Feedburner
Hit or Miss
It's going to be hit or miss for me the next few days as I have a number of commitments this next week that will be keeping me busier than a you-know-what.
ConservaGear
Anti-Terrorist, Liberal Bashing t-shirts, bumper stickers and more.
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.
« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »
September 28, 2007
September 27, 2007
Global Warming: Loons Gone Wild #8
Business must not be going to well for Al Gore's Generation Investment Management. That's the London-based company he formed that deals in carbon offsets and provides him with his own set so he can claim to be "carbon neutral."
Why do I say this? Because Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore is back in the news pushing for the U.S. and other nations to adopt mandatory restrictions on carbon emissions. Of course is such happens he stands to make some good financial gains through the dealing in carbon credits.
It's bad enough that Congressman Dingell is calling to eliminate the mortgage interest deductions on houses over 3000 square feet, something that won't impact the Al Gores of the world as they don't have mortgages and have to struggle to make ends meet, but it will impact Midwestern homeowners that have finished basements of any size under their house.
From the Financial Times:
"This is an emergency," Mr Gore told the opening session of the Clinton Global Initiative. "I think that the key to fighting global poverty is to have the wealthy nations and the developing nations join together to reduce global warming … I think what we need is a global Marshall plan to make the creation of jobs around the reduction of carbon the central principle for how we develop this."
A "global Marshall plan?" Global poverty? Okay, first off the best way to fight global poverty is to get rid of all the dictatorships and end all forms of socialism. Both stifle freedom (look at Iran, North Korea, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and the list goes on). When people have access to the same kind of liberties that our Founding Fathers had here in North America, and they have the ability to achieve without the shackles of big government weighing them down, poverty can come to an end on a global scale.
As for reducing global warming, there isn't anything mankind can do to slow down a natural process. There are many factors known to influence the warming of the Earth's climate that are not related to carbon emissions, include sunspot activity.
There is a lot of material in the FT piece. I just wish that Al Gore would pick up and read a science book before spouting off about how his company isn't doing well in the carbon offset market.
Tags:
Gore Generation Investment Management Carbon Offsets Marshall Plan
Scheer On Funding MRAPs For Troops In Iraq
SF Gate is running an interesting opinion piece in which the writer, Robert Scheer, Moonbats about the current call for funding the rapid production of a new ground-effect vehicle: mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. These are the vehicles that the Defense Department had developed as a replacement for the humvees now used in Iraq. The MRAP vehicle has a "V" shaped hull designed to deflect mine blasts away from the crew compartment and has proven effective in tests.
Scheer directs most of his venom at, surprisingly, Senator Biden, who, as Scheer puts it, one-ups President Bush by calling for $23 billion to fund the project rather than the $12 billion the President has requested.
According to the piece, Biden said: "We have no higher obligation than to protect those we send to the front lines." for once I agree with Biden. I'm dubious about his motivations as he is running for president and not only failed to condemn the MoveOn "General Betray Us" but failed to block the Senatorial condemnation of such outrageous attack ads.
The piece goes on about the military-complex and how Eisenhower could ride around France and Germany in an open air vehicle without fear of being shot at by Islamic terrorists. He fails to note that there were not any Islamic terrorists operating in France or Germany in post-WW2 Europe. I wouldn't advise doing so today, however.
Scheer goes on with a tirade about how MRAPs are needed only for an ongoing occupation and then cites the BBC/ABC poll recently popularized by Loretta Sanchez in which he claims that 65% of Iraqis don't believe that civil war will be more likely should the U.S. withdraw immediately. Never mind the act that Iran is just waiting ot have a surge of their own into Iraq, and possibly other countries as well, especially since they would have a direct flyover route into Israeli territory with only one country in the way: their ally Syria.
And just who are these people in Iraq that participated in the poll and can it be validated? How many of the some 24 million people of Iraq participated? How many of them were members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, some other terrorist organization or sectarian death squad members?
Scheer is right on one point, and one point only: Splitting Iraq up into ethnic/religious enclaves may well be the biggest recipe for disaster in Iraq.
Otherwise, he is doing nothing more than moonbatting about the continued military operations, at the invitation of the government of Iraq, to help secure a fledgling democracy in a country that has lived under a tyrant's hobnailed boots for decades and is flanked by hostile nations on two sides (Iran and Syria).
Tags:
September 26, 2007
Global Warming: Loons Gone Wild #7
The Dems are going crazy over Global Warming. with Rep. Dingell (D-MI) leading the charge by proposing a 50 cent excise tax increase on gasoline, phasing out mortgage interest deductions for homes over 3,000 square feet in size (supposedly to fight suburban sprawl), carbon tax of $50 per ton (watch your energy bill go up), all in the name of combating green house gases that some people wrongly theorize is causing the current warming trend.
Earth to Dingell, ever read a science book?
He calls these tax increases "fair" as it will mainly fall on 10% of Americans, mainly those people in the upper-end of the middle class.
This type of extremely taxation over a scientific fraud not only goes against the grain of what is best for America, it will also cripple the economy. A lot of people who have busted their behinds to afford a nice home to raise their families will be forced to sell their homes, most likely at substantial losses as they will no longer be able to afford the increased tax burden brought on by removing the deduction for mortgage interest. (For disclosure, yes, there is a high probability I will be impacted by this, because, although my home is 2100 sq. ft. in size, it also has a full walkout basement. And I am by no means wealthy.) If you think the house market is bad now, just wait until you have a few hundred thousand nice houses tossed on the market because the owners are being taxed out of their homes.
This whole global warming thing has gone too far. It has been clear to me that it is nothing more than a excuse to raise our taxes. Now the Dems are coming out of the closet and have declared war on the American Middle Class.
Because, let's face it, if you think Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards or any of these other filthy rich owners of multi-million dollar homes will be impacted by the phase-out of mortgage interest, forget it. Do you really think these people carry mortgages on those homes? Or will there be built in loopholes that will allow them to become exempt?
