http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/governor-palins-reading-l_b_126478.html

Is this not the exact sort of thing which we are told not to do to Obama? If he starts his political career in the home of an unrepentant domestic terrorist, it's McCarthyism. If Palin quotes someone, we're not supposed to vote for McCain. Oh! Okay. Look at the pages of comments on there from the people who hold what I just wrote to be true.

They're scared stiff.

We are sentient creatures, albeit stubborn ones at times. But in light of such overwhelming evidence from Al Gore and the entire climate change community, we must be willing to change our minds and act quickly to stop global warming. Make no mistake, though: we still maintain our small-government conservative positions. It was simply Gore's recent "ten-year plan" speech that brought upon our sudden realization that this problem truly is monumental. Indeed, we have mulled this over for quite awhile as made clear by the market-based approach to global warming A.J. was discussing recently.

As drastic measures need to be taken when confronting life-threatening problems from other countries, so drastic decisions must be made to avert a catastrophe of our own creation. While our wariness of government solutions remains, it becomes harder everyday to to see an alternative when much of the population is likely still as stubborn as we were. What follows is a list of actions that we feel society must immediately implement in order to combat this grave danger:

1) Land is, and ought to be, the communal property of any nation. Therefore the government, representing the people, must decide how it is used. It cannot simply be marted out to the highest bidder. This will ensure the land is used in a carbon-neutral manner.

2) As you know, we conservatives often argue against the progressive tax because it discourages economic progress and innovation. However, for that very purpose it may be useful to maintain and increase it for a short time in order to put a reign around large, pollutive industries that would then have to reduce their operations.

3) California's law regulating what kind of light bulbs we can have in our homes is a wonderful step in the right direction. Thankfully, Congress appears to be following suit; they have considered a bill that would regulate how much we can use our heaters. These household conveniences are proven sources of tremendous amounts of energy waste, and their control is a much-needed victory in this battle.

4) We must frequently engage in forums and planning sessions in order to spread the word about global warming, and we must convince more conservatives to help us in order to gain a foothold in what will certainly be a stubborn demographic.

5) The President should add the new cabinet position of Secretary of Climate Change to head up the "Department of Climate Change" which will be created to specifically address the problem of climate change. It should cooperate with the Department of State in order to facilitate international solutions to the climate problem.

6) While we agree with conservative radio hosts 90% of the time, this is a case in which we feel that the public needs to be exposed to dissonant opinions. Therefore, we feel that the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine to give equal airtime to those who espouse the dangers of climate change is the necessary remedy. Further, we need a gasoline limit on our citizens like they have in Britain. When they go over their limit, they must pay an additional fee.

7) We must more aggressively apply the carbon tax on polluting factories. This is the only way to motivate them to stop with their harmful antics.

8) As a society, we have become aware of the fact that animals release methane and impact the environment--especially when you consider the UN study stating that methane exacerbates the greenhouse effect with quadruple the potency of CO2. We propose developing an incentive program for vegetarians and vegans in order to reduce the size and profitability of the meat market. This will encourage livestock farmers to grow plants instead, which is a further blessing since those will reduce the overall CO2 levels even more.

9) We need to abolish the difference between suburbia and the inner city for the purposes of lessening transportation needs. The less people have to move around, the better it will be for our environment.

10) Most importantly, we must educate children in our schools about the dangers of climate change. The more they know, the more they can help contribute to our efforts.

A few things you can do personally to help:

a) Minimize the time you spend in heavy activity (e.g. exercising). This heavily increases the rate of respiration and releases much more CO2 into the atmosphere. There was no global warming in the earlier ages of human existence, and they moved about quite a bit less than we do.

b) Refrain from drinking soda or beverages that come packaged in such cans. The CO2 contained inside of such things is simply one more source of damaging greenhouse gases.

These changes are a grudging decision we must make, and hopefully our nation soon becomes accustomed to its new habits and we can release the restrictions. We must be willing to step outside our political boundaries if we are to find a solution. Join us in our goal.

I forgot to mention that Alterman's book exemplifies a repugnant little trend this election season with its subtitle "The Political Handbook for a Post-Bush America." Talk about a loud noise machine. Coulter's remarks about Bush Derangement Syndrome are spot-on. As though Bush fundamentally changed the life of the average American. I'm sick of people using this man for their political aspirations as though he is some sort of template for a conservative. We know he is not, but he is, in my opinion, a great person who has done his best to defend this nation. He is the straw-man for the Left, especially during this election season, to trivialize all opponents and their positions on the Right. It's contemptible.

