Victory for Voting Machines EVERYWHERE

History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.

So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the "red button" yet.

Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. On Tuesday, they won an election by pretending to be against all three.

Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, and as of today, Jim Webb — I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.

Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for pink leotards.

Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas! Make sure to reserve your copies.. TODAY!

But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" — especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" — as MSNBC calls it — rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton — the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! — Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House — only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate — and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.

The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."

The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.

Appearing Friday Night at the Rainbow Room...JOHN KERRY

So Sen. John Kerry was kidding? He called his ugly, mean-spirited attack on every single American who has ever served or is serving in the military a "botched joke" about the President?

As Dr. Evil would say: "Riiiiiiight."

The junior Senator from Massachusetts looks out at a group of college kids and tells them that if they do their homework and study hard, they won't wind up being "stuck in Iraq." After the stuff hits the fan, he marches up to another podium and insists he was just "joking" about President Bush and his "broken policies." And refuses to apologize to anyone.

Nice try, Senator. Classy. Bright. Insightful. And boy, are you funny. There's nothing like joking about our troops and their Commander-In-Chief during a time of war where our soldiers are fighting and dying that can bring down the house.

Please remember to tip your waitress.

But since humor is the order of the day, I think I can just join the crowd:

Did you hear the one about the junior Senator from Massachusetts who likes to wear women's lingerie?

Oh, never mind - that was just a botched joke about the economic policy of France.

In the scheme of things, I wonder what voters will consider a more important "scandal": a disgraced Republican Congressman who was immediately drummed out of his job after it was revealed that he sent nasty e-mails to pages or a sitting U.S. Senator who claims that our troops are lazy, ignorant and uneducated?

I hear that John Kerry beats his wife so often that her nickname is "Black-and-blue Teresa."

Oops, another botched joke, I meant to address the climate conditions of Brazilian rain forests.

Kerry's angry press conference yesterday was really a classic. This is a guy who has practically topped Al Gore or Howard Dean in falling apart at the seams. "Doughy Rush Limbaugh?" "Stuffed shirt Tony Snow?" But most importantly, he's a man who doesn't even have enough honor or courage to apologize for his ridiculous slur. He spends so much time bragging about what a "war hero" he was that he doesn't even have the decency to say he's sorry to the family members of slain American soldiers, or the heroic, SMART men and women at Walter Reed who have lost their limbs but not their spirit.

John Kerry pulls the wings off flies, kicks his dog, and is an internet porn addict.

There I go again, just another "botched joke." What a riot, eh?

The other gutless Democrat in this whole debacle is the unnamed Democratic congressman who told ABC News, "He blew it for us in 2004, what's he trying to do, blow it for us in 2006, too?" If only that Democrat would have been willing to go on the record and identify him/herself, Americans might be able to have one shred of hope for this shameful political party. So far, not a single Democrat has had the sense or decency to denounce Kerry for what he said. That's pretty typical for them. Compare that to all the Republicans who had no trouble throwing Mark Foley out to the curb, where he belongs.

John Kerry is a national disgrace who will never again hold any other political office than the one he has and has forced a number of decent people to vote for Republicans next week.

And that is no joke.

ENGLOPHOBIA

Yesterday, as I was commuting home on the train, I wound up in a disgreement with another commuter, and that argument got me thinking, which of course, led me to the latest installment of my blog. Our disagreement centered around the State of New Jersey, and the recent ruling from Supreme Court regarding "civil unions" (the PC term for homosexuals marrying one another). It ended abruptly when he said that I was "homophobic". It appears to me, that if you disagree with the agenda of "Queer Nation", your automatically labeled as homophobic. Although homophobia and homophobic may be "real words", it seems that nobody ever uses those terms correctly.

Thus, begins my little English lesson. When the suffix -phobia or -phobic is added to a word, it means that you have an intense and abnormal fear of *something*, i.e. aquaphobia is the fear of drowning. So, when my "friend" called me homophobic, he is asserting that I have an intense and abnormal fear of homosexuals. And in my own defense, that is not the case. I know when to duck when they are trying to hit me with their purse. If you TRULY suffer from homophobia, you will spend your days locking your doors and windows hoping that fairies -- male fairies -- won't break in and touch your bottom. Suffering from homophobia, you fear that while walking down the street, you would be kidnapped by homosexuals, and turned into a homosexual at some homosexual ranch.

