“On the 25th of January, 2003 thirty human shield volunteers and three double-decker buses left London to pick up other volunteers throughout Europe on their way to Iraq. At their peak in Iraq they numbered close to 700… when Iraq was invaded human shield volunteers would place themselves at strategic sites critical to the well-being of Iraqi civilians in order to make the bombing of these sites politically untenable.”

When You Finally Realize Nobody Buys Your Ridiculous Leftist Views…

You always have the old “Republicans are Nazis” fallback argument. It just never gets old for them, does it?

Apparently for Ted Turner, this isn’t anything new.

Apparently when you’re on the radical Left, you score more points with ridiculous rhymes than common sense. Just like their heroes of the sixties, today’s radical Leftist prefers catchy slogans to rational debate. Use of terms like “digital brown shirts” to compare the Bush administration to Nazi Germany or the less subtle mantra of just calling him Hitler remind normal Americans of just how insane the radical Left is.

This week at the inauguration, these jobless, live-with-their-parents-until-they’re-thirty, rarely-bathing, dreadlock-donned, hippie wannabes brought out their newest chant, “Racist, sexist, anti-gay–George Bush, go away.” You’ll note the website so excited about covering this story is one of their own, a Marxist haven of socialism known as the World Workers’ Party.

So let’s just examine their mantra. First, “George W. Bush is racist.” I wonder what Secretary of State Colin Powell would think about that claim. Or National Security Advisor (soon to be Secretary of State) Condoleeza Rice. Or Education Secretary Rod Paige, or HUD Deputy Secretary Alphonso Jackson, or deputy secretary for HHS, Claude Allen, or Veterans Administration deputy secretary, Dr. Leo Mackay, or Labor Secretary, Elaine Chao. Ironically, the same Leftists that praised Bill Clinton for his “diverse staff” call Bush a racist… despite the fact that Bush, unlike Clinton, actually appointed the blacks on his staff to positions of power… something Clinton never did. So who’s the racist?

Next they call Bush “sexist.” Again, I wonder what Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman thinks of that. Or Interior Secretary Gale Norton or Labor Secretary Elaine Chao or former EPA head Christine Todd Whitman or, again, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. Again, Bush has appointed women to positions of power even his predecessor never considered. And has Bush ever been accused of sexual harrassment? How about adultery? What about rape? Maybe if he had, they’d be supporting him like they did his predecessor.

Finally, there’s the “anti-gay” chant. Exactly how is Bush “anti-gay”? Does this still have to do with the flack the Left created over the whole Constitutional Amendment issue? Let’s review what Bush thinks of gays:

President Bush Tuesday expressed support for granting civil unions to homosexuals and indicated that the decision should be left up to states, putting him at odds with conservatives and pro-family groups.

During an ABC interview on Tuesday, Bush said, “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.”

He supports civil unions. Is that the position of someone who hates gays? Is that an “anti-gay” stance? These protestors seem to be sad that John Kerry didn’t win. Maybe it’s because he’s more radically pro-gay than Bush?

Bush’s political opponent, Sen. John Kerry also supports civil unions for homosexual couples and opposes same-sex “marriage” but Kerry is against a constitutional amendment banning same-sex “marriage.”

So it would appear the litmus test is whether someone supports a constitutional amendment.

But wait, Kerry supported a constitutional amendment banning sam-sex marriage…

Presidential candidate John F. Kerry said yesterday that he supports amending the Massachusetts Constitution to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions for gay couples.

Is there anyone out there that thinks these hippies would’ve been protesting a Kerry inauguration?

Thank God common sense prevailed in November.

Goodbye, Johnny.

1925 - 2005

It’s a beautiful day in Washington…

But not because of this image:

Because of this one:

Happy Inauguration Day!

Time and time again, I’ve had folks on the Left claim that they’re not being anti-American when they spout their rhetoric. They claim they’re being “patriotic” when they burn the flag. They claim they’re being “American” when they compare the President to genocidal tyrants. They claim they’re not anti-American when they bad mouth America in foreign lands.

But eventually, the true colors shine through.

“After spending 10 days in London with friends who were outspoken about their disdain for President Bush’s policies, Berns Rothchild came home wishing she had a way to show the world she didn’t vote for him.

“I sort of felt ashamed, and didn’t really want to be associated with being an American,” said Rothchild, who lives in New York City and voted for John Kerry.

Now the only real question is this: Are they UN-American or ANTI-American?

Does it really matter?

They just don’t get it, do they?

Hillary Rodham “I want to be President” Clinton said the Bush administration was making it hard for the poor to receive the full range of reproductive health services by putting too much emphasis on abstinence to combat AIDS.

So let me get this straight. President Bush is the cause of the problem since he’s advocating abstinence? Last time I checked, abstinence was still FREE. A great policy for the poor, if you ask me. It’s pretty ridiculous for her to claim a policy that’s free is “hard on the poor.”

Perhaps she ought to do the math on her policy of handing out free condoms to every living, breathing creature, or her policy of abortion-on-demand. Someone’s got to pay for the manufacture and distribution of the condoms and someone’s got to pay the medical service providers… but abstinence doesn’t require any investment… except personal responsibility and self-control.

Of course, I wouldn’t expect someone named “Clinton” to understand either of those concepts.

Despite the candidate conceding his loss and most of the party accepting the outcome of the election, there are still some who will stop at nothing to retain power. What is so ironic about the continued whining by folks like John Conyers and Barbara Boxer is that they continue to question the validity of a certified election in the U.S. while Afghanistan and even the Palestinians are holding successful democratic elections… and Iraq is 2 weeks away.

I’m curious if Conyers and Boxer would care to rehash the 1960 election (Some speculate that Kennedy used his political connections to buy out votes in certain states. Nixon refused to challenge, saying that to do so would cause a constitutional crisis.).

Of course not.

I remember the Mayoral race here in 2001. In the middle of election day, when the incumbent Lee “Out of Town” Brown was behind Orlando Sanchez in the exit polling, several prominent local Democrats, including city councilman Jew Don Boney (yes, that’s his name), were flooding the local television news programs with calls for Justice Department inquiries and lawsuits. They were claiming all sorts of “rampant disenfranchisement of minorities” and “discrimination.” When the night was over, Brown won by about 10,000 votes. Suddenly the Democrats had no interest in the lawsuits and inquiries. But if the discrimination were so rampant and obvious, one would think the lawsuits and investigations ought to continue to insure the integrity of the election process. But no, the Democrats had no use for the courts when they’d won the election… to hell with those that were ‘disenfranchised’ and ‘discriminated’ against.

The Democrats aren’t interested in proper elections… they’re interested in winning… at all costs. Period.

Thanks for continuing to visit and read my rants. May the best thing that happened to you in 2004 be the worst thing that happens to you in 2005.