House Kills Any Attempt to Resurrect 'Fairness Doctrine'

Score one for free speech and free press. The House voted 309-115 yesterday to adopt a spending bill (which includes funding for the FCC) amendment by Rep. Mike Pence barring the FCC from reviving the oxymoronically titled 'Fairness Doctrine.' That some politicians would even consider resurrecting such vile, oppressive legislation just shows how completely out of touch, corrupt, power-hungry and anti-liberty so many of our "representatives" have become. But this is hardly surprising from our anti-freedom "leaders" who have brought us racist "affirmative" action processes, vastly totalitarian limitations on our right to keep and bear arms, and a seemingly infinite number of bans on personal choice, from light bulbs, to foie gras, to pet breeding, to smoking here, there, and everywhere, to end of life choices. And many of these same idiots flap about claiming to be "pro-choice" because they claim to support a woman's choice to end a pregnancy - all the while doing nothing to prevent men from being harmed by fraudulent paternity claims. Right, I really believe you guys deserve to use the label pro-choice. There are about a billion other choices we should be FREE (imagine using the word 'free' to describe our rights as Americans) to make besides fetus termination. Talk radio is no more biased than religious radio or even a great deal of politically charged songs played over the airwaves. There is absolutely nothing "fair" about forcing someone else to say, to print or to broadcast what they do not want to. Hey, how about some of you dipshit politicians calling for the Fairness Doctrine to be re-enacted give me a blog on your political webpage, in which I'll just publish article after article about how small your brain is, and how little respect you have for the rights of your fellow citizens. That would be providing an opposing viewpoint. Oh, but of course, any forum you own or run should not be subject to the necessity of government imposed "balance." It's OTHER people that need to be CONTROLLED by YOU.

If a Fairness Doctrine ever does pass, I'm going to demand equal time on every local news station to provide "opposing views" to all of the weathermen's opinion, so I can just sit there and scream "NO IT'S NOT!" every time one of them says "It's going to rain today."

Can You Find a Better Candidate For the Death Penalty?

Today, Texas teenager Dexter Johnson had to be restrained in court. After hearing he was sentenced to death for brutally carjacking and murdering two people during a month long crime spree, he lunged at victims' family members, and had to be tackled by court deputies. Good riddance, scumbag. Execution can not come soon enough for this 19-year old thug.

Supreme Court Limits Affirmative Action in Schools

Today the Supreme Court "rejected diversity plans in two major school districts that take race into account in assigning students but left the door open for using race in limited circumstances." (AP) The case involved two school districts which utilized programs to assign students from black and white neighbors to schools which were often far from their homes in order to artificially attain some sort of nebulous "diversity" within individual facilities.

In the majority opinion, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the following:

"Simply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal doesn't mean that they are free to discriminate on the basis of race to achieve it."

An eloquent point, and a highly intelligent one, made in this debate over means and ends. For quite awhile, those blinded by their focus on the ends have ignored the gross hypocrisy in their support of means so similar to the very evil they were fighting against: discrimination. Can one, in good conscience, use discrimination to reverse discrimination? Especially discrimination against individuals whose only "fault" is to share an ethnicity with people who may have discriminated against people who share your own ethnicity? This game of racial guilt, blame and perceived privilege is in itself simply another form of bigotry, another form of prejudice, another form of ugly racism, as individuals would be rewarded or punished based on skin-color rather than personal belief, action, guilt or achievement. All affirmative action has done is to institutionalize discrimination and promote tribalism over individuality. Affirmative action has been a ill-conceived assault on personal liberty and responsibility.

