Conservative Bastion

Conservative Bastion Moving

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 06:42:00 +0000

Check out our new location: http://conservativebastion.com

Howard Dean: the Fear-Mongering Hate-Filled Intolerant Left-Wing Nazi

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:05:00 +0000

Howard Dean is at it again. In case you have not heard, the chairman of the DNC has (once again) referred to the Republican Party as the “white party.” Some people are trying to pretend it was an accident, but we know the truth. He has done this before, and we expect this type of classlessness from the man that once made fun of Rush Limbaugh for being addicted to pain killers.

They usually say follow the money trail, but in politics, sometimes you need to follow the fear trail to see who benefits. Don’t fool yourselves. This type of rhetoric is meant to do one thing and one thing only: instill fear into the hearts and minds of minorities toward the Republican Party.

The fact is that President Bush is just as much the first Hispanic president as Bill Clinton was the first black president. His policies are the most pro-Hispanic in the history of the United States. He has been in favor of a guest worker program since before he became president, he has appointed Hispanics to positions of importance, and he has transformed (at least momentarily) his party from being one that got a fraction of the Hispanic vote (21% in 1996) to one that got 44% in 2004. Throw in the fact that Bush also got 44% of the Asian vote in ‘04 and you have a scary situation on your hands.

Dean knows that if this type of progress could ever cross over into the black community, the Democratic Party would have an almost impossible time winning any national election. So what have Dean and his cohorts decided to do to fight this trend? What they do best - abort this baby before its born! They have decided that injecting race and insinuations of racism are the best way to keep the colored folk in line.

Ironically, they are doing this while still being able to maintain the argument that it is McCain and the Republicans who have gone negative. It is true that McCain is bringing up Obama’s lack of experience, poking holes in his faulty energy policy, and the fact that Obama was wrong about the surge. However, those are not fear tactics. Those are debatable issues that are at the forefront of this election.

Obama on the other hand is trying to scare people into thinking Republicans are trying to scare them.

In July, Obama had this to say about Republicans:

So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He's risky.

Unfortunately for Obama, these comments reflect a land of make believe. No one of any significance has made any of these points an issue.

For the party run by Howard Dean, that doesn’t matter. Which makes one wonder…does Dean really believe that Republican Party is a white party? If you take blacks out of the picture, the two parties are relatively close in terms of their racial makeup. The black population is by far the most skewed racial group in favor of one party. So if anything, wouldn’t the Democratic Party be the black party? If so, is that better or worse than being the white party?

The ironic aspect in this whole situation is that Dean comes from a state where 98% of the population is white. Since he comes from a white state, he and his state, must be bad for minorities. If it was a good place for minorities, more would live there. Therefore, he and the whole state of Vermont are racist. Of course that line of reasoning is childish, idiotic, and disingenuous at best. Too bad that seems to be the very line of reasoning the Democratic Party is using to inject fear into minority communities towards the Republican Party.

How Dumb is Obama?

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:10:00 +0000

A lot has been made about a recent comment by John McCain in which he more or less stated that Iraq and Pakistan shared a border. Of course, that is really funny to the Obama supporters because they tend to be slow and forgetful and they get off on making fun of McCain's age. These people who are so quick to attack someone's soundness of mind and/or intelligence are the same people who cried when a bunch of people were outsmarted by a piece of paper in Florida.

Anyways, all that aside, it still isn’t as funny and some of the mistakes B.O. has made. You don't know what I'm talking about? Hmmm I wonder why that is? COULD THE MEDIA BE BIASED?

…in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."

So in this instance, Obama didn’t know the name of the city or state he was in. Is that a senior moment? Is that because he is a moron? I am guessing it’s both. That’s not all though. He also made a pretty bad mistake regarding the basic geography of his own state when speaking as to why Hillary Clinton held a lead in the Kentucky primary.

Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.

For the Obama supporters who don’t know, Kentucky shares a border with Illinois and does not share one with Arkansas. So the moron doesn’t even know which states share a border with his own state.

Don’t be mad at me America. I warned you about this a long time ago. I told you over a year ago that if Obama was elected he would be the first mentally challenged candidate.

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:48:00 +0000

If you haven’t heard, a Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) community in Texas was raided a couple weeks ago. I am not sure about the exact reason their community was raided, but it stemmed from an anonymous phone call that reported child abuse. If you don’t know who the FLDS are, don’t worry. The media has done a great job doing the same smear job they did on the Branch Davidians. According to the media, the FLDS are a "cult" that live in a "compound" and have "wacko religious beliefs". Or, if you are fairer, you could say they are a "group" that lives in a "tight knit community" that has an "alternative lifestyle".

There is already some backlash against what has happened, but it is definitely a minority view in the media. The original phone call that voiced the complaint to the police of which the raid was based off of has turned out to be fraudulent. Not to mention, just because one person in a particular place is accused of a certain crime does not (or at least should not) give the right for the authorities to separate EVERYONE from that community from their children.

To give an example, the US has an illegal immigration problem, but that does not give the right of the police to storm in to immigrant communities and detain everyone until they can prove their innocence. If that was done in the US, there would be (with little doubt in my mind) violent retaliation. I don’t see the difference from that scenario and what has happened to the FLDS.

Back to the media…It is interesting how the media changes terms for certain situations in the news. The term cult is a subjective one. What is the definition of a cult? The real definition is debatable. However, it seems people are generally willing to use the term for any group of people they don’t particularly like. For instance, I recently saw a protest outside one of the Scientology “churches” in which one of the protesters had a sign that stated “Scientology is a cult.” If you listen to talk radio, I am sure you have heard the conservative commentators refer to the Obama followers as a cult. I would personally consider environmentalists as part of a cult. Sure they don't have a charismatic leader, but they have a lot of weird beliefs that defy logic. They certainly have a stronger and much more negative affect on society than the FLDS (as has been demonstrated by the recent food riots/shortages).

