Microsoft fined again.

The EU has again fined Microsoft, claiming that they're keeping a part of the code that makes up windows secret. Now, I've written about this before, and I still think it's good advice.

Microsoft, let's be honest. If you shut down sales of and the registration your software then the EU case is instantly moot. In other words, stop selling to the EU countries. Let the Governments explain to the people that their desire to destroy your successful product has caused you to pull out of the European Market.

Vista is supposed to be tougher than XP regarding piracy, so this way you'll be able to minimize any piracy. Also, the EU is required by international agreement to crack down on piracy.

In a week, perhaps two, the stores will be howling in outrage at this, the people will be demanding action, and computer sold on eBay will be worth a fortune if they're already registered in the US.

Come on Microsoft, help the EU get that competition going. Stop selling your products in Europe, and let the European Union go back to the good old days of typewriters and Morse code.

Feeling pretty good about starving people around the world

I admit it, hell I'm proud of it. I'm feeling damn good about starving people around the world. So they starve, that's just tough folks. I'm with the rest of the civilized world, the so called first world, in saying to you folks starving, to hell with you. We've got to have Ethanol in our fuel, and if that means you don't have anything to eat, that the estimated 852 Million people that are now hungry, may even double in the next couple years, and in fact the only chink in my armor to make me feel less good is that it may not work.

The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.

Now, this is obviously contrary to our stated goal of stopping global warming. I'm here to propose a ban on new farm land production. In other words, I want the UN to prohibit the production of new farm land. We must prevent the plowing up of our sacred forest and jungles to make more land to farm corn and grains to save our planet. Damn it, we environmentalists just don't give a damn if someone somewhere is starving because food isn't able to be produced. We've never cared, and we're not about to care now.

When we were warned about this problem, a year ago, and we didn't care then. Damn it, we're trying to save the earth from a non existent global warming issue. Look we've got the coldest winter on record in some areas. More snow than the biggest year of records, 1966. In fact, now we're looking at a new problem, a new ice age where tens of thousands of people might be cold if we don't change to ethanol.

For you, the nearly billion or so people who are starving, we the rest of the world say to you, tough. We've got to do something to change the planet. We can't keep being part of the problem, like you all, hopelessly consuming food and producing carbon dioxide. Why do you have any idea of your carbon foot print when you consider the ships, trucks, and workers who bring the food to you?

This is part of our new environmentalist message. Tough Love. We love to act like we care, and if our polices once enacted harm someone, tough.

Artist commits suicide after simple choice

In a very sad story out of England, and one that mirrors similar stories of guilt from some people whom I've talked to, a woman has committed suicide after having an abortion.

Friends, let's take a moment and discuss choice. Choices are often difficult, and sometimes are fairly easy. Some choices have minimal impact on your or other lives. Frankly, it probably doesn't matter if you eat at Burger King or McDonalds. In the case of lives, choices matter a bit more.

I was chastised by a liberal friend who told me that men never create anything. They only destroy, or modify what already exists. Only women, who reproduce, actually create anything, they create life. She was outraged that I mentioned that it wasn't life, it was a non viable tissue mass. I admit that throwing the liberal argument back at her was a tad unfair.

The point is this, I've always felt that the error we make should be the one on the side of life. If we're going to make a mistake, let's make that mistake on the side of life, not death. Now don't go claiming that belief means I can't support capital punishment. Some people just don't need to be with us on the planet. Could I throw the switch? Well it depends. In the case of Timothy McVeigh, I think I could take him out with a car batter and a set of jumper cables. Nothing personal Timmy. We just can't have you in society with us.

Back on topic. Trying to convince many of us that it's not alive is a big old lie. It's a life. What's the old joke? Two things you never let people see how they are made. Sausages and Laws is the old joke answer. Two things that you shouldn't ever allow people to see the truth about, Abortion is one of those things. Liberalism is of course the other true thing you should never allow people to see.

Abortions aren't a simple procedure. They are a choice, which the moral compass's of many people make them regret for a very long time. There are studies out now that indicate that the American Psychiatric Association is ignoring a very serious problem in post abortion mental stresses. The APA tries to pretend it's just a simple choice, yet suicide rates among women who've had abortions is roughly twice as high for women who've had a miscarriage. After an abortion more than 34 women out of 100,000 will commit suicide.

Ladies, that's an astounding number. Take a moment and consider it. The pro abortion groups including the APA and Planned Parenthood ignores the deaths of tens of thousands of adult women every year, because the truth about that would affect public support for Abortions.

It's not just a choice ladies, it a decision you have to be able to live with. It won't be easy, and you'll need some help with it.

