My letter to the Blue Dog Coaltion

It is obvious one of the only things that will keep the nightmare of "ObamaCare" from coming true is the Blue Dog Democrats. These congressmen and women purport to be fiscally conservative and have resisted thus far. I have written them the following email. I urge you to write them as well.

bluedog@mail.house.gov

"Good morning ladies and gentlemen,

I wanted to take this opportunity to contact regarding the current healthcare reform proposals that are working their way through Congress. I am urging you to vote no on any form of the current proposals. Last August, the citizens of the United States showed up in force to show their displeasure toward a large bloated healthcare reform proposal; and the sentiment has not changed.

The two proposals known as the "Baucus Bill" and the recent House bill unveiled by Speaker Pelosi are completely unacceptable for the following reasons:

1. Both of these are too expensive. Topping out around (or over) $1 Trillion neither of these bills are sustainable. Healthcare legislation in this form cannot be paid for without massive amounts of borrowing, skyrocketing taxes, or cutting funds to other necessary programs. Piling on huge amounts of debt will further weaken the US dollar. Additionally, excessive borrowing is one of the things that bottomed out Wall Street and helped make the current recession worse. The amount of taxes and fees associated with this will cripple the private sector of the economy, especially small businesses and their employees.

2. Too much government control over citizens' healthcare. Both of these bills show that there will literally be a government official involved in your healthcare from cradle to grave. I don't know anyone who wants the government to be a buffer between them and their doctors. I don't know anyone who wants a bureaucrat involved in their treatment plans. Additionally, this level of control by government will stifle medical research for new treatments.

3. This level of government involvement in healthcare will kill the private industry. Health insurance companies simply cannot compete with the government when the government is one making the rules and setting the prices. Doctors will have no negotiating power with the government as the government dictates to the doctors what they will pay. A congresswoman was caught on YouTube stating that a private insurer once said that this will kill their profits, and she gloated that he's "absolutely right." Does Congress not realize that by killing of private insurance companies that millions will be left without jobs? In the end there will be less competition, not more (as is promised.)

Make no mistake. The people of this country do not want this. Please don't think that just because you are not wading through a room full of angry constituents that we have forgotten about this issue; we have not. Please don't buy into the line that Republicans and people like myself don't want any reform. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If this were a matter of insuring the uninsured, that would not be such a big deal. However, the current proposals go far beyond that and do not touch on things that could really make a difference in the cost of healthcare. Things such as tort reform, there are good programs in Texas and Indiana. What about allowing interstate sale of health insurance? What about treating personally purchased health insurance with the same benefits as employer provided health insurance? What about allowing medications in from certain other countries?

Thank you for your time and consideration,"

The REAL Minority Report; or Well It's OK for Obama Part 53

As is completely evident, Obama's "Bash-Bush" train is not pulling into station anytime soon. Obama gave a speech recently blasting former President Bush's imprisonment of terrorist detainees at Gitmo, as he has done throughout his five minute career.

However, yesterday was different. While Obama was badmouthing Bush he was laying out his own plans to indefinitely imprison people who were threats, could not be tried for past crimes; but needed to be prevented from committing future crimes. That's right, he is taking the evil, despised, constitution hating Bush's plan... a step further.

Obama makes it clear that Bush/Gitmo was illegal because Bush said it was legal based on advice from a legal team, but Obama's plan will be legal because Obama is the one doing it. This whole attitude of "It's OK, it'll work, because I'M the one doing it now" that defines Obama would be funny if he were not actually in charge.

At least the people that Bush imprisoned at Gitmo were captured on a field of battle in the act of going after our troops, or caught in a plot here in the US. Obama's plan is for people to be imprisoned whether they have or are committing/planning an attack or crime. Just like Minority Report.

Dem run House of Representatives represent anything but the people - Part 2.

One would think that after witnessing the groundswell of public sentiment against the Obamacare plan the Democratic run Congress would start paying attention. Not only are We The People being insulted, being called a mob, being accused of being Nazis, it gets worse. Now the Dems are making no effort to hide the fact that they could care less what their constituents have to say as evidenced by Sheila Jackson Lee. Have a look at Jackson as a concerned citizen and cancer survivor voices her concerns.




Sheila Jackson Lee is a poor excuse for a public servant and deserves to be thrown out on her duff. In 2010 if we don't make this a reality we deserve what we have coming.

Dem run House of Representatives represent anything but the people.

As Congressmen and women return to their districts for the August recess they are being met with a hard dose of reality. That reality is that the majority of people do not want Obamacare. They just don't want it and they are showing up to let their representatives know it.

So how have the Democrats running Congress reacted? They have insulted their constituents that have shown up. The opposing citizenry has been called "a mob", they have been called "astroturf", "villains" and so on.

So how does the President of the United States react and instruct his party? He sets up a snitch email address, so that those who do not agree can be found. He gets the unions involved to show up at town meetings to intimidate the people.

You have members of the Service Employees International Union attacking and beating down TEA Party protesters. You have AFL-CIO members shoving people out of town hall meetings. You have representatives shouting at constituents.

When did the violence start at these meetings? When the Dems sent in the unions, ACORN and their "grassroots" organizations.

52 Race Card Pickup

Earlier this month Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct. Since this incident, the arresting officer's treatment has ranged from being called a racist (again) by the man he arrested to being insulted by the President of the United States. The policeman says he was just doing his job. Professor Gates says he was arrested because he was, "a black man in America."

But what are the facts? Here's what we know. A woman called 911 and reported that she saw two men, with backpacks breaking into a house. The police arrived and confronted Gates, not knowing who he was. Shortly thereafter Gates was arrested.

Gates asserts that his civil rights were violated. The officer asserts that Gates became beligerent, would not cooperate, and continually referred to the fact that he is a "black man." Based on how many times I've seen Gates on TV pointing out the obvious fact that he's a black man, I'd say he did. Gates also stated that when inside the house after telling the police officer he lived there, he said he went to get his ID and the policeman followed him.

Som let's say that you are a police officer. Let's say you get called to a potential burgularly in progress. Let's say that the first person you see on site starts screaming at you about how he's a black man and you are a racist. Are you going to be suspicious of the person? OK so now the person tells you that they live in that house. Are you just going to take their word for it? So the suspect says they are going to get their ID in just the other rooom. Are you going to think to yourself they may be running? Or getting a gun? And now the suspect gets even more agitated and demands you get out. Are you going to be suspicious?

If you are a cop worthy of your badge, sure you will be.

