Right Wing Lunatic

With the upcoming elections, I thought I would give you guys a rundown on what can go wrong for a candidate. I'll use John Kerry's unsuccessful presidential bid in 2004 as an example. While he did have momentum going for him, he lost because of several reason.

He wasn't a good choice, even for Democrats. There were many Democrats who just wanted someone, ANYONE other then George W. Bush in office. They settled on John Kerry. They were willing to take a gamble on a Massachusetts senator with a military background to help lead them into the White House. While this sounds good on paper, it doesn't work in the real world.

He "flip flopped" on too many issues. Everyone remembers the quote "I actually voted for the bill funding our troops in Iraq before I voted against it." It was only 3 years after 9/11 and America needed a strong leader who would stand up and deliver when it came to security issues. Comments like that gave the impression that, given any amount of pressure, John Kerry would buckle and let America take one to the chin.

The Swift Boat people. Many of John Kerry's former military buddies were actively campaigning against him. Why? Well there was talk that he was a traitor for his activities after the war. He accused his fellow buddies of war crimes without proof. When you go through war with a person, you will generally have a friendship that lasts a lifetime. You save their life, they save yours. When they campaign against you, that says something significant. There were rumors of John shooting an unarmed fleeing Vietnamese teenager in the back. John Kerry took too much time in denying these claims, making everyone believe that there was a bit of truth to them.

John Kerry's wife. Theresa Heinz just didn't know when to shut the fuck up. Her comments about Laura Bush "never having a real job" while Mrs. Bush had indeed been a librarian, made Theresa and John look like pompous rich assholes who looked down their noses to other people. Mrs. Heinz also had the fact that she married into her fortune count against her as an additional mark that gave the impression that her and John Kerry look down their noses at people.

I'm Not George W. Bush Syndrome. This seemed to be the greatest argument for John Kerry's campaign. I'm not George W. Bush. Well no shit, I'm not George W. Bush either, but that doesn't make me qualified to run the most powerful country on earth. Many people saw through this bullshit and thought the same things I did.

Monday Morning Quarterbacking. John Kerry openly criticized George W. Bush's reaction on September 11th. This was still an open wound for people and John Kerry used the words "If I were president, I would have...." Note to John, NO ONE likes a Monday Morning Quarterback. Unless you've been in the hot seat before, shut the fuck up. We've all been in situations where we thought we should have reacted or said something different. However, if someone else suggests something, we might be open to listen. However, if you criticize about the way we react and have never been in that situation before, you'll turn a lot of people off.

Lack Of A Plan. John Kerry spoke of many things that George W. Bush did wrong. The Economy, Iraq, 9/11, and spoke of if he were president, he'd do things differently. However, John Kerry never spoke of specifics. George W. Bush isn't perfect. No president in history has ever been. However, I'm more then willing to listen to you if you do have new ideas to bring to the table, regardless of if you're a Democrat or Republican. John Kerry wouldn't go into specifics. He would just say "vote for me and I'll fix everything with all my ideas" and never gave them. Personally, I think he didn't want to give up his ideas, if he had any, to George W. Bush and have Bush take credit for them. Either way, you need to come in fresh and ready to hit the ground running when you're campaigning for the presidency.

Loud Mouths. John Kerry isn't responsible for this one, but there were many people in this country who would shout out all sorts of bullshit on how Bush was Hitler and other such nonsense. It would turn people off. Michael Moore, Janeane Garofalo, Alec Baldwin, and others would yell at the top of their lungs about all sorts of things wrong with Bush, but wouldn't necessarily say what's right about John Kerry. Many of these celebrities would state that if George W. Bush would win the election, they would move out of the country. To date, NONE of them have. What does that tell you? It tells you that they are full of shit and enjoy all the wonderful things America has to offer.

September 11th. Democrats are typically weak on terrorism and they got a reminder shortly before the election. Osama Bin Laden released a video shortly before the election and American got a nice fresh reminder of the threats we face. We all knew what we were getting with George W. Bush, a tough, rough around the edges politician who wouldn't mind going it alone when it came to the security and safety of America. With John Kerry, there were too many "unknowns" John Kerry talked about going through the UN, which is viewed almost universally in the USA as a weak and useless body that never sticks to its guns even if resolutions have been voted and agreed upon. The current situation in North Korea and Iran prove this. John Kerry talked about negotiations and agreements with allied nations. This resonated too much like giving into terrorists and we weren't having it.

