Click to bookmark this page!

- Contact Me -
Include your email address

<< October 2003 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31

Just in case you weren't sure...
If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

rss feed

Shameless Self-Promotion

Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From

An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!

Joe Mariani

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by precision use of American military force under George W. Bush:
50 million in just two years

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by anti-American Bush-bashing terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
Zero. Ever.

The problem seems to me to be the definition of "free speech". Liberals define it as anything they want to say or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a "peace" march, send money to a terrorist organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.

Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force.

Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat.

Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature.

Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.

Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."


Infamous Monsters of Filmland

Day by Day: Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political bent

The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?

What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble of figuring out what kind of idiot you are

Blame Bush
Because Bush is to blame... for everything

Sacred Cow Burgers
Web Archive

Satirical Political Beliefs Test

Communists for Kerry

Cooper's Protester Guide

Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.


When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)

Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.

Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism

How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan

Did We Botch The Occupation?
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946 and compare.

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq

Pictures from Hate Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate Israel/general wacko rallies
- by Zombie

Jihad Watch

Useful Links

Share your wish list with friends and family

Free online file transfer - even works with Android phones

Reviews of hotels, flights and sites
Convenient comparison shopping

Reading Material

The best right-wing news and commentary

GOP USA Commentary Corner

Men's News Daily
The New Media
a project of Frontiers of Freedom

SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news

American Daily
Analysis with political and social commentary

The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion

News By Us
...not news bias
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics
Practical conservatism for the common man

Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World
Philly news and blogs

Now Reading

The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek

Articles Previously Published at

- When Good Liberals Go Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
- Whining of Mass Distraction: How To Discredit A President - 06/05/03
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 06/10/03
- Liberalism: Curable or Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
- Is Hamas Exempt from the War on Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance, Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On - 07/03/03
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again - 07/13/03
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified? - 07/20/03
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder - 08/06/03
- The Meaning of Right - Why I Supported the Iraq War - 08/10/03
- More Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with American Politics? - 03/04/04

Blogs to Browse

Across the Pond
Arts for Democracy
Betsy's Page
Bill Karl
Blonde Sagacity
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Conservative Pleasure
Dangerous Logic
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
Sally Girl
Korla Pundit
Mark Nicodemo
Michelle Malkin
My Arse From My Elbow
QandO Blog
Rebel Rouser
Sally Girl
Samantha Burns
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts
Sighed Effects
Sister Toldjah
Stark Truth
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
Tom's Common Sense
Tom DeLay
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Violent Daydreams
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net

Locations of visitors to this page

Monday, October 20, 2003
The U.N. Wants Your Guns

To put in place, where they do not exist, adequate laws, regulations and administrative procedures to exercise effective control over the production of small arms and light weapons within their areas of jurisdiction and over the export, import, transit or retransfer of such weapons...
UN Document A/CONF.192/15 Part II Section 2

Though they piously claim that their purpose is to stop illegal trade in small arms around the world, the United Nations' drive for global gun control is all about one thing: declaring between 60 and 65 million law-abiding Americans (according to the 2003 NRA factsheet) instant criminals. The UN wants to oversee all sales of "small arms" -- including handguns, rifles and shotguns. The resolution demands that "henceforth licensed manufacturers apply an appropriate and reliable marking on each small arm and light weapon as an integral part of the production process." They want to track all guns from manufacturer to owner to owner, and "prevent the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and possession of any unmarked or inadequately marked small arms and light weapons" (which must include all existing guns, since these marks have not yet been created). In other words, if you own a gun manufactured before the new marking is determined, you're in violation... you and tens of millions of other Americans exercising the rights protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

The Second Amendment states "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The Founding Fathers were extremely clear on their purposes regarding gun ownership. (Again referring to the NRA factsheet) Thomas Jefferson said, "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms." Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed." Richard Henry Lee wrote, "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."  Some people might argue that a militia is no longer necessary to the security of the country. Some of those people might argue that if a militia is no longer necessary, the people have no right to keep and bear arms. Reading the Constitution, I find no place in it where that or any right is specifically granted; therefore the rights the Constitution was designed to protect were pre-supposed to exist independently of and prior to its existence. There is certainly no precedent in the Constitution for removing the rights of the people, however... nor should there be.