Keep in mind that none of this has to do with race or black men in America. It has to do with good police procedure. Cops can't afford to take peoples' word for much, or else they end up shot.

So what is it with Gates? Perhaps he believes too much of his own BS. Maybe he takes himself too seriously. Maybe had that race card burning a hole in his pocket, maybe he had a whole deck.

Regardless, Henry Gates is cheapening what the pioneers that fight the REAL civil rights fight. He is crying wolf to the detriment of those who really suffer from racism in this country. Everytime a Henry Gates surfaces playing 52 Race Card Pickup, the rest of America sighs and shakes their heads.

The Monstrosity that is Obamacare

Do you remember when the US healthcare system was you, going to the doctor? Maybe you had private health insurance and paid a $10-$50 co-pay? Then you'd go the pharmacy to get some prescritpions? The good old days when your healthcare was between you, your family, your doctor and your pharmacist?

Well my friends, those days could be gone! I present to you: ObamaCare!

If you'd like a closer look at this beast have a look here:

http://grassfire.org/122/images/chart_lg.jpg

In the mean time get on the phone to your Congressman and tell them to vote NO on this.

Bunking one of The Left's cases for "Cap and Trade"

When confronted with the fact that the US is not even close to being the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gasses; that we infact come in well behind China in that realm. When these facts are presented in the CO2 tax/cap/trade/regulate/ debate we are often told the following:

"It's time for America to lead the way, when America begins regulating carbon, China and the others will follow our lead."

My response is, "Like they have on human rights?"

Call your Senator and tell them no on Cap and Trade.

Obama chooses not to 'meddle' unless leftists are on the losing end.

A few weeks ago Iran was engulfed in civil unrest, that's putting it lightly. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "won" re-election to that office over someone seen as a reformer. The people of Iran felt like they'd just been had. And with the number of ballots cast exceeding the number of those eligible to vote by 25% or more I think they were on to something. The people came out in numbers to protest and were met with nothing short of brutal oppression by the regime, including the outright murder of protesters. The violence raged on for what seemed like an eternity with no comment of even acknowledgement from President Obama. When Obama did speak on these events, the commentary was bland, at best.

More recently, President Manuel Zelaya, noted leftist and all around lackey of Hugo Chavez and the Castros, was kicked out of office. Honduras has a constitutional ammendment limiting the President to one term. Zelaya's term was to be up in 2010. That was not enough time for President Zelaya's liking. He insisted that the constitution be ammended so he can stay in power. The other branches of government and even Zelaya's own party refused this.

Zelaya basically said, screw you, and moved forward to have referrendum ballots handed out (printed by Hugo Chavez's regime.) The other branches of government used their constitutional powers to have Zelaya removed from office. Zelaya was arrested, taken out of the country and let go.

Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro and Barack Obama were very quick to denounce the government of Honduras for this "military coup" (you're one to talk Fidel.) President Obama quickly lost his distaste for "meddling" when a dedicated socialist leftie was on the losing end of the stick.

Here are a few facts about the situation in Honduras:

-Zelaya was attempting to subvert the Constitution of the Honduras.

-The actions taken by the Judicial and Legislative branches and the military were prescribed by the law.

-There was no bloodshed.

-Zelaya was removed by members of his own party; this was not a case of idealogues overthrowing each other.

So why does Obama not like what is going on in Honduras? It is a reminder that his power grabs are being watched and he does not like it when socialists lose. Ask yourself, would Obama meddle if instead of Honduras it were Columbia (with a conservative/capialist President)? I thing not.

Democrat Honesty on Cap and Trade:

Catch them when they've forgotten they are being taped. Here's John Dingell talking about Cap and Trade. Keep in mind that Dems publicly say that Cap and Trade will not effect your wallet and merely a plan to save mother "earf" from being destroyed by home theaters, air conditioning and SUVs.



He said it's a tax. A big one. One that they are trying to sneak in under false pretenses. Call your Senator. Kill this bill.

The Houses passes Cap and Trade; let's Abort it in the Senate.

The House of Representatives passed the absurd suicide pact known as Cap and Trade. The bill passed with 219 votes. Eight Republicans “reached across the aisle” and apparently flipped the country the bird. If enough pressure is applied this can be killed in the Senate. I have already contacted my Senator you should do the same. This is especially true if you live in a state with a RINO Senator (I’m looking at you Maine.) Also let’s keep pressure on McCain.

If you don’t know what Cap and Trade is, it is essentially a scheme where companies are “capped” on the amount of greenhouse gasses they can emit. If they go over the “cap” then they are fined. Of course the cap will be set to an impossibly low level ensuring that there will be lots of fines. All of this is to fix the fiction of man-made global warming.

The Dems are saying that this will not cost the people anything. President Obama on the other hand was caught in a moment of honesty:

Did you hear that?! He didn’t say prices will go up slightly, he didn’t say it would be a gradual increase. He said “SKYROCKET!”

Get on the horn to your Senator, pronto. If you are in a position to do so contact the RINOs listed at Moonbattery:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/06/eight_rinos_let.html

On waterboarding hoopla.

OK I am back from a hiatus.

I was talking to a liberal friend and he brought up a video he saw of Mancow getting waterboarded. If you have seen this video it is pretty interesting.  He is being volunarily waterboarded by US Military personnel.  In the video the waterboarding begins and Mancow quickly ends the waterboarding session.  Mancow states that even though he hates to admit it, it is torture.

This led me to a video of Christopher Hitchens getting the same thing.  Hitchens was challenged that if he did not believe waterboarding was that big of a deal then he should get waterboarded.  Hitches accepted the challenge.  Like Mancow, Christopher Hitchens lasted only seconds when actually getting waterboarded.

The left and the YouTube communists have labelled this as a victory about the horrors and torture of waterboarding.

But let me ask this.  Is it REALLY torture?  I mean honestly.  Everything is relative.  What did the NVA do to John McCain?  What did Saddam Hussein do to his prisoners?  When you enter that realm, that is REAL torture.  Limbs broken, fingernails pulled out, burning.  Look at what they did to people in the middle ages.  When you compare waterboarding to these things that were and are being done today.  Waterboarding does not even rate.

I'm sure waterboarding sucks to have done to you.  I'm sure it is a very unpleasant experience.  And I'm sure Mancow and Hitchens hated every minute of it.  But the fact that both of these men stepped up and willingly had this done to them makes it not torture.

You don't see people lining up to the get the interogation techniques favored by say, Kim Jong Il, applied to them.  You don't see people asking to have their teeth broken off with pliers a la John McCain.  The fact that media types are lining up to have this done like its the next big ride at Six Flags makes it not torture.

