Bleeding Right

We've moved! Update your bookmarks, please!

2005-08-10T00:48:00.000-06:00

The fine folks at Blogger were able to retrieve all of the files that I deleted the other day accidentally but since we've already set up shop on our own server we're just going to stay there. However, this Blog will remain up as a archive.

The new URL for Bleeding Right is http://bleedingright.antidoterecords.net.

Thank you.

CBGB's needs OUR help!

2005-08-06T17:20:00.000-06:00

Yeah, I know that there are tons of people out there who feel that one can't be a Conservative and, at the same time, a "punk". Well, tell that to members of The Ramones, or Bobby Steele of the Misfits, or The Vandals ... or ME. But we're not going to get into that whole "oxymoron" debate again here. No ... instead, this posting deals with something thats near and dear to my heart.

THEY WANT TO SHUT DOWN GBGB'S! Granted, NYC is now practically another Disneyland but shutting down this classic ... historical ... rock club amounts to sacrilege as far as I'm concerned. This place was the spawning ground for many influential and classic Punk, New Wave, and Rock acts throughout its decades-long history. Bands like Blondie, The Ramones, Talking Heads, Television ... just to name a few. Hell, a couple of my own bands played there as well. Frankly, instead of being shut down it should be preserved as a landmark.

Many are the Sunday afternoons that I can remember back in the 80's and early 90's that my friends and I would spend at the Hardcore Mattinees. Many are the fond memories associated with that club and the whole atmosphere/ambience about it. Who cares if the bathrooms never really worked properly or that there were no doors on the stalls? CBGB's always had the BEST sound of any club in NYC as well.

There is something that you can (and should) do to try to prevent this disregard for history, though. First of all, stop by the Save CBGB's website and read all about the details and background behind this development. Stay current ... and DO SOMETHING to help.

It's great that, for the most part, you can now walk around the Big Apple without worrying about being mugged and the streets are cleaner ... and Times Square has gone from porn-hell to Disney-approved ... but does this cleanup have to mean the end of every "cool" club in town? I think not ...

WWW.SAVECBGB.ORG

Assimilate ... annihilate ... and plain, old HATE

2005-08-05T12:12:00.000-06:00

Seems like the Brits are having second thoughts about being so free with their immigration standards after realizing that the TERRORISTS were (for the most part) British citizens. Might be a good time to get a little rougher with those extremists openly preaching pro-terror tactics, don't you think?

So far, from what he says, it looks like Tony Blair is serious about getting tough on these TERRORISTS ... but we'll see what the outcome is. Frankly, I've heard George W. Bush talking about getting tough on terror ... but, as much as I love the president, I honestly haven't seen him get REALLY tough. Talk is one thing ... but let's see some action, man!

It's long overdue that we stop worrying about what the ACLU and other similar crybabies think and go after the terrorists with guns fully blazing. Is that too extreme? I think not. They're hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and it's hard to get to them? To HELL with that ... let's put some bunker-busters to use, shall we? If that doesn't work ... there's always the nuke option. Look ... how many of our own soldiers have to die just because we want to remain politically correct and sensitive?

A pocket of terrorists hiding in a Mosque and shooting at us from within? Time to call out the heavy artillery and not worry about chipping some paint off of this holy structure. I'm seriously sick to my stomach when I hear of some more casualties that could have been averted courtesy of TOUGH tactics on our part. Why are we fighting these bastards with kid gloves????

And what about the detainees at Gitmo and else where? Do we keep feeding rice pilaf and providing them with prayer books ... making sure that their cells are temperature controlled and that there's no loud blaring music offending them???? Or do we get TOUGH? Why would they talk if they knew that we will NOT get really tough on them?

Yes, I know ... I know ... I'm a war monger. But that's just not true. I just want to see an end to this conflict and, the way I see it, the terrorists KNOW that we won't really be tough on them. Why? Because we don't want to be seen as "mosters" by the rest of the world (and some within).

Sorry ... it's one of those days. Let the flames begin!

Survey says ... Hillary would lose to Republican if elections were held today.

2005-08-04T16:56:00.000-06:00

I can't stand polls. I don't believe in polls. Who's getting polled, anyway? I've never been polled or surveyed by anyone. What kind of people are being targetted by the pollsters? Who knows? Not to mention how many polls end up predicting the wrong results (hello Zogby!). However, it seems like a large chunk of the country make their decisions based on polling data so I thought they'd find this tidbit interesting:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., would do better than Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., against potential 2008 Republican presidential rivals John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani -- but would still lose, a Gallup Poll showed Wednesday.

Both McCain, a senator from Arizona who challenged then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush for the Republican nomination in 2000, and Giuliani, mayor of New York City during the Sept. 11 attacks, would beat Clinton in the trial matchup 50 percent to 45 percent, the poll showed.

Either of the two Republicans would beat Kerry 54 percent to 41 percent. In the presidential election on Nov. 2, Bush beat Kerry 51 percent to 48 percent.

Interesting, to say the least. If you'd like to read the rest of this story (from the San Francisco Chronicle) click here.

Are we to be guided by this revelation? I think not. However, it does go to show that the Dems truly are in trouble and that the country, as a whole, is still behind Bush in a big way ... no matter what your fave TV news anchor (or Liberal blogger) might say.

Pot calling the kettle black. Pot? I smell hippies! Where's Fonda?

2005-08-04T04:58:00.000-06:00

Remember all of the hoopla and sore-loser inspired accusations of voter fraud running rampant during the 2004 elections? I remember it ... very well. If you listened to the Pollsters (like that Zogby buffoon), broadcast media talking heads, or just the "average Joes" on the street it was inevitable that John Kerry was going to win. The country was sick and tired of Bush and Rumsfeld and Condi and ... well, let's just say that they thought America wanted a change. Guess what? What America wanted was a leader that would do his damnedest to protect our country and its citizens from terror and from the Lefties who would "globalize" this great land of ours. What America wanted and voted in record numbers for ... was a George W. Bush second term.

The election results baffled the Left so much that of course there HAD TO BE some shenanigans going on to have given the election to Bush. Right? Hahah ... they couldn't have been more wrong. However, the voter fraud accusations and allegations continue to this day.

Anyway, The American Center For Voting Rights has been looking into these allegations and look at part of what they've found:

ACVR Legislative Fund further found that, despite their heated rhetoric, paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression activities than were their Republican counterparts during the 2004 presidential election. Whether it was slashing tires on GOP get-out-the-vote vans in Milwaukee or court orders stopping the DNC from intimidating Republican volunteers in Florida, the evidence presented in this report shows that paid Democrat operatives were responsible for using the same tactics in 2004 that they routinely accuse Republicans of engaging in.

Hmmmm ... interesting, isn't it? You can read the rest of this report here. I would also suggest that you regulars would pass this on to your Leftie friends (or foes) for a good chuckle ... at their own expense, of course.

High maintenance ... and low, shady politicos

2005-08-03T09:06:00.000-06:00

100% true story:

A few years back I was working for a lighting/staging and event production company. We were setting up the stage for a certain someone's press conference at Ellis Island (you know ... Statue of Liberty) and all of us were getting very frustrated by the politician whom this was all for.

It was a very sunny day and pretty damned hot as well ... the sun was bright and there really wasn't all that much shade to work with. Regardless, the politician wanted the podium to be in a shady spot. Makes sense, right? But this person had us assemble and move this massive stage a total of 4 times before it was deemed worthy. Keep in mind that we were on a schedule and each set up took a good 45 minutes to an hour ... with the break-down taking slightly less time. Additionally, we were all getting reamed for not being on schedule. We WERE on schedule! Problem was that the politician-du-jour kept making us move the damned thing.

Prior to our company taking on any jobs there was always a contract specifying where everything would be set up ... so it was obvious that we were sticking to our end of the deal. But it seemed like there would be no pleasing this shady pain in the butt.

Finally, we reached a spot that was deemed acceptable ... but during her speech Hillary Clinton had an assistant holding an umbrella over her head to keep the sun from singing her face.

Hold on ... maybe there's some vampirism going on here? The Lefties are vampires that are sucking the life out of America as we know (and love) it? I think I might be on to something. This requires further investigation.

Sure ... let's give the TERRORISTS ideas.

2005-08-03T03:36:00.000-06:00

Been working most of the night/early morning with the TV on in the background (as usual) and something that I've been hearing on the news shows (even Fox) is getting under my skin.

They're talking up whether the Vatican might be the next big target for a terror attack. They go on to detail how many visitors the place gets and how much wealth is there ... how it's probably the biggest symbol of Christianity in the world, akin to the Muslims' Mecca ...yadda-yadda-yadda.

Is this really necessary? Must they be chatting this up all over the airwaves? God knows that if some wacko with 72 virgins on his mind hadn't thought of the Vatican before ... he sure does now! I call this irresponsible journalism. What? Slow news day that we have to start giving miscellaneous nutjobs ideas???

Forgive me if I'm jumping the gun here or just ranting but it's late ... or early ... and I'm feeling antsy. I just had to get on and make a note of that.

Have a nice day.

Eye of the beholder ... or ... in blind delusions we thrive

2005-08-02T18:14:00.000-06:00

Well, what can be said of the Liberal mind and their perceptions/distortions of reality? It's obvious that each of us (no matter where his/her mind resides, politically) are entitled to our own opinions but sometimes I just read something (or hear it) from the Liberal point of view and it just ... I don't know ... it makes me wonder if the writer (or speaker) wasn't dropped on his/her head as an infant. Better yet ... alien abduction?

Take, for example, this selection from Fables of the Reconstruction ... an obvioulsy Leftie Blog:

Conservative Blog Taxonomy

A selection:

1. Instapundit - Calling Glenn Reynolds intellectually lazy would be to praise him. He doesn't write, he grunts. Has gained prominence by posting a lot and never making his audience think; has done those things by never thinking too much himself. Never met a Democrat he couldn't casually accuse of treason.

2. Michelle Malkin - Far-right affirmative action hire who is so bigoted she'd arrest herself for trying to cross a border. Famously published a book praising internment of Japanese-Americans that was (a) incoherent and (b) probably not written by her. If she didn't have tits, she'd be stuck writing at Townhall.com.

3. Powerline - Bilious Minnesotans led by someone who nicknamed himself "Hindrocket." Talk about being manly in that protests-too-much way.