If the United Nations succeeds in removing your right to own a gun, they will have succeeded in circumventing the Constitution of the United States, rendering it inferior to the will of the United Nations. Many "multiculturalist" (meaning "anti-THIS-culture") Liberals would think of that as a good thing, since (in their opinion), the United States is neither capable nor worthy of self-determination. To say the least, I disagree with that opinion.  The Amendments in the Bill of Rights were designed to protect one thing: our freedom. An armed citizenry need never fear falling under the sort of totalitarian dictatorships that comprise many of the United Nations members, for instance.

Posted at Monday, October 20, 2003 by CavalierX
->Click to make a comment  

Sunday, October 19, 2003
Liberal Litmus Test part 2

Take the following simple test to see whether you're a Liberal.  Keep track of your answers. 

11. The U.S. Military...
a. exists to protect America from harm, as aggressively as necessary.  They're all heroes.
b. is too powerful; any use of America's overwhelming military might is unfair.
c. is accurately portrayed in movies like Oliver Stone's "Platoon" as a bunch of swaggering testosterone-drunk bullies, just aching to murder foreigners.

12. Osama bin Laden...
a. sits in a hidden cave issuing threats. It's just as important to dismantle his organisation as it is to find him... maybe more so. He doesn't carry out operations himself, you know.
b. is the most important member of al-Qaeda and our only legitimate enemy. Once we've captured him this "War on Terror" should be over, and we can stop being so aggressive and other countries won't hate us.
c. is only practicing his faith; it's unfair to keep harassing him this way. Try seeing the world from his point of view before you go around trying to kill him!

13. The Democratic Presidential hopefuls...
a. are mostly a joke. All they do is bash Bush like a bunch of angry children... not a thought or plan among them, except to raise our taxes some more.  Who are they again?
b. will hopefully win the election, if they can come up with some really good platforms. Who are they again?
c. HAVE to win in 2004, no matter who ends up getting the nomination or what his ideas are. Who cares who they are, as long as they beat Bush?

14. The Democratic Party leaders...
a. were calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein five years ago based on Saddam's known weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian crimes, violation of UN resolutions and support of terrorism.  They are the lowest of hypocrites for attacking the President (after the fact, of course, and after voting in favor of military action) just for political gain.
b. are finally making their voices heard in a Republican-dominated Washington.
c. should openly revolt and force Bush out of power, at gunpoint if necessary!

15. Filibustering judicial nominees...
a. is an attempt by the Democrats to hijack the Constitutional process. The same hypocrites that vehemently opposed the mere threat of filibustering Clinton's nominees are now leading the fake two-year filibuster on Bush's. The Constitution does not support them; their actions violate it. Is it even legal to block a nominee from even being voted on just because you're afraid you might lose? That's called democracy.
b. is acceptable, if the Senators really feel that the nominee is unqualified.
c. is acceptable, if the nominee is a Conservative right-winger nominated by a Republican.

16. Hillary Clinton...
a. became a partner in her law firm only because her husband got elected Governor, and became a Senator only because her husband got elected President. She has no actual qualifications to hold any office, yet some people are so star-struck they want her to run for President?  At least Arnold had experience owning and managing his own companies before running for Governor!
b. should run for President, because it would be great to have a woman President!
c. should run for President, because she might get enough votes to beat Bush!

17. Iran...
a. is harboring and supporting terrorists (especially
Saad bin Laden, who they said they expelled last year), and certainly seems to be on the verge of building a nuclear bomb.  If they don't prove to the IAEA by 31 October 2003 that they aren't... they're in serious trouble. (And they can look east and west to find out what "serious trouble" means.)
b. is in danger of incurring the wrath of the United Nations, which will almost certainly issue resolutions and sanctions to teach them they should cooperate!
c. is sure to be the next country illegally invaded by Bush, when they are doing nothing to deserve it any more than Iraq or Afghanistan were.

