Cornell University Claims Whites Are Genetically Weaker Than Blacks

Since Blogger is sucking right now, and not allowing anyone to upload new layouts while simultaneously refusing to provide technical support on the matter, I haven't been blogging much the past couple of days.

I thoroughly expected the blogosphere to pick up on this story, but I guess they've been too focussed on Obama's fabrications, and Chelsea Clinton. Shockingly enough, the story isn't even a most read on Fox News' website. Why? I don't know, but I am remedying the situation now.

Cornell University has released a controversial study that will accomplish literally nothing more than sowing more discontent among the races, and serve as yet another recruiting tool for white supremacist groups. So let's all pat Cornell on the back, and bask in the racially charged anti-glory that is their latest contribution to useless science.

Fox News:

White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds.

Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans, researchers found that the former showed much less variation among 10,000 tested genes than did the latter, which was expected.

They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African, which was a surprise.

I know I'm supposed to conduct myself as an adult, but ... WTF!

This is the worst case study I've ever seen. First, the test group is only 35 people. Second, there is not an even number of subjects for each race. Essentially we've just learned that, at best, Cornell has no idea how to conduct an accurate, ethical study. All they've done is embarrassed themselves by releasing these results, and attaching their name to the findings. Which brings up the question: Why did they conduct such a study in the first place?

Apparently the goal of these ongoing studies is to find out where the ancestors of global populations came from, and when they migrated to that area. There have also been other larger studies involving other races. I am again left wondering why Cornell's latest endeavor has such a small sample group when the other studies involved hundreds of subjects.

I doubt Cornell's goal was to inflame anyone, but the content of the study is being used to claim racism. If you need proof ... do a search of this topic and read the comments on the few blogs and forums that have addressed it. Some of the findings are pretty inflammatory towards whites, and other findings are not anything new ... thereby rendering this study utterly useless. I'm pretty sure Nicholas Wade covered a lot of the migratory issues in his book "Before the Dawn".

Here's the part where the study outlines the genetic inferiority of European cultures (i.e. whites):

But the Cornell study, published in the journal Nature Thursday, indicates that Europeans went through a second "population bottleneck," probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number.

The doubly diluted genetic diversity has allowed "bad" mutations to build up in the European population, something that the more genetically varied African population has had more success in weeding out.

So what exactly are these "bad" mutations? What would be a genetic imperfection in a perfectly healthy person with no ailments? Also, how do we know what perfect genetics are in order to map imperfections? What if those imperfections are actually evolution? If man indeed migrated to Europe from Africa they would have had to mutate in order to adapt. In other words ... they evolved in order to better survive. Since when is evolving a genetic imperfection?

Cornell also neglected to take into account any interracial mating that may have happened in the history of the subject's genetic code. I would assume that if two different races mated 200 years ago, it would affect the current subject's genetic makeup. Perhaps in the form of one of these "imperfections."

With all the discrepancies aside ... we have a study by a university that is saying black people are genetically superior , and more diverse, than white people ... and it got published. That's where you are seeing a very logical complaint from white people about this study. Do you honestly think that this study would have seen the light of day if Cornell's findings showed that white people were genetically superior to blacks? Would Cornell have attached their name to the study if this were the case? It's highly doubtful, and most likely would have led to someone getting fired.

Perhaps you are thinking that I'm just race baiting here, but I have proof that any published study that shows whites are genetically superior to blacks is quickly criticized with charges of racism. Do you remember the story of James Watson, a Nobel Prize winning scientist for his part in the unravelling of DNA, and who once ran one of America's leading scientific research institutions, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He was criticized roundly for saying that Africans were not as smart as westerners.

Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

For those of you who remember the story you will recall the constant mini-quotes about what Dr. Watson said, and calls of racism he endured. Dr. Watson had several speaking engagements canceled, he was criticized by his own institutions, suspended from his job, and ultimately was forced to resign his post as a result of the media firestorm about his findings on genetic studies. Keep in mind that this guy is probably the world's foremost expert on DNA.

Unfortunately the MSM didn't publish Dr. Watson's other statements that are pretty pertinent to the issue. He was quoted as saying that he had "hope" that "everyone is equal." Watson also stated that "there are many people of color who are very talented", but that never made it onto the news. The most important statement that Dr. Watson made in his writings is integral to what we are talking about with Cornell University.

"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

In other words ... people who evolved in different geographical areas from one another did not evolve in an equal intellectual capacity.

Sound familiar?

Cornell University's study says the exact same thing as Dr. Watson's work suggested. There are only two differences between the two findings. One is that one of the studies illustrated the difference in physical genetics throughout man's evolution. While the other illustrates the intellectual evolution of man. The second difference is that the study showing blacks as superior has not been met with negative publicity in the mainstream. The one that showed whites as superior did.

Both studies outlined the theory that once man left Africa, and began its great migration to other parts of the world, humans became isolated from one another geographically. Thus, as a result of that isolation, humans evolved quite differently from one another ... both physically and mentally. Cornell gives the edge physically to blacks, but Dr. Watson gives the edge mentally to whites. Now that's fair and balanced scientific research. Why the same study with similar findings cost one man his job and reputation, but the other has been met with no negativity just illustrates what an ignorant, hypocritical, PC society we live in.

What Do Muslims, Denmark, and Wikipedia Have In Common

A couple of days ago I answered the call to show jihadis that we honor freedom of speech by reprinting the Muhammad cartoons. There is still more rioting in Denmark now as a result of the cartoons.

It turns out that Denmark, and western publications, aren't the only victims of the jihadi effort to censor all references to the prophet Muhammad. Wikipedia also needs our support because they are under fire to remove all images of Muhammad ... to the tune of 180,000 complaints.

Guardian:

Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia, is refusing to remove medieval artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, despite being flooded with complaints from Muslims demanding the images be deleted.

More than 180,000 worldwide have joined an online protest claiming the images, shown on European-language pages and taken from Persian and Ottoman miniatures dating from the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, are offensive to Islam, which prohibits any representation of Muhammad. But the defiant editors of the encyclopedia insist they will not bow to pressure and say anyone objecting to the controversial images can simply adjust their computers so they do not have to look at them.

The images at the centre of the protest appear on most of the European versions of the web encyclopedia, though not on Arabic sites.