4. Little Green Footballs - If LGF didn't exist, Dave Neiwert would have to invent it. Heady stuff for young rightwingers, like the VÃ¶lkischer Beobachter was in the good old days. Site gives off a strong scent of roast pork.

5. Captain's Quarters - Every so often on the subway, I find these screeds written in colored marker, in which the printing goes from edge to edge on the paper, often with words cut off in random spots at the end of the line and continued on the next. I am told that this style of writing is common among very delusional people. Ed Morrissey has the benefit of blogging software that paginates the words for him. He will deliver pages on any subject at all, always proving in his mind the perfidy of liberals and always making absolutely no sense. I bet Ed makes even other far-righters nervous.

6. Volokh Conspiracy - Doctrinaire right-wing lawyers who intellectualize and ward off reality, interspersed with flashes of viciousness. Fortunately, Volokh is so tone-deaf he has already excluded himself from the judgeship he obviously desires - he's described himself as a "law and order conservative" (code for putting blacks in jail) and praised torturing prisoners before executing them.

7. Hugh Hewitt - Death to Muslims! Death to Muslims! Death to Muslims! It goes on like that.

8. Dean's World - Dean Esmay is popular among right-wingers as one of those centrists who just happen to hate liberals and Democrats. A proud dry drunk, he works out his unresolved childhood issues of being raised in a union household by writing about his crackpot theories on HIV/AIDS, feminism, and capitalism.

9. Buzzmachine - A man with a face for radio, Jeff Jarvis has used his "credentials" as a television critic for TV Guide to get himself tapped by cable news as the "blog guy." Like TV news, Buzzmachine lurches from outrage to self-righteousness to the furious riding of several creaky hobbyhorses. Like TV pundits, Jarvis comes up with meaningless catchphrases that he repeats endlessly ("News is a conversation" being the most vapid) and poses as another neutral observer who just happens to hate liberals and Democrats. And like TV generally, Jarvis' presentation of any given issue is shallow and knee-jerk, and only really exists to promote the product, in this case, Jarvis. Caution: name-dropping zone.

10. RedState - Formerly known pseudonymously as Tacitus, formerly considered by some liberals as a reasonable conservative, Josh Trevino found that neither was conducive to promotion in Republican circles, so he dumped the name and his former site and founded RedState. Democrats or liberals are both banned and regularly accused of treason; Muslims are presumed dangerous. Darfur is an especially favorite topic, because it both shows Islam in a bad light and has the advantage of not having to actually do anything.

Glenn Reynolds never makes his audience think? Michelle Malkin is a bigot? Ed Morrissey is delusional? Hugh Hewitt just want to kill Muslims??? It's a good thing that the Libs are so tolerant of other people's opinons, right? Sometimes I consider thinking that Freedom of Speech is a bit TOO free ...

Did I say that? Sorry ... must've been the bourbon talking.

2005-08-02T15:51:00.000-06:00

So, as expected, the Looney Lefties are jumping all over Bolton and Bush because of this recess appointment. It's an "outrage", "abuse of power", "un American", "total disregard for the Constitution" ... yadda-yadda-yadda. Funny, but it seems that not so long ago Ted Kennedy was humming a different recess appointment tune. Remember, Ted?

"I have long urged recess appointments to break this logjam - this irresponsible, unconstitutional Republican leadership position which fails to give people their due and fails to meet the constitutional standard.

That was what Kennedy said regarding Bill Lan Lee's pending appointment to the Department of Justice during the Clinton years. Now here's what he's saying about Bolton's recess action:

"a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent".

Ted ... go easy on the hard stuff, will ya? Maybe it's time for a Shirley Temple instead.

John Bolton - our new BULLDOG in the U.N.

2005-08-01T12:09:00.000-06:00

... and we sure CAN use a bulldog there to put the bite on corruption, stupidity, and (overall) an organization which has, over time, grown irrelevant and useless ... sometimes downright CRIMINAL. Can you say "Oil for Food"? Anyway, here's the story straight from Forbes.com:

Bush Appoints John Bolton As U.S. Ambassador To UN
Chris Noon, 08.01.05, 1:20 PM ET

Nota bene, United Nations members: John Bolton doesn't do carrots on sticks--but he is able to administer a dose of "tough love," according to his supporters.

For President George W. Bush has appointed the uncompromising Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, claiming that Democrats' "shameful delaying tactics" had forced him to bypass Congress. Under the terms of the controversial "recess appointment," Bolton--a quondam critic of the UN--will serve at the organization until January 2007.

"This post is too important to leave vacant any longer," opined President Bush, citing Bolton's extensive experience in foreign affairs. The White House had been anxious to install a UN representative before the September opening of the General Assembly. Accepting the role, Bolton said one of his aims was to re-sculpt the UN into a "stronger, more effective organization, true to the ideals of its founders."

Moustachioed Bolton has both his admirers and detractors: Few doubt Bolton is incredibly hard-working and intelligent, even if the Yale University-educated lawyer has a history of putting noses out of joint. Groups opposing his nomination call attention to footage of Bolton saying that there is "no such thing" as the UN and claiming the U.S. to be the globe's "only real power." He has also been strongly critical of countries like North Korea and Iran.

One supporter was quoted in published reports as saying that Bolton could offer "a dose of tough love, to an organization very much in need of it."

Didn't take too long for the Dems to bitch and moan ... as expected. Want to see some evidence of this? Just log on to any Left-leaning news site or blog ... or any News show on TV. Let the games begin ...

I love my country! Got a problem with that, buddy?

2005-08-01T04:37:00.000-06:00

Seems like the more I watch the news and read newspapers and blogs, the more disgusted I become with certain people. I remember while growing up and going to school how we used to have to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day out in the schoolyard before classes started. Every day. If it was raining we'd do it in the auditorium. Back then no one was really talking about removing "under God" from the Pledge ... no one was chastised for showing his Patriotism and Nationalism. People were proud to be proud of their country.

Nowadays it seems like any time that you show your love for your country you are looked upon by those on the Left (and beyond) as a fascist or war-monger. Somehow they see it as un-American to be pro-American. What in the Hell is wrong with showing pride? With loving your country? Sure, everyone wore flag lapel pins and displayed flags proudly on the days following 9-11 ... but that has changed. Big-time!

America is full of people who HATE the country they live in. They're striving (and hoping) for a day when we become one with the Europeans. When our major decisions are decided not by our leaders but by a group of nations (the United Nations?). When everyone and anyone can freely come into this country and rape it for their own benefit. That, my friends, is the day when I either move to my own private island ... or put muzzle to temple. Know what I mean? THAT is not the America that my great-grandparents emigrated to. The America that I love.

Thankfully, this past election proved that there are still plenty of us around who will try their damnedest (or die doing so) to make sure that Worldmerica NEVER comes to be. That is ... unless we get lazy. And, yes, there are some lazy ones amongst us. We can NEVER give up or get too comfortable in our majority. No, sir. That's just an invite for the Left (and the French?) to come on in and take over the reigns.

So I will NEVER let up. I will never succumb to the whims and whines of the Left. I will continue to speak my mind and show my PRIDE. My pride in being an AMERICAN.

My country, 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountainside,
Let freedom ring!

My native country, thee,
Land of the noble free,
Thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills,
Like that above.

Let music swell the breeze,
And ring from all the trees,
Sweet freedom's song;
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
Let rocks their silence break,
The sound prolong.

Our fathers' God, to Thee,
Author of liberty,
To Thee we sing;
Long may our land be bright
With freedom's holy light;
Protect us by Thy might,
Great God, our King.

... and no, I'm not some religious NUT. Haven't been to Church in a very long time. Just a regular NUT who's sick and tired of all the anti-American rhetoric being spewed by so-called Americans themselves.

Preaching to the choir

2005-07-29T16:09:00.000-06:00

I've been doing a lot of Blog surfing over the last few days ... a heck of a lot. Mainly, I'm just curious about what's going on in the world and what better way to gauge things than by first-person accounts, thoughts, and opinions?

There are many different types of Blogs out there - personal diaries; photo Blogs; details of sex escapades; fantasies; drafts of new works by up and coming as well as established authors; tributes to various music and Hollywood stars; some Blogs that just flat-out make no sense at all; some that are in foreign languages; plus quite a few that are trying to be another voice for the Left, Right, or other political leaning.

One thing that I've noticed is the complete lack of regard or care for grammar and proper spelling. I can understand a typo here and there but it's more than obvious that a lot of Bloggers just don't really give a crap about writing properly. And don't get me started on all of the 'netspeak riddled ones ... making it seem like one, long Instant Message conversation with a 7 year-old. The sad part is ... the perpetrators are NOT kids. I'm talking about late teens and even seasoned adults doing this type of language murder. It's sad. Pathetic.

Another 100% irritating aspect of some Blogs is the overuse of aesthetic or peripheral content. Everything from embedded music and video to a million and one "blog" buttons and cutesy backgrounds that take forever to load. Obviously, this is all supposed to make up for the fact that these Blogs have ZERO worthwhile content. Of course, all of this is very subjective ... just my opinion ... but I know that many others share this opinion with me. If you're a Simpsons fan, try to remember the episode where Homer builds his first website. Hahahah ... THAT's what I'm talking about, folks.

Some of my favorite Blogs are the political ones. More specifically, the ones by amateur pundits (like myself) giving the world their own take on political topics. There are a few Bloggers falling under this category that do nothing but copy and paste news stories from other sources. While that's fine and dandy, I just don't see that as original. Why not comment on these topics as well instead of just archiving them? Equally as annoying are the Blogs in which the author(s) just bash one side or the other without any explanation or thought. "Bush sucks!" "Bush is a Nazi" "Democrats are idiots" "The Left blows" ... stuff like that. Give me (the reader) a reason why you feel that way. I would much rather read a Leftie Blog written by an intelligent blogger than a Right-wing Blog full of nothing but fluff.

I'll admit that I make a mistake every once in a while and a typo might pop up here and there in my posts ... but I'm pretty sure that's all on rare occasions. I also always at least TRY to explain why I feel the way that I do. While you might not agree with my take on things ... you will have to admit that it is MY opinion and I'm entitled to it. Unfortunately, in my Blogosphere travels I've also found that Leftie bloggers are more apt to attack a Rightie than vice versa. Seems like they want to rally behind Freedom of Speech ... as long at it applies to a Liberal and NOT a Conservative.