John Kerry's Charisma. The sad fact is that this guy has none. Bill Clinton, who's policies and actions have cost this nation dearly, is admittedly very charismatic. John Kerry isn't personable. He isn't the kind of guy you'd want to hang around and have a beer or a glass of wine with. EVERY successful leader has charisma.

John Edwards's Charisma. This guy is an even bigger stiff then Al Gore. Good God, this guy was as plain as day and stiff as a 2x4. If you're gonna need a running partner for a campaign, at least get a guy who'll help get votes.

John Kerry's Values. Simply put, his values don't jive with most of America's values. His stance on many issues puts many American's off and will make him less likely to gather votes.

After the election, there was talk of George W. Bush "stealing the election". This is very doubtful for a number of reasons. The more people you have involved in a conspiracy like that and the further out it goes, the more likely you are to have people who will say something. I find it VERY unlikely for something like that to happen. It seems like when Democrats lose, they look for someone to blame. When Republicans lose, they look at themselves to blame. It goes hand in hand with my Personal Responsibility article. Now, are the Democrats going to read my site, take notes, learn from their mistakes and win in November? Highly doubtful, but I think this is a shining example of what can go wrong if you don't plan, don't think, and don't move in an election. It would say something very loudly if they didn't take over congress this election however. The stars are lining up for a perfect environment for Democrats to take over. If they can't gain control over the house or senate, then they need to take a good, hard look at themselves and see what they're doing wrong.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

You have to admit, with an inflammatory statement like that, you're gonna get some attention. While I disagree with the "Your Vote Won't Count" comment, Sean Hannity does raise some very good points about the weakness of the Democratic party. Democrats are historically weak on terrorism, willing to tax and spend, and weak in other key areas. The reason I vote Republican is many and not limited to the following reasons; Gun Control, Taxes, Defense, Less Governmental control over peoples lives, and so on.

That's not to say that I don't think Democrats aren't useful. They do give a nice yin to our yang. They will show you what it would be like to be taxed until the cows come home so others can live better lives without having to actually work for it. They will show you what "universal health care is like" even though it's not all rosy up in Canada where they do have such coverage. They will gladly give out welfare to some people who should simply get off their lazy asses and get a job. There's a difference between a single mother trying to raise children while working and simply not being able to make ends meet, and some idiot who wakes up around noon and watches Jerry Springer and soap operas all day while sponging off of the government. The mother in this scenario should get any and all help available, while the latter person should get nothing.

So go ahead, listen to Sean Hannity's rant. While you may not agree with everything he says, you have to admit he does raise many excellent points.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Ok, I have a problem here. When Valarie Plame's name came out as a CIA spook, Democrats were up in arms about it. They wanted Karl Rove's head on a platter. They wanted people to resign. Then, when Mark Foley's scandal broke, Senator Foley did the right thing and resigned. Now, when there is a suspected leak to the New York Times from the House Intelligence Committee, the correct thing to do would be to suspend those suspected of involvement, with pay, and investigate. If the suspected person is found to be innocent, they should rightfully be reinstated. If they are found to be guilty, they should be fired and forced to pay back the money they earned while on suspension.

Apparently, the Democrats don't see it that way.

In a letter to Hoekstra dated Sept. 29, Rep. Ray LaHood (news, bio, voting record), R-Ill., a committee member, said the Democratic staffer requested the document from National Intelligence Director John Negroponte three days before a Sept. 23 story by the Times on its conclusions.

"I have no credible information to say any classified information was leaked from the committee's minority staff, but the implications of such would be dramatic," LaHood said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. "This may, in fact, be only coincidence, and simply 'look bad.' But coincidence, in this town, is rare."

