My Rants


Feb 8 1996 is a BLACK day in US history. On that day, our so called LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT signed one of the most sweeping censorship laws that had the misfortune to make it out of Congress. Typical of President Billy Jeff's actions, it makes no sense. It bans material on the Internet (It's the Internet, not the Information Superhighway), but the same material in a public library or on the magazine rack the supermarket is still legal. I'm not kidding, the supermarket. Redbook Magazine ran a cover story right after the bill was passed on how women can better perform oral sex on men. That story would still be legal in their magazine, but the copy on their WEB site is now illegal. Go figure...
Democrats opposed John Ashcroft appointment to Attorney General, because he wasn't a liberal. So far, that's not a crime in America.
They claimed that he was "a racist." Which is the default term leftists use against anyone who dares to disagree with them.
According to the AP, as Missouri's governor from 1985 to 1993, Mr. Ashcroft, signed into law a state holiday honoring Martin Luther King, established musician Scott Joplin's house as Missouri's only historic site honoring a black person, created an award honoring black educator George Washington Carver, named a black woman to a state judgeship, and led a fight to save Lincoln University, which was founded by black soldiers. He also voted for the confirmation of 23 of 26 black judicial appointees during his six years in the Senate.
So what that reason again?
Vermont Senator James Jeffords is often spoken of showing policial courage when he left the Republican party and handed the control of the Senate over to the democrat party. I can only ask what planet are these people spouting this nonsense from? Jeffords was just elected, just six months earlier to a six year term. He was elected as a Republican. He used money from the RNC. There are people in Vermont who voted for him because he was a Republican, and many who did not vote for him because he was a Republican. 1/12 of the way into his Six Year term, he decided that the will of the people of Vermont didn't matter, and the will of the American people didn't matter. He single handedly overturned Fifty State Elections, and turned control of the United States Senate over to the party that could not win control in fair and free elections. In one of the most cowardly acts of political grandstanding, he declared that the will of James Jeffords was more important than the will of the American people. When Phill Graham switched parties, he had the political courage to resign his seat in Congress and seek re-election in a fair and free special election, running under his new party. Mr. Graham won that election. He had the courage of his convictions. Mr. Jeffords act was one of political cowardice and grandstanding of the worst sort.
Today I heard a liberal call for the abolishment of the Electoral College and go to a flat popular vote for the office of President. Given past history of the speaker, I'm not going to give the benefit of Machiavellian, or even deep, thought.

The effect of such an unconstitutional process would be to completely disenfranchise the entire voting population of smaller states without major metropolitan areas.

You live in New Hampshire, Maine, Wyoming, Iowa, or the Dakotas, too bad. You don't have enough votes to matter.

Presidential elections would be decided in 12-15 major metropolitan population centers. That's were the votes are, so that is were the money will flow.

This actually fits into the desires of the far left liberal wing of the democrat party. They are no longer "The party of the people." They now raise more money from soft sources, like corporations and PACs, then they raise from hard sources, i.e. small donations from individual citizens. A so called popular vote (or "mob rule" vote in this case), would allow them to leverage their questionably legal soft money deep pockets to buy inner city votes using time honored democrat methods as handing out "walking about money" registering illegal aliens using forged documents, and when ever possible, get disqualified legal votes that don't agree with their ticket.


Its still amazing how proud liberals are about their ignorance. For example, I had one liberal twit start spouting nonsense about "ballistic fingerprinting" and "High Powered Assault Rifles". Here is Clue One, firearm ballistics are not like fingerprints.
Fingerprints donít change, firearm ballistic markings do.
They change just from normal use. They are also frightfully easy to change. The idiot came up with what he thought was the brilliant argument of "Well, I could go to a plastic surgeon and have my fingerprint changed. Does that mean we shouldnít collect fingerprints?" It is hard to believe this idiot has enough brainpower to change his socks without help. He canít figure out the difference between getting a trained and licensed surgeon to perform an illegal operation and a process that anybody with more than two neurons to rub together can do in 10 minutes with less than $10 worth of equipment from a hardware store.
Clue Two, by defination, an assault rifle does not fire "high power" rounds. There are states that won't allow the use of the .223 Remington cartridge for deer hunting. It is considered too low powered and thus inhumane to use to hunt deer.

