Free Republic

And now, we are supposed to let any Mexican from Chiapas, Michoacan or Yucatan march into the American Southwest, and make some "historical claim" of a right to live there? From where does this absurd idea spring?

That's the "beauty" of propaganda: it doesn't have to be accurate to be influentially effective. In fact, typically, it's not (accurate).

A larger problem we're facing is not just that Mexicans and OTMs believe in this Aztlan crap, but so do many Americans thanks to the anti-American propaganda pushed in our schools, universities, and popular media.

Of course, we taxpayers get to foot the costly bill for the medical expenses of the survivors, the transport of the dead man back to his family in Mexico (or perhaps the airfare to bring his family to the US -- didn't the Stupreme Court rule that death on American soil confers instant Citizenship?), the cleanup of the crash scene, etc. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see (Spanish-speaking) taxpayer-funded grief counselors provided to all parties involved.

Next there will come the ACLU ambulance chasers to sue the US Border Control for chasing these "poor undocumented workers". We'll get the bill for that multi-million-dollar settlement too.

Transgender is a mental disease which is TREATED (not cured) via radical mutilation of the genitals.

Actually, the mental illness is not treated, only some of the symptoms are masked by the physical mutilation. It's not unlike those mentally ill people who desire to amputate their own limbs.

I believe you are 100% correct. Those claiming his Christian identity are trusting in the name of Christ

Anyone can claim to be a good Christian. But that doesn't make it so. Michael Morales, that piece of offal on California's death row, is a prime example.

Unfortunately, many of the Christian churches in America have been infiltrated and corrupted by the Left, just as they have done with our schools and universities, newspapers and media, and judicial benches. For them, it's just another battlefront in their war on America and traditional family values.

I am not on stage in a debate here.

True. But it's difficult to have a conversation when you simply say you disagree without specifying why.

hillllereeee is not smart. She is not respected. She is not liked. She is NOT Presidential material.

In your opinion. And yes, there are many millions of Americans who would agree. But there are also many millions who feel the exact opposite is true (and would use your points to describe our current President).

Just because I despise Hillary and her husband with every fiber in my being, that doesn't mean I am going to glibly dismiss the political power and prowess they possess. Hillary is not only very politically smart, but she is also extremely calculating, cunning, and ruthless. While you and I and many others do not respect her, there are also many who not only respect her, but practically worship her. And she is no more un-presidential than her husband, and we saw how "unelectable" he was.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Traveling into a combat zone to disparage and disrupt your own nation's military service members, while simultaneously giving sympathetic aid and comfort to enemy COMBATANTS, does not fit ANY definition of "peacemaker," biblical or otherwise.

I have to respect him for believing in something so much that he put his own life on the line.

By that argument, you must also respect suicide bombers. Or the 9/11 hijackers. Or "Rat Boy" (Jihad Johnny Walker Lindh). How about spies and traitors within our military and government who aid our enemies because they believe America is evil?

Typical liberal "journalism": paint the criminal, Richard Parker, as a sympathetic victim of an overly punitive justice system.

The two opening paragraphs describe the incident as simply a drunken prank by Parker: walking through a bar naked with a "pool-table ball wedged between his buttocks." The article immediately goes on (in the third and fourth paragraphs) to describe the "very harsh" criminal sentence imposed by the judge: 28 days in jail. Plus, Parker "was also fined £260." The fifth paragraph relates the shock of his friends at this harsh sentence.

It's not until the sixth paragraph that we learn that Parker also publicly urinated on the pool table. And it's not until the eleventh paragraph that we read "it's [Parker's] second offence since [he was] released from prison previously - and that release was on the basis [Parker] didn't reoffend." Only when we dig down to the thirteenth paragraph (of a seventeen paragraph article) that we get the truth of his conviction: "Parker was given a 28-day prison sentence for criminal damage, failing to surrender to custody and breaching a conditional discharge by obstructing a police officer." To me, that (combined with violating the terms of his previous prison release) sounds a bit more serious than simply a "drunken prank."

Oh, and that £260 "fine" imposed by the judge? Actually, that was restitution ordered to be paid to the hotel for material damage to the pool table.

While this was but a petty crime, it serves as an excellent example of propaganda in the media: how liberal/Leftist "journalists" craft the "news" to fit their socio-political agenda.

Respectfully disagree.

What do you disagree with? Please present your rebuttal.

And what about the other hundreds of victims of murderers, George? Are they of lesser value? Should their justice be of a different sort?

That very question sprung to my mind when reading this.

As long as she lives, she will be a threat.

And one that should not be ignored or discounted.