Make no mistake, in the intelligence world ANY leaks, regardless of classification, is a very serious thing. Peoples lives hang in the balance at times. So, if there's a suspected leaker, you must do everything a normal, reasonable person would to find the leaker and prevent further leaks. The suspension was correct and Democrats are, once again, wrong on matters of security.

I am beginning to wonder if they have any idea of the kinds of threats we face on a daily basis. They seem to live in some kind of Fantasyland where everyone holds hands and sings songs and other such nonsense. If you watch carefully, you can catch a good chunk of them using the words "so-called" a lot. "So-called Terrorist" "So-called War On Terror" "So-called leader" are phrases you'll see many times.

Their ruler supreme, Bill Clinton, could tell them that every day, the President receives a daily report on the status of things in the world from the CIA director. Everyday, the information in it is full of threats. When that information is leaked to the press, even if it's not classified, helps our enemies adapt techniques on how to punch through our security and endanger civilian lives.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is spewing out the bullshit once again.

"You should believe that this regime (Israel) cannot last and has no more benefit to you. What benefit have you got in supporting this regime, except the hatred of the nations?" he said in nationally broadcast speech Friday.

"We have advised the Europeans that the Americans are far away, but you are the neighbors of the nations in this region," he said.

"We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt."

Basically, this guy is either a genocidal maniac, or a brilliant tactician. He's almost egging on world powers to either attack or sanction his country. He's warning Europeans that if they continue support for Israel, that the American's are "far away".

Does he not think that if Iran attacked Italy, France, Germany, or any other country, that we couldn't come down with a rain of fire within a short amount of time? Does he not think that these respective countries don't have a military of their own and defend themselves? Does he not know that there's a war being conducted in his own back yard? I've seen interviews with him. He does come across as a normal and reasonable person. Hell, he's almost charming. That's the problem. World citizens might fall for this bullshit, but then they don't see it when he's spewing out how countries should be wiped off the map.

So the better question is this, does he believe the rhetoric that he's spewing, or is he doing it so that either us or Israel will attack, uniting the Iranian people under a nationalistic pride? Only time will tell, but if military action is taken, I say those who do attack shouldn't just set the Iranian nuclear program back a few years, I say they bomb it back to the very beginning of the program.

Man, I just hate having a feeling that we made a mistake and then have it come and bite us in the ass later down the road. Muqtada al-Sadr, is a radical Shiite cleric who has been wanted on murder charges a long while ago. We had him on our most wanted list and were poised to get him. However, there was a truce that was made and he agreed to go political instead of violent. This is the exact reason why you don't negotiate with violent people. You arrest them or kill them. Now, he may not condone these acts, but he could have also quelled them and said "The American's are helping us rebuild our nation. It is against all Iraqi's to perpetuate the violence by destroying the very neighborhoods we live and work in."

Cross faction religious conflicts are never productive. al-Sadr isn't interested in a peaceful Iraq. al-Sadr is interested in power. When you have someone who craves power and can and will use religion to warp the minds of impressionable young people, you have a dangerous situation that will only mean that you will have to climb higher out of the hole that you have created.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Ok, sorry about the horrible pun, but this article is really funny.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

It looks like we have to let go a former Nazi concentration camp guard because of a law. This guy is completely guilty and we can't do anything about it simply because other countries won't step up to the plate and take this guy. Sad really.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Nothing says "I didn't do it" like screaming at a prosecution witness and saying "I'll see you in hell".

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Holy crap on a stick! Take a look at this guy. Congressman Rangel, from NEW YORK is talking about intense interrogation tactics used by us as being wrong. So when Bill O’Reilly starts talking about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , admitted mastermind of the September 11th attacks, and the information that he gave up about other al qaeda members, this congressman actually uses the term "so-called terrorists." Then, unbelievably, when Bill calls him on it, he dances around the subject.

This is the main difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans will call it like they see it and will defend this country using any tactics necessary to do so. Democrats SAY they will be tough on terrorists, but then Congressman Rangel undermines himself and shows his and other Democrats true colors by using the phrase "so-called terrorists". He's not even sure who he's dealing with. He'd rather have people dead, in HIS OWN STATE HE REPRESENTS, then use intensive interrogation techniques that leave no marks, no scars, and causes no pain. For those of you who don't know, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed subjected to a technique called Waterboarding. The person is made to believe that drowning is imminent and usually begs for it to stop. Khalid lasted 2 minutes during a round of waterboarding. This is an extremely long time for such a technique, as many people subjected to it last only a few seconds.