Defending the Cop.

Texas police officer Robert Powell has been dragged all over the place this past week after video came out of him at a traffic stop in which he pulled over NFL player Ryan Moats.  Moats and his wife ran a stop sign on the way to Moats' mother-in-law's deathbed.  Moats was detained by what appears to be a cocky, arrogant, jerk of a cop.

The circumstances are that the Moats family was detained and failed to be present during the mother in law's last moments.  And there are a lot of people saying that this is just another example of how all cops are jerks.

However, there is something that people are not thinking about.  Ryan Moats ran a red light.  Officer Powell did not know the circumstances, he just knew that someone ran a light.  It is his job to pull people over who run red lights.

OK, so Ryan Moats told the officer that his mother in law was dying in the hospital.  Here's the ugly truth, next time you see a cop, any cop I want you to ask him a question.  Ask the cop how many times he's been lied to.  That's right everyone lies to the police.  Everyone.  It would be nice if everyone told the truth or if police always believed me when I told them something, but guess what?  It doesn't work that way.  I cops let their guard down they die.

The thing to keep in mind is that when a police officer pulls you over, when he walks up to your car he has no idea whether you are going to have license and registration or a pistol.  He doesn't know if you hurry is to get to the hospital to see a sick loved one or because you've got a little kid you snatched in your trunk.  The police don't know.

It would be nice if they could take you at your word, but bad guys think up excuses.

Here's a scenario.  A car runs a red light.  A police officer gives chase.  The card does not stop and continues to drive.  The car stops in the hospital parking lot, the man jumps out and begins shouting that his mother is dying in the hospital.  The cop says, go right ahead, go about your business.  The man runs in the hospital doors a few minutes later the report comes over the radio.  The man the policeman just pulled over and let go shot someone 30 minutes ago.

And the police officer in question let the culprit go.  Don't you think people would impune him for that?  Well well well, look at Barney Fife, just let a murderer go!  And that my friends is a no win situation.

Back talking to Gibbs the Obama puppet.

Robert Gibbs, in a childish manner similar to most libs, insulted Dick Cheney after Cheney criticized Obama's order to close Gitmo.  This is what the Obama administration had to say about legitimate criticism from a former VeeP, "I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal,"

Charming.

Let's see, Obama's policy on Gitmo is to apparently bring enemy combatants to our country, give them access to our liberties and rights (more than we'd get), and give them a nice high profile trial complete with liberal protesters calling for amnesty a la Tookie Williams.

"For seven-plus years, the very perpetrators that the vice president says he's concerned about weren't brought to justice," Gibbs said.  Oh really?  What do you call being locked up in a prison?  Granted liberal panty wastes like you protested and cried enough to get them nice cushy prayer blankets, better food than I eat and lots and lots of Qurans.

Gibbs also stated, "The president has made quite clear that keeping the American people safe and secure is the most serious job that he has each and every day,"

Well that makes me feel better.  Based on the level of incompetence we're dealing with here, as evidenced by the economy, I'd feel better if Obama said he was trying to sink the country and convert it to Sharia Law.  

Lemmings flock to Chris Brown.

I usually try to avoid anything to do with the entertainment crowd, but the recent Chris Brown mess is just to stupid to pass up.  If you don't know, and I don't blame you if you don't, Chris Brown was recently charged with beating the holy hell out of his girlfriend Rihanna.  In this particular scenario Rihanna got into Chris Brown's car looking like a sexy little pop star at point A.  When the car arrived at point B, Rihanna looked like the dead Apollo Creed in Rocky IV.

Where am I going with all of this?  Since this has happened, Brown has been charged, etc.  There have been several people going to various web outlets like My Space, Facebook, and so on, just giving huge amounts of outpouring adulation.  Not like, "Hey Chris, you messed up, you don't deserve to ever see that woman again.  Hope you do better when you get out in 5 to 10."

I mean these people are flocking to him and basically they don't care what he did because basically he's in rap videos.  Here are some samples, get a bucket:

"One day I..ll meet this crazy man :D and we will make music together. Yeahh!! 
My heart aint a brain but I think that I still love hiiim"

"you absolutally amazing you dont do anything wrong i will support you intill the day i die. you are wonderful dont let a single thing put you down you deserve the best because you are the best please be happy and get back out there and show them what your mad of."

"SHOWING LOVE AND SUPPORT AND I JUST WISH THAT CHRIS WOULD COME BACK FROM THIS A STRONGER PERSON AND KEEP MAKING THE WOUNDERFUL MUSIC THAT HE MAKES AND HE STILL MY SEXI VA PRINCE AND I STILL LOVE HIM"

I find it amazing how shallow these people are.  Absolutely no substance (and no spelling.)  I guess anything he does is OK because he makes music and is "sexi"?  I especially love the part where they say that everyone makes mistakes, but they leave off the second part of the mistake equation, consequences.

Sure everyone makes mistakes, but we pay for them.  You run a red light?  Mistake.  Consequence you get a ticket and pay a fine.  You beat the crap out of your girlfriend bad enough that she has to have plastic surgery?  You need to go to jail.  That's the way it should work.  I have not seen any outpouring of support for Rihanna, though.  You hear all about how hard it is what Chris Brown is going through.  WTF's he going throuhg?!  Did he bruise his knuckles?!

And now Rihanna has taken him back, stating that he cries and is sorry sweet after he beats her.  Hello, dummy it's called the honeymoon phase.  No sympathy moving forward, now you are asking for it.

Obama foreign policy incompetence is overshadowed by the economic incompetence.

The economy is all over the news right now.  Obama is still trying to play the blame game on Bush.  I particularly love that little diddy of his where he says that "we inherited a $600 Billion deficit from the previous administration" is the problem; and then he goes on to say he's going to fix the problems caused by said deficit with a $2 Trillion deficit.  Anyway the economy is in the crapper, it's the patient, and he's Dr. Kevorkian.

But I am not here to talk about that right now.  Let's talk about foreign policy.  Remember when Obama said during the campaign that basically the answer to foreign policy was to elect him and everyone would love us again?  Remember how he said he was just going to talk to all those people we didn't have a good relationship with?  It isn't quite working out.

Remember that Obama said that he would talk with Iran, with no pre-conditions?  As soon as he offered that officially he was snubbed.  The Iranian response went something like this, "Well we have pre-conditions for you.  Withdraw all your military forces to within your border, get rid of capitalism and convert to Islam."  Great.