What was even scarier was this idiotís absolute persistence in ignoring any kind of factual data. When presented with an actual fact, like you can change the ballistics markings of a firearm in under 10 minutes, he goes back to quoting the same stupid incorrect mantras that branded him an clueless idiot when he first opened his mouth.


Seeing the Stupid White Man, on TV the other day got me to get off my butt and do some research on his so called documentary. First off, as pointed out by David Hardy, it's not even a documentary by the rules of the Academy.

Rule 11 of the rules for the Academy Award: a documentary must be non-fictional, and even re-enactments (much less doctoring of a speech) must stress fact and not fiction.

As Mr. Hardy, a civil rights lawyer, points out, "[bowling] makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore invites the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Dates are transposed and video carefully edited to create whatever effect is desired. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered.
These occur with such frequency and seriousness as to rule out unintentional error. Any polite description would be inadequate, so let me be blunt. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect."

The Wall Street Journal Opinion page makes some interesting points also.

"[Bowling] show[s] a willful aversion to the truth. Mr. Moore repeats the canard that the United States gave the Taliban $245 million in aid in 2000 and 2001, somehow implying we were in cahoots with them. But that money actually went to U.N.-affiliated humanitarian organizations that were completely independent of the Taliban.

In print, too, Mr. Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. In his "Stupid White Men," his best-selling book, he blithely states that five-sixths of the U.S. defense budget in 2001 went toward the construction of a single type of plane and that two-thirds of the $190 million that President Bush raised in his 2000 campaign came from just over 700 individuals, a preposterous assertion given that the limit for individual contributions at the time was $1,000.When CNN's Lou Dobbs asked Mr. Moore about his inaccuracies, he shrugged off the quesiton. "You know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know," he said.

So...it seems that Mr. Moore is more a propaganist in the finest tradition of Gobbels than documentary film maker.
Yet, the far left of center folks eat his stuff like a cat going at a bowl of cream laced with catnip.

Join the fight to do what's right, and Revoke the Oscar!
MooreLies.com


In today's (4/3/03) Boston Globe, Presidential hopeful Senator John Kerry (left wing liberal democrat, Taxachussetts) is calling for a "regime change" in the US because President Bush did an "end run" around the UN.

Now Senator Kerry can say what he wants, as he sucks up to the far left in an early primary state (he made the comments in New Hampshire), but his words sound like far left wing partisan rhetoric. Where were his harsh words calling for a regime change when President BJ Clinton did his "end runs" around the UN? President Clinton sent US troops to invade Bosnia & Serbia with out even bothering to go to the UN or the UN Security Council. If you check the records, you'll find that Senator Kerry fully supported those examples of Unilateral US Military Invasions. The main difference, BJ Clinton belonged to Senator Kerry's party.


As I have written (and others), Doonesbury stopped being funny, and became just sad far left propaganda years ago.
Todays [July 13, 2003] cartoon is yet another example of that. He does the DNC playbook rant against Fox News.
Gee Gary, that sounds so damn familiar. It is what everybody to right of Ted Kennedy has been saying about CBS/ABC/NBC/PBS/CNN/NPR/NY Times for years.

The left has considered their strangle hold on major news organizations their God Given Right, just like their control of the judiciary. Any encroachment on either of those, and they react with kneejerk hatred.

Wake up and smell the coffee liberals! A lot of people live in those flyover states you speak so dismissively of, and they were more than ready for news that wasn't filtered through a far left lens.

So lets be honest here, if the lefties in major news organizations where the slightest bit "Fair and Balanced", there wouldn't be a "Fox News Channel."

So let me leave you with a bit of advice from a source you probaby won't recognize: "As you sow, so shall you reap."


Here is an old rant from a mailing list I'm on:

A clueless liberal wrote:
Conservatives, by definition, oppose any changes to the status quo. Unless of course you mean that liberal are interested in defending the civil rights won in the past 40 years, in which case the liberals do seem to be the only ones interested in preserving them.

To which I gave one of the more polite replies (the other folks had their facts on straight too, but they rubbed the twits nose in his ignorance.]