This begs the question, without Waterboarding, how does one think that they'll get information about upcoming terrorist attacks and al qaeda members? Do the Democrats really believe that a simple "please" will get information out of these people? These people want you dead. They want your families dead. It's not a simple, "we need to look at our foreign policies" bit. If our foreign policies were so horrible, then why do we have Arab allies? If it was so horrible, EVERYONE would be against us in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, are all allies of ours, and they are subjected to the same foreign policies that other countries who hate us are.

Osama Bin Laden has publicly stated that if we leave Islamic people alone, then he'll leave us alone. Well if that's the case, why isn't Osama kissing the ground we walk upon, because we defended Islamic people from Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War? We prevented Saddam from furthering his agenda of conquering the Middle East, and what do we get in return? Hatred of us.

Now look at what I've done. I've gone off and went all over the map in my little rant.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Why is it every time someone feels slighted, it seems that they want to sue. And for that matter, why is it every time Al Sharpton gets involved, it's always "this person has been discriminated against because they are black."

Comedian Chris Rock's mother is suing Cracker Barrel because she had to wait a whole 1/2 hour for service! Oh my god! It simply must be because she's black! She said when she asked the manager about the delay she was told they could have a free meal.

"He never called over the waitresses and asked, 'Why did these people sit here for a half hour without service?' " she said. "The only thing he said was we could have a free meal and neither of us wanted to eat."

So if the manager offers a free meal, how is that discrimination? Does it not occur to Mrs. Rock that they may be busy, or have an emergency in the back? I've been to restaurants many times before and they have been busy. Normally, I just wait patiently, because I know what it's like to be slammed and having people wait for you. However, I have spoken to managers in the past, and usually I get a "sorry about that, we're kinda busy" and that's the end of it. Now, it's entirely up to the manager of the place to decide if he wants to talk to the waitress about it or not. He may know that she's slammed and can't deal with it right now, but kindly offered a free meal as an apology for the wait.

Now Cracker Barrel has had problems in the past with discrimination, and that may very well be the case, but even Rose Rock has admitted that they offered a free meal out of the ordeal. This doesn't sound like discrimination, it sounds like a place got busy, she didn't like the treatment she got, so she's gonna sue because she seems to think that they are ignoring her because she's black.

I've had treatment where I've never gone back to the establishment. I've felt slighted many times because of my appearance (jeans and a Metallica shirt if you must know). However, I never thought twice about suing and I don't remember Al Sharpton coming out in my defense. I think my main problem is Al Sharpton is a sneaky little prick who loves to play the race card and won't apologize, even when he's shown to be absolutely wrong.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Now this is disheartening. Basically, there's a law that states if a person dies, but has not been sentenced, their conviction is wiped clean because the appeals part has not been gone through completely. While this ruling is lawfully correct, it does not feel right for the thousands of peoples lives that were ruined under his watch. People lost their entire retirement. Many people will have to work well up until their 80's to get it all back. I remember a grandfather talking about coming out of retirement because he made promises to his grandchildren to pay for their college educations. Being a man of his word, I can only imagine how devastated he must feel now that he has to come up with 10's of thousands of dollars for each grandchild.

The only thing that people now can do, is file a civil suit against Kenneth Lay's estate. However, after taxes, lawyer fees, and such, how much do you really think each person is going to get? Not nearly enough to cover grand children's college, I'll bet.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Someone's getting all uppity about the new senate bill that I spoke of earlier. This begs the question, why do illegal aliens get special treatment? Why do they deserve American rights and privileges that we enjoy? They don't pay taxes, they didn't come here legally, so why the special rights?