How's it going with Venezuela?  Hugo Chavez has said that Obama is the same is Bush until he saw our economy.  Then he started praising Obama for taking a step in the right direction; and then said he needed to fully adopt socialism.  Great.

Oh, Iraq and Afghanistan.  We are out of Iraq, he essentially gave al Qaeda a date on when they could resume operations.  And did you know we are losing in Afghanistan?  Yeah, according to him we are.

Then there's Russia.  Obama offered, "Dear President Medvedev, we will stop building that missile defense shield that you don't like if you please please please make the Iranians stop building nuclear weapons."  Medvedev responded with, "How about this?  Screw you.  Dismantle the missile shield and we will not give you any help with Iran.  We are not going to barter with you.  We are going to keep helping Iran build nukes.  Have a nice day."

Finally, there's the UK.  Our closest allies.  First Obama snubs the PM saying he was too tired.  Then the PM gives the Obamas really nice gifts.  Obama gives a DVD box set and some models of Marine One ($15 at the White House gift shop.)  As if the British Prime Minister can't buy DVDs.

This administration is a joke and since he's making our country the punchline, it is not a funny joke.

The White House's Enemies List.

It has become official, with a story in Politico about the Obama Administration targeting Rush Limbaugh that the White House has an enemies list.  It's not as if anyone with a brain didn't know that already based on the way the Obama team went after Joe the Plumber for not agreeing Obama on the plundering of our society.

Here's the thing a lot of people aren't getting, it is more than just Limbaugh they are going after.  Sure, Limbaugh is a figure many do not like for one reason or another.  But the Obama enemies list goes deeper than radio hosts and financial reporters.  Obama recently remarked tha that stock market is not important.  If you are like most people with 401k's, IRAs and 403b's you have your retirement plan wrapped up in that market.

Obama is going after our employers, the people who give us work to do, employers are going to shut down.

It goes like those auto dealer commercials, "Do you have a job and $99?"  Then congratulations, you are on the Obama Enemies List.

Why Politico Just Doesn't Get It When Saying Steele Just Doesn't Get It.

After all this time the myth is still out there, the falsehoods about conservative Republicans persists. Roger Simon of Politico.com wrote a piece describing why Michael Steele just doesn't get it. He goes on to characterize that Steele wants the party to court minorities (as Steele has said) and that "hardcore" Republicans, like Limbaugh, are not interested in this.

Mr. Simon goes on to state that hardcore Republicans are more interested in guns, gays and abortion, while Democrats are more interested in "kitchen table" issues of jobs, healthcare and the environment.

OK, let's throw down the B.S. card on the environment being an issue at all. Polling shows the environment and global warming at the bottom of the heap. Then as if to say that Republican voters, pardon me, hardcore Republican voters are not concerned with jobs and healthcare?

Mr. Simon, we are concerned about jobs and healthcare. At this point I am concerned with what the Obama administration is going to do to ruin jobs and healthcare for everyone. Just because we do not support Obama does not mean we don't want jobs! The point here is that Obama's policies are already losing jobs. Healthcare will soon follow. Obama wants to socialize healthcare, look at how that has worked out in Europe, Cuba and Canada. There are businesses whose sole trade is to get Canadians medical treatment in America, because they cannot get it in Canada!

Finally, this whole thing about not being willing to "reach out" to minorities. False, Republicans are willing to reach out to all people, here's the trick, regardless of race, gender, etc. We refuse to put people into different categories or groups. We are supposed to be a classless society where such things do not matter. We are looking for people who share our ideas and beliefs of financial freedom, smaller government and personal responsibility. The notion that someone does not want these things because they are black is asinine. Period.

Addressing the tired line of "Blaming the poor, for being poor."

I've heard this line before and am starting to hear it again in light of the resistance by the public against the porkzilla spending bill.  This is a strawman if I have ever heard one.  I don't blame (all) the poor for being poor (many have brought it on themselves.)

First and foremost, I blame liberalism and liberal policy makers.  Let's not kid around here, the housing crisis was the final straw that broke this camel's back.  But how did the housing market get in such bad shape?  Liberalism!  We are seeing the effects and it is being reported as the problem.  Years ago, liberals dictated that banks had to give loans that they would not make money on.

Not only were these loans unprofitable, they were not going to get repayed.  It isn't just politicians that set this table.  Organizations, like ACORN, extorted banks and threatened boycotts, civil suits, protests and all the other liberal tricks if the banks did not make these bad loans.  So you take unprofitable loans, and then flat don't pay them.  The only way for the banks to control the losses is to repossess the houses.  But banks were prevented from doing this too.  The banks have no choice but to fold.

So now here we are.  There are a lot of people who do what they are supposed to do and now we are being told we have to pay for those who did not.  Do you think everyone who makes their payments are just lucky people who just fell into a pile money we didn't earn or deserve and it is all fun and games?  No!  I scrape by every month and work long hours and everything else in my power to meet my obligations.  

So don't sit there and act like you are owed something.  I had an offer to get a loan far more than I ended up getting.  I chose to get less of a loan so I could be sure to make it.

It is called personal responsibility, but I guess it is now a thing of the past.

I am no coward, on race Mr. Holder.

Attorney General Eric Holder, this week, referred to the people of the United States of America as "cowards" on issues concerning race.  He feels that we as a nation do not discuss this enough openly.  I take his meaning to mean that white people have no apologized enough (and frankly never will.)  I will admit that there are many white people who do not talk about their thoughts about race (actually culture.)  But why would any white person want to get into this discussion?  They can never be right and it is a losing battle.  If a white person engages in this discussion and expresses any opinion other than, "It's all our fault" they are immediately branded a racist.  And being branded a racist is the single worst thing you can be branded in the United States today.  Don't believe me?  Look at how much anger there was when terrorist Zawahiri referred to President Obama as "house slave."  That was just too much, it was over the top and the last staw.  This is one of the masterminds of 9/11 for crying out loud and people get that upset over him making a racial slur?!

The other problem is that the "racist" label is thrown around so much now that if you listen to certain people then everyone is a racist.  As it stands today, if you oppose ANY portion of the liberal agenda you are racist.  Period.  Don't want tax raises?  Racist.  Don't support the stimulus package?  Racist.  Don't support abortion?  Racist.  Don't want more of your tax dollars going to welfare?  Racist.  Didn't vote for Obama?  Racist.  And I could go on all day.  It's like taking a trascript of Joe McCarthy, hopped up on acid and replacing "communist" with "racist."  And everyone is afraid of having that label aimed at them.

