" /> Kowabunga: July 2007 Archives

ConservaGear

Anti-Terrorist, Liberal Bashing t-shirts, bumper stickers and more.

ConservaGear

Get the Right Stuff at ConservaGear

Sqotty's Blogroll

Minnesota Organization
of Bloggers

Blogs For Bush

GOP Bloggers

Newsfeeds

Reciprocal Links

Acknowledgments

All trademarks and related service marks are the sole property of their respective owners.

« June 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

July 31, 2007

Clifford May on the Need to Win in Iraq

It's very rare I see an opinion piece or editorial in the Stra Tribune that gets it right, especially where the war in iiraq is concerned. Here is one by Clifford D. May, and is well worth reading.

The gist of the piece is that if we really are heading for, or have been defeated, and we "redeploy" out of Iraq, expect things to get worse in Afghanistan, and watch for problems throughout the whole theater of operations. It is that important that we win. Not just for America's safety, but also for those countries in the Middle East that have aligned with us.

Tags:

July 30, 2007

Russia Supplies High Tech Fighters To Iran

Somehow I am not surprised that our erstwhile ally, Russia, is busily supplying one of the greatest enemies of freedom, Iran, with advanced military technology, from anti-aircraft weapons being used to protect nuclear facilities, to 250 Sukhoi-30 jet fighters paired with aerial fuel tankers.

From the Jerusalem Post:

Despite Israeli and US opposition, Russia recently supplied Iran with advanced antiaircraft systems used to protect Teheran's nuclear installations. At the time, Moscow said it reserved the right to sell Iran weapons, such as the antiaircraft system, that were of a defensive nature.

The Sukhoi-30 is a two-seat multi-role fighter jet and bomber capable of operating at significant distances from home base and in poor weather conditions. The aircraft enjoys a wide range of combat capabilities and is used for air patrol, air defense, ground attacks, enemy air defense suppression and air-to-air combat.

This will enhance Iran's offensive capabilities by providing them with a significant number of modern fighters capable of reaching out and attacking Israel as well as threatening U.S. Forces located in the Middle East.

It is also important to realize that Russia is not only arming our enemy, but has been instrumental in assisting Iran with the development of nuclear technology.

Russia is not the only player if providing weapons to Iran. China has also been involved with selling weapons to America's enemies, including funneling weapons to terrorists in Iraq through Iran.

Tags:

July 28, 2007

Silencing Fox News

In a Hugo Chavez like move, MoveOn.org, that icon of the First Amendment and left-wing darling, is pushing hard to silence the Fox News Channel by calling for an advertiser boycott. Gotta love these folks who believe so much in the First Amendment.

From FoxNews (who else?):

MoveOn.org, the Campaign for America's Future and liberal blogs like DailyKos.com are asking thousands of supporters to monitor who is advertising on the network, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

Once a database is gathered, an organized phone-calling campaign will begin, said Jim Gilliam, vice president of media strategy for Brave New Films, a company that has made anti-Fox videos.

The groups have successfully pressured Democratic presidential candidates not to appear at any debate sponsored by Fox, and are also trying to get Home Depot Inc. to stop advertising there.

This is a blatant attempt to silence a news organization from exercising their Constitutional right under the First Amendment. They hate open discussion on the issues and seek to squash opposing views. Why?

One primary example sighted in the article, as well as on Gilliam's web site is the issue of Global Warming. The have bought into the mass hysteria that very small fraction of one percent of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide is causing the current warming trend in the Earth's climate, despite scientific FACTS that prove it is solar activity and other elements, none of which are (or can be) influenced by human activity.

bravenewfilms.jpg

If Gilliam, MoveOn dot org, Daily Kos, and other such mouthpieces of the hard-left were truly interested in an honest and open debate, they should first read up on the hard science that has been published by researchers in recent years.

Admittedly, there is more to their movement than just their hysteria over climate change. They oppose the war in Iraq and want to see that country fall into the hands of terrorists and Islam-fascist extremists. They don't like the fact that the U.S. is pushing for ballistic missile defense and maintains a nuclear arsenal. Yet they are okay with Russia, North Korea, China having whatever nuclear arms it wants, and to let Iran have the same.

Fortunately, it is reported in the article that Home Depot is not in the market of censoring media and has no intention of changing its marketing strategies. Kudos to them!

One final note on global warming: it isn't that there is climate change going on that is disputed, it is the cause of those changes that is disputed.

Tags:

July 27, 2007

Pelosi On Most Beautiful List?

The Hill has just released its list of the 50 most "beautiful" people on Capitol Hill. Number 4 on the list is that left-wingnut from San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is not even on the list, let alone in the top five.

All I can say is: whoever compiled this list must not have ever seen Michelle Bachmann.

Tags:

China Arming Insurgents and Iraqi Forces

The Washington Times reports that China is playing both ends of the field when it comes to arming Iraq. They have just cut a deal to supply $100 million dollars worth of assault rifles to the Iraqi police.

Recent intelligence reports also indicate that China has been supplying weapons to "insurgents" (their word, not mine) in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Knowing that China is arming your enemies, would you really want to cut a deal with them to buy weapons from China? How can you be sure that the weapons they will provide will in fact be reliable? Me, I wouldn't do it as I couldn't just a country that is arming my enemies to supply me with weapons.

One Bush administration official called the deal "extremely foolish."

"Buying weapons from China will accelerate the alienation of America," the official said. "Iraq purchasing PLA weapons along with the emerging PRC oil deal will contribute mightily to end game Iraq for the United States." The PLA is the acronym for China's military.

The official said the Iraqi government needs to better understand that the U.S. military is fighting and dying to give their nation the opportunity for a free and open society and government. "It is not the PLA, in fact the PLA is arming Iranians to kill Iraqis and Americans," the official said.

Disclosure of the Iraqi government arms deal with China comes as a U.S. military spokesman this week confirmed the flow of Chinese shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to insurgents, first reported in this paper June 5.

The unidentified "official" has a valid point. If our troops are fighting and dying to establish a free society in Iraq, and the American people are being asked to put up the bucks, then why is the government of Iraq cutting arms and oil deals with a communist dicatatorship? Especially one that is simultaneously arming Iraq's enemies?

