The Past, the President and the Future

It can be said that our past gives birth to our future. In our first story, we see history affecting the present. Our second story is a cautionary tale of the past and present, hopefully, helping people make the right decision for our future. And finally, we have a story about two men and their very predictable future.


Cherokee Nation Votes to Expel Slaves' Descendants -- OKLAHOMA CITY — Cherokee Nation members voted Saturday to revoke the tribal citizenship of an estimated 2,800 descendants of the people the Cherokee once owned as slaves.

With a majority of districts reporting, 76 percent had voted in favor of an amendment to the tribal constitution that would limit citizenship to descendants of "by blood" tribe members as listed on the federal Dawes Commission's rolls from more than 100 years ago.

The commission, set up by a Tribal Congress bent on breaking up Indians' collective lands and parceling them out to tribal citizens, drew up two rolls, one listing Cherokees by blood and the other listing freedmen, a roll of blacks regardless of whether they had Indian blood.

Lakisha Runningwater had this to say, "It just ain't fair!"

It has, indeed, been a bad week for former slaves. The Most High Reverend, Al Sharpton, threw a hissy-fit when he learned that his ancestors were owned by Strom Thurmond's ancestors. When questioned about the timing of this vote, Chief Vernon Thumb-In-man's-Eye, had this to say. "This is about property values and nothing else. Don't try to make it a "racial" thing. It's not. It's a "tribal" thing."


John Edwards Hopes to Raise "Coulter Cash" After "faggot" Comment -- John Edwards' campaign, reacting to derogatory comments by conservative commentator Ann Coulter — she called the former North Carolina senator and presidential hopeful a "faggot" — is trying to turn it into a rallying point for fundraising, asking supporters to donate $100,000 in "Coulter Cash."

It was unclear from the statement on the Edwards campaign Web site what the money would exactly go to.

It all started Friday when Coulter, who was addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., said:

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot," so I — so [I'm] kind of [at] an impasse, [I] can't really talk about Edwards."

Members of the audience seemed startled, then many clapped, and she proceeded to open the floor to questions.

Look, she said she couldn't talk about John Edwards being a faggot. It's not like she "outted" him or anything. But, since no one brought it up, let's look at some of the Democratic hopefuls:

Hillary Clinton - Egotistical Socialist who would be Queen . . . or King . . . or whatever.

Barack Obama - Black man with Islamic roots, a terrorist-like name and a closet smoker.

John Edwards - Left wing liberal, former Al (the sky is falling, the sky is falling) Gore running mate who, apparently, likes to smoke something else in the closet.

Er . . . ah . . . good luck with that!


Video Appears to Show Uncle Teaching Nephews to Smoke Pot -- WATAUGA, Texas - A 17 year old faces a felony of injury to a child after police found a videotape that appears to show him and another man teaching his 2 and 5-year old nephews to smoke marijuana, police said.

The video shows two children being taught to smoke marijuana and to "get high," police said. A man can be seen placing a marijuana cigarette into a baby's mouth and, in another part of the video, a different boy is shown smoking on his own.

The two men were identified as Demetris McCoy, 17, and Vanswan Polty, 18.

McCoy hopes to get out of prison in time to teach the boys how to masturbate.

.

The Ann Coulter Blog

I have never done this before. I was reading an opinion piece by Ann Coulter on "global warming" and just felt like passing it on. Escape Velocity will resume in it's entirety, tomorrow.

Let Them Eat Tofu

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.

There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.

"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.

.

Tuna-gate

I did a blog yesterday about Nancy Pelosi. In it I referenced the recent minimum wage bill that will go into effect for the entire United States and all of its territories -- except for American Samoa. The reason for the exception is that Nancy Pelosi has protected Starkist Tuna from the wage hike in a back room deal. The wage hike would have cost Starkist millions of dollars. The deal only cost taxpayers the integrity of the Speaker of the House.

Oddly enough, the only place I encountered this story was on the Fox News Channel and the New York Post. Both conservative voices.

However, if she had been a Republican, the mainstream (liberal) media would have had a feeding frenzy. It would have had a "gate" name by now. Such as: Tuna-gate, or Pelosi-gate, or Water-gate II, or Samoa-gate or something. The talking heads would have been yakking non-stop all weekend and Michael Moore would have had a film crew out already. Leno would have had some else write him a wry quip to stumble through and Letterman would have read a Top Ten list about it. And Clooney, and Penn, and Williams, and Baldwin, and every other celebrity asshole would have had their say about it.