McCain about to run afoul of McCain Feingold

John McCain, the Media endorsed candidate for the Republican Party is truly screwed now. As you can see from the Hot Air piece, it seems that last year, John McCain, Maverick of the Senate applied for Federal matching funds, thus setting himself up to abide by the spending limits of his own law, the notorious McCain Feingold campaign finance law.

According to that law, McCain can only spend $54 Million during the "Primaries" which is defined as the period prior to accepting the nomination of the party. The convention where McCain can accept the nomination is in September. Which is sixty days prior to the general election, which means he can't run any negative advertisements about his opponents. So Maverick John McCain has already spent $49 Million, leaving him about five million left to spend between now and September. He might be able to cover rent on all his campaign offices, but that's about it. McCain's travel for his campaign is probably going to be Greyhound.

Karma is a mother isn't it Senator McCain? I'm laughing my self silly right now, because you've
run into the very thing we've been telling you was a problem. I'll predict now that no matter who the Democrats nominate, they'll win in a landslide election. McCain isn't going to get any favorable press, the NY Times has already turned on him and bitten the hand that stroked them for so long.

Adios Maverick, while I might grit my teeth at the very notion of the President of the United States being a Hussein, at least I know you're campaign is essentially dead in the water. Perhaps I'll donate some money to Hillary. She's about as conservative as McCain, and if we can convince our enemies to mock Chelsea she'll probably lose it and bomb them into the stone age.

Turns out Conservatives aren't the only ones annoyed

In an article in Rolling Stones mag, it seems that the Conservatives who have been blasted for weeks now and told to make nice with the Liberal John McCain, presumptive nominee for President of the Republicans aren't alone. In 2006 we heard the Democratic and Republican party bosses telling us they had learned their lessons, that they had to stay fully committed to the issues that their voters expected.

In the case of the Republicans, the constant tacking to the left every time a debate got started was asinine. Stop apologizing for being conservatives, and start to vote like conservatives. Fight for our beliefs, and our ideals, and get the problems fixed for once.

In the case of the Democrats, the message was heard loud and clear. Get us out of Iraq right now. The liberal, and interestingly enough the Democrats with the highest visibility nationally said they would get us out of Iraq and as we approach election 2008, we're there, stronger and bigger than before.

The article is titled The Chicken Doves and expresses a lot of frustration that the left has with the Party bosses that is looking only for Political Power. It could easily be written by a conservative who is tired of waiting on any conservative issue. Abortion for example, which the pro-McCain pundits are already in a panic uncorking this tired old issue. "If we elect a Democrat, we're liable to have Liberal Judges that wouldn't overturn Roe V. Wade." Guys, if you wanted to do something about Roe v. Wade, you would have done it. You don't do it because you want the issue to scare voters into supporting you. Now, the Left is learning belatedly, that the Democratic Party doesn't care any more about their ideas than the Republican Party does it's base.

The War in Iraq is replacing Abortion as the issue of choice to explain why we should vote for the party choices, but nothing ever gets done on either issue. Assuming that the War in Iraq goes the way that the Abortion issue has been, then we'll be in Iraq until long after our grand children are gone, each election cycle we need to send a message by voting for either Democrats, or Republicans, that we want the War in Iraq either won or lost.

Democrats don't really care about the lives lost, because there are a million lives lost in Abortion clinics each year, so it's not that, it's the very idea of a war that they voted FOR actually working.

From the article. But any suggestion that the Democrats had an obligation to fight this good fight infuriates the bund of hedging careerists in charge of the party. In fact, nothing sums up the current Democratic leadership better than its vitriolic criticisms of those recalcitrant party members who insist on interpreting their 2006 mandate as a command to actually end the war. Rep. David Obey, chair of the House Appropriations Committee and a key Pelosi-Reid ally, lambasted anti-war Democrats who "didn't want to get specks on those white robes of theirs." Obey even berated a soldier's mother who begged him to cut off funds for the war, accusing her and her friends of "smoking something illegal."

Liberals are discovering that the party cares little for their ideas, and in fact, has only used their ideas to gain further funding, and attempting to elect and re-elect themselves on the issue.

Returning to Abortion, which like the War in Iraq is becoming a staple issue in each election, McCainiacs are screaming that Abortion is the issue that we can't forget this election cycle, we need McCain as President to appoint judges who will overturn Roe V. Wade. However, instead of focusing on the battle for the Court, why not circumvent the court? Why not go the route of a Constitutional Amendment? Once you've passed that, either guaranteeing in writing a womans choice, or prohibiting that choice and it's cost of a million lives a year, further debate is really not at issue is it? The reason that they won't pass an Amendment to the Constitution is simple, if they settle the issue once and for all, they can't use it to get your money, an your vote for them to fight for your side of the issue.