Tags:

July 26, 2007

Obama Loses War of Words With Hillary

Barack Obama, in a silly attempt to retaliate against Hillary Clinton and gain a few brownie points with the hard-left progressive/liberal Moonbats, used Hillary's own words. From BreitBart:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to turn rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's words back on her Wednesday, saying her vote to authorize the Iraq war was "irresponsible and naive."

Clinton had used the same language a day earlier to criticize Obama for saying he would be willing to meet with leaders of nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions within the first year of his presidency. Clinton said renegade leaders could use such a meeting for propaganda and that envoys below the presidential level should begin diplomatic work.

Actually, this is one of the few times where Hillary is right, and I hate to admit agreeing with her. When Obama came out publicly saying that he would meet with the murdering thugs running Cuba, North Korea and Iran, he was showing a serious lack of what is at stake and what kind of people they are.

For years the U.S. and Europe has attempted (and Europe is still attempting) to negotiate with Iran over concerns that Iran's nuclear program will soon make weapons material available to terrorist groups, including Hezbollah (an Iranian puppet) and al-Qaeda. Obama, by saying he is willing to talk with the ayatollahs and the dictator of Iran does not understand what is at stake here.

As for North Korea, the Clintons (with the aid of former president Jimmy Carter) cut a deal with the murdering thug there to provide them with nuclear technology on the condition it is not used to develop weapons. We all know how well that particular ruthless thug keeps his word.

Then there is the mass-murderer of Cuba, Fidel Castro. Ever stop to wonder why thousands of people flee that country every year? There isn't a mad rush to move there, either. We don't know how many people have died at the hands of Castro, nor how many political dissidents have been incarcerated.

Yet Obama wishes to meet with them without conditions.

Hillary at least initially got the war in Iraq right, even though now she has taken an pro-terrorist stand by calling for our withdrawal from Iraq. This is all politics to her, and has nothing to do with what is best (or right) for the U.S.; it's about her gaining and holding as much power as possible.

Obama would have done better if he had said that it is naïve for Americans to believe that either one of them understands the true responsibility involved with the office they currently have the privilege of serving in, let alone the greater responsibility carried by our Commander in Chief.

Tags:

July 25, 2007

Elizabeth Edwards Moonbas About Global Warming

Elizabeth Edwards has shown her other ignorance on the issue of global warming by pushing an agenda of "eat locally" in order to reduce "carbon footprint."

From Politico:

The politics of global warming got very concrete, and oddly difficult, In a meeting with local environmentalists in the coastal town of McClellanville today, where Elizabeth Edwards raised in passing the importance of relying on locally-grown fruit.

"We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit.

"I live in North Carolina. I'll probably never eat a tangerine again," she said, speaking of a time when the fruit is reaches the price that it "needs" to be.

Does this mean she is giving up orange juice and coffee? How about chocolate, tea, and anything that may contain alcohol?

As a general rule, I am okay with eating locally grown produce because it is generally in better condition as well as for taste. However there are a lot of fruits and vegetables that do not grow where I live, starting with citrus fruits. I do not advocate limiting one's diet to locally produced foods because of an unwarranted fear that carbon emissions is the cause of global warming.

Then, when John Edwards was questioned, he said:

"Would I add to the price of food?" he asked. "I'd have to think about that."

Such additional food costs would be in the form of adding carbon emission costs to the price of food.

I think that as a general rule all candidates should have studied the hard science about such issues as global warming before they are allowed to open their traps and show their ignorance. If they did, we wouldn't be hearing a word about "carbon footprints" but rather we would be hearing about the solar cycle and the impact of cosmic rays.

Tags:

Ward Churchill Fired

This is in the category of "It's about bloody time!" Ward Churchill, now former professor of Colorado University, has been fired for academic misconduct and plagiarism. Quite frankly, his calling the victims of the 9/11 attacks "little Eichmans" should have been enough for his immediate dismissal. It's too bad that it took this long to terminate him. What is also disturbing is they are paying him a year's salary as part of the termination. That must be nice. Get fired for cause and still get paid.

From Channel 9 News:

Churchill touched off a firestorm in 2005 after an essay surfaced which he wrote shortly after 9/11 likening some victims in the World Trade Center to Adolf Eichmann, who helped carry out the Holocaust.

University officials concluded he could not be fired for his comments because they were protected by the First Amendment, but they launched an investigation into allegations that he fabricated or falsified his research and plagiarized the work of others.

In 2006, a university committee found Churchill guilty of academic misconduct, including plagiarism and a faculty panel recommended he be demoted and suspended for a year without pay. In May, CU President Hank Brown recommended Churchill be fired.

In general, I guess they are right about the free speech part, however private companies can and do fire high profile employees for making such stupid statements as Churchill did in 2005, as it can be construed to reflect on their employer.

It is also disappointing that it took that incident to trigger an investigation into the allegations that he was an academic fraud.

Even though it took a long time before the Board of Regents took action, at least they did the right thing for reasons that can be defended.

Tags:

July 24, 2007

Comrade Chavez Is Libertiphobic

The one thing that Comrade Chavez has proven himself to be good at is calling people "names." He also tends to be pretty hostile about it as well, directing his venom at political opponents and those he perceives as being a threat to his dictatorial powers. The latest recipient of the Comrade Chavez abusiveness is Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras.

From Yahoo News

"Another parrot of imperialism appeared, this time dressed as a cardinal. That's to say, another imperialist clown," Chavez was quoted as saying in a bulletin posted Tuesday on the state-run news agency's Web site.

Chavez - a close ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro - was responding to criticism from Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, who said in a recent interview cited by Venezuela's Bolivarian News Agency that Chavez "thinks he's God and can trample upon other people."

It's typical for the representatives of tyranny to always refer to those that oppose them as "imperialists," despite the fact that it is the forces of darkness that are pushing for "imperialism."

Now my question is: will Chavez make references to me as an "imperialist dog" if I call him an overbearing dictator with delusions of godhood? One can only hope. In the meantime, I'll continue to call him as I see him. Dictator, tyrant, megalomaniac.