18. Conservative talk radio hosts...
a. are entertainers who exhort people to think for themselves instead of blindly obeying politicians and media elites spouting messages of gloom, doom and fear.  They often point out inconsistencies, shading and outright lies in media stories, which is why they're hated by the Left.
b. are mean, inhuman people who rant in front of millions of brainwashed followers, just like Hitler.
c. are dangerous because so many people listen to them... and people are merely sheep who NEED a shepherd.  If we don't make them stop preaching their evil messages of disobedience and anti-political correctness, people will run wild, offending each other and voting Republican! They have to be silenced.

19. Gun ownership...
a. is a right of all responsible, law-abiding free Americans, protected by the Second Amendment.  Non-law-abiding people will get them no matter what the law says.
b. should be restricted so that only people who really demonstrate a need for them should be able to get them.
c. should be stopped!  The only kind of people who own guns also drink beer and watch NASCAR, for crying out loud... and who wants a bunch of drunk, testosterone-soused redneck bullies running around waving guns? The unwashed masses are too stupid to own guns. People need to be protected from themselves.

20. Cuba...
a. is an oppressive totalitarian Communist regime guilty of
violating human rights, which people risk death daily to escape.  We need to push for democracy for the Cuban people.
b. is a shining example of a Communist country that works, to counterbalance the oppressive Captalism of the USA. They have no unemployment, and no poverty!
c. is run by a great, wise, benevolent leader, and all the people adore him and are
blissfully happy.  No, I've never been there, but that's what celebrities like Oliver Stone, Ed Asner and Danny Glover say, and THEY have.

So, how did you score?

Mostly a's:
No, you're no Liberal. You're a fine human being with a good grasp of the issues. Make sure you vote next November!
Mostly b's:
Yes, You're a Liberal, but there's hope for you. You can be reasoned with. You need to get over the brainwashing you've undergone at school and by the Liberal media, and start thinking for yourself.
Mostly c's (or, you're utterly brainwashed):
If you hate this country so much, why are you here?  You'd enjoy Canada or France, or perhaps Cuba or North Korea MUCH more, I'm thinking, and create a job vacancy for a REAL American by your absence.

BONUS: If you refused to take this test because tests are inherently unfair... then you, my
friend, are definitely a Liberal.

Take Part 1 and Part 3 of this test for the full effect. By the way, the "c" answers were all paraphrased from actual arguments I've had, mostly online.  The other side, of course.

Posted at Sunday, October 19, 2003 by CavalierX
->Click to make a comment  

Friday, October 17, 2003
Another Iraqi Thank You

The American media's moratorium on everything coming out of Iraq with the exception of bad news is really beginning to grate.  What kind of "free press" mostly reports one side of the story?  Even as Ted Kennedy (D-C2H5OH)* rants "We were told our soldiers would be viewed as liberators. They are not"... they are.  Sorry, Ted.

It's a sad day when an American has to read news from other countries to get an idea of what his country's doing that's NOT being reported at home.  We used to joke (back in the bad old days of the Cold War) about how TASS and Pravda only presented one side of the issues to citizens of the U.S.S.R.  How much worse is it when American media outlets refuse to print anything that puts the American government in a favorable light?  TASS and Pravda were, at least, rooting for their OWN COUNTRY, instead of against it!

A recent article in the Hindu Business Line (a Madras-based business newspaper, of all places), For This Iraqi, It's Thank You, Bush, contains a few quotes from an interview with a 45-year old teacher from Baghdad:

"The Americans are good for two reasons: First, because they got rid of Saddam Hussein, and second, because they have provided safety and security for the people of Baghdad."