Too often, Conservatives and Republicans write off Hillary as too polarizing and too politically-motivated, and thus is "unelectable." But that is only looking at the surface of the problem. Remember that John Kerry, a well-documented anti-American (I would go so far as to label him a genuine traitor) and consummate politician, came disturbingly close to winning the presidency. In fact, perhaps the only reason he didn't was due to the behind-the-scenes actions (and inactions) of the Clintons and their political war machine.

Jumping to the present, we see the Republican party severely damaged (not the case in 2004): the Republican-controlled congress and White House have been spending money and drunken Democrats, the war in Iraq has been poorly managed (and worse, has been badly "sold" to the American public), illegal immigration is out of control (and the Republicans are making loud noises about amnesty), and this Dubai ports deal (whether you support it or not) has allowed the Demoncrats to seize the one issue upon which Americans strongly favored Republicans: national defense.

Furthermore, the Republicans do not have a VP candidate for 2008, nor do they currently have a candidate strong enough to ensure a Demoncrat defeat. Mix into the equation the massive power of Clintons political war machine (do you really think their stealing of the FBI files were only to be used during Bill's presidency?), the very pro-Clinton media and Hollywood (which has already begun setting the stage for Hillary with the TV show "Commander in Chief"), and the Demoncrats proficiency for defrauding the election process, and I'd (regrettably) say that Hillary has a very solid chance at winning the White House in 2008.

the [gay and lesbian fundraiser ], held at a loft in Manhattan's trendy meatpacking district

Need I say more...

As far as I'm concerned, we should give all of these traitorous America-haters a (one-way) ticket to the social paradise of their choice: Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Cuba, North Korea, etc. In exchange, we will promise never to retaliate on their behalf if they are killed by their personal heroes.

And we should leave their murdered bodies in the countries of their choosing. It would be an insult to true Americans to desecrate the soil of our cemeteries with their remains.

If man-made ecosystems are "unnatural habitat" and must be removed, then wouldn't that also apply to the many man-made areas since designated by so-called environmentalists as "wetlands"?

I'd like to see the Ninth Circus' ruling on the following free speech banners in or around government schools:

"Abortion is infancide."

"Homosexuality is perversion."

"The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms."

"Support our troops"

"Overthrow the National Education Association"

If the editors at the Tribune were true patriotic Americans, they would have turned over their research to the CIA, had their staff sign confidentiality agreements, and quietly canned the story. Instead, they published it.

The traitorous anti-American bastards should be shot.

I completely agree with that article in its entirety except for this statement:

"The Scouts are correct in denying access to youngsters to openly homosexual potential Scout masters."

The author should have left out the word "openly".

He was not harming people.

He certainly was! By sympathizing and speaking out on behalf of the terrorist "insurgents" in Iraq, he was harming our military service members, as well as the peaceful citizens of Iraq who want to be free of these (mostly foreign) terrorists more than we do. How many US soldiers and innocent Iraqis have died because the terrorists are continually empowered and given moral (as well as financial) support by sympathizers like Tom Fox and his ilk?

When a "citizen" (in this case, as defined by birth, not by loyalty) travels to a foreign country, particularly one where our military is actively engaged in war, and sympathizes with our enemy, giving them aid and comfort, then that person is no longer a citizen as far as I am concerned. He is a traitor. And traitors deserve to die. I find it particularly ironic -- and just -- when they die at the hands of those with whom they are sympathizing.

My regret is not that Tom Fox was killed by his fanatical, homicidal Muslim brethren, but that others like him have not met the same fate. Jane Fonda dying at the hands of the NVA/Vietcong would have been a good start.

Tough luck if that's too politically incorrect and "insensitive" for any of you.

I mean... this guy was there to UNDERSTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND THEM, right?

Yup. And I'd say he finally did.

They are basically perpetual children

You're describing liberal Baby Boomers, right?

We get two or three free papers sent to us or dropped on our doorstep. They all must employ struggling young liberal hacks, intent on changing the world. It's pretty amazing how much local advertising market there is in Northern Virginia.

While perhaps these "newspapers" come to you at no direct cost on your part, they are certainly not free: there is a source of funding behind them, usually local merchants as you mentioned, but also large corporations. And where do these companies get the money to fund these (and other) media vehicles of Leftist propaganda. From local consumers. Perhaps even you.

Conservative Americans will never win the social, cultural, and political battle for this nation, its Constitution, and our children's freedom if we will not make a conscious, cohesive, and dedicated effort to de-fund the Left by economic boycott of the companies and institutions that support them, intentionally or otherwise.