California's Republican-in-name-only Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made fighting global warming a cornerstone of his administration over the last few years.  But did you know that the guy takes a private jet to work?  Every day?  But it's ok... he buys carbon credits!

Tim Couch, a Republican state lawmaker in Kentucky, is proposing a bill that would make it illegal to anonymously post comments on websites.  He says that this will help alleviate cyber bullying.  Is it just me, or is anyone else embarrassed that this guy is a Republican?

The irony here is that anyone posting would be forced to include his or her real name, real address, and real email.  Gosh, why not a Social Security Number, bank accounts, most recent picture, and a list of greatest fears, too?  The only way that this could possibly cut down on cyber bullies is that they'll skip the online berating in favor of just showing up at your front door... Brilliant!

He should probably read the First Amendment sometime, too:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does this seem strange to anyone else?  April 30, 2007, Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, appeared in a New York Times article that included the following caption:

Sarah Hussein Obama of Kenya, Barack Obama's stepgrandmother (sic), is a lifelong Muslim.  "I'm a strong believer of the Islamic faith," she says.

However, the USA Today ran a story about her on Wednesday with this line:

"In the world of today, children have different religions from their parents," [Sarah Hussein Obama] said. She, too, is a Christian.

With big wins in the Ohio and Rhode Island primaries last night, along with a narrow victory in Texas' quirky primary, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has managed to keep her bid to be the Democrat's presidential nominee alive and also raised serious doubts about the ability of inexperienced rival Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) to put away an opponent.  He's kind of like a football team that can drive the ball down the field, but has to settle for a field goal rather than a touchdown.

He still has a formidable lead in delegates, but the momentum seems to be shifting back in the direction of the former First Lady.  The battle now moves to Pennsylvania, which is the last delegate-rich state that is yet to vote.

Remember when CNN informed us that black women voting in the Democrats' primaries face "a unique, and most unexpected dilemma... Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?  No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice."

My question for CNN is, now that John Edwards is out of the race, what are white men to do?  "Should they vote their race (Hillary Clinton) or should they vote their gender (Barack Obama)?"  I doubt they'll take the time to write an opinion piece about that though.

That's the claim that is being made by Lawrence Gostin, a law professor (that's like a music professor sounding the alarm about "global warming," but I digress).  He truly believes that obesity is a greater danger to our world than terrorism because the diseases that result account for "60 percent of the world's deaths."  What a joke...

People should eat less and exercise more.  It's common sense.  But, if I'm fat and get heart disease or diabetes, it's my problem.  I could've and should've taken better care of my body.  I don't need a bloated government bureaucracy telling me how to live my life and I certainly don't want that government getting even bigger, and taking more of my money in taxes so that they can tell other people how to live theirs.

There are consequences to the decisions we make... yes, perhaps even dying a few years younger than we might have otherwise.  That doesn't make it a greater threat than terrorism.  It is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens from a suicide bomber.

Continuing to use the comparison used by liberal Berkeley Councilwoman Dona Spring (who said she would give special protesting privileges to anti-war groups that she would never confer on pro-life groups), can you imagine if protesters did this at an abortion clinic?

At the peak of the second "Funk the War" dance party/protest, the entire [Students for a Democratic Society] group swarmed the military recruiter at 14th st, with about half the group getting inside and the rest securing the entry and plastering windows with stickers...

After a loud commotion inside while outnumbered cops watched, recruiters finally managed to get protesters to leave-but not before literature and full-body length cardboard displays in the street window area were destroyed. In addition, hundreds more "Funk the War" stickers were plastered all over just about everything that would take them. By the time everyone was out it looked like a tornado had swept through the lobby. 

(Here's a 3-minute audio link of a protester describing the scene: dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/audio/4/sds_storms_recruiter_f15.mp3).

Again I ask, what would happen if abortion opponents stormed a clinic, destroyed literature, and posted hundreds of "abortion stops a beating heart" stickers on all of the walls and furniture (Disclaimer: I am NOT advocating that behavior).  Such an event would be reported by every news outlet in America and protesters would go to prison.

