], they couldn't communicate on even a basic level.

But, it's also quite true that more than language suffers [never mind all the spelling and grammatical errors, we award innocuous plots and essays, mostly for the mis-understood god, self-esteem---that's not how it's acquired.]  Have you ever asked a young sales clerk to add up your bill without a calculator?  I once had a grocery order totaling $9.98, so I gave the clerk a ten dollar bill and three cents, hoping for a nickel back.  She went into shock and couldn't figure out what to do.  She never learned anything substantial about numbers.  But, like, I'm sure she knew the latest CDs to hit the charts, lyrics to her, like, favorite songs, and, like, the best sources for her makeup and body piercings.

Again, Mary, you're correct about what today's youth does learn.  And we should be seriously concerned with what we have done to them:  biased history of slavery, America, and Government; poorly written examples for English Literature; easy access to pornography; lack of reasoned philosophical instruction at any level; faulty science [AlGorism]; and extraneous courses: shop, home-ec, crafts, gym.  They hear Liberal misinformation and rants by tenured professors, and out-and-out treasonous preachings of anti-Americanism from the same safe perch.  And Religion?  Never?  Even though our country was founded with basic religious principles in mind, it won't be found in public school.  You want religion?  Only in parochial schools will youth learn something about religion and philosophy.

Now, there's nothing wrong with shop, home-ec, crafts, and gym [mostly basketball]---but they shouldn't be major courses.  How to think, how to speak, and how to converse and relate are much more important.  A strong America needs people like that.

I don't wear my pants on my ankles, and I fail to understand why such a fad is so long lasting.  By now I would have expected the hospitals to be filled with people injured trying to walk down the street.  And you can forget about running.  Not possible. 

Let's, like, bring back suspenders.

Just to refresh my memory, I re-read the Constitution today [something you Congressman should do regularly.]  It isn't very clear about foreign policy, but it does provide certain specific powers:

The Congress can declare War---but there is no provision for its running it and/or internationally opposing the President's policy.  [I think if this country were attacked at home, the Democrats would ally with France and surrender while the President is trying to wage an effective defense.]

The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces---[thus having the responsibility to utilize as needed in the defense of the United States.]  The President appoints ambassadors, etc. with the advice and consent of the Senate.  [Once appointed, the ambassadors, etc. are in the Executive Branch---not in the Legislative.]

While I can't find anything specific in the Constitution about foreign policy, it logically falls within the purview of the Executive Branch by any reasonable interpretation of its contents.

Legislative: "Of or relating to the enactment of laws"; "Having the power to create laws"; "Pertaining to the governmental function of lawmaking or to the process of enacting laws"

Executive:  "chief officer of a government, state, or political division"; "branch of government charged with putting into effect a country's laws and the administering of its functions";  "Of or relating to the branch of government charged with the execution and administration of the nation's laws"

Now, perhaps this isn't a 2x4, but it should be enough to wake you Liberals up to the fact that the Legislative Branch of our Government makes LAWS and does not administer them or foreign policy.  The President [Several years ago there were too many Inaugural Balls and sadly too few today?] is the chief cook and bottle washer for the United States in areas of common policy.  Period.

Smiling Nancy Pelosi [depository of supreme wisdom in America] has a vast ego, and she seems to think she's been crowned something.  Perhaps she should have been---but not in the way she expects.  Her actions have exceeded any authority she has or thinks she has, and she should be punished in some way.  That will never happen in a Democrat House, so shouldn't she  be subject to a voter recall and retire in disgrace for her "unauthorized" jaunt?  And don't tell me about the Republicans.  [Please read these two sentences, oh Liberals, and stop writing your off-point diatribes] They're guilty too, but none of them is the Speaker of the House whose beliefs and whole being are contrary to the policies and efforts of the White House.