The fact is that the media uses the term cult in a derogatory manner. The question is why? Why not use it for environmentalists? Why not use it for scientologists? Why not use it for the jihadists? I am not saying they should use the term cult for all these groups. What I am saying is their willingness to use it in one instance over another does not seem to make sense. There is no rhyme or reason behind it.

You may think I am kidding, but I am not. Let's look at some of the things the FLDS are accused of...it is an impressive list, but I have included by rebuttals to give everyone perspective.

1. The men have sexual relations with more than one woman

All sorts of men have sex with more than one woman. In fact, the hypocrisy here is almost absurd. Let's say I am a normal everyday guy. I can go out and have random sex with as many women or men that I want, and nothing will legally be done to me. However, if I decide to commit to multiple consenting women in a serious long term relationship, my house will be raided by heavily armed police who will break up my community and take my kids away. To paraphrase one conservative radio host said (I forget which one) Hugh Heffner’s living arrangements are good enough for its own cable TV show, while the FLDS living arrangements are good enough for a police raid.

2. They are weird

They sure are a bunch of weirdoes. That is true. But is anyone weird enough to have their kids taken away, their homes referred to as a compound (so if the police decide to shoot and burn everyone inside, it won't sound as bad...it was a compound for goodness sake!), and their community slandered all across the American media without a trial (yet), fair or otherwise?

3. They dress funny

Seriously, why do the media even bring this up? It is almost embarrassing. It is irrelevant. Did they expect to find them dressing like Paris Hilton? In fact, anyone who has kids that dress like Paris Hilton should have THEIR kids taken away.

4. Teenage girls are having sex

First of all, I am not sure how much of this they have actually proved. That being said, I don’t think young and underage girls having sex is a problem that is isolated to the FLDS. Furthermore, I think it is very safe to say that underage girls having sex with older men is definitely not exclusive to this particular community. Has anyone been watching the sex epidemic between teachers and their students? It seems like there is a new case every month. One case of an underage girl having sex with an older man does not justify raiding an entire school and slandering every teacher at that particular school (or taking away the children from every teacher from that school for that matter). So why raid the entire FLDS community?

5. Underage girls are getting married

Last time I checked, 16 year olds could get married in Texas as long as they have the consent of the parents. I could be wrong about that, but I am pretty sure I am not.

6. We don't agree with their lifestyle

Most people would find the marriage arrangements the FLDS are accused of to be troubling. Minors sexually involved with adults, living situations where the people involved cannot legally be married, and the general creepiness of it all. The problem is none of this exclusive to this group of people and they are getting undue stigma for one reason or another. For instance, can you think of any other institutions that have been involved with rather large sex abuse scandals involving minors? Bill Maher mentioned the Catholic Church as a culprit on his HBO show. That is true, but there is also another institution that has had problems recently: our public school system. Story after story of teachers having sex with underage students have bombarded the news cycle the last few years. Some would say it’s different because it’s not systematic. That is true, but there have been systematic cover-ups in which teachers known to be sexually involved with students are simply asked to leave their school district but do not lose their teaching license.

The most interesting parallels can be drawn with gay marriage. Gay marriage and polygamy are both not legally recognized. It is interesting that the government would choose to invade houses of polygamists but not the homes of gays. The argument I hear gays use is that you cannot stop people from living with each other, loving each other, or having sex with each other. I agree with all of those statements. The government should not be involved with any of those issues no matter how demented and perverted the people involved are. It gets gays off the hook, why not polygamists?

So let’s play devil’s advocate. Let’s say everything I just listed is irrelevant. Let’s say the only thing that matter is that there are underage girls sexually involved with adult males. If that is all that matters, the media needs to stop talking about all these other issues because it is then irrelevant.

Also a fairer pursuit of justice should be followed for all adults who are sexually involved with minors. That means all these catholic priests and public school teachers should have their churches and homes raided. It also means NAMBLA (now these people are creepy) should have their headquarters raided with armed police.

Why does any other this matter? It matters because we are supposed to have equal protection under the law. It is not right to target certain groups just because they may be outside the mainstream, especially for circumstances, motivation, and evidence as ambiguous as in this particular case. If the “weirdoes” of the FLDS can be essentially persecuted for being “weird”, then you open an ugly door for future or already existing “weird” groups.

Global Warming is Already Killing People!

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:20:00 +0000

Since all this global warming fear mongering really became mainstream (mostly because of hurricane Katrina and Al Gore's movie) the US has shifted its energy policy to adopt bio fuels (mostly corn ethenol) in an attempt to cut down on our use of oil.

This is from the UK new website the telegraph:

The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits.

"The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Mr Diouf says world grain stocks have fallen to a quarter-century low of 5m tonnes, rations for eight to 12 weeks. America - the world's food superpower - will divert 18pc of its grain output for ethanol this year, chiefly to break dependency on oil imports. It has a 45pc biofuel target for corn by 2015.

So basically, we are starving people today, so they won't drown because of melting ice caps tomorrow.

Not to mention...

Brazil has the world's biggest reserves of "potential arable land" with 483m hectares (it currently cultivates 67m), and Colombia has 62m - both offering biannual harvests.

The catch is obvious. "The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid," said Professor John Beddington, Britain's chief scientific adviser.

Basically, if we stay the current course, we will be forced to cut down rain forests in order to keep up with our energy needs.

I don't understand how anyone could still believe these global warming ass holes.

Are We Still Debating Darfur?

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:45:00 +0000

I was watching CSPAN a couple weeks ago and saw a guy by the name of Coby Rudolph of the Save Darfur Coalition. The guy, bless his soul, is still trying to bring attention, and presumably, American intervention into Sudan. I know certain people are trying to make a big deal about the situation there, and rightfully so, but do we really want to intervene in a civil war in another Islamic country?