Another reason for which Anwaar and her neighbours are grateful to the Americans is the unearthing of an ammunition depot in their neighbourhood. "Saddam Hussein had kept a huge amount of ammunition here. But someone tipped the Americans and they came and cleared the whole place. Had a single lighted matchstick been thrown in that place, the whole area would have blown up, killing -- Allah alone knows -- how many innocent people."

She insists that things are much better in Baghdad and the situation is improving by the day. "Even you can go around safely in Baghdad; just avoid going out at nights and be very careful about your purse. But otherwise, Baghdad is a safe place, particularly for women like me."

She recalls with a shudder the horrific times under Saddam Hussein. "He was a tyrant of the worst kind. Nobody can imagine how bad he was. Let me give you an example. Under the `Food for Oil' programme, we used to get supplies of medicines, some of it meant for the sick children in our hospitals. But Saddam would seize the supplies and instruct paediatric departments or children's hospitals that the medicine should not be given to the children and they should be allowed to die. He would order that once 20 children were dead, their janazas (coffins) should be taken out together so the world could be led to believe that these children were being killed due to the UN sanctions on Iraq. He was heartless. Loads of expired medicines would be thrown away instead of treating sick children. That is why I would like to say: Thank you Mr Bush for getting rid of Saddam."

Anwaar is sore at the Iraqis who curse the Americans. "There were only two entities who could have saved Iraq from Saddam: God or the Americans. God did not listen to our prayers."

Future generations of free Iraqis will be glad that someone did.

* C2H5OH is the chemical composition of alcohol.

Posted at Friday, October 17, 2003 by CavalierX
->Click to make a comment  

Thursday, October 16, 2003
Clinton's Warning

In a Reuters news story yesterday, former President Bill Clinton says that he warned President Bush in his "exit meeting" that Osama bin Laden was the biggest threat to the US.  I wish I could ask Clinton why, if he felt Osama was such a threat, he passed up chance after chance to arrest him. 
Mansoor Ijaz, now a New York City-based investment banker who traveled to Sudan more than a half dozen times in the mid-1990s, says he repeatedly relayed offers from the Sudanese government to the Clinton White House to share intelligence on bin Laden. In one case, the president of Sudan offered to arrest and extradite bin Laden and turn over information about global terrorist networks, Ijaz says.
The Clinton administration declined to take him up on the offer, Ijaz has argued in a Los Angeles Times commentary, in the pages of the January issue of the magazine Vanity Fair, and on national television shows.

I thought what Mansoor Ijaz had to say in December 2001 was bad until I found Richard Minter's book Losing bin Laden and Dereliction of Duty by Robert Patterson.  For a man who thought Osama bin Laden was the biggest threat to the nation, Clinton certainly did a whole lot of nothing about it. 

I wonder what that "warning" he supposedly gave President Bush was like?  I'd like to know exactly what he said.  I wonder if, as the meeting was ending, Clinton turned back at the door and said something like this:

"Oh hey, by the way, George... I left a few things for y'all to deal with.  I couldn't be bothered to make that Kim Jong Il fellow keep his promises; you'll have to take care of that.  Same thing goes for Saddam Hussein... I tossed a couple of cruise missiles over there in Iraq, as you know, but I didn't want to risk my popularity by insisting that the UN inspectors be allowed back in after that, to see whether we actually hit anything, y'know?  Oh, one more thing... people keep trying to get me to arrest this Osama bin Laden guy, they say he's dangerous... Hell, Sudan even offered to send him to where we could pick him up easy, but I didn't like their lack of socially progressive programs, so I just told 'em 'no'.  I had other fish to fry, y'know what I mean?  But I'm sure you'll be able to wrap up these here loose ends soon as you finish fixing up the economy.  It started tanking in May of 2000, you know, but I managed to gloss over it long enough to skate outta here looking good, didn't I?  That's the key... make sure no one can make anything stick to you, and you'll leave a good legacy.  Well, George, it's been real fun meeting ya'll like this, but I have a few more pardons to sign before I leave."