From Washington Post:
A carbon tax would impact everything from the cost of electricity to winter heating and add to the cost of gasoline and other motor fuels. But economists say a cap on carbon also would raise these costs as burning fossil fuels becomes more expensive.
If the Dems are serious about reducing carbon emissions, then they should first look into eliminating their multi-million dollar homes then remove the barriers to building new modern nuclear power plants and allow for the reprocessing of fuel rods.
Tags:
The Soros Money Machine
IBD has a brilliant piece on the George Soros money machine and the impact his machinations has had (and continues to have) on American politics.
The focus of the piece is on Soros' Open Society Institute, not MoveOn.org. It points out that the OSI has had its finger in many pies that have been shaping U.S. policy without revealing its involvement until it publishes its annual report.
Some of the high points:
Funding NASA employee James Hansen (no relation) to push his global warming agenda on America. This is the guy who accused NASA and the Bush administration of attempting to silence.him. OSI provided legal and media assistance.
Remember that illegal immigrant rally last year that was supposed to be so spontaneous. Turns out that OSI was involved in funding that as well.
Then there is the OSI involvement in squashing military tribunals for terrorists at Guantanimo. These are guys who are not only NOT subject to U.S. constitutional protections, but the only thing they can expect under the Geneva Conventions is due process by bullets. Instead, the Soros money machine is pushing to protect them and get them civil trials and constitutional protections.
There is more (IBD).
On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats.
I checked the DA website, which provides darn little information, then I checked Source Watch to see what they have. Guess what organization accused of voter fraud is on their list of recipients? If you guessed ACORN, you win a cookie (go raid your own cookie jar, though…mines empty).
The activities may not be illegal. It is the lack of transparency that is a problem. By keeping its involvement in various lawsuits, protests, and other activities clandestine, it is able to impact policy with huge ramifications on America, policies that are frequently not in our best interests. By hiding their involvement until after the fact, they show that they are also ethically challenged.
Tags:
September 25, 2007
Global Warming: Loons Gone Wild #6
It's amazing how so many "world leaders" ignore scientific fact and latch on to fantasy. so it is with Ban Ki-moon, current chief of the U.N. and global warming. He is now calling the case for global warming beyond any doubt, despite the fact that there is no scientific consensus on the causes of global warming and the fact that of the carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere every year only about 2.5% is attributable to the activities of mankind.
From BreitBart:
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told an unprecedented summit on climate change Monday that "the time for doubt has passed" and a breakthrough is needed in global talks to sharply reduce emissions of global-warming gases."The U.N. climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating global action," Ban told assembled presidents and premiers, an indirect warning against what some see as a U.S. effort to open a separate negotiating track.
If, as Ban stated, "the time for doubt has passed," then let's be sure we have our scientific ducks in a row and base our actions on what is provable and not what is thought could happen. For a theory to be valid, it must take into account all scientific data that is available and evaluate from there; it should not be done in such a fashion as the IPCC report where substantial amounts of data were either ignored or eliminated in order to come to the conclusion that you want to prove. That's the Al Gore way of doing things, not the scientific way.
As for the claim that "the U.N climate process is the appropriate forum," according to whom? The U.N. is dominated by dictators, communist and socialist regimes that don't believe in freedom and have a horrendous human rights record. The fact that the U.S wants to run its own forum on global warming should be embraced. We are still a sovereign nation; other nations invited are also sovereign nations; and it is the way free peoples operate.
Rather than accept treaty obligations, Bush has urged industry to cut emissions voluntarily, and emphasizes research on clean-energy technology as one answer.
First off, we are not under any treaty obligations in regards global warming; we never signed off on Kyoto, therefor, no obligations. I'm not excited about China being a participant as they are one of the greatest totalitarian regimes that has murdered 10s of millions of people. But I am not the one organizing the event.
The Bush tactic, urging industry to voluntarily cut emissions, is an example of how things are done in a free society.
The U.N. summit follows a series of reports by Pachauri's U.N. scientific network that warned of temperatures rising by several degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 and of a drastically changed planet from rising seas, drought and other factors, unless nations rein in greenhouse gases.
Earth to U.N.: Guess what, the planet is constantly changing. This has been going on since the beginning of time. The Earth is not the same as it was during the Viking Age when the Earth's climate was significantly warmer than it is today; it is warmer today than it was 200 years ago during the Little Ice Age. This is normal.
Cutting the measly 2.5% of man-caused portion of greenhouse gases, even eliminating it altogether, will have a net impact on global warming of so close to zero as to be meaningless.
The article wraps up by claiming that the Earth's temperature has risen 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, but fails to note that most of that took place prior to 1950. It also notes that the sea level has risen 6.6 inches. Has anyone, aside from scientists, actually noticed?
Tags:
September 24, 2007
Obama Wants To Raise SS Taxes
Obama wants to put in play one huge tax increase. Although it may not directly impact the average American as what Obama is proposing is eliminating the cap on Social Security taxes, not, in this case, a regular income tax increase. The current cap is $97,000 and is adjusted fairly regularly (it wasn't all that long ago that the cap was $60,000).
The claim is that it would generate $1 Trillion dollars over ten years, the theory being that it would be sufficient to cover the projected shortfalls.
There are some pitfalls, some obvious and ignored.
The ABC News report sights that removing the cap will erode support for Social Security amongst the 5% (or so) of Americans that would be directly impacted. It states that this would be a 12.4% tax increase.
Part of the problem with removing the cap is that companies that pay high-end executives, especially CEOs exorbitant salaries will pass that cost on to consumers in the form of higher prices for products and services. This will impact just about every aspect of American life, from the price of a loaf of bred to a gallon of gas and the cost of a lawyer.
Many companies will seek a way to keep the high paid executives and other professionals happy by switching them over to more incentive based compensation: stocks.
It will also impact professional sports (which may not be a bad thing) as those players with the huge multi-million dollar salaries (I trend I disagree with) will be impacted, as will the franchisees that operate the teams. If you think the price of going to a ball game is high now, wait until Obama has his way on mucking up social security.