In a moment evoking Yogi Berra, Roberts also put forth these words of wisdom:

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

While somewhat obvious, this is a point often lost or intentionally ignored in the discussion. You cannot battle the practice of racial discrimination and privilege with a different form of racial discrimination and special privilege. If it is wrong to judge and discriminate against blacks based on their race, then it is equally wrong to do the same to whites. The anti-affirmative action argument is not suggesting the wrongness of discrimination against blacks, as many times as proponents would like to race-bait and toss the word 'racist' around; it argues that discrimination of any sort, for whatever "lofty goal," is wrong. The affirmative actionists have merely attempted to argue that one form of discrimination is worse than another, depending on who are the victims, again attempting to create some sort of race-based (ie, bigoted) hierarchy of worthiness of victimhood.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the only black person on the Supreme Court, wrote this in a separate opinion endorsing the majority ruling:

“What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today. The plans before us base school assignment decisions on students’ race. Because ‘our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens,’ such race-based decisionmaking is unconstitutional.”

I would go even further to say that plans which incorporate any consideration of ethnicity, any attempt to artificially "promote diversity", or alter ethnic proportions within a group, are equally discriminatory, whether or not they do so directly. Thomas also wrote:

"Every time the government uses racial criteria to 'bring the races together,' someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race."

Amnesty Defeated

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on S.1639 ):

YEAs ---46 (Villains)
Akaka (D-HI) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Craig (R-ID) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC)	Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL)	McCain (R-AZ) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---53 (Heroes)
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Brown (D-OH) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN)	Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Landrieu (D-LA) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK)	Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Stabenow (D-MI) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA)

Not Voting - 1

Johnson (D-SD)

The bill has fallen 14 votes short of the 60 necessary to limit debate and clear the way for final vote (and possibly passage) of the dreaded legislation.

Despite this victory, now is hardly the time to rest. The people has spoken quite loudly on the issue of illegal immigration, and it is time to demand real action. After this fight, the amnesty crowd will avoid this issue like the plague, but there is still real work to be done, real reform to be made.

The first is to demand border and national security. For the most part, all that needs to be done is for our government to enforce and follow existing laws. The building of a border fence which was signed into law last year must be completed. The border patrol must be given the tools and the support necessary to protect this nation and stop the swarm of illegal aliens across the border. The judicial and executive witch hunt of border patrol agents must be stopped - agents should no longer be punished for doing their job. Illegal aliens must be held completely accountable for their disregard of the law of the land, both for entering this country without permission, and for any other laws broken during their stay. Local police must be given the tools and authority necessary to assist in the battle.

Secondly, the incentives for illegals to come here must be eliminated. Businesses which hire illegals must be held accountable for breaking the law. Landlords who knowingly provide housing to illegal aliens must face punishment. Government services and handouts, including free health care and education, for illegal aliens must be eliminated.

The federal government, overall, has proven unwilling to do what is necessary to stop the flow of invaders and secure the borders. Despite more empty promises made by the supporters of the awful amnesty bill, promises which cannot be trusted one iota given the past record of this government, the citizenship of this country does not trust our representatives and judicial system to do what is right and necessary. The lies of the past cannot be forgotten, and awareness of these untruths played a major role in the public's reaction to this latest legislative attempt.

The proponents of the amnesty bill often told the people that "something must be done," but the people saw through this empty reasoning. Something RIGHT must be done. Something EFFECTIVE must be done. If a man is drowning in a river, something must be done. But that something should not be shooting him in the head. It should be rescue. To just do something is not enough. That something needs to work. And no one believes you if you say you're going to do something, but you sat around doing nothing - or worse than nothing - while three people drowned before him. Or if you actively prevented others from rescuing those people as well - stopped others from throwing out ropes. And, even worse, you pushed more people that couldn't swim into the rapids; your actions encouraged them to take a devastating dip.

This nation is threatening to be drowned by waves of illegal aliens. Presidents, Senators and Congressmen will visit disaster zones after fires, earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes, but fail to visit the disaster zones that are the American neighborhoods that have been devastated by the storm of criminals brought to this land as a result of inaction and turning a blind eye to policies and procedures that have created an open border atmosphere.

Am I optimistic that the current administration and Congress will awaken to these troubles and toughen up their stances and actions against illegal aliens? Not much. To some degree the fight must be taken to the local level as well. Communities are already beginning to rebel against a federal system that has abandoned them and ignored their needs. Local ordinances and a support of local law enforcement against illegals are the beginning of the way to both fight the battle at a community level, and to increasingly make the power brokers and special interest panderers in Washington aware of just how critical this issue has become.