We have pulled out all the stops to defend the publications that had the courage to publish the cartoons, and now we have to stand up for Wikipedia.

Remember The Cop Who Put The 14 Year Old Kid In A Headlock? Yeah, His Spotless Record Is Not So Spotless.

I've been watching a bunch of idiots defending this officer because the kid was "mouthing off."  No ... the kid was asking legitimate questions that officers should be required to answer, and in some states are required to do so.  In any case, it is unnacceptable for an officer to man handle anyone that way, especially a minor, unless they are a threat.  

One of the arguments used by the nitwits to defend officer Rivieri is that he has a spotless record. Well, someone else has come forward with a year old video of the officer in question pushing him around as well.  I encourage you to watch it here.

Apparently officer Rivieri has one hell of a temper, and likes picking on anyone who doesn't walk in a strait line while having eyes forward.  Does that sound like any other historical police forces to any of you?

Sheriff Deputy Who Threw Cripple Onto Floor Wants Your Sympathy

What an f---ing bitch!  

If you don't know what's been happening with the two recent police videos ... I wrote about them here, but here is an interview with the victim that plays the assault over and over again. Sorry about the cheesy production stuff.


Now here is today's article on the matter, and the deputy playing the victim.

As outrage spread nationwide over a Hillsborough County jail inmate being tossed from his wheelchair onto the floor, the detention deputy at the center of the controversy has been getting nonstop phone calls, many racist in nature.

"It's not even just in Florida," said Beverly Crecy, the roommate of suspended Deputy Charlette Marshall-Jones.

"These calls are from out of state," she said, with tears in her eyes. "People calling her 'n---' and 'fat' and all kinds of stuff. Seven o'clock in the morning and all through the night."

Uh, she brought it upon herself. So don't give me this boo-hoo crap.

I have no idea if her assault was racially motivated, but I would like to point out that there were 4 black people standing around while one of them threw this white guy on the floor. Shortly after it happened a white coworker came into the camera's view. This is not evidence of a hate crime, but white supremacists will use this as evidence of such. Hence the n-word calls.  Plus, she is fat.

Venezuela Cuts Off Exxon Supply

Well we knew this would be coming sooner or later. Especially with Exxon kicking the crap out of Hugo Chavez in courts around the globe.

Old Hugo has now made his next move.

Venezuela's state oil company said Tuesday that it has stopped selling crude to Exxon Mobil Corp. in response to the U.S. oil company's drive to use the courts to seize billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets.

Exxon Mobil is locked in a dispute over the nationalization of its oil ventures in Venezuela that has led President Hugo Chavez to threaten to cut off all Venezuelan oil supplies to the United States. Venezuela is the United States' fourth largest oil supplier.

In other words, prepare for gas prices to go up. Then prepare for the BDS idiots to blame Bush for it, and somehow tie it to Iraq.

The Obligatory "Police Officer Beats Up Skateboarder" Post

Bottom line is this officer was WAY out of line, and broke the law. Where's HIS respect for his badge and department?

The officer is in trouble, but is claiming that he didn't know he was being recorded. Because his actions would somehow be justified if he weren't recorded. He's also lying. He knew damn well he was being recorded by the kid. At the end of the video he asks if he's being recorded, and says he "better not see himself on You ..." I'm assuming You ... is YouTube.

Hotair has more.

Then there is the police officer who dumped a quadriplegic on the floor out of his wheelchair. Bad day for cops I guess.

NAACP Says Republicans Hate Black People

This story brings up the same warm and fuzzy feelings I got when Kanye West famously spewed butt vomit from his mouth about Katrina.

Here in Vegas we have a free "paper" called the CityLife. It's a typical free city paper ... full of liberals who don't think things through all the time, and advertisements for illegal sexual activity that the police never follow up on. I would like to point out that they have defended me in the past ... so they aren't all bad.

In their current addition there is a story titled "Why are you such a hater? NAACP ranks Nevada lawmakers' voting records. Guess who fails to make the grade?" The article deals with Republican lawmakers in Nevada, and how the NAACP rates their voting records. From the title you can easily see how this is going to play out.

This is how the article starts off:

REPUBLICANS USED TO like black people.

Emphasis NOT MINE.

It then goes on to lie about President Bush, and compare current Republicans with the Jim Crow Democrats. It's a very fun read if you like uneducated race baiting.

I decided that since the CityLife was quoting the NAACP's report, I should probably take a look at it myself. Even though I already knew what it said ... call it white man's intuition. You can find the report here.

It uses a standard grading system employed by most of our schools ... A-F. In the interest of time I will only address the Senate in this post. If you want to do further research on the members of congress you can start here.

Once I opened my list of members in the 110th Senate I began the slightly tedious task of seeing who failed according to the NAACP, and what their party affiliation was. To my utter lack of surprise the NAACP rated all but one Democrat (Johnson) with a passing grade, and all but two Republicans (Snowe, Specter) with failing grades. It should be noted that Snowe and Specter are what you would call faux Republicans. In other words they are mistakes that don't stand up for Republican issues. I would also like to point out the Senator Byrd was given a B by the NAACP, and he is a former klansman who still uses racial epithets.

Given that virtually all Democrats received passing grades, and virtually all Republicans received failing grades ... we must deduce that the NAACP is saying that virtually all Democrats like black people, and virtually all Republicans hate black people. It was also astounding how there were virtually no C average grades.

The NAACP's love 'em or hate 'em report falls well short of reason, and truthfulness. this is also a clear example of intentionally creating a biased "report" in order to fuel racism and hate. The issues the NAACP says they graded the politicians on were nearly all monetary in nature ... not racial. Some have said the hate crimes legislation is racial, but that is only partly true. Quite frankly, if you support hate crimes legislation you are more apt to be racist than those who oppose it. Why are the lives of certain races more valuable than the lives of others? If fact, the hate crimes legislation is in direct conflict with the principals the NAACP was founded upon. It only serves to divide the races ... not bring them together on a level playing field. On top of that, why would you want a third party deciding what is, and is not, a hate crime. Aren't all violent crimes hate crimes?

The truly sad part of the NAACP's arguments is that they seem to say that black people can't succeed without government help. Hardly empowering, or a vote of confidence on behalf of the black community in the United States. Just take a few minutes to read their report on the issues they wanted all members of congress to support, and then research those issues via a third party website like Gov Track or Vote Smart so you don't get biased interpretation of the legislation.