Further, although they predict it will generate sufficient money to shore up the system, it is doubtful that it will as a more likely scenario is to throw this country into a recession while companies figure out how to readjust their prices so that they can pass the tax onto the consumer.
Edwards is floating a proposal that isn't much better as it leaves those workers earning between $97K and $200K exempt and then kicks the tax back in for those earning more than $200K. Members of Congress would still be able to opt out of the Social Security program under either plan.
"With their proposals to raise Social Security taxes, it appears that John Edwards and Barack Obama are engaged in competition to see who can wreak more havoc on the economy," said Club for Growth spokeswoman Nachama Soloveichik. "Obama comes out the winner with his proposal to raise Social Security taxes on more Americans than Edwards proposed in his plan. But make no mistake: While Obama's plan is worse, both plans would significantly increase America's tax burden; devastate the economy, and turn Social Security into a full-fledged welfare program."
Although the piece does not elaborate on what Soloveichik means by wreaking havoc, when you take into account that half of that 12.4% is employer paid payroll taxes, that means it gets passed on to the end consumer.
"Middle class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income [than wealthier Americans] -- that was Warren Buffet's position," said Clinton at a June 29 PBS debate, "When you cut off the contribution at $90,000, $95,000, that's a lot of money between $95,000 and the $46 million that Warren Buffet made last year. And he's honest enough to say, 'Look, tax me because I'm a patriotic American and I want to make sure our country stays strong and is fair.'"
There is only one problem with Hillary's statement: Warren Buffett's salary as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway is $100,000. The vast majority of his income is from capitol gains, dividends, interest and so on, none of which is subject to the Social Security tax.
As for Warren "Tax Me More" Buffett, there is nothing in any law that says you can't pay more in taxes than is required by the law. Since Buffett thinks California's Prop. 13 provided a tax disparity where property taxes are concerned, what's stopping him from paying more into the public coffers. If Buffett were being honest, he would be pushing for a stiff tax on accumulated wealth, not on base income.
The same is true of the leftist-Democrats, whether we are talking Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. If they truly believe that people of wealth, including themselves, are not paying their "fair share," then they should be pushing for a tax on accumulated wealth. And kick back while the revolution takes place.
Removing the cap on the Social Security tax will not fix the problems inherent in a system that is a pipeline. The only way to fix it is to give the American worker control over that money taken from them by allowing them to invest part (or all) of it in any fashion they wish, including stocks, bonds, real estate, savings accounts or, for that matter, letting government bureaucrats continue to mismanage billions of dollars every year. In a free society, being able to choose how you participate in Social Security should be the norm, not the exception.
Tags:
Ahmadinejad and Columbia University
Columbia University: Supporters of terrorism and genocide welcome, but not the ROTC. There is something wrong with this picture. From FoxNews:
Columbia University said it would welcome any notable figure visiting the United States - even Adolf Hitler himself - to speak to students and faculty at the Ivy League college.But there are those who question what the New York college's standards are. They ask why a school that will not allow an ROTC program to be part of its curriculum would allow Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, one of America's avowed enemies, onto its campus.
Ahmadinejad has routinely called for the annihilation of Israel, and it is Iran that has supported, along with Syria, Hezbollah and other armed terrorist groups operating in the Palestine Authoity. It is also Iran that has been supplying arms, munitions, training, personnel and money to al-Qaeda in Iraq and other sectarian militant factions operating to destabilize efforts to establish democracy in Iraq.
Columbia has also made it clear that if this were 1940 they would welcome Hitler, the man who originated the annihilation of the Jews and brought the world the Holocaust. Hitler was directly responsible for the murder of millions of people for no greater crime than their religious beliefs.
I suppose that Columbia would also welcome with open arms Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and a host of other mass murderers.
Critics wonder why the leader of a nation that exports terrorism is allowed to speak, but the leader of an American organization that seeks to secure U.S. borders was not.
I guess the answer is simple: Like nearly all universities in America, it is controlled by the hate-America, hate-Bush crowd of leftists. They love America's enemies regardless of how many people they have helped to murder. The leader to secure borders referenced was the leader of the Minutemen who is pushing to secure our nation's borders to reduce the influx of illegal aliens.
However, for me, it's the not allowing ROTC programs on campus that gets my goat.
Whether or not Ahmadinejad should be allowed to speak is something open to debate. As he is the leader of a nation that committed an act of war against the United States, and he was directly involved in that act, as well as the fact that Iran is carrying out covert (and occasionally overt) acts of war against our allies in the Middle East, I don't think he should be allowed such platforms.
Although it is true that the U.N. treaty forces the U.S. to not deny access to any world leader, regardless of how repugnant that "leader" is, is just one more reason to say that the U.N. has outlived its usefulness.
As for Ahmadinejad, I am with the protestors: Iwannajihad Ahmadinejad Go Home!
Tags:
September 21, 2007
Ahmadinejad To Be On 60 Minutes
Looks like 60 Minutes is continuing its tryst with murdering terrorist thugs, this time Ahmadinejad. This is off of Drudge:
PELLEY: Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans.AHMADINEJAD: Why should it be insulting?
PELLEY: But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world. You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans.
First off, it would be insulting because A) you are a dictator, B) you export terror to Iraq and Israel, C) you are a Holocaust denier, D) you routinely call for the annihilation of Israel. Is that not reason enough to be insulted by your presence within the United States let alone at the World Trade Center site?
Unfortunately, it looks like we have to give Ahmadinejad safe conduct from the airport to the U.N. headquarters. However, beyond that, is it really necessary? Since he is going to speak at Columbia University (they should be embarrassed about having him there), couldn't we say, legally, no safe conduct there and arrest him for his role in the embassy hostage crisis that he was directly involved in as one of the leading thugs?
Let us remember that the embassy invasion back in the '70s was an act of war and we have yet to truly resolve our grievances with Iran because of it.
On the flip side, maybe we'll get lucky and some enterpsring student at Columbia University will record it and post it on youtube. Especially if he goes off on one of his "destroy Israel" rants.