I thought this debate was over a long time ago. I thought we didn't want to send American soldiers to intervene in foreign conflicts. I thought we were supposed to just leave the Muslims alone because intervening just makes them hate us even more. I thought optional wars were bad.

Let me guess. We will be greeted as liberators and won't have to do much fighting...that sounds familiar.

Do these people (mostly liberals) realize that this is the same logic that President Bush used to invade Iraq. The same! Isn't it ironic that the same people who would so easily call him an idiot, also easily adopt his foreign policy?

Do you realize these people in Sudan have been fighting each other for decades? American cowboys are not going to be able to ride in and save the people there over night.

When we invaded Iraq, the economic costs and time table were downplayed. The people advocating the war thought it would be easy and over in a couple of months. Unfortunately, that was not true.

The Darfur advocates are making the same mistake. While watching CSPAN, there was no mention of costs or a time table, or even a specific strategy of how to save the people in Darfur. It is a two word argument: save Darfur.

How about not. How about we don't save Darfur. Why don't we finish what we started and save Iraq and Afghanistan. How can you advocate the start of a third war when we are barely winning (some would say losing) two others. Who in their right mind would want that?

I know the Darfur advocates want to save people and have good intentions, but so did the people wanted to invade Iraq. Prior to our invasions, Iraq and Afghanistan were both just as messed up as Sudan is right now. So what makes Sudan so important?

It isn't important. Unlike Iraq, there aren't even fake reasons to intervene in Sudan. Unfortunately, that is reality.

If we ever do invade Sudan, expect more of the same. We will send too few troops, who start as peace keepers. As time passes we will realize we need a little more force and will move to a more aggressive strategy. This will inevitably make the Muslims mad and will create a new wave of radicals who come from all over the Islamic world to kill us. We will have two choices when this happens. We can run like we did in Somalia, in which case the whole thing would have been useless. Or we can stay, and have it turn into another Iraq.

All of this so we can achieve what national goal? To feel better about slavery? When we invaded Iraq, they said there were dozens of dictators, so why focus on Saddam. Regarding Darfur I would say there are a many civil wars with no significance to American interests, why Sudan?

Don't Give Up Now

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 03:58:00 +0000

Clinton is responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Bush.

How could you forget?

According to the most outrageously high estimates, the Iraq war has killed 700,000 civilians. The most accurate account that actually ties names to the people who have died has a number of around 80,000. Don't get me wrong. Both numbers, regardless of which one is closer to the truth, are tragic. What makes it worse is that those numbers should be lower and would be if it wasn't for the undeniably poor execution of the war.

However, don't forget that 500,000 children alone died in Iraq during Clinton's years because of US led sanction against Iraq.

Again, another tragedy.

What is the point of this blog...

Understand that Iraq was a danger to the US and its interests. You may not like that, but it was a reality to the point that a Democratic administration chose US interests over the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children. Not to mention, our lack of action allowed Saddam to stay in power and kill and terrorize God knows how many others.

You may not like the Iraq war, but unlike economic sanctions, the war has a chance of actually creating a better Iraq in the long run. Remember that the next time you want to sound smart by saying you think the president and his policies are moronic.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html

Bush Maid Da Unemployment Rate 2 Lo!

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:04:00 +0000

Normally a high unemployment rate is seen as bad, and a low unemployment rate is good. However, I just read an article that suggests otherwise.

The U.S. Department of Labor reports the mountain West region - covering eight states along the Rocky Mountains - has the lowest overall unemployment rate in the nation. The region hit an all-time low of 3.4 percent in May.

Wow that Bush economy is kicking ass right? WRONG!

The problem has created longer hours and tougher working conditions for current employees.

That sentence wants to make me rip my eyes out. For those who don't understand the current situation, let me explain.

President Bush entered the White House in 2001 as we all know. At the time everything seemed good. The economy was strong (at least that’s what we thought at the time) and unemployment was near historic lows.

Then 9/11 happened coupled with the Internet bubble which set our economy back. Many dishonest people along with many retarded Democrats blamed it on Bush.

President Bush then cut taxes in an attempt to strengthen the economy. Ever since then more retarded Democrats have been complaining that those tax cuts only helped certain people and blablabla.

The fact is, tax cuts are not an over night fix. In fact, there is no way to fix an economy over night. All you can do is put in place the right policies and hope for the best. It can take months or years to get out of an economic mess.

Anyways, eventually our economy started to grow again and the unemployment rate came down. Where the Dems happy? That is rhetorical...most Dems are not happy people. Everyone knows that. In fact, polls have shown in the past the Republicans generally have a more positive outlook than Democrats. Back to the point...

Since they couldn't complain about economic growth or unemployment, they started complaining about wages. Frankly, what they complain about is true. Until this past year, much of the economic growth was not reflected in wages. What they won't tell you is that this is normal. If your company starts making money today, will you give all your employees instant raises? Such knee jerk reactions can lead to economic instability and should be avoided.

Addressing the wages issue, this is what the article said:

In Utah - where unemployment rates have been hovering around 2.5 percent - amusement parks, trucking companies, telemarketing firms and others have been paying bonuses of hundreds of dollars or more to find workers.

This trend has led workers in Utah to see "a 5.4 percent average wage increase in 2006", according to the article.

So now that they can't complain about wages staying stagnant, they have had to change the argument again. The unfortunate thing about all of this is that this is how our economy works. It is normal. It is in no way new or exclusive to the Bush economy. When an economy is in recovering, it starts with economic growth, which leads to falling unemployment, and ends with wages going up. These retards need to wise up...and that is all they are...retards.

All the while there are still people out there saying we need illegals to do our work for us. We already have a bunch of people in America making just so so livings, and we want to let more illegals in whose only effect on the economy will be to suck up our tax dollars with their generous use of our safety nets, and depressing the wages for working class people...great plan morons.