If anyone does an illegal act anywhere else, they don't get to keep the spoils. If I rob a bank, I don't get to keep the money. So if we find out that an illegal alien is in jail on any charges, even if it's only because he/she's and illegal alien, and they are an enemy combatant, why can't we yank them out of jail and interrogate them or send them off to Guantanamo Bay if the person is serious enough of a threat?


Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Well don't this beat all. Movie actor Wesley Snipes, star of "White Men Can't Jump" and the "Blade" films, was indicted Tuesday on eight counts of tax fraud accusing him of trying to cheat the government of $12 million in false refund claims.

Snipes, 44, also failed to file tax returns for six years, according to an indictment unsealed in Tampa, Florida.

An arrest warrant for the actor has been issued, officials said, adding that his whereabouts are unknown.

Federal prosecutors said that Snipes fraudulently claimed refunds totaling nearly $12 million in 1996 and 1997 on income taxes already paid.

The indictment also charged him with failure to file returns between 1999 and 2004.

I remember this is how they took down Al Capone. The IRS is a government agency that you don't want to mess around with. They sent good o'le Al to Alcatraz for 11 years for tax fraud. It appears that Wesley was using a bum tax attorney, but that doesn't excuse him from not filing his tax returns for 6 years! Look for a heavy fine, back taxes and perhaps some jail time for Mr. Snipes. All in all, if the IRS gets it's way, you can bet that Mr. Snipes will be looking to cut the government around a $15 million dollar check. Hope for his sake that they do a Blade 4 to help pay for this mess.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Oh. My. God. A public official finally admits when they screwed up and takes the consequences! I'll need to check the temperature in Hell to see what's going on. A former FDA commissioner admits false reporting and conflict of interest charges then, get this, he says "This is my fault, no one else's". This is such a rare thing, the last time I can remember off the top of my head when a public official took blame for something was Janet Reno for the botched raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Even then, she didn't suffer any consequences, even when it was found out that the FBI lied about using gas canisters against the Davidian's. I'm not saying the Davidian's were correct in that raid, I'm just saying that the FBI shouldn't have lied about it. Such an odd day today.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

North Korea may be planning a second nuclear test. China is already backed into a corner with its ally, and a second test would certainly give China less wiggle room about not wanting sanctions. China is positioning itself so that it may become the next world superpower. The problem is, is that they have too many things going on around them that require tough decisions that would upset their way to the top. If it is true, and North Korea does indeed conduct a second nuclear test, you can bet the farm that it will take all the wind out of any argument that China has. Only time will tell.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

When you're a senator, you are held to a higher standard then the rest of us. When you're a senator that throws around accusations of corruption, you REALLY need to have your ducks in a row and not have yourself open to accusations yourself. Apparently, Harry Reid didn't get that memo.

It looks like Senator Reid paid $3,300 to a holiday fund for his staff members out of campaign contributions. Federal law prohibits those funds from being used for personal use. Now, Senator Reid is reimbursing the funds out of his own pocket, but the problem is that "On the Ritz-Carlton holiday donations, Reid gave $600 in 2002, then $1,200 in 2004 and $1,500 in 2005 from his re-election campaign to an entity listed as the REC Employee Holiday Fund. His campaign listed the expenses as campaign "salary" for two of the years and as a "contribution" one year." and "Reid's office said the listing as salary was a "clerical error."

Larry Noble, the Federal Election Commission's former chief enforcement lawyer, said Reid's explanation is aimed at a "gray area" in the law by suggesting the donations were tied to his official Senate and political work.

"What makes this harder for the senator is that this is his personal residence and this looks like an event that everybody else at the residence is taking out of their personal money as they're living there," Noble said.

Even experts think he may have done something wrong. Ethics experts told AP that Reid's inaccurate accounting of the deal to Congress appeared to violate Senate ethics rules and raised other issues concerning taxes and potential gifts.

So here's the problem that we have, Reid labeled the AP story as the "latest attempt" by Republicans to affect the election. How is this the doing of the Republican party? Did anyone from the Republican party write those checks, then LIE about it and say it was for a "campaign salary"? This goes back to my "Personal Responsibility" story earlier this month. The Democrats don't understand that when you throw stones, you'd better not live in a glass house. Senator Reid should vigorously go over his own books and make sure every "i" is dotted and "t" is crossed before he throws around accusations of impropriety. Now, the amounts were small, but it doesn't matter what the dollar amount is. Also, he is reimbursing the money. But if I violate Federal law, but I put the money back, does that excuse me from my wrongdoing?

