Bleeding Right

We've moved! Update your bookmarks, please!

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

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

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

Thank you.

CBGB's needs OUR help!

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

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

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

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

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

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

WWW.SAVECBGB.ORG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High maintenance ... and low, shady politicos

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

100% true story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a nice day.

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

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

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

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

Conservative Blog Taxonomy

A selection:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preaching to the choir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slithering Reptiles ... and the ACLU

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

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

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

By Liz Sidoti
ASSOCIATED PRESS

2:04 p.m. July 26, 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Jane says ..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Priorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? Well, thanks for telling me.

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

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

A jerk

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

I'm not a kid

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

20

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

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

Because, kid

I'm not a kid!!!!!

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

No

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

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

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

Whadda you mean?

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

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

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

No I wouldnt

You're not making any sense, kid.

What?

Never mind.

You're just an asshole that's all

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

Huh?

Have a good day ...

Asshole

Savage ... Patton ... and Jihad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War means fighting and fighting means killing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... and my three favorites:

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

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

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

Pigs are flying!

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

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

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

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

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

London ... Chapter 2

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

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

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

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

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

Fireworks

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

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

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

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

John Roberts

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

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

And the winner is ...

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

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

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

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

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

Connections? Duh!

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

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

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