Contrary to the opinion of the Washington Post and New York Times, disagreeing with the agenda "Queer Nation" does not make you homophobic.

ENGLOPHOBIA therefore, thus, and ipso-facto is the intense and abnormal fear of speaking ENGLISH. Many of us seem to have acquired it.

Permit me to offer some examples.

1. Homosexuals. Since I started this blog entry with them, might as well use it again here. When did homosexuals start referring to themselves as "gay" or "gays" and not homosexuals? In every current dictionary, gay is defined as happy, elated, joyous. The term homosexuals comes from the Greek root word homos which means the same. Isnt that what homosexuals are? They are sexually attracted to the same gender. How did the term "gay" come to mean the same thing?

Lets have another example, shall we..?

2. Relief. Not to long ago, relief was monetary aid given to people who were in need of financial help and who had suffered some sort of catastrophic incident, and needed the relief. These people were said to be "on relief". Relief evolved into welfare. But, eventually that had such a negative stereotype, they changed the word again. Do you know what welfare is called today? C'mon. Take a guess. Okay, I will tell you. It's called entitlement [insert uncontrollable chuckle here]. Entitlement. Can you believe that? These people now think that they are ENTITLED to your money! By using that term, these slobs now believe they have a right to YOUR money although they are physically capable of working and choose not to. While your working hard supporting your family, these slobs are sitting at home eating Doritos, drinking beer, and watching "Judge Judy" after having attached themselves to the nipple on your wallet. How do you like that? YOU owe THEM. Pretty soon, entitlement and entitled will wear out its welcome. What then will be their new term? "Profit Sharing"?

How about...

3. WetBack. Wetback is used to characterize an illegal immigrant. Where does wetback come from? It's a descriptive and factual term about someone who is wet because they had to forge the Rio Grande River to enter this country illegally. But now, wetback has become "Undocumented Guest Worker" [another chuckle].

What's next? Since our country and mainstream media have come down with a case of Englophobia, and we have to use other words and languages to communicate. Whats next?

Will the term "rape" become "Unencouraged Physical Affection"
Will "bank robbery" become "Unauthorized Cash Withdrawal" or perhaps, "Armed Unauthorized Cash Withdrawal"
Will "kidnapping" become "Unexpected Detention Travel"

This is political cancer and we need to cure it..NOW!

Remember, ignorance is curable. STUPID is forever!

8 Reasons The Clintons Will Be Back In The White House

Let's cut right to the chase: Hillary Clinton is running for the United States presidency in 2008. She has been running for nearly ten years now. She's always been running. And though it makes me physically ill to consider a Hillary presidency, she's got a damn good shot at winning. She's already a lock for a sizable portion of the Democrat base. The Left adores her. Her word is gospel. Even if she were speaking Martian, her paragraphs at any Democrat fundraiser could well be punctuated with the crowd rejoicing, "Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!" If only it weren't already trademarked by the Bush-loving, right wing, Jesus-freak propaganda machine! Oh, and Halliburton.

But she must turn her attention to the only niche demographic that matters - the Undecideds. The white, Independent, middle to upper-middle class swing voters. From Eleanor Clift of MSNBC: Not offending party regulars while courting independents is the key to winning, a balancing act requiring more skill than conviction.

Translation: For Hillary to succeed, she must continue to excite her base at party fundraisers with the constant, baseless chatter about the Bush administration's lies, etc. etc., while at the same time ensuring that she can effectively bullshit her way to the politically safe middle-ground on touchstone issues. Meaning: She's not going to take a stand on anything.

And she'll do just that. And she'll win. For these reasons:

1. She's a woman. The argument here among left to middle voters is that, "It's time for a woman." What the hell this means, I have no idea. But Hillary can and will appeal to the novelty quotient of swing voters. Though this notion of building one's initial voting decision on the pretense of a candidate's gender is both ludicrous and dangerous, many registered Independents will find novelty purely in the fact that Mrs. Clinton pees sitting down.
2. She's a victim. Hillary is a survivor. Independent women will side with the scorned woman. She weathered the storm of a cheating husband (Bonus: somehow he emerged as a victim too!). Hillary is viewed as tough for her commitment to her marriage through the most heinous of marital wrongs - infidelity. Though I personally view this as ideologically moronic and nothing more than a stunt to further her political career, she will pull at the heart strings of white, middle class, Desperate Housewives-loving women (and panty-wearning men) who have been victims or, in their eyes, might as well have been.
3. She has star power - a marquee name. She's a Clinton. Much like the Kennedy's, the Clinton's possess an immense amount of invincibility in their name alone. Conversely, the most notable and famous of Republicans include the mere likes of Guiliani and McCain. Not exactly household names.
4. She has the entire establishment media on her side. Again, like the Kennedy's, the establishment media - ABC, NBC, CNN, et. al. - will not hold her accountable or call her to task for anything. Ever. In the quote-unquote press conference that Patrick Kennedy held just after his (ahem!) vehicular malfunction several months ago, whereby no conferencing was conducted and no questions asked or answered, Mr. Kennedy deftly established a basis by which any future media scrutiny about said event could be quickly deflected with a terse, "I've already answered those questions." Likewise, Mrs. Clinton's press conferences are nothing more than diatribes to lay a similar foundation for defense against any future media inquiry.
5. She's immune from having a position on anything. You cannot be a viable presidential candidate without being vague, says Matt Bennett, of the Democratic centrist (oxymoron alert!) group Third Way. For a Republican, this advice couldn't be more wrong. For the Left, it's genius. Without the establishment media holding her to account for anything she's said, done, or voted on, she can't be pigeon-holed into this position or that. Brilliant! Without taking a definitive side on anything, she's effectively a moderate.

   Is she for or against abortion? Well I think she said she's for women's rights and that sounds nice.

   Is she for or against higher taxes? Um ... I think she said she's investing in our future ... which is good, right?

   What's her stance on Iraq and ensuring our country's safety? Well she's for the troops - she's definitely proud of the troops. I know that much. And that's good enough for me.

6. Her husband is a beloved, ex-president ... The Left views Hillary's presidency as an encore to Bill's eight years in office (grab the your toilet or garbage can now, please). His post-presidential gallivanting around the world, with more than a few unkind words to spout off about the Bush administration has garnered him praise predictably from the left, but from the center as well. He's charming, charismatic, and able to talk across party lines with frightening ease.
7. ... and a brilliant political strategist. Eleanor Clift also notes that, [Bill] is her best strategist, with a fingertip feel for the electorate that is unrivaled. Slick Willy resonates well not only with his base, but with the registered middle as well. And if he's out stumping for his wife, be assured, there'll be many an eager ear to listen. Well if Bill's personally telling me to vote for her ... who am I to argue?
8. She's not a Republican. The Democrats' challenge is to do one of two things. What they are going to try to do, what they should do, is say nothing except "Had enough?", said Newt Gingrich in a recent TIME magazine interview. Many independents have had enough. The anti-Bush crowd has done too good of a job demonizing the Bush administration. And with a seemingly neverending stream of scandals to boot, Republicans as a whole have taken a lot of collateral damage.

There is no viable Republican candidate who holds a single one of these advantages. The Republicans are imploding. With the war in Iraq gone horribly wrong, the Democrats likely coup of Congress next month, and Bush struggling to successfully deliver the Right's message to the American people, they're fighting just to keep their base. And to gain the approval of an increasingly jaded, inquisitive, well-educated moderate electorate.

The Democrat base is a lock for Hillary. The only piece of the voting pie over which she's fighting is the Independent, swing vote.

It's a tough row to hoe for the Right and barring some inexplicable cosmic event in the next two years, get used to the phrase, "President Hillary Clinton".

The Terrorists and Their Best Friends - Democrats

The Democrats claim they want to treat terrorism as a criminal law problem, but when we give them an American citizen convicted of aiding terrorists — as happened last week — a Democrat judge gives her a slap on the wrist. Let me correct myself. He was going to give her a wrist slap until someone told him that wrist-slapping was banned under the Geneva Conventions, so he let the wrist off with a warning.

Last year, a New York jury found Lynne Stewart guilty of helping her former client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with his Egyptian-based group of murderous terrorists, appropriately known as "the Islamic Group." The blind sheik needed to instruct his followers to abandon a truce and resume murdering innocents, but he couldn't get the message through because, by sheer coincidence, he was in prison for conspiring to murder innocents here in America by plotting the first World Trade Center bombing. So Stewart and a "translator" met with her former client in prison and took his messages for transmission to his followers in Egypt.

With the full constitutional protections Democrats want for terrorists in Guantanamo, Stewart was convicted by a New York jury last year. This week, Judge John Koeltl — appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 — spurned the prosecution's request for a 30-year sentence and gave Stewart 28 months for being a terrorist's mule.