Posted at Thursday, October 16, 2003 by CavalierX
->Click to make a comment  

Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Liberal Litmus Test

Take the following simple test to see whether you're a Liberal.  Keep track of your answers.

1. Tax cuts...
a. stimulate the economy by putting more money in the hands of all consumers, while reducing the size of government.
b. should be on a sliding scale, so that the more money you make, the more taxes you pay by percentage.
c. ...for the rich!

2. A woman is days away from giving birth, and doesn't want to keep it. She should:
a. give the baby up for adoption.
b. get an abortion... after all, it's not really a child.
c. get an abortion, and the government should pay for it!

3. The United Nations...
a. is proving itself more irrelevant and opposed to America every day; we should consider leaving the UN and forming a new, permanent coalition of nations that are actually on our side. No rogue nations or terrorist states need apply.
b. should be our guide and conduit for international relations.
c. should be given complete sovereignty over all nations, especially the USA!

4. France...
a. is no longer our ally, because of their direct actions against us.
b. has always been our ally; maybe we should listen to their wise advice.
c. knows better than America. We need socialised medicine, shorter work weeks, government-sponsored vacation time, and freedom from morality too!

5. Countries who support terrorism...
a. are on the fast track to becoming our enemies, if they continue.
b. are only doing so because they fear the terrorists.
c. have a right to hate us because we're really the bad guys here.

6. Saddam Hussein...
a. was a monster who needed to be stopped.
b. was a bad leader who should have been stopped by the gradual application of international pressure.  Oh, but not sanctions, because that only hurts the people.  Just frowning at him at UN meetings would have done it eventually.
c. was a better man and a better leader than Bush!

7. Terrorists...
a. are being taken down one scumbag at a time.
b. hate the US because of world poverty and American arrogance.
c. have the right idea, but they're not active enough.

8. Israel...
a. is a democracy and our ally, and has the right to defend itself against terrorists, the same as we do.
b. is just as bad as the Palestinans; we should stay out of it.
c. should be destroyed; they're as arrogant as America!

9. The mainstream media...
a. is mostly liberal by their own admission. They filter news from Iraq to emphasise the bad, they promote the liberal point of view, and side with the elitists against America.
b. is pretty fair, on the whole. America isn't perfect, you know.
c. is owned by Zionists and controlled by the Bush administration!

10. President George W. Bush, Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, Leader of the Free World...
a. is doing a damn fine job, considering all this country has been through in the last three years. His tax cuts are starting to turn Clinton's recession around, his war on terror has prevented over a hundred terrorist plots against America from coming to fruition, and he's responsible for toppling two dictatorships and freeing fifty million people with an incredibly small loss of innocent and American lives.  The good far outweighs the bad.
b. is doing a terrible job. There are still poor people and unemployed people in America, the Patriot Acts are killing our freedoms (though I refuse to be more specific about that), and all the other countries really hate us!
c. Hitler! Cowboy! Fascist! Bad evil scum garbage hate (froth) @*#$%^*&^#^%)@^!!!!! ARRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!! (head explodes)

So, how did you score?

Mostly a's: No, you're no Liberal. You're a fine human being with a good grasp of the issues. Make sure you vote next November!
Mostly b's: Yes, You're a Liberal, but there's hope for you. You can be reasoned with. You need to get over the brainwashing you've undergone at school and by the Liberal media, and start thinking for yourself.
Mostly c's (or, your head exploded): If you hate this country so much, why are you here?  You'd enjoy Canada or France, or perhaps Cuba or North Korea MUCH more, I'm thinking, and create a job vacancy for a REAL American by your absence.

BONUS: If you refused to take this test because tests are inherently unfair... yes, you are definitely a Liberal.

Take Part 2 and Part 3 of this test for the full effect.

Posted at Tuesday, October 14, 2003 by CavalierX
->Click to add a comment (5)  

Friday, October 10, 2003
Thought Police Beware in California!

