Video of Saddam Hussein being executed

*** WARNING! Graphic! ***

Religion and driving

Relax, folks, this isn't a deep subject. It's pretty light-hearted, actually.

I was behind a car this morning that was going slower than molasses in February. It had one of those "Jesus Is The Way" bumper stickers. More often than not, when I see a vehicle that has one or more "pro-Jesus" stickers, the vehicle is going very slow.

I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt Jesus will love you folks any less if you drove a little freakin' faster! I mean, at least go the speed limit, or maybe a tad faster! Heck, for that matter, I don't think that driving like Jeff Gordon is exactly going to tick off the Almighty, do you?

God will love you if you speed. God will love you if you drive the speed limit. God will also love you if you drive slowly, but everyone else will become incredibly irate! How about throw the rest of us drivers a bone and find the thin pedal on the right?

Illegal immigrant boycott

I know, it was yesterday. There's a plethora of stuff on the blogosphere about it, so I'll spare you the details. I just have a few reflections before moving on to other topics:

1. The boycott was on May 1. May Day. A Commie Day. Bad PR move, Jorge.

2. Legal immigrants participated in the boycott. I guess they enjoy being laughed at by the 12+ million lawbreaking immigrants with whom they sympathize.

3. Immigrants tell us "We just want to come to America to work, get an education, and be a law-abiding consumer!" So what do they do? They SKIP work, SKIP school, BREAK the laws and DON'T consume? Looks like 0-for-4 to me!

4. Illegals trying to win American hearts? I don't think this is what they had in mind. It seems that carrying around Che placards, chanting Aztlan slogans, violence against cops in LA, and toting "United States of Mexico" signs go over like a fart in church with mainstream Americans.

5. Quote of the day by Carol Platt Liebau: "[T]he 'day without immigrants' strategy has two inherent risks. One is that it won’t inflict enough pain to make its point. The other is that it will."

I'm done beating the dead horse...for now, anyway! :-p

Dem advisors: "Don't appear liberal!"

What have I been saying since I started this blog about Democrats running from the "liberal" label as fast as an Ethiopian chicken? Sure, they want the money from the moonbat groups like MoveOn, PETA, Communist Party of America, etc., but they don't want the albatross around their neck of being labeled (accurately, I might add) "liberal."

See, your average liberal citizen generally doesn't mind being identified as such. After all, they're citizens and not politicians. However, most politicians (with only a few exceptions) are as scared of the label as David Duke and Robert Byrd at a Black Panther reunion.

But don't take my word for it...listen to Democrat analysts themselves. From the Washington comPost:

The liberals' hope that Democrats can win back the presidency by drawing sharp ideological contrasts and energizing the partisan base is a fantasy that could cripple the party's efforts to return to power, according to a new study by two prominent Democratic analysts.

In the latest shot in a long-running war over the party's direction -- an argument turned more passionate after Democrat John F. Kerry's loss to President Bush last year -- two intellectuals who have been aligned with former president Bill Clinton warn that the only way back to victory is down the center.

(snip...)

Since Kerry's defeat, some Democrats have urged that the party adopt a political strategy more like one pursued by Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove -- which emphasized robust turnout of the party base rather than relentless, Clinton-style tending to "swing voters."

But Galston and Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy. In one of their more potentially controversial findings, the authors argue that the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans.

On defense and social issues, "liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole. To the extent that liberals now constitute both the largest bloc within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party, Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill."

Now here are a couple of Democrats who get it! They understand political reality 100% correctly! Liberals are in the overwhelming minority in this country. Americans simply are not liberal, and by and large, they detest liberals. Liberals are usually removed from reality when it comes to things that the average American finds important (such as national defense in a post-9/11 world), and oftentimes, they are incredibly condescending and arrogant towards the very same people they purport to court at the ballot box! Continuing:

Galston and Kamarck -- whose work was sponsored by Third Way, a group working with Senate Democrats on centrist policy ideas -- are critical of three other core liberal arguments:

· They warn against overreliance on a strategy of solving political problems by "reframing" the language by which they present their ideas, as advocated by linguist George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley: "The best rhetoric will fail if the public rejects the substance of a candidate's agenda or entertains doubts about his integrity."

· They say liberals who count on rising numbers of Hispanic voters fail to recognize the growing strength of the GOP among Hispanics, as well as the growing weakness of Democrats with white Catholics and married women.