You'll notice that the legislation the NAACP supports suggests that you black folks out there can't succeed unless the government has some special program the help you out. In other words the NAACP thinks you are not self-sufficient, educated, or hard working. They don't seem the think you can't be successful unless you play sports. Republican lawmakers and myself give you far more credit. We also understand that the average black person doesn't walk around believing that all Republicans hate them, and all Democrats love them. Since we understand that, and you understand that ... maybe it's time to make the NAACP understand the same truth.

Terrorists Make Threats At US Air Force Academy ... Media Chastised For Misreporting

Some former terrorists were speaking at the academy to give insights on the life and thoughts of Muslim terrorists so the cadets can better understand the enemy. Well, it turns out that some real terrorists showed up.

MMD:

Former terrorists Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem and Zak Anani addressed cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, during their annual political forum. They shared their experiences as terrorists and helped cadets understand the Islamic fundamentalist mind set.

During the event a Jordanian college student, identified as Omar Khalifa of Metro International, approached Kamal Saleem and spoke to him in Arabic, "you are an enemy of Islam and you must die." The incident was reported to Military Police, who investigated Khalifa's threat.

"The men receive threats of this nature all of time and we take each one very seriously," said Keith Davies, Executive Director of the Shoebat Foundation. "That is why each of the men live in seclusion."

As if the story wasn't juicy enough, this next little tidbit makes it swim in gravy. Not only is the article critical of the MSM's lack of accurate reporting on the matter, but it flat out accuses them of taking marching orders from unindicted co-conspirators CAIR.

Numerous media outlets (New York Times, the Associated Press, The Colorado Springs Gazette, the Rocky Mountain News) did not report on the former terrorists' message, but instead focused on the [inaccurate] media statements distributed by CAIR (Council for American Islamic Relations), in an all-out campaign to discredit the speakers credentials and background.

"We have all been told that Islam has been hijacked by extremists,” said Walid Shoebat. "Yet CAIR, who professes to be ‘Moderate Muslims’ are the Three Ex Terrorists biggest critics, and pull out all stops to try and keep out voices from being heard. I beg to ask the question; if CAIR is indeed moderate as they claim, then WHY are they not supporting our campaign against 'extremists? If they are sincerely against the Fundamentalist Muslim agenda why do they appose us?"

According to the Air Force Academy's public affairs office CAIR spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, contacted them numerous times criticizing the scheduling of the three men, and requesting an opportunity to have a CAIR representative share with cadets information about the Islamic faith. The Academy informed Hooper that the event was not about religion, but about terrorism, and he denied CAIR's request.

Wait a minute. Did I just read that the Air Force Academy has a CAIR spokesman in their public affairs office? WHAT THE HELL!

For a group that professes to be vehemently anti-terrorist, CAIR sure does put a lot of effort into defending terrorists.

The REAL List Of The Top 10 Things Americans Want But Can't Have

There is a list that some nincumpoop made up that is circulating around the net that is alleging to list the supposed "top 10 things Americans want." It is, of course, 10 things that socialists and their liberal allies want ... not most Americans.

The list has made itself popular with the Diggbots (which is enough to discredit the list), and is spreading like wildfire amongst the online liberal community. It appears that Geekarmy.com is the original author of the list. Frankly, I find that hard to believe, but they cite no other source. I just have a hard time believing that a fellow geek would not put any effort into proper research. Usually, we geeks are great with facts. Not so in this case I'm afraid.

I will only list the 10 items below ... you will have to visit their site for the explanation of why each item made their list.

10. Marijuana Decriminalization.
9. Universal Health Care.
8. Stricter Campaign Finance Laws.
7. Equal Aid to Palestinians and Israelis.
6. Reducing Military Spending.
5. Increased Social Spending.
4. Acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol.
3. A Diplomatic Solution with Iran.
2. Pulling Troops out of Iraq.
1. The Impeachment of George W. Bush.

On top of that ridiculous list, that is not backed up by any solid facts, there is a special runner up to the list.

Jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court.

It's a hell of a list, isn't it? It looks a lot more like a the course syllabus for Socialism 101 than anything the average American would want.

The author does cite some some polls, but none of the polls they cite are not contradicted by other polls. Actually, there are usually more polls that say the opposite of what the author is claiming. I'd also like to point out that the author cites Zogby several times. Zogby is notorious for spinning his data to reflect his personal leftist point of view.

Later on I will make the REAL list of top 10 things Americans want, but I want to give short rebuttals to this other list.

10. Marijuana Decriminalization.

This is a spin at best, but not completely inaccurate. Most Americans do support reducing the criminal punishment for using small amounts of marijuana. However, most Americans do not support legalizing marijuana at all. Decriminalization was not the proper terminology to use since most Americans still want growing, selling, and using marijuana to be criminal. Nor would I classify that as a "top 10" want of the American people. There are better things to worry about ... unless you are a pot head, of course.

9. Universal Health Care.

Again ... spin. Most Americans do want an improvement in our health care system, but the polling is all over the place as to whether they want universal health care or not. While most Americans want the government to guarantee that everyone will have health care, this poll shows that only 36% support a completely rebuilt system. Universal health care is health care provided to everyone by the government, and paid for with taxes. It removes the option of choosing your plan, and often your doctor. There is a huge difference between guaranteeing everyone has health care (which we have for emergencies now anyway), and universal health care funded by your tax dollars.

8. Stricter Campaign Finance Laws.

Been there, done that, made things worse. It's called McCain/Feingold, and all it did was limit the constitutional rights of voters to express their support for a particular candidate. Those who support campaign finance reform are those who support censorship, and are threatened by a powerful group of people with a particular point of view that differs from theirs. Anytime you go against the Constitution ... expect trouble.

7. Equal Aid to Palestinians and Israelis.

This is a joke! In fact, it is not even close. The vast majority of Americans support Israel (59%), and do not want any money funneled to the Palestinian Authority. Only 15% of Americans are sympathetic to Palestinians according to Gallup. The highest percent of American sympathy for the Palestinian cause was 18% in 2004-2005. If Palestinian terrorists were to lose control over the people that number would change. Americans know who the enemy is.