Maybe I'm coming off a bit harsh. Maybe it was an honest mistake by Senator Reid and honestly thought this was a "gray area" thing that was ok, but it just bothers me when someone loves to throw around accusations and then admit to doing the exact same things. Senator Foley ripped into Bill Clinton about his sexual misdeeds, but then turns around and is caught doing sexual misdeeds himself.

God, I should run for office. Is it really that bad to where you think you have to lie about everything that goes on in your personal life to your constituents? Is it really that bad out there for politicians that they can't say things like "I like a fat cigar and a glass of bourbon to take the edge off a day" or "I love women and porn and when I was younger, I did everything I could with women" This is why I respect Arnold Schwarzenegger. Democrats tried to get him with the whole "You smoked pot and chased women when you were younger." And Arnold's reply "Yeah? So? I was single and it was all with consenting adults, so suck it."

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

There is a new bill that has passed that has everyones panties in a knot. Bill S.3930 would establish new rules in how unlawful enemy combatants are treated once a crime has been established. Terrorism has normally been treated as a law enforcement rather then a military problem. I think the military is a more appropriate avenue to combat this new threat. They are better equipped, better trained, and have better intelligence gathering abilities. That said, many people are falsely portraying this bill as something that's going to put American citizens in jeopardy of military tribunals and allow American citizens to be "taken away to some gulag".

First off, in Subchapter I, it clearly defines who the bill is targeting. "Any alien unlawful enemy combatant engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States is subject to trial by military commission as set forth in this chapter." It further goes on to explain who exactly an "alien unlawful enemy combatant" is.

"(1) ALIEN- The term `alien' means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.
(2) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- The term `classified information' means the following:
(A) Any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to statute, Executive order, or regulation to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.
(B) Any restricted data, as that term is defined in section 11 y. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)).
(3) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `lawful enemy combatant' means an individual who is--
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

(4) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant."

Many people seem to think that this negates the Bill Of Rights. No laws can be passed that negate the Bill Of Rights. The courts would strike it down. Of course, innocence does still matter. You don't want to pick up some poor farmer in Afghanistan who's done nothing wrong and subject him to rigorous interrogation if his innocent.

It's a balancing act that our government is trying to do. You want to protect the American public from horrible acts of terrorism, but you don't want terrorists to know your intelligence gathering abilities and techniques. If you are tried in open court, anyone may come in and listen in on classified information and techniques. Perhaps Osama's cousin might come in and say "oh that's how they do it" and change their ways accordingly. Now, you have the problem of figuring out how to listen in on them again. All the while, new plans for acts of terrorism are being made and you run the chance of further acts being successful. Plus, if you commit acts of terrorism and are not an American citizen, why should we give you the rights that you've denied to others?


Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Now the title of this article is misleading, it does raise some good points. First off, it doesn't mean that a child can go into a local Gamestop or Wal-Mart and pick it up. Both of these stores have policies that restrict Mature rated games to children. This is no different then when I was a child and my father wouldn't allow me to see the movie "The Day After." He thought it would give me nightmares. These video games are multi million dollar productions, just like movies, and just like movies, they are rated. It is up to parents to decide if it is appropriate for them to view it.

Now I'm not naive. Children are going to get their hands on things that they shouldn't. Every guy who comes to my site has had porn in his hands before the age of 18. Most have had a taste of alcohol before the age of 21. I've had both and I've even had guns in my hands WAY before the age of 18. I think I turned out ok even though I've done things that most parents would lose sleep over at night. However, it's still important for parents to say "no".


Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Well Senator Harry Reid decided to reply to the article implying that he was involved in a shady land deal. Let's take a look at some of the things he said in this reply shall we?

"Last month, Republicans openly boasted that they would engage in a campaign of personal attacks and smears to hold onto power in Washington. In recent days, we witnessed their latest attempt to do just that. Republicans may believe in cover-ups. I believe in ensuring all facts come to light."

