There is an issue that has me a bit cranky. It doesn't effect my day to day, mind you. But I have to admit I find it somewhat unnerving. It has to do with, what else, the mainstream media and there undeniable desire to find evil in the conservative sector - where there usually is none.

I'll admit it here. I like Ann Coulter. I know that she pisses off a great many people, but I really don't have a problem with that. Is she insensitive? Maybe a little. Does she come on a little strong? Perhaps.

But I defy anyone to prove to me that she is liar or a hypocrite - two things she has been attacked for being. The recent outrage is over a comment she made regarding Senator John Edwards. According to the deluge of scathing attacks against her, she said that she wished John Edwards was assassinated. Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, even called into "Good Morning, America" during an interview with Coulter to let her know how disgusted she was by her mean-spirited attack on the former Vice-Presidential nominee.

Let me preface by saying I have never cared for John Edwards and could never imagine ever supporting him even if he ran for dog-catcher (or cat-catcher, since I love dogs). Furthermore, I would equally be angry if someone said they wished my family member were assassinated.

But that wasn't what Coulter said. While the majority of the press ran with "Coulter Wishes Death on Edwards," they were proving once more how anti-anything on the right they are. In fact, Ms. Coulter was commenting on a comment made by uber-leftist Bill Maher when he said he wished "Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack." Coulter, being a satirist herself, made the comparison, "so I've learned my lesson: If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

Maybe they felt Mauer was funny when he said his comment. After all, he's a comedian. But really, the only difference between a comedian and a satirist is the venue. It isn't a stretch to understand that Coulter, unlike Mauer, was not wishing harm to Edwards. But in the view of the mainstream media, anything that can make a conservative look evil is front page news. No matter how false it is.

Just who is repealing our rights?

According to the cries of liberal-minded Americans, George Bush is without question the most evil and blatantly destructive person in America today. You need to look no further than the most popular blogs of the Left to understand just how deep the disgust towards Bush is.

Not since the 1970's, when Richard Nixon was sitting in the Oval office has a President been hated as much. However, in 1972, Nixon was coming off an election where he won a landslide over George McGovern. Although today there are "academics" who insist McGovern would have won had Nixon not cheated (presumably by orchestrating the Watergate burglary). Of course this is nonsense. The terrible irony of Watergate was that it was an unnecessary crime, as no one really felt the Democratic nominee stood a snowball's chance in Hell in getting elected.

But I have a question.

One of the main criticisms of the Left - maybe the most repeated of all - is that under Bush, civil liberties have been pushed aside in favor of the Bush doctrine. According to the Left, Bush's record against our freedom has been abysmal.

But is it true? I mean, who are we kidding here?

To wit, I wonder who is really attempting to repeal our civil rights. My argument is that it's not really President Bush and the GOP, but instead it's the American Left. And here are some examples:

Feinstein might push for fairness doctrine

the mark of a truly free society is allowing for Freedom of the Press. How many times have we heard the saying, "I hate what he/she/they are saying, but I will fight for their right to say it?" Once you introduce legislation to force "fairness" on the airwaves, you seek to destroy this freedom. Who, for example, is to decide what "fair" is? The "Fairness Doctrine" is a thinly-veiled attack on talk-radio, where the majority of listeners and shows appeal to conservatives. The purpose of the "Fairness Doctrine" is clearly to silence opposing (to the liberals) views. It reeks of censorship.

New York City passes trans fat ban

Mike Bloomberg was never really a Republican and has finally admitted as such this past week when he officially became an Independent. Prior to running for Mayor of New York, Bloomberg was a registered Democratic and only ran as Republican in order to seek office - which he did, successfully.

However, his draconian anti-smoking campaign and now, his trans-fat ban smack of zealotry. Instead of allowing Americans (or at least New Yorkers) the freedom to choose what they wish to eat (or smoke), Bloomberg has instead decided that only he can make that choice. While it's still okay to kill an unborn baby as long as the mother wants to, it's definitely NOT okay to eat extra-fried chicken. Yeah, that makes sense.