Hurray For Immigrants!

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:47:00 +0000

I am sure you have heard of the execution of three college students in New Jersey by a couple scumbag illegal immigrants…

They sure are good at doing "work" Americans wont do. Lynchings have been out of style for a while now. It sure looks like they are doing their best to set us back 50 years.

I must be honest, there is no real evidence to suggest that these were racially motivated crimes other than the fact that the people committing the crimes were Hispanic and the victims were black.

However, you know if a group of whites did this to any group of minorities that it would automatically be considered a hate crime. In fact, many of these logic devoid “immigrant rights” losers think that simply wanting to enforce immigration laws is racist. They call the Minute Men racist with absolutely no evidence to suggest that they are.

While Mexicans are protected from illegal immigrants invading their southern border, they cry racism when America does the same thing they expect their government to do. Lets face it, anyone who can honestly hold those beliefs is too stupid to be an American. Deport them all.

Back to the point…using that logic, this must have been a hate crime. Of course that assumption is backed up by many crimes that are known to be race related between blacks and Hispanics. Lets face it, the same people (Hispanics) who say Americans are racist for not wanting them in this country aren’t exactly the most tolerant people on the face of the planet.

Speaking of deportation…we finally got rid of Elvira Arellano. It’s good that mess is finally over. You can read her story here if you don’t know. The best part about her being deported is that she actually looks like an alien.

Creepy.

WTF?

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:50:00 +0000

Ho hum lets let all the fucking scum from south of the border come into our country with no restrictions. If you disagree you are a racist. Even though many of these animals apparently have no self control.

Prosecutors in Essex County, New Jersey, are struggling to explain how a suspect in the execution-style slaying of three friends in Newark was granted bail when charged with assault and child rape earlier this year.

Jose Carranza is an illegal immigrant from Peru. It is rare for illegal immigrants to be granted bail because of the flight risk.

The 28-year-old pleaded not guilty in the Newark slayings today and is held on $1 million bail.

I know what you are thinking. You want to say this is the exception, and not the rule. When 20 percent of our federal prison population is born outside the country, I think it is time to admit there is a problem. No one should be allowed to enter this country unless they have a college degree. No one! We don't need any more animals. America has enough homegrown scum.

It is time to deport every single illegal. They are here illegally. They do not belong here. They have no right to be here. Some will say some shit about how this "used to be our land". It is a fallacy. Should British people just waltz into India and say they have a right to be there because it used to be their land?

These fucks think they have a claim to the western hemisphere. Why? Apparently, they all forgot that their mostly white skin and Spanish language comes from the same place most Americans came from: Europe.

Let's face it, most of these losers lack basic education. For that reason, along with the fact that they are not citizens should exclude them from any debate deciding the fate of their immigration status. We need to do what is best for America, not what is best for a bunch of poor people who happen to speak Spanish.

Obama Turns World Against US

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:17:00 +0000

What do you think this picture is portraying? I am sure you think this is a protest in a Muslim country regarding President Bush and his policies. At least that is what most people would probably think. It is actually a protest regarding some comments that senator Obama made within the past week.

For those of you who missed it, the senator from Illinois said he would basically invade Pakistan in order to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He didn’t quite use those words, but that's effectively what it would be if he sent US troops into Pakistan without permission.

Most experts believe that Osama is hiding in an area along the Afghanistan and Pakistan border. President Bush has avoided entering Pakistan at the request of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. Apparently, President Bush has calculated it is better to keep Pakistan on our good side and sacrifice capturing bin Laden in the short run in return for long run cooperation with the worlds second most populated Muslim country and the only country with an Islamic majority that is a nuclear power.

Of course, there are many problems with Obama's tough stance against Pakistan. For instance, the population of Pakistan (165 million) is about six times that of Iraq (27 million) yet the geographical size is only twice as much. What does this tell us? Pakistan is densely populated. There would be a lot of urban fighting. Therefore, fighting in Pakistan would involve substantial collateral damage and could very possibly create more enemies than invading Iraq.

Another problem is that it is the second most populated Islamic country. With that comes a diverse range of religious views similar to what exists in Iraq. With that comes instability. The government in Pakistan has a fragile hold on the country as it is. If we were to invade, it could erode the support that the current (pro-US) government has and create a vacuum that would most likely be filled by a faction of religious fanatics.

This would pose an enormous threat to the United States and the world. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. The last thing the world needs is for those weapons to fall into the hands of extremists who have proven they have a willingness to destroy innocent life to further their cause.

Obama’s statements have been heard in Pakistan, and as one can imagine, he is not doing anything to improve America’s image there.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Obama: the wrong candidate at the wrong time for the wrong job. He is obviously clueless about this situation and is a danger is US national security.

Democrat(s) Divider, Not Uniter

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:53:00 +0000

After all the garbage we hear from Democrats who supposedly want a president who unites the country, rather than divides it, you would think they would put forth some effort to pretend to believe that statement. What am I talking about you ask?

Well it turns out that North Dakota Congressman Earl Pomeroy called President Bush a "clown" in an internet video. Certainly this isn’t the most offensive or controversial thing said about the president, but consider the fact that this man is an elected official rather than some schmuck on the internet.

Why is it a big deal? It really isn’t. No one cares about the congressman from North Dakota. No one knows his name. I still don’t know his name even though I just wrote it in the last paragraph. So this could have something to do with getting attention from the national media.

The only reason I even mention this incident is because we hear Democrats all the time saying how President Bush had a chance to unite the country after 9/11 and he failed to do so because of his divisive policies. That is only half true.

