August 2, 2006

Lebanon and the Palestinians are Guilty of Fraudulent News Footage

As you watch this footage, you will notice what appears to be the typical middle east chaos we have grown accustomed to since the early seventies. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see." It should be widely known by now that any arab reports of civilian casualties should be taken with a grain of salt. This has been nothing more than another terrorist tactic used by their local media types. Problem is, it is our American media outlets that pass these bogus clips on as "news" and consequently "factual" events. Our media has been on the side of militants for quite some time, and this is yet another example.

A small tidbit I found interesting in this clip, is the 60 Minutes opening. For all the Jackass Democrats who have been led to believe Middle East peace was achieved during the Clinton Years, think again. Even one of your most loyal news outlets, CBS, states otherwise. Madeleine Albright was probably the worst Secretary of State ever, and served as a propagandist for the ultra-corrupt Clinton Administration. She recently criticized the Bush Administration for five years of failed diplomacy, when in actuality it was her previous eight years of Kim Jong Il champagne luncheons and laughable Arafat hand shakes that deserve criticism.

Blake Elliott


As seen on Break.com

August 2, 2006

Oh The Poor Palestinians

This is Part 2 of the "Pallywood" documentary. These people are truly demented and do not deserve our sympathy.

January 17, 2006

Mayor Nagin's Best Impersonation of a Caring Black Man

This man showed insurmountable incompetence during Hurricane Katrina by not only neglecting to use the resources available to him to evacuate his "chocolate people", but by also leaving to live in Texas while people suffered through horrific conditions in his Super Dome. Now he shows us his lack of character and charisma during this press conference. Louisiana would not have fallen so hard if it weren’t for the fact that Jackass Democrats run the entire state. What an absolute joke of a person this man is.

Nagin makes an attempt to explain his comments...wow
God also sent the Hurricanes becasue he is mad

It is not my opinion that Nagin is racist, it is my opinion that he is just stupid.

Blake Elliott

January 17, 2006

Alito Confirmation Not Very Successful For Democrats

As far as congressional hearings go, the Alito confirmation hearings uncovered very little. The stage was dominated by egotistical Senators who require at least 98% of their total questioning time to be focused solely on themselves. Not surprising, and certainly no revelation. These hearings are supposedly held to help the public and the Senate understand the nominee better so as to make a more educated decision on his confirmation. But these important hearings have become nothing more than street carnivals and special interest rallies.

Our beloved Jackass Democratic senators have once again forgone the opportunity to familiarize themselves with a potentially important judge, opting instead to prejudge a man based on “faulty intelligence”. I watched approximately 5 total hours of the hearings, and of course paid close attention to the post game breakdowns on various news shows. The scorecard was lopsided and showed a pounding taken by Democrats which in time, may become the gift that keeps on giving.

Judge Samuel Alito was once a member of CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton) and listed this association in an application for employment with the Reagan Justice Department in 1985. The conservative organization, which could be researched with little effort, was a group of alumni who were concerned about the university’s decades long trend of leaning left. The main opposition of the group was to affirmative action, which this writer shares. How can we ever as a nation move away from racism and inequality if we lower standards for minorities? This insanity does nothing but create the belief that minorities are a lesser group. But enough with the rational thinkers.

Once Senator Kennedy caught wind of Alito’s membership, the raging Jackass Democrat set his staffers’ wheels in motion, and ordered the mud digging to begin. They uncovered an essay written by Harry Crocker III for the controversial CAP magazine Prospect, and focused on a passage which read, “People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic…”. With no evidence, written or spoken, of Alito’s individual endorsement or support of this group, Kennedy accused Alito of being “anti-black” and “anti-women” and demanded the records of the group held in the Library of Congress be subpoenaed and placed into the record. Is this not a perfect example of guilty until proven innocent? If a simple membership in an organization automatically means that you as an individual endorse everything any other member may say, then everyone would be guilty of any number of heinous social beliefs. But civil liberties be damned according to Kennedy, unless of course you vote for him.

The records were released that afternoon to all committee members, and researched all night by anxious staffers. But, to the dismay of the Jackass Democrats, Alito’s name never once appeared in any of the four boxes of documents. And though this was a mighty blow to the Jackass Democrat’s wishful thinkers, it was hardly equal to the blow dealt the next day. It turns out that the essay Kennedy read from, and based his accusations of “bigotry” and “racism” toward Alito, was a satirical piece. Satire: n. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. It was written as humor. Excuse me while I pause due to uncontrollable laughter.

Will Senator Kennedy apologize for jumping to conclusions? Will he publicly show regret for driving Mrs. Alito to tears through his damning accusations? Has Dan Rather or Mary Mapes ever apologized for relying on forged documents to report that President Bush was AWOL? Has John Kerry ever apologized for his campaign of misinformation? Has Bill Clinton ever apologized for allowing the intelligence community to become so weak that we suffered several terrorist attacks? Has Howard Dean ever apologized for being angry, little and retarded? The answers are no, and never. Only Republicans are required to apologize, and it usually occurs while stepping down from whatever position they hold. Jackass Democrats just live to fight another day. But as long as they continue to fight with unsubstantiated attacks, conservatives will continue to win. Thanks Teddy!

Blake Elliott

January 12, 2006

The Left’s Bogus Separation of Church and State Argument

As a huge fan of American History, though hardly a scholar, it amazes me how little our leaders actually know about the constitution. The liberal interpretation of Separation of Church and State has been festering for a long time. As a part of the leftist agenda under the disguise of equality and privacy, this idiocy has grown like a cancer and has been thrown upon the steps of our highest court.

Let’s be honest. It takes an incredibly weak individual to be offended by a Christmas tree during the holidays. Ever since this nation was born, Christmas has been the most anticipated celebration. How many toys do you remember getting on Independence Day? But now, through lifetime litigators like the ACLU, this along with all other public displays of religion have been dragged through the mud. And for what? To protect people’s rights? That’s a farce. These attacks are an attempt to dismantle not only American and Christian values, but all of our foundations and traditions. How these traditions became so offensive I haven’t the slightest inkling, but make no mistake, the number one goal of the ACLU and many other far left groups is to make sure our way of life is altered forever.

The main focus of the Jackass Democrats is Separation of Church and State, which unbeknownst to most Americans, never once appears in the U. S. Constitution. Instead, the words appeared in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The letter addresses the subject of government, churches, and their prospective roles in society. The Danbury Baptist, a religious minority, were concerned that the freedoms of religion that they enjoyed was actually seen by the state as only privileges granted by the legislature, not immutable rights as the U. S. Constitution sets forth. Can you see the difference between the actual concerns the Danbury Baptists had in regards to the government and it’s threatening infringement of religion versus the concerns the left proclaims they have now. The two beliefs are complete opposites. The left would have you believe that Separation of Church and State is to protect the public from religion, when in actuality, Separation of Church and State is meant to protect religion from government. It is history, and it was our founder’s intentions to finally live without religious persecution and government mandates against it. For the left to even attempt this sham shows the lack of respect and knowledge they have in regard to our country. In reading those letters, it is clear that the concerns were based on fear of government infringement, and Jefferson’s response, while careful not to promote Baptists, was an assurance that there would be none. The Establishment Clause, or the First Amendment, was written for this same reason and was ratified long before Jefferson’s letter. It clearly prohibits any laws made by government pertaining to religion. This shows the clear protection of religion from government. What is more troubling is that we have people in this country promoting terrorist activities, and yet the Jackass Democrats couldn’t care less. The real issue to them is how they can get that damn tree and those commandments taken down from in front of every government building. I can see why the mere mention of “patriotism” makes them cringe.