Tags:
September 20, 2007
Hillary, Biden, Obama Side With MoveOn on Petreus Ad
FoxNews has a piece covering the Senate action to condmen the recent "General Petreus or General Betray Us" ad from MoveOn.org. From FoxNews:
The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a measure condemning MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad it ran last week attacking Gen. David Petraeus. The move came as President Bush accused Democrats of cowering to the liberal political action group.The measure passed in a 72-25 vote, with none of the Democratic presidential candidates supporting it. Sponsored by Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, never one to shy away from forcing Democrats to go on record on politically sticky issues, the amendment to the defense authorization bill did win the backing of 23 Democrats.
Sens. Joe Biden and Barack Obama were absent from the vote, though Obama had voted 20 minutes earlier on a Democratic effort to circumvent the amendment. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted against the measure.
The amendment, which did not specifically name MoveOn.org, although it should have, passed overwhelmingly, with many Democrats voting for it. What is not so surprising is who failed to support it: Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton.
Apparently Obama left his job in order to avoid voting for (or against) it after efforts he supported to shutdown the amendment failed. This is a man who wants to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces and he will not support an amendment that condemns the character assassination of a man who has dedicated his entire life to serving his country, and has, unlike Obama, done so honorably and with integrity. Once again, featherweight candidate Obama proves that he is unqualified of serving this country as dog catcher let alone as president.
As for Hillary, by voting against the amendment also proves she can not be trusted with this nation's highest honor. At least, unlike Obama, Hillary stuck around for the vote instead of hiding her head in the sand or trying to play both ends of the field.
The only reasons that these presidential hopefuls and the 20+ others, all Democrats, who voted against the amendment (disappearing from the Senate floor to avoid a vote is the same as voting against it in this case) is because they AGREE with MoveOn.org's ad calling General Petreus a traitor.
America needs leaders who will do what is right, and the condemnation in the Senate of the personal attacks carried out against General Petreus was the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not you support the war in Iraq.
The same thing applies to Joe Biden as it does to Obama, as he is also on the list of wannbe presidents.
Tags:
Gingrich May Enter 2008 Race
Just when I was beginning to give up on Newt jumping into the game for 2008, I read (on BreitBart) that he may still be considering a run if he can drum up $30 million in pledges by Nov. 1. It is interesting to note that Reagan didn't announce until Nov. 13, 1979, so this is still within the realm of reason.
Should Gingrich enter the fray, this will jumbo up the dynamics substantially as Gingrich will enter in as a top tier candidate, and would be the top choice for people like myself.
The GOP lineup of candidates is extremely good. There is a lot to like about many of the candidates, and, with one or two exceptions (Ron Paul) very little to dislike.
Gingrich would be strong on all of the major issues that I find important, including the level of trust needed to be commander in Chief and the man with the finger on the proverbial button (nuclear weapons).
If he enters the race, even as late as mid-November (or even Christmas) he would immediately become my top choice as he is a man who will distinguish himself from the rest of the candidates based on the issues and will say the hard things that need to be said, and not try and coddle the American people with what sounds nice. This is especially true where the war on terror is concerned.
Tags:
Return of Rathergate
Dan Rather, the man who, like the Eveready bunny, seems to keep going and going and going. Or, to coin another phrase: "He's back!"
Yep, Dan Rather, who, during the 2004 election campaign, put forth a story on "60 Minutes II" that used forged documents to further the leftist agenda that President Bush was AWOL during his time in the Air National Guard. The allegations have repeatedly been proven to be completely false, and in the case of the forged documents, it was Little Green Footballs that proved they were written on computer technology that did not exist during Bush's time in the ANG.
Rather is now claiming that CBS made him a scapegoat and that his employers "botched" the aftermath of the story and forced him to be the fall guy. Never mind the fact that he was directly responsible for vetting the legitimacy of the documents he was using to prove his hit piece story, which also failed to bear any resemblance to facts.
Now he is suing CBS and Viacom for $70 million.
From Breitbart:
Rather narrated a September 2004 report saying that Bush had disobeyed orders and shirked some of his duties during his National Guard service and that a commander felt pressured to sugarcoat Bush's record.In his lawsuit, Rather maintains that the story was true, but that if any aspect of the broadcast wasn't accurate, he was not responsible for the errors.
Dan Rather fails the test of manhood: taking responsibility for your actions rather than blaming others for your failures. And Rather still claims that his story is true despite the overwhelming body of facts that proves it was all a lie?
What ticks me off about the whole thing is that despite the fact that the documents were proven to be forgeries written on a computer using Microsoft Word, the article uses the following: "Critics questioned the documents' authenticity and suggested they were forged." The documents were, in fact, forgeries.
The article points out that Rather, at the time he pushed his agenda driven hit piece on America weeks before an election, was making $6 million a year. Must be nice to make that kind of change.
I agree with the CBS spokesman that said the suit is old news and without merit.
Tags:
Happy Birthday Anna Marie!
My daughter, Anna Marie, turns Two today!
She is without any doubt the greatest thing to happen in my world.
Happy Birthday, darling daughter Anna Marie!
September 19, 2007
Vietnam War memorial Vandalized
I seriously doubt that anyone has not heard about the vandalism of the Vietnam Memorial by now. FoxNews has an update where the Park Police confirm that it was an act of vandalism and not an accident. 14 of the panels were damaged by this despicable crime.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund is offering a reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of the perps.
As this crime took place several days before the anti-terrorist activists descended on D.C. to hold their anti-war rally, there may not be a direct connection.
I hope they do find the perps and find some suitable punishment, including publicizing their names and pictures across the country. I wanted not want such scumbags working for me. Would you?