But a liberal did it during her First 100 Hours of The Most Ethical Congress in History. So it gets swept under the rug.

And now, her fellow Congressmen will have two reasons to think they smell fish when Nancy Pelosi walks into the room.

.

Free Speech?

Michael Richards vs. Danny DeVito.

Two celebrities are in the news recently for poor behavior and outrageous statements in public. Both incidents occurred before mostly liberal audiences; both were equally outrageous and both have had very different results. The only difference was the persons or groups being verbally attacked.

In the case of Michael Richards, he was at a comedy club in L.A. when he began being heckled by some black people in the audience. He used the normal tips and tricks to quiet them down, but nothing worked. They kept it up and Richards lost his temper and began heckling back and used the word "nigger" several times.

In the case of Danny DeVito, he was out drinking with George Clooney all night before reporting for an interview on The View. DeVito was still drunk, was making no sense and went on an extended tirade about President Bush and his policies in a totally disrespectful manner, using various epithets to describe the president.

In the case of Michael Richards, his life has turned into a three ring circus from hell. He has publicly apologized numerous times, there is talk of law suits and his career is possibly ruined.

In the case of Danny DeVito, the hostesses of The View are downplaying the incident; after the initial reports, the media have dropped any mention of DeVito's political tirade; everyone is trying to laugh it off and DeVito has said any apologies needed to be made would be in the form of a private phone call to Barbara Walters.

As to free speech, we either have it or we don't. There should not be lists of words or concepts too sensitive to broach. This does not mean that there are not inappropriate times or places that would cause that free speech to be poorly received. In fact, part of the concept of free speech is the right to freely disagree with the speaker. If a person is a boor, he should be shunned -- personally and professionally.

In the cases of Richards and DeVito, they were both wrong. Michael Richards was provoked beyond a reasonable measure of patience by out of control, black audience members and he lashed out. Danny DeVito was up all night, drunk, and was provoked by an out of control liberal (George Clooney) and he acted out. They both deserve condemnation for their actions and some sort of consequence to their public careers.

But liberals have a slip-slidey scale for free speech and political correctness. If it had been a black comedian on stage being heckled by out of control whites in the audience, "honkey" and "cracker" and any other epithet would have been acceptable and probably applauded by the rest of the audience. If a conservative celebrity were the guest of The View, exhibiting the same boorish behavior and ranting about how bad a liberal president was, he would have been roundly booed, thrown off of the show, made to apologize and the political aspect would have played up -- not down.

So, do we have free speech in America? Probably more so than in some other countries. I fear its execution will never be as pure as its concept. But as long as we have to toe an arbitrary line of political correctness, controlled by people who consider some races or people "fair game" while others are "off limits" it will never be reasonable.

I guess that's just liberals being liberals.

.

John Kerry is a Liar and a Coward

What war does John Kerry think we are fighting? In fact, what year does he think it is? He has been in the headlines recently for telling a group of California students on Monday that those unable to navigate this country's education system "get stuck in Iraq".

Naturally, the White House demanded an apology from Kerry for "troop bashing" saying, "The members of the United States Military are plenty smart and they are plenty brave . . ."

What strikes me about Kerry's comments is the 60's mindset. Back then we had a military draft. It was possible to get a draft deferment while you were in college. That system was geared to taking the lower income and less educated young men first; those who could not afford a college education or those who did not have the aptitude for higher education.

We do not have a military draft today, Mr. Kerry. All of the brave men and women serving in the Armed Forces today are there because they are proud to serve their country and they understand what sacrifice and selflessness is. And you are trying to turn their sacrifice and their deaths into something dirty for your own shameful political ends.

Everyone knows how you, Mr. Kerry, "served" your country. Another of the rules back then was that you could get shipped home from Viet Nam after being wounded three times. We all know how you promoted minor injuries (that any brave soldier would have shaken off) as qualifying wounds and how you actually initiated the paperwork yourself, a job normally left to a superior officer. And we still remember how you came home and launched a political career protesting and jeering the sacrifice of your fallen comrades. How you lied about troop misbehavior to gain favor with your liberal friends. It is difficult to forget such cowardice under fire.

Today, there is no "navigating" necessary to avoid military service. Those who do not choose to serve do not have to. Those who choose to serve do so proudly. People like you have no right to criticize their patriotism or their sacrifice or their choices.

Freedom has always been paid for with blood. We are at war and your comments, Mr. Kerry, are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Your shameful behavior in the past and your shameless rhetoric of the present indicate a person devoid of character and unworthy of consideration. You had to lie in the past to make your specious points and you are lying today with your inflammatory comments.