Our fore fathers came here for many reasons. But one of the main hopes was to find a place where they would be free from religious persecution. The British government was, as many European governments were, not very tolerant of any “outside” religious freedoms. In Europe you were either Catholic or Protestant, with only one being acceptable depending on which country you were in. Europeans believed that uniformity of religion had to exist for any society to become truly successful. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics. The dominance of the concept, denounced by Roger Williams as "enforced uniformity of religion," meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst. Hangings, disembowelments and beheadings often occurred all due to religious adherence. Austria once expelled 20,000 Lutherans, allowing them only 8 days to leave their homes. Forced to leave during winter, many families froze to death while seeking sanctuary. But hell, I’m sure the atheists in this country have their own legitimate reason for their fear of public displays of religion.

The protection of people from government is real, and the only thing that can be argued in favor of the atheists is that there shall be no state sponsored religion. And as far as I know, there hasn’t ever been one in this country. The display of a Christmas tree, the ten commandments, a picture of Jesus and Mother Mary, in God we trust on our money or any other display is not a sponsorship nor a promotion. There hasn’t been one conviction in a federal or state courtroom based solely on religion. Our laws are in fact loosely based on religion, but are still designed to allow the individual the right to practice whatever belief, as long as civil laws are left unbroken. The same great leaders of yesteryear, whose words are twisted by today’s liberals, would roll over in their graves if they witnessed what was happening to the product of their blood, sweat and tears. Our judges are finally beginning to realize the pettiness of this entire argument.

As with so many of the phony arguments the left is involved in, i.e., affirmative action, welfare, civil liberties, gay rights, and abortion, nothing seems to really hold water. But why do they continue to fight for frivolous rights that sometimes don’t even exist? The only logical conclusion is hatred. Because the more left you are, the more disconnected from mainstream society you get, and that disconnect over time eventually leaves a person wanting to be part of something. The only way to accomplish this is to take everything away from that society that shuns you, and make your own little world where you are free to be as rude, radical and weird as you want, with no limits. You can see evidence of this by the people they choose to rally around. Tookie Williams, a murderous gang member, Luis Farrakhan, a radical racist, Ward Churchill, a pseudo Indian and America hater who admitted lying about his heritage in order to get a job, Malcom X, another radical racist, Bill Clinton, a lackadaisical leader and proud adulterer, John Kerry, a war hating pothead who has never held a non government job. Do you see the pattern? All of these previously mentioned people stand for the anti-American crowd. The more of a social outcast the person is, the more liberals wrap themselves around them. It is their way of protesting, no matter how ignorant they make themselves look. To be accepted is not their goal. Their goal is to achieve revenge against you and your way of life. There is very little difference between the fundamentals of an Islamic radical and the fundamentals of the far left. Their goals are the same, they only differ with their tactics.

The U. S. Constitution is not a living, breathing document. It was written by people who possessed a moral compass, an incredible sense of patriotism, and an undying desire to see a great nation born. Things that Jackass Democrats despise. Senator Kohl (D, WI) who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee actually asked Judge Alito this week if he should rule based on how the country feels at the time. Meaning, shouldn’t your rulings be based on public perception? A perfect example of how Jackass Democrats believe the fundamental laws should change as society changes. Judges are not vested with the power to rule how they feel, but rather entrusted to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. And now we have shamefully allowed these dissenters into positions of power within our government.

Just like the gay marriage issue (which will soon digress into the freedom for one to marry an animal), we are being forced to accept things once believed to be unacceptable, and as long as we sit back and see the liberal activists as only mere nuisances, they will continue their pursuit to end our nation as we know it. We must not let this happen.

Blake Elliott

July 26, 2005

Looking to be Offended

Why does every damn Jackass Democrat have to react so negatively to heightened security measures? On one hand they incessantly argue for more government funding for police, firefighters and emergency workers, yet their support ends with the distribution of those dollars. I recall complaints from the left about the lack of proper safety measures in place before 9/11, but every time the government attempts to implement more effective security measures, these same people scream foul and immediately accuse the people responsible for public safety of infringing upon their civil liberties. This reminds me of the numerous times I have been stopped by the cops when they were “partygoer” profiling. Cops would lay in waiting outside parties, bars and other social gatherings for the perfect moment to pull over a potential drunk. I was never charged with any wrongdoing, but others were, and who knows, those civil liberty haters may have prevented an accident. If I would have known then what I know now I probably would have had a case against the local law enforcement complete with free representation from the ACLU. What is this insanity?

There is a huge difference between someone asking to search your bag on the street versus being asked to have your bag searched before you board the extremely public and chaotic subway. If traveling by air a bag check is mandatory. The New York City Police Department is now performing random searches on subways and most people are very accepting of this, due to their disdain for things that blow up. But there are groups out there who are offended by such action. What is the worst that can come of these searches? Honestly, if you are not breaking the law, then what do you have to worry about? Say they find some crack in some person’s bag. The ACLU would argue that even though this drug is illegal, the police had no right to search the person because they did nothing to cause suspicion. This person was just minding his own business until he could get to his destination where he would then pipe up or maybe even sell a teenager a little rock. No harm no foul right? Can you see the lunacy here? Who cares if this guy gets busted? I personally dislike crack heads, and the more they can get rid of the better. Ever seen a clean, law abiding crack head? Surprisingly enough, me either. But forget all of that, I just like the idea of finding a bomb before it blows up. For God’s sake, let them attempt to do this please.

You will not be arrested for embarrassing paraphernalia like skimpy undergarments, tampons in quantities over ten, sex toys, stale crackers or a roll of Mentos. These items are of no consequence, and if you stay calm so not to draw any attention to yourself, no one will notice your embarrassing baggage, except for the cop who will never recognize you again due to the one million two hundred and thirty thousand tampons he just had the pleasure of digging through. I have yet to hear a coherent argument concerning this civil liberty fiasco. Are we going to let a bunch of cooks who have nothing good to offer this country lessen the greater public’s right to security? And once again, as noted in my previous article on John Roberts Jr.’s nomination to the Supreme Court, activist judges are partly to blame for this debate. A New York State Judge a few years ago ruled that random bag checks were unconstitutional and were the equivalent of being accused of a crime. And if you happen to be one of these people who would be offended due to a simple bag check, then let me be the first to say that I am sorry you were born such an idiot.

Believe it or not, not every cop is like the Los Angeles kind of the mid 90s. The majority are good guys who commit themselves to your protection. Police officers are many times accused of over stepping their bounds, but very seldom do the accusations result in an uncovering of some conspiracy. In fact, most of the people who have sued the police over abuse matters were committing a crime at the time they were abused. It was only due to over the top aggressiveness that the story ended up being about the bad cop and not the actual criminal who probably deserved to get his ass handed to him. You think Rodney King was just some good guy who got unlucky that night? The ACLU thought so, and were more than happy to help ole‘ Rodney “the PCP King” out. Rodney asks,“Can‘t we all just get along?“. The better question is, “Can we all just use our brains when it comes to national security issues?”.

The ACLU is a joke. Their goal is to dismantle this country and the fundamentals that allowed it to become the greatest and most powerful nation ever in history. These people have no foresight or hindsight and continue to weaken this nation every day. But don’t blame them totally, because liberal judges are allowing them to force their agenda on the rest of us. I am still in search of an island where we can send all of the Jackass Democrats in order to create their own country under their own laws. It would be a great investment, because in less than five years they will have to sell it back for half the market value due to the failure of their socialist dreams. Any investors interested?

Blake Elliott

July 23, 2005

Should We Explore Nukes as an Option in the Middle East?

