1) The modern American "peace movement" is responsible for the deaths of far more people than the U.S.-involved wars its members have protested over the past half century. Why then are so many Americans still convinced that going to war is the worst thing our country can do?

2) Over the course of its existence, our planet has been much colder and much warmer than it is today, having endured periodic ice ages and various cataclysmic natural events. That being the case, why would anyone choose to believe that human beings are responsible for the earth's most recent, and relatively mild, climatic shift?

3) The Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare would - in all likelihood - have saved tens of millions of lives had it been implemented against Nazi Germany prior to Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939. So why do human rights activists today insist that stopping Islamofascists from acquiring nuclear weapons isn't worth the cost in human life?

4) Monetary transactions between private citizens are what fuel our economy. The government taxes private citizens, thereby removing money from the economy. Since economic growth is dependent upon increased monetary transactions within the private sector, why do Democrat lawmakers routinely propose raising taxes, especially on those citizens who invest the most money in our economy?

5) The word viable - as it applies to human beings - means capable of life or normal growth and development. An unborn human being during every stage of gestation is clearly alive and capable of normal development, unless he or she is genetically predisposed to abnormal growth or is hindered in some way from developing naturally by an external force. That being the case, why do some people argue that unborn human beings are non-viable during the earliest stages of their development, and therefore, appropriate candidates for abortion?

6) The Geneva Conventions' protocols relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, were created for the purpose of holding the signatories of the various treaties which make up those Conventions to a certain moral standard of behavior during times of war. Any entity, be it a nation, group, or individual, that does not adhere to the standards set forth therein, is not subject to the Conventions' protections under international law. How then can one justify affording such protections to terrorists, who ignore all of the aforementioned behavioral standards?

Oh, and one last thing...

7) If George W. Bush is as stupid as so many liberals claim, how did he manage to steal an election, mastermind 9/11, cover up his administration's involvement in that event after the fact, con practically every Congressional Democrat into going to war with Iraq just so he could further enrich his cronies in the oil industry, single-handedly destroy every American's civil rights via the Patriot Act, and then steal a second election on top of all that? And if he's really an evil genius, which he'd surely have to be to get away with even half of those things, why aren't his primary political adversaries in prison on trumped-up criminal charges right now... or dead?

By Edward L. Daley
Owner of the Daley Times-Post
http://www.times-post.com

Apparently the entire Republican party has lost its collective mind, as is evidenced by the fact that the GOP's presidential candidates agreed to let a partisan, liberal hatchet-man like Chris Matthews^[1] run their first national debate^[2] on Thursday evening. Along for the ride were John Harris^[3] and Jim VandeHei^[4] of The Politico.com, who's questions actually made Matthews' blatantly anti-rightwing interrogatives seem almost unbiased in comparison.

The ten politicians who showed up for the event were Mitt Romney^[5], Sam Brownback^[6], Jim Gilmore^[7], Mike Huckabee^[8], Duncan Hunter^[9], Tommy Thompson^[10], John McCain^[11], Ron Pail^[12], Rudy Giuliani^[13] and Tom Tancredo^[14], and before the night was over, none of them had managed to avoid being rhetorically shivved by at least one of the three questioners. Of course, the candidates had nobody but themselves to blame for the shameful, 90-minute display.

The only one of the bunch who exhibited any real guts at all was Congressman Paul, who is really more of a Libertarian than a Republican to begin with, and he came off sounding like some sort of conspiracy kook half the time. On balance, the entire group behaved like a pack of spineless bureaucrats with nothing new to say and an unsettling willingness to allow their entire party to be disparaged time and time again without retaliating in any meaningful way.

Although I doubt I would have consented to appear at an MSBNC-sponsored event such as this, if I were a presidential candidate who found himself confronted by a trio of smarmy political hacks like Harris, Matthews and VandeHei, I have a good idea of the sort of responses I'd give to their mostly loaded questions.