Had Iraq turned out as anything but a complete hellhole, the country would not be divided right now. No matter how much the extreme anti-war crowd likes to think, people do not care about us not finding WMD. They don’t even care about being lied to (even though I don’t think that is what happened). They care that America is losing a war. That’s it. If Iraq had been a relatively normal place prior to our invasion, then that would not be the case. Americans don’t want to go around invading normal countries. Iraq, despite attempts from the left to paint the picture otherwise, was nowhere near normal. It was a hellhole dictatorship run by sadistic psychopaths. We had a chance to do some good there, and Americans are open to that (which is why so many want to go into Darfur).

The point is that there really aren’t that many (if any at all) uniters in high leadership positions right now. In fact, I would say that there is a serious leadership deficit in the US. Why are there no leaders who are true uniters? The fact is, no one on either sides actually wants a uniter. Unfortunately, the people who actually pay attention to politics despise the each others outlook on life and the world.

The last thing conservatives want is a so called conservative who can "understand" abortion, high taxes, and gun control. Liberals are the same way. They don’t want to elect someone who believes we have the right to bare arms (even though it is spelled out in plain English in our constitution and you have to border on mental disability to not see that), or that gay marriage is wrong (how dare you judge someone else!), or especially the idea that low taxes are ideal.

So I guess my point is that liberals need to stop pretending. Everyone knows conservatives don’t want compromise (it’s a stereotype whether it’s true or not). Liberals, who are probably even less open to compromise, need to acknowledge that they are just as divisive, and add just as much of the shrill comments to the debate (if not more) than conservatives.

Bush Crackdown of Corporate Malfeasance

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:22:00 +0000

Today I was browsing YouTube when I came across an Al Jazeera video featuring a woman whose beauty surpasses that of most of the FOXNEWS babes.

After seeing the video I decided to go to the Al Jazeera English website and see what kind of stories I would find on it. For the record, I have been there before, and I don’t consider it a terrorist network as some have labeled it.

Anyways I came across an interesting story regarding US corporate presence overseas.

A US jury has decided that an American coal company was not responsible for the killing of three union leaders at a Colombian mine in 2001.

The jurors in Alabama on Thursday rejected charges that coal giant Drummond had hired right-wing paramilitary gunman to kill employees and union leaders in La Loma.

Ok so far so good…

The case was seen as a test of whether American firms can be held responsible in US courts for alleged misconduct abroad.

This is kind of an absurd statement for anyone who knows Americans. We like money, but most people in America would not put corporate profits over human life.

There are about 15 similar cases pending in US courts against corporations for alleged human rights abuses committed overseas.

The action began in 2001 under an 18th century law which allows foreigners to sue American firms in a US court.

Did you just read what I read. In 2001 you say? Isn’t that about the time George W. Bush became president? I am being facetious of course. It is ironic that George W. Bush could be responsible for this push for corporate responsibility. This is the same man from the same party that many liberals say pander to corporations and their interests.

I don’t know what else to say…just more proof that liberals live in a fictitious world I suppose.

Vick Indicted for Dogfighting

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 01:51:00 +0000

You know it must be pretty gruesome when I take the side of an animal over a human, but the info that has been released about Michael Vick and his dogfighting ring left me no choice.

When a Bad Newz Kennels dog was wounded in a losing fight, NFL star Michael Vick was consulted before the animal was doused with water and electrocuted.
That's just one of the gruesome details that emerged Tuesday when the Atlanta Falcons quarterback and three others were indicted by a federal grand jury.

That is pretty disgusting, but that’s not all…

About eight young dogs were put to death at the Surry County home after they were found not ready to fight in April 2007, the indictment said. They were killed "by hanging, drowning and/or slamming at least one dog's body to the ground."

WTF?

Fights would end when one dog died or with the surrender of the losing dog, which was sometimes put to death by drowning, strangulation, hanging, gun shot, electrocution or some other method, according to the documents.

I never really liked Michael Vick as a player, but now he will pretty much be universally hated throughout the league. Dogs are like children to most people and these accusations will ensure he hears it from opposing fans all season long…maybe even the rest of his career…depending on how this case is resolved.

To keep things in perspective and to illustrate how some animal freaks lose all sense of logic when discussing situations like this, read this post by one of the readers to the article I linked this story too.

About the only thing more repulsive than torturing animals for entertainment are the people who try to defend his actions. There is no defense for such heinous acts. Period.

I would agree that there is no defense for such heinous acts, but I can sure think of a lot of things worse than torturing animals. For one, torturing humans...rape...murder...etc.

So don't go thinking I have gone PETA on you. I still believe PETA is a terrorist group and most of the true followers of that organization will most likely be in hell.

Democrats are Warmongers

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:19:00 +0000

I think I know why Democrats are so pro-Mexican immigration (that’s right, pro-Mexican immigration, not pro-immigration…there is a difference).

I was in a discussion with a friend a week or two ago and somehow the idea that “Republicans like to start wars” came up. For some reason, this triggered something in my brain to actually think through all the major US wars and who was actually president during those times.

As you may or may not know, Democrats have been the party of war throughout our nation’s history. Think about it:

Mexican American War – Polk (D)
The Civil War – Davis (D)
The Spanish American War – McKinley (R)
WWI – Wilson (D)
WWII – FDR (D)
The Korean War – Truman (D)
Vietnam – Johnson (D)
Iraq II – Bush (R)

I know what you are thinking, Davis didn’t start the Civil War, it was Lincoln. Well that is true, but the South (which is/was part of America) started the Civil War and their president was Jefferson Davis, so he gets credit for starting it, not Lincoln.

Ironically, every one of these wars has some sort of conspiracy theory behind it that some people believe proves the war was started maliciously.

It is one of those things I always knew, but didn’t quite put together for practical and current event purposes. For instance, everyone knows that the neo-cons are all Democrats who have been forced to abandon their party because of its radical anti-war sentiments.

Anyways, the point is, I eventually went all the way back to the Mexican-American war and realized that James K. Polk, (Democrat) was the president who is responsible for “stealing” away half of Mexico.