Slithering Reptiles ... and the ACLU

2005-07-28T02:06:00.000-06:00

I just noticed that my status is now "Slithering Reptile" over at The Truth Laid Bear's Blogosphere Ecosystem, which is a sort of popularity measure for Blogs. Wasn't too long ago that I was an "Insignificant Microbe" so I guess that I'm evolving and progressing ... due to all of you that stop by to read these thoughts of mine on a daily basis and those who link to me. I appreciate it ...

Speaking of insignificant microbes and venomous reptiles, the ACLU was delivered a significant BLOW by the Senate when they UNANIMOUSLY voted to allow the Boy Scouts to continue holding meetings on military bases. Ha! Even Ted Kennedy voted FOR this measure! Wow ... maybe he's gone cold-turkey and come to his senses? Nah ... must have been a moment of madness (or weakness) for the old boy. Here's the full story:

By Liz Sidoti
ASSOCIATED PRESS

2:04 p.m. July 26, 2005

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to allow U.S. military bases to continue to host Boy Scout events, responding to lawsuits and a federal court ruling aimed at severing relationships between the government and the youth group.

The vote came one day after four adult Scout leaders were killed on the opening day of the National Scout Jamboree at the Army's Fort A.P. Hill in Bowling Green, Va., when a tent pole apparently struck a power line.

In a 98-0 vote, the Senate approved the provision continuing the hosting of Boy Scout events as part of massive bill setting Defense Department policy for next year. After the vote, Senate leaders decided to put off further debate and votes on the overall bill, probably until fall when Congress returns from a monthlong break.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a former Boy Scout who sponsored the Senate provision, said it is necessary to push back on a spate of lawsuits to limit Boy Scout activities on government property. The provision adopted Tuesday says Boy Scouts should be treated the same as other national youth organizations

Frist said it "removes any doubt that federal agencies may welcome Scouts to hold meetings, go camping on federal property or hold scouting events and public forums" on government property.

In 1999, the ACLU of Illinois filed a lawsuit claiming the Pentagon's sponsorship of such Boy Scout activities violates the First Amendment. The ACLU argues that direct government sponsorship of the group amounts to discrimination.

Civil liberties advocates have assailed the Boy Scouts organization because it bans openly gay leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God.

On June 22, U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning ruled in the ACLU's favor, saying the Pentagon can't spend millions of dollars to sponsor Boy Scout events. She said in an earlier ruling that the government spent between $6 million and $8 million to host the Jamboree on a military base in 1997 and 2001.

The House in November overwhelmingly passed a nonbinding resolution that recognized the Boy Scouts organization for its public service efforts and condemned legal efforts to limit government ties to the organization that has 3.2 million members.

Maybe this is a trend and the ACLU will finally get it through their thick skulls that they are NOT the be-all end-all of the public's conscience. Nah ... who am I kidding? There are plenty of "abuses" and "civil liberties thefts" going on right now for them to rally behind. Not to mention the cabal of child molestors and pedophiles itching for a good ACLU lawyer to take on their case(s).

Look ... do yourself (and the rest of America's SANE citizens) a favor and do what you can to keep America truly FREE and SAFE. Click on the graphic below and JOIN!

"Jane says ..."

2005-07-27T03:48:00.000-06:00

That's how one of my favorite Jane's Addiction songs starts ... but this isn't about that classic experimental/alternative band (unfortunately). Instead, it's about Barbarella. Remember her? I certainly can't forget being a youngster and sneaking in to the theater that was showing a revival of that movie. I had thought that it was another Star Wars or Buck Rogers type of film but, damn, was I wrong! That might have been my first exposure to female breasts in a sexual setting. Hahahah ... so THAT'S where it all began ...

Anyway, the star of that movie, Ms. Jane Fonda, is no stranger to controversy. I won't go into too many details here since you're all probably aware of them and I'd just be repeating something that's well enough publicized all over the web. If you have been living under a rock for the past 40 years, though, just do a Google search for "Jane Fonda Vietnam" ...

Well, it seems that Barbarella's back to her old antics. The following comes from the Hindustan Times:

Jane Fonda, the celebrated Hollywood actress who led demonstrations against the Vietnam war, is returning to her anti-war activities by calling the US to end military operations in Iraq.

Fonda announced over the weekend that she would be leading a cross-country drive in a bio-diesel bus to call for an end to US military operations in Iraq.

She said the campaign would include her family and the families of Iraq war veterans and casualties. Fonda said she decided to resume her anti-war activities at the urging of war veterans.

"I've decided I'm coming out," she said. "I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam," she said. "I carry a lot of baggage from that."

Fonda incited controversy in July 1972 when she was photographed sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun while on a tour of the country to drum up support to end the war. She has since apologised for her actions.

"She has since apologized for her actions". Yeah ... when it was convenient for her to do so. And now ... back to the same old same old. I wonder if she'll be posing with the occupants of a terrorist training camp? Perhaps a nice publicity shot of Barbarella helping to plant some improvised land mines or bombs for our boys (and girls) in service to get maimed (or killed) by?

My childhood fantasy woman has grown to become an adulthood embarrassment.

Priorities

2005-07-26T12:06:00.000-06:00

This one caught me off-guard, though it's not all that surprising. Seems like some on the Left are offended by the Patriot Act, profiling, and searches of bags on the subway but now they're wanting to ban smoking in your own car. What? Are you kidding me? The Patriot Act infringes on your civil liberties but it's alright to legislate what I can and can't do in my own car????

Folks, I'm not a smoker ... but I think that they should be worrying about more important things in New Jersey.

Are you freaking kidding me? They're STILL going down this road of misinformation and bull???

2005-07-25T16:26:00.000-06:00

I was sitting here surfing some Blogs and trying to come up with something a little bit different to post about this afternoon when I happened upon an obviously Left-leaning Blog that caught my eye. At first I thought that it was an old, archived posting but then I looked at the date and ... well, it blew my mind. Here we are, towards the end of 2005 and the Jackasses (well, a Donkey IS a Jackass, right?) are still trying to convince people (or themselves) that the Bush administration had a hand in CAUSING the 9/11 attacks!

Sure ... why not? Let's blame ourselves and our leaders and NOT the bastards that murdered thousands on that day. I understand the whole Freedom of Speech thing and believe in it ... but sometimes ... well, I shouldn't go there. If I do I'll have to deal with a flooded email box ... again.

Anyway, head on over to The Bulldog Manifesto, read it ... and then try not to throw up that lunch or early dinner that you just ate.

You're a(n) (oxy)moron!

2005-07-24T16:55:00.000-06:00

The internet. Such a great tool for learning, research ... and idiocy. I had a very interesting exchange with a "real Punk" via instant messenger earlier today which I was going to fully transcribe here but, as luck would have it, I deleted a large chunk of the conversation file by mistake. What this means is that I'm going to have to try my damnedest to remember the conversation as word-for-word as I can. Those of you that know me well are most likely snickering right now ... knowing full well that I have the memory of a goldfish. Regardless, I'm pretty confident that the gist of the conversation will come through. Here we go:

Hey, you're that guy that writes the Bleeding Right Blog, right?

Yeah, that would be me. What's up? What can I do for you?

I read what you wrote a while back about how you're a conservative punk and I just wanted to tell you that you CAN'T be a conservative and a punk at the same time

Really? Well, thanks for telling me.

No, you dumbass. I mean how can you say that you're a punk and then be a conservative?

Simple. I love Punk Rock music and I identify with and follow Conservative views and ideals. So what does that make me?

A jerk

Oh. Well, like I said ... thanks for letting me know. Go back to your Sum 41 discs now, kid.

I'm not a kid

Oh, I'm sorry. How old are you?

20

Well, that makes you a seasoned veteran then ... kid. Hahah

Whatever, man. But yeah. Punk is about not following the system and going against the government and protesting the President and stuff like that. So how can you say you're a Punk and then also say that youre a conservative?

Because, kid

I'm not a kid!!!!!

Well, you're interrupting like one. Let me ask you ... did you vote in this past election?

No

That figures. Alright. Well, who would you have voted for? Who did you favor?

Kerry. He was a War hero, man. He would have gottin us out of Irak

Yeah, of course. So you're a "punk" and you supported Kerry. Going by your estimation of what "punk" means, what would you have done if Kerry won?

Whadda you mean?

I mean, if Kerry became President would you still support him? Because you just said that "punk" was about NOT supporting the government. So ... what if Kerry won? What would you do?

I wouldn't do anything. I mean I would be happy that Bush wasn't there anymore and that we now had Kerry

Alright, but then you'd be supporting the government, right? What I'm saying is that if we go by your definition of "punk" you'd be a hypocrite.

No I wouldnt

You're not making any sense, kid.

What?

Never mind.

You're just an asshole that's all

Well, thanks for the fine conversation, kid. Be sure to buzz me again when you finish your Kool Aid.

Huh?

Have a good day ...

Asshole

Savage ... Patton ... and Jihad

2005-07-24T03:34:00.000-06:00

I recently (this evening) finished reading Michael Savage's Liberalism is a Mental Disorder and consider it quite an accomplishment. You see ... I haven't really been doing much book reading for a few years now (other than the occasional Henry Rollins tome) but now the time seemed right to get back into some literary nourishment. Perhaps it's due to my growing hunger for knowledge and others' viewpoints on topics that I care about but, whatever the case might be, I'm back in reading mode, baby!

While I don't agree with everything that Savage espouses, I do find myself and my feelings in the vicinity of his opinions a good 90% of the time. He brings up MANY interesting points that I hadn't even thought of ... plus quite a few that had me saying, "Hey ... I was just thinking that!". He not only talks about topics and the realities of them but he also details them with a nice, searchable bibliography at the end of the book. I may actually do a proper review of the book at a later time but, for now, let's just say that I very highly recommend it.

One of my favorite parts of Savage's book was the section on General George S. Patton and some of his quotes which were at times prophetic ... in a way still appropriate for the current War on Terror.