Chavez made the comments during a government event late Monday. He has repeatedly clashed with Catholic Church leaders in Venezuela, calling them "liars" and "perverts," but he rarely targets high-ranking priests abroad.

Catholic leaders in this South American country have warned of alleged threats to individual freedoms under Chavez's administration and criticized his plans for a sweeping constitutional reform to transform Venezuela into a socialist state.

Let's see, Catholic leaders are saying that Chavez is taking away freedoms, silencing the opposition by restrict the freedom of the press (like his recent shutting down of a major television broadcaster), seizing the assets of various oil companies, threatening to seize the food supply system, and probably a lot more, and he calls them "perverts"?

At least there are some people in Venezuela and South America as a whole that see Chavez for what he is. Hopefully they will help the people of Venezuela realize that their freedoms are being eroded bit by bit by a man that has absolute power in his country.

As with all tyrants, Comrade Chavez is suffering libertiphobia (fear of liberty). That would explain his desire to turn Venezuela into another Cuba.

Tags:

Flipper Says No Bloodbath On Bajor

Stardate, oh wait, that's pajama boy talk.

Quark's place was jammed packed for Happy Hour by the time I got there. Still, I managed to find a spot at the bar, and looked around for the Doctor. I knew the Doctor was on DS9 as I spotted the familiar blue Police Call Box next to Cthulu Coffee on the Promenade. As I didn't see him around Quark's I figured it wouldn't be long before he turned up, and then maybe I can convince him to head over to tunok's Kill and Grill for some roast Mugatu.

Quark noticed my arrival and sidled up to me, setting a pint of Guinness and a shot glass of Tribble Sweat on the bar. "You look thirsty, Kahuna. Dry run?"

"Yep. Not a decent wave in sight and the Duras Sisters are still ticked at me for unloading 60 cases of ketchup on them. I need to make it up to them somehow so that I can lay may hands on something better than a Ripple Ranger torpedo."

"Try sending them a few cases of Tribble Sweat," Quark suggested. "Then maybe they'll stop confusing you with Flipper Kerry." Quark had a slight grin on his face as he said that.

I mustered up my best evil eye on Quark, which only caused him to laugh in hysterics. At least it caused his ears to hurt.

"Speaking of Flipper, have you seen the latest?" I asked.

"No," Quark said, now putting on his best business like poker face. "Do tell."

"There's a youviewscreen.com video running around of him spouting off on how if the Federation were to withdraw from Bejoran space there wouldn't be any kind of fallout or massacre. No need to worry about the Cardassians rolling back in, either. He compared it to Vietnam and said there were no mass killings when the Federation pulled out of there either."

"There wasn't?"

"Not unless you count the roughly 165,000 people killed in the reeducation camps. Or the nearly 3 million wiped out in the neighboring system."

"And this is all on youviewscreen.com?"

"Yep."

"He must be pretty stupid," Quark said.

"Yep."

"So, just how did he get to be a Senator, anyway?"

I looked at him in all seriousness and said, "Beats the heck out of me…I'm from Qo'noS, not Massachusetts."

"Must have been the ketchup money," Quark said., grinning.

"More likely there was something in the ketchup."

At this point the Doctor showed up with two good looking companions, Nissa and Tegan. At least these two aren't Vulcans. Time for dinner.

Kahuna out.

Tags:


Victory Caucus Reloaded

I heard on Hugh Hewitt last night that the Liberty Caucus has reformatted itself into a news aggregator and information resource site, focusing on the ongoing military operations in Iraq. Their new goal is to be a one-stop shopping place for news on Iraq, including, and most importantly, the stuff you don't see in the main stream media.

Kudos to N.Z. Bear for putting this website together. We've needed something like this for a long time.

News is being pulled from major military sites as well as some of the more prominent bloggers, metrics on where things are at in Iraq, and how things are going. There is also a discussion forum in place that looks like it should be pretty darn useful.

Victory Caucus

Tags:

Cindy Sheehan For Congress?

Pro-terrorist activist Cindy Sheehan has found a new way to get back into the news cycle: the California Moonbat has announced her intentions to challenge Nancy Pelosi in 2008 if Pelosi doesn't move to impeach President Bush.

From the Hill:

Discussing President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Sheehan said, "We put them there. We can fire them. If Nancy Pelosi doesn't do her constitutionally mandated job by midnight tonight, tomorrow I will announce that I'm going to run against her.

"And not only am I going to run against her, but I will beat her," Sheehan added.

Ultimatums, ya gotta love 'em. Actually, Cindy Sheehan makes Pelosi seem rather moderate, and smart. As for Sheehan's ability to unseat Pelosi, my money (zen, of course), is on Pelosi.

After a failed meeting with Rep. Conyers (D-Mich) to get impeachment underway, Sheehan and a number of other Pro-terrorist Moonbats marched on Arlington Cemetery where Sheehan and 45 others were arrested. Neither of the articles I've read gave details on the arrests. I am assuming it is a misdemeanor of some sort rather than something notable.

Sheehan continues to rant about how this Administration has "violated" the Constitution, yet she has never produced any facts to back up her assertions; her ravings about the war in Iraq and her personal tragedy are not sufficient reasons to impeach a president.

The hard-left wackos in this county continue to spout off about how much they care about the Constitution, yet every time they open their mouths and spew their vile about the war in Iraq, they prove their utter ignorance and contempt for the Constitution.

Still, the left-wingnuts have a right to say what they want. It would be helpful if they could back up their claims with something other than what comes out the backend of a bull.

Tags:

July 23, 2007

Comrade Chavez To Expell Foreign Critics

Comrade Hugo Chavez rides again…into the news, that is. The "champion of free speech and democracy" has announced a decision that any outspoken critics from other countries will be deported.

From FoxNews:

"How long are we going to allow a person - from any country in the world - to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?" Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program.

The Venezuelan leader's statements came after Manuel Espino, the president of Mexico's conservative ruling party, criticized Chavez during a recent pro-democracy forum in Caracas.