The following is a list of all but a handful of the questions posed to the various presidential candidates at the GOP debate. The ones I've left out were either candidate-specific, or simply too annoying for me to address. Most of them have not been transcribed verbatim in this article, however, I believe that I've paraphrased them in a reasonable manner, and following each one I have inserted my own answers for your consideration.

Q - An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that only 22 percent of respondents believe that this country is on the right track. How do we get back to Ronald Reagan's "morning in America?"

A - Stop electing ignorant, hate-America Democrats and wussie RINOs to high government offices.

Q - What would you need to do to win the war in Iraq?

A - First I'd arrest every traitor I could find here at home, starting with mainstream media swine like yourself who only report the negative aspects of the war. Then I'd bomb Iran into submission so it's leaders couldn't continue to arm the terrorists in Iraq. After that, I'd untie the hands of our troops in the field so that they'd be free to execute on the spot every putrid Islamofascist they find.

Q - In that same NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 55 percent of respondents believe victory is not possible in Iraq. Why shouldn't they have a president who will listen to them?

A - Because they're brainwashed dullards who seem to think that people like you don't lie to them on a regular basis.

Q - A recent Zogby poll shows that in moderate Islamic countries, only 12 percent of the people support us, the rest hate us. Doesn't that create a sea of recruitment opportunity for our enemy? Do we have to reduce that temperature of hatred before we win the war?

A - No, we need to INCREASE the temperature in the Middle East by dropping a few nuclear bombs on Syria and Iran.

Q - Would you have fired Don Rumsfeld before last November?

A - I can't say for sure, but I certainly wouldn't have fired him the day after the freakin' election! Thanks again for that, Dubya.

Q - Do you think a general shake-up in the cabinet right now would be good for this administration?

A - No, and before you ask, it also wouldn't be good for the administration to adopt the Soviet system of government either.

Q - Former Senator Fred Thompson said that Iran has already committed acts of war. Do you agree, and what's your trip-wire for a U.S. strike in Iran?

A - Fred Thompson is absolutely right, and my "trip-wire" for attacking Iran is ANY act of war against our country.

Q - If Israel should decide to strike Iran's nuclear sites, and asks for your help, what would you say?

A - How many bombs do you need, and how fast can you pay us back for them?

Q - When speaking about Osama Bin Laden, Governor Romney said that it's not worth moving heaven and earth, spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. Senator McCain called that naive. Who's right?

A - They're both RINO doofuses in my opinion, but if I had to choose between them on this issue, I'd side with Johnny Mac.

Q - Would you be comfortable with Tom Tancredo as head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service?

A - Comfortable? Hell, I'd declare him the Border Baron for life and give him an extra ten dollars on top of his regular pay for every illegal he managed to ship the hell out of this country.

Q -  Should we change our Constitution to allow foreign-born, naturalized citizens to run for president?

A - Yes, but only the ones who look, act, and talk exactly like me.

Q - What do you dislike most about America?

A - Leftist weasels like you.

Q - Thousands of reputable scientists have concluded with almost certainty that human activity is responsible for the warming of the earth. Do you believe global warming exists?

A - Yes, and I also believe that global cooling exists. The fact is that the earth has warmed and cooled countless times since it was first created, and any person who believes humans are responsible for that is a complete nimrod.

Q - Do you have a plan to solve the shortage of organs for transplant?

A - Yeah, kill everyone on death row within a year of their sentencing and harvest their organs.

Q - Do you consider yourself a compassionate conservative like President Bush?

A - In the first place, George W. Bush is not a conservative. Secondly, embracing conservatism is, by definition, the most compassionate ideological choice a person can make, so yes I'm a compassionate conservative.

Q - If you were president, would you work to phase out the IRS?

A - Phase out? No, I'd try to eliminate it completely on my first day in office.

Q - Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?

A - Only if you believe that killing millions of innocent babies is a bad thing.

Q - Could you support a nominee of your party who is not pro-life?

A - No, I tend not to like people who support the murder of children.