In city after city, where the local governments are run by nannies, er, I mean, Democrats (think Chicago and San Francisco), a businessperson is forbidden from allowing anyone to smoke a cigarette, even though smoking is not an illegal practice. Is second-hand smoke harmful? Maybe so. But no one is pointing a gun at the head of the patrons who wish to frequent the establishment. Once again, our individual rights are being withheld by the government for the "greater good". And again, I ask you - who decides what was best for me? That should be MY choice.

Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

This example could have been used regarding any one of a thousand lower rulings by renegade courts. By a 4-3 ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has decided that regardless of the voice of the people, regardless of the fact that Gay Marriage has no precedent in law and regardless of the fact that they have absolutely no right whatsoever to decide this, they are going to decide what is right and what is wrong. The court, overwhelmingly liberal, came to the conclusion that just because they accept same-sex marriage, everyone else has to accept it as well.

I'm not bashing homosexuals or their individual rights. I don't believe it's anyone's business what people do behind closed doors, as long as it is mentally or physically hurtful. But I also don't believe it's any of the court's business, either. Since this ruling, many states have introduced ballot initiatives to ban the "marriage" between two members of the same sex. Unfortunately for the homosexual crowd, this has caused much more stress and anger, whereby polarizing a significant section of society.

The court violates the rights of heterosexuals by forcing a certain lifestyle - one that a majority of the country believe to be repugnant - upon the rest of us. Now don't start comparing this with slavery (which some in the Gay community have). The differences are obvious and frankly, insulting to the descendants of true slaves. No one is keeping gay couples from living together and in many of these same states, legislation has been passed to allow spousal benefits and survivorship rights to gay partners.

But again, who is "limiting" our civil rights? Who is destroying our basic freedoms?

It's bad enough to accuse Bush of repealing our civil liberties. But when the accuser is the actual violator? Well, what would you call that?

The Most Dangerous American

I recently purchased and read the Bernard Goldberg book, "110 People Who Are Screwing Up America." While on the outside it appears to be a anti-Left hatchet job - the subtitle is "Al Franken is #37" - Goldberg actually goes to town on both the Left and the Right. although, to be honest, it IS mostly those on the Left who are destroying us.

Regardless, the person chosen for number one - again, according to Mr. Goldberg - is Michael Moore.

I don't agree. Believe it or not.

I'm not saying that Michael Moore is not screwing up the country, but I hardly think he deserves the lofty pole-position. After all, Moore is just another hypocritical leftist who while decrying capitalism, makes no excuses for chasing the almighty dollar any way he can. The fact that Hollywood considers him a documentarian does make him dangerous indeed. But most people have finally realized that his movies are fewer documentaries and more fiction.

I do agree with many who are listed by Goldberg. Especially others in the top 10. But there are two among them that - in my honest opinion - should rank numbers 1 and 2. At number two (Goldberg lists him at #3) should be Edward Kennedy, the senior senator from Massachusetts. Kennedy is a poster child for those who strongly believe in term-limits. Since gaining office on the strength of his family name in 1962, Kennedy has been long-considered the most liberal member of the Democratic Party. However, this designation alone is not the reason for my disdain of the Senator. On the contrary, without the Left, the powers that the Right have would go unchecked, leaving us in a much worse position nationally.

My disgust for Kennedy has more to do with his past and his present. Of course, the controversy regarding his involvement in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne (‘involvement’ being a very kind word) will haunt him forever. But it’s more about the man Kennedy has become – sort of a bloviated caricature of himself. He often reminds me more of W.C. Fields than of an elder statesman.

But I digress, which is common when speaking of Kennedy. Actually, this leads me to whom I consider the most potently dangerous person in America today.

This person should not be at the top of this list for many reasons. For one, he too – like Teddy Kennedy – should have long ago dropped out of the spotlight of society. But over the past few years, he has – for some unknown reason – has re-entered the public eye and has caused tremendous damage, not just to his own weak legacy, but to the country as a whole.

Of course, I’m speaking of former President Jimmy Carter.