Calm down, I am not suggesting it, but just posing a legitimate question. Everything we are currently doing causes a backlash from the liberal circles as well as the moderate ones. We constantly draw complaints from the anti war movement that we are helping the terrorists recruit future terrorists. This silly way of thought deserves little attention, but what does deserve some attention is the question posed here. If the current war is doing more harm than good in some people’s opinions, or not doing enough, quickly enough, then what type of action should we take? I quickly disregard any brainless idea of doing nothing, and still await a day when some island will be donated to the jackass pacifists so they can finally run a country of their own into the ground. So again, what do we do?

Japan considered themselves relatively war savvy back in 1941, but their Pearl Harbor attack proved disastrous for their entire country. A swift retaliation of atomic proportions quickly jerked them back into shape and over 60 years later seems to be a distant memory. Our relationship with these folks has grown strong and prospered even though we once, by the blast of one bomb, nearly wiped them from the world map forever.

Is this an option with the Middle East? Didn’t the extremists declare war on us in the seventies, eighties, and early nineties? Didn’t they bomb numerous U. S. Embassies, and ultimately kill 3,000 innocent people on United States soil by using a plane as a bomb? 9/11 had to share some mood similarities with Pearl Harbor? The same death, confusion and anger were present at both attacks. We responded with a massive air and ground attack on Afghanistan’s Taliban, who were a popular and proud sponsor of terrorism. We then went to Iraq, and may I add finally. I now have one less crazy dictator and sponsor of terrorism to worry about. I applaud both moves, but seem a little unsatisfied with where we are today. Insurgents crawl out of any hole and over any border into Iraq. Their attacks are poorly orchestrated and their existence incredibly meager, but they still manage to kill our soldiers almost every day. I agree that this will be a long hard fight, but does it really have to be?

The anti war crusaders are heard every day through the media, and surprisingly, I probably dislike war just as much as they do, but their incessant ignorance when dealing with terrorists is exhausting. Jackass Democrats do not understand that no matter how many demonstrations, or demands for troop withdrawal, or offerings of peace and understanding, these terrorists will still celebrate in your bloody death. They do not distinguish people by political persuasion like we Americans do, they only see you as a geographical enemy and label you an infidel because of where you live first, and your faith lying with something other than Allah second. Let Louis Farrakhan travel to an Islamic extremist terrorist camp with his hat in his hand. He will surely leave with his head on his lap. Killing the innocence sadly sweetens the victory for these cowards. Maybe the total annihilation of them, their fellow countrymen and their treasured shrines will once and for all send the message that we will not stand for a constant threat to our people. Just as they pledge their allegiance to a higher power, we will let them know that our allegiance lies with our defenseless ones state side, and to protect them we will destroy everything in the Middle East down to a subterranean level. It will not matter whether the sponsors of terrorism agree with us or not, because we most assuredly will exterminate their kind.

The picture becomes more and more painfully obvious everyday. The preemptive strikes we have chosen may not be good enough. A strategically placed nuke may be. As long as these terrorists can kill one of our soldiers on the battlefield, they consider it a victory. Fifty of their lives for one of ours is good enough to them. What do you think the reaction would be if we leveled 25% of Afghanistan, and threatened to do the same in Syria within one month if they refused to cease terrorist activities. No excuses, no second chances, just a rule, and if broken, the wrath of Hates will be dropped on top of your country. What would be the reaction of the law abiding citizens of these countries? Would they then realize that choosing to abstain from any defense of their own country could result in the extinction of it? Would the good finally rise against the evil with the same acceptance of self sacrifice as the terrorists posses in order to defeat the extremists? These are questions we cannot possibly know unless we try. Should we?

It is a brutal thought, and through years of pacifism and ignorance, we as a nation have become numb at the thought of delivering such a blow to any nation. But every time America has been pushed, we have responded with furious and unmatched force, and I am not sure fighter jets and M-16s are going to get this one done. I cannot remember a time in history, nor can I fathom one in the future, where we have been pushed so far. It may finally be time to push back once again.

Blake Elliott

July 22, 2005

John Roberts Jr.: A Constructionist not an Obstructionist

The following is an excerpt of the 2003 Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on John Roberts to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (courtesy of FoxNews):

In the beginning of Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Bush nominee John G. Roberts Jr. , Chairman Orrin Hatch praised Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer of New York for asking "intelligent" questions, but then Hatch switched gears.

"Some [of his questions] I totally disagree with," Hatch of Utah said. "Some I think are dumbass questions, between you and me. I am not kidding you. I mean, as much as I love and respect you, I just think that's true."
A stunned Schumer asked if he heard the chairman correctly, to which Hatch said yes. Again, Schumer asked Hatch if he would like to "revise and extend his remark," congressional speak for change his mind.
A former trial attorney, Hatch replied: "No, I am going to keep it exactly the way it is. I mean, I hate to say it. I mean, I feel badly saying it between you and me. But I do know dumbass questions when I see dumbass questions."
The nervous laughter that accompanied the exchange belies the growing tension over the confirmation process.
While Roberts, a respected lawyer nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is likely to win Senate approval, Democrats fear the conservative 48-year-old with 39 cases before the Supreme Court under his belt, may one day be nominated to sit on that bench.
For that reason, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois demanded Roberts' view of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 high court ruling that legalized abortion.
"I'll be bound to follow the Supreme Court precedent regardless of what type of constructionist I might be," Roberts replied to Durbin's question.
(end excerpt)

What else do we need to know about John Roberts Jr.? Not much. You see, Jackass Democrats attempt to sell the notion that as Americans we are required to look deep into a person’s soul in order to find his or her true beliefs on issues before we can appoint them to the highest court in the land. Anything short of this is dangerous and unacceptable. Stop right there jackasses, your lunacy knows no bounds.

A question: So how do people from all walks of life function together outside of the poisonous political world? How can a company run, or a store sell or even a school teach if not everyone is of the same opinion on every issue? They function because of a foundation of rules and regulations that no matter what your personal opinion may be have to be adhered to in order for you to be a part of that organization. America is an organization, with the fundamentals being the United States Constitution, and in order to function here, you have to adhere to them. Through the entire history of the Supreme Court, many people of different values, beliefs and religions have come together to uphold our laws and constitution. If your belief on Roe v. Wade is relevant to your confirmation, then isn’t your religion, your sexual persuasion, your opinion on large or small government, etc.? The relevancy would never end.

And all of this is truly irrelevant because contrary to a jackasses way of thinking, where they believe judges are to legislate from the bench and undo all of the flaws within our constitution, the only real duty of a judge is to uphold the existing law. Jackass Democrats have consistently lost elections, and in turn power, for over a decade now, and have suddenly found that if they can appoint liberal activist judges, then they can still have power over our everyday lives through the inappropriate behavior found everyday on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the most overturned, most liberal and most laughable court in the land. My fellow American Constitutionalists will not let this happen to our Supreme Court, filibuster be damned.

Blake Elliott

July 19, 2005

The Plame Game

There is just so much to laugh at and so little time. The Jackass Democrats recently tried to dismantle heavy political hitter Representative Tom Delay with baseless attacks, which of course you haven’t heard anything about for over two months now because there is no case against the man. Now the most recent baseless attack has been pulled straight from the delusional playbook of what has now become the Democrat's favorite game day strategy. And it’s focus is on Karl Rove . This time the entire jackass world, from the media to the Jackass Grand PooBah Howard Dean, has asked for playing time in this one.

The latest covert operation by the JackassDemocrats is to have Karl Rove’s security clearance removed and for him to be immediately fired. For what you ask? For divulging classified information to unauthorized recipients. Gasp! How could you Karl!? Let’s begin the twisted story shall we?