Tags:
September 18, 2007
Clifford May On Tough Talk We Should Hear
Reading the editorial page in the Star Tribune is hit or miss; Jekyll or Hyde; Night or day. A couple of days ago it was Syl Jones moonbatting about the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration. That's the night, the Mr. Hyde, the miss. Today it is a piece by Clifford D. May on what we need to hear in a presidential campaign to have someone who will truly standout from the pack: a Churchillian viewpoint. It's the day, the Doctor Jekyll, the hit (home run in this case). Not surprisingly, I am an agreement with what may writes. I've read his work before and it is clear he gets it, and, unlike Syl Jones, uses facts not myths to make his arguments. and, as usual, I am surprised that the Strib is carrying his piece.
From the Star Tribune:
I suspect few readers will disagree when I say that not one of the presidential candidates, Republican or Democratic, has yet articulated a compelling campaign theme. All favor security. Not one opposes prosperity. Each promises to protect Social Security and improve health care. Voters can be forgiven if they are not overwhelmed.
Ain't that the truth! There are several candidates I like, but I can't say I am overly excited by any of them, except for the ones I am positively against, like Hillary, Obama, Kucinich, and Ron Paul. I am definitely overwhelmingly opposed to those particular candidates.
Let me offer a different approach on the off-chance that some candidate might find it useful: Tell voters the hard truth -- and challenge them.
I think this is similar to what Gingrich was talking about a few days back. Tell us what needs to be done, not what would be nice to do. And then be prepared to do it.
May elaborates on his point:
In particular, tell them we are at a critical moment in our nation's history: A dangerous enemy is waging an unconventional war against us. Remind them that this enemy has been underestimated by presidents and lawmakers of both parties many times, over many years.Tell them, too, that fighting this enemy is a burden that history is asking the current generation of Americans to bear. We must do this for future generations -- as past generations fought for us.
Say frankly that if we don't have the stomach for a long and difficult war, we will be defeated by movements that are more determined than we are -- and more ruthless than we can ever imagine becoming.
He then goes on to use the Winston Churchill example: blood, toil, tears, sweat.
War is never popular, especially to those asked to fight it. Sometimes wars must be fought, as Churchill recognized in 1940 at the onset of World War 2. and that is the difference between the hard-core leftists in this country who foolish claim that "War has never solved anything" and the vast majority of our armed forces who recognize the necessity of fighting the terrorists and death squad fanatics. No sane person wants war, but only fools believe in peace at any price.
The Churchill approach would certainly wake up America's voters, shock them into action, one way or the other. The question is, are there any candidates out there today who are willing to walk that path? And make good on it? It would certainly be a breath of fresh air if one could come on strong like Churchill did in 1940.
MoveOn.org and its various allies and their puppets in Congress won't like it. I doubt they would even know how to counter it, except taking the Chamberlain approach of surrendering Iraq to Iran. We would probably see more full page propaganda condemning such candidates as being "traitors" as MoveOn did with General Petreus last week.
may also touches on the Petreus testimony and hits it on the head that it should be up to Genreal Petreus and his eventual successor to decide when and where (and how) to turn Iraq's security matters over to Iraqi troops. Some areas already are under full Iraqi control, an achievement that the left either ignores or denigrates. These matters should not be decided by a bunch of armchair generals relaxing in their air-conditioned offices swilling good booze like a Ted Kennedy on a Chappaquiddick bender.
The New York Times, whose editorial page views are hardly distinguishable from those of MoveOn.org, was closer to identifying the news in Petraeus' report. Its top story: "Petraeus Warns Against Quick Pullback in Iraq." It should not require a Churchill to see that if American forces leave Iraq precipitously, America's enemies will fill the vacuum. And Iraqis who have been fighting with us will be slaughtered. People around the world will get the joke: To be America's friend is more perilous than to be America's enemy.The real news in Petraeus' testimony: Americans troops have been beating Al-Qaida in Iraq and, as that job gets done, it is Iranian-backed militias that are becoming the main problem that needs to be eliminated. The regime in Tehran wants Iraq as its colony. It doesn't want Iraq to be an American ally in the war with militant Islamism.
Like Vietnam and Cambodia, this is a very real potential that the left refuses to acknowledge. Either they don't care about the people of Iraq who want Liberty and Western democracy, or they are still blinded by their own delusions that the majority of Iraqis want to live free and in peace (not pieces).
Iran has been backing Muqtada al Sadr and his death squads for years, as well as funneling arms, munitions, cash and manpower to al-Qaeda in Iraq. There can be only one reason for Iran to do this: it wants to prevent Iraq from becoming a stable ally of the United States so it can eventually turn it into another Islamofacist Theocratic Tyranny.
Yes, it would be nice to hear a candidate come out and tell it like it is. Doing so will not only change the dialog, but may also push the American electorate toward a candidate who is willing to do what is necessary to secure Iraq's liberty rather than surrender to terrorists and dictators. I'm ready for such a candidate and I bet I am not alone.
Tags:
Syl Jones Moonbats About U.S. In STrib Editorial
The Star Tribune, never failing to miss an opportunity to rip on America, has published an editprial by Minnesota "writer" Syl Jones where he proclaims America is winner of the "Arrogance Award." Syl ones has an award coming to him.
From the Strib:
The winner of the Most Arrogant Nation In The World award is clearly the United States of America. We are arrogant in our dealings with sovereign nations like Iraq. We are arrogant toward our own citizens. We are arrogant in assuming that we have a special place in history. We are arrogant in believing that all nations want and need our kind of democracy. So, let's all reach around and pat ourselves on the back. We've won. "Arrogance Is U.S.," and the whole world knows it.
Jones's claim of Arrogant Americans is synonymous with the proverbial "Ugly American", and is as off base as the latter was in its heyday. He is half-right about our believing that all of the world wants Western democracy. We can, however, all name a few people who don't want Western democracy: Kim Jong Il, Ahmadinejad, Castro, Hugo Chavez, Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi "Army" death squads, and, of course, the folks at MoveOn.org. There are others.
We insisted on putting our massive footprint in the heart of the Middle East, where we don't belong. Arrogance. We lied to the world about WMDs, about a link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and about our real purpose in Iraq, for political reasons. Arrogance. We proclaimed that we'd be welcomed as liberators. Arrogance. We told the world that we were fighting them "over there" so we don't have to fight them "over here." More arrogance.