Q - If a private employer finds homosexual behavior immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?

A - Of course, it's his business and if you don't like his opinions, shop somewhere else.

Q - What would you have to say to Roman Catholic bishops who deny communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?

A - Nothing, that's exactly what Catholic bishops are supposed to do.

Q - Governor Schwarzenegger has won the state of California twice by downplaying partisanship and taking centrist positions on the environment, immigration, abortion... is that the way to win for Republicans?

A - Sure, if you happen to be running for governor of an extremely left-wing state. If you're running for president, however, you might want to try being an honest conservative like Ronald Reagan, who was swept into the White House by the biggest electoral landslide in American history.

Q - Would you keep Karl Rove in the White House as an adviser?

A - No, but if Condi Rice wanted to hang out after hours and knock back a few shots of scotch with me, I wouldn't complain.

Q - What's with your party and all the corruption?

A - What's with your mouth and all the stupid questions?

Q - What specific programs would you cut if you were president?

A - Every program that isn't national security related.

Q - Using a letter grade of A through F, how would you rate the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War?

A - I'd give it a B for effort and a D for results.

Q - Is racism still a problem in our society, and can a president do anything about it?

A - No, there is no racism anywhere anymore... we've totally eradicated it from our midst... DUH! As for the president doing something about it, yes, he can treat everyone like individuals instead of racially pigeonholing people like you leftists do. That would set a fairly good example for the next generation of Americans to emulate.

Q - Did you watch Al Gore's environmental documentary "An Inconvenient Truth?"

A - Yes, and I thought his hair looked marvelous.

Q - Perhaps the most important skill a good president must have is the ability to make sound decisions, often in a crisis situation. Can you cite an example of when you had to make a decision in crisis?

A - I once decided to grab a guy who lost his balance while we were free-climbing on some boulders, and prevented him from plummeting 100 feet to his death. Does that count?

Q - Women are the fastest growing prison population. Most are mothers who are non-violent, first-time offenders. What will you do to address the issue of mothers behind bars and the children left behind?

A - I'd encourage them to STOP BREAKING THE LAW!

Q - What taxes would you like to cut?

A - ALL of them.

Q - Can you name one thing that the federal government does really well, and one thing that it does poorly?

A - It trains and equips our military pretty well. Other than that, it sucks eggs.

Q - Do you believe in evolution?

A - If you're talking about Darwin's macro-evolution theory, no. I think it's got more holes in it than a screen door.

Q - Do you trust the mainstream media?

A - About as much as I trust pit vipers.

Q - Do your personal religious beliefs influence your foreign policy thinking?

A - Yes, and if they didn't there would be something seriously wrong with me.

Q - What do you consider to be your most significant weakness as a candidate for president?

A - That I was foolish enough to agree to be questioned by a neo-communist parasite like you on national television.

Q - Will you work to protect women's rights, as in fair wages and reproductive choice?

A - From what I understand, women outnumber men in this country, so they're more than capable of defending their own rights. As for reproductive choice, women are perfectly free to choose who they sleep with and who they don't.

Q - How many American soldiers have lost their lives in the Iraq War, and how many have been injured to date?

A - If you don't know the answer to that already, I suggest that you go back to watching Jerry Springer and leave running the country to serious adults.

Q - Are you for a tamper-proof national ID card?

A - Why don't we try creating a tamper-proof Social Security ID system first?

Q - Do you think Scooter Libby should be pardoned?

A - Yes, and I also think that Patrick Fitzgerald should be disbarred for malicious prosecution.

Q - Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?

A - Would it be good if I walked over to you right now and jammed my pen in your eye?