Tangent: This Keith Olbermann controversy is very interesting. I was looking at some videos of Levin and Prager and Ingraham blasting the man for his latest comments when I decided as I often foolishly do to look at the commentary on the videos. What the hell is up with the vile, despicable trolls on YouTube? I honestly want an answer. Where do these people keep coming from? Everything is about the neocons and the Zionist Jews. I'm so damn tired of these little freaks, these incoherent morons who sit around spouting off identical talking points that are dismissive and make no sense.

"This guy is another Neocon buffoon, what an asshat."

"Go f*** yourself levin renounce your Isreali ciitizenship you zionist f***ing d*****bag."

This has nothing to do with the argument against Olbermann; this is pure, unadulterated, unsolicited racism and hatred. It honestly frightens me that these people exist. Yet I think it speaks to their character that they spend their time in hiding to post their deep-seated venom onto a YouTube video instead of confronting people to their faces. Olbermann may be the "scum of the Earth," but so are these jerks.

There is a very big bully on the net who writes for Media Matters. They call him Eric Alterman. It's time someone took him on.

To start, he is a horrible professor at Brooklyn College. I'm not saying that to be mean; it's the truth. If you swing over here you will see exactly what I mean. Here's a sample:

"This professor was the worst I have ever encountered in my academic life. He should move to China, North Korea or Cuba where is [sic] brand of facist [sic] socialism is thriving. He is not fit to breath [sic] the same air as free people." (He apparently really is a bad English professor; observe the amount of "sic's" in there!)

"Check out his appearances in the PBS documentary on Nader -- a stunning display of crooked and dishonest piggery."

"The guy is a joke. His arch-liberal tenancies and massive ego are a detriment to the entire school. Last week he said in class that this country had lost the war in Iraq. Nice thing to say in front of a class that doesn't know where it stands politically and believe [sic] whatever the professor says. Why he has a job as an educator is beyond me."

Wow! And those are just from the first page. It's tremendously interesting reading.

But let's delve deeper. The guy's written a few books, and I'm sure they deserve to be evaluated on substance. Let's look at one.

Huh. Wait a minute. In the About the Book section we learn that "[t]he fact that conservatives howl so much louder and more effectively than liberals is one significant reason that big media is always on its guard for 'liberal' bias but gives conservative bias a free pass." Oh! I think I get it. That's why the critical praise for the book comes from the "big media" newspapers those idiot conservatives "howl" about for their liberal leanings. It's almost like those who are liberal would jump at the chance to fall in line with Alterman's conclusion. No! Say it isn't so! It is:

"'What Liberal Media' is bold, counterintuitive and cathartic." --The New York Times Book Review

"A polemic is nothing without passion , and Alterman's argumentative vigor is engaging [and]... the meticulous care with which his arguments are sourced and footnoted is in commendable contrast to the efforts of some of his more fire-breathing opponents." --The New Yorker

“A well-documented, even-tempered and witty answer, I might say antidote, to such toxic recent bestsellers as Bernard Goldberg's 'Bias.'" --The Los Angeles Times

I apologize for the quote-heavy entry, but these are all from the front page of his website. Bernard Goldberg is "toxic," by the way. Damn conservative media.

But there's more. How about this little gem?

There is a lot to address about this one, including the fact that you should, in fact, judge a book by its cover. This cover is full of drawings of "liberals" that look like they were done by a five year-old.

Liberals do indeed enjoy the revision of history; I suspect that's why so many of them want to teach it. Just because liberals fancy themselves the party of African Americans doesn't mean that Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican President, was a liberal. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s message was anything but Leftist. A colorblind society. When was the last time you heard a Democrat or that conservative media not being obsessed with race? Some of the founders are on the cover, too. The people conservatives idealize most by stringently following their message were apparently liberals. I understand the argument, but again, just because you stray from the mainstream doesn't mean you are a liberal. If the liberals were in control and we conservatives strayed from their message, that doesn't mean we would be the new liberals. It just means we would be smart. Oh, Jesus is tucked away on the side of the cover, too. I just thought you should know.

In the end I can only conclude that these people are bipolar. This is why they could excoriate the Right as racists and point out that the founders had slaves as an ad hominem argument against their conservative message, and then proudly display pictures of them as liberals on the covers of their books. It's why FDR would be the most prominent person on the cover when he ordered the internment of Japanese Americans (just to remind those who are obsessed with race). It's also why they are insane.

There is a series on YouTube where we have a very entertaining, very intelligent lecture from a woman wearing a tin foil hat. Quite literally. I have watched several of her videos, all of which are laden with judicious commentary lauding her for her courage to say what she has to say (it takes courage to speak knowing there will be no consequences) and are extremely critical of our heinous economic system. Yuck.