We, the people, have slapped the government across the face for not only their failure, but their willingness to sell out the interests of this country to special interests, be they race-baiters and America-haters, or conscienceless shady business opportunists. And that slap has stung.

Those opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants were branded "extremists," but they were truly the only moderates, the only rationalists, in the debate. The architects of amnesty legislation called themselves compromisers, but let their own extreme lack of integrity motivate them to ignore the best interests of this country and the will of the people. The only thing they truly compromised was their own honor and their own commitment to serve this nation and its citizens.

Illegal Aliens and Terrorist Protesters Have More Rights Than Law Abiding Citizens

You may remember hearing about the May Day melee in MacArthur park in Los Angeles, during which the LAPD was drawn into a situation where they found it necessary to use force against a crowd of thugs and rambunctious illegal aliens holding a so-called "peaceful protest" calling for special privileges and amnesty for illegal aliens. The LAPD has undergone a lot of criticism for their handling of the situation, especially as a lot of bystanders and press members who failed to comply with police orders were caught in the crossfire.

Of course, what the liberally biased media often fails to report is that the police were provoked by a group of slime-ball agitators and anarchist terrorists, who hurled insults, frozen bottles of water turned into rock-hard missiles of ice, bottles filled with urine, and other peaceful protests at the heroic officers, all the while hiding behind a wall of "peacefully assembling" accomplices (with children!) who acted as a shield during the seditious attacks on police officers. Buying into the politically correct but factually erroneous version of events, LA's mayor, city council and police chief also refuse to lay any blame on, or make much mention of, the rioters who were directly responsible for causing and escalating events. TV camera-persons claiming that they were attacked by the LAPD can be seen on tape being pushed over by their reporter colleagues. Everyone refuses to acknowledge the fact that TV reporters on the sidelines hit with rubber bullets were most likely hit by accident, and never take into consideration that guns and rubber ammunition are hardly 100% accurate, nor that sticking around during a melee in order to grab some footage when they've been ordered to leave puts oneself at risk of getting hit by stray bullets. And that this is a risk the media chose to take by ignoring police warnings.

To add further insult to injury, as the public, the media and city officials take the side of the criminal rioters and foreign invaders over our own brave and much maligned protectors, another incident occurred this past weekend further proving that the media and the LA city government is in league with criminals, pandering to the interests of illegals over their own citizens.

An anti-illegal immigration rally was planned in Leimert Park on June 24. However, another group of violent agitators were allowed to take over this park, and the groups with the legal permit to hold their rally had their right to peaceful assembly violated. The LAPD, stinging from a lack of community or official support, were justifiably unwilling to clear out the terrorists a second time. And the police blocked access to the park so that the anti-illegal immigration could not enter, fearing a "mini riot." Read a slightly slanted story on the events here. Of course, a group of people not in line with the leftist view on illegal immigration being violently intimidated by radicals and morons like ANSWER Los Angeles will not generate as much news as perceived infringements against the rights of the press or antagonistic leftist organizations.

Totalitarian, bullying and violent leftism wins again.

Obama's wife calls him The Answer

Yesterday, addressing a crowd at a Harlem community center, Barack Hussein Obama's wife Michelle had this to say:

"I am married to The Answer. And I'm not just saying that because I'm his wife."

The Answer to what question? "Who is the biggest fraud in politics"? Obama has about as much integrity and authenticity as a designer purse you purchase from a hidden room in a souvenir shop in Chinatown. The Emperor's New Clothes of the current political arena is nothing more than a puff of hot air, an empty shell of a politician, who feels more like he was created by a PR firm or a kinda liberal television script writer than an actual person with real ideals and principles. Here are some other questions to which B.O. might be "The Answer":

Whom am I never voting for?

Who can read a pretty, vague speech once at a convention and thusly convince a lot of brain-dead zombies he's the second coming of Kennedy?

What's uglier than Hillary Clinton, slicker than Bill Clinton, less tolerable than Al Gore on stage, and more of a hypocrite than John Edwards?