Remember how John Kerry wanted us to fight a "more sensitive war"? Well, it seems to me that's exactly what we're doing. Our troops are in harm's way more than they should and in situations that could be avoided for the simple fact that if we waged a PROPER and effective war there would be the possibility of collateral damage to mosques and maybe even greater civilian casualties. Could you imagine the media's reaction to a mosque being obliterated by our troops ... even if they were being bazooka'd and shot at from within by the so-called "insurgents"? We get demonized NOW ... even with these current "sensitive" tactics of ours. They wouldn't waste one minute in, once again, portraying US as the "bad guys" ... would they?

Anyway, look over the following Patton quotes and revel in their timeliness even today ... and the General's keen observations and opinions on fighting a proper war and dealing with the Lefties:

There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is, "To use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

War means fighting and fighting means killing.

The pacifist actually refuses to defend what defends him; his country. In the final analysis this is the most basic immoral position.

War is simple, direct, and ruthless. It takes a simple, direct, and ruthless man to wage it.

War is a killing business. You must spill the enemy's blood or they will spill yours.

It may be of interest to future generals to realize that one makes plans to fit the circumstances, and does not try to create circumstances to fit plans.

As long as man exists, there will be war. The only way to avoid trouble is to have the best Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Sometimes I wish that people would take this war more seriously.

It seems to me a certainty that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of the Arab women are the outstanding causes for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have been developing.

The enemy has been booby trapping his dead, which has made our men very mad. The result is that there are more enemy dead than usual.

The pacifists are at it again. I met a 'visiting fireman' of great eminence who told me that this was to be the 'last war'. I told him that such statements since 2600 B.C. had signed the death warrants of millions of young men. He replied with the stock lie, 'Oh yes, but things are different now'. My God! Will they never learn?

The attitude of the American people as evinced by the press and the radio is such that I am inclined to think that I made a great mistake in serving them for nearly forty years, although I had a very good time doing it.

In our schools the youth should learn to show reverence for our flag and not treat it only as a handsome decoration. Each day he should study and hear recounted some of the splendid deeds of patriotism with which our country abounds. Surely this is vital, for if the alphabet and the multiplication table develop the mind, is not the soul worthy of instruction?

We should not dwell on sorrow that these slain in battle have died, but rather be thankful that they have lived.

Do not talk or think of your rights or your fatigues or of what the other fellow failed to do. War is the struggle of nations; you are in it, but as an individual, and hence your feelings as such do not exist.

There seems to be an unwitting conspiracy to make me lose my self confidence, but so far it has failed.

If we again believe that wars are over, we will surely have another and damned quick. Man is War and we had better remember that! Also, we had better look out for ourselves and make the rest of the world look out for themselves. If we attempt to feed the world, we will starve and perhaps destroy America.

... and my three favorites:

Politicians are the lowest form of life on the earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.

Roman civilization fell due to the loss of the will to conquer; satisfaction with the 'status quo'; and high taxes, which destroyed trade and private enterprise. These conditions eventually forced people out of the cities. The cycle is returning.

At the close of this war, I will remove my insignia and wrist watch. I will continue to wear my short coat so that everyone can kiss my ass.

Pigs are flying!

2005-07-22T14:06:00.000-06:00

To my horror, I have found that I have something in common with Chuck Schumer! When he was set to go on TV this morning and speak about his take on NYC Police Officers searching random subway passengers I fully expected him to complain and bitch and moan about it ... but he actually thought it was a GOOD idea. He went on to say that we should spend even more money on security. Wow!

Now ... if he'd only get the rest of his head out of his rear maybe he'd have some other sane and rational ideas as well.

I do have to add something, though.What exactly is wrong with profiling? I say that we need to AGGRESSIVELY PROFILE. If I happen to look semi-terroristic as I walk down the street I would HOPE that a cop would stop and question me. Go right ahead! What are we so afraid of? If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear from the cops ... right? Get over it! Do you want to be as safe as possible from terror attacks ... or do you want everyone to be able to walk down the street with NO scrutinizing at all? You can't have both, folks.

I'm also hearing of a group of IDIOTS who are planning on protesting these new passenger searches and even wearing t-shirts saying that they won't consent to be searched. What are the odds of these people being terrorists? Pretty low, I'd guess ... but they also don't deserve to be riding the rails. To hell with them. Let them WALK to their destinations. The Police Department is not allowing people who refuse to be searched to ride the trains. Kudos once again to the NYPD.

London ... Chapter 2

2005-07-21T12:23:00.000-06:00

Well, thankfully today's terror attempts in London didn't seem to work out as planned by the murdering bastards and there was no loss of life or even anyone really hurt. That's all great news but ... it just proves that we have to get TOUGH on terror instead of just making tough-sounding speeches. Put the firepower where your mouth is ... regardless of the ACLU and the Lefties' feelings about terrorists' rights being violated. SOMEONE out there knows what's going on and we should do all that we can to find these people. ALL that we can. Understand?

I heard quite a few things that upset me this morning. One was during the press conference given by London authorities where they said something along the lines of, "We will not be looking at any one specific group or ideology" as suspect. What??? Why the heck not??? It's more than obvious that these terrorists all fall into the hardline Muslim sector ... so wouldn't it make sense to question members of that group first and foremost? Trust me ... SOMEONE there knows something ... and there are other plots in the works RIGHT NOW.

Look ... if the bulk of terror attacks were being committed by Spaniards I'd advocate infiltrating and questioning members of that community ... and I AM a Spaniard myself. Understand? This is WAR, people ... and we have to do what we have to do. Either that or succumb and watch as out civilization disintegrates from within.

Another thing that bugged me this morning was hearing that NYC authorities are stepping up bag searches in subways but will NOT be using any form of profiling. Once again ... WHY THE HELL NOT???? How are we ever going to win this war by
playing with kid gloves and worrying more about how Chuck Schummer, Al Franken, and the ACLU will feel about our actions than how to most effectively and quickly WIN it?

Fireworks

2005-07-20T17:43:00.000-06:00

By now you've no doubt been listening to countless talking heads, politicos, pundits, and nitwits blabbering on and on about how Judge Roberts needs to "come clean" and "reveal all", yadda-yadda-yadda. Well, guess what? He doesn't HAVE TO do any such thing. Been there ... done that. It's more than obvious that, as I stated earlier, the Dems would have been ticked off no matter who was nominated.

Now, if you want some interesting reading that you should forward and pass along to everyone you know (especially those on the Left), check out This article by J.T. Jorgensen. Thanks go out (as usual) to the great Hugh Hewitt for making me aware of it.

How does someone go from being unanimously voted into a judicial position to maliciously beaten down????

John Roberts

2005-07-20T03:24:00.000-06:00

Let the mudslinging begin! Let's see ... Roberts was good enough for the Dems when they helped to appoint him to his current position but they are now already chomping at the bit to come up with reasons to filibuster. Typical ...

And the winner is ...

2005-07-19T16:56:00.000-06:00

Just two hours to go before the President gives us his pick for Supreme Court Justice to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Who will it be? Many names have been bandied about but one thing's for sure ... no matter who gets chosen by Bush the Democrats will put up a stink. I would almost bet my vintage Samhain hoodie on that. Hell ... if someone else was retiring and O'Connor was nominated it's almost a sure bet that the Dems would be demonizing her, even with all of their current "pick someone like O'Connor" chants. Bah ... humbug!

This is getting B-O-R-I-N-G

2005-07-18T09:13:00.000-06:00

Is there really nothing else to talk about? Can't the damned Lefties find something more important to discuss ... like maybe TERRORISM ... instead of crucifying someone before the facts are even out? Hell ... some facts ARE out and pretty much PROVE that Karl Rove did nothing wrong. Aaaahhhh!!!!!

Connections? Duh!

2005-07-16T14:35:00.000-06:00

A still photo was released showing the four London TERRORISTS entering a train station carrying backpacks ... prior to going their separate ways and treating London to the worst terror attacks since WW2. Can we now stop calling them "ALLEGED" bombers??? That would be one hell of a coincidence, wouldn't it?

We are also hearing that at least a couple of these guys have connections to the U.S.! Is this further proof that there are cells here readying themselves to carry out new attacks on American soil? It sure seems to point in that direction, folks. Remember that guy on the Michael Savage show the other day saying this very thing? Can we afford to keep our guard down? Can we continue to coddle ENEMY COMBATANTS at Gitmo and other military prisons? Can we sit back and listen quietly as the Lefties preach their meaningless, inflammatory, self-serving rhetoric ... adding fuel to the terrorist fire? Hell no!

Wow ... I didn't realize ...

2005-07-15T23:27:00.000-06:00

A change of pace for today. No real politics here ... just some fun stuff to break up the monotony. To be honest, everything lately is just ticking me off to the point of wanting to scream or punch someone out so ... we need a break!

Saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with the kid early today. GREAT version of the story and Johnny Depp made for a totally warped Willy Wonka. I loved the character ... but then again, I pretty much love everything that Depp has done (except for that chick-flick Chocolat and his move to France). Depp and Tim Burton are an amazing team ... not to mention Danny Elfman's stellar soundtracks.

Got bored earlier and took a few of those stupid internet quizzes to find out some more about myself ... with interesting results. Check them out:

You Are 87% American

You're as American as red meat and shooting ranges.
Tough and independent, you think big.
You love everything about the US, wrong or right.
And anyone who criticizes your home better not do it in front of you!

How American Are You?

Your Political Profile

Overall: 98% Conservative, 2% Liberal

Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 90% Conservative, 10% Liberal

Ethics: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

How Liberal / Conservative Are You?

Holy smoke! I'm 2% Liberal!!! These quizzes are ridiculous sometimes. Hahha ... anyway, have a great weekend, folks. Spend some time with the family ...

Bits 'n pieces ...

2005-07-14T20:16:00.000-06:00

It's been an odd day around here. I've spent most of the day working, as usual, and trying to come up with a good way of putting into words how I feel about everything that's going on. Frankly, the whole situation is out of control to the point where it's become BORING, old, and tired. The Left refuses to face reality and continues to live in a fantasy world while the Right seems to be getting frustrated ... hard to make blind people see the light.

Karl Rove. Leave the man alone already! Or at the very least wait until he's charged with something ... anything ... though that's not likely to happen. Not if there truly is justice in this world. I just can't wait to see Dean, Kennedy, et al eat crow ... again.

Seems to be some sort of feud going on between Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly. On last night's show Bill went off on Mike ... calling him a "liar". Can't we all just get along?