Joe Wilson, a former ambassador to Iraq under George Herbert Walker Bush, was sent to Niger to explore the British intelligence assertion that Iraq had sought yellow cake uranium from that nation in order to reconstitute it’s nuclear weapons program. Wilson first claimed he was sent by Vice President Cheney’s office, yet nobody in that office can remember who he is or what he did. Wilson then came back from Niger having found no evidence to support the claim of Iraqi pursuit of yellow cake. Soon after his return, Wilson went on a full tilt tirade, although a cowardly one, against the administration accusing them of bolstering the intelligence in favor of war against Iraq. Wilson chose to release his attack on the op ed page of the New York Times, who are always more than happy to oblige any anti Bush rant from a pseudo important source. Of course, as has every other left wing cook in this crazy political world, Wilson felt the need to exercise his capitalistic greed under the disguise of informing the public by authoring a book in which he attacked the Bush administration further. Surprisingly, the fact that the coalition found tons of yellow cake uranium inside of Iraq is never mentioned. I am sure he donated the proceeds paid by all the leftist conspiracy whores across America to some very fine charities, such as his mortgage, credit card debt and lease payments, but this is neither here nor there, it’s just too easy to surmise Wilson as a political pig. The more he remains on the media’s stage, the clearer his intentions will become, and the “political pig” conjecture will become fact.

It was only a matter of time before Mr. Wilson's trip was proven to be an utter failure. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee got a hold of Mr. Wilson’s notes and reports from his Niger trip, and quickly concluded that not only did the diplomat turned inspector lie about who sent him, but his report was so lacking of definitive findings that the trip was rendered useless. So useless that George Tenet never even read it. And as for as Washington is concerned, the current media darling who is Mr. Wilson is seen as nothing more than a political operative and a liar to boot. Here is an excerpt of a Wilson testimony under oath : On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims. . . . For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, [Wilson] told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair.". Attempting to defend this guy is just not very smart.

Of course this story only begins there. Enter Valerie Plame, a former covert CIA operative who is now married to Mr. Wilson, has two children and works as a desk jockey at Langley. Soon after Wilson’s heroic op ed piece, journalists across the country were in a frenzy over the Wilson truth seeking mission to Niger. As far as the media was concerned, the Bush administration had been caught in yet another lie concerning pre war intelligence and they wanted some answers. So, who do journalists call when they need good solid reportable information? Well hell, those damn liars over there in the White House of course. Enter Karl Rove.

Matt Cooper of Time magazine called Rove one afternoon to ask about welfare reform. After a brief conversation on the subject, Cooper redirected the conversation toward Mr. Wilson and his trip to Niger. Cooper told Rove what he was going to report in regards to the Niger trip and Rove quickly advised him not to because it seems as if Wilson’s wife, apparently a CIA employee, was the one responsible for sending Mr. Wilson to Niger. Rove told Cooper he had heard about “Mr. Wilson’s wife from a couple of other journalists, and he did not know who she was. Three days later, ka-freaking-boom, Robert Novak writes a story about Mr. Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, claiming she was somewhat responsible for choosing Wilson for the trip to Niger. Novak actually praises Wilson and gives examples of his heroism in Iraq as reported by a journalist present in the first Gulf War. As you can see, but jackasses fail to, Novak never once attacks Wilson or his wife in the story and never attempts to make the story about “outing“ an undercover CIA operative.

The Democrats immediately lost even more of their minds than the previous week. Hemorrhaging from their ears, they claimed that this was a blatant attempt by the White House to discredit Mr. Wilson and his wife. But isn’t it rather difficult to be further discredited after being characterized as a failure and a liar by a Senate Intelligence Committee? This is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer untrustworthy. Dahmer may or may not have a habit of lying, but you still stand a damn good chance of being eaten. The Jackasses also claimed that someone leaked Valerie Plame’s “super secret mega undercover CIA operative status”. By God, in the Democrat’s opinion, this was a national security breach of James Bond proportions, and who better to go after than Karl Rove, the one man responsible for the endless ass-kicking each Democrat has enjoyed for the past 8 years and running? He is no doubt the culprit who leaked Plame’s “super secret mega undercover CIA operative status”, and he should fry for it. But Valerie Plame had not been active in the CIA as a covert operative since 1997, and everyone in Washington knew that she worked for the agency, except for government officials who actually run the country, which is why Karl Rove had no idea who she was until a reporter, Robert Novak, told him.

A special prosecutor was assigned to investigate the matter, and it seems Rove is the only one willing to fully cooperate. Rove signed a release at the beginning of the investigation releasing any reporter from any confidentiality agreement that may have existed, which makes me wonder why the hell Cooper was hesitant to testify in front of the grand jury as Rove has done on several occasions. Regardless of the facts, after Matt Cooper and Time released Cooper’s email naming Rove, the game was on. Everything the Jackasses needed was now sitting in their laps. The mere mention of Rove’s involvement was enough for conviction. The White House Press Whores demanded that the Rove be fired due to President Bush’s statement from a year ago in which the press claims Bush said, “If anyone in this administration is involved in the leak of a CIA operative, they will be fired.” Problem is, Bush actually said, “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." I now assume if Bush fails to execute Karl Rove soon, then Bush will be seen as a liar once again, because everyone knows “taken care of” means to tie a cinder block around someone’s ankles and throw them from a very high bridge. Dozens of news organizations quoted Bush's Sept. 2003 proviso, "if the person has violated law", including USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN, but now gang up to portray the White House as changing it’s story. As a conservative I have come to expect this from our media midgets and am not very shocked. The main stream media has rendered itself useless over the past decade due to so many situations just like this and is honestly made up of some of the most inept and devious people ever.


So where is this now? Who the hell knows? But here are a few things that bother me about this big waste of time. First, the jackasses base their entire case for firing Karl Rove on news stories, not on the fact that Rove had nothing to do with exposing anything, or that Rove is not even considered to be a “target“ by the special counsel in this case. Secondly, I have yet to find one liberal leaning rag describe Wilson’s trip as it should be, a fact finding trip set up by his wife that was of little importance to the CIA or the Senate Intelligence Committee, who both found the trip to be negligible in it’s inception and conclusions. Thirdly, the jackasses lined up at endless podiums in front of their main stream media Koolaid drinkers to accuse the Bush administration of declaring war on Joe Wilson. How is this possible when no administration official ever sought out a reporter to give damaging information to? In essence the war had already been declared by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was the media who neglected to report these findings to the American people whom they claim to represent. Why is it they only represent us when reporting dirt on President Bush? And finally, after reading the law that prohibits anyone from outing an undercover spy working on foreign soil in order to hurt United States’ intelligence gathering, how is this entire story even relevant? There are several stories citing Plame’s identity as a CIA operative that have been reported prior to the Novak story or Cooper and Rove conversation, yet no one cares in the media, just as long as they can keep the pressure on Rove and the White House.

I feel as if people are starting to realize how worthless the Democratic Party has become, but for the ones who insist on being idiots, I will give you credit for one thing besides making me vomit a little bit every time I see you protest, disrupt a speech, or God forbid, attempt to be interviewed by a news agency. You do have the ability to irritate, but so does a certain type of bowel syndrome, and I have yet to find anyone who wants that around either. Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Harry Reid, Senator and handily defeated presidential punching bag John Kerry along with Senator Charles Schumer have all called for Rove to step down before anything of factual importance has been released by Fitzgerald’s office. This from the same Senators who repeatedly condemned preemptive strikes. If you thought the intelligence was bad on Iraq, just wait until you see the finale of this ridiculous circus over a non scandal.

