I have become more and more disillusioned by the environmentalist movement every time I open my eyes to get out of bed in the morning. Every time I turn around, these apocalyptic morons are not only using scare tactics to govern how we live, but holding the progress of our great nation back by suggesting inefficient tactics to save the environment.

Take this article in the Wall Street Journal. Kris Hudson and Rebecca Smith wrote that Wal-mart has decided to go green. Installing solar panels on 22 stores in California and Hawaii. Environmentalist love when corporations use solar panels. Sure because it's a safe source of energy, but for another reason. The cost of these solar panels outweighs the money that it saves in energy, thus crippling corporations that use them. Just ask yourself, if solar panels are so effective, why don't environmentalist groups use them on their headquarters. Why don't Hollywood environmentalist's use them on their houses? Thankfully, Wal-mart has decided to test the theory before going national.

But how does this hinder progress? Because first of all, crippling companies that waste money on energy efficient fairy tales will not grow, thus no new jobs, products, ect. But that's not the biggest way they stomp on American progress. Nuclear power is proven to be a clean/renewable energy source. France is almost completely nuclear and they have so much left over energy, they are selling it to other countries. But, environmental movements have protested the research of nuclear power in the US because it's not natural.

Now come on, we use natural energy and we are either wasting money (solar), killing birds (wind), or killing the environment (oil). We try to find a renewable and clean power source and it's not natural enough. Can you people be pleased at all?

And no, nuclear power is not dangerous. Not one person has ever died from nuclear power in the United States. And don't forget that while China and other countries continue to drill for oil in our waters (yes, China is drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico), our country is beginning to fall behind other industrial countries because we continue to tailor our ways to these anti-America environmentalist groups.

In one of the most surprising moves I have ever witnessed, France elected Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France. Having one of the biggest voter turn outs in the last 40 years, soon-to-be President Sarkozy won with a 53% majority.

Soon-to-be President Sarkozy has vowed to change France's 35 hour work week, change immigration policies, and reopen friendly relations with the US. Let's all hope that this is a President that will stand up with America and Britain in the fight against terror. Or that he will at least stay true to his word and bring France out of it's socialist state.

Source

Through my study and readings on the Democratic party, I have come across one of the most mind numbing concepts to hit me and my involvement in politics. Its a term known as the Conservative Democrat.

Here is a blog of one such individual with this mission statement:

The purpose of this site is to give a voice to long overlooked mainstream Democrats. For too long, the views of Democrats who are populist on economic issues and traditionalist on social issues have been ignored by the Democratic Party. Our goal is to rebuild the moderate-conservative wing of the Democratic Party and create a new Democratic majority based on concern for working families, common sense and mainstream values.

I'm currently reading Bernard Goldberg's "Crazies to the Left; Wimps to the Right," and in the first chapter of his book, he talks about his upbringing. Long story short, he grew up a steadfast Liberal Democrat and, through his experiences in college, CBS (where he worked), and general life, he converted to conservatism.

What I'm not understanding is this. The principals he described as a Liberal were, ironically, also conservative view points. His main concern was that he thought conservatives were racist. Conservatives, mainly those in the south, did not want the Civil Rights Act to pass (History lesson. Senator Robert Byrd, long time Liberal Democrat representative of West Virginia, voted against the Civil Rights Act, saying, "[I would] never submit to a fight beneath that banner [the American flag] with a Negro by my side."). Later, Mr. Goldberg changed his ways when he saw how CBS reported news with a Liberal slur and after the Liberal bashing of troops in Vietnam (Can you say Deja Vu?).

While I have no problem with the Democratic party having a conservative side, it makes me wonder how these individuals would vote. Would they vote based on their personal convictions, or would they vote based on their loyalty to their political party?

Those that vote based on their personal convictions, I applaud you. I wish the Democratic party had a Conservative candidate or two. It would make voting a little more interesting.

For those of you voting based on your loyalty, let's talk. The Democratic party is no longer the party of JFK or Thomas Jefferson. That Democratic party is gone. The Democratic party of today is one build by George Soros and the Radical Left. A vote for the Democratic party is not a vote for freedom, but one of socialism.

I don't want to tell you how to vote, just this. Politicians can change their principles, and you can't stop them. But you don't have sacrifice your principles to keep them in office.

This past issue of the Times has featured the world's 100 most influential people in the world. On the list are some people who are actually large influences in the world, in both negative and positive way. Let me say, I don't care at all who the Times believes is influential or not. The Times is a left leaning magazine for people who look up to Fidel Castro, a man who kills is own people for thinking differently. But this year, things are a little out of hand and down right sick.