In that respect, maybe AG Holder is right.  Too many people afraid to speak the truth out of fear they will be labeled racists.  So speak your mind, and labels be damned.  The truth is, the civil rights movement was meant to make us a classless society.  How can we be a classless society if so much emphasis is put on segregating us into demographic groups such as, I don't know... RACE?

Attorney General Holder, the way that you will know we no longer have a racial problem is when no one cares about the color of your skin, including you.

Leftie Thought Police and Race Baiters are on the march... again.

New York Post cartoonist Sean Delonas published this cartoon rich has quickly brought out the hyper-sensitive victim class and PC crowd, including race baiter in chief Al Sharpton.

The debate is still fresh, was the cartoonist referring to Obama as the monkey or wasn't he?  For those of you who don't know, President Obama did not write the stimulus bill.  Congress wrote it as a group.  The Congress, basically compiled a wish list for all of their pet projects and pork into one massive spending bill, slapped a title on it and called it stimulus.

But what if he was referring to Obama?  What then?  How about this, so what?  As long as I can remember Presidents have been constantly compared to chimps and other primates.  As a matter of fact, this is an indicator of equality.  Obama is being treated no differently than any other President.  And really, this is nothing.  Compared with what the President of the United States has to deal with on an hour by hour, minute by minute basis Obama had better have a thicker skin than his advocates or GTFO.

Let's keep in mind that the cartoon does not implicitly say that the chimp in this cartoon is Obama.  The detractors of the cartoon are just assuming that themselves.  Since they associate Obama as the only person invlolved with the stimulus bill as being comparable to a chimp doesn't that make them the racists?  Anyway, here's some of the handy work of people pulling off Bush=Chimp and even Clinton=Chimp.

I know, "but comparing white people to chimps isn't the same."  Spare me.  But I'll humor you.  Ok let's assume that this is an attack on a minority.  Let's look at how so called "progressives" handle a Democrat who does not tow the line a la Joe Lieberman.

In case you don't know comparing the black person to a chimp is the same as comparing a Jew to a rat.  Oh and WTF with the black face on Joe Lieberman?  Speaking of black face, let's have a look at what "progressives" had to say about Michael Steele.

Progressives are always the first to the gutter.  And they are the quickest to justify and excuse their own racist behavior.  I don't know about you, but I would rather be called a chimp than Hitler; and Bush took that for 8 years.

President Obama and Julio...

I ran into this today.



At first all I can say is wow. Then, "This guy is a plant."

But let's look at his message. Julio works at McDonald's (and has been for four years) and wants to either find a better job or get more pay and more benefits than he is currently getting at McDonalds. First and foremost, the trade between the President and Julio about whether Julio is getting healthcare at McDonald's is flat our false. McDonald's most certainly does offer healthcare benefits. Not only do they offer healthcare coverage, they also offer retirement, investing and profit sharing; and college assistance. Granted its not a dream job but I've seen worse.

What is at the heart of Julio's message? Here it is: I work at McDonald's, and have been for four years. There are other people out there who make more money than me and I don't like that. Mr. President I want you to either give me that high paying job I've always dreamed of or make McDonald's pay me more.

Here is my official response:

Julio, I think it is great that you are working and getting educated to improve your life. However, there is a pecking order. As you gain experience and qualifications your income will go up, provided the demand is there. That's what your income is based on. You are selling your skills to the highest bidder. The fewer people who can do your job, and the more places that need that role filled, the more your skills are worth. You can teach anyone how to push grocery carts in about 30 minutes. This job pays around $7 per hour depending on where you are. Compare that with say an electrician journeyman makes about $18 per hour. Why the difference? Because as it stands today, you cannot do an electrician's job, but he can do yours.

The day that a cart pusher or cashier makes the same as a dentist the world will be broken. And once you get your communications career rolling you will feel the same way.

Finally, here's a secret of success. Don't depend on the person in the White House to "give" you a job, opportunity or anything. I recommend that the only thing you ask of the government is to get out of your way.

Leftard Fairy Tales.

That's right. I'm about to ruin breakfast. Judith Warner has a piece in the New York Times (as if anywhere else) on how the many masses are enthralled by the glowing perfection of the Obamas. This ranges from petty envy of the, public, "perfection" of the Obama marriage to sexual fantasies about the One.

Pathetically, one laments while explaining that he was at Columbia the same time as the Obamas, "I feel like if I’d been a better person I would have gotten to know them." Still others cry out why are they so perfect and not me? Still others have recurring nightmares, apparently, where they have a chance to interact with Barack and to be inadequate to win the favor of the One.

This is akin to all of the writings we saw in the 1990s about how many women wanted to bang Bill Clinton. It is for certain that, as Rush Limbaugh so aptly pointed out, Barack Obama appears to be the ultimate empty suit or blank slate. People just make him, in their, minds whatever they want him to be. It is also stands to reason that since the left had such a primal hatred for W, HW and the Gipper that they would have an equal and opposite reaction to any moonbat that comes on the scene.

If these worshippers weren't enabling someone to cause such great damage to our nation's rights, economy and national security it would be amusing. They are on even keel with the celebrity worshippers who gaze on celebrity pictures and obssess over whether Britney Spears is pregnant in the line at the supermarket. You can expect to see more articles like in the New York Times as the focus tries to shift to how the Obamas are like "Camelot" and away from the already increase in aggressiveness of other nations, the cost of the "stimulus package" and more.

Abortion clinic kills born alive baby.

As seen here, a Florida woman was 18 and pregnant went to an abortion clinic to kill her baby.  She was given a drug to dilate her cervix and the doctor did not make it to the office in time.  Instead of an abortion Sycloria Williams gave birth to a "live" baby girl.  The owner of the clinic promptly cut the umbilical cord and tossed the baby in a bio-hazard bag and right in the trash.

Seems as if everyone is handlin this one with the kid gloves.  The local rep for NOW said "It reall disturbed me."  And young miss Williams had even give the baby a name.  Well Ms. NOW, it really disturbed you?  This is what you are about!  This is what you define as a fundamental part of being a woman, or pardon me womyn.  What difference does it make that the baby fell out of this woman before having its brains sucked out?  And Sycloria, you don't name someone that you are out to kill.  Did you think up this name before or after you went to have your baby murdered?  Why is everyone so shocked about this?