Fact: over 500 chemical weapons, WMDs have been recovered since 2003. Fact: there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as Iraq was used as a safe haven for meetings. Fact: Hussein provided financial incentives to Palestinians to produce suicide bombers. Fact: Many Iraqis (Muqtada al Sadr and his death squads excepted) did welcome the U.S. led coalition as liberators. Fact: we are fighting them over there, although they are still attempting to bring it over here, so far they have failed due to the vigilance of our Armed Forces and Intelligence Agencies.
We sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan without the needed armaments and equipment.
Thanks to Congressmen like John F. Kerry who voted against the funding of our troops.
We told soldiers who spilled their blood on foreign soil that, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."
Thanks to the Clinton Administration which gutted the military during the '90s, and Congress refusing to pass the funding to rebuild it to Reagan-era levels.
We disbanded the Iraqi army and put 100,000 armed men out of work, further destabilizing the nation.
Whether or not that was a mistake is something open to debate. He may be right. What he fails to mention is that prior to military action, Hussein emptied the prisons of violent criminals, which contributed to the problems of stabilizing the country.
Syl Jones continues to prove he is either ignorant, incapable of grasping the facts, or is a denier of the facts. He ends his rant with the age old "Bush was AWOL" bit during Vietnam, despite the fact that Bush volunteered (and was turned down) for service in Vietnam. Despite the fact that Bush was NEVER AWOL, Jones chooses to push that bit of propaganda just like the best of the Nazi propagandists he references in his bit about what "homeland" means. Cheney and the deferments, like that's a bad thing when Clinton did the same thing, but Bill did it with the intent to avoid service in an unpopular war by running off to college. He continues a Riefenstahlian bit with Vietnam being nothing more than the death of over 50,000 Americans in an attempt to bolster an anti-Communist government and fails to acknoldge the fact that when the Democrats pulled support in the aftermath of Watergate, South Vietnam fell to the communists resulting with the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese, many of whom were later executed. Cambodia also fell to the Khmer Rouge because of our failure to support the anti-communist government of South Vietnam, and some 3 MILLION people were killed.
Syl Jones, you may believe that the U.S. is an arrogant nation. It is for the above that you are now a recipient of the Moonbat Award. Congratulations. Think you can pull your head out of your arrogant…
Tags:
Syl Jones Star Tribune Iraq al-Qaeda Bush War Hussein Moonbat
September 14, 2007
Michelle Obama On Barack And Being Right
Michelle Obama goes off on a bit of a rant, posted on Drudge:
"Well that, you know, she doesn't know me. She doesn't know Barack. I can't even give that any attention. She doesn't know what she's talking about when it comes to what's going on in our household. Look, Barack Obama is someone who can laugh at himself and he's also somebody who can hear criticism, not just from me, but the other people around him. He's the kind of leader who will actually listen to what people say. He doesn't hold onto points because he has to be right. I mean, we're in a war because of that kind of leadership. What I'm trying to say to you is Barack is human."
To the best of knowledge, President Bush, despite what Michelle Obama implies, has listened to what the people say. When it comes to the war in Iraq, everyone in the international community agreed that Hussein was after nukes and had maintained an arsenal of chemical weapons. Whether or not the assessment on nukes is right, we did recover over 500 chemical weapons and other weapons that were banned as part of the Gulf War Cease Fire agreement. What she is saying is that the only people that should be listened to are the pro-terrorist activists, like MoveOn.org, when it comes to the war in Iraq.
A President has the responsibility to listen to all opinions and evaluate the facts that are known then come up with the best possible decision. That decision not only has to be the best possible decision, it has to be the right decision every time, other wise we could be seeing mushroom clouds over New York and Los Angeles.
Bush has done exactly that in deciding to end the Cease Fire agreement and removing Hussein from power. And it was the right decision for many of the facts behind it were also right, especially where chemical weapons and other contraband were concerned.
Neville Chamberlain came back to England after meeting with Hitler and proclaimed "Peace in our time." Then the next thing anybody knew, World War 2 was in full swing. Chamberlain was wrong when he needed to be right. The stakes were astronomically high, and the millions of Jews paid the price of his being wrong.
The same is true with the Vietnam War. Whether or not we should have been involved there to begin with, or helping the government of South Vietnam, can be debated. What cannot be debated is the end result of the Democrat controlled Congress forcing the abandonment of South Vietnam: millions in Southeast Asia, especially in Cambodia, died, because the Nixon administration was mired in Watergate and facing impeachment while the Democrats chose to cut off funding to South Vietnam. Bad decisions that were wrong and the consequences were paid for in blood.
Nixon was wrong in his actions that precipitated the fall of his administration which forced him to resign in disgrace. Had he made the right decision, had he been right as he should have been, then Watergate would not have happened and we may not have seen the fall of South Vietnam and the Killing Fields of Cambodia would not exist. had the Democrats listened to reason rather than the shrill voices of the anti-war crowd in 1973, maybe they would have come to the right decision and continued to foster South Vietnam and prevented the massacre of millions in Southeast Asia.
A president has to be right on every issue, especially the big issues. Getting the little ones wrong, like taxation, health care, or same-sex marriage probably won't get people killed, but getting the big ones wrong, like the War on Terror, Iraq, border security and, yes, abortion, will result in a lot of dead people.
Clinton got it wrong in the '90s with his handling of Osama bin Ladin, failing to accept extradition offers from Sudan or dropping missiles when we know exactly when and where he was. By getting that wrong when Clinton could easily have gotten it right, resulted in thousands of dead Americans on 9/11.
And it is the last line of Michelle Obama that shows she is not the brightest bulb in the box: "What I'm trying to say to you is Barack is human." Is she saying President Bush is not human?
Michelle Obama may think its okay to not be right all of the time, but Barack Obama so far has proved that he would get the big issues wrong 100% of the time. And as the president is the one with the finger on the proverbial button, that is a track record America cannot afford.