· They contend that Democrats who hope the party's relative advantages on health care and education can vault them back to power "fail the test of political reality in the post-9/11 world." Security issues have become "threshold" questions for many voters, and cultural issues have become "a prism of candidates' individual character and family life," Galston and Kamarck argue.

Their basic thesis is that the number of solidly conservative Republican voters is substantially larger that the reliably Democratic liberal voter base. To win, the argument goes, Democrats must make much larger inroads among moderates than the GOP.

Bingo! Like I said, liberals are in the tiny minority, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. Plus, conservative citizens AND politicians usually embrace that label...liberal politicians do not.

Health care and education mean jack squat if we're all dead from a well-placed Islamofascist nuclear suitcase. Jean-Francois Kerry thought he could win with non-security issues. He was wrong.

Look, Bush was vulernable last year. I believe that a demonstrably centrist and pro-defense Democrat may have likely defeated Bush. However, the party that can't seem to do anything right chose a hippie anti-war protestor and effete elitist Northeastern liberal snob as their standard-bearer. It's like they just couldn't help themselves!

The one area where the analysis seems to come up just short is that it fails to provide a valid recommendation on how to deal with the liberal cabal attempting to overtake the Democratic Party. The analysts recognized the problem, but like most Democrats we see today, failed to propose a viable solution. Simply "don't appear too liberal" is not going to cut it.

Bird flu: unstoppable?

The bird flu is a lethal disease, and warning sirens are being sounded right now. Is the threat exaggerated or real? Read for yourself here.

Whatever bad things may happen as a result of the bird flu will no doubt be George W. Bush's fault, right?

Feinstein Memorizes Too Well

Senator Feinstein during the Judge Roberts confirmation hearing:

Don't feel bad if we really push this family member of yours.

I seriously believe DiFi had internalized the talking points and forgot to substitute "family member" with "wife/husband/father/etc". "Family member" is she for real? That's Ted Kennedy saying, "I apologize for losing control of my vehicular conveyance, and trapping your family member in the lake. My bad."

Hug a treehugger

I don't see why Democrats and many liberals are all up in arms over gas prices. They got what they wanted!

We don't have a much of a supply problem. We have a refinery problem. The answer is to build more oil refineries...and fast. If we had enough refineries to pick up the slack and continue meeting the demand, the rest of the country wouldn't be paying so much at the pump right now. Why don't we have more refineries?

Look to the treehuggers, folks. It takes years to get a permit to build a refinery, and that's a best-case scenario. The U.S. hasn't built a refinery in almost 30 years, because Democratic, liberal, leftist, socialist enviro-wackos are preventing the permits from being pulled. No new refineries, thus every old refinery is running at full capacity in the summer. Any hiccup or bottleneck (big or small) means an interruption in gasoline supply. It's exacerbated (for those of you in blue states, that means "made worse") by the fact that the "evil" oil companies have to refine dozens of special environmental blends to satisfy the politicians and treehuggers in various cities.

Thank Al Gore, too. The man who tried to steal the election of 2000 and disenfranchise Florida military votes should be damned thrilled with today's gas prices. His buddies Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich wrote the following in their book, The Population Explosion (1990, pp. 219-220): "The United States could start by gradually imposing a higher gasoline tax-hiking it by one or two cents per month until gasoline costs $2.50 to $3.00 per gallon, comparable to prices in Europe and Japan." On the dustcover of their book, Gore said, "The time for action is due, and past due. Ehrlich has written the prescription."

In Gore's own book, Earth in the Balance (1993, p. 173): "Higher taxes on fossil fuels...is one of the logical first steps in changing our policies in a manner consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment." Congrats, Al, and thanks a lot, you enviro-moonbat!

What about drilling in ANWR? Did you know the proposed drilling section of ANWR was set aside for the express, specific purpose of oil exploration (link)? How, then, can it be wrong and "pro-BIG OIL" to drill in an area we allocated for...drilling? Isn't that like buying a brand-new Hummer and then saying no one can drive it because it drinks too much fuel? Why buy it, then? We can't go get our own oil to partially release ourselves from dependency on oil from the most unstable part of the world (and thus order LESS oil from them, which would lower our gas prices even with refinery bottlenecks) because we might interrupt the mating habits of the Arctic snow possum...or whatever the hell it is.

So as you head to the pump for your holiday weekend, just know that you are paying so much because of the radical environmental movement in this country. But rest assured that $3.29 per gallon is a small price to pay in order to protect the precious (and cute, I'm told) Arctic snow possum!