Nancy thinks she's in the [foggy bottom] Executive Branch of the government.  Actually, sometimes she thinks she IS the Executive Branch---and wants George Bush to move to Avignon.  But in the end, she's just another naive Neville Chamberlain clone---except the world is more dangerous now than it was in his time, human cloning is illegal, Nancy has no business roaming around the world as an unofficial ambassador or Secretary of State or whatever she thinks she is, and Nancy's actions are far more damaging to the US image and respect than those of any former Speaker of the House.  Fact-finding mission my Aunt Tilly's bustle!

Yes, other Senators and Representatives have been making these ridiculous jaunts for decades.  They're driven by ego, but delivered by jet.  The major difference is that none of these jaunting politicians were or are second in line for the Presidency.  [Yes, I know all about Newt Gingrich's trip.  It should not have taken place either.  But two wrongs don't make a right, and it doesn't justify another one.]  Nancy Pelosi should know better, or at least her advisors should know better.  But then, Democrats like the taste of power and will do most anything to grab it---like intruding in political arenas for which they are ill-equipped to deal.

Dame Liberty---remember her? The gal with the blindfold and balance?---said to me the other day:  "Wherefore is it writ that the Speaker of the House is in charge of the country's foreign policy?  Wherefore is it writ that she has the responsibility to visit our enemies and dance to their tunes?  Wherefore is it writ that the Speaker has any authority or responsibility to represent the country anywhere?  Wherefore is it writ that she should let the work of the people back up while she merrily jaunts to the Middle East to help break down the respect and honest 'fear' of the US even more than the Liberals at home have already done?  And wherefore is it writ that the Democrats are always right and the Republicans are always wrong?  [Almost an antithesis, isn't it?]

As I said earlier, it ain't writ in the Constitution.  It ain't writ in the House Rules---oh wait I forgot.  Democrats have their own rules.  And their rulebook is living, isn't it?  Their rules can swing and sway to the winds of opinion and change as the Democrats want them to.

Let's see, now.  It's 2004.  Nancy Pelosi recieved 167,542 votes in California; George Bush received 62,040,606 throughout the USA---4,403,495 of them in California.  In 2006, Nancy's votes declined to 110,989.  Now, where in these facts is a mandate for Nancy Pelosi to conduct her own foreign policy?  Let's see now, 111 thousand to 62 million; that's less than 2 one hundreths of George Bush's votes.  Not quite a mandate, is it?

And by the way, since the Pelosi trip wasn't authorized and is in violation of the separation of powers, why do we, the taxpayers, have to pay the expenses?  Take the costs out of Nancy's hide.  She's the ringleader. The others---Democrat and Republican---can share the burden.  [Where are your cojones, George Bush?  Turn the tables and put the guilty Democrats and RINOs in the frying pan.  Put them on the defensive!]

And now we hear that Nancy is considering a trip to Iran.  Another jaunt, another Dollar---make Nancy smile.  Doesn't she want to do the Constitutional work she was sworn to?  If she goes, of course, it'll be without the consent and advice of the Executive Branch.   But, why would the latter stop her anyway?  If Nancy goes to Iran, she should remain there in exile.  [Maybe she could run foreign policy for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?]  If she goes to Iran: bar her return to the United States.  That'll learn her!

What our Democrat controlled Congress needs is a good trip to the woodshed.  The hallowed halls need to have more respect for the other two EQUAL branches of the Government.  Hey guys!  Study the Constitution and our country's history.  Find out how you're way off in your actions and thinking. Since you swore to uphold it, don't you think you should know what it says and means?  You should re-read it every month to guide your actions accordingly.  Sheeesh!

But, I suppose if you're a Democrat, you think you can get away with anything:  swimming at Chappaquiddick, frolicking in public fountains, not having sex with that woman, writing phony best sellers, having male brothels run from your home, spewing man-did-it theories of global warming, etc. etc. and so forth.

I suppose we must have at least a two party system, but I wish they were two adult parties and not campus groups.  Where's the scotch, Ted?