Speaking of Savage, he had someone on his show last night making a case and showing proof of terrorist cells actually being active here in the U.S. ... in our midst ... plotting a holocaust to make 9-11 seem like a picnic. I don't remember the guy's name but I'm sure that a Google search will find you something. It's definitely worth checking out. He made sense ... lots of sense.

I find myself agreeing with Michael Savage more and more each and every day ...

Why does the British government (and media) refuse to use the word "terrorists" when referring to the perpetrators of last week's London bombings? What was that if not terrorism? They also don't use the "M" word ... wake up, people! Being so damned politically correct and sensitive is what's going to be the downfall of the American culture. Think about it ...

Oh, I'm out of here for now. Going to spend some more fun time with the kid ... while I can ... while Denver is still on the map.

Angry Mules

2005-07-13T13:29:00.000-06:00

So the Libs have always been a bit on the nutty side but ever since the re-election of George W. Bush it seems like they have seriously gone over the edge. They're angry, bitter, and confrontational ... not afraid to disregard truth or justice in favor of unsubstantiated allegations, rhetoric, and bias.

Nowadays, when they can't jab at Bush directly, they look for a convenient scapegoat ... in this case, Karl Rove. I've already commented on this issue a few times and I'm sure that everyone reading this is already well aware of what's going on but I just have to comment again since the bitterness seems to grow each and every day ... minute, even.

The bottom line is that "innocent before proven guilty" is a concept that they don't want to believe in. Rove has already been judged and sentenced by the Dems, the Lefties, and even the traditional mass media outlets (most of them, anyway). Everyone is looking for some dirt and, where there is none to be found, a little bit of fabrication won't hurt ... or so they think. Karl Rove hasn't been proven to have done anything illegal but he's already a marked man and those that back him (including George W. Bush) are on the receiving end of demands from the accusers. The saddest part of this whole thing might just be the fact that most of this issue's mass media coverage seems to be on the side of the accusers. Where do you go to get the other side of the story?

That's where Fox News, the Blogosphere, and other alternative media forms come in. National Review's Byron York has written a GREAT piece focusing on the other side of the story and you can check it out right here.

Interesting, right? For a totally different opinion of what MIGHT have actually gone on and who might really have leaked sensitive info check out the following tidbit (also from National Review):

THE PASSIVE KARL ROVE AND THE ACTIVE JUDITH MILLER [John Podhoretz]
Stick with me--this is a long post.

Byron York has a vital detail in his must-read piece right now on the main part of the NRO website. Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, tells Byron that Time's Matt Cooper called Rove to talk about something else and that only secondarily did the subject of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame come up.

This is important, because it suggests Rove wasn't "retailing" the information about Wilson and Plame -- wasn't reporter-shopping to drop a dirty dime on those involved -- but was rather a passive source, answering a phone call at the reporter's behest and presumably changing topics to the sexier one at issue at the reporter's behest as well.

Since Rove-centric psychos can devise any scenario whereby he manipulates people into doing everything he wants, I doubt this detail will change any minds in Daily Kos-ville. But it offers an important and nagging clue to the continuing antics of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. What do I mean?

It means that clearly information was circulating around Washington about the identity of Wilson's CIA operative wife Valerie Plame. The presumption has thus far been in most quarters that the only people who could have known about this were administration officials.

But what if that's not right? What if the original source for the "Wilson got the job from his CIA wife" was, in fact, a reporter? After all, we know that the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, has testified he learned of Plame's identity from a journalist.

Wilson had gotten very cozy with a couple of them -- Walter Pincus of the Washington Post and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times among them. What if he spilled the beans to enhance his own standing in the story somehow, to bolster his supposed findings?

What if -- and here's where it gets really interesting -- what if the real object of interest where Fitzgerald's investigation is concerned is now none other than the jailed Judith Miller of the New York Times? What if she let it all slip and in the giant game of telephone around the nation's capital, Miller was the original source of the "Plame's in the CIA" info? What if Fitzgerald needs her notes to discern whether Miller knew or didn't know of Plame's supposedly covert status?

Fitzgerald already has a major bone to pick with Miller. He believes she materially and dangerously impeded his investigation into a terrorist-financing scheme run by the Holy Land Foundation.

When Miller found out that Fitzgerald was on the verge of indicting Holy Land, she called the Foundation for comment -- and right after her call Fitzgerald believes the Foundation may have commenced a shredding party that ensured prosecutors would find little paperwork to go on when they raided the Holy Land offices.

As the Washington Post put it, "On Dec. 3, 2001, Times reporter Judith Miller telephoned officials with the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity accused of being a front for Palestinian terrorists, and asked for a comment about what she said was the government's probable crackdown on the group. U.S. officials said this conversation and Miller's article on the subject in the Times on Dec. 4 increased the likelihood that the foundation destroyed or hid records before a hastily organized raid by agents that day."

Fitzgerald sought her phone records on that occasion to uncover the source of a potential leak in his own office and was blocked by a liberal New York judge named Robert Sweet. Miller didn't get so lucky this time. Fitzgerald thinks Miller has a loose tongue, and for good reason. It's possible he's trying to figure out what other mischief her loose tongue might have caused.

Chew on that for a while. I'm exhausted.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it ...

Kerry's Two Cents (On the Karl Rove Issue)

2005-07-12T23:34:00.000-06:00

Every once in a while I like to get a good laugh and some of my fave humor websites belong to Liberals ... though the humor might be lost on them. Anyhow, tonight I stumbled across John Kerry's site and inside was the funniest joke I'd seen all day. Ready? Here you go ...

Dear President Bush,

Karl Rove, your most senior advisor, is embroiled in another controversy ... this time for leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent. Despite carefully worded denials, it is now apparent that Karl Rove discussed the identity of an undercover CIA agent with a reporter. His clear aim was to discredit that agent's husband who had dared to challenge the administration in the buildup to the war.

You have a choice to make. Spend the months ahead focused on protecting Karl Rove's job security or spend them focused on protecting America's national security. You cannot remain silent.

All I'm asking is that you remain true to your word. When the scandal first broke, your spokesman, Scott McClellan, said "If anyone in this Administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this Administration." (9/29/03, White House press briefing). What you do now, in light of Karl Rove's involvement will speak volumes.

Decency and the interests of the American people demand an end to Karl Rove's days in the White House. You have the choice to either make good on your promise to hold accountable those who shared the identity of a secret soldier in the war on terror or prove that promise hollow. I call on you to keep your promise to the American people and fire Karl Rove.

Sincerely,

(Your name here)

Hahahahhaha! Isn't that a riot? Can the man possibly be serious? Does he have some inside information that we don't have? Perhaps he's been sharing Ed Kennedy's Kool-Aid. Anyway, I thought of a letter of my own ...

Dear Mr. Kerry:

It's time that you came to grips with the fact that the majority of Americans didn't want you as their President. We don't really give a rat's ass what you think or say. Before you make demands of apologies from anyone ... shouldn't YOU do the same? Don't the Vietnam Veterans deserve an apology from you? Don't we ALL deserve an apology from you?

Thank you for your time.

London bomber ... "a very nice lad"???

2005-07-12T20:10:00.000-06:00

SkyNews has an interesting report about the recent investigations into the recent London bombings and the suspects which have been arrested.

One of the bombers was named by locals as a 22-year-old, who neighbours said was a "very nice lad".

Perhaps he put on the mask of a "very nice lad" but, as far as I'm concerned, nice people don't go around blowing others up in the name of Allah or even God ... do they?

I also find it odd how no one seems to be saying the "M" word in association with any of these suspects ... and by "M" I mean Muslim. Why is this???

Karl Rove "caught red-handed"?

2005-07-11T16:45:00.000-06:00

During a White House briefing today several reporters made some interesting (to say the least) remarks and comments including that Karl Rove had been "caught red-handed" ...

These recent accusations (whether true or not) are just another instance of the Left jumping the gun on issues and making unfounded and unproven accusations. Whatever happened to being innocent until proven guilty? Seems that doesn't apply when it comes to people on the Right/Conservatives/Republicans ... does it?

Karl Rove is an easy target. After all, he is "the architect" and George W. Bush's right-hand man ... some have even said that he's "Bush's Brain" and the REAL man pushing the buttons that control Bush Jr. So it's only natural that he would be getting attacked. But Rove is a smart man ... and will come through all of this unscathed, I'm sure.

She's Huffing(a)ton again ...

2005-07-11T12:29:00.000-06:00

Starting the day off with an excerpt from Arianna Huffington's The Huffington Post:

Coming in the wake of the London bombings, today's Meet the Press was a lot about resource allocation. Specifically, given the resources at our disposal, are we using them in the best way so as to maximize our safety? The answer is clearly no. And part of the reason this looks unlikely to change is because of the resource allocation decisions of shows like Meet the Press. Tim's first guest today was Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. Good guest to have on if you want to talk seriously about, say, our homeland security. But that's not what Tim wanted. Instead, he decided to allocate a lot of his scarce 60 minutes' worth of resources to parlor game questions. The one he most favored today was: Do you think there will be another major attack on the United States? He asked it three times. And, of course, everybody basically said yes. But what's the point of this question? Is anybody going to say no?

Later, Chertoff, in discussing homeland security funding, said "everything's a tradeoff. We don't want to move money, for example, from ports into rail because then we're going to have an issue with ports". Yes, exactly! It's a tradeoff. One of the reasons we don't have enough money to protect our ports and our railways is because of the tens of billions of dollars we are spending in Iraq. And that's the massive trade-off Russert failed to bring up.

So we should just abandon Iraq, then? This will make us safer here? Running away from the "problem" is a good solution? I'm sure that if we leave Iraq the terrorists will then decide that the Western world is fine and dandy and they'll leave us all alone to do as we wish without the threat of more homicide bombings or terror attacks ... right?

Come on, now, Arianna! You can't possibly believe all of that nonsense. Russert asked ALL of the appropriate questions ... the ones that people want to know. I would consider him as having done a great job with Chertoff. Why must it always go back to Bush ... and Iraq?

Arianna Huffington ... I guess when you consider the source this kind of puke spewing should be expected.

FALSE CLAIMS

Seems like that missing Navy Seal has been found ... close to the crash site and without any evidence of having been captured and executed by terrorists (as they had claimed). Condolences to the family ...