6. Reducing Military Spending.

Yet another example of the author's personal opinion being superimposed upon the American public. You can take dozens of polls from the 90's through today, and get a myriad of answers. This is largely due to the ignorance of the civilian population in thinking that the military is the highest funded part of government. It's a pervasive myth, but a myth nonetheless.

We spend far more on unnecessary social programs than we do on defense, but if you break down the departments we pay more for social security than we do on the department of defense. The DOD is a close second to social security as individual departments. There is far more spending cuts available outside of defense that we should examine first. We must also keep in mind that we have several active military campaigns across the world right now, and the military is undergoing a massive modernization effort. Once the new equipment (fighters, aircraft carriers etc.) are in service the budget will go down again.

5. Increased Social Spending.

See above ... most Americans do NOT support higher taxes. It's not that we want more spending on social programs ... it's that we want the money the government already has taken from us spent on the RIGHT social programs.

4. Acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol.

Polls are useless on this question. They run the full gambit of support, or lack thereof, for Kyoto. It is important to note that Kyoto is more popular in the US than it is in the countries that signed the treaty. The US is performing far better than the Kyoto nations are in emissions, and many Kyoto countries are slamming Kyoto for actually harming the environment. Whether you are a greenie or not ... Kyoto is a bad idea all around. You have a better chance at saving the planet with current US policy than you do with Kyoto.

3. A Diplomatic Solution with Iran.

Everyone can agree with this one. No one wants another war. The population is simply split between those who will take action if a diplomatic solution becomes impossible, and those who won't. The ball is in Iran's court. They have got to stop their weapons program (permanently), stop fomenting terrorism, and stop getting into firefights with US troops inside Iraq. Our government will talk to anyone so long as they are not waging war against us, clandestine or otherwise.

2. Pulling Troops out of Iraq.

This could mean a thousand different things. Most Americans don't want an indefinite war. Nor do we want to remain in Iraq without the Iraqis stepping up. However, most Americans want to succeed in Iraq. Since the Iraqis are stepping up, and the surge has been a resounding success, nearly half of all Americans are optimistic. 51% of young people are optimistic about Iraq. Since the Iraqis are kicking the UN out of Iraq and asking us to stay indefinitely ... the point is moot.

1. The Impeachment of George W. Bush.

More fantasy and proof that the author of this list has BDS. 55% of Americans do not support impeachment. Not to mention the reasons given by the author are blatant lies. Bush did not mislead us into war with Iraq. Nor are the wiretaps illegal. Make sure you read the quote at the top of this page from Charles Duelfer saying that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program when we invaded.

The "runner up" desire of the American people is laughable, and doesn't deserve to be addressed. The notion that most Americans want to be under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court rather than the Constitution is nothing but pure anti-American fantasy.

Well, there you have it. The so called "top 10" list is not an accurate representation of the American population at all. My list will be, and I'll put my list up against any as a better overall representation for what the American people really want.

10. Ability To Get Medication Not Approved By The FDA.

I firmly believe that Americans want the choice to get drugs from Canada, and even Mexico. However, most Americans would only support this if the US would not face liability if the medication didn't work as advertised.

9. School Vouchers.

Parents have grown tired of being forced to send their kids to inferior schools that are more worried about attendance than academics. If a school is underperforming parents should have the right to change schools to ensure their child gets a quality education.

8. Politicians To Keep Campaign Promises.

Quite possibly the oldest desire of the American public is for politicians to actually follow through with their promises. It stretches across party lines, but the current situation with Congress highlights this desire perfectly. The Democrats abandoned all of their campaign promises (with the exception of raising the minimum wage ... for most places). Now they are the proud owners of the lowest congressional approval ratings in history.

7. Less Foreign Aid To Unfriendly Nations.

This is a constant source of agitation for the American public. We are fed up with our enemies getting all of our money. There are cases where attempts to buy peace with aid pays off, but there are other cases where there is a pattern of failure. Yet we continue to throw money at the problem expecting a different result (Palestine). That's the definition of insanity.

6. Seriously Reconsider Our Relationship With The UN.

We could lump this one with number seven above, but the UN is its own monster. There are 192 member nations in the UN, and only 47% are free countries. That statistic says a lot about the UN's conduct. They are anti-American, racist, hypocritical, and ineffective. Forget about their support for terrorists in recent conflicts, and refusal to act in others. Then there is the massive amount of criminal activity, and corruption that run rampant there.

We could talk for years about how the UN is not only not good for the US, but not good for the world. These truths are self-evident, and most Americans are sick and tired of footing the bill for an organization that spends its time working against our interests. The US and Japan fund just under half of the UN annually by themselves. That's 2 countries paying half the budget, and 190 paying the other half ... hardly fair. Not only are Americans tired of the UN, but Japan ready to draw a line in the sand as well. You also have Iraq kicking the UN out of their country next year.

5. Less Taxes.

If you feel that Americans want to increase their donations to the government, you are CRAZY! Libs constantly mess this one up. They will frequently say we aren't paying enough taxes right now, and when asked will provide a percentage of our income that they feel is "fair" taxation. Usually, they will throw out a number between 15-25%. Problem is that on average we send 40% of our income to the government in the form of various taxes.

The average family in the US makes around $50,000 a year according to the Census Bureau. That means that family will send $20,000 of their $50,000 income to the government. You'll be hard pressed to find an American who thinks it is acceptable for the average family to send $20,000 to the government every year.

4. An Honest, Unbiased Media.

The reason the new media is becoming so popular is because Americans know the MSM is undeniably slanted to the left. The MSM has had several scandals involving dishonesty in the past couple of years, and people are taking notice. The MSM coverage of Katrina, Rathergate, Reutersgate, and others showed that not only is the MSM getting a lot wrong, but they are flat out lying to us in many cases. I've heard liberals say that conservatives control the media, but the link above proves that wrong. Fox News is also frequently attacked, but they were just ruled the most fair news source on television. All we want is for liberal and conservative news outlets to tell us they are what they are. Stop pretending to be something they are not ... unbiased.

3. Get The Government Out Of Our Lives.

Contrary to what a few fringe groups would have you believe ... Americans do not want government telling them what to eat, what to drive, and what they can and can not say. Nor do they want government banning types of dogs, baseball bats, the circus, and Wal-Mart. We just want our government to behave as our founding fathers intended ... not as the monarchy our founding fathers rebelled against.