If that is the case, liberals are in trouble Sadly, most US "Civil Rights" organizations are only interested in cashing in. For example, Rev. Jackson's Rainbow/Push group has narrowed it's focus to shaking down corporations ("Blacks make up 3% of the local population, but only 2% of your workforce. For $20,000, I'll forget about issuing a statement to the Press outside your gates."). GLADD recently took filmmaker Kevin Smith for $10,000 to keep them from stating that his latest film "offended" them. An intern just quit NOW because her job consisted of "dig-up-the-dirt opposition research." She found it just too depressing.

Sadly, politics just don't make sense. Given the demographics, one would think that "Liberals" would be all for school vouchers. That's because the single largest (and fastest growing) group pulling their kids out of failing public schools and putting them in private schools are single parent (typically a mother), blacks at or below the poverty line. These women are working 2-3 jobs so their kids can get a decent eduation. Sure, come up with a plan to fix the broken schools, but what are you going to do for Yolanda's kids now? Probably more if Dept. of Education had any clue to where $5 Billion of their budget went to...

Part of the sad truth is that recently released documents, the contents of which will never pass Dan Rather's lips, show that the National Teacher's union had veto policy over DNC platform items. The DNC is in bed with the NEA and the union is hogging the covers.

Civil Rights have become big business in the US. You would be hard pressed to find a "Civil Rights Activist" here that could list half of the Bill of Rights.

Liberals *are* right when they say that a society is judge by how it treats it's poorest memembers. Now if they could figure out how to do without a 90% administrative overhead...

One last bit, back in 1995, when the Republicans took over Congress, one of the Freshmen Congresscritters (I forget which one) was asked why they were dismantling FDR's social programs. He laughed out loud, and replied that they weren't touching FDR's programs. They were reversing Dick Nixon's social programs. -- Tricky Dick may have been a Republican, but he was a Californian too...rather liberal on domestic social issues...


An email I sent to CNN:

Wayne LaPierre was correct in his assessment of John Zarrella's story on 5/15/03. In the retail world, Mr. Zarrella did what is know as "bait and switch", which is an illegal sales trick. He followed the script of well known 2nd Amendment foe Josh Sugarman, who wrote in 1989, "Assault weapons... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

Mr. Zarrella's story, instead of presenting facts, and making the issues clearer, followed this script of confusion, spreading what salesmen call "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt."

The facts, to those who bother to research the subject, are clear. The 1994 law only bans semi-automatic rifles, for cosmetic reasons. Fully automatic, or selective fire weapons, like the M16A2 are not covered by that law. Such weapons have been under strict federal control since the Nation Firearms Act of 1934.

For example, the 1994 ban lists the AR-15 as a banned weapon, but makes the Ruger Mini-14 legal. What's the difference? Both fire the same .223 Remington cartridge, both are only capable of semi-automatic fire. Both use detachable box magazines, both are about the same size, weight, and have about the same muzzle velocity. The difference is that the AR-15 has black plastic parts (foregrip, pistol grip and stock), while those corresponding parts on the Mini-14 are made of wood.

Given CNN's history of bias reporting on this subject, Nelson Mandella will be a guest speaker at Bob Jones University before CNN presents a factual and honest story on the so-called assault weapon ban that was part of the Crime Act of 1994.


From the blog...
The left is having a lot of fun over Rush Limbaugh getting hooked on pain killers as the result of unsuccessful back surgery.
While I'm not much of a Rush fan, I do find the double standard applied by the left interesting.
This, to them, is major news.
The fact that their hero, Aaron Sorkin, wrote that bit of leftist propaganda, "The American President", while on crack, doesn't seem to bother them. Sorkin went on to create and write for that undeclared, multi-million dollar annual contribution to the DNC, "The West Wing".
Remember how he got picked up in Las Vegas with a suitcase of illegal drugs after a season wrap party?
Funny how that got a fraction of the press coverage that Rush's problems with pain killers is getting.