Now she'll clog up the criminal justice system with endless appeals for the next several years — using procedures that liberals also want for Guantanamo detainees. At Stewart's sentencing, the judge noted that the defendant's actions had not resulted in any deaths.

I'll have to remember that in case I'm ever on trial for attempted murder. "Hey, your honor, did I mention that the guy lived? Yeah, the darn gun jammed on me. Go figure, huh?"

In rejecting a 30-year sentence in favor of a 28-month sentence, the judge commended Stewart for her "public service, not only to her clients, but to the nation" for representing members of the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground. In a sane world, that would have justified a longer sentence, not a shorter one.

If only Democrats could turn the entire war on terrorism over to the courts, they could release terrorists and terrorist sympathizers with wild abandon — and Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton would never have to take a position. When Americans are allowed to vote, a fireman's vote counts as much as George Soros' vote.

But if liberals can just get terrorists into the judicial system, a Clinton-appointed judge can rule on a defense funded by George Soros — precisely what happened in Stewart's case. Note that even in liberal New York City, average citizens on the jury voted to convict Stewart, despite her Soros-funded defense. Democrats run apparently sane candidates for office, like James Webb here in Virginia and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, who can puff up their chests and pretend they want to pursue terrorists — while carping about any and all military action in the terrorists' general direction. Instead, let's turn terrorists over to courts full of Clinton and Carter judges!

Democratic candidates get to look tough, and the terrorists go scot-free. It would be frightening enough to treat terrorism as a criminal law problem if it were Republicans saying it. But these are Democrats. Their idea of a major criminal case is Tom DeLay's campaign treasurer accidentally depositing a campaign contribution into a checking account rather than a savings account.

By contrast, terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo for trying to kill Americans must be treated as innocent little lambs. Oh, to be there when Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman is exonerated due to previously unavailable "DNA evidence"! After President Bush signed a law this week providing for military tribunals for terrorists being held at Guantanamo and prohibiting their torture, Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." (Note to Democrats: It's still too soon to use "stain" as a metaphor for a White House brouhaha.) Democrats stood outside the White House shouting "Torture is a crime!" and "Bush is the terrorist!" Yep, these are the people who claim they're going to keep us all safe, America. Is everybody O.K. with that?

Gen. George Washington tried Major John Andre, Benedict Arnold's British co-conspirator, by military tribunal and ordered Andre hanged within 10 days of his capture. Nazi saboteurs, including an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The Nuremberg trials were a form of military tribunal. But Democrats think military tribunals aren't good enough for the terrorists plotting to kill Americans today. Liberals are going to make the terrorists love us! What better way to start than with criminal trials in front of judges like John Koeltl?

Only if Bin Laden had a stained blue dress.....

If you wonder why it took 50 years to get the truth about Joe McCarthy, consider the fanatical campaign of the Clinton acolytes to kill an ABC movie that relies on the 9/11 Commission Report, which whitewashed only 90 percent of Clinton's cowardice and incompetence in the face of terrorism, rather than 100 percent.

Islamic jihadists attacked America year after year throughout the Clinton administration. They did everything but blow up his proverbial "bridge to the 21st century." Every year but one, Clinton found an excuse not to fight back.

The first month Clinton was in office, Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center.

For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court. (The one plotter who got away fled to Iraq, that peaceful haven of kite-flying children until Bush invaded and turned it into a nation of dangerous lunatics.)

In 1995 and 1996, various branches of the Religion of Peace — al-Qaida, Hezbollah and the Iranian "Party of God" — staged car bomb attacks on American servicemen in Saudi Arabia, killing 24 members of our military in all. Each time, the Clinton administration came up with an excuse to do nothing.

Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996. That year, Mohammed Atta proposed the 9/11 attack to bin Laden.

Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — "(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him." Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.

Although Clinton made the criminal justice system the entire U.S. counterterrorism strategy, there was not even an indictment filed after the bombing of either Khobar Towers (1996) or the USS Cole (2000). Indictments were not filed until after Bush/Ashcroft came into office.

Only in 1998 did the Clinton-haters ("normal people") force Clinton into a military response. Solely because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton finally lobbed a few bombs in the general direction of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

In August 1998, three days after Clinton admitted to the nation that he did in fact have "sex with that woman," he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, doing about as much damage as another Clinton fusillade did to a blue Gap dress.