Comrade Chavez, Dictator of Venezuela went on to claim that "freedoms" have been extended in Venezuela, such as the silencing of opposition broadcast stations, and that "Private property will respected," just as it did with the oil production infrastructure of the various oil companies operating (past-tense: operated) in Venezuela.

In his typically wide-ranging television program, Chavez also said Castro recently warned him to take precautions against possible U.S.-backed assassination attempts.

The U.S. passed laws forbidding assassination back in the '70s, and there have been no attempts on the life by U.S. operatives against Castro since that time. Castro is a bit paranoid in his old age if he thinks there are still designs on terminating him rather than letting nature take its course.

"The CIA is everywhere," said Chavez, who has repeatedly warned that U.S. President George W. Bush could order him killed.

I would say that the paranoia is gaining ground with Comrade Chavez if he seriously believes that such an attempt would be made. But then tyranical dictators like Chavez are really models of psychological stability. Remember the guy in the '30s/'40s with the silly little mustache?

Tags:

July 20, 2007

Strib Wrong (as usual) on National Intelligence Estimate

The Red Star Tribune editorial staff is off to their usual tricks of biased reporting and scare-mongering. This time in response to the National Intelligence Estimate released this week. The bigger question is: are they reading the same report I am? If so, how can they come to the conclusions that they do?

From the Strib editorial:

The headline finding in the two pages released this week is that Al-Qaida has rebuilt itself during the past two years and now represents perhaps as great a threat to the United States as it did six years ago.

What the NIE report states is:

Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

No where in the NIE report does it assert that al-Qaeda poses as great a threat as it did prior to 9/11.

Al-Qaeda has rebuilt its leadership structure and has established a safehaven in Pakistan, but it is a long way from rebuilding itself to pre-9/11 levels as the MSM claims that it has done.

The report also clearly states that al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is the "most visible and capable" arm.of al-Qaeda, something that the politicians and the MSM seem to overlook in their ongoing quest to get us out of Iraq.

The NIE also states that al-Qaeda is leveraging contacts from AQI, as well as other terrorist organizations in order to enhance its own capabilities leading up to attacks on the U.S. This strategy makes sense and we should not be surprised by its being used by al-Qaeda.

The NIE also has a few bullet points that should not come as a surprised, and should be kept in the minds of our leadership, both military and legislative, so as to keep the m focused on the ball.

We assess that al-Qa'ida will continue to try to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability.

This should also be used to emphasize the need to secure our borders (both North and South) to prevent terrorists from smuggling not only themselves, but the materials needed, but not readily available in the U.S., to construct these kinds of weapons. Specicifcally, we need to prevent them from obtaining or transporting into the U.S. U-235 and/or plutonium, either of which can be used to build small nuclear bombs. And both may soon be available to them courtesy of Iran.

The Strib seems to not get it:

Bush's homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, tried to turn that finding into the newest reason why Americans have to stay and fight it out in Iraq. But this is looking-glass logic taken to an absurd extreme. If Bush's misjudgments created the problem -- inviting Al-Qaida to take root in Iraq and putting American troops in its cross hairs -- why should voters trust his judgment to solve it?

Yes, we have to finish what we started in Iraq, and that includes leaving it as a secure and thriving democracy. To do less than that would result in AQI or Iran (or both) taking over Iraq and using it as a terrorist staging ground. It would also provide a protective barrier for Iran from U.S. and Coalition forces should hostilities erupt, as well as providing greater economic capabilities to the terrorist organizations.

Prior to 2003 and the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime, Iraq was already supporting terrorist groups by providing them safehavens for meetings and training grounds, as well as supplying funding and incentives to suicide bombers to attack Israel.

Although Iraq was not directly involved in the attacks of 9/11, it was in bed with al-Qaeda. Iraq was in violation of many U.N. resolutions concerning chemical weapons, and after the invasion over 500 such weapons have been recovered in addition to many tons of precursor materials needed to build more such weapons.

The editorial staff of the Star Tribune proves once again that THEY are the ones living in Wonderland.

Tags:

Edelman Socks It To Hillary

Defense Undersecretary Eric Edelman tells Hillary like it is in a letter to the woman would be, er, President.

From NYPost:

The Pentagon yesterday launched a blistering attack on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for boosting "enemy propaganda" by demanding the U.S. military whip up plans for withdrawal from Iraq.

The forceful pummeling - in response to Clinton's request that the Defense Department "prepare plans for the phased redeployment" - came in a terse letter to the Democratic presidential front-runner from Defense Undersecretary Eric Edelman.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote in the July 16 letter.

Edelman is absolutely 100% correct on his assessment of what Hillary is calling for. If we pull out, as Hillary and the other lefties in the Senate want, then the Democrats will have achieved their dream of turning Iraq into another Vietnam, replicating the conditions that allowed the communist takeover our once-upon-a-time ally in Southeast Asia. Millions of people died, not just in Vietnam, but Cambodia as well, when we abandoned South Vietnam. Millions were incarcerated in "reeducation" camps (better known as gulags).

If we pull out of Iraq and things fully erupt over there, there won't be any gulags for the "reeducation" of those who wanted Liberty. Only death. It will be far more like Cambodia than Vietnam. (If you are still playing the John f. Kerry drinking game, take a drink.)

Millions of Iraqis have their live son the line. If we abandon them now, then we can kiss our credibility goodbye. Of course, it might make us popular with the French.

Hillary is right that there always needs to be contingency plans and alternatives. But those plans should never include leaving the battlefield while the battle rages on. However that is exactly what the Democrats want to do: Pull out of the battle and let the bad guys win. Such plans are both dangerous and irresponsible.

Clinton's Senate spokesman Philippe Reines said Edelman's letter was "at once outrageous and dangerous," and added that Clinton planned to respond directly to his boss, Secretary of Defense Gates.

Actually, Reines has got it wrong (not surprisingly): what Hillary is pushing for is outrageous and dangerous. God help us if she is elected president.

Tags:

Defeat-O-Thon Fallout

One thing that came the Democrats Defeat-O-Thon in the Senate prove is that they have no interest in bipartisan relations with their Republican counterparts.