Who thinks that by tossing around nebulous terms like "hope" rather than addressing real issues or actually thinking during a debate, he can win over the hearts rather than minds of the American people, who are all too willing to vote image over substance?

Who is a big enough arrogant prick to have his wife refer to him by a hyperbole like The Answer?

John Kerry on the Fairness Doctrine

Nobody is likely surprised at fascist-leftist John Kerry's views on the Orwellian titled 'Fairness Doctrine' which has been rearing its monstrous head again, due to the fact that citizens are exercising their right to free expression and daring to disagree with the Washington unrepresentatives.

“I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back. I mean these are the people who wiped out one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements. And the result is that, you know, they’ve been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think it’s been an important transition in the imbalance of our public…”

Frightening. As I read the first amendment, there is some reference to a "freedom" of the press, which as I understand it means the government should not really have control over media output, whether it be liberally biased, or conservatively so, or just plain lame and uninformative. I suppose Kerry has never picked up a copy of tiny papers like the LA Times or the New York Times to see just how well a few AM radio discussion shows have completely controlled public opinion and squashed the expression of differing opinion. Amazingly, Kerry focuses on a single forum, and idiotically suggests that since this particular form of editorial expression is not in sync with his vision of tyranny, then they must be controlled. Does he address the one-sidedness of the satirical news programs on cable TV networks? Of course not. The editorial pages of major newspapers or magazines? Nah.

The most insulting implication of his quote is the idea that if someone holds a view differing from his own, then they must be brainwashed. Talk radio must be warping the opinions of the American public, rather than the public forming their own opinion and tuning in to programs that represent their views. What utter arrogance to think those that disagree with Kerry are too stupid to formulate their own opinions. They must just be parrots, unable to think for themselves. Beyond wet-dreams of dictatorship, there is no excuse for Kerry's threats on free expression in this nation. If a leftist types up a blog, calling for activism, then he or she is probably a hero and a leader in Kerry's eyes; but if a conservative does the same vocally over a different medium, that broadcaster is a mesmerist and disrupter.

Everyone across the political spectrum who cherishes liberty and personal freedom should be sickened to the core at Kerry's (and other Senators') calls for totalitarianism. Except for governmentally sponsored networks, the government has no right to be ramrodding some insane concept of "equal time requirements" down the throats of privately owned forums. And most especially not some doctrine aimed at a tiny segment of the media overall, and at particular opinions and stances of one group of people. What about rock music stations playing a song bashing George Bush? Will they then be required to play a pro-Bush song right after? Or at least provide equal time for a right-wing pundit to debate the lyrical content of the song? How about Christian stations? Will they be required to provide equal time to atheists and muslims?

Whether or not you agree with anything said on talk radio at all, you should respect and defend the rights of these individuals and stations to say whatever the fuck they want. Challenge their ideas all you want, wherever you want. The sphere of public debate encompasses more than any single medium. But for God's sake, don't take the socialist route and attempt to control speech and thought and challenge their RIGHT to speak and express their views. And don't be a big fucking cowardly loser baby, and stamp your feet like a worthless shithead over the idea that huge segments of the population just simply disagrees with you. Calling Kerry a "pussy" would be an insult to female body parts. Enough of your political tantrums. I've heard liberals and Democrats bitch and moan about the dangers Republicans pose to "civil liberties," (and sure a lot of them call for similarly detestable legislation), but they're no better. Honestly, fuck the whole lot of you, those of you, especially our "leaders," who wrap yourselves in the Constitution and pay lip-service to it while at the same shit all over it.

John Kerry, as horrible of a President as Bush has turned out to be (fiscally un-conservative, inept as a commander in chief, a downright traitor on the issue of illegal aliens), you would have been 1,000 times worse. Or maybe just 999 worse. But we might as well have had Hugo Chavez as our top executive as you. He likes to punish members of the media for disagreeing with him too.

I'm a little pissed that Obama didn't give me a chapter to express my views about him in his book. What are you going to do about that?