From the blog...
I was watching the [California recall] election coverage last night and noted that the various talking heads were very careful not mention any exit poll data while the polls were still open. Lucky for them, California, unlike Florida, is only in one time zone.
It was pretty obvious how things were going to turn out based on the comments by various leftist operatives.
Rep. Maxine Waters (rabid democrat - CA) calling for a recall initiative to start right away if Arnold won. That dog won't hunt, this recall only took off because Californians really hated Gray Davis. 20% of his own party voted for the recall! Such an action now would only make the democrats look like whiny, petty, poor losers. Not that we didn't know that already.
Jesse Jackson (well known democrat extortionist) started his disenfranchisement mantra early and repeated it often despite Chris Mathews' attempts to drag him back to reality. It was obvious that he was trying to set up a legal attack on the election itself. That might have been a good tactic, except that the margin that the recall passed by and the margin which Arnold won were sooooo large.
From the Blog

In the midst of the all the truth I've been spreading about Fahrenhate 9/11, lets not loose sight of where Moore stole the title from.
The classic by Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451.

In Mr Bradbury's classic, the government controls the population by banning books (451 Fahrenheit is the temperature in which paper burns). They are not to think for themselves. They are to take the government video propaganda for the truth.

In Fahrenhate 9/11, Moore, who uses the title Fahrenheit 9/11 without the permission, in fact over the objection of Ray Bradbury, turns Mr. Bradbury's tale on it's ear.

Here, Moore is using video to feed propaganda to a nation of non-readers (who get their political view from Doonesbury).

If Moore is on the side of Truth, why does he need to constantly lie in his books and films?

Perhaps its because even Moore knows he is lying, but the money the far left throws at him is just too damn good to pass up.


From the Blog:

Answering a question...
An old friend, who is proud of the fact that an old Boston Globe Magazine test scored him to left of Ted Kennedy and just barely to the right of Jesse Jackson, asked when I became such a "radical conservative."

Well, first off, I identify myself more as a right leaning Libertarian, and some of my views would cause the Hard Conservative Right to have to nothing to do with me. My moderate views on abortion have the Hard Liberal Left calling for my blood as well.

It's also not so much a case of me moving far to the right (I'll admit some movement in my direction), as a case of the Left moving really fornicating far to the extremist loopy Left.

Moderate democrats like Senators Sam Nunn and Daniel Patrick Moynihan were replaced with far left extremists with serious ties to big soft money lobby groups like HRC and Schumer.

Self-proclaimed liberals, highly educated, supposedly patriotic Americans, admitted wishing for increased US Military deaths. Just so they would feel justified in their political views. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

The "radical" left has also become what they so often accuse the Right of being. Since their political foes won't act the way liberal extremists want them to, the leftists commit the hate crimes themselves and blame the innocent.

The ACLU is defending NAMBLA and attacking the Boy Scouts. I know multi-generation New England democrats, who have the picture of JFK next to the one of Jesus, scratching their heads and asking who in the ACLU decided that having your head up your ass is now a requirement for working there.

The left is also in a serious case of denial. The fact is the George W. Bush won, twice. He won every recount in Florida back in 2000, despite the democrat attempts generate votes from so-called "pregnant chads" and denying the crystal clear intent votes of US Service Men and Women serving overseas. In 2004, the number of votes he received went up from the 2000 count in 49 states! I wasn't much of a GW Bush fan in 2000. He had that whole "my daddy's oil money paid for my expensive prep school and his political connections got me into an Ivy League college where I had a very good time" thing in common with Algore. Since then, I've decided I'd much rather have him in office than the candidates the democrats put up.

People who identify themselves as "progressive, compassionate liberals" don't think twice about wearing a shirt with a picture of a brutal murderer, who sent children barely into their teens, to the firing squad. These same "progressive, compassionate liberals" would be screaming themselves blue if someone did the equivalent, wearing a shirt with Adolf Hitler's picture to a synagogue, for example.

The far left extremist branch of the democrat party is continuing to drag their party away from the mainstream of America (as show in the last Presidential election, where a record turnout benefited the Republican, instead of the democrat, as the "conventional wisdom" put forth by the MSM kept telling us for years). That is a real shame. The Republican party keeps proving that oh-so true quip by P.J. O'Rourke right. (In case you haven't heard it: The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.) They need a valid opposition party to balance them out, and the democrats are not stepping up to the plate.


For more ranting and thoughtful observations, check out my blog and my older blog.
I freely admit that Dennis Miller is better at rants than I am.
Other rants:
Eclipse's Web Warren