From DeseretNews:

Arlen Specter is a senior U.S. senator who expects to be allowed his say on the Senate floor. So he bristled when Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader, brusquely cut him off at the end of the Iraq debate.

"The leadership is setting a dictatorial tone," Specter, R-Pa., said Thursday, still furious over his treatment the day before. "Senators didn't get here to be pushed around."

This is not the first time that the feeling of "dictatorial tone" has been set; Barbara Boxer has made references to using the power of the gavel to run her committee and silence opposing views, making references to "elections have consequences."

It is hardly startling that members of the two parties do not see eye to eye. And the spirit of bipartisanship in the Senate always rises and falls depending on the subject and the election calendar. But seven months into the new Democratic regime, the environment seems unusually hostile. Occasionally, senators do, too, as exhibited in a Sunday television exchange between Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that looked for a moment as if it might turn physical as the two men argued about the war in Iraq.

Hard feelings have consequences. Without agreements between the leaders of the opposing parties, the Senate has been plunged into a procedural knife fight, with Democrats forced to scramble to find 60 votes not just on contentious issues like an Iraq withdrawal plan, but on once-routine matters like motions to proceed to a spending bill. The feuding has spilled into subjects that would seem to hold the potential for common ground, like antiterror legislation and lobbying reform, and will doubtless tie up spending bills, health care measures and others to come.

Democrats are whining daily about how they are unable to push forward their agenda, and it is tactics like the Defeat-O-Thon that will continue to acerbate the problem. By pushing hard to let the terrorists win in Iraq, as they are doing, they have put themselves into a position of needing 60 votes in order to get anything done.

This is what happens when you use these same rules to block a President's judicial nominations for political reasons. This is what happens when you push an agenda of defeating America rather than doing what is right and defeating the enemy. This is what happens when you refuse to provide the necessary equipment to support our troops in the field.

Quite frankly, if gridlock, or the use of cloture votes, prevents the Democrats from pushing forward an agenda and legislation that is bad for America, then all I have to say is: Good!

I don't want the Democrats winning the debate on Iraq as the price of their winning will be high, and paid for in the blood of the people of Iraq. And they are already paying a dear price to achieve Liberty. What will be the price they will pay for having tried it and failed due to the U.S. abandoning them, just as we abandoned South Vietnam 32 years ago?

Reid on Thursday blamed Republican ideology, saying the Senate's conservative contingent was unwilling to swallow legislation sought by most Americans.

"We don't have many moderate Republicans in the Senate," Reid said. "Republicans in the Senate do not represent mainstream Republicans around the country."

Legislation sought by most Americans? Most Americans want our borders secured and do not want amnesty granted to 12+ million illegal aliens. The Democrats in the Senate want that, not "most Americans."

Most Americans want our troops to come home, the disagreement is how: shrouded in defeat, as the Democrats would have it; or basking in the light of Victory, leaving a democratic and stable Iraq (and Afghanistan) in our wake, as Republicans would like to see it.

As for not having many "moderate" Republicans, how about increasing the number of "moderate" Democrats, which currently stands at ZERO. As for Republicans not representing mainstream Republicans, how the heck would Harry Reid know? He is neither a Republican or a "mainstream" American.

So long as the Democrats in the Senate push an agenda of letting the terrorists win in Iraq, then I hope that the Republicans will use the power of the cloture vote to block all of the Democrats agenda in the Senate.

Tags:

July 19, 2007

Obama Wants Kindergatners To Learn About Sex

This is news to me, probably because I don't follow Obama that closely, that Obama supports teaching sex-education to kindergartners. I find this disturbing. From ABC News online:

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergartners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergartners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama's work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

Who is it that will determine what is age appropriate? The parents of the children or some group of bureaucrats with an agenda to push? And why at such a young age? Shouldn't it be up to the parents on when and how sex-education is introduced to their children?

"Keep in mind: I honor and respect young people who choose to delay sexual activity," Obama continued. "I've got two daughters, and I want them to understand that sex is not something casual. That's something that we definitely want to communicate and should be part of any curriculum. But we also know that when the statistics tell us that nearly half of 15 to 19 year olds are engaging in sexual activity, that for us to leave them in ignorance is potentially consigning them to illness, pregnancy, poverty, and in some cases, death."

First off, the statistics that Obama is using are skewed to include legal adults, those who are 18 and older. Getting married straight out of high school may not be as prevalent as it once was, but there are still those who do.

There is also a significant difference between an 18 year old being sexually active versus a 15 year old, not just looking at age, but also maturity, knowledge and the ability to take on responsibilities in the event there is a pregnancy.

This is not to say that sex-education is not important, however it is not only important, but critical, that any and all materials used in these programs be approved by the parents, and at what age they are introduced.

For the record, when my daughter hits kindergarten in a couple of years, there better not be any sex-education programs being taught.

Tags:

July 18, 2007

Where Was Obama Yesterday?

Yesterday, the Senate Democrats pushed for an overnight debate on a proposed timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Just out of curiosity, why wasn't Barack Obama present? Where was he during this important debate?

Obama has been a major opponent of the military operations in Iraq, yet when his party needed his vote, and his voice, on this issue, he was conspicuously absent.

Apparently, he was too busy campaigning at a Planned Parenthood conference (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CtN5) to perform the job the people of Illinois elected him to do.

Tags:

Senate Defeat-O-Thon

Senate Democrats ran a Defeat-o-thon for the Levin-Reed Surrender Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. The all-night session was nothing more than a political stunt to push for an early withdrawal and surrender of Iraq to terrorists and sectarian death squads.

Senator Durbin deceptively whined about how it would take 60 votes to get this amendment passed. Like all issues brought before the Senate, they must pass cloture before they can be voted on for adoption. Durbin should recall how unfortunate it was that the Democrats used the cloture vote requirement to block many of President Bush's judicial nominees. The difference between using it as a partisan means to block the President's Constitution power for purely political reasons and why it will now be used to stop the agenda of surrender is significant.

From the Senate record (Senator Durbin speaking):

the Republican leader insists on 60 votes, insists on filibustering the amendment that is before the Senate. He is trying to stop the debate on whether we will change direction in Iraq.