Amnesty Bill Vote Count

Here's how your Senators voted on reviving the dreaded amnesty bill:

YEAs ---64
Akaka (D-HI) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Brownback (R-KS) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Clinton (D-NY) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Craig (R-ID) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Durbin (D-IL) Ensign (R-NV)	Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY)	Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---35
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bunning (R-KY) Byrd (D-WV) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX)	Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Dorgan (D-ND) Enzi (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Landrieu (D-LA) McCaskill (D-MO)	Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Stabenow (D-MI) Sununu (R-NH) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting - 1

Johnson (D-SD)

Amnesty Bill Advances

The US Senate just voted 64-35 to revive the god-awful, down right treasonous amnesty bill. Of course, this horrible piece of legislation, in any form, will not pass - at least not in the House. But here again, our out-of-touch, arrogant political leaders have once again ignored common sense, integrity and the will of the people to instead push a bill that would reward criminality, weaken American sovereignty, encourage more waves of illegal immigration and over-population, disenfranchise the American lower class by bringing a lower foreign class to undercut job opportunities, and all the way around fail to protect American security. Murderer-moron Edward Kennedy had this to say:

"This may not be perfect, but it is the best opportunity we have to do something significant and substantial, and I believe that the bill is good."

This bill is the complete opposite of "good." Doing "something" is in no way preferable if that "something" actually makes things worse. Last year you, our Senators, House representatives and President did do something "significant and substantial," by voting to fund a border fence. Of course that was just a lie for election purposes. The government has completely failed to follow through on actually supplying us with this layer of protection; much in the same way our government has failed to protect us and our Border Patrol agents from the violence of border crossing. In fact, those sworn to protect us, our patriotic officers, are vilified, attacked and imprisoned for doing that which is in the best interest of our country by these very slimeballs that now want to grant amnesty to intruders, trespassers, drug smugglers and dealers, gang bangers, murderers, assaulters, identity thieves and all around disrepecters of our nation, laws, culture and persons.

In the end, the US Senate serves special interests - those that profit from the hiring of illegal aliens, and the bigoted ethnic entitlementists, socialists and anarchists that wish to destroy liberty by slowly dismantling our republic.

More on Obama

Let's look a little more at what Obama had to say at a church convention on June 23, 2007.

At every opportunity, [the Christian Right have] told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," he said.

I've already discussed the hypocrisy in Obama's attacks on Christians who have right-leaning views, while at the same time trying to portray himself as some sort of "hope peddler." But what exactly is Obama trying to imply with this sentence? Rather than actually addressing his own stances on any of these issues, he cowardly dances away from them, pushing them aside, asserting they are not important. While it is true that the left often portrays the religious right as being single-minded in their concerns, simply because these issues may or may not be high priorities to some in no way suggests that these are their only concerns, nor that they lack opinions on other issues. But it would be a mistake to imply that they might agree with Obama on other issues. Plus, it is hardly true that the these issues are not high priorities for certain groups on the left, be they the pro-choice crowd, gay lobbies or the atheists. The left has gained plenty of mileage by scare-mongering about Supreme Court nominations and the possibility of a loss of "abortion rights." What Obama is really saying here is that making these particular issues a priority, emphasizing single issues, is some sort of a distraction. I'm sure NARAL and gay rights activists would be pleased to hear that.

So rather than actually telling us what he thinks, or would do, about these issues, he avoids substance completely. Much in the same way his attacks on the religious right are easy - he peddles "hope," but offers no solution. Why bother even addressing the perceived problem with the religious right if he offers no plan about it? It's a non-issue, as I seriously doubt he would propose legislation to "fix" it (or if he did, it would be wildly unconstitutional and fascist). He plays around with nothings rather than giving us answers to the somethings that concern a number of people on the left, on the rightm and in the middle. In fact he is really implying we should not really even care about these somethings. And as dismissive as he is to these issues, they are really important to a lot of folks. Some see abortion as murder, mass murder; some see it as a fundamental reproductive right. The key point of debate being the fundamental question: when does human life, and human rights and liberty, actually begin? Whatever your conclusion, not something to be brushed aside. The same with gay marriage - it's really very important to a lot of gay couples who view themselves as being discriminated against, and equally important to those religious individuals that believe society should not endorse or condone such behaviors.