It all started when I wanted to listen to that awesome guitar riff from "Bulls on Parade" by hypocritical extremists Rage Against the Machine (they equate Bush and Gore in their video for "Testify," yet they played the last Democratic Convention for a man who is really no different from the latter). The amount of venom dripping from the comments there (one person smiled as he discussed the "fall" of our "empire"; another said he hoped our country collapsed soon and would be happy to urinate [my word] on the flag) was astonishing. The detestable ignorance I found pervading this eventually led me to that 9/11 Truth community, one whose members range on the scale from violently deranged to utterly psychotic. This woman wearing her hat as some sort of joke speaks out against the evils of corporations. I believe deep down she thinks they take advantage of common people because we are stupid; she certainly speaks to us like we are in her videos. She has it figured out, though. That's why she posts on a website which is owned by one of the most wealthy corporations on the planet and interjects advertising for other corporations in their videos. Way to fight the power. I guess expediency is more important than keeping your conduct in line with your own message. Maybe she just wants attention... Nah.

New World Order. Illuminati. Bohemian Grove. Give me a break. They create the connotative context for these words themselves and then throw them around in what is quite clearly their own form of propaganda (which they hate, right?). Again, expediency outweighs integrity.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this is the fact that these people all believe they are very intelligent. They truly think they have figured out some sort of objective truth which the rest of us are incapable or unwilling to recognize. Yet it is they themselves who most often demonstrate a lack of critical thinking and a willingness to become "sheeple." They speak out against the fascist policies of the Bush Administration (odd how that now has a negative connotation, huh?). They claim free speech is dead. They call for investigations with vigor. A large contingent even compares Bush to Hitler. Their talking points are shared by every member of their community. And, much like their less extreme partners on the Left, they fail to ask themselves some very simple questions: "What loss of our civil liberties has the election of George W. Bush entailed? How can I still say these things and remain free? Do I really need to be railing on about a President most of the American people disapprove of?"

I think the answers prove who needs to investigate.

I have said it many times before: no one legislates morality like a liberal.

Why has this been called into question so often by the same leftists whose motto used to be (and truly--silently--still is) "the personal is political"? These are the same people who want to take tax money from people and apply it to ways they perceive to be moral or, as my friend Zach oddly put it, efficacious; in doing so, they inflict their moral visions on all parties involved much more blatantly and consistently than any conservative policy ever could or would.

I will take this a step further: a conservative in the United States should truly be close to a libertarian in many respects. Libertarians have almost nothing to do with the legislation of morality. Do I say this since I align with the libertarian philosophy in many ways? Yes, because I believe this also aligns me with conservatism. We conservatives believe in a strict following and interpretation of the Constitution. We do not ideologically, as so many accuse Bush, try to skirt the document. The document is clearly founded on the libertarian positions of mistrust of government and supreme sovereignty from the people. Liberals and their plans for large, centralized government are the ones who must ignore, skirt, spit upon, and otherwise hate the Constitution.

If people on the Right happen to be religious, so be it. It reinforces the idea of natural rights from our Creator quite well. When we are all equal, we are all free. This does not entail any morality not already guaranteed us by our Founders, whatever you perceive them to be (God, Jefferson, etc.).

Ask yourself, after all, why we rarely, if ever, hear the term "small-government conservative" anymore. Which of us, by definition, is not?

Here's a quick thought that passes through my mind every now and then (and one certainly of suspect logical basis):

Don't we often hear that education correlates with liberalism?
Don't we also often hear of journalistic education and intellectual integrity as the standards by which they operate?
To extrapolate the former to the latter leads to an interesting conclusion. The statistics about education and liberalism should at least apply to those well-educated journalists.

Oh, the Left...

They (the cynics) tell us that politicians are liars, that they only serve their own agenda and rarely feel the need to carry out ours unless it makes them look good for the election. There's probably quite a bit of merit to this accusation. It comes from the Left and from the Right. Why, then, should we avoid becoming apathetic to the system? What makes Conservatism more valuable than opposing views?

It seems to me the chief reason is that there is a respect for liberty on the Right in this country. Oft-cited Darth Bush tactics against freedom are, at best, straw man arguments against conservatives. Right-wing sellout apologists (a.k.a. Ron Paul supporters on YouTube) buy into this nonsense so they can still remain "Republicans" while not feeling bad for, say, defending the country's national interests.

But I can't say I blame them. The Media in this country are dastardly with their bastardization of anyone who expresses a true conservative idea. Despite what I hear from Noam Chomsky, the Media are still Left-leaning in this country.

And this is the chief problem with the Left. Our philosophy offers them the ability to retain their beliefs. If their concern for the poor truly is high, they can donate their own money to support them (as many conservatives also do). Their philosophy stifles our values. If someone doesn't believe that he should have to pay for someone else's health care, it doesn't matter to the Left; he must be brought on board with the grand plan. We reject this, and they throw it at us with greater vehemence since they are so sure they are correct to believe that the government is the best solution.