Not too many Liberals, I'm betting, have read Tammy Bruce's books The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds and The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values.  Well, if they want to get an idea of what's coming soon to California, they'd better.  According to, Tammy Bruce has been asked to be part of Governor Arnold's transition team.  Just the titles of those two books alone ought to give you some idea of the shakeup California's about to undergo politically and socially.  It's going to make the 1974 movie Earthquake look like a mild hiccup in comparison.

After all, how many conservative feminists who also happen to be lesbians can YOU name who have a chance to get into politics and help re-make an entire state? 

The Left-wingers are rushing to assure each other that the election of a Republican, especially one who's socially liberal, means nothing at all to the essentially Democratic nature of the state.  Well, democracy -- with a small "d" -- has spoken, and the Left-wing radicals are about to REALLY understand the point of view of the Taliban watching A-10 Warthogs sweeping over the Afghanistan horizon.  If anyone doubts that most Californians voted to overthrow the Democrat stranglehold on California, all they have to do is check the results map at

Not a pretty sight... for the Democrats.  A lot of people have gone on record to say that they hope the Democrats get the message, they hope the shrill mud-slinging stops, and that they hope the Democrats soon come back to their senses.  Not me. 

I foresee a split in the Democratic party nationwide. That's what it will take for them to divest themselves of the foaming mad anti-American elitists. You know who I mean: the ones who think anyone who drinks beer ought to be placated with "bread and circuses" every November instead of taking part in the democratic process.  The "classic Democrats" -- those that would promote American interests over those of the French instead of vice-versa -- will probably spend the next ten years rebuilding their power base, and will hopefully by THEN learn that the American people root for America in any conflict.  We have a vested interest in our own future, and we have to protect it... from enemies within as well as without.

If the retaking of California is the first step towards the rebuilding of America, the best part about this revolution is that our opponents believe in gun control.   The most they can give you with an A.N.S.W.E.R. pamphlet is a nasty paper cut.

Posted at Friday, October 10, 2003 by CavalierX
->Click to make a comment  

Wednesday, October 08, 2003
This Is the Liberal!

For me, the best part of the California recall election has been watching the Liberal reaction. I've never seen so many people so frothing at the mouth with rage, and -- I'm sorry -- it's hilarious!  They seem to be struggling to outdo each other climbing to higher ivory towers to escape the teeming masses of stupid ordinary people -- that's you and me, in case you don't know.  Consider this absolutely typical post (from Democratic Underground); of the thousands I've read today on various left-wing political forums, this one expresses the mindset of the Liberals the best

What we MUST realize in order to win - Americans are stupid and uninformed

This is very important because in order to win we must understand the way the average American thinks. I'm afraid WE have nothing in common with them.

I came to the two following conclusions when I saw the large number of people who voted for Bush back in 2000.

#1 - I would dare to assume that most of us here are in the upper 1%-20% of the population intelligence-wise. We must come to the realization that the majority of the population is in the lower 80% to 99% percent of the bell-curve. WE are not the norm. The Republicans understand that the average American is not very bright. They cater and pander to the masses. The Democratic Party tries to appeal to the population about "issues" that these people just don't understand.

I've heard it said that the reason that Clinton's sex scandal resonated so strongly among "the people" was because it was a scandal that the average American understood. The average person can't understand a financial scandal.

In addition, people of average or lower intelligence tend to not be as logical or reasoned as those of higher intelligence - they deal with emotion. Therefore they are more likely to get riled up about someone burning a flag rather than a illogical tax cut.

#2 - The majority of people do not read the newspaper OR listen to the news, CNN, etc. Therefore -they get their news from the Tonight Show, Letterman, Oprah and Saturday Night Live. Or, they get their news from talking to their co-workers at the water cooler.

Also, for the few people who DO listen to the news - who do they hear it from? Fox News and Bill O'Reilly are the most popular. Most newspapers and media outlets are owned by Republicans.