The conservative principal is one of maximum freedom, while at the same time protecting the lives of our citizens from harm.

But the war is where they showed their real mettle. Before the 2006 elections, Democrats told us we could expect more specifics on their war plans after Election Day. Nearly two years have passed since then, and now they are once again telling us to wait until after an election to see real action to stop the war. In the meantime, of course, we're to remember that they're the good guys, the Republicans are the real enemy, and, well, go Hillary! Semper fi! Yay, team!

What is scaring the political bosses is this. We're starting to wake up out here in fly over country. We're waking up to their same old games. The Internet is really a mother on bringing up old comments from them and looking at them to find out what they're really saying. Before that, we had to rely on special interest groups to rate the elected for us. I think the Liberals are starting to realize that the Democrats have no intention of actually ending the war, it's a good way to get the votes out each November, and it's wonderful on fund raising efforts.

I'm going to assume that in 2010, the Liberals will have figured this out, and will demand real action on Iraq, much as the Right Wing demanded action on Abortion, once and for all, after electing Bush and the Republicans for four years. The Republicans tried to hand the conservative base a token win, reduced or eliminated federal funding for Abortions internationally. Yeah Team. What about the amendment to ban Abortions? No. What about actions to end Abortions at the state level? Oh, that would violate Roe V. Wade, and we can't do that right now, sorry. You'll have to contribute and vote again, and again, and again, before we can do anything about it.

Libs. Welcome to the real world, where issues are ways that a politician uses you for money, and a vote. I for one believe that the goals of our troops in Iraq, to survive and win, are admirable, and worthy. I've said before that the issue of Abortion isn't a make or break issue with me, and it's true. For one, I know that by electing candidate A over candidate B nothing will happen. If we elect Candidate B over A, nothing will happen. It's a cash cow issue for the parties, and they're not going to kill the goose laying the golden egg are they?

I'm reasonably sure that if we elect Hillary, or Obama, we'll stay in Iraq for another four years. I just know that neither of them will want to have the surrender to Islamic Fascists on their resume. They want in on George Bush's resume, or McCain's resume, but not on their own history. Bill Clinton is still blamed for the loss in Somalia. Bush is still in the Balkans because he doesn't want a loss, so it's just easier to continue the mission, even if he campaigned against it, than deal with the loss.

Enjoy the article and welcome to the 21st Century libs, where your opinions are heard, considered, and after you contribute the maximum to the right candidate, ignored.

Does party trump principal?

As we enter Super Tuesday, the mainstream press is busy telling us that McCain is about unstoppable, and now Townhall commentator John Hawkins is busy telling us to unite for the good of the Party behind McCain.

OK, let me get this straight. I'm supposed to show party loyalty to a man who's almost never been loyal to that same party? Can someone take a moment to explain that to me?

Now, party loyalty aside, should I, or you, be told to place principal on the back burner, compromise on that principal, and vote for a candidate you disagree with on many issues? My answer is no, you shouldn't be expected to compromise on your principals that much.

Look, let's be honest. There's no such thing as a perfect candidate. For myself, I'm not a huge pro-life supporter. I believe that we should error on the side of life, but for me it's not a make or break issue. In fact, I really don't have any litmus test issues. In other words, if you're in favor of amnesty the McCain-Feingold law that limited free speech, that may sour my stomach a bit, but not enough to prevent me for supporting you financially and with my vote.

However, if I have enough of those pills to sour my stomach, eventually I'm going to decide I can't support you and feel even moderately positive about it. With John McCain, as you can see from my other posts, it would literally be that bad. I would have to swallow a dozen pills, each one a stomach souring test of personal strength. At some point, we all have to say, enough, no more, and here's the line I'm not crossing. McCain knows no such line. He'll gladly sacrifice any principal for power, and that's not what I want in a Candidate.

I haven't agreed with Bush on many issues, and I've written many times about what I consider to be his errors. I've told him when he's done something right, and when he's done something wrong. I did vote for him twice, and although I disapproved of many of his actions in his first term, I still voted for him in 2004 because the number of sour pills wasn't intolerably high.

With McCain, it's unendurably high, and that's why I'm not supporting him, for the party, or any other reason. I don't believe McCain will remain concrete on any issue, I just don't trust him to remain honorable behind any of his so called positions. McCain has previously said he'd negotiate anything. I don't want that in a President.

With me, some things are off the table, I'm betting you have some things you'll never allow, no matter what gain is promised. I won't ever support the idea of a National Health Care, or Universal Health Care. When it's proposed again, I'll fight it again, and again, and how ever often I need to to prevent it. I detest gun laws, and believe they violate the Constitution, and won't ever negotiate one into being no matter what promises you make me.