Day off

2005-07-10T11:26:00.000-06:00

Well, I took yesterday off to take care of some other stuff but the morons of the world didn't. Seems like countless talking heads and so-called pundits on the Left side of the fence watched the President give a totally different speech than what I saw the other day. I'm getting really tired of listening to these buffoons say how "Bush said that we went to Iraq because of 9-11". He DIDN'T say that! He has NEVER said that ... yet the rhetoric never dies.

Anyhow, I'll be back later today with more ... maybe.

"You're an idiot!"

2005-07-08T14:06:00.000-06:00

Simple and to the point, right? Anyway, that was pretty much the ENTIRE contents of an email that I recently received from someone that happened upon this Blog by accident (or so they said). Well ... I never claimed NOT to be an idiot. If expressing my own opinions makes me an idiot ... so be it.

I'm not some Harvard educated intellectual with a degree in political science or anything like that. I'm just an aging Punk rocker, father to a 13 year old son, freelance writer, owner of a well-respected independent record label, boyfriend to a wonderful woman ... and a Conservative.

No, I don't agree with everything that the Right dishes out and sometimes I lean more towards the Michael Savage end of the spectrum (when it comes to protecting ourselves and our country) ... but I prefer to think for myself and make my own decisions. Like them or not they are MY opinions and this Blog is comprised of MY thoughts and ruminations.

If you like what you read, that's great. If you don't ... move on. Plenty of other people out there in the Blogosphere and I'm sure that at least some of them will share your own views. Better yet ... write your own Blog instead of bitching about someone else's.

Thank you.

Huffing (and puffing) ... and blowing smoke

2005-07-08T12:39:00.000-06:00

You didn't expect a day free of Left-wing lunacy, did you? A day free of Bush-bashing? Come on now ... this is AMERICA, the land of the free(dom to talk smack in the name of "liberty").

Anyhow, my fave muppett (Arianna Huffington) had this to say recently concerning the London bombings:

Odds are we probably won't be hearing for a while the Bush mantra that the reason we're fighting them over in Iraq is so we don't have to fight them here at home. For the last few months, this ludicrous shibboleth has been the president's go-to line -- his latest rationale for slogging on in Iraq. Not only was this flypaper theory empirically disproved by the London carnage, it directly contradicts the president's other most often used justification for the war -- that we invaded to liberate the Iraqi people. So let me get this straight: we invaded them to liberate them... and to use them as bait to attract terrorists who we could fight on the streets of Baghdad rather than the streets of London and New York?

Of course, it didn't take the London bombings to reveal this premise as a sham. The presence of American forces in Iraq didn't keep the enemies of western culture from attacking Madrid. And it didn't keep them from planting explosives in London's tubes. And it won't, in and of itself, keep them from striking here. Indeed, it's helping terrorists recruit new followers -- and hone their deadly skills. If Iraq is like flypaper, it unfortunately looks like we're the ones who are stuck there. Any predictions of what Bush's rewrite boys will come up with next?

Hold up a second ... do I live in London? Do I consider London my home? Hmmm ... no. And I'm also pretty sure that the ONLY reason that the bastards haven't struck here on our shores since September 11th, 2001 is because they COULDN'T. Do they want to? Sure ... more than anything else ... but they just CAN'T do it at this time. Will it happen? Of course. It's inevitable that it'll happen here again some time but that will be due to the limitations and restrictions being put on those responsible for our safety. People ... you can't have it both ways. You can't have total safety and protection while at the same time having unfettered freedom to do everything and anything that you desire. Know what I mean?

If Homeland Security is really interested in what I take out the library ... more power to them! If they want to watch me while I'm out in the streets via surveillance cameras ... knock yourselves out! If they want to strip search me while on line at the airport ... go for it! If all of that will keep me, my family, friends, coworkers, and fellow countrymen from being poisoned or blown to bits then I would consider all of those acceptable inconveniences.

Let's blame Bush (and his policies) again!

2005-07-08T01:23:00.000-06:00

I keep repeating myself but it just pisses me off so much that the Left will ALWAYS try to find a way to blame Bush, Conservatives, and any other convenient person or group for just about everything that goes wrong in the world and (especially) with this war on terror.

One of my favorite talk show hosts/bloggers/writers is Hugh Hewitt and he was kind enough to transcribe part of Al Franken's Air America radio show from this morning. Just read and see exactly how out of touch ... in denial ... and just plain SCREWED IN THE HEAD these people are (Al Franken and the Boston Globe's Thomas Oliphant):

OLIPHANT: We'll I'll tell you something, Porter Goss, at the CIA right now, is probably scared to death that there might be a revelation in the next few days that some of the people involved in this had moved across international borders. Because if this wasn't a completely home grown thing, the question arises, given the logistics of arranging horrific attacks like this, after four years, how could we have picked up nothing again?

FRANKEN: This is where I am going to disagree with you, because this seems to be your thrust about what happened today. And I think that, and I buy this, and maybe I am naive, that you gotta bat 1,000 and they just got to bat 1. You know, and I don't know what's been stopped and I don't know any way we can know what's been stopped. We don't know. We had Jane Mayer on talking about the abuse at Gitmo, and there's no way to know because they are so secretive, this is the most secretive Adminsitration, we don't know, they say, they've saved American lives from their interrogations there. We don't know that. We don't know if it has cost us in terms of getting information, because it is the wrong way to get information.

OLIPHANT: That's right, and because of Congress now we have no way to really rigorously oversee what the intelligence community does so we can come to an evaluation about its effectiveness. But all you have to do is look at the pictures from London, imagine the logisitical work that was necessary to arrange four coordinated attacks within an hour, imagine that a few of these people might have come into Britain in recent weeks or months, and you wonder, what use has this allegedly smooth functioning system, erected over the past four years, what, what's its value? That's the short term consideration. And then you look at the longer term political and diplomatic issues that involve the sea from which these people come, and you ask, are we making enough progress on the basic issues that create the environment out of which terrorism emerges...

FRANKEN: Or have we made things worse...

OLIPHANT: Or have they gone in the wrong direction...

FRANKEN: Right

OLIPHANT: In other words, imagine whoever did this, let's assume for a second that the authroties are correct, that it appears to be jihadists, um, were they inspired by the American occupation in Iraq? The middle east situation? What was it?

FRANKEN: I mean, Rumsfeld himself said, openly, a couple years ago, we don't know if we are creating more or less in Iraq.

OLIPHANT: Not only that, he's begun to acknowledge that our very presence in Iraq, ah, ah, one reason that he doesn't want to increase the force level is to increase the magnitude of the American occupation and its impact in Iraq.

FRANKEN: And, on the other hand, they just killed, you know, Zarqawi's people just killed the Egyptian envoy.

OLIPHANT: Yes they did, and they just missed on a couple of other hits.

FRANKEN: So these are monsters. We are dealing with monsters.

OLIPHANT: Yes we are, but not very well in my opinion. And, um, what I think is so awful, in the short term, is that we don't see, is this culture that lacks acountability in the United States, just fascinates me.

FRANKEN: You are talking about the Administration?

OLIPHANT: Yes! And Congress is complicit in this. And I don't care whether you are talking about 9/11 itself, the run-up to the war in Iraq, or the insurgency since then.

FRANKEN: And that's why the [president's] speech [last week] just fried me, because there was not one acknowledgement of a mistake that they've ever made, and it was the same old crap.

OLIPHANT: If that fries you, then get get ready, because there is going to be a blitz, you watch, from here, ah, about how, despite what happened today, we're in fact making great progress in the international war on terror, to which I say, bunkum."

Isn't that insane? The saddest part of all of this is that Franken and Oliphant are not the only ones spewing such nonsense all over the international airwaves. How in the Hell are we ever going to win this war (and it IS a war) with people like these fueling and giving wings to the "bad guys"?

People ... let's not get lazy now. Let's not assume that just because we're in the majority Party right now that means we can slack off. We have to be stronger and LOUDER than ever. We have to STAY in power and, most importantly, we have to try to fight this war LIKE a war ... and war isn't pretty nor politically correct, now is it?

HIT HARD!!!!

Al Qaeda Not Responsible?

2005-07-07T15:29:00.000-06:00

Seems like reports of Al Qaeda's responsibility for this morning's London terror attack may have been premature. Although there was a website posting from someone claiming to be an Al Qaeda member giving his group credit for the bombings we are now being told that this might not be the case ... that it could possibly be an internal London group that's to blame.

Whatever the case might be, it most definitely WAS a terrorist attack and should be treated as such ... with those responsible receiving the full brunt of the civilized world's retaliation. Here's hoping that the hardcore left-wingers finally take their blinders off and see this for what it truly is ... a WAR on terror which must be fought as such and not with kid gloves.

Al Qaeda Hits London

2005-07-07T11:01:00.000-06:00

A sad day for Londoners ... and for the civilized world in general. It's times like these when we have to ask ourselves if we're really doing enough to combat terrorism. Are we being hard enough ... thorough enough ... brave enough to do ALL that we should? Isn't it time that we really started raining death on these people instead of pussyfooting around?

I've already heard countless idiots stating how this is just more proof that we should get out of Iraq NOW ... that the terrorists are only doing this because we've INVADED Iraq. Excuse me but we weren't yet in Iraq when they bombed the World Trade Center in '93 ... or the Cole ... or even on September 11th of 2001. The terrorists have been doing this type of thing for years ... without regard for human life or suffering.

You know ... we have to forget about being "politically correct" and sensitive to people's feelings and just go out there and DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. It's times like these when Michael Savage makes even more sense than usual to me ...

But let's remember that if we catch any of these suspects they should have a lawyer ... and their cells shouldn't be too hot (or too cold) ... and we shouldn't interrogate but, rather, converse with them about it over a nice dish of rice freaking pilaf!

God, I'm pissed!

From the Iraq Frontlines: A Soldier's Eye View

2005-07-06T16:48:00.000-06:00

With everything that's going on lately I thought it would be appropriate to re-post an interview that I conducted late last year with one of our brave men in uniform. Unfiltered, unedited ... unbiased:

From the Frontlines: A Soldier's-Eye View of the Situation in Iraq

The internet can be a truly magical and amazing place, bringing together people from all over the world. Friendships are developed and conversations are held online which are just as valuable to the participants as face to face communication. Yes, there are obviously bad sides to the world wide web as well (stalkers, child abuse, defamation, slander, etc.) but, for the most part, it's a great tool for knowledge, entertainment, and communication. Not to mention fun ... and friendship.