Actually a filibuster as it is called, or the failure to attain cloture, is not stopping debate. The debate on the issue at hand can continue for as long as it wants, or until cloture is finally attained. In recent years, legislation failing cloture often are tabled. Whether or not this is good or bad can be debated, however the fact is that debate is not stopped. There is nothing in the Senate rules that states if a bill or amendment fails cloture that it is D.O.A. Although in some cases we may wish it were so.

Senator Dodd, from the Senate Journal, said yesterday:

Our country was told that despite the catastrophic policy failures of this administration up until that point, that the surge would take time to work and that we couldn't judge its success until U.S. forces had "surged" to their maximum levels--and that would take up to 6 months.

But that the surge is at full force, and we are told yet again that the time isn't right to make a judgment about the success or failure of the administration's policy. Now we are told we must wait until September to determine the success of the surge. I strongly suspect, as I stand here in July, that as September draws near the administration will once again come up with some additional arguments to delay the day of reckoning on the policy in Iraq.

I do not need any more time, or any more reports and briefings to confirm what most of us already know. The American people and the Iraqi people don't need any more time to realize that the administration's Iraq policy, including the surge, has been a failure.

The plan for the "surge" was to give it six months to operate once it had been fully implemented. The Senate Democrats did not give it even six weeks, let alone six months, to see whether or not it would work. They wasted no time in condemning it as yet another failure. Perhaps the Senators of Defeat would do better by being honest with the American people by stating that the only policy in Iraq they will support is letting the bad guys win. If Senator Dodd and the other members of the Defeatcratic Party were to cut to the chase, Dodd would not be so concerned about needing more time to see if things work, or any reports, etc.

Because my amendment sets clear timelines for the phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq, with three specific exceptions for activities that are critical to our national security interests and the interests of Iraq: First, conducting counterrorism operations in Iraq, targeted at al-Qaida in Mesopotamia; second, training and equipping Iraqi forces; and third, force protection for U.S. personnel and infrastructure.

This amendment also provides a specific timeline for all combat forces to redeploy out of Iraq, aside from the three exceptions I just mentioned, by April 30, 2008.

To ensure that this process gets underway without any stonewalling by the administration or anyone in his administration, my amendment sets an interim deadline of December 31, 2007, at which point at least 50,000 troops must have been redeployed out of Iraq.

Failure to meet this initial milestone will result in a funding penalty. The amendment would withhold 25 percent of the fiscal year 2008 military budget for Iraq-related activities until the President certifies that he can meet the overall April 30, 2008, deadline.

Based on this, the terrorists and sectarian death squads can expect to achieve victory of the United States, and the fledgling democratic government of Iraq, by no later than April 30, 2008.

Senator Cornyn later said:

The one thing we all agree on is that we want to bring our troops home. We want to bring them home as soon as we can. The line of division between us seems to be between those who want to do so based upon an arbitrary political timetable and those who want to do so based on conditions on the ground. So I think it is important to have--as any adult would say to their child--a conversation about the consequences of your actions because I think these are the birds that are going to come home to roost should the Levin amendment be adopted.

Amen to that. The Democrats and their followers of Defeat want nothing more than the same thing that the terrorists want to hear: the sound of feet (combat boots?) beating a path out of Iraq.

Is apparent that the Democrats have not thought through what that the consequences of an early withdrawal from Iraq will have within that region. Cornyn and others on the right have!

As we know from the Iraq Study Group as well as the National Intelligence Estimate, the consequences of a failed state in Iraq are numerous, but they are significant and highly dangerous to the United States.

First of all, Iraq would become a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including al-Qaida and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and U.S. allies. The Iraq Study Group found that a chaotic Iraq would provide a still stronger base of operation for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally. That is not me talking; that is the Iraq Study Group. The Iraq Study Group also noted that al-Qaida will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world.

Isn't the ISG report the same document that the Democrats are touting as the reason for sounding the retreat?

In a nutshell, Cornyn states that should we withdrawal before achieving stability in Iraq, and helping it keep itself secure from enemies both foreign and domestic, the odds are that there will be greater violence and we may well have to return there in force. It is better to get the job done right the first time (like we should have done in the first gulf War).

If we withdrawal now, and then find we do need to reinsert ourselves into Iraq, how many more troops will be killed or injured than if we were to stay and get the job done right now?

Tough decision to make: continue to commit troops now, and hope that we can achieve victory, though at an increasing price in American blood, or get out now and hope (and pray) that the cost for doing so won't be overwhelming.

When President Truman was faced with the decision of whether or not to order the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, he made his decision on what the price, in American, as well as Japanese, blood would be if he didn't drop the Bomb. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, millions of Japanese, and a war that would continue well into 1946 was the alternative he faced if he had chosen not to use the Bomb.

We face the same kind of decision now: if we withdrawal from Iraq, the terrorists and the sectarian death squads will see that as a signal that they are winning. They will be emboldened to continue their attacks with greater ferocity. Their terrorist brothers in other countries will take that as a signal to broaden the front and expand jihad to greater proportions. Iraqis who sided with the U.S. and the legitimate government of Iraq will face reprisals and extermination.

Are the Democrats and others who support withdrawal prepared to take the responsibility should Iraq and the surrounding region turn into another Cambodia or Vietnam? No doubt that they will try to find some way to blame Bush should it come to that.

Tags:

July 17, 2007

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Sunday was a bit unusual for us in my household as my wife and I haven't been to the movies since our daughter was born nearly two years ago. Now, I am sure we could get a baby sitter so we could go out, however I am willing to bet that dear little Anna would scream her heart out for hours if Mama left her for any length of time. With that in mind, we decided to try tag-teaming (so to speak) going to the movies in town, with Sue going first while I kept our daughter entertained. Surprisingly, it worked. We both got to see the new Harry Potter film.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the latest film in the Harry Potter series to hit the screens. Like the previous films we see the return of all of the other regular cast members in their roles for the series. It has been interesting watching the kids grow up and develop into fine actors (and they were quite good to begin with).