In previous posts, whenever I mentioned Carter, it was usually in calling him “Jimmah,” or something like that. Of course, it was in jest as that is how he himself has said his name. But it has now gotten to the point where the mention of the 39th-President is no longer a laughing matter. Carter was indeed the weakest, less respected and least productive president in my lifetime. Coming into the mainstream on the heels of biggest Presidential scandal in a hundred years, he didn’t so much win the election as much as Nixon-Agnew-Ford lost it. He was a bright smile for a dangerous time and he left office by way of one of the largest landslides in American history.

History will be kind to Carter for one reason, and one reason only – the Middle East Peace treaty signed by Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. However, as much as he may have intervened in getting the U.S. hostages released in January of 1980, it was only through his own ineptitude as leader of the free world that lead to the Iranian crisis in the first place.

It seemed enough that he left Washington in disgrace. After being soundly rejected by the voting public in 1980, Carter enjoyed some better years (and better press) with his involvement in Habitat for Humanity, building homes for the needy. It was a wonderful way for him to rebuild his reputation as a man of peace and principle.

But those days have long gone and once again, Carter is interceding where he clearly doesn’t belong. It was enough a few years ago when he openly called out the State of Israel for her wartime “atrocities”, while keeping a blind eye to the thousands of Israeli victims of Arab suicide attacks. It was another thing when he chose to ignore the obviously fixed election of Hugo Chavez, while crying that George Bush “stole” the 2000 election (yeah, that was responsible). But now, the proven anti-Semitic, anti-American former President has gone even farther in his lunacy.

In a recent (last week) speech at the Forum for Human Rights, dear Jimmy has once again come out against the policy of the Bush (and Clinton and Bush and Reagan and even his own) administration which calls for no negotiation with a terrorist organization. In his opinion, Carter said that “the US has abandoned its role as a champion of human rights in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks.” He pointed to the torture of detainees, the denial of the applicability of the Geneva Convention and the erosion of civil liberties within the United States."

Aside that once again, the enemy combatants (i.e. terrorists) are not subject to the Geneva Convention, never agreed to the Geneva Convention and do not under any way shape or form fit the description of the Geneva Convention, it seems that it isn’t even his biggest beef. No, that honor goes to who else? Israel, of course.

To quote: “The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements.”

That’s right. By favoring the less-bad guys – the ones who are willing to try and live peaceably with Israel – and thereby shunning the ones who are Hell-bent on destroying Israel, and eventually the United States, we are “deepening conflict between the rival movements.”

If only Carter were around when Germany was bombing the crud out of England and France. Of course, there would be no problems aside from everyone speaking German.

Carter is criticizing the current President, something that had never been done so shamelessly and certainly never in a time of war, over the fact that because Hamas won the election fair and square, we should accept them as, as, as what, exactly?

Are they no longer a terrorist organization? Well, according the U.S. State Department and the United Nations, they are. Look, just because they won the votes of the people, that doesn’t mean that they are a peaceful bunch who want to play fair. In Jimmy Carter’s world, the United States should never have come to the aid of Europe in World War II because Hitler was elected President. Nor should the U.S. have concerned themselves in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was also elected – I believe by 99.3% of the vote.

If it isn’t incredulous enough, Carter also said “Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.”

Oh, I get it. Since Hamas has better thugs and is stronger militarily, they should be in charge. John Hinderaker (via michellemalkin.com) has Irish TV news video of Carter’s appearance and sums up the visit: “So there you have it: in the perverse world of Jimmy Carter, the United States is a criminal nation that destroys civil liberties, tortures prisoners and oppresses Palestinians. But the Iran-controlled terrorists of Hamas? No problem.”

It’s sad that in 2007, we have to deal with anti-Semites and those who wish harm to America. The United States has certainly made mistakes in her history, but of all countries throughout history, the U.S. has done the most good. We have fed the most people, saved the most people and as if that weren’t enough, we constantly rebuke ourselves for not doing more. No other country in the history of the World has accomplished that. Imagine, if you will, that it isn’t America that were the richest nation, but Iran, or even Russia. Do you believe for even one moment that this would be beneficial for humanity? Do you believe the butchers of Hamas would be so careful about civil rights and liberties.

It’s bad enough that so many in the world blame America for all of their problems when their own governments are what have been failing them. It’s even worse when a former President – a man with a unique platform from which he could unite people from all over and bring a steady voice of peace and brotherhood – ignores the good in America while propping up the butchers and tyrants world-wide.