Related Links:

1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080432
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18296908
3. http://www.politico.com/reporters/JohnHarris.html
4. http://www.politico.com/reporters/JimVandeHei.html
5. http://www.mittromney.com
6. http://www.brownback.com
7. http://www.gilmoreforpresident.com
8. http://www.mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com
9. http://www.gohunter08.com
10. http://www.tommy2008.com
11. http://www.johnmccain.com
12. http://www.ronpaul2008.com
13. http://www.joinrudy2008.com
14. http://www.teamtancredo.com

By Edward L. Daley
Owner of the Daley Times-Post
http://www.times-post.com

It was only a matter of time before anti-gun nuts all over the country started calling for stiffer gun control measures in the wake of the recent Virginia Tech massacre. If there's one thing leftists are, it's predictable. If there's another thing they are, it's staggeringly foolish.

Yeah, we need more firearm restrictions because some nutbag went on a shooting spree on a college campus where nobody but criminals and psychopaths could have been expected to be packing iron. As it turns out, it wasn't so much a "gun-free" zone as it was a self-defense-free zone.

I know I'll be getting a slew of scornful emails over this article, but frankly, I don't give a sweet damn. Disparage me all you want, but keep in mind that if someone who thinks as I do had been in charge of that university prior to the 16th of April, the chances are good that one of those victims, or at least one of the people nearby who managed to avoid being shot, would have had a gun of his own with which to fend off the attack of Cho Seung-Hui. Instead, every student and professor there had little alternative but to run away or cower in fear as the 23-year-old South Korean took his time executing everyone who crossed his path.

Don't try to make people like John Kerry or Hillary Clinton appreciate the basic logic behind that statement, though. Common sense is as alien to liberal Democrats these days as the term 'safe sex' is to Sub-Saharan Africans. As usual, whenever somebody murders a bunch of innocent people in cold blood, the first thing leftists try to do is disarm everyone who didn't do it.

BRILLIANT!

Maybe next these mental giants will decide to ban writing utensils in elementary schools for the purpose of curbing incidents of poor grammar and misspelled words on homework papers.

Quick, somebody take Rosie O'Donnell's fork away from her before she eats herself to death!

I swear, if I hear one more jabbering nitwit say that the horrific events of Monday last never would have happened if owning handguns were against the law, I'm gonna go on a rampage of my own, swatting every liberal I can find across the head with a rolled-up copy of 'Guns & Ammo'!

If you really want to talk about effective gun control, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the issue. As a matter of fact, I'm all for it! I think every adult who isn't a convicted felon should practice gun control on a regular basis. With a little practice, there aren't too many folks out there who wouldn't be capable of controlling a gun well enough to drop a scumbag like Cho Seung-Hui from 50 yards away with a single shot!

Ever since the new Defeatocrat party took control of our Congress less than two months ago, the snarling anklebiters who make up its support base have allowed their irrational hatred for the Bush administration to propel them to new heights of lunacy, and it doesn't look as if they're going to be piloting the starship moonbat toward planet reality anytime soon.

Of course, there has never been a time when the word rational could have been used to accurately describe this particular generation of leftists, however, with each passing day it's becoming more and more difficult to refer to them as anything but a gaggle of frothing nutjobs.

If the truth be known, I'd rather be locked in a room with a few dozen hysterical 5-year-olds for a week than spend half an minute listening to the sort of mindless gibberish that routinely flows from the mouth of Cindy Sheehan. Unfortunately, the Jurassic media feels the need to report every idiotic phrase uttered by that brainsick rube, while virtually ignoring the opinions of the most honorable people in America; the men and women of our armed services.

By the way, if you're waiting for the Republican leadership to step up to the plate and finally confront the various neo-communists in our government, the press, and Hollywood, you'd better pull up a chair and get comfortable, because that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future.

It's become painfully obvious to anyone willing to look that the folks who currently run the GOP are as useless at defending the conservative principles of their voter base as liberals are at defending the U.S. against Islamo-fascists.

Political correctness has wormed its way through the Republican party's hierarchy to such an extent that the President himself refuses to call the people who creep across our borders in the dead of night illegal aliens. If he can't even do that, what's the likelihood he'll be referring to John Kerry and Dick Durbin as seditious bastards before his second term comes to a close?