First off we start with an attack on the Republican party. Nothing new there. Let's go to the next quote.

"Last week, a highly misleading report by the Associated Press implied that I made a profit selling land I no longer owned. That article was wrong. Here are the facts: I bought the land in 1998, I sold it in 2004, and I listed my ownership of the land on official Senate disclosure forms every single year."

"Now I have taken an additional step. Today, I directed my staff to file amended financial disclosure forms noting that in 2001, I transferred title to the land to a Limited Liability Corporation."

Now here's something I don't understand. Why is is that he sold it in 2004 and listed the ownership "ever single year", why does he need to direct his staff to file an amended financial disclosure form? And if he "sold it" then why does he say sold it and then in the next paragraph say that he transferred the title? I don't know much about real estate, but this sounds very funny to me. Let's go to the next quote.

"As the amended forms make clear, this routine legal move in no way altered my actual ownership of the land. On each disclosure form after 2001, I have added a note to clarify that the land already disclosed in detail on those forms was owned by me through the LLC."

“The Ethics Committee has not yet advised me whether I should file these amended forms, but even if I am not required to do so I am happy to go beyond what is needed to provide the fullest disclosure. The amended forms make clear what was true all along – I owned the land through the LLC when I sold it in 2004."

So how does he "own the land" when he says he sold it and transfered the title to the LLC in 2004? How does that work? Is there anyone out there who's a real estate guru who can explain this to my readers? Again, I don't purport to be a real estate guru, but doesn't this sound a little fishy to you?

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Well this is all over the news right now, but a lawyer in New York has been convicted of giving material support to her terrorist client. Apparently she thought it was a good idea for her to help send communications to his fellow terrorists. Also, it appears that she is complicit in an ongoing terrorist plot, or she's too stupid to realize that she's being used. Either way, she does deserve a lot more jail time then this. She has to realize that her communications with her clients and his outside co-conspirators would put American lives in danger. Does she not understand that her actions could have lead to the deaths of hundreds or thousands of lives? She was smuggling messages. It's not like she wrote them down and then casually walked out of the building and then told whoever the message was for. Smuggling means to hide and conceal. If you do that, you have knowledge that what you are doing is wrong and illegal. And she only gets 28 months for it?? If you and I did something like this, we'd never see the light of day! The crowd outside chanting "Free Lynne, Free Lynne" is no better. I guess tracking down and prosecuting people who give support to terrorists is a bad thing.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Now this is interesting as it has good points on both sides. Basically it boils down to, if you're convicted of a sex crime, you may not live within one mile of anywhere where children congregate. That means malls, schools, certain stores, pretty much the entire town is off limits to sex offenders. Now, let's look at the problem from both perspectives.

I have many children in my life. God daughters, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc. They are all very dear to my heart. If you were to hurt one of them in any way other then an accidental bump or a spanking if you catch them doing something they aren't supposed to, I will make sure you are put into a hole so deep, they will NEVER find you. I've seen CSI and I'm a science and forensics geek, I can make it happen. So I can see why someone would pass a law like this, to "protect the children." You want to make sure that even the temptation of hurting a child isn't there. You want to make sure your children and grandchildren grow up in a safe, friendly environment. You don't have to argue this point with me, I'm completely on your side of thinking. However, let's take a look at the other side of the coin.

You've been convicted of a sex crime against a child. Now, in my state, this could mean that even if you were say 18 and she was 15, you could theoretically be convicted of Rape of a Child. This conviction will follow you around until the day you die. Job applications, security clearances, etc, will all show this conviction. It will make your life VERY difficult. Now, I ask each of you, if this person who's served his time and has gotten out of prison, any different then any other criminal? Should he be restricted to where he can and cannot go, even if he's finished with parole as well? Would you ask for the same restrictions on someone who's been convicted of Robbery? Grand Theft? Drug Dealing? I'm not excusing the crime, but don't we live in a society where there is "equal protection under the law?" I live in a state where if you are a high enough sex offender, the state may hold you, even past your sentence for an indefinite period of time. Where are the protesters for this law? I don't seem to remember Cindy Sheehan asking that we close down the Department of Corrections because we house high level sex offenders for an indefinite amount of time, even past their original sentences have expired.