Is it because Williams actually saw the living baby before it was killed.  I guess that does make it easier to kill someone you never have to see.  I case you don't know the score, that baby was alive and I mean it was alive before Sycloria Williams set foot in that abortion mill.  Don't believe me?  Go to an OB and check out a 4-D ultrasound.  I don't know what it is about these stupid women who view their nether regions as some magical portal that grants life and turns all "unviable tissue" mass that passes through into humans with full rights.

I can't figure out if Williams is so stupid that she didn't know that her baby was a living person until she saw her die or if she is trying to milk this for cash.  Either way she's one who deserves to be in a bio-hazard bag.  The NOW folks are acting this way because they don't want what they're really about to get out.

I want you to remember though.  This is what we voted for.  This is the change.  Barack Obama opposed "born alive" legislation.  Expect more.  And everytime this or something like it happens there will be plenty of us to remind you.

Looks like loving your country, being patriotic, and helping others is the "new black"

Get your bucket ready.  Now watch this.  

Well looky there.  Looks like the beautiful people of Hollywood have found a couple new trends.  Being patriotic, loving you country, helping others?  Look at them all proud.  They remind of a small child that finds an Indian arrowhead and thinks it's something new.  They stand there and tell us how they pledge to love their country and help others and so on.

Well welcome aboard, we're glad you can make it!  But to most of us, love of country and others means more than your latest hand bag or exotic car.  For most of us, patriotism isn't a fad to engage in based on who sits in the Oval Office.  Most of us have always support our country.  The faux patriotism and love of country shown in this video is as shallow as Demi's facelift is obvious.

The truth is, this is not about love of country or patriotism.  This is about love of someone, Barack Obama.  These celebritards didn't give a damn about this country when Bush (either one) was in office, they didn't care about this country when Reagan was in office and they would not care if it were John McCain in the White House instead of Barack.

They preach about the country and "others" but they tip their hand at the end when they pledge to be a servant to Barack Obama.  The truth is that if they did not have feelings of patriotism, caring for others, and sacrifice before, they don't have them now.  These feelings are likely to prove fleeting.

But hey, if those celebrities are really all about love of country and helping, then good.  Glad to see you could finally make it, but we got started without you.  No offense.

The Soda Tax explained.

Years ago, President Clinton with help from Congress imposed higher taxes on cigarettes under the guise of funding healthcare and encouraging people to stop smoking.  In other words, to control behavior.  Public support for this measure was gained by promising to help "the children."

Conservatives were scorned and ridiculed for not supporting this measure.  We were told we didn't care about peoples health, the children's health.  The conservative position, is one of personal freedom, responsibility and limited government.  Conservatives also warned that if this were allowed it would set a precedent on other items the left will deem unhealthy.

Fast forward to 2009, Governor Patterson of New York is set to impose a tax on non-diet soda.  Soda is a boogeyman for the Left because of sugar, and of course the justification of the tax is so it can help the children.  Looks like we were right, huh?  But is this really about help anyone, let alone children?  I say absolutely not.

Let's look at the "purpose" of these taxes.  The first purpose is to pay for healthcare.  The second purpose is to encourage people into consuming less of these evil items.  One purpose will kill the other purpose.  First of all the "healthcare for children" argument is a joke.  Since taxing the cigarettes for this purpose in the 1990's there has been no significant change in children's healthcare.

But let's look at the real problem.  Let's say that government collects money and allocates it for healthcare.  Fine and wonderful.  Now let's say that tax meets its second "goal" and fewer people consume non-diet soda.  Revenue (for healthcare) collected by the tax will drop.  What then?  I dunno, maybe raise the tax even more like they did for cigarettes?  That may even out the money, but then fewer people will consume soda.  Then what?  They will find something else to tax, that's what.  What will it be next time?  Chocolate?  Coffee?  Or how about tea?  We've been down that road haven't we?

It comes down to this.  Liberal politicians (and a lot of "conservatives") are only interested maintaining and growing government.  To reach this goal they have to get ever deeper into the pockets of the taxpayers.  If Governor Patterson were concerned that soda pop were killing people why would he not just ban it all together?  I mean afterall, it's a health emergency.  The mistake of the governments prohibition on alcohol in the 20th century was that they were trying to legislate morality.

Now, the government just wants more of your money and want to be more subtle about telling you how to live.

Michelle Obama "chided" for wearing "whitey's" designer clothes.

Who knew that affirmative action reached all the way into what clothes you wear?  According to Politico Michelle Obama has received criticism from the Black Artists Association for the crime of her inaugural outfits not being designed by black designers.

I have to go with Michelle on this one.  Who cares?!  The Black Artists Association asked:

"It's fine and good if you want to be all 'Kumbaya' and 'We Are the World' by representing all different countries. But if you are going to have Isabel Toledo do the inauguration dress, and Jason Wu do the evening gown, why not have Kevan Hall, B Michael, Stephen Burrows or any of the other black designers do something too?"

Here's  a novel idea, maybe she didn't like anything Kevan Hall or any of the other black designers had to offer.  I mean she is still a free person, free to choose what clothes to wear right?  Why is there this notion within minority communities that you have to be beholden to anything and everything within your particular miniority group?  It's asinine.

On the other hand the Obama's are part of the machine that created this monster. 

Obama's new rules already don't apply... to him that is.

Peter Schweizer wrote a book in 2006 that can now be considered prophetic when it comes to the new presidency of Barack Obama.   One the first day of his administration President Obama signed an executive order regarding lobbying and ethics rules.

If you can make it through to about the 3:25 mark President Obama begins outlining his rules for lobbyists in his administration.

1.  Former lobbyists entering Obama's administration will not be allowed to work on things that they lobbied on or agencies they lobbied during the previous 2 years.

2.  After leaving the Obama administration you will not be allowed to lobby the Obama administration as long as Obama is President.

3.  There will be a ban on gifts from lobbyists to anyone in the administration.

That was on the "first day" of work Jan 20th or 21st.  Well guess what?

That's right kids, less than a week and President Obama has already waived his own ethics rules to appoint a lobbyist and executive at Raytheon (a defense contractor) as Deputy Secretary of Defense.  When President Obama stated that his administration would be transparent we had no idea.  What good are rules if you don't follow them?  Obama's ethics rules are about as on the up and up as playing one on one with Kim Jong Il.

America's problems or race and expectation.

First and foremost, we the United States of America, have a race problem.  We do, it's as simple as that.  The nation is obssessed with race.  I watched the inauguration of President Obama on Tuesday.  All of the coverage was about race.  From the reporters covering it to Rev. Lowery praying for the day "when WHITE will embrace what's RIGHT."  I got up this morning this morning to a video on MTV, "My President is Black." completely with caracitures of skinny, bitter whites protesting President Obama.  Were the film of this video shown as a negative with the word black replaced with white it would be hauled off the air like a dump trunk full of gravel.