Our stupid little friends in the Democratic party are once again relying solely on news reporting to condemn a man who they already hate. This worked out real well for Dan Rather didn’t it? Instead of ousting a sitting President, it was Rather who was forced to step down. With all the past, current and subsequent attacks from the left, Bush may prove to be the most honest president ever in American history, and ironically, we will owe this historical account to the media, the ones who have tried, and are trying, to prove otherwise. I normally hesitate to call people stupid because it is just mean, but when you choose to be stupid in the face of facts that disprove your assertions, isn’t that another level of stupidity which we have no name for yet? I really need to find a term for this behavior because the English language lacks a proper word to describe the lunacy of today's left and their fruitless actions. Unfortunately this story will continue until another accusation can be improperly leveled against yet another conservative so stay tuned.

Blake Elliott

July 21, 2005

America Underestimates the Bullet Dodged with the Defeat of Kerry

Bush lied! If you are a conservative, this overly used ditty makes your skin crawl. Though not true, Jackass Democrats never hesitate to use this statement in their pure desperation to make a point. Too bad the jackasses lack the integrity to admit that their own choice for President is a proven pathological liar.

Forget that Kerry once supported the war then chose to join his nutty constituency in opposing it later. If it looks like the French, talks like the French and walks like the French, it must be French. It was the leftist political talking points during the election that were infuriating, and were always flawed when used as an attack against President Bush.

The DNC ran a commercial on October 17, 2004 claiming that the “truth was coming out” in regards to Social Security. The commercial went on to say that Bush planned to cut Social Security benefits by 30%-45%. Not only is this a bold faced lie, but it flies in the face of reality. There were three plans being proposed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, none were endorsed by Bush at that time, and all would increase benefits for future retirees while leaving the current retirees at the existing constant with no cut in benefits. This tactic was also used by Clinton in 1996 when he accused Bob Dole of wanting to “cut” Medicare by 270 billion. Dole was actually proposing a slowdown of Medicare growth, just as Clinton had proposed a 124 billion slowdown himself. The Clinton campaign chose to characterize his own plan as a slowdown and Dole’s as a “cut”. This is typical political lingo the Jackasses have engaged in for decades. The debate is very telling now, seeing that the attacks flew wildly while actual ideas from the DNC were non existent. Senator Kerry has remained silent on the Social Security reform desperately needed today and demonstrates that his greed for attaining higher office trumps his interest in actually committing himself and eventually doing something good for the country.

John Kerry and loveable Teddy Kennedy launched a full fledged attack on Bush accusing him of under funding the No Child Left Behind Act by 28 billion. They accused Bush of going back on his “promise” to fully fund the program he and Kennedy worked on. The promise, Kerry and Kennedy said, was that Bush would fund the program at the maximum Congress would allow. Of course this is not true. Bush, just like his “promise” to deal with anyone in his administration who broke the law in the Plame circus, stated that he would "provide the resources necessary." I will let you be the judge. During President Bush’s first three years in office the Department of Education grew by 58% with substantial spending on lower income children as well as disabled children. Spending on the No Child Left Behind Act increased by 12% since it’s inception. I have a tough time describing this information as under funding a program, but the jackasses tend to do this in their sleep. Makes you wonder why the Teacher Unions continue to bitch about the lack of money available. If a 58% increase over their beloved Clinton administration is not enough, what is? Trust me, I don’t want to know.

Jobs, jobs, jobs. This damn country has no jobs. Well, not exactly. Though the number of people working in this country surpasses any other recorded number in history, I tend to dislike this comparison. As population grows, so does the work force. This is natural and becomes somewhat irrelevant when judging the creation of jobs in a nation. No matter what you would like to believe, 9/11 was a huge blow to our economy and dealt a death blow to the work force, but I am not making excuses, because I don’t have to. While John Kerry claimed that Bush had lost 1.6 million jobs, and was going to be the first President in 72 years to have a net job loss during his administration, the job market was rapidly recovering. In Kerry’s opinion, there was no way Bush could turn the tide of job losses plaguing the nation, and even the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated the loss would be closer to 500,000 total jobs lost. Again, the intelligent boarding school Frenchman along with the Bureau of Labor Statistics were wrong. Bush ended up with a job gain around 100,000. Nothing to jump for joy about, until you realize that all the experts, and non experts like Kerry, predicted a sure loss. Damn that Bush is stupid isn’t he?

Another ploy by Kerry was indicative of the Jackass machine that has pandered to freeloaders in this country for over 50 years now. “Free healthcare for all.” First off, healthcare and health insurance are two very different things, but I will not waste my time discerning the two. While Kerry was selling the free healthcare promise, Edwards was imitating Benny Hinn at stump speeches promising wheel chair users that “if John Kerry becomes President, people will get out of those wheel chairs and walk again!” Amen brother! What a loon. But back to the “free for all” issue. At the time of Kerry’s claim, 86% of all Americans were covered with health insurance. Kerry’s actual plan would increase that by 6%. Of course this is an increase, and it would provide some people with insurance, but it would also offer millions of people who already pay for their own insurance to switch to federally funded insurance at the cost of taxpayers. The Jackass Democrat belief is that whatever you do on your own could be done better through the government, and this is why the democratic voting base is so inept when it comes to truth and self reliance. Democrats believe in the government bureaucracy, not because they believe it will help the people who need it, but because they increase their power. If you believe that liberals have some sort of true conviction, though flawed, behind their actions, you are wrong. Jackass Democrats only seek power through someone else’s wealth, and this is their core belief. The more they can pander to the poor in order to secure their votes, the more they feel as if they can disguise their actions with doing something right while pursuing their greed for power.

All in all, Kerry’s campaign promises and accusations turned out to be wrong. Just last week, Kerry’s attacks on Bush’s tax cuts touting them as disastrous to our growing deficit have been proven wrong. The federal deficit was surprisingly cut by 100 billion dollars due to the government collecting unexpected tax revenue. Even this fact can’t penetrate the ignorance of a liberals belief that tax cuts cannot possibly result in more revenue, which shows how Jackass Democrats do not posses the intellect or ability to run this country in a fiscally and socially responsible manner. History is on Bush’s side with the same thing occurring under Reagan, yet liberals still fail to comprehend. Quite frankly, we dodged a huge bullet by defeating John Kerry and the morons who followed him.

Blake Elliott

How the Mind of A Liberal Works, and Why They Are Wrong

February 25, 2005

Following is an email I received from a friend of mine who was outraged at the way this particular organization portrays President Bush. Kansas Action for Children is a non-profit organization that declares itself ‘nonpartisan’. I thought I would interject my thoughts on each point, and if you agree, feel free to email the organization. The quote below is from a person sympathetic to the cause, which I thought was telling.

“As stated in the first paragraph, this budget would be devastating for children and families. Apparently "family values" are only supported if they help rich white people!”(umm, rich white people don’t need any help)and((assuming of course that all needy people are minorities-what a bunch of friggin’ hypocrites.))
KAC Update Network cindy@kac.org kac@kac.org 2/15/2005 10:38:18 AM
The Federal Budget

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR CHILDREN?

How does the President's budget affect children’s programs in Kansas? While many numbers are yet to be crunched, several expert groups have compiled overviews and state estimates. It is clear that the Federal FY 2006 budget plan proposed by the Bush Administration could have devastating impact on critical children's programs in Kansas. (I thought this was funny…”It is clear that this could be devastating”…isn’t that the same as saying it definitely might be???)

FOOD STAMPS would be affected by tightening eligibility requirements for TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) recipients, a change that will deny benefits to an estimated 200,000-300,000 people. It is also likely that the 2005 Congressional session will see efforts to cut funding for food stamps and child nutrition programs like school lunches, breakfasts, and WIC. These funding cuts may take the form of entitlement caps which would cap the amount of money states could receive to fund the programs.

How is tightening eligibility requirements a bad thing? Seems to me that removing 200-300,000 people from the food stamp rolls is a good thing. The government does a very poor job of determining who is truly needy.