Let's start out by saying who wasn't on the list. Our president, George W. Bush, failed to make it on the list of most influential people. It doesn't bother me that he wasn't, except for the fact that Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton were on the list. Two people who's political experience can be put on the back of their business card made the list, but the leader of the free world didn't.

Oh but it doesn't stop there. George Clooney, a man whom I haven't since the turn of the year, made the list. Rose O' Donnell, a woman who professes her hate for Bush, the troops, and thinks that 9/11 was a government hoax, made the list. Heidi Klum, the model turned cocaine addict, made the list. What a great bunch of influential people for our children to look up to.

Let's name a few who didn't make the list. Sean Hannity, an individual with a national TV show and a syndicated radio show on more than 500 stations, didn't make the list. Rush Limbaugh (do I need to describe him) didn't make the list. That's just a few.

That's not the most appalling part. Osama Bin Laden made this list. This is just flat out sick. The leader of a terrorist organization who lead an attack on America that resulted in the death of more than 3000 citizens gets mentioned in this magazine.

Is this unbelievable or am I loosing my mind? I have heard of Bush hating, but ranking a man that is responsible for countless deaths above a man that is working to rid the world of this murdering bastard is simply absurd.

Sell out can know be added to the long list of negative traits for Democrats. In case you haven't heard, George Tenet--former head of the CIA--is selling out President Bush in order to sell books. According to MSNBC,, "[d]irector George Tenet’s new book reveals sobering details of how the United States went to war with Iraq based on faulty intelligence and political opportunism."

To understand the travesty of this, let's back-track and examine who George Tenet is and what he did.

George Tenet was head of the CIA. For those of you who don't know, the CIA is our foreign intelligence branch of our government. The CIA's job is to spy, gather intel on other countries in order to keep us safe. Which means, the "faulty intelligence" President Bush used as a basis for going to war in Iraq was present to him by (you could see where I was going with this a mile away couldn't you) George Tenet.

Oh it gets better. Guess who appointed George Tenet the job. Bill Clinton.

Bush has made many mistakes in office. His major mistake, trust. He trusted the attorneys of the Clinton Administration and allowed them to keep their job. Seven of the get fired and you have this Alberto Gonzales controversy. Now, you have an appointee of Clinton who gave the President faulty information, which our President used to start war. Now that same appointee is going to write a book about the President trusted him with the faulty information he gave.

Is anyone else just dumb-founded by this?

Democratic congressman John P. Murtha is using a word we are all familiar with: Impeachment.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said Sunday that Democrats in Congress could consider impeachment as a way to pressure President Bush on his handling of the war in Iraq.

“What I’m saying, there’s four ways to influence a president. And one of them’s impeachment,” Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said on CBS’ Face the Nation.

Amazing isn't it. The Democratic congress has done nothing since taking office accept attempt to raise our taxes and undermine our troops. Now, they are attempting to weaken our country even more by impeaching the our president. The same president that wants to fight terrorists, bring freedom to Iraq, and protect our country.

Mistakes were made in Iraq. For instance, our country shouldn't have waited on the UN. After presenting our case to the UN, they decided to takes months debating and putting together mandates for Sadam that he never followed. When the UN finally decided to send inspectors, Sadam wouldn't let them look every where they needed and he eventually kicked them out. During these months of debates and typical UN 'BS', Sadam had plenty of time to dismantle and hide his weapons.

Do Democrats call for impeachment of the inefficent UN officals? No, they call for the impeachment of the one person who is willing to fight these terriorists and protect our country. Traitors to our country. All of them.

Bernard Goldberg--author of Bias and 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America--has written a new book in which he slams Hillary Clinton and calls her out on her blatant hypocrisy. This is nothing new, I think. Many people know about the hypocrisy she leads in her live. It astounds me to think that anyone would vote for such a two-faced shrew.

If you don't know anything about Mrs. Bill Clinton's long list of hypocritical behavior, let me help you out by naming a few:

Hillary speaks out for children's rights; saying that children, baring any mental disabilities, should be able to make their own decisions in life without be held down by their parents, yet when her daughter, Chelsea, wanted to get her ears pierced, mommy said no.

Hillary is in heavy favor of teachers unions and public schools, but sent her own daughter to a private school while Bill was in office.

Two weeks after Bill Clinton became state attorney general of Arkansas, the "self-made, can stand on her own two feet" Hillary got a job at a prestigious law firm in Little Rocks. Two years later, when Bill became governor, she made partner. Way to stick it to the man, you go girl!

I could continue, but I'll leave you with one word: Whitewater.