Let’s face it, the Democrats have a very embarrassing history. It is no wonder they cater so hard for the rights of blacks and Hispanics…because they are the ones that screwed over blacks and Hispanics in the first place. So of course they should be the ones to make amends.

Tax Evaders Lucky Clinton Not President

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:59:00 +0000

Apparently there are a couple government haters holed up in New Hampshire somewhere.

To avoid serving prison sentences for tax evasion, Ed Brown and his wife, Elaine, have locked themselves off from the world on their own terms.

From behind the 8-inch concrete walls of their 110-acre hilltop compound, the couple taunt police and SWAT teams and play to reporters and government-haters with references to past standoffs that turned deadly.

Most assume people like this are crazy. I, on the other hand, tip my hat to them. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong against sticking it to the government. The reason doesn’t matter to me. It could be for constitutional reasons, a protest against the war in Iraq, or even because you are greedy. I honestly don’t care.

In fact, I was fretting just the other day because I assumed people like this had ceased to exist. These people are not criminals. Criminality is more accurately defined by the federal government taking away 20% of what you make.

Don’t get me wrong, government must exist, but if you look at what our government actually provides for us, and how much they spend, you will be pissed. Guaranteed. We have a $2.7 trillion budget. I can’t even imagine what that money is spent on (actually I can because I have seen the federal budget, but if I hadn’t, I would have no clue).

One side note:

These guys sure are lucky that Führer Clinton isn’t still in power. The last time a standoff like this happened it didn’t end to well…

Hillary Exploits Poor for Profit

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:51:00 +0000

A very uninteresting story about the Clintons and their hypocrisy towards the stock market surfaced this week.

Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton liquidated the contents of their blind trust upon learning it contained investments of $5 million to $25 million that could pose conflicts of interest or prove to be embarrassing to her presidential campaign.

The blind trust and a bank account valued in the same range place the Clinton's total wealth at between $10 million and $50 million.

The Clintons had to disclose the contents of the blind trust in April under instructions from the Office of Government Ethics and sold the assets in May, according to a disclosure form filed Friday. The Clintons have had a blind trust continuously since 1993 and had no control over its transactions.

So why is the stock market good enough for the Clintons, but not for old people saving for retirement? Why does Hillary not want people to have the choice of personal investment accounts as opposed to the current Social Security/Ponzi scheme?

People can make a big deal about her owning Wal-Mart and oil company stocks. Sure Hillary may be a hypocrite by blasting those companies for their business practices while at the same time profiting from those “shady business practices”. Sure she is no better than an evil Republican who probably runs the company, but who really expects anything different? Maybe some young Democrat/Socialist who actually believes the crap that comes out of Democratic leaders mouths, but no one else.

What really gets me is that this woman will use fear mongering to stop the progress of economic freedom in our country while she makes money using her millions in the stock market.

Let me make this clear. No one can stop any American from investing in anything. However, when many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, losing 6% to a Ponzi scheme with no option of using it for a real investment does have a serious effect on the average persons economic wellbeing. Don’t forget that the 6% you pay into Social Security is matched by your employer for a total of 12%. Imagine that. A world where equivalent to 12% of your pay is set aside in the stock market every time you get paid!

Unfortunately, because of the unwillingness by many to reform (especially Democrats), we see that 12% go into a black hole and must invest additional money into a real retirement account. Freedom of choice is the only way to solve this issue. Hopefully one day Democrats stop lying to themselves and their constituents and give us the freedom to invest our money the way we choose to.

Czech Republic President Rips Environmentalists

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:51:00 +0000

Vaclav Klaus…a.k.a. president of the Czech Republic…a.k.a. freedom fighter…had an op-ed published in the Financial Times yesterday. It is Drudge often links to comments he makes about global warming and that is what this particular op-ed was about. One gem of a quote in particular:

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

When global warming is put into terms such as “global planning” it definitely opens my eyes to just how creepy this whole thing. There is nothing wrong having allies and working together for a common goal, but when it involves centralized economic planning (especially when the effects will be unquestionably negative to the overall economy) it is scary. We are essentially handing over our economic future to other countries obsessions with the environment.

Thankfully, the American political leaders have been wise enough to avoid such religiously ignorant environmental policies. However, if Democrats get their way, it seems like they would be willing to sell out our future in a second.

Some say there is nothing wrong with sacrificing some economic growth for the environmental preservation. The problem with that is that our environment is fine. By all measurements, our environment is cleaner today than it was 30 years ago. The same can not be said throughout the rest of the world, so perhaps they are the ones that should be focused on sacrificing their economies to clean up their own mess.

Cleaning up the environment hasn’t been enough for the Greenies though. They got rid of pollution, now they want to get rid of C02 which they say causes global warming. It may actually do that, but their solutions are often childish and exhibit some of the worst problem solving skills I have ever witnessed.

I have already presented several possible solutions to global warming on this blog, but environmentalists seem to run from the easier fixes. This trend leads many to believe that this isn’t about the environment, but about politics…most notably, anti-corporate and anti-capitalism interests.

Not all environmentalists fall into that classification of course, but enough of them do to the point that the motives of environmentalists must always be challenged.

Back to the original point…

We, as people, should be weary of anything that involves massive centralized planning. The reason for this is that centralized planning cuts the little guy out of the equation. The more we are afraid of X, the more aspects of our lives the government will take over and control for us.

To be fair, that doesn’t just apply to the environment…it could also apply to terrorism. However, that is a different blog for a different day…and probably for a different blogger.

Canadian Goes Wild

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:53:00 +0000

Drudge reported a weird story out of Canada about a 12-year-old girl killing her family to be with her boyfriend.

The girl and her then 23-year-old boyfriend were arrested after her mother, father and brother were found dead on April 23, 2006, with multiple stab wounds in their Alberta province home. The boy also appeared to have been strangled.