McCain isn't firmly for or against anything. After spending months putting together a secret legislative option, the McCain Kennedy amnesty bill, he then insulted everyone who said it was a bad piece of work. According to him, we didn't have time for hearings on the legislation, we didn't have time to consider it, we needed to move now. If you opposed him, you were only doing so for racist motives. We had to rely on Democrats to end that disturbing piece of legislation, because we couldn't rely on McCain not to sell us out for more time on camera.

McCain may well be the King of Compromise, if so, he's never going to be the person I want representing my nation. I'd rather have Hillary or Obama. At least with them, I know they won't sell some of their principals down the river for short term political gains. Each of us must have something we hold sacred, that we won't surrender easily. I don't think McCain has such a belief, something he holds sacred and won't throw away for some perceived political gain.

No, I won't be loyal to the party for a man who's shown no loyalty to the party.

The McCain Record

There are some who claim that we're opposing McCain based upon marching orders.

Oh, I don't know, you see some of us actually research our candidate. I had no idea you would support an anti gun candidate. Yes, I can prove that statement. McCain voted against tabling a motion that would extend and enhance the brady gun law.

You remember the Brady gun law right? Well, Johnny wanted to enhance it more than that to extend to Federal Control of all gun shows. Yeah, he's about as conservative as my cat.

Voted against barring criminal illegal immigrants from becoming citizens. That's right, Old Johnnie voted against the amendment that would have prevented violent criminals and pedophiles from becoming citizens if they were illegal immigrants.

That's after he voted in 1996 to increase penalties on illegal immigrants, but in 2006 he voted to ignore those same increased penalties he voted in. He must have voted in 1996 knowing that the stiffer penalties would never be enforced.

The McCain record also includes his complete intolerance of anyone who doesn't agree with him or God forbid doesn't put him in the spotlight properly. "It was election night 1986, and John McCain had just been elected to the U.S. Senate for the first time. Even so, he was not in a good mood. McCain was yelling at the top of his lungs and poking the chest of a young Republican volunteer who had set up a lectern that was too tall for the 5-foot-9 politician to be seen to advantage, according to a witness to the outburst. 'Here this poor guy is thinking he has done a good job, and he gets a new butt ripped because McCain didn't look good on television,' Jon Hinz told a reporter Thursday. At the time, Hinz was executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. ... Hinz said McCain's treatment of the young campaign worker in 1986 troubled him for years. 'There were an awful lot of people in the room,' Hinz recalled. 'You'd have to stick cotton in your ears not to hear it. He (McCain) was screaming at him, and he was red in the face. It wasn't right, and I was very upset at him.'" (Kris Mayes and Charles Kelly, "Stories Surface On Senator's Demeanor," The Arizona Republic, 11/5/99)

John McCain may be a lot of things, but he's no conservative, and those of us who oppose him, aren't taking our marching orders, we're researching the positions, the statements and know why we oppose him. Why do you support him? Let me guess, you can link to dozens of polls pushed by the media about his electability right?

The Atlantic says Gore's endorsement is crucial

The Atlantic Magazine is apparently a bit out of touch. In this particular article, the author, Joshua Green agues that an endorsement from Al Gore could put Obama over the top.

Gore’s home state, which could wind up making the difference. Democratic polling there is somewhat sparse, especially that done after John Edwards’s withdrawal. But Tennessee looks to be a state in which Clinton currently holds a lead—that is, unless a certain favorite son were to endorse her opponent. (emphasis mine)

OK, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about Al Gore, the same Vice President who when running for the top job as a shoe in lost Tennessee.

See Liberals, because you think that someone is really awesome, you assume that everyone does, or should. That's what's driving the McCain madness in the media right now. It's this disconnect with reality that really brings you all to all these weird mental problems like PEST where you can't understand how the rest of the nation doesn't agree with you and your small circle of equally out of touch friends.

Gore lost his home state by almost a hundred thousand votes. HIS HOME STATE. Let's consider that for a moment. The State where he was a Senator, he lost. I mean come on guys, even Jimmy Carter, who in 1980 only won six states and the District of Columbia managed to win his home state. Carter was a disaster as a President, and he managed to maintain his home state's loyalty. Mr. Green, I'm sorry sir, but you're really not getting good information here and that's part of the problem.