I always believed that the office of the President was beyond reproach. I may disagree with the person who currently fills the seat, but whether he is a Democrat or a Republican, he deserves the honor and respect of his citizens. Jimmy Carter has proven to me that this isn’t always the case. Carter deserves no more respect from me, or anyone else, than does Teddy Kennedy or anyone else who blindly follows the tenants of death and destruction. Whether it be in siding with the enemy, or just being a poor imitation of a public servant.

So I believe that Mr. Goldberg is just a bit off when he calls Michael Moore the person most “screwing up the country.” Michael Moore is a flea. His star will burn out as it does to all “Hollywood” players. But Jimmy Carter is more. He is a bigger-than-life character without character and that is why he is so damn dangerous.

I have never been a fan of Ted Nugent's music, but I love what he wrote in the Sunday Waco (Texas) Tribune-Herald:

'Live and let live' foreign idea to left

By Ted Nugent, Texas Wildman

Sunday, June 17, 2007

I like sizzling meat on the grill. Wild, huh? Anybody? Now, we all know ol' Nuge isn't by any stretch of the imagination a weirdo when it comes to an omnivorous diet.

Especially here in the great Republic of Texas, a smiling, drooling preference for succulent, protein-rich, nutritious backstrap over aromatic mesquite coals is as American and natural and right as Mom, apple pie and the flag. It's beautiful, really.

But a culture war rages against such universal, self-evident truths. It would be laughable if it were not so deranged. Some weirdos actually are on a crusade to outlaw the consumption of flesh.

I have musical touring associates who have been fired from their jobs with ex-Beatle Paul McCartney for sneaking a hamburger.

You heard that right. Fired for eating meat by an animal-rights maniac, hard-core vegan bass player.

The entire agenda of the gazillion-dollar-financed joke known as PETA literally is dedicated to outlawing meat.

Neither I, nor any hunter or meat eater on the planet, has any desire whatsoever to influence any vegetarian's choice of diet or to force them to eat meat. We are the friendly, tolerant Americans.

This is but one of many issues that represent the line drawn in the sand between liberals and conservatives.

Our own intrepid opinion editor at the Trib, my friend John Young, doesn't want to simply make the choice to be unarmed and helpless for himself. He has again recently insisted that you and I must also comply with his soulless condition of unarmed helplessness in "gun-free zones."

Nobody from our side wants to force anybody to have a gun or defend themselves. It is us, the conservatives, who are for individual choice.

Taxation, confiscation

As for the American left: One hears the words of Mao Tse-Tung come broiling out of the mouths of its heroes, when Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton et al unflinchingly push for "redistribution of wealth."

Central Texas' own Chet Edwards has the audacity to support taxing the after-tax life savings of American families following the death of a loved one.

The unfair, un-American, unconstitutional death tax literally destroys mom-and-pop businesses across the land. Think about it.

The wall that once symbolized communism is down, yet some still want to give it a shot. Dear God in heaven, help us.

Recently, Danny Glover, an otherwise fine actor, embarrassingly abused his uniquely American freedoms by siding with the communist Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez to finance what clearly appears to be an anti-American propaganda film. Nice.

Meanwhile, right there in that communist country, old Hugo is shutting down an entire media network for daring to challenge his heavy handed, corrupt, dictatorial policies.

This is a leader who has proudly sided with terrorist support groups, and Danny Glover gives him a big hug.

If a Venezuelan citizen were to do so with President Bush, I am confident that Chavez would not respect that individual's right to free expression.

Venezuela gives its citizens no right to free expression. Glover must be blinded by the trees in that forest.

Examine the agendas of the liberal "party of peace." Its members clearly don't believe you and I are smart enough or capable of making our own choices in life.

While conservatives "live and let live," the left arrogantly thinks it knows better than we do and will burden "we the people" with more government control until we are taxed to death.

Watch them. Listen, pay attention and blow whistles.

Educate your family, neighbors, friends, co-workers and hunting buddies on how dangerous such control is against the American Dream of individual pursuit of happiness.