2. Fix Immigration.

It's a no brainer, I know. No matter what side of the issue you come down on ... you want it fixed ... NOW!

1. No More Bush Or Clinton In The White House.

Don't get me wrong ... I like President Bush, but we've had a Bush or Clinton in the White House for the past 2 decades. That's 20 years of the same ruling families, and now we face the very real possibility of another 8 years with Hillary. You also can't forget about a Jeb Bush run after Hillary's reign. Frankly, I think the two royal families of our political parties have succeeded in dividing our country in ways that would have been impossible otherwise. Half the country hates the Bushes, and half hates the Clintons. It's time to make a change, and let the healing begin.

Now THAT is a list most Americans can get behind. The previous list was made up by a hardcore lib, was biased, and full of falsehoods. I think mine was far more accurate, crossed party lines, and is truly the top 10 things Americans want the most. What do you think?

Yet Another Example Of A Hate Crime Being Called "Not A Hate Crime"

I know it is getting pretty old hearing about these events, but it is necessary for you to understand that there a very clear double standard in regards to hate crimes. Apparently, whites and Jews can not be the victims of hate crimes.

Haaretz:

The Zionist Organization of America condemned the U.S. government's Office for Civil Rights on Wednesday for failing to protect Jewish students it says have been subject to a series of anti-Semitic provocations on the campus of the University of California, Irvine.

The ZOA alleged that Muslim students on campus have given anti-Semitic speeches, distributed Judeophobic literature, and used intimidation tactics against Jewish students. The university's failure to take disciplinary action constitutes discrimination against Jewish students, the ZOA charges.

The Office of Civil Rights, which operates under the auspices of the Department of Education, said in a report released last week that some Muslim student activities were offensive to Jewish students.

But the report concludes the speeches, marches and other activities were based on opposition to Israeli policies, not the national origin of Jewish students.

So what types of "other activities" were disregarded you ask.

"A Holocaust memorial was destroyed; that swastikas repeatedly defaced property on the campus; that a rock was thrown at a Jewish student; and that other Jewish students were harassed and verbally threatened with such statements as 'slaughter the Jews,' 'dirty Jew,' 'go back to Russia,' 'burn in hell,' and 'f_ _king Jew,'"

Yeah, dirty Jew is only opposition to Israeli policies ... RIIIGHT!

Note the school is UC Irvine, a school with a long history of radical Muslims who support murder. LGF has made a habit of documenting the extremists on UC Irvine's campus ... check it out here.

Tom Cruise Weeps As Germany Says No To Scientology

Scientology is a major no-no in Germany. In fact, it's been ruled unconstitutional!

BBC:

Germany's federal and state interior ministers have declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional, clearing the way for a possible ban.

The ministers have asked Germany's domestic intelligence agency to examine whether the Church's legal status as an association could be challenged.

Scientology is not recognized as a religion in Germany.

A Church of Scientology statement said the ministers were "completely out of step with the rest of the world".

The attempted ban is "a blatant attempt at justifying the on-going and never-ending discrimination against the Church of Scientology and its members in Germany," said the Church in a statement.

Bummer Tom.

What If I Were To Tell You That Bono Just Ripped Terrorists

We all know that Bono is a media darling, and every time he speaks they put his words in print. We are usually inundated with Bono quotes and images for days after the event, but not this time. Why? Well usually Bono is advocating a liberal cause that gets him the great media publicity. However, when Bono speaks with a little more conservative zeal ... nothing.

News Busters:

In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine, Bono said of the Islamic fundamentalists:

I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't.

Bono goes on to show that he does not engage in Bush Derangement Syndrome, despite the urgings of the Rolling Stone's anti-Bush reporter. In response to the reporter's statement that "But this Administration destroyed that." when they discussed the outpouring of support for the United States immediately following the attacks of Spetember 11, Bono says of President Bush,

There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.

This time there doesn't seem to be the media affection we typically see for Bono. No Bush Derangement Syndrome, no MSM coverage.

NAACP Says Halloween Display Is Racist, Family Forced To Remove It

Warning: The following post will contain some strong language not usually present in my writing, but I am super pissed about this. I have removed letters of certain words, but felt it was appropriate to warn those of you who are regular readers. I'm usually not this personal or confrontational, but given the past couple of weeks with similar stories an aggressive response was warranted.

Update: I have added a poll at the top right of this site. Let us what you think of the display. Is it racist, or not?


Photo Courtesy Of The Daily Record

So much for the NAACP actually becoming a respectable organization again. I had hope for a while there because they had been settling down a bit. The NAACP "seemed" to be getting away from the Jackson/Sharpton ideology. Oh well, it looks like they are back in full force.

The NAACP, along with a couple of oversensitive neighbors, blew a simple Halloween decoration waaaay out of proportion.

The Star Ledger:

Chesla Flood couldn't believe her eyes. A hangman's noose circled the neck of a black-hooded, jeans-clad dummy suspended from the chimney of a house in Madison.

Flood called her mother, Millie Hazlewood, who reported the Halloween display to police. She wasn't the only one. Police went to the property at least three times starting Sunday, and even the mayor asked the homeowners to take down the figure.

The police took time out of their day to harass a family for Halloween decorations, multiple times? The mayor even requested the family take down the decoration? What in the hell is this world coming to that you can't put a commonly used Halloween display up? I can't count how many times I've seen a hangman's noose as part of Halloween decorations, haunted houses, and even my own decorations. These people are acting like this is the first time this has been done. When, in fact, it's somewhat of a traditional display.

So is this the first time this family has used the noose?

D.J. Maines, the 27-year-old son of Cheryl and David Maines, has bedecked the house for seven Halloweens using $5,000 worth of decorations he has collected. He has used the hanging dummy each year.

Nope. He's used the display for 7 YEARS with no incident! Why no incident? Because it's a common display used by thousands of homes across the US!

Finally, the pressure got the family, and they removed the display because they feared for their safety.

At 8 last night, the family relented, saying they feared for their safety.

"It's no more like freedom of speech anymore," Cheryl Maines said. "My son had to take this down because these people have blown this thing out of proportion."

Hell, it doesn't even really have to do with freedom of speech because it is a Halloween decoration!