Welcome to the world of Roving Ambassadorosiantos Nancy Pelosi and her cheerleader, Tom Lantos.  They both feel that their vast support in California districts 8 and 12 exceeds that of the President.

Just for the record, I offer the following statistics:  California, 12th District, votes for Tom Lantos: 2002 = 88,739; 2004 = 135,342; 2006 = 107,586.  California, 8th District, votes for Nancy Pelosi:  2002 = 105,480; 2004 167,542; 2006 = 110,989.  Seems to be a decline in the votes received by these two stalwarts, eh?  United States, votes for George Bush:  2000 = 50,456,169; 2006 = 62,040,606.

Not much of a contest, is it?  Who represents more Americans?  It certainly isn't Nancy Pelosi, whose votes dove from 167,542 to 110,989 in the space of two years.  Even allowing for the increased votes in a Presidential voting year, Nancy doesn't come off very well.

[By the way, all these vote details are from CNN and the NY Times, hardly bastions of Conservatism.]

So, Nancy Pelosi now thinks that she [110,989] and Tom Lantos [107,586] represent America?  But George Bush [62,040,606] doesn't?  Even allowing for a low approval rating of, say, 35%, George Bush still represents 21,714,212 voters, doesn't he?  And never mind that Al Gore had more popular vote than George Bush in 2000.  The election depends on the Electoral vote, not the popular vote.  There are good reasons for this system, though I'm not going into them here.  But, I certainly liked their result in 2000.  Imagine having that...that...that..Al Gore in the Presidency these days.

Further, George Bush received 73,740 votes in CA District 8 in 2004, compared to Tom Lantos'
135,342, a difference in Lantos' favor of 61,602.  George Bush received 40,558 votes in CA District 12 in 2004, compared to Nancy Pelosi's 167,542, a difference of 126,984.  I suppose this may be comparing apples and oranges, but from one point of view the representation of Nancy Pelosi is very far less than that of the President.  Thousands compared to millions.  Not exactly a mandate to help conduct US foreign policy, is it?  [Also, America doesn't vote for Speaker of the House.  If it did, I doubt that Nancy's votes would be on the radar.  Repeat after me:  miniscule, miniscule.]

Now, the rules of the House of Representatives sets forth the responsibilities of the speaker of the House: administer member oaths; recognize members for speaking or motions; refer bills to appropriate committees; putting questions to vote in the House; counting and declaring all votes; deciding points of order; appointing members to select and conference committees; appoint the chair to the Committee of the Whole and Speaker Pro-Tem; signing bills passed by the House.

Wait!  I don't see anything about foreign jaunts and amateur foreign policy implementation.  I don't see anything about temporary ambassadorship with one's own agenda.  And, as below, their is no Constitutional authority to make an active trip such as the one of Nancy Pelosi, Tom Lantos, and their cohorts.  May they all suffer from bad breath and BO without respite.

Just to refresh my memory, I re-read the Constitution.  It isn't very clear about foreign policy, but it does provide certain specific powers:

The Congress can declare War---[but there is no provision for its running it.]

The President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces---[thus having the responsibility to utilize as needed in the defense of the United States.]

The President appoints ambassadors, etc. with the advice and consent of the Senate.  [Once appointed, the ambassadors, etc. are in the Executive Branch---not in the Legislative.]

While I can't find anything specific in the Constitution about foreign policy, it logically falls within the purview of the Executive Branch by any reasonable interpretation of its contents.

Legislative: "Of or relating to the enactment of laws"; "Having the power to create laws"; "Pertaining to the governmental function of lawmaking or to the process of enacting laws"

Executive:  "chief officer of a government, state, or political division"; "branch of government charged with putting into effect a country's laws and the administering of its functions";  "Of or relating to the branch of government charged with the execution and administration of the nation's laws"

Now, perhaps all this isn't exactly a 2x4, but it should be enough to wake you Liberals up to the fact that the Legislative Branch of our Government makes LAWS and does not administer anything.  The President is the chief cook and bottle washer for the United States in areas of common policy.  Period.  Nancy Pelosi is not in the mix.