This fifth film weighs in at about 2 hours and 20 minutes, which although longer than most typical films these days, seems a bit light compared to the weight of the book it is based on, which is an astonishing 870 pages. One is left wondering how they decided to trim details out of the novel and still make a good adaptation for the screen. Some of the finer details had to be clipped or glossed over; however, with a bit of artistic license, excellent production values and outstanding performances from the cast, they managed to pull it all off.

The one flaw I find with the film is that we never get an explanation of what brought on the Dementor attack on Harry, something that is made clear in the book by the end of the story. This particular point being missing is of distinct importance to the ongoing story and the conflict between Harry and others in the saga.

Dolores Umbridge, portrayed by Imelda Staunton, was delightfully evil and totalitarian. She makes it obvious from the moment she steps onto Hogwarts that she is up to something no good and hates Harry Potter, and most of the other students at Hogwarts.

A new character, Luna, is introduced on the side of Harry; Luna is a bit "odd," which may be an understatement, but is also very helpful to Harry and company. Her background is not as well fleshed out in the movie as it is in the book, but that goes back to the book having nearly 900 pages to flesh out the finer details.

Snape, portrayed by Alan Rickman, continues to be a nemesis of Harry's, while still trying to be at least somewhat helpful.

This fifth film continues the trend of the series to portray a world growing darker as evil takes on greater strength, and the powers involved show their hand in different ways.

One final thought: If you haven't already read the books, do so. They are all excellent and well worth reading. It also beats the heck out of having to wait two years for the next film, or four years for the final film in the series.

Tags:

July 16, 2007

Keith Ellison Is Disgraceful

Minnesota's Keith Ellison, the hard-left Democrat elected to Congress in 2006, is finally showing his true beliefs. From the Telegraph:

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader [Hitler] of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

Comparing Bush to Hitler, and Republicans to Nazis in general is nothing new on the part of the hard-left. What is new is having a sitting Congressman make these kinds of comparisons. Regardless, it is repugnant and shows a level of hatred for Republicans and ignorance of history and facts.

There is also a significant difference between the Reichstag Fire and the events of 9/11.

The Reichstag Fire was blamed on communists; there is significant evidence that Goring was involved with the planning and execution of the fire, as well as the plot to frame the communists. The point of the Reichstag Fire was to get the Enabling Act, which would hand Hitler significant dictatorial powers, passed.

After the Reichstag Fire, thousands of communists were arrested; the death penalty reinstated and concentration camps were set up. The Communist party, which at that time held 17% of the seats in the German Parliament, was banned, further aiding in the consolidation of Nazi power.

9/11 has been proven, repeatedly, to have been planned and executed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization, al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is an organization bent on destroying Western ideals and implementing a Caliphate world-wide.

Since the events of 9/11, there have been no similar acts within the United States against Muslims, nor has there been infringement of civil liberties (despite the claims to the contrary by the Left). No Muslim has been denied the ability to hold office, nor has any member of an opposing party.

President Bush does not have, nor has he ever asked for, the power to enact laws by presidential Decree as was given to Hitler in the aftermath of the Reichstag Fire (or as was recently given to the dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, for no particular reason at all). Bush would not be able to get such power even if he were to ask for it, nor do I believe he would ever ask for such power even if he thought he could get such from Congress; the American people would be outraged beyond all belief should there be such an attempt by any President of any party.

The kickoff on Ellison's statements actually hit the wire on Friday. This goes to show you one can no longer take a weekend off from watching what goes on in the world.

The Red Star Tribune, always ready to push its anti-Bush agenda, published an editorial that had this to say about the incident:

Although he was careful to keep his comments in context, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., took predictable flak for alluding to the Nazi era during recent comments about the Bush administration. It's a lesson that keeps being learned the hard way: Unless you're talking about some other murderer of millions, comparisons to Adolf Hitler, the Holocaust or even the Reichstag fire are inappropriate. The author Reza Aslan proposed that as a rule of civil dialogue in a Westminster Town Hall speech in Minneapolis last year, and he was right.(emphasis added)

Apparently, in the eyes of the Red Star Tribune, President Bush (and by extension, our Armed Forces) is a mass-murder of millions of people. This is very troubling, especially when you combine it with the word play of a Congressman who has sparked the current round of comparisons.

The editorial asks the questions would the Patriot Act or the authorization to invade Iraq would have passed if 9/11 never took place? Probably not. However 9/11 did, in fact, happen. I can't always say I am in agreement with the Patriot Act, however I sure haven't experienced any infringement on my civil liberties since Congress and the President enacted it some years back. I have yet to see any documented incidents where an American has had their civil liberties suspended since 9/11, whether as a part of the Patriot Act, or any other law that has been implemented or as a result of other activities, such as the monitoring of international cell phone calls involving known terrorists (the so-called wire-tapping of the last few years).

No credible observer believes that the attacks were some kind of inside job (though an alarming number of people in Muslim countries are happy to think so). But neither is it credible to suppose that the Bush administration has failed to take advantage of the popular support presidents enjoy in times of crisis. Any president would do so.

Few, however, would go as far as this president has gone. Bush and his team seem intent on enlarging his authority and defying those who would challenge him or his administration. Geneva Conventions? Quaint. Habeas corpus? Flexible. Court approval of wiretaps? Outmoded. Rising calls to replace a secretary of defense? "I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best."

The Strib implies that the administration believes that the Geneva conventions as being "quaint." This is probably in response to the holding of hundreds of Taliban fighters and other foreign terrorists captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think the Strib editors, as well as the Left-wing nuts that abound in this country, believe that these terrorists should be accorded the same treatment accorded to uniformed members of a nation's armed forces. Actually they would be subject to the same treatment that mercenaries are accorded, which is zilch, or, more accurately, a bullet in the head (which is what happened to a number of Americans who fought in Rhodesia as mercenaries when the country finally collapsed to the communist insurgency and became Zimbabwe).

They also believe that the writ of habeas corpus, which the Constitution guarantees in Article 1, Section 9, applies to foreign nationals captured on the battle field in foreign lands. Nope, it does not apply to them under the U.S. Constitution.