Here is what the mayor (a white guy) had to say:

Before the figure was removed yesterday, Madison Mayor Ellwood "Woody" Kerkeslager said "the appearance and the suggestion (of racism) is there, and it's inappropriate."

What? How? They didn't show a black person being hung. They showed a person in a black hood being hung. When we used to hang people in this country guess what we did? We put a black hood over their heads!

Now listen to how everyone is trying to tie this story in with other noose stories in the news lately in an effort to paint this family as racist.

At least four recent noose displays -- one each in Jena, La., and Philadelphia and two in New York City -- are drawing renewed attention to a potent symbol of racism, lynchings and the era of Jim Crow segregation.

Unlike those incidents, the Madison figure was part of a Halloween display, and for two days, homeowners Cheryl and David Maines, the borough's superintendent of public works, refused to budge. They said they had done nothing wrong.

ARE YOU F___ING SERIOUS!?

Credit goes to the author for pointing out the obvious ... this was a decoration, at a home, for Halloween. To draw correlations to Jena, La. is insane at best.

Here's where the NAACP jump in, and make complete fools of themselves.

Meanwhile, the state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People denounced the display as offensive, racist and insensitive.

"I think there are many people who understand the significance of a noose as it relates to the history of African-Americans," said James Harris, president of the NAACP's state chapter. "We thought we lived beyond the era when people felt it was okay to have that type of display."

"As it relates to the history of African-Americans?" F__K YOU!

There is another population that has a history with the noose James ... COWBOYS! And most cowboys were what? White!

Why don't we just make the argument that the display was inappropriate because it might offend criminals. After all, we used to hang criminals exactly as the display is shown ... black hood and all.

"We thought we lived beyond the era when people felt it was okay to have that type of display?" What era are you talking about James? The era when we used to hang people as capital punishment? We HAVE lived beyond that era James. That's why your argument makes no damned sense! We DON'T hang people anymore ... white, black or any other race for that matter. Hence, it was only a Halloween decoration!

The only people who haven't lived past that era is you, James. You and your supporters want old feelings from another time to surface. That way you can foment hate, prove the NAACP is still needed and maybe make a quick buck while you're at it.

To top it all off ... not only are you still living in the past, but you are projecting a falsehood upon this family. You keep talking about racism when there was no part of this display that could be construed as racist by any sane, logical person. So are you fomenting hate James, or are you just lacking sanity and logic?

The family has sworn off holiday decorations for good because of this fiasco. I assume that was the goal all along as there is a concerted effort to remove holiday displays in this country.

Last night, the Maines family said they would be replacing their Halloween display and erecting a sign reading: "Thanks to the assistance of Millie Hazlewood and her friends, Halloween and Christmas decorations will no longer be celebrated here."

This is very sad.

Authorities also said that the display was not illegal, and couldn't be ordered down. If that is the case ... then why did the police harass this family on three separate occasions? I hope the family sues the department for harassment, and I hope they sue the people who complained and the NAACP for violating their civil rights. The mayor should also be a target for lawsuit for his interference.

Read the rest of the article and you'll see a bunch of people who lived through the horrific time where lynching was common, and were offended by the display. The south is featured prominently in the article, but this is taking place in New Jersey so don't be fooled.

The Maines family also responded to those who have a history with lynching.

"Don't bring your ancestors into this -- it's something that happened; you've got to get beyond it or you're going to make yourself sick," she said.

She is right. To bring up history having nothing to do with her or her decorations in an effort to demonize her family is completely uncalled for.

Had the display featured a black person being lynched, I would have supported it being taken down. However, there was no racial undertones at all in the display. This was just another excuse by racists themselves to attack white people.

Here is another picture of the display for you to decide yourself.

The Daily Record

Muslims Order Christians To Make Peace

This is too rich.

This Is London:

Prominent Muslim scholars are warning that the "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other.

In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions."

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and Pope Benedict are believed to have been sent copies of the document which calls for greater understanding between the two faiths.

They even try to say they aren't against Christians, but Christians must not make war against Muslims.

The Muslim scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."

While bringing the two religions together is a lofty goal, the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought is clearly delusional.

Christians won't make war with Muslims as soon as Muslims stop using terrorism with homicide bombers to reestablish the Caliphate. Christian nations have only made war with Muslim nations after being attacked, and Christians have not made war with Islam in modern times. Islam in large, however, has made war with all infidels.

So, to the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought I say this: "As Christians, we say to Muslims that we are not against them and that Christianity is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Christians on account of their religion, use homicide bombers and attack innocent civilians without provocation.

The Muslim community must not be silent on the issue of global terrorism perpetuated by Islamists anymore. When Muslims show Christians and the world that they, in fact, reject the terrorism, murder, and oppressive actions of Islamic radicals, and when Muslims join Christians and the world in combating such activities ... there will be peace."

Of The 41 Dems Demanding Rush To Apologize ... 39 Of Them Refused To Condemn Personal Attacks On The Honor & Integrity Of Our Troops Last Month

I've spent the last two days pointing out this hypocrisy on my show, and blogged about my call to Sen. Reid's office here in Vegas.

Last month the Senate voted on the Cornyn Amendment which not only condemned the "Betray Us" ad, but it also condemned any personal attack on the honor and integrity of our troops.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Several Senate Democrats refused to strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of our troops. They were:

1. Akaka (D-HI)
2. Bingaman (D-NM)
3. Boxer (D-CA)
4. Brown (D-OH)
5. Byrd (D-WV)
6. Clinton (D-NY)
7. Dodd (D-CT)
8. Durbin (D-IL)
9. Feingold (D-WI)
10. Harkin (D-IA)
11. Inouye (D-HI)
12. Kennedy (D-MA)
13. Kerry (D-MA)
14. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
15. Levin (D-MI)
16. Menendez (D-NJ)
17. Murray (D-WA)
18. Reed (D-RI)
19. Reid (D-NV)
20. Rockefeller (D-WV)
21. Sanders (I-VT)
22. Schumer (D-NY)
23. Stabenow (D-MI)
24. Whitehouse (D-RI)
25. Wyden (D-OR)

Of the 25 above who refused to condemn personal attacks on our troops (because many of them engage in personal attacks themselves) ... only Bingaman and Feingold refused to sign Harry Reid's letter demanding that Clear Channel repudiate Rush Limbaugh for his words which Harry Reid called attacks on:

"The courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us."