Nancy Pelosi has exceeded any authority she has or thinks she has, and she should be punished in some way.  That will never happen in a Democrat House, so she should be subject to a voter recall and retire in disgrace for her "unauthorized" jaunt.  And don't tell me about the Republicans.  [Please read these two sentences, oh Liberals, and stop writing your off-point diatribes] They're guilty too, but none of them is the Speaker of the House [second in line for the Presidency---god help us] whose beliefs and whole being are contrary to the polices and efforts of the White House.

And by the way, since the trip wasn't authorized and is in violation of the separation of powers concept, why do we have to pay the expenses?  Take the costs out of Nancy's hide.  She's the ringleader. The others---Democrat and Republican---can share the burden.

To repeat: Nancy Pelosi - 2006 = 110,989; Tom Lantos - 2006 = 107,586; George Bush - 2004 = 62,040,606.  I think there is something to be said for having 62 million people voting for you [even though current approval ratings are low, thanks in part to the MSM and Democrat idiocy] as opposed to 110 thousand.?

Perhaps we should be calling her Generalissimo Pelosi because of her attempted governmental coup---dis-ably assisted by Tom Lantos and the Democrat Party.  And it's so so so sad that Nancy, Tom, and their staffs will probably never see and understand these comments.

May the faults stay with them.

In Response to: More Observations Than You Can Shake a Stick At by Burt Prelutsky
***

What more can be said about the Democrats that hasn't already been said?  The problem is they don't listen and learn, so we have to keep at it until they wake up.  In the meantime, the country and all of us Americans suffer.

Loyal Democrat, I applaud you for writing coherently and without a lot of inane name calling in a posting to the recent Burt Prelutsky column.  Too bad your comments are so thoroughly off the beaten path of reality and truth.

Freedom means the personal opportunity to better yourself and earn wealth without undue hindrance.  You can spout your socialist theory all day, LD, but I'm not going to buy the 'take from the "rich" and give to the poor' philosophy.  Leave that to Robin Hood and the fairy tales.  You simply want to deny personal effort and make us all the same---except, of course, the Democrat elite who could sell carbon offsets and take high 'consulting' fees to make themselves wealthy without having to share it.  ['Work hard, son, so you can give a lot of your wealth to the lazy bums out there.  Just look at the elite Democrats for an exa....no, never mind the last']  You would deny freedom's individual and collective capitalism that has made us strong.  You promote a sure recipe of economic and personal disaster, and since that's what you Democrats want---well, that's why we sane people have to oppose you all the time.

"But, we are Democrats, oh Lord, and we shouldn't"--excuse me...that is..I mean...oh h*e*l*l!  Who really knows to whom a Democrat would pray.  FDR?  LBJ?  LSMFT?

Your unbridled pursuit of affirmative action is also wrong.  You're willing to hurt the majority---and certainly the minority you claim to be helping---with this depressing, wasteful and non-productive policy.  It has not helped all the minorities in any substantial way.  [Of course, there will always be temporary and isolated successes.]  How many are still in the throes of poverty and welfare?  You're trying to erase their self respect and attempts at any self-effort to succeed and gain wealth.  [Doesn't the IRS call it 'earned' income?]  But don't let such facts dissuade you from your merry trip.  [I say that because I know you never let truth get in the way of your beliefs and efforts.]

And you can be sure that we won't be apologizing to Muslims anytime soon as long as the people of this country have anything to say about it.  I wish the peaceful Muslims well, but I can't find too many of them.  Where are they?  They should be on the front lines in defending freedom and themselves from the murderous radicals.  The latter are a serious threat to our safety and freedom, including your [Loyal Democrat] freedom to be and sound stupid.  And remember, I'm saying 'radical Muslims' and not Arabs, since the Iranians are not Arabs---but they do seem to be crazy.  Don't they have an insane 'leader?'