Ideologically, I don't see how anyone who understands the principles upon which the Framers crafted this country can support such large governmental policies without rejecting them. Mark Levin once asked a "lib" caller which founding father would have supported his views of large, centralized government. The caller actually had the correct answer: none.

"Logic" is a part of our ideological view, though. Liberals have more important things on which to focus mental energy: Why think with our brains when we have hearts?

Organizations like Media Matters for America often cause me to evaluate my worldview. If the people on that website can so wholeheartedly believe that Chris Matthews and his ilk are Republicans (I can't make this stuff up), if they can so easily disregard evidence to the contrary all the while accusing me of doing the same, I could have been wrong this whole time. Maybe literary criticism has some merit; after all, what could be more powerful than going into a situation (or book) and expecting to derive a certain theme from it?

They all choose to ignore seemingly glaring evidence of Left-leaning bias in today's television and newspaper media. One such example I like to cite often is the hatred for Bush and the Iraqi conflict. I was reminded today of punk band Anti-Flag's lyrics in the song "The Press Corpse":

"The press scribble scribble every half-truth spoke/
Then shoot it round the country like an April Fools joke/
Hype the nation for a Desert Storm love affair/
Wave the stars and stripes like you just don't care!"

Even when thinking back to when I was a purely objective child observer, I cannot recall any positive news coverage of the Iraqi conflict. No one ever cites it (not even Media Matters for America because it's so busy showing us how Rush Limbaugh condemns large branches of the military who hold an ideology and that CNN gives Democrats harder questions in their YouTube debates), especially when complaining of said positive coverage.

But I believe this is evidence of something much more ignorant, much more nefarious, and much, much more ostentatious. How did the 72% of people who supposedly disapprove of Bush suddenly come to realize that he was such an evil man? All of those people (we'll call it 216,000,000) did independent research as to the handling of the war? They all broke free from the herd and sneered with disdain at the Media's reporting of the positive nature of the war and the Administration? Maybe it was those clever bumper stickers I always see telling me that I shouldn't support a war for oil. Or perhaps it was that silver bullet argument from the Left that anyone who supports the war but doesn't fight in it is a chicken hawk. Strong logic there, and a very persuasive bit of rhetoric.

I'm not entirely sure how, but the sheep really stuck it to the Matthews, the Schieffers, the Olbermanns, and the like. Nevermind when one of the aforementioned demands the President resign because he is a "liar"; nevermind when Jack Cafferty implies that Bush put out the bin Laden video tape and smears him (not Osama, you dummy!) with great vigor.

I think there may be some credence to Mark Levin's claim that there are Marxists among us today. Why the obsession with the counter-culture rebelling against the evil big guy? Why do we want to destroy one big guy to implement a bigger one? It's never big enough, though. Even seemingly radical journalists (ones who should seem radical to anyone socialized in the United States) aren't doing their jobs well enough for our Leftists.

Neither are their seeing eye dogs.

Dennis Kucinich is all about impeachment. This odd strategy he has could only appeal to those on the far-left fringe in this country. He is to be lauded for the fact that he is, at least, unafraid to show his true colors, unlike his constituents.

Let's see what Kucinich's campaign has to say about his stoic and altruistic career, directly from his website:

"In 2002 the second great challenge of his elected career occurred.  After analyzing the 'evidence' presented by the Administration in its rush to folly in Iraq and actually reading the National Intelligence Estimate, he stepped forward to help lead 125 Democrats in voting against the blank check for the President to wage an illegal, immoral and ineffective war."

But if Cheney deserves impeachment, doesn't the rest of Congress who voted for us to go to war deserve it as well? Are they not just as responsible for these heinous war crimes? After all, as liberals who hate the President often enjoy forgetting, Congress did authorize his going to war.

It appears the rest of the House didn't do its job. None of them reviewed the "evidence" that was so clearly false. They were so easily hoodwinked by the dapperly call to arms that the "neo-cons" issued. None of them did their jobs. Why do they all get a pass?

Kucinich continues to use his position as a radical to placate the extremists in this country. His introducing articles of impeachment into the House is a purely political move. He knows that they will go no where; he knows that he will go no where. But in his blatant (to objective observers) attempts to appear a hero, it seems obvious that he is using the highest levels of our government to further service his own agenda of election--not of this presidential contest, mind you.

I see a senatorial position in his future, though. And as someone who turns our Congress into a spectacle of partisan hatred, he likely has a great future there.

This is my new blog. I made sure to make it a green color because, as everyone on television has been sure to remind me of late, going green is extremely important. I'm doing my part to help.