Throw off the shackles of government-run slavery. Stand up for individual independence. Enough is enough.

Hey, Hugo and Hillary, leave me alone.

I couldn't agree more!!!

Happy Flag Day, America!!!

If I were to ever develop a "man-crush", it would be on the brilliant Thomas Sowell. At (I believe) 75 years young, he is - in my opinion - the preeminent columnist of our times. Considering his background, education and experiences, I have concluded that anyone who really wants an honest portrait of history and it's impact on current events need only to read his columns regularly.

I was only going to link his latest article here, but I guess I have more to say than that.

My opinions regarding illegal immigration seem obvious to me. I believe we should allow legal immigration and do everything we can to stop the illegal ones. I support building a security fence between the U.S. and Mexico and I support strong measures to punish those who are here without permission. I believe that until we are able to slow the flood of illegal aliens in our country, we will always be at grave risk.

The fact that the majority of illegals are of Hispanic dissent is meaningless to me. I don't care where they are from as long as they do not flaunt our laws. Each time an illegal immigrant is allowed to stay in our country without permission, we demean the millions of immigrants who have followed the rules.

I have been asked why I care about this issue. After all, I'm not living in Texas anymore, or Arizona for that matter. Even when I lived in California, it never really affected me much. To this, I have two answers:

1. Assimilation
2. Costs

We all remember the stories our parents told us about how they, or their parents, came to America. The story was always the same - they came through Ellis Island (or some other harbor) and once they were processed, they did two things - they got a job and they learned English. Many people will tell you that America is a great melting pot of different cultures, and of course it's true. But by melting all of these cultures together, we created a new one - an American one. What ties all of these cultures into this giant American culture is language, and that language is English.

Somehow, maybe while we weren't paying attention (I'm guessing it was in the 70's, a time it seemed no one was watching), we began to fall into a trap of globalism. Perhaps started out of the liberal conclaves of San Francisco, a new generation (a post-hippy generation) emerged with new ideas on education and culture. As it spread, it brought with it new catch-phrases and lingo. "multi-culturalism" and "I'm Okay, You're Okay," just to name a couple. Soon, it became chic to be a revolutionary. "G-d" was out, "therapy" was in. As Americans began eating from the "Tree of Knowledge" our eyes opened and we rejoiced in what we saw.

Unfortunately, as we continued to unravel the ties that held our culture together, we opened ourselves up to a very slippery-slope that has now taken a firm hold of our senses. We no longer require our children to know our language. We no longer demand educational excellence. We worry more about what's "politically correct" than what's culturally necessary. We no longer teach kids the lesson of winning and losing and we hide the child from shame. We send our young ones to march in "Gay Pride" parades instead of teaching them about world history. We tell our students that there is no evil greater than George Bush, while admiring the courage of Hugo Chavez. We deam it unnecessary to teach about Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Alexander Hamilton - we even punish a teacher for quoting from George Washington's diary. Yet, we allow Holocaust deniers the "right" to continue spewing their dangerous lies to our most vulnerable charges.

To be honest, I never cared that when I make a phone call to a public utility, I have to press 1 for English. But by the same token, why should I have to? A recent article in the Wall Street Journal explained that over 50% of all immigrants (illegal and legal) fail to learn English within the first 5 years of living in the US. That number becomes over 90% if you take out the law-abiding immigrants.

As for the costs, I can understand the allure of cheap labor. I know many people, myself included, who have hired illegals to do anything from mow my lawn to be a nanny to my kids (it should be noted that this was back in the day when I voted for Al Gore). But seriously, while I may get a cheap mow, who really pays the bill?

In California alone, 75 hospitals have had to close their doors because they could no longer afford to stay open. They reason given was because of the high cost of treating illegals who had neither insurance, nor money to pay for services. Hundreds of schools are stretched beyond their limit to educate the children of immigrants.

Free health care and free education. Well, free for them. Everyone else pays. And this is no longer strictly a partisan issue. I believed that the Democrats dearly wanted to pass an amnesty bill because it was likely that an overwhelming majority of illegals would vote Democrat. But now, as everything has turned on it's head, even President Bush has tried to ram through his own shamnesty bill - hoping that he wouldn't be rebuked by his supporters.