During the trial, which started this week, prosecutor Stephanie Cleary read to the jury an email written by the girl, 12 at the time, to her boyfriend a month before the killings, local media said Tuesday.

"I hate them so I have this plan. It begins with me killing them and it ends with me living with you," the email said.

The prosecution also plans to show the jury a drawing found in the girl's school locker, apparently depicting the murder and her escape in her boyfriend's truck.

There aren’t a lot of details here, but I found it interesting that the girl drew a picture of the killings before they actually happened. Don’t ask how, but the Conservative Bastion has attained a copy of the drawing:

And there you have it. The Conservative Bastion has taken you into the mind of a crazed psychopath. Check back at the Bastion for full coverage of this story. Updates will be available as the trial moves forward.

Great Going Fag

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:15:00 +0000

This is old news, but it came up in a conversation I was having yesterday. The topic was the word “fag” and the recent “scandals” involving the word.

The fact is, liberals and other fags like to ban words that make them mad or offend them. This is no different from the way conservatives act, so I don’t hold that against them.

The main difference between liberals and conservatives on this issue is the outright liberal hypocrisy. To them, saying “fag” is a mortal sin that requires admittance into rehab or a reeducation camp. However, when conservatives get offended by nudity during the Super Bowl, all we hear from liberals is that conservatives are shoving their values on others.

That is just one example, but there are plenty of ways that Hollywood offends conservatives. How about the seemingly concerted and contrived effort to take the name of the Lord in vain as much as possible? Most religious people I know don’t even make a peep about the blatant use of “God”, “Jesus Christ”, and many variations thereof mixed with plenty of expletives.

Personally, I don’t think I will ever stop saying the word “fag”, and I won’t apologize for it. However, if the fags decide to call a truce and stop using the name of the Lord in vain, I may be able to come to the table for some sort of peace talks and ceasefire.

Until then, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it...and here is an example of the use of the word "fag" in a tasteful manner.

Illegal Immigration Butt Lovers Unite

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 04:42:00 +0000

I – the greatest debunker of dishonest political thinking of the 21st century (so far) – have found another great loophole in the modern American liberal political philosophy. Prepare for intellectual nirvana...

This is from Wikipedia regarding globalization:

Globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres.

For those of you who don’t know, many liberals oppose globalization for a number of various reasons. Some don’t like it because they believe it empowers corporations while simultaneously suppresses the poor. Others don’t like it because they feel globalization has effectively “Americanized” the rest of the world. The idea is that because America is the richest country in the world, our cultural icons (music, books, movies, etc.) are shared with the rest of the world and stomp out local talent. In other words, it makes the world a less diverse place (which is the biggest sin of all for liberals).

This idea also extends to industry. After all, how can an upstart fast-food restaurant in…Mongolia let’s say…compete against a McDonald’s franchise?

So what does globalization have to do with immigration? Well I am glad you asked. You see, the reason globalization exists is because of free trade.

Everyone acknowledges this. People who are anti-globalization are also anti-free trade. People that are for free trade don’t see globalization as a problem.

What some people don’t understand is that also the biggest pro-immigration people in the world are free trade believing conservatives. Don’t believe, read ‘em and weep.

You see, to the economic conservative, people should be allowed to do whatever they want (economically speaking) as long as what they do is consensual and profitable. This means that corporations should be allowed to pollute (within reason) as long as consumers are still willing to buy their product. The idea is that if the pollution were really that bad, consumers would take a stand and not buy from the company in question.

This type of philosophy gives corporations like Wal-Mart a pass despite charges that they underpay their workers. Again, the logic behind it is that if Wal-Mart were that bad, no one would want to work there, and no one would shop there. In other words, if you don’t like Wal-Mart, don’t shop or work there…after all, they aren’t bothering you.

Unfortunately this logic gets a little contradictory when welfare exists, but that is another subject for another day.

Back to immigration…free trade conservatives take the same stance on immigration as they do with everything else. In there mind, if one person is willing to give another a job for a price that is agreed upon by both parties, then no one should be allowed to stop them.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to agree with immigration for another set of completely illogical, and often a cry-me-a-river set of reasons.

1. Immigration made America great

This is a very "conservative", knee-jerk, "stuck-in-old-ways" take on a modern issue…especially by the self-proclaimed liberal party.

2. Families will be separated

This is a pretty lame excuse. If someone breaks into your house and starts sleeping in your bed, do they now have a right to bring over their whole family because otherwise “we would be breaking up families”? Does anyone actually believe this makes any sense?

3. They do jobs Americans won’t do

This is my favorite. I will admit that I haven’t been to New England lately, but I can’t imagine how bad those states must be. Think about it. Without illegals doing all the work Americans won’t do…who’s cleaning the toilets up there? Who’s mowing the lawns? Who does construction? Yes, I am mocking you. Illegals don’t do work American’s WON’T do…they do work Americans DON’T do.

Imagine a town of 100,000 people. It is a decent sized town and has everything a normal town would need to survive. Now picture 10,000 people moving into the town rather rapidly. What would happen? Well there would be thousands of jobs almost instantly created. With 10,000 more citizens, you will need more teachers, firemen, policemen, construction workers, restaurants (and therefore cooks, waiters, and dish cleaners), mechanics, etc.

Would the new citizens be doing jobs the old citizens weren’t willing to do? Does that even make any sense?

All this even makes less sense when you couple it with the liberal stance on outsourcing.

The common argument is that the US is losing jobs overseas to cheaper workers. This is funny for a couple reasons. First of all, unemployment is at historical lows. All the outsourcing in the world would not hurt our economy.

Second, and more importantly, liberals don’t want jobs outsourced, but they claim that we have more jobs than we can fill here in the US.

To clarify. To the liberal mind:

Outsourcing = bad/evil

Illegal immigrants coming into the country to "do jobs American’s won’t do" = good

So which one is it. Are we losing jobs to workers overseas or do we need to bring in more workers because we don't have enough people in our country to meet our labor demand?