Apologize?  You and your cohorts seem to think 'apology' whenever your socialist idealism gets the better of you.  You're wrong, wrong, wrong, and usually wrong.  You should live in France.

Sorry History Diva, but you're no better by agreeing with such nonsense.  Please remove the 'History' from your name, since you obviously have learned nothing from it.  Democrats like you two never seem to learn from a history filled with failures:  affirmative action; high taxes; political correctness; apologizing for something you didn't do; wage-price freezes; Supreme Court packing; Hanoi Jane and Syrian Nancy; Klansman Byrd; industrial nationalization and/or close control; an expensive and mismanaged war on poverty [we lost years ago but keep throwing money around anyway---it garners Democrat votes, doesn't it?]; hypocrisy and criminal behavior in thought and deed: Chappaquiddick; merry romps in Washington fountains; phony book deals; bribery; not having sex with that woman; and so on ad infinitum.

George Santayana said:  "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  No thanks, Loyal Democrat and History Diva.  I know the past, as do most Conservatives; and we understand the failures.  We don't want any more.  So please retire to an Old Democrats home---which will be run by those individuals you hate who are exerting personal effort to provide themselves and their families security and wealth---despite your hopes and socialist dreams.

True, we Republicans and Conservatives have our failures at times.  But, unlike you, we learn from them.  That's why we're stronger in the long run.  And hopefully, we can use our intelligence and firm beliefs in the individual and collective strength against all aggressors [in-country and abroad] to keep our country strong and safe.

That is, only if we can keep Democrats from ruining our Country from the top.

In response to:  If At First You Don't Appease...Cry Cry Again by Ann Coulter
***

Let's face it, folks.  Radical Islam is evil from the ground up.  If anything, peaceful Muslims need to wake up, rise up, and destroy the desecrators.  We can't fight them alone, yet a safer World demands that we at least do our part.  And apparently, we also have to do the part of France, Spain, and others who can't be bothered. 

And yes, peace in the world is necessary to us to preserve our freedoms, however tarnished by our own radicals.  Constant pressures from home and abroad that are aimed at reducing our collective freedom and peace of mind need to be addressed with strength and collective determination.  There has been a war in the World somewhere, continuously, since about 2000 BC [not BCE you agnostic know-it-alls.]  The chances, then, of a World at peace for more than 20 minutes in real time is quite impossible.  The problem is, some maniacs and know-it-alls and terrorist-would-be World emperors, don't listen to reason, speak out of the sides of their mouths [sorry Greta], and have no respect for anything but strength.

Our country's major problem is the efforts of radicals everywhere to destroy us.  These people want to destroy reasonable freedom everywhere---no exceptions permitted.  And simply refusing to use the term 'Global War on Terror' is just another Democrat effort to cover their eyes, and ears, and hope to mislead and weaken us from within.  Plain and simple.

I believe Ann Coulter recognizes this situation, and she speaks loud and clear despite Liberal and RINO misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what she says.  By the way, her voice is a voice covered by the "free political speech" section of the Bill of Rights.  Last time I checked, there's no guaranteed freedom for others to rise up in arms against her.  No pie throwing allowed anywhere out of the sight of Mack Sennet.

So the Liberals don't like our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq?  I'm reminded of Edmund Burke:  "the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.."  And that's pretty much the course the Liberals would like us to take---with the expected consequences.  Do we want to become like France?

Thank God modern day Liberals weren't around for the tragedies of the Revolutionary War, or the Civil War, or the War to End All Wars, or WWI, or Korea.  These would have become vast failures. [But they were around for Vietnam now, weren't they?  Anyone care to repeat "resounding failure?"]  Anything could have been the result:  English colony; two Americas, a German Emperor, Nazification of the US on the East with the Japanese forced enslavement in the West.  A totally communist Korea.  No cold war, of course, because the USSR would have gone unchecked and become the lone superpower in the World.