Tags:
September 13, 2007
ANSWER and Gathering Of Eagles Coming Soon
There are times when I wish I had more ability to travel long distances, but hey, like most Americans, I have to work for a living and I have a family to take care of.
Cybercast news Service has a piece discussing the pro-terrorist demonstration scheduled to take place in Washington D.C. this weekend, sponsored by the pro-terrorist group, ANSWER. Part of the demonstration, which starts with a march on the capital, includes a "die-in" which is supposed to represent the soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed by terrorist thugs.
Brian Becker of ANSWER purports that the "die-in" will be unlike any pro-terrorist protest seen before. ANSWER claims to have a thousand people signed up for the exercise in civil disobedience that will help embolden terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.
From CNSNews:
"Seventy percent [of Americans] support the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces," Becker said."You'll see on Saturday that not only have people in general turned against the war, but the Iraq war veterans, the soldiers and Marines, their family members ... are turning more and more decisively against the Bush administration's endless lies in pursuit of endless war," he said.
I have no idea where he gets his poll numbers, but as they typically only survey a thousand or so people, and most likely people living in San Francisco or New York, rather than rural America where I live, it is no wonder I have never been asked by these pollsters where I stand when it comes to Victory or surrender in Iraq.
But CNSNEWS has some of the straight stuff:
A Sept. 7 ABC/Washington Post poll found that 55 percent of Americans would support legislation setting a spring 2008 deadline for withdrawing troops, while 41 percent would oppose such a measure.
I wonder if these are the same polls that Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) was referring to when she called General Petreus a liar during the question and answer portion of his testimony.
Cindy Sheehan, who must miss being the center of attention of the pro-terrorist movement, has announced that she will be in attendance. She is also challenging nancy Pelosi for the House seat in SF. Funny, I always thought Sheehan was a Democrat, not a Republican. Or is it Pelosi who's a Republican (god forbid!).
Meanwhile, over the same weekend, the Gathering of Eagles is also staging a pro-Victory protest. I really wish I could attend this event. "Operation Eagle Justice," as the GOE event is called, has been in the planning for months now. I suspect that there may well be far more of them than of the pro-terrorist protestors in D.C.
The question will be: who gets the most coverage by the media (no odds on that one), ANSWER is the pro-terrorists will get the most attention, while the GOE will be downplayed and probably ridiculed by the bulk of the media.
Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, a group of Gold Star and Blue Star families, will have a small presence at the GOE rally, according to National Chair Merilee Carlson. But the group's main events will come in the days following anti-war efforts.Carlson said 500 Families United members will visit Washington to tour the city, visit war memorials and participate in a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday. Members will tour the U.S. Capitol and meet with elected officials Tuesday.
"Frankly, the fact that we are dedicating ourselves to serving our country at the Arlington National Cemetery, that is how we offset something as despicable as the march and the die-in," Carlson told Cybercast News Service, explaining why Families United won't have a large presence at the Sept. 15 march.
Carlson of Families United has the right idea. Service. And the people that comprise Families United get it while the pro-terrorist groups like ANSWER don't. Sending a positive message is far more powerful than the negative outcries of ANSWER.
America is a wonderful place, because of our right to free speech. It is too bad that groups like ASNSWER choose to use it for such despicable reasons. If there were fewer groups like ANSWER, we probably wouldn't need groups like GOE to counter their shrill cries. But then, this probably wouldn't be America.
Meanwhile, I think ANSWER should change its name to SURRENDER. Just don't know what SURRENDER would be an acronym for.
Tags:
ANSWER United Families Gathering of Eagles Iraq al-Qaeda Sheehan protests
September 12, 2007
Pelosi Moonbats On Iraq
Nancy Pelosi is Moonbatting about the military operations in Iraq yet again. From Yahoo News:
"The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint; it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to call that a new direction. It is a status quo plan that tells the Iraqi government that they do not need to change."The American people long ago rejected the President's plan to stay in Iraq, which is why they voted for a New Direction in 2006. Yet, with his veto pen and the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, the President is preventing the redeployment of our troops, the rebuilding of our military, and the refocusing of our nation's efforts on fighting terrorism."
Let's see, we have about 160,000 troops there now with the surge fully implemented. General Petreus stated that we will soon be able to draw the troop levels back down to pre-surge level. So that will be a 20% reduction in our "footprint" which seems to be the only thing that San Fran Nan and her puppet-masters at MoveOn.org and Code Pink are interested in: getting our troops out and letting the Islamofacists and terrorists have Iraq.
That is the fundamental difference between those of us on the right and those on the left, like MoveOn.org. We want to achieve victory in Iraq and leave behind a functioning democracy capable of protecting the liberties of its citizens. The left wants to turn it back over to mass-murdering thugs who will then eliminate a million plus Iraqis in retaliation for their working with the U.S. led coalition that is attempting to establish said democracy.
This is not to say that peace is not patriotic. It is. Victory is also patriotic.
What would the world be like if, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and invaded the Philippines, the United States said: Well, okay, we tried to save the Philippines, it was lost, we'll let Japan have it. And China as well. What would have happened if, after we lost our first battle with the German Afrika Korps at Kasserine Pass, we said: Well, Germany is too tough for us to handle. Let them have Europe. The end result would have looked much like what happened to Southeast Asia after we abandoned South Vietnam, thanks to the Democrats. Millions died. Except it wouldn't have been just a few million but tens of millions.
This is true of Iraq if we abandon them at this point. A million people will die, while millions more will flee that country to avoid liquidation.
Pelosi rants about how this may lead to a 10-year involvement in Iraq. Guess what, Nancy. We've been in Kosovo for that long already. There is still violence occurring there on a regular basis. It just doesn't get the press that Iraq does. Yet the calls to bring our troops home, and we have thousands over there still, are not made.