What’s that? Is that the sound of liberals crying? Seriously, I don’t mean to turn everyone’s world upside down…I really don’t.

For those of you who still aren’t getting it (and part of that is me going off on subjects that aren’t directly related) illegal immigration = globalization. Think back to the definition of globalization as given by Wikipedia…

Globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres.

Game. Set. Match.

Immigration Bill Debated

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:04:00 +0000

For those of you who care more about Anna Nicole Smith, Lindsey Lohan, and Paris Hilton than the wellbeing of the greatest country God ever gave man (and the country you happen to live in) there is a proposal in both houses of congress for “comprehensive immigration reform”…whatever that means.

I actually like the bill and hope it passes, however the bill itself is not my largest concern.

My beef comes from immigration itself. Personally, I don’t think enough questions are being asked regarding the immigration issue.

It seems like everyone and their mom is hung up on the idea that immigration made America great and is part of a long tradition we have, therefore, we need to continue it.

In my not-so-humble opinion, both of those statements are fallacious.

Immigration occurs in every country around the world. Some could argue as much or more so than the immigration that has taken place in the US. Yet, no other country is as prosperous as our own. The fact is that our economic prosperity brings in more immigration – not the other way around. The true source of our prosperity comes from a lack of government intervention in the individuals life.

Of course illegal immigrant butt lovers (an industry term) would have you think otherwise. It seems as if they think our economy would tank were it not for illegals.

Dumb.

It is one thing to think that immigration is what made America great. A lot of people have that view and it may be more debatable than I let on in the couple previous paragraphs. However, the idea that we should allow immigration to continue just because it worked in the past is completely devoid of reasoning.

What makes it worse is that many of those who want to continue the mass migration we have seen the past few years don’t seem to want to answer questions about how our policy should shift to keep up with the times.

What am I talking about you ask?

In the 1800s, no real skills were needed for most jobs. Therefore, the “give me your tired and huddled masses” theory worked. Any Joe Shmoe who was willing to work his ass off could succeed. Those days are gone, and we must adapt.

In general, you need an education to get a good job in today's world. In other words, we don’t need Joe Shmoes anymore. Sorry. Today America has a science deficit. Logically, you would think the politicians could put 2 and 2 together and bring in more immigrants with science degrees to make up for our domestic deficit.

Unfortunately, this concept seems to have escaped most politicians. They act as if more landscapers and janitors are going to drive the future of our economy. They won't.

Congratulations retards, you have allowed America to take one small step for Mexico, and one giant leap in the wrong direction. In an age where we need serious professionals, we have imported a population that has a disproportionate disposition for criminal activity, lacks a pride and commitment to education, and one with no allegiance to America.

Sorry to sound pessimistic, but when I see 45 million Hispanics that wave American flags, speak English, and have jobs that require more than eight years in school, then I will become a believer.

Until then, I have to say that the solution to the current problem is to pass the current bill being debated in both houses of congress, then completely cut off immigration to America from the western hemisphere.

Why?

Part of the problem with their assimilation is that they can get up, go to work, have fun, and go home again without seeing more than a handful of passersby that speak English. No one will assimilate in a situation like that. It isn’t human nature.

Pelosi Rejects Tradition of Freedom for Fascism

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Thu, 17 May 2007 15:08:00 +0000

The fascist state is alive and well under the Democratic congress. Their power grab is the greatest threat to freedom since Nazi Germany invaded Poland and started WWII. A brief synopsis of their latest public disdain for freedom:

Republicans claimed victory Wednesday in a flash-pan fight with House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over 185-year-old House rules that allow the minority
party to block legislation.

So what was so important that the Democrats would overthrow 185 years of tradition?

"House Democrats wanted to change the rules to make it easier to raise taxes,"
Cantor [Chief Deputy Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia] wrote. "They
wanted to change rules on minority floor rights that have been in place since
1822. They failed."

Seriously...WTF?

Are We Ready for the First Mentally Challenged President?

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Wed, 09 May 2007 16:24:00 +0000

If George Bush is stupid, then Barack Obama is retarded…

Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.

The death toll was 12.

First of all, notice the excuses the liberal controlled/fascist media makes for Obama. It is sickening. When Obama fumbles his words, it is because he is “caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech.” Nice try. When the President does it, it is because he is dumb ass. A dumb ass, by the way, with a 1200 SAT score which would place him in the 95th percentile of intelligence.

As a fair-minded person, I realize this was just a simple mistake. Normally this type of event shouldn’t even make the news. However, if I were to hold Democratic politicians to the same standard that many Democrats have held President Bush to, then Obama is literally retarded. So much for Barack being articulate.

When Liberals Exist

noreply@blogger.com (Media Tycoon) — Mon, 07 May 2007 21:41:00 +0000

For those of you who don’t already know, France has elected a conservative. Seemingly on cue, some liberal cry babies/terrorists started riots. No doubt they are complaining of stolen elections, fascism, and environmental ruin. Regardless of their violent actions against democracy, they prove that liberals everywhere only like elections when they go their way. Here is a small tidbit of some liberal scum trying to violently overcome a democratic election.

RIOT police fired tear gas into an angry crowd gathered at the Place de la Bastille in Paris following conservative Nicolas Sarkozy's presidential election victory yesterday, one of a handful of incidents reported around France.

Two police unions said firebombs targeted schools and recreation centers in several towns in the Essonne region just south of Paris.

Police dispersed a group of angry leftists in Lyon, in southeast France. Similar incidents were reported in Grenoble, at the foot of the Alps, and Rennes and Nantes in the west, BFM TV said.

You don’t see conservatives in civilized countries turning to violence when they lose an election. Here is an actual picture of one of the freedom-hating-liberal-terrorists.

Looks like the terrorist is having a pretty good time with the dog.