THIS is what we are fighting against people. In order to win we will need to start pandering to the masses.

Heart-warming, isn't it?  THIS is the Liberal mentality in a nutshell! THIS is what the people living in those ivory towers REALLY think of YOU!  THIS is what we have to be on guard against... THIS IS THE LIBERAL!

Posted at Wednesday, October 08, 2003 by CavalierX
->Click to make a comment  

Monday, October 06, 2003
Will Smear Tactics Backfire?

The Democrat viciousness of the final days of the California recall campaign ought to be remembered.  California is a microcosm, a precursor of the Presidential campaign that's only just heating up in the rest of the country.
Remember how the newspapers (led by the LA Times) ran a personal smear campaign against Arnold Schwarzenegger, starting with reprinting a 25-year-old interview with a French magazine, to the point of going out to find women to make allegations of sexual misconduct against him only a few days before the election. (
Remember how the newspapers ran endless stories about the fact that Arnold's father was a Nazi... a fact over which Arnold has no control. (
Remember how ABC News created stories about Arnold praising Adolf Hitler, deliberately changing the words "But I didn't admire what he did with it" to "and for what he did with it" after the words "I admired Hitler for instance because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for his way of getting to the people and so on."  (
Remember how the newspapers left out the rest of that 25-year-old interview: "Yes, in Germany they used power and authority but it was used in the wrong way," Mr. Schwarzenegger said, according to Mr. Butler. "But it was misused on the power. First, it started having, I mean, getting Germany out of the great recession and having everybody jobs and so on and then it was just misused. And they said, let's take this country, and so on." Mr. Schwarzenegger concluded: "That's bad." (
Remember the vicious attacks against Arnold by groups such as, which has embarked on email and television smear campaigns telling people "if you have a wife, daughter or mother, you cannot vote for this man".  Remember that they got their name from their campaign against the impeachment of Clinton, claiming that it was "all about sex" (it was all about LYING, actually), that a person's sex life was his or his own business, and that we should all just "move on". (
Remember which Democratic Presidential candidates for the '04 election (not to mention Bill and Hillary Clinton) endorsed Gray Davis and (by extension) his tactics. (Hint: ALL)
Remember all these vicious backstabbing gutter political tactics.  It won't be hard. You're going to see all these tactics and more directed against President Bush over the coming year.  If you think the attacks on him have been bad since the Democrats began seriously trying to destroy him after the liberation of Iraq, "you ain't seen nothin' yet".
The anti-Arnold smear campaign, I predict, will backfire against Davis and his slimy cronies, sweeping Arnold into the Governor's mansion tomorrow on a wave of indignation. 
Likewise, the more vicious the attacks against President Bush, the better I sleep at night.  As I said, this California recall election is a precursor of next year's Presidential election.  All the vitriol of the Democrats is going to backfire against them in the national race as well.

Posted at Monday, October 06, 2003 by CavalierX
->Click to make a comment  

Sunday, October 05, 2003
Typical Email, Typical Reply

I frequently receive emails like the following, which I thought I'd share along with my typical reply.  Why can't Liberals, anti-war idiots and Bush-bashers understand what is being DONE here, and how the world is already a better place with the Taliban overthrown and Saddam out of power? Fifty million people in two nations have been freed by the precise application of US military force. How many people have been freed by Liberal hand-wringing and appeasement policies?
I'll give you a hint: none.

(name deleted) wrote:

Bush ignored the inspectors, didn't wait for the UN to give a report, rushed in and bombed. Of course terrorists must be dealt with. But how satisfied are the people of Iraq now? Not very. And where is Hussein and Bin Laden? Revenge is a terrible weapon and both these men will be seeking it.  God help us all when this happens.