Here's my advice to Obama. Don't even bring up issues if you are too cowardly to reveal your stance on each. Or, if you're legitimately unsure or undecided, tell us that. But do not attempt to sweep these issues under the rug in a pathetically transparent move to avoid giving the voting public the facts it deserves about you to make an informed opinion. If you want anyone's vote, they deserve to know where you really stand. Enough of your formless, wishy-washy image-making. Tell us what you really think; give us details. All we're getting now is worthless fluff.

Obama the Hypocrite

Lot's of people fell for Barack Obama's (Barack Oh-BORING!) flash at first, but even Democrats are beginning to see through his lack of substance in growing numbers. I may not be a fan of Hillary Clinton, but at least there are substantive issues behind her for disliking her. Obama is just an empty shell, devoid of substance.

This weekend, Barack Hussein Obama said the following at a church convention on June 23, 2007:

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart... Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us."

So, Barack-ster, you're complaining about divisiveness by singling out and attacking a particular group, blaming them for what is wrong with America? Right, you're so much different and better than they are.

Now I'm not a big fan of the Christian Right, nor am I a big fan of Obama-man, but I'm not off trying to pretend to be some middle-of-the-road uniter, somehow above the fray of partisan politics (as B.O. tried to suggest he was at the Democratic Convention a little while back). The Christian Right is perfectly entitled to have opinions about others, just as you are to have opinions about them. I don't fault Obama for disagreeing with the Christian Right. I have no problem disagreeing with them myself over a variety of issues. But for him to act somehow superior to them, while at the same time engaging in the behavior he's decrying, is just pathetic.

I am so sick of slick politicians with their lies and propaganda. Cut the crap! I cannot count the times I've seen these jackasses contradict themselves, or spin themselves into illogical spirals of unreason, in an attempt to sound as if they're actually saying something worthwhile or vaguely in tune with some unclear concept. Oh, he's for unity. I'm voting for that fucker. Debate the damn issues, and stop vilifying the other guy - and most ESPECIALLY stop vilifying the other guy by saying all he does is vilify you. Discuss something important. If people want to believe abortion is evil, fuck it, let them. We don't have freedom of religion in this country just so some dipshit, empty-headed Presidential candidate can complain about it. Religion has not been hijacked - there are just *gasp* differences of opinion that are theologically based, just as there are differences of opinion that are based on all kinds of other reasoning.

Probably the most vile aspect of the Obama quote is his use of the word "hijack," a word associated with terrorism, which is in turn is associated with the religious fundamentalism and violence of extremist Islam.

Denice Denton, Still Dead

Those of us that work for the UC System received this annoying little message via email today from UC President Bobby Dynes:

TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY

Dear Colleagues:

As some of you may recall, June 24 marked the passing of one full year

since the death of Denice Denton, who served as Chancellor of the

University of California, Santa Cruz. I would like to take a moment to

pause and reflect on this great talent who was with us for far too short

a time, but who had a tremendous influence on so many throughout the

University and across the nation. As I recalled at her memorial

service, Denice moved us forward into new territories of excellence and

inclusiveness. Along the way, she inspired us, by her own example, to

strive always to be better people, and she challenged us to see our

differences as strengths to build upon and as opportunities to grow.

The University of California is the better for her having come our way

and, in remembering Denice, I hope we will continue to build upon the

rich legacy she left us.

The Santa Cruz campus has posted a special tribute to Chancellor Denton,

and it can be found at

http://www.ucsc.edu/administration/denice_denton/anniversary.asp. I

encourage you to take a moment to visit it and to be inspired by this

extraordinary and gifted individual.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Dynes

President

Now, of course, a corrupt piece of crap like Dynes would be the first to be unable to distinguish between "new territories of excellence" and innovative ways to rip off the taxpayer or bypass ethical behavior. When she was hired, the UC system also hired her lesbian lover to a newly created position in the UC Office of the President, which is in Oakland, which paid $192,000 annually. Denton received benefits that weren’t disclosed when she was hired - part of a UC executive scandal which also implicated our lovely President. She also managed to get $30,000 spent for a freaking "dog run" as part of $600,000 in renovations to the chancellor’s campus house.