There are specific online communities where people can gather and meet others who share interests and it was in such a community where I met Don, a soldier currently stationed in Iraq. Since the traditional media outlets seem fond of pointing out the negative aspects of the War, calling it a "quagmire", and completely (for the most part) ignoring all the good that's being accomplished by our troops over there, I thought I'd get Don's opinion. The opinion of someone who is actively involved in the turmoil ... whose life is in danger each and every day in the war theater. How does this participant feel about it? No talking head, no spin, no crap ... just the views of someone that KNOWS what he's talking about, first-hand.

What first made you decide to join the armed forces? How long have you been in service?

I joined the Army through the Delayed Entry Program in 1983 and went active in '84. My first active tour was with the 82d Airborne Division Fort Bragg. After my first tour I joined the reserves in a Drill Sergeant Unit and pushed troops at Ft Dix, NJ. The Reserves were unfulfilling at the time and I decided to go back active through the Special Forces 18X program. I spent about a year in the program but was injured (hernia). While recuperating from that I broke my ankle and SF put me back on the block. I was away from the service from '91 until January of 2003. A friend of mine was in the National Guard (Infantry) and said they were being deployed to Iraq. He asked if I was interested but I didn't think the Army could still have a use for someone my age in the Infantry. I talked to the recruiter and 'voila!'.

What were your thoughts when you first found out that you were going to Iraq?

As I mentioned above I came back after over a decade specifically TO go to Iraq, so I'm fine with it. I think it is akin to being on a farm club baseball team and finding out you're going to the majors.

How have your family and friends reacted to your current situation? Are they supportive of what you're doing?

I come from a military family so they are extremely supportive. I come from a long line of military. My family are Daughters and Sons of the American Revolution and have served in every major war in one capacity or another.

You recently mentioned not being able to "Blog" anymore, thanks to access being denied. Why did this happen, in your opinion?

It's sad but I believe necessary. The internet provides a fast and easy way to disseminate information to millions in a few moments. It gives everybody a voice and an audience. Unfortunately, some people, whether trying to inform or impress, inadvertently post information that could jeopardize Coalition operations in the Theater. My assumption is that with thousands of soldiers with laptops over here that info that shouldn't have gotten out probably did. Some young troopers don't realize that the Bad Guys are on MYSPACE.COM as well. I, myself, have encountered them here. The Jihadists utilize the internet as a primary intelligence gathering and distribution tool.

How do you feel about the way in which the majority of traditional media outlets are reporting mostly about the negative aspects of current events in Iraq ... and how do you see them? In your opinion, are things as bad as the Left is trying to portray? Are we really in a "quagmire"?

If it bleeds then it leads. I had a conversation the other night as I escorted a member of CNN to the safety of his security detail. He asked me almost the exact same question so I answered him honestly. For whatever reason, the majority of the American media not only focus on the negative but sensationalize it. He scoffed at that until I gave him several examples of his OWN network falsifying news stories and being deceptive. He had no rebuttal.

We are in an environment where sleaze merchants like Michael Moore cater to the addled sheep in our nation. Moore has even referred to the American people as sheep being lead (ironically he wasn't referring to his own following). I find these people to be anger personified and LOOKING for a reason to justify their anger. They don't want criminals executed but support abortion. They whine about employment but spend their days dressed as Sea Turtles at protest marches instead of LOOKING for work. They are lazy and indolent and no matter what gets fixed they find another excuse to be angry. The media saw the buzz generated by the Moore and his propaganda piece and, being the whores that they are, are trying to capitalize on that sensationalism and pander to that demographic. I find it pathetic and disturbing.

How have you and your men been treated and perceived by the Iraqi people, overall?

The Arab culture stresses respect and politeness so, for the most part, very well. Like any human being most times you will receive what you give. I treat the Iraqis with great respect and am mindful of their customs and culture. This is, after all, their country. Consequently I have made many Iraqi friends. Some of them are not fond of checkpoints and soldiers in particular but judge me as an individual not a uniform. Respect is crucial in this culture and being base, rude or vulgar gets you nowhere fast.

What have been your most memorable moments so far in Iraq ... good and/or bad?

Finding that Iraqi friends of mine have been murdered by insurgents for collaborating. Finding out that other Iraqi friends of mine were in fact giving info to the enemy. Having a former member of Saddam's Army tell his friends that in me he had found a best friend and an American that he respected and thought of as a brother. Having an ancient Iraqi woman in Black Birka hobble up to me crying and kissing my face and the translator telling me that she was asking Allah's blessing on me for risking MY life for HER people. She lost her entire family to Saddam. The list is endless and my days are filled with events that will always be with me.

How long have you been away from home now and when do you THINK you might be coming home?

10 months away and I'll go home when I'm done :)

What do you miss the most about "home"?

Sushi and women.

Is there anything that you'll miss once you finally leave Iraq?

My Iraqi friends. It will be hard wondering how they are getting along and I pray for them daily.

It seems to me that you guys (and ladies) are in serious danger each and every minute of every day. Do you see it that way?

You adjust. I spent several years working as a bouncer and have more scars and been shot just as much as a civilian. The Muslims have a saying, "Insha Allah": It's God's Will. What happens will happen and I will not live my life in fear (unless Kerry gets elected).

On a related note, I (and many others) also see you guys as heroes. How do you feel about that?

Cemeteries are full of people who saw themselves as Heroes. I am much more comfortable with the term "patriot" than "hero".

If given the opportunity to go back in time and have a choice, would you be where you are today again? Why?

Absolutely. Why? See all of the above.

In as little or as much detail as you want to divulge, give us a summary of a typical day (and night) in Iraq for you.

I wake up, shave and put on my uniform. Typically I will spend several hours in a gun tower or searching people and vehicles for explosives or other weapons. I then will go on a patrol either to maintain presence or to actively seek out the enemy or evidence of his activities. When I get off duty I shower, grab a bite and get on the internet or watch a DVD.

Thank you for taking the time to do this interview, Don. I fully support everything that you guys are doing and wish you back home soon. Anything that you'd like to end this with? Any parting words/comments for our readers?

There are no words that can put you here or give you a true understanding. Seven blind men will all describe an elephant differently. Do not be lured by the press or politicians. Until they take up arms they are merely spectators in the oxygen seats without a good view of the game. If they use binoculars they can see bits and pieces close up but only at the expense of no longer being able to see the entire field. Be vigilant, be thoughtful and be prayerful.

Preemptive idiocy ...

2005-07-06T14:52:00.000-06:00

People have no patience at all these days and the Left is not immune from this impatience. Their hatred of this President is so severe and deep-rooted that they even denounce his decisions, opinions, and actions even BEFORE these actually happen.

There's a group of conservative talk show hosts that are heading to the battlezones of Iraq in order to get a first-hand view of what's happening rather than getting spoonfed negative bias by the mainstream media. Well ... no sooner do they mention their intentions than the Liberals come out and accuse this of being a Rightwing propaganda mission ... saying that the reports will be grossly one-sided. Isn't it about time that we actually see BOTH sides of the coin? Every day and night we're bombarded by reports of "quagmires" and "losing the war" ... so what's wrong with going out there and actually WITNESSING events in order to report?

Yet another instance of this preemptive idiocy is how Dems are now attacking President Bush's appointment to replace Sandra Day O'Connor BEFORE A SPECIFIC SUCCESSOR IS EVEN NAMED!

Aaaahhhhh!!!!! I need some coffee ...

Since when ...

2005-07-05T18:15:00.000-06:00

... does the party in power (in the majority) need to get permission/approval from the "other side" for their plans/actions?

... does a grieving mother need to apologize to a country which she sees as not doing everything they can to solve a crime?

... is it wrong to show your pride in your own country?

These are just a few things that bug me as I watch the news.

Celebrate (while you still can)

2005-07-04T09:39:00.000-06:00

Happy 4th, America. Let's get out there and celebrate our independence. Let's keep in mind our armed forces out in the world securing and protecting freedom ... fighting for the rights of the little guy ... overthrowing ruthless brutes and keeping the psychos at bay.

In this day and age where it's become UNfashionable (and even a bit dangerous around here) to show any kind of patriotism or love for our country,let's try to celebrate the TRUE meaning of FREEDOM while we still can. While some view freedom as a right to burn our own flag and denounce our own homeland we can proudly celebrate the fact that WE are still in the majority and, as long as we are, perhaps this land of ours and our way of life will be safe from suicide bombers and other assorted virgin-seekers.

Have a great day, America ... and don't blow your fingers off.

Great way to show you care ...

2005-07-03T14:12:00.000-06:00

So the Live 8 concerts are over and, while it's a decent idea, it really got me thinking. Most concert-goers interviewed about their reasons for attending responded with, "to see (insert band name here)" and NOT, "to help end world hunger" ... which WAS the reason for these shows, after all. Wasn't it? If you had the right bands on the bill you would sell out shows no matter what the purpose. Think about it ... a sold out show honoring your favorite Starbuck's baristas? It's possible ... if Bono's on the bill.

Should I mention the amount of GARBAGE that these audiences also left behind???

Bottom line is that it's a great idea ... but great ideas are a dime a dozen.

"Who do you think you are?"

2005-07-02T11:11:00.000-06:00

I've been asked that question in a number of emails and messages that I've received since starting my first politically geared blog ... so why not answer it?

I'm not some intellectually superior political pundit or commentator. I'm just a regular guy who happens to lean towards the Right. Have I always felt this way? No ... I actually voted for Perot. On the other hand, I have never been drawn towards the Democratic candidates for some reason or other. As a matter of fact, the ONLY Democrat that I ever really supported fully was Ed Koch (I grew up and lived in NYC for most of my life). Koch just seemed to be very REAL and like a regular guy ... many of the same reasons why I happen to like George W. Bush so much.

Around the time of the Bush/Gore campaign's starting point is when I became fully immersed in politics (which had, up until then, bored me). I happened to be working at a company that handled most of the political rallies in and around the NYC area and so I had many opportunities to meet all sorts of political bigshots on both sides of the fence. What I found was that I could relate to and identify with the Republicans while the Democrats ALL seemed to be VERY phony ... very condescending.