This is why Republicans should focus on winning over the base rather than the media.  Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) is the closest thing to a media darling that Republicans have had in my lifetime, mostly due to his unrelenting willingness to throw fellow Republicans publicly under the bus.  However, now that he's the only man between a Democrat and the White House, the courtship is over.  John McCain is getting dumped.

Only one month removed from endorsing him for the Republican presidential nomination, saying, "he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle," the New York Times is running a hit piece about McCain on their front pages, subtly accusing him of corruption and affairs (though they do not offer definitive proof of either).  The newest of their information is nearly a decade old and they even rehashed some stories that have been public for fifteen years or more.

Despite a career of pandering to these types, they've wasted no time in throwing McCain under the Straight Talk Express.  Maybe if he'd spent some time working with Conservatives rather than attacking us, we'd care a little about the smear.  Instead, it just seems like he's getting a taste of his own medicine.

Just so you know what we're dealing with here, I thought I might share a reader's comment with me about Baghdad's per capita murder rate being less than Detroit, Michigan.  "mdking" writes:

JLG, you are manipulating facts to suit your ideology! Just muster the humility for one brief moment to think that you might be wrong. You say, “That’s a murder rate that is comparable to some major American cities.”

That’s a murder rate comparable to NO American city. 5 dead a day times one year equals 1825.

New York had less than 500 murders in 2007. The LAPD reported 379 people had been killed in Los Angeles as of December 15, 2007.

You are either making your numbers up or quoting Fox News (which has said what you say). In either scenario, your powers of reason have no place in responsible debate.

"mdking" is obviously having trouble with the "PER CAPITA" part, so let's stick with the Detroit example.  Per capita refers to the number of murders per person living in a city.  Baghdad has a population of about 7,000,000 people.  Detroit has 900,000.  So of course, Detroit has lower absolute crime rates.  That’s like saying there is less crime in Boise, Idaho than in New York City.  Thank you Captain Obvious!

The question is “PER CAPITA,” or how many murders are there PER PERSON in the city?  That’s not "manipulating facts," as "mdking" charges.  It’s just how adults compare crime in cities that are vastly different in size.

At five per day, Bagdad would have (as "mdking" correctly calculated) 1,825 murders in a year.  PER CAPITA, that's one murder for every 3,835 citizens.

Now Detroit (again only about 1/7 the population of Baghdad) had 354 murders in 2006.  PER CAPITA, that’s one murder for only every 2,542 citizens or about out 1/3 higher than that of Baghdad.

"mdking" accused me of making up numbers and told me, "your powers of reason have no place in responsible debate."  Again, Liberals love to proclaim victory and try to silence their opponents before they've made a coherent argument.  It helps mask the fact that they have no clue what they're talking about.

But I’m not making anything up.  The new York Times quoted five murders per day in Baghdad (and Reuters now is reporting only four per day) and city populations and crime rates are public record.  Maybe "mdking" could try a little research before accusing me “making up [my] numbers.”  Ever use a Google search?

Again... not enough integrity to admit that our troops are doing great work on behalf of this country and not enough intellect to even explain their argument (other than quoting MoveOn.org).

"Dan (Fitness)" just won't give it up!  He responded to the New York Times article by completely ignoring the descriptions of Baghdad residents going about normal life, and instead focusing exclusively on the five murders per day, and asking "in what twisted world is that livable?" 

Well, the "twisted world" of the United States, actually.  Per capita, that's a murder rate that is only slightly higher than Los Angeles, California and is less than Detroit, Michigan.  Will he argue that those cities are "not livable" then?  I doubt it.

Yes, I believe the Surge was intended to clean up our mess.  Iraq was not livable for a couple of years there.  But our troops have done admirable work during the Surge, and thus, we don't need more surges "ad nauseum."  It's just a shame that "Dan" is just another Liberal who does not have enough integrity to give credit to our troops for their tremendous sacrifice.

I've responded to "Dan's" every accusation with documented fact and he can only come back with some emotional appeal.  Still the only supporting "evidence" he has offered is a MoveOn.org-funded study that was debunked approximately five minutes after it was released.  I won't continue to bore our readers with that sort of "debate." 