The day of Clinton's scheduled impeachment, Dec. 18, 1998, he bombed Iraq. This accomplished two things: (1) It delayed his impeachment for one day, and (2) it got a lot of Democrats on record about the monumental danger of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

So don't tell me impeachment "distracted" Clinton from his aggressive pursuit of terrorists. He never would have bombed anyone if it weren't for the Clinton-haters.

As soon as Clinton was no longer "distracted" by impeachment, he went right back to doing nothing in response to terrorism. In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship.

Clinton did nothing.

According to Rich Miniter, author of "Losing Bin Laden," Clinton's top national security advisers made the following classic Democrat excuses for doing nothing in response to the Cole attack:

— Attorney General Janet Reno "thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it."

— CIA Director George Tenet "wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was."

— Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process." (How did that turn out, by the way? Big success, I take it? Everybody over there all friendly with one another?)

— Secretary of Defense William Cohen "did not consider the Cole attack 'sufficient provocation' for a military retaliation."

This is only an abbreviated list of Clinton's surrender to Islamic savagery. For a president who supposedly stayed up all night "working" and hated vacations, Clinton sure spent a lot of time sitting around on his butt while America was being attacked.

Less than a year after Clinton's final capitulation to Islamic terrorists, they staged the largest terrorist attack in history on U.S. soil. The Sept. 11 attack, planning for which began in the '90s, followed eight months of President Bush — but eight years of Bill Clinton.

Clinton's own campaign adviser on Iraq, Laurie Mylroie, says Clinton and his advisers are "most culpable" for the intelligence failure that allowed 9/11 to happen.

Now, after five years of no terrorist attacks in America, Democrats are hoping we'll forget the consequences of the Democrat strategy of doing nothing in response to terrorism and abandon the Bush policies that have kept this nation safe since 9/11. But first, they need to rewrite history.

Democrats Once Again Show Their Ignorance

The Democrats have posted a new propaganda video to their Campaign Committee website: DCCC.org: New Directions Video

Two items of note within the first 30 seconds or so:

1. The use of images of soldiers' flag-draped coffins. I'm fairly certain it's the left that's been crying foul over the Republican party's "war profiteering". I guess when your party's desperate to take back the government though, they'll do so by any means necessary. What shame. What a bunch of hypocrites.
2. Weather/satellite images. You're not serious? I mean, is the implication here that the president is somehow responsible for global climate change? That Bush should be blamed for not diverting Hurricane Katrina? Putting aside the liberal idiots who actually believe that Bush's past few years in office have been enough to allow him to destroy the earth's ecosystem. This is a completely rhetorical statement because the answer of course is: Yes, they do believe that. He's also responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa, spotty cell phone reception, and of course, the Starbucks lady screwing up my morning machiatto. Get a clue.

Sidebar: The last frame of the video encourages us to "SIGN UP TO JOIN THE FIGHT FOR A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY TODAY." We have a democratic majority. We always have a democratic majority, no matter who is in office, because both parties are always democratically elected. The correct phrase SHOULD be: Democrat majority. Note to the Democrats: Know the language!!

Natalie Maines is an Anti-American scumbag.

via telegraph.co.uk

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

This is so ludicrously stupid that it requires no comment. I'll let the sheer idiocy of her statement stand on its own.

Death of Zarqawi is a political stunt?

Some Democrats, broke ranks from their leadership following the death Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, stating that his death was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.

"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."

I see. So if Bush can't catch the bad guys (i.e. Osama Bin Laden, a.k.a. His Mama Bin Layin'), he's incompetent. When he does catch the bad guys, he's a coniving genius, hell-bent on political diversion.

Resident Martian and former [insert uncontrollable chuckle here] Democrat presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich, had this to add:

"Zarqawi was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency" and that it's time to get out. "We're there for all the wrong reasons,"

He also added, "Nanoo nanoo" and concluded with a showing of the Vulcan sign for long life and prosperity.

Seriously, we can only hope that the Democrats continue to downplay our few military victories in the Middle East. It only makes the right look that much stronger on terrorism.

Which of course...they are.

Neil Young Opens His Pie-Hole

From Young's forthcoming album, Living With War, comes the stunningly clever Let's Impeach the President:

"Let's impeach the president for lying,
Misleading our country into war,
Abusing all the power that we gave him,
And shipping all our money out the door."

Now, I know the liberals are wetting their little pink panties over the incredible strength and courage of his message. But this stooge's album deserves even less attention than whether or not Tom Cruise will really stay with Katie (will he?!?).