HEAD START would receive a $45 million increase, which would be set aside for a block grant demonstration program in nine states. Flat funding for the rest of the Head Start program is likely to lead to a reduction in the number of children receiving services because of the failure to keep pace with inflation. If adopted, it is estimated that as many as 25,000 children will lose Head Start and Early Head Start next year.

Head Start should be completely removed from the government handout list, and begin functioning as a private charity. Accountability and success would ensure that there is no waste in this program, and they would have to use the money where it did the most good. If they did not accomplish their perceived goals, donations would dry up.


The CHILD CARE & DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, which provides child care assistance to low income working families, has not been increased for the past three years. According to the Administration's budget tables, flat funding again this year would mean that 300,000 fewer children would have child care assistance by fiscal year 2009, on top of the 200,000 who lost assistance over fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if these folks would provide information that corroborated their numbers? If you cannot afford to support your children, get a better education, get a better job, or don’t have as many children. It is not my responsibility to pay for your childcare so that you can go to work. Sorry. Well, no I’m not. Take responsibility for your own children and leave me out of it.

MEDICAID, which provides health care for low income children, people with disabilities, and low income elderly, would be cut by $45 billion over 10 years. It is estimated that this could affect the coverage of 14,300 children in Kansas by 2010.

Can you say sliding scale free clinics? Again, the government does a very poor job of differentiating between the truly needy and the freeloaders. No one is denied health care. How about this; don’t go to the doctor every time you have a cold. Health insurance is expensive for all of us. My husband and I happen to think that providing insurance for our children is an obligation we have as parents, so we do what we have to do to make sure that we can pay for it.

The SOCIAL SECURITY system today pays more benefits to children than any other federal program. About 3 million children receive Social Security as dependents of deceased, disabled, or retired workers.

I’m not sure what their point is here. Sounds like it is working just they way they want it to. Why do children who are dependants of dead, retired or disabled people receive any government benefits at all?

21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS is the only federal program dedicated to after school. The budget freezes spending for 21st Century Community Learning Centers at $991 million-- less than half of what Congress and the President agreed to in No Child Left Behind legislation. Nearly 8,920 Kansas kids are in the programs supported by the U.S. Department of Education's 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative.

I don’t know where to start on this one. Nearly a billion dollars to take care of other people’s children because they choose not to be home when their kid gets out of school. I made a decision when I had children that I would not work outside the home. That is what all mothers should do if at all possible. If people would be willing to sacrifice, I truly believe that the vast majority of children would be able to come home to a parent. How as a parent can you be willing, regardless of the circumstances, to sentence your child to a childhood of being at school for 80% of his day? My God, as a parent you do what you have to do to be a good parent and to let your children be children, not cattle to be housed with someone else.

Proposed Budget Process Changes

The president's budget also contains several recommendations for changing the current federal budget process. Most of these changes are meant to limit spending. (They are upset because the President is trying to limit spending! These people make me shake my head in wonder.) No changes are proposed that would hinder future tax reductions. (Do you hear this? They are upset because there will be no way to stop tax reductions. They want all of us to pay for every bad decision anyone has ever made.) Two of the changes are particularly onerous:

• Discretionary Spending Caps (which is the proverbial stake through a liberals’ heart): The budget proposes setting statutory limits on discretionary programs, which are funded through the annual appropriations process. This includes programs like Head Start, housing, education and training, and many other human services programs. The proposal would set these caps at the amounts requested by the president in the FY 2006 budget, which flat funds domestic discretionary programs over the next five years with no increase for inflation. According to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (they work on low-income issues, you see, so they are qualified to make impartial judgments), if defense, homeland security, and international affairs are funded at the levels requested by the president, all other discretionary spending would be cut by 16 percent below 2005 levels by 2010 when such spending is adjusted for inflation.
Let me make myself very clear here. It makes me furious that anyone could possibly think that spending for defense should even be in the same league as after school programs. One falls under the category of personal responsibility. The other falls under the category of if Clinton had not decreased funding throughout the nineties we would not have had over three thousand people killed on 9/11. The government’s responsibility is to protect our nation, not to take care of your children.

• PAYGO Rules for Entitlement Programs: The administration is proposing two sets of pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules that apply to entitlements, but not proposed tax cuts. Under bipartisan budget rules first agreed to by the first President Bush and a Democratic Congress in the early 1990s, and later continued under President Clinton and a Republican Congress in the late 1990s, PAYGO rules were applied equally to both entitlements and tax cuts. These rules helped to produce the first federal budget surpluses in 30 years. Did you know that under President Clinton we had the highest tax rates in the history of our country, but the lowest defense spending since before Pearl Harbor? Those rules expired, however, in 2002. Under the new administration proposal, however, the rules would be revived only for entitlements, and increased entitlement spending could not be offset by increases in tax revenues. Any new entitlement spending would need to be offset by a reduction in other entitlement spending. Thank God for President Bush. I would be happy if all entitlement spending got the ax. Under a second proposal, Congress would be prevented from considering any entitlement change that would increase entitlement spending over the next 75 years. This is called progress. Such rules would affect spending on programs such as TANF, the Social Services Block Grant, and mandatory childcare spending, among others.

On the off chance that a liberal will read this story, let me explain something. Conservatives are not hateful. We do not turn a blind to the needy or to hungry children. But it does not take a village, or a socialist government, to raise a child. It takes responsible parents. Conservatives do not believe that government is the answer. Have poverty rates gone down since the inception of these programs? What about generational welfare recipients? Have they shown increased work ethics or responsibility? Are children doing better in school now that they have access to free food, before school care and after school care? No, no, no, no, no and no. Our society as a whole is much worse off now that it was prior to Social Security, welfare, WIC, food stamps, unemployment benefits, blah blah blah. Prior to entitlements, individuals, with the help of their families, took care of themselves cradle to grave.
There are many entitlement programs, lobbyist groups, think tanks, nonprofit groups and policy watch dog groups targeted to erase need and poverty in this country. Imagine the billions of dollars wasted every year to fund the programs, to keep an eye on the funding, to monitor the programs, to keep an eye on the groups that are keeping an eye on the funding and on and on and on. If we were to eliminate all entitlement programs run by the government and privatize them, the majority of the money would actually go to the people it is intended to help. The nonprofits would have to screen applicants carefully, eliminating the something for nothing crowd. They would have to clearly demonstrate goal achievement, or donors would go elsewhere. Accountability is an amazing tool in the elimination of fraud and waste, which is what these programs are currently built on. Everything the government touches becomes a bloated parasite. How can anyone think government is the answer?
I know best how to spend my money, and to which charitable organizations to give. So please, remove the tax man’s gun from my head, remove yourselves from my wallet, and perhaps people like me would donate even more money than we do already. Only then we will know that it is actually going to a hungry child, and not to pay an administrative fee.



Tina Wallace




Don’t Just Stop With Social Security

February 21, 2005

The privatization of Social Security is a hot topic, as well as a controversial one. Unfortunately, the controversy stems from a misrepresentation of the facts. Many opponents of the President’s yet to be released plan argue that our older population will lose current benefit levels, even though President Bush has said that our current Social Security recipients will not be affected. Some other opponents complain that privatization is a risky investment based on a volatile market. I guess the Dow Jones Industrials’ increase from just over 1,000 in 1985, to almost 11,000 today could be called risky. Only if you trusted jackass democrats and thus failed to invest.

Capitalism drives this country, not the federal government or it’s attempted redistribution of wealth. Compare our economy to any other socialist country, and you can easily see why we shy away from any new national plan funded entirely by tax dollars. Social Security can be privatized and reformed to better meet the current state of America, instead of staying a course that was defined almost a century ago. In fact, the privatization of most programs would create a thriving responsibility based society in which high taxes and free funding would become a thing of the past.