But this video's wording is very telling.  It speaks in relation to a myth.  That myth is that the President of the United States "gives" to people.  Barack Obama is going to give handouts.   Going to give people a better job, hell a better life.  This implies that George W. Bush and the presidents before him "gave" (to the white man I guess.)  This further evidenced by this voicemail left at CitiBank's collection department.  Notice how the fact that this woman doesn't make her car payment is going to be remedied by President Obama.  I also like the phrase, "WE'VE got Barack Obama."  Lady, he's my president too.

The expectation is there that Barack Obama is going to make their lives better.  That they will not be expected to pay their bills or be responsible or to work.  What it comes down to is that in the mind of these folks Barack Obama's sole purpose is to stick it to "whitey."  Also ,I really think, as scary as it is, that the expectation is for President Obama begin punishing "whitey" for, well, being white.

Tavis Smiley, said on Meet the Press that Obama's election as president is merely a down payment on Rev. King's dream.  That is patently false.  Obama's election is proof of King's dream as being fullfilled.  Have you ever Rev. King's "I have a dream" speech.  I highly recommend that you do.  You can read it here.

If you actually read the speech, what Rev. King is stating is that all of us should be equal, regardless of race, gender or religion and so on.  In mathematical terms:

Not: white people > black people or black peolple >white people or red people > black people.

More like:  white people = black people or black people = red people or how about white = black = red = brown = yellow = green.

Or even better yet, shed the group mentality of color and class all together?  If that were the case it would be:

people = people = people OR just PEOPLE.  That's what King was getting at.

It is going to take all of us to get past race.  It is going to take organizations like the NAACP, La Raza to drop the race classification and getting with the program.  President Obama's election has demonstrated that there is still work to be done.  You will know that we have turned the corner when comments such as, "You have a black President." or "...and she's Mexican." or "...but he's white." are met with, "So?"

Bottom line, in a post racial society, race does not matter and is not a factor.  That's why it's called POST racial.

Idiotic, race obsessed bloggers don't get Gran Torino.

I watched Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino last night and it was an excellent film.  Yesterday I was browsing for news bits on the shooting of Oscar Grant by a BART officer and came across a review of Gran Torino skrewing as a typical racist Hollywood film.  This led me to another negative racially motivated review of the film.  I decided to bring this up since Eastwood had recently taken heat from a race baiting Spike Lee; and few things aggravates me more than small minded twits crying about how one group or another is portrayed in movies, from To Kill a Mockingbird to Hostel. 

The charges against GT is that it is a typical cast of stereotypical minority characters (e.g. 'nerdy asian', 'asian gangster', 'black thug' and so on.)  All of this is centered around a "God-like" white man who comes to everyone's rescue.  This a bogus notion.

Eastwood's character, Walt Kowalski, is a racist and when he is introduced to his Hmong neighbors he makes the "gook" assumption about them.  He does not know them.  The Hmong fought WITH the US in Vietnam and faced holocaust afterward.  The "nerdy asian" and "gangbanger asians" server a purpose here.  It demonstrates that race has nothing to do with evil or virtue.  Thao is the most innocent character in the film and his cousin, Spider, is the most evil.

Walt doesn't save them, they save him.  Sue is a particularly good character.  Despite Walt's insults and attitudes she still shows him hospitality and does not give words any power. She is better than he is.  The Hmong neighbors prove to be better people than Walt.  

What people don't seem to understand is that Walt Kowolski is the central character in this film, everything is about his transformation.  So it stands to reason that the character is surrounded by characters that are minorities, good and bad.

With all of the racially obsessed people out there Clint Eastwood could not please them with this film.  Right now, Clint is being ostracized because his "savior" character is white.  But what would happen had Eastwood cast Morgan Freeman in the role of Walt?  How would it be received for Morgan Freeman to play the racist Korean War vet throwing out generous helpings of "gook" and "swamp-rat"?  I have no doubt that there are black men that share this view of Asian, but Clint would be picked apart for potraying this negative black character.  These race baiters are looking for Klansmen under every rock.  They are literally the Joe McCarthy's of racism.  I never heard a complaint about the barber or foreman being stereotypical.

There is something to be said for realism in movies as well.  The setting of film is around Detroit, MI.  Eastwood could have thrown in some Aryan Nation type gangs for "balance" but it would have been completely un-authentic.  Just for S&Gs I ran a google search on "white gangs" of Detroit.  The only thing a I came across was a white supremicist message board discussing that they don't want to go to Detroit because of the small white population. 

In closing, I thought this a fantastic film that demonstrates our pre-conceived notions about people are often wrong and that we have more in common with each other than we think.

Farwell Mr. President.

I was at the gym last night getting a workout in. I felt kind of crazy getting out in the single digit weather, but I am determined. While on the treadmill I saw the President Bush give his farewell speech. I say "saw" because the volume was muted on the television. When I got home I made it a point to read the transcript on Politico.com.

President Bush made it a point to be gracious, respectful and non-partisan. This is the new tone that Bush entered office on. What really caught my eye was the tone of the comment section of the article. I am very familiar with trolls and moronic people leaving comments on the web. But for some reason it really hit me hard. What I saw was a gathering of the minds of the most un-educated, un-appreciative, simple-minded, angry people in one place. My thought was, you know, these people deserve the President and government they are getting.

From day one President Bush has gotten the shaft and viewed with disdain; disrespected more than any President. It all started from the myth of the "stolen" 2000 election, which in fact Al Gore tried to steal. It only went downhill from there.

Let's look at the circumstances of Bush's presidency.

On day one, President Bush inherited a recession from the outgoing Clinton presidency (aptly called the Bush recession by the media and liberals.) Bush fixed this recession. Less than a year into his Presidency our nation was attacked.

I know that Democrats, liberals and the media do not like to talk about 9/11 other than the kooks who say Bush planned it or otherwise blame him. The reason they do not like to talk about it is because President Bush handled 9/11 and its aftermath in exceptional manner.

At this time the US economy is in dire straits. Let's remember that President Bush pulled us out of an earlier recession with his tax cuts and deregulation. The US economy survived for years despite thousands of attempts to talk it down and stifle it to have something to lay on Bush. The truth is, what killed the economy stems from oil prices and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.