Perhaps Reid should apologize for all the times he insulted the military.

So what exactly is the difference between honor and integrity, and courage and character? Why is it that these Dems are willing to condemn attacks on courage and character, but not honor and integrity? Of course we all know the answer to that ... politics. You'd have to be a fool to not think this is a strategy to build support for the fairness doctrine. For crying out loud, Levin admitted he only read the part of the transcript that Media Matters gave him.

Let's not forget that Media Matters was started by Center for American Progress who was founded by John Podesta, former chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton. You should also know that Hillary had a part in creating both organizations.

Clear Channel told Reid and his minions to go jump in a lake in this letter.

Far more important to the political wrangling going on for the fairness doctrine is the fact that Reid is demanding that Rush apologize to Jesse MacBeth. Whom Rush was specifically talking about on his show at the time. Why would the Democrats support such a character as MacBeth?

He is a proven phony (hence phony soldier), who is now an admitted and convicted phony. He also completely discredited Iraq Veterans Against the War. MacBeth was allowed to speak at IVAW rallies, and was a poster boy for their organization for a time. Yet this group that proclaims to be veterans didn't catch the falsehoods in MacBeth's statements, and image?

How can you trust them to be an honest organization again? The picture below is from their website, and is their featured soldier profile right now. This guy is claiming to be still on active duty?


Notice some things missing?

Harry Reid's political career is coming to an end. You now all know what we in Nevada have known for a long time about this guy. The only reason he was reelected last time was that Nevadans were hoping he could stop Yucca Mountain (which he helped bring here in the first place), but he's done nothing to make that a reality. Reid is nearly done with politics, but we will have to deal with his son, Rory. Don't you guys worry about that ... we'll take care of business on our end this time.

If the Dems are going to constantly act like spoiled children, and get caught lying, there may be hope in 2008. Problem is that too many people do not pay attention to all of this, and will not be prepared to cast their vote for the right candidate. In the meantime, we must keep up the good fight and fight for our troops against this slander so they can continue to make the great progress they've been making overseas.

Kucinich In Syria: The Effort In Iraq Was A Lie, Dishonest, & Crooked

Photo Ripped From Hotair

Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and 2008 presidential candidate went on Syrian television the other day, and assaulted our nation. Here's some highlights of what he said ...

• Americans have an increased understanding today of how wrong the war was and is.
• The United States must end the occupation.
• I've repeatedly challenged the thinking behind the surge.
• Increasing the occupation with a surge is counter-productive.
• We also must pay reparations to the people of Iraq.
• The US must take steps to repair the damage that has been done to the lives of the people of Iraq.
• We need to see that there is honest reconstruction in Iraq, no Halliburton dishonest cheating of the people of Iraq.
• I want my country to be loved by the world.
• It hurts my heart to know how America is seen in places around the world right now.
• The truth is the war was wrong.
• This war was based on lies.
• The effort against Iraq was dishonest, or crooked, from the beginning, and nothing good can come of it.
• We have to understand that the policy was based on a lie.

Trust me, there is more in the nearly 9 minute video.

No doubt, Kucinich would fail the Iraq War Test. I doubt he'd even get one question right.

The money shot came after he got finished calling Bush, the military, Poland's military, Denmark's military, Duelfer, the UN, and every media outlet in the world liars. Kucinich actually quoted the Bible ... IN SYRIA ... ON SYRIAN TELEVISION!

Regardless of what you think of Bush, or the war, it is categorically indefensible to go to an enemy foreign nation, go on their television, and say we are the liars and bad guys. He did this to the face of the enemy during a time of war.

Syria is a sponsor of terrorism that has threatened the US, and is threatening our allies as we speak. The majority of suicide bombers in Iraq come through Syria. We have repeatedly asked Syria to stop its support of terrorism, and to help stop the flow of fighters into Iraq. All to no avail.

Instead, we get terrorist leaders meeting each other in Syria, threats of violence, and more threats of violence. We then continue to ask Syria to stop supporting terrorism with no results.

Even with all of that, and more, Kucinich is perfectly happy to insult this country on the soil of a nation that is a state sponsor of terrorism, and has been directly linked to insurgent activity that gets our troops hurt.

Washington would have executed him, Lincoln and FDR would have imprisoned him for this action. There is a very real argument for treason here under Article III, Section III of the US Constitution.

Kucinich may not have a chance in hell of winning the nomination (especially when he is campaigning in Syria), but he does have a decent shot at a cabinet appointment.

There is absolutely no excuse for any elected leader to go to an enemy nation, and verbally attack the character, and integrity of this nation. No matter how bad Kucinich's heart hurts that not everyone in the world loves us.

Bonus:

I would have thought Kucinich would have tried to hide from his statements in Syria, but he is embracing them. I haven't received a call back from his people yet, but he has put the video on his campaign site. He put it right below the 9/11 remembrance ... nice.

Eco-Terrorists Attempt Assassination Of UCLA Doctor

Greenies gone wild!

Eco-terrorists with the Animal Liberation Brigade planted a bomb on Arthur Rosenbaum's car in an attempt to murder him, and with no regard to his family.

LA Weekly:

Rosenbaum, a highly regarded pediatric ophthalmologist who had been regularly harassed by animal-rights activists for his research work with cats and rhesus monkeys at the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA, noticed a device underneath his luxury sedan. The bomb squad was dispatched to the scene and hauled away a makeshift — but deadly — explosive. A faulty fuse was the only reason it didn’t go off.

Three days later, the so-called Animal Liberation Brigade sent a typo-riddled “communiqué” to the North American Animal Liberation Press Office in Los Angeles. It was posted on the NAALPO Web site:

“130am on the twenty forth of june: 1 gallon of fuel was placed and set a light under the right front corner of Arthur Rosenbaums large white shiney BMW.

“He and his wife ..., living at ... in la, are the target of rebellion for the vile and evil things he does to primates at UCLA. We have seen by our own eyes the torture on fully concious primates in his lab. We have heard their whimpers and screeches of pain. Seeing this drove one of us to rush out and vomit. We have seen hell and its in Rosenbaums lab.

“Rosenbaum, you need to watch your back because next time you are in the operating room or walking to your office you just might be facing injections into your eyes like the primates, you sick twisted fuck.