With all the federal programs in existence today, it is impossible to sustain a fluid government in which the needy are taken care of. Our education system is broken, and more money is not the answer. Welfare is a disastrous failure that lacks the ability to turn a recipient into a fully functioning citizen. Our orphaned and disabled children are often left behind by the very federal programs responsible for the care of such individuals. Yet what do our government workers do? They ask for an increase in funding with no evidence supporting the need for such. Our entire government is broken beyond the point of repair. The old ’57 Chevy can only roll so long before a rebuild is in order.

Jackass democrats often display their hatred for corporate America, but this sector may be where the answer lies. All large corporations give heavily to non profit programs, and due to the competition for their funds, they actually request proof of success and relevancy before giving. What if we wiped away all federally funded programs such as welfare, Medicaid, education, and Social Security, from the budget , and instead, left it up to the executive directors of these money sucking programs to secure donations for their own funding? This is the most generous country in the world, and instead of allowing a few political pundits in Washington D C to relegate hundreds of millions of dollars to whatever program may secure the most votes for their next run for office, let’s place the financial welfare of all federal programs into the hands of our corporations and general public. The federal government was never meat to be a creator of various kitties just so programs could rape it in the name of the common good. We all agree we need to create some responsibility in spending and what we spend it on, and this “freedom of choice funding” system can achieve just that.

I am all for congress making the decisions for funding our Department of Defense, NASA, EPA, The Justice Department and so on, but discretionary spending should be taken care of on the private level. The Internal Revenue Service has for years included a small contribution box on their most simplistic forms. I personally think listing various programs in need of your contribution is far more important than the planting of a tree, or a political campaign donation. Relinquish the burden of large corporation taxes and free up these dollars to be donated. I guarantee you these corporations will erase the accepted irresponsible spending taking place in Washington by demanding results and fiscal accountability, the same fundamentals that bring success to corporations.

Our current system does not work. We have leveled endless criticisms on every president for decades because they failed to present an acceptable budget. But how can any budget be acceptable when it includes numerous increases for failed programs and deficits due to incoherent discretionary spending? We need either a consumption tax or a flat tax to fund our governmental departments, and a privatized system for discretionary programs. Lobbyists and liberals will complain at the very thought of this radical reform, but lobbyists only have to shift their focus from senators and representatives, to corporations with money readily available to donate. Liberals will just end up losing their stranglehold on the poorest of Americans. For too long, the liberals have enslaved this country’s poor to the master of government programs, without any intentions of releasing the chains or relinquishing the power they possess over them. With the reform of discretionary programs, the jackass democrats will lose their unwarranted power that has allowed them to steal other‘s wealth and oppress our weakest individuals. I consider this a fringe benefit of privatization.

Blake Elliott




Stupid Is as Stupid Does

February 20, 2005

If you ever needed a prime example of a jackass democrat, look no further than this week’s testimony by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in front of Congress. This exchange between Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Secretary Rumsfeld proves how illegitimate and unqualified most jackass democrats truly are. Fast forward the clip to 2:13 and proceed to watch the next 3 to 4 minutes.

Blake Elliott





Disguising The Disqualification of Judges

February 19, 2005

The filibustering continues on capitol hill. President Bush has sent the same batch of nominees to the senate as last time, and the same results are threatened by the jackass democrats. I can understand opposing judges who pose a danger to our society, which is the excuse liberals give for their actions, but examples of dangerous rulings is what we need from the opposition before we give their obstructionist behavior any clout.

The only evidence offered by the democrats participating in the filibuster is the personal stance most of these judges take on the abortion issue. This does not suffice as evidence to support the blocking of judges to the federal courts. I am personally pro life, this does not mean that I do not recognize or accept the law of the land. I happen to believe the governing of abortion is a slippery slope. Roe versus Wade was not the inception of abortion. Women have been terminating unwanted pregnancies long before this nation was even founded. The banning of abortion would in fact endanger the lives of thousands of women because they would seek unauthorized, and untrained individuals to perform illegal abortions. This would create a black market that would unnecessarily kill women every year. The problem lies within social irresponsibility when it comes to sexual activity. Our youth are basically too stupid to foresee life problems such as premature parenthood. But weren’t we all stupid at one point? Many of us, including myself, were just plain lucky. Still, the point is, a judges’ personal stance on a political issue does not disqualify them as a candidate for a federal bench position.

A judge has one responsibility; to uphold the law. The separation of personal belief and the law is required. For example, many judges may think that the mandatory sentencing of a pothead is nonsense, a waste of time and resources in regards to our prison system, but they still sentence the convicted to whatever the state or federal law demands, therefore proving their personal belief never infringed upon the existing law. The only instances where judges have overstepped the bounds of the law has taken place in the liberal courts like the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional), or the Massachusetts Supreme Court (ruled marriage unconstitutional). Other liberal courts have recently attempted to rule in favor of terrorists in order to legally challenge the Bush doctrine concerning the war on terrorism. These types of judges are the only ones who actually pose a danger to our country by consistently ruling against the law, and in favor of their personal beliefs. This is where the term “activist” comes from, and there is no place for activism in our courts. Activism should only exist in the political system where legislation creates law based on popular demand. Jackass democrats have long been attempting to illegally change law through liberal activist courts, instead of gathering support for their fundamentals through successfully electing like minded individuals who can legally change law through legislation. This is the clear undermining of our judicial system and displays a blatant disrespect for our foundation.

I personally do not care what a judge believes in, whether it be creationism, evolution, abortion, Kerry or President Bush, as long as they have a reputation of properly interpreting and enforcing the existing law. This fundamental performance qualifies any judge for any bench in America. The jackass democrats are doing nothing more than lying to the American public in order to quantify their anti-conservatism positions, which makes most of them unqualified to serve in their current positions. It takes all kinds and beliefs to sustain this country. The democrats happen to believe that only liberal thinking people deserve to serve this country, or more explicitly, change this country.

Blake Elliott

February 10, 2005


Freedom of Speech?

Professor Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado hates America. It is his constitutional right to do so. Professor Churchill says that the 9/11 victims had it coming to them, and no matter how you personally feel about that opinion, it is also his constitutional right to voice it. It is a tall task to combat such stupidity, especially when the perpetrator is an over aged hippie, but Churchill need not waste his breath crying freedom of speech.

College students showed up in boisterous force in defense of their beloved half wit instructor. Every time the professor uttered anything to do with our constitution, and the rights afforded him by it, the crowd became blatantly raucous in the name of freedom. It would seem that the students professor Churchill had a hand in educating are not so educated after all. The ACLU consistently attempts the same legal maneuvering, and often fails, for good reason. Our constitution does not give you the right to be grossly offensive, nor does it give you the right to preach hate.

Imagine your child is attending college as a freshman. In fact, imagine your child is taking an ethnic studies course taught by professor Churchill. Ethnic studies covers a vast curriculum, and the very first topic your child will be studying is the slave trade and how Africans made it to North America. Professor Churchill is a man who enjoys pushing the envelope, and proceeds to teach his opinion on the subject. Professor Churchill prefers to call these Africans, who were forced into slavery by their own tribesmen, niggers. He then follows up by giving examples of how America has greatly suffered from the acceptance of niggers into our society, and that if our fore fathers had any sense what so ever, they would have loaded every last nigger onto those ships and set the sails back towards Africa. Had enough yet? I thought so.

Most would consider that subject matter a tad bit offensive. How long do you think professor Churchill would continue to be an administrative head at your child's college? Or better yet, do you think professor Churchill would ever be hired by any university ever again? Suffice it to say that the least of professor Churchill's worries would be his future employment. He would have a difficult time just making it off campus without being mobbed and brutally beaten.