You see, if you all on the left don't hurry up and wake up, we're going to be stuck with McCain for President, and that would be a fate which would be unendurable in my mind. Now, I understand that you all think that the sun rises and sets on Al Gore's inconvenient ass, however we need to work together here to prevent a McCain Presidency. So forget any endorsement from Al Gore carrying the day, the Liberals on the various web pages awaiting their marching orders are going to assume that Gore is endorsing whomever they're looking at right now. Wait until after the nomination is sewed up, and quietly include his name if you think it's a help, but don't screw up Obama's chances right now with this idea that it will help him win.

Now, very quietly, step back from the keyboard, and leave Gore's name out of this. Only together can we prevent a McCain Presidency OK?

Wait a minute, you're serious about that?

Yes friends, for some reason, people think that everybody denouncing McCain right now is going to suddenly change their minds and support him for the good of the Party. Nope, most of us aren't.

I've violated my general rule here, which is to give a single warning before someone does something stupid. An example, if I see a man about to climb a fence to enter an enclosure with a big old Brahma Bull, I am morally bound to give him one warning. "Mister, I don't believe I'd do that if I was you, that ain't exactly the friendliest creature on earth. I believe you just might upset him." Now let's for the sake of argument say that our intrepid journeyman is bound and determined, which is the case all too often. "Don't worry, I'm just going to get my picture taken with the cow."

"Have a nice day sir." Is usually my last response. Now I'm free to stand back and watch the show, which in this case would involve an angry bull being territorial, and a fool being eliminated from the gene pool. Have I ever done something like that for real? Yes I have.

On more than one occasion in fact. Usually I'm left with either physically restraining the person, and being charged with assault for it, or sitting back and enjoying the show. I'm rarely disappointed in the show. I figure it's only fair that I should get some entertainment out of this, and I am. I'm watching the Press that heralded John McCain carry his water and pronounce that he's electable, the only electable choice, knowing that they are lying.

Here's why I know they are lying. The NY Times and the millions of reporters out there aren't suddenly going to turn on the Democratic Party and run to John McCain. Senator McCain who's brilliant and wise now, will soon be labeled as dumb like every other Republican who's run for office in the last fifty years. The Party is praying that people like me don't really mean it, and will in fact turn out to vote against Hillary. We won't. We didn't turn out to vote against Clinton by voting for Dole. We didn't turn out to vote against Clinton by voting for the incumbent George HW Bush. Instead, we voted third party, if we voted at all.

Now, you folks are rolling the dice, and pretending that the NY Times has a reason to help you. It doesn't, and wouldn't help you do anything but become more liberal. Go ahead, pick the electable candidate and see where we are in November. I will not now, nor will I ever vote for McCain. I'll pull the lever for a third party, long before I pick McCain. Figure about ten million of us mean that, and when you consider how close the last election was, do you really think it won't matter? I know, you've been ignoring us Conservatives for so long you figure we don't matter, enjoy, we'll be over here watching you pose for the picture with the bull.

Ann Coulter's vows to support Hillary if McCain nominated

Hot Air has a thread up which addresses comments recently made by Ann Coulter in which she states that she would rather campaign for Hillary Clinton than vote for John McCain.

I've been denouncing Senator John McCain for as long as I've been following politics. I have no use for him as a politician. I have stated many many times I'll not be supporting the Senator's campaign, and the only good thing that I can see coming from his winning the nomination would be if he resigned as a Senator. That would be something I would cheer, however unlike Bob Dole, I'm betting that the NY Times doesn't call on him to resign from the Senate.

The New York Times, which has solidly opposed all conservative ideas, labeled them as Fascist, is telling us to unite behind McCain. Look, I don't like my enemies telling me how to do things. Enemies you say, you call Liberals enemies? Yes, I do from a philosophical standpoint. We have to realize that Liberals never give up ground on their ideals. Compromise to a Liberal is that you agree with them and they'll stop talking bad about you.

Nuts. I agree with Ann Coulter, I agree with the seventy percent of the Republican Party that opposes John McCain. I agree with the millions of people who have sworn to oppose McCain come hell and high water.



Senator McCain. You may well win the nomination, and if you do, expect all those friends from the left to turn on you like a rabid dog. You'll be the most demonized Republican short of Rumsfeld. When that happens, and you see what we've been saying for years, that you can't trust a liberal in Washington, don't cry to us about it.

If McCain does win the Nomination, I expect a landslide win for either Obama or Clinton. The Media will happily compare it to Reagan's wins in 80 and 84.

I will personally celebrate the loss Senator. It took a loss by President Ford to bring us President Jimmy Carter. It took a Jimmy Carter to bring us Ronald Reagan. It took Bob Dole to bring us a Moderately Conservative President in the form of George Bush. If McCain is the inevitable nominee as is reported, then I'm about to start a movement here. Conservatives for Obama. Go Obama.