So far as I am aware, President Bush has not done anything that any of his predecessors have done where the U.S. constitution is concerned.

Once again, the editorial staff of the Red Star Tribune, as well as the hard-left Moonbats show their utter contempt for America and President Bush.

Tags:

July 15, 2007

Galaxy Zoo

A friend of mine, Larry MacDude, pointed me to a new (to me) website called Galaxy Zoo.

The concept is to test your skills at identifying galaxies.

It's a cool website with lots of images of galaxies and is worth taking a look just for that reason.

Tags:

July 13, 2007

Townhall July 2007

Last night was my monthly beer and politics discussion group get together, better known as the Townhall Meetup. We had about 15 people show up for the evening fun, including one new person. As it is now summer, it is not surprising that turnout is down a little bit as people are off vacationing. I must be doing something wrong.

There were several different topics last night, with two of them standing out, especially as election 2008 is looming in the not too distant future. These were health care and the war in Iraq.

Too quickly summarize, health care is a serious issue that needs to be handled in the next election, especially with Hillary Clinton running for president, and all of the other Democrat front-runners (and even the second stringers) pushing for socializing health care. It was mentioned that there may be some Republicans thinking of pushing the Romney solution to insurance, but there is nothing concrete that I am aware of.

The release of Sicko also played a role in the discussion, and it was pointed out how Moore, in his usual attempts to deceive Americans and glamorize communism, showed the health care system available to the high ranking elites in Cuba, and not what the system is like for the masses of Cubans.

One thing to remember when discussing socialized medicine. Actually there are two things. First, all these people pushing for it seem to hate and mistrust our government. If you think our government is bad, then why would you want to trust it with your medical care? Second: how many world leaders and wealthy people head to countries with socialized health care, like Cuba or Canada? Answer: ZERO! They come to the United States for major medical issues.

Another question to ask: how many Canadians, including physicians, are moving to the U.S. versus how many Americans, including physicians, are headed to the Great White North?

The War in Iraq will continue to be a significant and polarizing issue. It boils down to two options: continue to push to achieve our goals (victory) or pull out of Iraq. Both have severe consequences: more U.S. Military casualties vs. chaos, civil war, and a resurgence of totalitarianism in Iraq. Those who care about the later, and preventing it, also are very concerned about the former. Those on the Left really don't give a rat's behind about either, although they try to convince us that they do. Part of caring about the troops, and wanting to reduce American casualties, means biting the bullet and providing them with the tools they need to accomplish the mission, regardless of whether or not you agree with their mission. It is obvious that the Moonbats on the Left do not care one bit about the people of Iraq and what would happen to them should we pull out before the terrorist groups and militant death squads are eliminated, or Iraq is able to protect itself from an invasion by Iran.

Mike asked for a definition of victory in Iraq. Okay, I am up to a challenge. I'll be giving that some thought over the weekend and will post what I think could constitute victory conditions in Iraq.

Tags:

Harrop Just Doesn't Get America

Froma Harrop's column in the Red Star Tribune is not exactly full of surprises. She rants on about how bush will go down in "ignomy" for "trying to wage an unnecessary war on the cheap," referring to the war in Iraq, and how America is a nation of indebtedness (so, what else is new?).

She starts her piece (I had to search around to find out that Harrop is a woman, born in New York) about how people seem to think that anything can be fixed with a trip to Circuit City.

Alas, retail therapy will not cure what's depressing most people -- which is the growing sense that America is rapidly losing its national greatness. Up ahead, the public sees enormous challenges and huge threats, and a national leadership that doesn't care a fig about the communal big picture. They're witnessing this end-of-empire spectacle, where the powerful grab as much loot as they can before the bottom falls out -- all the while diverting the public's attention with flag-waving and noisy expressions of religiosity.

Actually, if there is such a growing sense that America is losing its greatness, it is because of the rantings of the Leftists here and in Europe who keep stating such is the case because they suffer a severe case of p***s envy. Americans, by and large, live far better than most Europeans. We have, on average, a higher standard of living than most of Europe, marked by larger homes.

As for "national leadership that doesn't care a fig about the communal big picture," she has a point. Many of our elected leaders refuse to address the growing need to reform our social security system via privatization; fix our tax code, especially the Alter native Tax Method which is catching more and more Americans; secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws; but pushing hard to destroy our health care system by socializing it.

But then, she must be referring to G.W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress, especially those who support fixing these problems (in all fairness, Bush is not exactly keen on securing our border or enforcing our immigration laws), and not to the Democrats who don't want Americans to be in control of their own destiny.

The last part of the paragraph really torques me off: It implies that many Americans are easily suckered in by patriotism and religious faith, and that the deceivers are people of wealth and power trying to clean up with ill-gotten riches. Oh, wait, that sounds like Hillary. But, again, that is not who she is referring to.

People are feeling conned as well as poorly led, which is not a pleasant sensation. Small wonder that 70 percent tell pollsters that the country is on the wrong track.

Sounds like she is mistaking Bush for Carter; and what polls is she referring to? What were the questions asked, and who was asked? I've never been the victim of any such polls. I don't think I know any one who has. What are the demographics behind these polls? Was it taken in Castro District of San Francisco? Okay, if it was, it wouldn't surprise me.

Has there ever been a time when 100% of the people believed this country was on the right track on 100% of the issues? Realistically, is such achievable? No!

She goes on to mention American volunteerism, and the willingness of Americans to put their lives on the line for others. At least she got that part right. But what about the rest of her diatribe?

Thus, they feel vaguely insulted when their political establishment hangs low prices and tax cuts so high on the national altar.

Hey, beats the heck out of high prices and even higher taxes, which is what the Lefties are pushing hard to get. They've already achieved higher prices by refusing to allow drilling in ANWR and the out continental shelf, making the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil than it was previously (especially as India's oil consumption as quadrupled in recent years, and even China is soaking up more go-juice than ever before). The Moonbats have also prevented the building of new domestic refinery capacity, further acerbating fuel prices when an existing refinery goes offline (like Kansas, currently).

To the Left, any and all tax cuts are only of benefit to the rich. I guess in their limited brain capacity, I and everyone I know is rich