And I replied:

Well, I'm afraid not one of your statements is accurate except that "terrorists must be dealt with".  Saddam, not the inspectors, was given a deadine by the United Nations -- 7 December 2002.  At that time, he was to have produced a FFCD (final, full, complete disclosure) to UNSCOM.  He did not.  President Bush generously gave Saddam three MORE months in which to comply with UNSC#1441. Blix's 173-page 6 March 2003 report, which can be found here: still clearly showed Saddam in non-compliance.  Since the 1991 cease-fire agreement Iraq signed with the US was already declared in violation (as of 1998, by Clinton), President Bush had every right by US and international law to remove Saddam from power (as per the Iraq Liberation Act, the text of which can be found here:  In fact, I would argue (with some justification) that our biggest mistake was giving Saddam a year's full notice, which he obviously used to his advantage. Where is bin Laden? In northeast Pakistan, waiting to be smoked out as we go cave by cave to find him. (It took five years to find Eric Rudolph, and he was hiding right in the friendly USA, and even THEN we only got him by accident.)  Where is Hussein?  Perhaps if we hadn't given him 12 years before forcing him out of power, he wouldn't have been able to set up billions of dollars in hidden bank accounts with which to hide today.  I'll tell you where he is NOT, however -- murdering another million and a half innocent Iraqi men, women and children.  Care to argue that he SHOULD be? As for how satisfied the people of Iraq are now, current poll numbers show that 66% feel they are better off today with Saddam out of power.  Their free press showers thanks on their friends in the USA; their greatest fear is that we will leave before they're ready to run their own country. But we will not. Doing so would condemn the entire world to be haunted by terrorists for decades, and that will NOT be allowed to happen.

Posted at Sunday, October 05, 2003 by CavalierX
->Click to add a comment (2)  

Saturday, October 04, 2003
Rewriting History

As they've done countless times before, the Liberal Democrats are trying to rewrite history to suit their purposes. We MUST not allow this to happen.  This time around, they're doing their best to convince us all that President Bush claimed that Iraq was an "imminent threat" to America in order to convince us all to back his plan to remove this brutal dictator and terrorist supporter from power. 
- On 3 June 2003, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, "The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat." This is a lie. 
- As early as 21 May, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Oh) said, "This administration led this nation into a war based on a pretext that Iraq was an imminent threat, which it was not." ( That was a lie. 
- Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) stated in his overblown way at the same time, "What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S." (  But we knew that before we went in.  (Try to keep up, Bob.) 
- Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Ma) is also lying. "There was no imminent threat... This whole thing was a fraud," Kennedy said in an interview on 19 September ( 
- Of course, Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) chimed in Thursday with, "it was clear to me that there was no imminence of a threat for weapons of mass destruction." ( No one ever said there was.
- Also reacting to David Kay's Thursday  interim report on Iraq's WMD, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mi) said, "What took us to war were statements about weapons of mass destruction in the possession of Saddam Hussein and the threat of their imminent use."  Another lie. (
- And the Associated Press itself led off its story of David Kay's report with the lie, "Chief U.S. weapons searcher David Kay reported Thursday he had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a finding that brought fresh congressional complaints about the Bush administration's prewar assertions of an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.
" (  There were no such assertions. 
- You can even see the lies being told on the fly in UCLA's reprinting of the 29 Jan LA Times news reports of President Bush's State of the Union Address titled, "Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat".  The Liberals attempted to convince us that President Bush called Iraq an imminent threat
even as they reported his speech, in which he said no such thing! (

The actual words of President Bush, the words the Liberal liars want you to believe called Saddam Hussein an "imminent threat", were these:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Remember them. (Hint: This was why the Liberals were wringing their hands over Bush's "Doctrine of Pre-Emption" which was supposed to cause tens of thousands of US casualties at the hands of brave Fedayeen, every Arab country to rise up against us, and waves of crazed terrorists to attack US cities.)  David Kay's interim report proves that the danger posed by Saddam's regime was very real, and gathering on the horizon, just as the President stated.  If we had waited... what then?  See David Kay's interim report, and judge for yourself:

Posted at Saturday, October 04, 2003 by CavalierX
->Click to make a comment  

Next Page