You are constantly accusing the president of lying and publicly demanding that he "come clean." Well, another thing that everyone knows about liberals is that you are always guilty of the behavior you are decrying the most. It is called a diversionary tactic and you aren't fooling any one.

I heard a good analogy in a TV show called The Unit. While questioning the appropriateness of a group of war protesters she said something like this, "You wouldn't yell at or denounce a group of firemen going to put out a fire, would you? Well, our troops are trying to put out another fire. A fire that seeks to destroy our homes, our families and our way of life. They are bravely facing the flames of terrorism, daily, so that you can be safe in your homes. They are just doing their jobs."

And, apparently, Mr. Kerry's job is mis-information. He is acting as point man for all of the cowards and traitors who would criticize our troops during a time of war. Fortunately, he isn't making any more sense now than he did back then. And only fools believe him.

More BS From B.S.

The following AP news story ran on the Internet yesterday:

Streisand has outburst at NYC concert

The most riveting moment of Barbra Streisand's Madison Square Garden concert was one of the only unscripted ones. Streisand endured jeers as she interjected a political skit into Monday night's show, exchanging zingers with a celebrity impersonator playing George Bush as a bumbling idiot.

Though most of the crowd offered polite applause during the slightly humorous routine, it went on a bit too long, especially for those who just wanted to hear Streisand sing.

"Come on, be polite!" the well-known liberal implored. But one heckler wouldn't let up. And finally, Streisand let him have it.

"Shut the (expletive) up!" Streisand bellowed, drawing wild applause. "Shut up if you can't take a joke!"

With that one F-word, the jeers ended. And the message was delivered -- no one gets away with trying to upstage Barbra Streisand, especially in her hometown.

You know, you won't hear me say this very often, but I agree with Barbra Streisand.

It is totally rude to continuously heckle someone when they are trying to do their job. Sure, the odd too-loud negative comment or even a direct cat-call or insult might be acceptable. But to keep it going, to constantly harangue and interrupt and try to disrupt and throw a person off stride in hopes of making them look bad -- is just wrong.

So I agree with Barbra Streisand. President Bush is just trying to do his job and all of the poor sport, liberal losers should just sit down and "shut the fuck up!"

And that goes double for Barbra Streisand.

More Odds and Ends

I found some more BS in the headlines today and thought I'd share some of them.

Droughts will double to hit half the world by 2100

According to the story and the main scientist quoted, these predictions are based upon insufficient data over too short of a period and that the definition of a drought could mean anything from car washing restrictions to not enough water to survive. But it does make for an inflamatory headline.

George Clooney Wants to Outwit Paparazzi

"Here is my theory on debunking photographs in magazines, you know, the paparazzi photographs," Clooney says in the November issue of Vanity Fair, on newsstands Oct. 10. "I want to spend every single night for three months going out with a different famous actress. You know, Halle Berry one night, Salma Hayek the next, and then walk on the beach holding hands with Leonardo DiCaprio."

Perhaps he should have had this interview with OUT Magazine. It sounds to me like the women are just a cover for his gay activities. But I really don't mind this level of idiocy coming from Clooney. As long as he's staying busy trying to "outwit" some cheesy photographers, he's not out spewing his liberal brand of political bullshit.

NewsHour' faulted for lack of diversity

PBS' NewsHour tilts too heavily toward Republican white men in its sources and needs to do a better job promoting diverse points of view, a watchdog group said in a report issued on Tuesday.

Two-thirds of the partisan sources appearing on Jim Lehrer's nightly newscasts between October 2005 and March 2006 were Republican, and 82% were men, said the liberal advocacy organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

The show works hard to reflect diversity, PBS spokesman Rob Flynn said. But with Republicans in power in both the White House and Congress, it's only natural that they will be seen more in a news program, he said.

FAIR's researchers found minorities used as sources 15% of the time, even though they make up 31% of the population.

This one is almost too dumb to comment on. We are talking about the news here, not some poli-sci experiment. If the news is being reported about the people making it, whose fault is it that a low percentage of minorities are being used as news sources. Maybe they aren't in the center of things during that news cycle. So What?

As long as these "watch dog groups" exist a larger problem will also exist. These people are the racists that they claim everyone else is. We have people dying in Iraq and others being uprooted by hurricanes and other people suffering in countless ways. But these people will never see the humanity first. They will always try to spin the news into a devisive racial incident for their own political purposes. That, ladies and gentlemen, is Racism.