The price of oil was too high for the American people to pay. President Bush tried several times to increase our supply of oil and make us less dependent on foreign sources. Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (aka the DNC piggy bank) forced banks to loan money to people that could not make the payments then would not let them collect. This collapsed the banking industry. Bush also tried to fix Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac only to be rebuffed. It's not that Bush has no blame here. Simply put he should have fought harder for ANWR, investigations into Fannie Mae, etc. But these problems are at the feet of the Democrats.

In the national security realm President Bush has done the impossible. After we were attacked on 9/11 Bush was charged with preventing further attacks. The expectation from Bush's opponents was that there were to be no more attacks. In their mind they were setting him up for failure. The realist expectation was that there would be more attacks. Period. The table set for President Bush by the opposing two parties (Democrats and Media) was anything less than no more attacks is failure.

Basically, it was a game of "Keep the country safe" but:

-You can't secure our borders from people entering illegally
-You can't send the armed forces after the enemy
-You can't put enemy combatants in prison
-You can't interrogate enemy combatants with anything more than cupcakes and puppies
-You can't intercept phone calls originating from outside the US
-France has to agree with your every decision
-No civilians can be killed by action of anyone including the enemy
-No US soldiers can be put in harms way. Ever.
-US intelligence agencies cannot gather intel on suspicious people inside the country.

Make no misake, the President was set up to fail. And he did not. But he has been dragged through the mud for 8 years and will likely be dragged through the mud for a few more.

Mr. President, I think I speak for those of us with a brain when I say, you have done well and you will be missed.

Randi Rhodes demonstrates the divide between conservatives and liberals.

I heard Olbermann whining about this too and I am a little late commenting on this, but here goes.

Basically, the Obamas asked to stay in the Blair House, which is the the guest house for the White House. The Obamas were denied their request because the house was already booked.

I caught clips of Randi Rhodes griping and complaining about this last week. The gist of her statements are ,who is George W. Bush to deny anything to Barack Obama? Who is so important that they would not be bumped out of the way of Barack Obama? As it turns out it was former Australian Prime Minister John Howard (referred to as 'disgraced' former Prime Minister...)

John Howard is a guest of this country, you do not treat your guests like that.

But more importantly, Randi uses a lot of 'who' there. That's the point, to the liberals it is all about status. Barack Obama is a more important person (to them) than John Howard. I mean afterall, Barack Obama is the messiah to these people. There is no equality here, and it surely does not matter that President George W. Bush entered into a commitment with John Howard. All things are to bend to the will of Barack Obama.

Randi Rhodes, once again demonstrating the elitist attitudes of the left.

Global Warming is going to jump the shark.

I love the History Channel, make no mistake about it. When I come home from work or get up in the morning, my TV goes to the History Channel first. That is why it pains me to write this, but here goes: History Channel, stop with all the global warming BS! They are literally tying the global warming hoax into anything and everything.

They recently had "Armageddon Week" on the History Channel, complete with Nostradamus, Edward Cayce, the Bible Code and everything. And don't you know, everything, was tied into global warming. The Bible Code end of the world - global warming. What was Nostradamus talking about? Global Warming. Why do the Mayans predict the world is going to end in 2012? If you guessed GLOBAL F'N WARMING you win a cigar!

But here's the thing. The History Channel is all about, well, history. And some of the history they reviewed debunks the global warming hoax out of hand. While reviewing all of the predicted doom and gloom; famine, drought, floods all the things a good end of the world scenario needs we revisited past instances of famine, drought, floods, etc. And guess what? All of these things have happened before.

That's right boys and girls. For the billions of years that this planet has been here there have been floods, droughts, ice ages, global warming, earthquakes, entire species of animals dying off. And guess what? Not a single SUV in sight. No smoke stacks, no power plants, no Leer Jets, no PCs, no Macs, no incandescent light bulbs. Nothing but nature. And some cases there were no humans around for any of this.

The day is coming, and it is already starting, when people are going to be sick and tired of being preached to by the global warming crowd. And global warming is going to jump the shark.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat

So here we are again with an escalating battle in Israel. And I also see that the usual cast of characters are on full display. The UN, the peacenicks, the Muslim apologists. And we are hearing the same tired line. There must be a stop to the violence.

Funny, nobody gave a crap about the violence when it was a one-sided affair that involved Hamas launching rockets as Israeli civilians; and during a "ceasefire" no less. Where was the UN? Where was ANSWER?

For all the good it is going to do, I am going to play mythbusters.

MYTH: Israel is the oppressive aggressor.
TRUTH: Israel has always shown great restraint (and are now) when dealing with the Palestinians. This last example showed Israel enduring daily rocket attacks with no counter-attack during the latest ceasefire. The fact that Israel defends itself and counterattacks does not back them the aggressor. There is nothing wrong with defending yourself. And there is nothing wrong with defending yourself with overwhelming force.

MYTH: Israel is targeting civilians; committing genocide.
TRUTH: Israel, like the US, take great pains to avoid civilian casualties. The Palestinians on the other hand not only aim specifically at Israeli civilians, they also deliberately put their own civilians in the path Israeli counter attacks. Hence, Hamas launches rockets from school yards and hospitals. Have noticed that Israel is using more and more "smart" weapons, bombs that are smaller and smaller but more and more accurate? This is because they would rather drop a 500 lb bomb directly on an enemy's head as opposed to a 5000 lb bomb on a large area. Both will get the job done, but the smaller bomb lessens civilian deaths. Contrast this with Hamas, they really don't care where their bombs go other than Israel. If Israel's goal was to wipe out the Palestinians, it would have been done 25 years ago. It does not take laser guided bombs to wipe out a population (see Dresden, Germany.)

MYTH: Israel is a racist society.
TRUTH: How many Jews do you see welcome in Gaza? In the West Bank? Or how about anywhere within 300 miles of Israel? On the other hand, Israel will accept anyone who does not wish to kill them. There are several Arab-Israelis who work, live and thrive in Israel. They are fully integrated into the society, the only problem is those darn rockets. Of course, these individuals are viewed with contempt in the rest of the Arab world. Were we talking about the US, they would be called "Sell Outs" or "Uncle Toms."

Regardless, this is not coming to an end soon. Hamas will spend the next weeks or days get trounced all over Gaza. They will continue to put their women and children in the line of fire so they can be paraded around for the cameras. The Moonbats will continue to protest Israel for engaging in the crime of self defense. The UN will continue to posture. Then after completely mopping the floor with Hamas, Israel will sign a ceasefire. Finally, Hamas after suffering combat casualties of 250 to one, gaining no ground, strategic or tactical advantage will declare victory and start shelling Israel again. What a joke.