“Demonstrators need to realize that just demonstrating won’t stop this kind of evil. Look up Arthur Rosenbaum to find out about his experiment from two thousand four threw two thousand seven. ‘animal liberation brigade’”

This isn't the first encounter with the greenies either.

For several years now, Rosenbaum and other faculty members at UCLA Medical Center have been targeted by animal-rights activists outraged by their experiments on primates. The researchers have endured crank phone calls, menacing e-mails and intimidating threats screamed over bullhorns in the middle of the night in front of their homes.

But with the attempted bombing of Rosenbaum, and the attempted Molotov cocktail bombing last year of UCLA researcher Lynn Fairbanks in Bel-Air, activists are no longer content with talking a mean game — they now want blood.

There appears to be dubious links to the Animal Liberation Front and this group, but they do operate as a separate entity.

As you know ... the Terrorism Knowledge Base is the premier source for terrorism information anywhere. Well, their take on the ALB should be enough for you to take this group seriously.

The Revolutionary Cells-Animal Liberation Brigade is an unusually violent animal-rights terrorist movement.

Helluva opening statement isn't it?

Mexico Finally Apologizes to Miss USA For Behaving Like Asshats

Miss USA (Rachel Smith)

Remember when Miss USA was booed by Mexicans during the Miss Universe pageant?

Yeah, they finally got around to apologizing to her nearly three months later.

MSN:

A Mexican tourism official issued an apology for the jeers aimed at Miss USA in May during an international beauty contest in Mexico City.

Rachel Smith, the U.S. entrant into the Miss Universe competition, was booed by some of the audience after she slipped and fell during an evening-gown competition. Her fall and the audience reaction briefly attracted international attention.

Gabriel Szekely, chief of staff for Mexico's tourism department, wrote in a letter that he regretted the "unfortunate events" of the pageant.

"We understand the concern of the people of the United States about the incorrect behavior of a small group that attended the event," Szekely wrote. "We apologize for the inconvenience, and be sure that Miss Rachel Smith will always be welcome in Mexico."

Uh, I hate to break it to this guy but it was NOT a small group that booed Ms. Smith. It was damn near the whole audience, and that isn't counting all of the harassment she endured the whole time she was in Mexico both prior and post competition.

It was a nice try to assign blame to small fringe group of idiots rather than the very large number of Mexicans who behaved like the imbeciles they are though.

So why did Mexico finally apologize after all of this time? Was it that they've been having trouble sleeping at night? Could it have been a large number of good Mexicans writing letters, and making phone calls describing how embarrassed they were at the conduct of the countrymen? Of course not ... it was because two "homeless advocates" complained.

The letter was addressed to Los Angeles homeless activist Ted Hayes. It came after Hayes and a second activist, David Hernandez, complained to Ruben Beltran, the city's consul general of Mexico. It has been forwarded to Smith.

Well leave it to a couple of homeless advocates to get the job done. It is sad that it took the efforts of these two to get the Mexican government to behave better than their citizens, but I'm grateful for their effort.

In closing ... while a representative of Mexico's government said Ms. Smith is welcome in Mexico anytime ... the Mexican people made it clear that she is not. I would never set foot in that country again if I were her.

Hispanic Group Targets Talk Radio

Yep, here we go again with the whole "if you don't like illegals then you are a racist" argument. Only this time hispanics are targeting talk radio as the purveyors of hate.

Washington Times:

The nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group says it must come up with a strategy to combat "a wave of hate" its leaders say came from talk radio's efforts to sink the Senate's immigration bill.

"That had an extraordinary impact in the Senate, and as a nation, I don't think we should be comfortable with the fact that the United States Senate responded to what was largely a wave of hate," Cecilia Munoz, the National Council of La Raza's senior vice president for research, advocacy and legislation.

For those of you new to the debate ... La Raza is a hate group themselves. They hate white people, black people, and asian people. Some chapters have even taken issue with non-Mexican hispanics.

Anytime you have a hate group playing the victim card it's hilarious.

"I think we have to shine a light on it," Ms. Munoz said. "At the end of the day, we believe people need to take sides, that you can't stand on the sidelines, especially if part of what is motivating the actions of the United States Congress is not really about the public-policy debate, but is about their discomfort with Latinos."

Ms. Munoz is retarded.

She speaks about everyone needing to take sides, but if you take a side that contradicts her own ... you are a racist. Instead of allowing Americans to take sides on the issue, and debate policy ... Ms. Munoz will simply proclaim anyone who disagrees with her as hating latinos.

This latest outburst was in regards to the Senate immigration bill that the vast majority of the nation opposed. The Senate was right to uphold the will of the people, and talk radio had little to do with it. Americans weren't upset about latinos ... they were upset at the policy of the bill.

Americans didn't like giving amnesty to those who've broken the law, they didn't like that most illegals were not going to pay the fine, they didn't like the increase in well-trained professionals from other countries coming to do the jobs that Americans most definitely want to do, and they didn't like the fact that this has been done before with absolutely no success.

Americans did like some of the provisions in the bill that dealt with security, but the bill also reduced the size of the fence that is supposed to be under construction right now. That same fence would have been reduced by 400 miles under the Senate's bill. Citizens were upset about all of these things and more, and all of that had to do with the policy debate that Ms. Munoz says Americans are neglecting because of their discomfort with latinos.

Nice try Ms. Munoz, but this debate is all about policy. It has nothing to do with race, and if you'd been monitoring the outrage that Americans have over requiring Chinese on election ballots, you'd know that.

BONUS:

Obama also called those opposed to the immigration bill racist, and vowed to make amnesty happen.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Wishes She Could Kill George Bush

Even her spin that she didn't really mean it showed that she, well, really meant it.

Dallas News (w/audio):

Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams came from Ireland to Texas to declare that President Bush should be impeached.

In a keynote speech at the International Women's Peace Conference on Wednesday night, Ms. Williams told a crowd of about 1,000 that the Bush administration has been treacherous and wrong and acted unconstitutionally.

"Right now, I could kill George Bush," she said at the Adam's Mark Hotel and Conference Center in Dallas. "No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that."

She then went on to talk about how the Muslims will never forgive us if we don't punish Bush. As if they forgave us before Bush was in office while they were planning, and executing attacks on our people.

I guess to win a peace prize these days you must advocate violence on people who have reacted to violence ... not the instigator.