But what about his freedom of speech? Aren't we supposed to protect his rights first? Did that right vanish? Absolutely not. But your freedoms can be easily overshadowed by your hate. Many people, whom I doubt professor Churchill knew, died on 9/11. They were also innocent. To teach such negative opinion as college education is deplorable, and yes, punishable by termination. We all have opinions, and you know what they say about opinions right?

I understand the need for individualism, and I tend to think that most of these college students are searching for a defining moment, not for the world, but for themselves. The current generation shows no signs of successful tendencies or global understanding, and with the annihilation of competitive education (no valedictorians, no firsts in class, fewer magna cum laude graduates), these underachievers will receive their fair share of bruising when in the real world. They have very gullible minds, easily misshapen with sharp offensive rhetoric, and idiotic professors take advantage of them. Cutting edge is what these hapless ninnies seek, but to contribute to delinquency, and to encourage the spreading of personal contempt in the name of tax dollar education oversteps any bounds allowed by law. Mr. Churchill is more than welcome to join Moveon.org, the ACLU, or any privately funded university, but to currently require an entire state to contribute to his compensation is indefensible.

I am not paid by tax dollars, and I do not attempt to push my opinion as fact, so let me take this opportunity to exercise my first amendment rights. Professor Churchill, you are a pathetic incompetent, and good riddance you commie bastard.

Blake Elliott


February 1, 2005

Okay Lefties, Let’s Compare Some Numbers


Since the media and prominent self-promoting politicians like to paint the war in Iraq as one of the worst guerilla wars we have ever seen, let’s consider a few statistics in an attempt to better understand their portrayal. Of course it goes without saying that our troops are invaluable, and each death is heart wrenching. But if you look at the war in Iraq (the “quagmire”), and compare it to every day life in the United States, you might see things a little differently than Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, Jennings and their ilk.
Iraq has an estimated population of roughly 25 million. In 2004, 7,837 troops were injured and 713 were killed in action. In 2000 (the most recent data from the US Census Bureau), the population of California was about 33.5 million. In that same year, there were 210,531 violent crimes and 2,079 murders. The population in New York in 2000 was a little more than 19 million. In New York in 2000, there were 124,890 violent crimes and 952 murders. In one year, we lost 713 very brave soldiers who were fighting in a war, which obviously is a dangerous environment. In one year, California lost over 2,000 citizens to murder, and New York lost over 950. That said, would the Democrats assume that it is more dangerous to live in the U.S. than it is to fight in Iraq? Is driving a car more dangerous than fighting in Iraq? In 2001 over 42,000 people died in the U.S. because they took the risk of driving. Is having the flu more dangerous than promoting freedom? The CDC estimates that 20,000 people die each year from the flu. It is estimated that Hussein released over 70,000 hardened criminals from prison before the war. If you compare terrorists in Iraq, who are nothing more than criminals, to our own criminal element, it would seem that it is much more dangerous to simply live in America than it is to fight terrorism in Iraq.

It is the position of many on the left that we are losing the war in Iraq. Some say that we should pull our troops out immediately, as it is just too violent and the death toll of American soldiers is at an unacceptable rate. Let’s compare the war in Iraq to some of our other conflicts to see if the war really is the losing proposition that the left portrays it to be. Years ago, the U.S. was attacked by foreign men who used airplanes to murder thousands of American citizens. A madman halfway around the world was murdering his own people and threatening the countries around him. If that scenario sounds familiar, it should. It describes 9/11, as well as WWII. Would today’s lefties have fought WWII? I think we all know the answer to that question. Hitler did not attack us. Hitler, just like Hussein, had signed numerous useless pieces of paper assuring the world that he would behave. Hitler, just like Hussein, had no intention of following his word. On D-Day alone, the Allies dropped 156,000 troops in ten hours on the beaches of Normandy, and 73,000 of them were American. Total Allied casualties for that one day are estimated at 10,000 with 2,500 of those killed in action. Out of that 10,000, 6603 were U.S. casualties. Can you imagine what the Democrats of today would have thought of Eisenhower’s plan? I think I can guess.

In the case of WWII, 16.1 million U.S. armed forces personnel served during a five year period. The United States lost 292,000 troops in action, another 114,000 died of other causes, and 671,000 were wounded. The U.S. fought for many years, then began reconstruction in various countries which took many more years, and we still maintain a military presence in those countries as a result. In the case of Viet Nam, 2.59 million armed forces personnel served. Of those, over 47,000 died in combat, another 9,000 died of other causes, and 304,000 were wounded. In the Civil War, 620,000 Americans lost their lives. How can one look at those numbers and think the current war is too costly? How can one reflect on our military history and conclude that the War on Terror is not worth fighting, that the casualty numbers are too high? How can the Lefties continually disparage the war, our President, and the cause for which our troops make so many sacrifices? And how is it that so many people buy it?



Tina Elliott




January 30, 2005

The American Insurgents: Jackass Democrats

The media and Jackass Democrats told us that we would have difficulty taking control of Baghdad; we did it in 23 days. They told us sovereignty wouldn’t be transferred to Iraq by the self imposed deadline; sovereignty was transferred on time. They told us that elections would not occur on the date specified, due to violence and lack of interest; elections took place with better turnout than our own country has ever experienced. They also told us that the insurgency was winning, and the war was nothing more than a quagmire; the insurgency lost their bid to suppress the vote, Iraqis are celebrating, and our military has systematically met every goal in Iraq. Do you see a pattern here?

From domestic issues to foreign affairs, I have a difficult time finding any accurate predictions from the Jackass Democrats. They fought against tax cuts, yet the plan implemented by President Bush proved to bolster a troubled economy. The Patriot Act , though initially supported by many democrats, is now under attack for violating civil liberties. I have yet to witness one account of any American citizen having his civil liberties violated, and all the while, terrorist’s have failed to attack us again, and violent crime has plummeted by 30%, the lowest rate in over three decades.

Who is laying a clear path for America? And who is nipping at the heels of progress? Just as the insurgents in Iraq fight and kill without a clear message or goal, Jackass Democrats attempt to derail and smear any clear direction without offering one of their own. As of right now, American politics is an absolute opposite of what it was 20 years ago. Conservatives are now the people’s choice, and with the promotion of freedom, along with the subsequent increase in national security it brings, Jackass Democrats are left to flounder in their incompetence.

The Kennedys, Kerrys and Boxers are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Their consistent dissent based on erroneous accusations makes their base weary. It is incredibly ironic that the self anointed party of democracy has been relegated to opposing freedom and democracy, all due to political pettiness. It was just five years ago, when the National Organization for Women (NOW) website featured Afghanistan as the main culprit guilty of the suppression of women. Since then, elections have taken place in Afghanistan, allowing women to vote and run for public office. But there is no sign of any celebration within NOW. President Clinton first called for regime change in Iraq while campaigning in 1992 with Al Gore. That administration continued to call for change through 2000. And with all the support President Clinton received from the Jackass Democrats, the majority of them refuse to positively acknowledge Sadaam Hussein’s removal and capture, or this incredible Iraqi election. Ask any democrat in this country what their party’s agenda is, and all you will hear is one of opposition. An Iraqi voter was quoted today as saying, “We as a people do not want to be one of constant opposition.” The Iraqis get it, why don’t Jackass Democrats?

The examples of liberal hollowness are endless, and continue to baffle clear thinking Americans. Either you stand for something, regardless of who is credited for it’s creation, or you don’t. Through their own activism, it is obvious that Jackass Democrats are against democracy, national security, economic growth through capitalism, and the removal of worldwide oppressive regimes. Doesn’t that eerily resemble the terrorist’s agenda?

Blake Elliott