Behavior such as this is the exact opposite of "[inspiring] us, by her own example, to strive always to be better people." Unless you of course you consider her an example of how not to behave.

But of course, since she was a lesbian, her incompetence and thievery are to be ignored by the lunatic left that has infested UC campuses with their insane agenda of diversity-bigotry over rational thought and fairness. In some great quest for "inclusiveness" people are to be judged on labels rather than morality and ability. I'm sure she was a fine engineer, but she was a piss-poor administrator and an even worse example of a principled person. She was a militant entitlementist, who thought anyone that dared disagree with her was a bigot, but it was she who showed true prejudice by suggesting she deserved special privilege and consideration due to her sexual orientation.

That said, that she chose to take her own life is a tragedy.

Feinstein Equals Fascist, But Does Not Equal Fairness

Check out what the so-called "liberal", anti-liberty, pro-fascism, pure-evil twat Senator Dianne Feinstein had to say about free speech on FNS yesterday:

WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Feinstein.

Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened. But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. This is a very complicated bill. It’s seven titles. Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

Color me shocked. First off, let's look at her insane assertions about the immigration bill. If anyone is dwelling in extremism and hyperbole, it is Feinstein. She is being "explosive," and downright insulting, suggesting that those that hold different views, be they listeners or hosts, regarding this bill someone are ignorant of what is in it. Believe it or not, Dumb-anne, those opposing the bill are fully aware of what the legislation entails. People are aware it is "complicated," but complexity does not necessarily translate to actual reform or effectiveness, especially considering that we have the laws we need already on the books, and they have not been enforced. Disagreeing with whether or not this bill works, or is fair, is not the same as not comprehending what it does.

She also puts forth the moronic "silent amnesty" argument in favor of this bill, but fails to address the fact that those opposed to it want neither silent, nor government endorsed, amnesty. People on and listening to talk radio are quite aware that the current administration and Congress does NOTHING to enforce the laws of the land now, in fact granting "silent amnesty," but fails to fix it. This bill only makes things worse, will encourage more illegal immigration, rewards illegal behavior, and offers no real solution. If she actually LISTENED to some talk radio, she would hear that hosts go into the flaws in the current system all the time. It's bullshit to assert that because people are opposed to this current attempt to "fix" the system, that they are opposed to fixing the system at all. There was an attempt to start fixing the system last year - by building hundreds of miles of new border fence (not a comprehensive fix by any means, but a start) - which was passed by Congress and signed into law, yet that has not yet been built.

Equally insulting is the assertion that talk radio "pushes" people into certain opinions, views or actions. People listen to talk radio hosts because they agree with them (or enjoy disagreeing with them). It's not like they've suddenly become brainwashed by the radio waves. Heck, what would motivate them to tune-in in the first place? What is most chilling about Feinstein's pathetic attempt at reasoning here is that somehow this disagreement justifies censorship or governmental control of media content. And even worse, it targets only a tiny sliver of the media and biased opinion. What you will not hear Feinstein calling for is a Fairness Doctrine effecting the editorial sections of liberal newspapers, liberal bias in college classrooms, leftist slant on TV News or comedy shows, left-wing bias in movies or music, or any of a million other forums. And what amazes me is that liberals and Democrats will foam at the mouth in these forums, online, etc., about how Bush and the Republicans are attempting to erode civil liberties with the Patriot Act or calling for an end to bias in college education, but have no problem pissing all over the 1st Amendment when it comes to opinions that don't fall in sync with their own.

Guess what, Dumb-anne, you or anyone else has no right to "present the other side" on someone else's editorial forum. And attempting to silence dissenting opinion is about as fascist as you can get. But it's about the sort of utter hypocrisy I've come to expect from the Democratic Party. No wonder Congress has an approval rating as low as Bush's.