He was wrong.

As we learned in the Bible, without a cohesive language, a culture can not and will not survive. English should never be taught as a "second language." As far as I'm concerned, if you want to come here, you can be whatever religion you want, be whatever sexual orientation you want. be whoever you want. But to live here, you must accept what it is to be an American. Abiding our laws and learning our language must be mandatory. Jumping the border must be punished.

Since it's been a couple of weeks since I've posted, I suppose I should have a lot to say.

It's true that sadness and pain brings out creativity. That's why so many artists - be they singers, painters or any other type artist - consider their most creative periods to be at a time when they were at their lowest. Artists aren't considered tortured souls for nothing.

Now, before I get too ahead of myself, please understand that I do not consider myself an artist in the least bit. artistic talent comes in many shapes and sizes and I' unfortunately, have the soul of a singer, but not the talent.

But I regress.

Maybe it's just that I've been happier than I'd been in a long time. But for whatever reason, I have found very little motivation to write these past few weeks. But even though I am living somewhat happier than I have in a while, there are still those moments when I find myself annoyed, aggravated and generally P.O.'d at some things that are happening in the world around me.

So in this spirit, I present to you my latest "Shayne's Truisms" to allay my frustrations:

1. Immigration is what built this country. Illegal immigration is what will destroy it.

2. The most effective way to destroy society is through the spread of unchecked liberalism.

3. I shouldn't be, but yet I am still surprised that certain British academics have come out with theories that claim Israel and the Popular Front for Palestine were in cahoots during the 1976 Entebbe raid.

4. When it times to pull that lever, security and safety will trump over empty rhetoric. That's why I believe Rudy Giuliani will be the next President.

5. I have no doubt in my mind that Senator Barack Obama will be the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008.

6. Does anybody watch "Survivor" anymore? Is it still on TV?

7. GM used to make the best cars. Then they got lazy. Even today, the standard GM car is far less reliable than it's foreign competitors.

8. President Bush was very wrong to assume his base would allow him to push the immigration bill down our throats. Regardless of his own rhetoric, it is an amnesty bill and the average American will never agree that illegal immigration should go unpunished.

9. Those who wish to make the United States a more global-influenced country has no idea what it means to be an American.

10. While it may be true that the Al-Qaeda/JFK plot was an impossible mission, it should still send shivers up our spines.

11. How can a multi-millionaire like John Edwards be a man "of the people." I don't know any people who are worth so much.

12. Safe haven resolutions, like the one passed by the Cook County commission recently, have no basis in law. All it will do is flood the city with more illegal immigrants which, in turn, will overwhelm hospitals and schools that are already overcrowded with legal (and illegal) immigrants.

13. You do know who will be paying the bill, don't you?

14. I can not understand how state colleges that are too expensive for many citizens can even fathom the idea of lowering tuition costs for illegal immigrants.

15. I am not a fan of Barack Obama. However, I was impressed with the fact that he actually verbalizes a plan for the future. This is a totally removed departure from Senator John Kerry, whose only plan was to get elected.

16. I couldn't care less about Paris Hilton until after I heard she was returned to jail. However, I find that sending her back serves no purpose but to allow the judge to abuse his bench. Whether she was guilty or not, once released the first time, do you think she would ever commit the same crime again? I do believe that there are certain people who are incapable of surviving prison. Paris Hilton has already cost the taxpayers too much money and time. Sending her back to jail, in my opinion, is cruel and usual punishment.

17. The New York Yankees are far from out of it. They may not catch the Red Sox, but I wouldn't bet on them missing the playoffs. On the other hand, this may well be the worst Texas Rangers team I have seen in 20 years.

18. Whoever said life begins at 40 was right on the money. Of course, two days after my 40th birthday, I received a new heart. But if life is more than just breathing, I would have to say life for me starts at 44.

19. Children are remarkable resilient. Even when you think you know how they will react, they will surprise you every time.

20. Marriage is the number one cause for divorce. Of course, life is the number one cause of death, too.

Finally! Something that gives me a good reason to write again:

Save the planet, eat a vegan

I'll bring the fork.