Mr. Young, your first mistake is your use of the inclusive pronouns "we", "us" (in Let's), and "our". These imply that our president is somehow your president. Given that you're a non-American celebrity A-hole, and that you care about this country so deeply yet haven't even taken the time to become a citizen therein, In the eloquence of your Canadian heritage, I say, "Piss off!!." You may physically live in this country, but you're no part of "us". You're not an American. You have no say in our electoral and political processes and your opinion is therefore about as relevant as your ailing career.

Now, don't go away mad. Just go away.

Who speaks for the victims?

All over the country, news stories bemoan and hyped the countdown to execution number 1,000. But where are the stories regarding the ripple effects of the heinous crimes that these murderers were executed for committing? Who is counting the victims?

A conservative estimate puts the number of victims of these 1,000 murderers at 1,895. Why do we hear so much about the killers, and so little about the victims and their loved ones who are left behind to pick up the pieces?

Below, please find a few examples of killers that were released back into society. Things like this happen day in and day out, in small towns and large ones from the east coast to west coast.

1. Melvin and Linda Lorenz, and their son Richard were killed by Roger Stafford. Melvin stopped on a highway near Purcell, Okla., to help what he thought was a woman whose car had broken down. Instead, he was ambushed by Stafford and his brother, where they used Stafford's wife as bait. Less than a month after these horrific murders, the trio killed six employees of a steak house in Oklahoma City.

2. In 1985, 13-year-old Karen Patterson was shot to death in her bed in North Charleston, S.C. . Her killer was a neighbor who previously served 10 years of a life sentence for murdering his half-brother, Charles, in 1970. Joe Atkins cut the Pattersons' phone lines, then entered they home, wielding a machete, a sawed-off shotgun, and a pistol. Karen's parents were chased out of their home by Atkins. Karen's mother ran to the Atkins home, where Joe murdered his adopted father, Benjamin Atkins, 75. Benjamin Atkins worked tirelessly to persuade parole authorities to release his step-son from the life sentence.

3. When Katy Davis observed three strangers outside her Austin, Texas, apartment, she walked away. Returning later, she was attacked and forced to open the door by Charles Rector, who was on parole for a previous murder. The men ransacked her apartment, abducted her, and took her to a lake where she was beaten, gang-raped, shot in the head, and repeatedly forced underwater until she drowned.

4. Ruby Longsworth of Pasadena, Texas, met Jeffrey Barney through a prison ministry. She helped him get paroled from his auto-theft sentence. Her kindness was re-paid when Barney raped and sodomized her, then strangled her with a cord. She had made the mistake of calling Barney "a bum" after she had gotten to know him better.

5. In 1965, Robert Massie murdered mother of two, Mildred Weiss in San Gabriel, Calif., during a follow-home robbery. Hours before execution, a stay was issued so Massie could testify against his accomplice. Massie's sentence was commuted to life when the Supreme Court halted executions in 1972. Receiving an undeserved second chance, Massie was paroled, but eight months later robbed and murdered businessman Boris Naumoff in San Francisco.

6. Faith Hathaway was 17 when she was murdered by Robert Willie, whose story became the inspiration for the film Dead Man Walking. Hathaway had just graduated from high school and was leaving for the Army the next day. She was abducted after her farewell party in Mandeville, La. . Willie and accomplice, Joseph Vaccaro, had been on an 8-day murder, robbery and rape spree. Hathaway was raped by both assailants and stabbed 17 times. She was raped again after she had died.

7. Kenneth Boyd murdered his estranged wife Julie and his father-in-law, Dillard Curry in Rockingham County, N.C. . Julie and her children were living with Curry. Boyd entered the home and shot them both in the presence of his own children, then ages 13, 12 and 10.

We must think about the lives that all 1,895 murdered victims affected. Every one had families, friends, relatives, co-workers, and neighbors. The combined loss is incalculable.

There is no end to horror stories like these. Jurors, who represent us, hear about these horrific crimes and make tough, but appropriate decisions. With a yearly average of 15,000 murders, the fact that we are reaching 1,000 executions in only a little more than 30 years is proof that capital punishment has been reserved for the worst of the worst.

The attention that was given to the execution of 1,000 murderers was utterly repugnant, especially when the loudest voices think the death of a convicted murderer is a tragedy. Yet the deaths and suffering of countless victims is only an easily-ignored statistic.