So where does that leave me in this heated debate with myself? It's very difficult to defend a person who's been convicted of a heinous crime such as these, but we live in a society where "all men (and women) are created equal", but it's very easy for me to want to throw them in jail and let the prison hierarchy take care of the situation. So what makes them worth defending and not say khalid sheikh mohammed? Simple, our fictional sex offender is an American citizen who has certain inalienable rights.


Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Maybe I'm an asshole, but I don't mind it when a high level terrorist is captured and sent off to a secret CIA prison. They are not American citizens, they are not members of a foreign army, therefore they should get no protections under the Geneva Conventions. Do you think that we would be given the same rights? Do you think that our soldiers wouldn't be tortured and killed?

Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo are light compared to what they would be getting in other places around the world. They are given food, medical treatment, religious materials. I don't remember anyone in the World Trade Center getting treated with kid gloves. I don't remember anyone on the commuter trains in Spain getting Geneva protections. I certainly don't recall civilians anywhere during any of these terrorist attacks being spared because they were civilians.

If you want to cause harm to innocent men, women and children because your twisted logic says so, you get no protections. You deserve nothing more then having every ounce of information extracted from you from what ever means necessary and then be sent home in a body bag.

We've been coddling these people who want you and I dead for too long. It's time to take the gloves off and take them to the mat. It's time to start imposing our strength where we need to and use diplomacy where we have to. Withdrawal from territories gives them confidence. Just keep it up for as long as possible and the Americans will leave. UN sanctions gives them a reason to tell their people that we're the bad guys. Pakistan is only now starting to see that we're the good guys only because they had a massive earthquake a little more then a year ago and we came with food and medical supplies. 80,000 people were killed and they hated us up until that point. Now people are starting to ask "The Americans came to help, where's Osama? Where's his help?"

It's sad that 80,000 people had to die for people opinions about us to start changing. Do you think that they would have a better opinion of us now if the earthquake and our aid hadn't happened? We give billions in aid every year. What do you suppose would happen if we cut off aid to any country who wasn't 100% behind us? Other countries like to give lip service to say "we give aid just as much as the Americans." but they never come through, or only give a fraction of what they promised. We are #1 in terms of foreign aid. We sent hundreds of thousands of troops to every corner of the world to help fight for those who cannot fight for themselves. And what do we get for our troubles? Our leader is compared to Hitler. Our country's favorable view is at an all time low. It's now trendy to bash America. Hollywood types aren't helping either. They love to go overseas, make a few speeches and make themselves feel high and mighty at the expense of those of us who work hard to make our country great.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Mid term elections are almost upon us and it appears that some in the Republican party are nervous. Democrats and Hollywood types have made a big enough stink about how they are "gonna start a revolution" and other such bullshit, that many in the Republican party are nervous about losing seats in the senate. I think they rightfully are nervous as they have left some core values on the wayside such as; smaller government and lower spending.

But President Bush and Karl Rove are seemingly upbeat. Why? Do they know something you and I don't? Are they going to drop a bombshell on the American public such as Osama being captured? Al-Zahawi dead? A major development on the War on Terror front would certainly boost the low approval ratings, but I would be curious on why they are upbeat while almost everyone else is not. I guess we'll know more in the coming weeks.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

I'd like to personally thank Mel Gibson for setting a shining example on personal responsibility. Mel Gibson is blaming his anti-semetic tirade on, wait for it, criticism for The Passion Of The Christ. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that movie come out 2 YEARS AGO?? He then goes on to say that Israel "is not blameless" in it's conflict with Lebanon and Hezbollah.

Apparently, Mel didn't remember the attack that occurred on the Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah which triggered Israel's response. So someone please explain the logic to me in how a coordinated attack against a military position makes the Israeli's "not blameless." How is it that an attack and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers makes Hezbollah the victim? Mel, please understand that the American people can see through bullshit, and you're shoveling it out by the truckload.


Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com