Here another, more recent refutation of the claim by "Dan (fitness)" that "Iraq is not livable again," and his accusation that I'm merely viewing the world through the "conservative black and white lens."  This article comes from the Associated Press as reported on the Seattle Times Website:

BAGHDAD — A year ago in Baghdad: Shiite militiamen and Sunni insurgents owned entire neighborhoods and key areas beyond. Iraq's government was adrift, and U.S. commanders weighed the real possibility of being trapped in a full-scale civil war.

In response, on Feb. 14, 2007, with the 82nd Airborne as the vanguard, Washington launched an American troop buildup that would climb to 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers by the summer.

A year later — through a mix of military might, new allies and some fortunate timing — Iraq looks very different.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is still struggling to get firm footing but has recently tried to push through some of the U.S.-demanded political reforms for reconciliation.

The U.S.-led forces have successfully tamped down violence, and the Pentagon has forged critical pacts with Sunni fighters against al-Qaida in Iraq, which is trying to regroup in northern parts of the country.

After a sharp initial spike in military and civilian casualties, the numbers make a strong case that the surge generally accomplished its main goal.

I told you yesterday about an interesting exchange that has been taking place between myself and another blogger.  He has not yet responded to my post but I thought I would address a couple other parts of his argument about Iraq.  He said, "the country is not livable again," and then accused me of viewing the world through the "conservative black and white lens."

Well, here's an article from the New York Times, regarding the actual situation in Iraq:

The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.

As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.

Iraqis are clearly surprised and relieved to see commerce and movement finally increase, five months after an extra 30,000 American troops arrived in the country...

After I wrote my post on Monday critical of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) for calling the Iraq surge "a failure," an interesting exchange ensued on another blog.  The author accused me of not reading the article that I linked to, of trying to lower the bar for the surge, and then made this sensationalist claim in the comments section:

"Be clear on this, criticizing Iraq is not criticizing success. It is criticizing a stunning failure that has left a million dead, and millions more living in a hellhole of war and instability."

"A million dead?"  I asked where he got his stats and he predictably quoted the Lancet Study, as reported by the Huffington Post (I know... sounds so objective, doesn't it?).  He then triumphantly proclaimed:

"My facts are rock solid. Further, those answers I do have are not driven by idealogical (sic) blindness and an inability to acknowledge reality."

Thus, I thought "Dan (Fitness)" could use a little splash of reality.  The Lancet Report was funded by George Soros and MoveOn.org.  So much for "not driven by ideological blindness and an inability to acknowledge reality."  Unless, of course, he considers George Soros to be objective, in which case it would be impossible to have an honest conversation.  After all, this is the man who purchased an ad in the New York Times accusing our commander in Iraq of treason.

More importantly, the Lancet Report has already been credibly debunked.  So much for his "facts" being "rock solid."  That's just an argument Liberals like to make when they have no idea what they're talking about (see Global Warming "Consensus").

So who's blinded by ideology?  You be the judge... but before you do, please note the extensive documentation on this page and the complete lack thereof on his (unless you count MoveOn.org and the Huffington Post as extensive documentation).


For this and other commentaries, please go to www.BoldColorConservative.com

It's really sad when Europe has to interpret Christian holidays through a Muslim lense:

Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the "Christian Ramadan" in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.

The fruits of political correctness and unrestrained immigration...


For this and other commentaries, please go to www.BoldColorConservative.com

When the Berkeley City Council was "debating" whether or not to give special privileges to anti-war group Code Pink and waive their fees for certain permits to protest in front of a Marine recruiting center, Councilman Capitelli (who still voted for the measure) warned (1:28:09 of video):

"I hope one of us will remember to be charitable and flexible when a not-so-popular cause comes before us to ask for a waiver of fees.  I think we are setting a precedent here..."

To this, Councilwoman Spring later responded (1:33:02 of video):

"This is different than abortion because we're not saying anybody can't go in there, we're just trying to give them the other side of the story, so to speak."

Does this video look like they're "not saying anybody can't go in there" to you?

And to use Councilwoman Spring's comaprison... Can you imagine if this sort of behavior actually happened at an abortion clinic?  People would go to prison and the media would be full of commentary about "religious zealots" trying to block "a woman's right to choose." 

What a bunch of hypocrites...


For this and other commentaries, please go to www.BoldColorConservative.com