When George Dubya talked about a "new tone" in Washington back in '04, I never expected that what he really meant was he intended to let every screeching, hate-filled liberal in the country attack him and our troops relentlessly, while he sat around perfecting his Rodney King impersonation.

Can't we all just *sniff* get along?

No, clearly we cannot all get along, you freakin' bumpkin, now wake up and smell the treason!

I swear, I would give my right arm if I could turn on my television tomorrow and hear the President proclaim that he's all done playing Mr. nice guy with America's enemies at home, and that from here on out he will be as dedicated to eradicating the threat of domestic socialism in the future as he's been to wiping out international terrorism in the past.

While I know it's a long shot, I still can't help but wonder what our country would be like if the Republican party elite started behaving like real Americans for a change.

And just in case you're wondering what I mean by REAL Americans, I've prepared the following list of their shared traits which should give you a fairly good idea of the sort of folks I'm referring to.

A) Real Americans understand that socialism is a dangerously stupid concept which is diametrically opposed to the idea of individual rights and responsibilities.

B) Real Americans love their country more than they hate any particular politician.

C) Real Americans know the difference between legal immigrants and illegal aliens, and they strongly disapprove of the latter.

D) Real Americans realize that total equality among all people is a practical impossibility, but that at least equality under the law affords everyone the opportunity to achieve happiness and success.

E) Real Americans understand that the Constitution of the United States (1) is not a "living, breathing" document, but, rather, a legal contract between them and their government.

F) Real Americans practice what they preach.

G) Real Americans are willing to help any person who is down on his luck, just as long as that individual is trying to better himself, and doesn't blame other people for his own failures.

H) Real Americans recognize the fact that blaming guns for violent crime is about as logical as blaming pencils for poor penmanship.

I) Real Americans understand that the main problems with public schools are a lack of discipline among the students, dwindling parental involvement, over-regulation by the government, incompetence and corruption within teachers unions, and rampant political correctness throughout the entire education system.

J) Real Americans would never think of suing a restaurant for making them fat.

K) Real Americans know that taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor only makes the rich poorer, the poor lazier, and the middle class nervous.

L) Real Americans recognize the fact that the Geneva Conventions (2) don't apply to terrorists and other non-uniformed enemy combatants.

M) Real Americans believe that the only fair way to judge a person is by his deeds, not his skin color, which is why they consider affirmative action programs to be inherently racist and indecent.

N) Real Americans don't give a crap if the rest of the world likes them or not.

O) Real Americans know that tax increases always damage the economy, because the economy is fueled by monetary transactions between citizens, and when those citizens have less money, the economy cannot grow.

P) Real Americans are too busy working for a living to organize mass protests against the people they find objectionable.

Q) Real Americans do not embrace moral relativism.

R) Real Americans believe that human-caused global warming  (3)  is a politically motivated sham being perpetrated by anti-capitalist forces throughout the world.

S) Real Americans have noticed that government bureaucracies are far less competent and productive than private businesses, primarily because the latter must compete with other private interests, and competition is the anvil upon which excellence is forged.

T) Real Americans understand that Islamo-fascism is the greatest threat to world peace and prosperity, and that George W. Bush, for all his flaws, isn't.

U) Real Americans are never willing to surrender, because the cost of losing a war is always higher than the cost of winning one.

V) Real Americans know that their country would not exist if it weren't for the efforts of its military men and women, and that citizens who degrade those individuals, or seek to undermine their efforts, are traitors.

W) Real Americans have common sense.

X) Real Americans don't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes, but they do resent being told they're bigots if they happen to be repulsed by public displays of homosexuality.

Y) Real Americans understand that their rights come from their Creator and not the government.

Z) Real Americans are patriotic individuals who love their country, not because it happens to be the land in which they live, but because the United States is the greatest nation in the history of the world, and, moreover, the last best hope of all mankind.

1. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
2. http://www.genevaconventions.org
3. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

By Edward L. Daley
Owner of the Daley Times-Post
http://www.times-post.com

Less than half a month has passed since the Democrats took control of Congress, and already they are proving to everyone just how far to the left their party has slid over the years. In typical neo-communist fashion, Representative Maurice Hinchey of New York ^[1] has decided to drag the long-buried - but apparently not quite dead - Fairness Doctrine ^[2] out of its tomb, dust it off, rename it the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) ^[3], and attempt to replace free speech in the media with what he and his ilk like to refer to as "fair speech".

Of course, neither Mr. Hinchey nor his bill's 16 liberal co-sponsors can explain why they believe free speech is so unfair to begin with that they feel compelled to replace it with something else. And it should come as no surprise to anyone that clearly delineating the criteria by which someone in the media may be deemed "fair" is also something they're unwilling to do, since determining the difference between what's fair and what's unfair is purely subjective in nature.

For instance, is it fair that members of Congress get huge salaries for doing next to nothing, while the vast majority of their constituents have to work much harder for far less money? Many people would say no, but I'm betting Maurice Hinchey and his cronies on Capitol Hill don't feel that way.

In my opinion, forcing the children of poor people into a public school system which condemns most of them to a life of quiet desperation and, at best, mediocre employment prospects is unfair in the extreme, but you won't see the new Fairness Police in Washington D.C. offering any of America's underprivileged kids the opportunity to attend private schools anytime soon.

Mr. Hinchey states that MORA "seeks to restore integrity and diversity to America's media system by lowering the number of media outlets that one company is permitted to own in a single market," but he fails to point out that no company is going to be successful enough to buy very many media outlets in any market unless it gives its audience what it wants. Fed up with the left-wing bias that has permeated the television news industry for decades, today's media consumers demand both diversity and integrity from the people who provide them with news and information. That's why talk radio programs are so popular these days. Shows like Rush Limbaugh's afford their listeners with a wide variety of viewpoints, and their hosts routinely cite articles from the most reputable news sources around.

While it's no secret that Mr. Limbaugh is a staunch right-winger, half of the news stories he reads over the airwaves come straight from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and many other left-leaning publications, and just as many liberals call into his program as conservatives. If they didn't, his ratings would plummet! Nobody wants to listen to three hours of people agreeing with each other about everything. Folks tune into Rush to hear him argue with liberals - and sometimes other conservatives - not to listen to a bunch of saps tell him how wonderful they think he is.

Comrade Hinchey also relates that his bill "reinstates the Fairness Doctrine" in order to "protect fairness and accuracy in journalism," yet there is at least as much accuracy in news reporting today as there was before 1987 when the original Fairness Doctrine was done away with. Does anyone really believe that the now infamous Bush National Guard document story of 2004 would have been exposed for the fraud it was if the media of today resembled the media of the 1970s?

And need I remind anyone that the main reason why the FCC discarded its rules concerning (supposed) fairness was because they actually discouraged debate on the more controversial issues of the day? Broadcasters didn't want to risk being punished by the federal government for not being "fair enough" when it came to exhibiting ideological balance in their programming, so they simply avoided many hot-button issues altogether.

Between cable television, newspapers, talk radio, and the Internet, we have more access to information than at any time in our history, and although much of it is inaccurate, most of it is not. While it is difficult to know for sure, I suspect that the modern media brings us more truth than the Jurassic media ever did, because today's technology provides tens of millions of Americans with the means to do something that Dan Rather apparently never learned how to do... fact-check.

Gone are the days when average citizens had no choice but to accept what was spoon-fed to them by the media elite. In case Mr. Hinchey hadn't noticed, this is the year 2007, and folks like you and I have access to more information today than the entire CBS television network had only a few decades ago.

Isn't that "fair" enough for you, Congressman, or do you think I need Al Gore to come to my home personally and preach to me about the dangers of human-caused global warming until my freakin' ears bleed?

1 - http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
3 - http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml


By Edward L. Daley
Owner of the Daley Times-Post
http://www.times-post.com