I then started getting hooked on Conservative talk radio shows (especially Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh) and learned a whole lot from them. I also started researching at about the same time and what the Right people were saying made a whole lot more sense to me than their opposition. It seemed to me that the Conservatives were on my side while the Liberals stood for ... well, for themselves.

Keep in mind that I grew up Catholic and was a freelance writer, vegetarian, and artistic type ... making most assume that I was Liberal. When friends first found out about my political leanings they were shocked and even pissed off. Most of my buddies were in the music (punk) scene and those people had made a career out of blasting Reagan and Conservatives (Republicans). While I always loved the music behind the lyrics and supported those bands ... I never agreed with what they were saying.

Anyway, I also run an independent record label ( Antidote Records ) and my Conservative views have had a negative impact on that as well. Seems that it made me (and the label) a target for others in the industry who backed MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, and all of those other bozos. There were even many Germans who had previously supported my label and bands who now were boycotting us. Did that change my views? Hell no! It made me even more militant in my thoughts. To Hell with them! Why should music and politics have to mix? Why was it that I always supported bands even when our politics were so different while these "friends" had become "enemies" simply for my political views?

Stuff happens. You live. You learn. You get stronger. My name is Sin and I'm a Conservative ...

O'Connor resigns ... fat-head replies

2005-07-01T10:35:00.000-06:00

Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement earlier today and the biggest mouth on the Left wasted no time in bringing the negativity into play soon afterwards. That's right, Ted Kennedy opted to use his comment time not to congratulate her or even thank her for her contributions but, instead, to reiterate how they (the Dems) would NOT give the thumbs up to any nominee that Bush suggests who will "roll back individual rights". What in the Hell does that mean? And why use THIS moment in time (when he should be celebrating an honored Justice) to do nothing more than rehash old, tired, predictable Leftist rhetoric?

Ted Kennedy needs a hug. All that anger ... all that pent up rage ... all that denial ... it all seems to be poisoning his already warped mind even more. There is no way in Hell that Ted would EVER be able to hold back his rage long enough to just say something nice about anyone from the Right side of the fence. No way. Maybe there's some sort of parasite eating away at his brain ... laying eggs which have already begun to hatch and influencing (controlling) his thoughts and actions. Hey ... maybe this is just a Robot Ted, planted years ago after that tragic car crash. Perhaps TWO people died that day. "We can rebuild him ... we have the technology to make him ... angrier ... bolder ... more insane."

Deaf, dumb, and blind

2005-06-30T10:50:00.000-06:00

In listening to and reading various Democratic points of view concerning President Bush's speech the other night it seems like most on the Left are harping about Bush not giving a timeline or barometer for when we should pull out our troops from Iraq. Funny ... but didn't he say something like "when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down"? Isn't it obvious what that's saying? When the Iraqi forces are prepared enough to take over their country's security we will then start bringing our boys (and girls) home. Is that so hard to understand????

Too much 9/11???

2005-06-29T10:24:00.000-06:00

Seems like a lot of the criticism that Bush is getting concerning last night's address deals with his references to the 9/11 tragedy and the many times that he brought up that date and those events throughout his speech. I fail to see what the problem is. 9/11 happened. Should we forget that? Seems that many (especially on the Left) would love to do just that ... forget it.

Let's forget about the worst terrorist attack in our country's history and the people that died on that day. Let's make sure that enemy captives are in temperature-controlled cells and that they're not subjected to Rap music or any other forms of "torture". Let's abandon the people of Iraq and our mission there. Let's make sure that anything our country does passes the "global test". Etc. Etc.

Yes, folks ... let's become a nation of whinny Liberals.

Talking Heads

2005-06-28T23:17:00.000-06:00

For a full transcript of tonight's Bush speech just click on the picture (to the right) and you'll be taken to FoxNews.com's site, where it's been uploaded.

Personally, I feel that it was another instance of Bush being ... well, Bush. I have always admired the way he comes across as a real person rather than some superior intellectual (hello John Kerry!) and the way that he talks TO us and not AT us. Of course, the Democrats are already beginning to attack and bitch and moan about what he failed to mention and other such nonsense but let's face it ... they would complain and find things to nitpick even if he'd decided to have one of them write the speech for him. They will NEVER be satisfied with this President and will continue to try to undermine him for the remainder of his Presidency ... and, probably, even beyond that.

The Democrats feel that our lack of a proposed exit date from Iraq is fueling the insurgent fire ... that they would likely stop the violence if they knew that we were leaving soon. But let's think about this for a second ... aren't the Democrats' (Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc.) own words actually adding fuel to that fire. Don't these terrorists get a rise from hearing about the great "failure" and "quagmire" that we have in Iraq ... about how we're "abusing" and "torturing" captives at Gitmo ... etc? Don't these misguided accusations and unfounded allegations actually give credence to the insurgents' cause?

Anyway, I'd just like to thank our great President for staying the course and not bowing to pressure or poll numbers. If I could, I'd buy him a beer right now ...

Misinformation

2005-06-27T23:29:00.000-06:00

Yeah, that's what I've been called quite a few times by readers of the old Blog ... and it makes no sense, really. Sure, I grew up Catholic and went through 12 years of Catholic school but these days I'm hardly what you'd call a practicing Catholic ... or practicing anything.

I have plenty of reasons to be angry with the "man upstairs" who (if he does exist) seems to have it in for my family and I. We've had more than a fair share of death, sickness, and heartache over the past few years ... as if it's some sort of retribution or personal vendetta on his part.

Yes, I believe that the world (and universe) is a result of some sort of intelligence and not a random happening but I just don't buy that whole traditional Heaven/Hell/God thing. Sorry ...

However, I do feel that everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want to believe in and freely express their beliefs. I also don't think that Christianity deserves the cold shoulder and all the black eyes that it's received lately. For instance, why did that Principal recently feel the need to reprimand those little kids that were reading a Bible during recess? Why are we even considering deleting the "under God" part of our Pledge of Allegiance? More importantly, why in the HELL do some on the Left want to demonize any form of allegiance to our country at all? Isn't patriotism a good thing? It is to me ...

Yeah ... it's been one of those days, folks.

At the grocery store this morning ...

2005-06-26T11:21:00.000-06:00

... standing in front of me at the checkout line:

50-ish woman (reading the latest TIME Magazine) - "Isn't it horrible how we're treating those poor detainees at that Guantanamo base?"

Husband (I'm assuming) - "Yes, dear. And to think that this is supposed to be the land of the free."

Woman - "They should just let those poor guys go back home. After all, it hasn't been proven that they've done anything."

Man - "We're worse than the so-called terrorists."

This is what we're dealing with, folks. These are the types of people and the mindset of the people that want to run this country. These are the people that get angry when Karl Rove makes statements about some of them wanting to understand our enemies rather than annihilating them.

What the $#*! is wrong with society????

Dems Rove-ing again ...

2005-06-25T21:59:00.000-06:00

So now it's time for the Dems and Libs to attack Karl Rove yet again. Seems like they have a problem with his recent statement that some Libs wanted to "understand" the terrorists instead of defeating them. I fail to see what's so damned wrong with that statement. Thinking back on it, I do seem to recall a few Liberal talking heads preaching about "understanding" and tolerance instead of aggression and retribution ... don't you?

The fact that some Democrats are also calling for Rove to apologize for his words or resign is also laughable when you take into account how they almost unanimously backed Dick Durbin's "Gitmo is akin to the Nazi death camps" speech. Am I nuts in thinking that the scales are a bit unbalanced on the Left? I think not ...

You know ... with "leaders" like Durbin, Dean, Hillary, Byrd, Kerry, etc. it's no wonder that the Democratic Party is in severe danger these days. If they want to survive they're going to have to realize that attacks solely for the sake of attack are not only unwise but ill-received by the majority of America's voters. At the same time it's people like the previously mentioned who will serve to keep the Right in power.

"Torture" at GITMO???

2005-06-24T01:07:00.000-06:00

This topic is getting ridiculously overblown and every single finger pointing accuser should take a long, hard look at the world around them. Do you like your freedom? Do you like the country you're living in and the opportunities that it affords you? Do you want to keep it that way? Then stop worrying so damned much about whether an ENEMY COMBATANT (who wouldn't think twice about KILLING YOU) has a comfortable temperature in his cell ... and other such nonsense.

It's a tough world out there and we have to do all that we can in order to keep these madmen from destroying everything that we hold dear. If that entails giving some prisoners a hard time and making their lives a little uncomfortable ... so be it. Frankly, I don't think that we're being hard enough on these monsters to begin with. I'm all for doing everything and anything possible (short of causing any real physical harm) in order to get what we need out of these guys.

During this Iraq conflict we have gone out of our way to make sure that we don't damage mosques or civilian dwellings and have taken great measures to make sure that innocents aren't harmed. At the same time the terrorists go out of their way to make sure that innocent victims ARE blown to bits. So blasting some Rap music in the presence of a captured terrorist while he's shivering in his shorts really doesn't bother me all that much ... actually, not at all.

Some people really need to THINK before they speak (or write). They also need to take REAL responsibility for their words and actions rather than just trying to cover their butts in the face of adversity. Isn't that right, Mr. Durbin?

Why "Bleeding Right"?

2005-06-24T00:17:00.000-06:00

Enough people have asked ... to the point where it makes sense to post about the how and why of this Blog's name. It goes like this ...

Listening to all of the whiny Liberals (and some Conservatives) bitch and moan about all sorts of things and giving us their lame interpretations and observations makes my ears want to bleed. At the same time, I am very right-wing when it comes to politics. I also happen to be a huge fan of Glenn Danzig's music and "Bleeding Light" is associated with one of his songs.

It's as simple as that ... and now you know.

Scream with me ... again!

2005-06-23T17:32:00.000-06:00

After roughly 6 months it now seems to be the right time to get back into the blogosphere. Life seems to be rolling along and there's no lack of topics to discuss ... so why not? I'm back.

Thanks for all of the emails, comments, and messages of support and concern. They really do mean a lot to me ... even the negative ones. Hell ... sometimes the negativity is what keeps me going. If we all agreed about every single issue wouldn't this be a very boring world, indeed? So by all means ... let me have it!

And for all those reading my words for the very first time, let me suggest that you have gander at my previous blog, Scream With Me, to get a better idea of who I am and where my (some say warped) mind is at.

Let's roll!