We also have some 60,000 troops as an occupying force in Germany. Yet the left seems to be okay with that occupation, as it is with our troops in Italy, Japan and South Korea. How about we reduce our "footprint" in some of those countries? Or is it only Iraq that Pelosi and her puppet-masters despise our having troops in, because they are doing something truly honorable in that country.
As for the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, Pelosi has her own party leadership to thank for that one. They set the tone of hostility in the Senate while there was a Republican Majority by forcing the 60-vote threshold on judicial appointments. They made their bed, now let them sleep in it.
As for Iraq, I have no doubt that we can be victorious, The question has always been how to achieve. It sounds as though Petreus has things on a track that may well succeed if it is allowed to work. Remember he said it would take at least six months once the surge is fully in effect, As that took place in Mid-June, which means he should have at least three more months to achieve his goals.
Of course in a society that has become used to having instant gratification, that will seem like an eternity. It may also seem so to the troops serving in Iraq. But then they should be allowed to feel that way as they are shouldering the burden of success, not Chickendove of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Tags:
September 11, 2007
Kerry Tries To Get It Right On MoveOn Ad
It looks like we're into Day 2 of the non-denouncement of the MoveOn.org ad by the Democratic Party leadership. As all America now knows, yesterday the New York Times carried a full page ad from MoveOn.org with the catch phrase "General Petreus or General Betray Us" as a lead-in to a highly incendiary diatribe that accuses Petreus of "cooking the books" to make the Bush Administration look good.
So far, the closest thing to a denunciation of the MoveOn ad comes from, somewhat surprisingly, Senator John Kerry. From Boston.com:
"Senator Obama's question is not about General Petraeus's patriotism. It's about his logic," said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. "There's no evidence that this surge is producing the political progress needed to resolve the civil war in Iraq, or that it will be accomplished through more of the same."Phil Singer, a spokesman for Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, said, "It is unfortunate that Republican presidential candidates are focused on generating a political sideshow instead of discussing the president's failed war policy."
Other leading Democrats, however, said that MoveOn.org had gone too far.
US Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts said on MSNBC: "I believe that ad was just simply over the top, and I think it's inappropriate, period."
While Obama, Hillary and most other leading Democrats continue to roll over and play dead at the feet of MoveOn.org Moonbats, it looks like Kerry has decided to show a bit of common sense. While I am surprised at Kerry's remarks, stating that it was inappropriate, it still stops short of a denunciation of MoveOn.org and their tactics.
Kerry, to his credit, is not a Moonbat. He may been for the war before he was against it, but at least Kerry, unlike Obama, the Clintons, Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org's political action committee, has shown he has the cojones to serve his country in the Armed Forces. What Kerry did after the war is highly questionable, but at least he is moving in the direction of sounding like someone who has some respect for our armed forces. For Kerry, this is a step in the right (as in correct, not conservative) direction.
Let's face it, the MoveOn.org "General Betray Us" ad is not only inappropriate and over the top, it is extremely inflammatory and slanderous.
However weak his not-quite-condemnation of the MoveOn "Betray Us" ad is, it does deserve recognition and some amount of kudos.
I bet George never thought I would say something positive about Kerry.
To reiterate: if you are a politician and you take MoveOn's money accept their volunteer support, even in the form of unauthorized ads, you agree with their calling Petreus a traitor. The same is also true if you give money and/or volunteer time to MoveOn.org.
Tags:
Kucinich Moonbats In Syria - Slimes Military
Dennis Kucinich, after his anti-military tirade on Syrian TV, has proven himself worthy of the Moonbat Award. Congratulations Dennis, you are a Moonbat. God help us if you are ever elected President. In the meantime, I guess we can continue to call you Congressman Moonbat.
Here's a quote from Dennis Kucinich in his interview on Syrian TV (Daily Motion):
We must pay reparations to the people of Iraq, perhaps as many as a million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war…millions of refugees.
So says the Moonbat Dennis Kucinich, Congressman and candidate for the presidency. What he implies is that the United States has killed over a million innocent people being killed in Iraq since 2003. This means he is accusing our military of mass murder.
He goes on to say that the war was based on lies, "Iraq didn't have the weapons of mass destruction," despite the fact that over 500 chemical weapons have been recovered, despite the fact the tons of precursor chemicals, the stuff nerve gas is made of, had been found, despite the fact French made weapons capable of carrying chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads, weapons manufactured and delivered in 2002 despite cease-fire agreements, were stockpiled in the many massive munitions dumps. And he claims it was a lie?! He then states Iraq was not connected to 9/11, and although this is true, there wasn't a direct connection to the attacks of 9/11, no such claims were made by the administration: Only that they were connected to al-Qaeda and provided financial support to terrorists internationally. Remember that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each for their willingness to go out and blow themselves up, killing innocent Israelis, especially children. THAT was the claim concerning terrorism that was made, and that has been proven time and again.
He claims in the video that he is following the truth, yet he doesn't seem to be able to know what the truth is if it jumped up and bit him on the nose, especially since he believes over a million Iraqis have been killed since 2003.
It truly bothers me, as someone who has served in the Armed Forces, that this chickendove would claim that over a million innocent Iraqis since the U.S. lead coalition liberated Iraq and removed a murderous dictator from power. A quick fact check, and one can hit any of the left-ward anti-war chickendove sites for this information, puts the number of "civilians" killed at a bit over 70,000 currently. I say "civilians" in quotation marks as those numbers also include the thousands of terrorists and sectarian death-squad thugs who have been killed, either by each other or by coalition forces. Then the bulk of the rest of those killed, the ones are innocent casualties of the ongoing conflict, have been killed by the terrorists and sectarian death-squad thugs, not by coalition forces. The difference between the factual accounting of how many people have died in Iraq, and what Kucinich the clown claims in his interview in Syria (And what the heck is he doing in Syria, a rouge terror supporting state?).
Of course, hearing such stupidity concerning our military is not surprising as a check of is biography on his website and other sources reveals that he has NEVER spent a day in uniform. This is typical of the left: They don't have the cojones to serve in the military, but they happily accuse them of killing off a million innocent people.
In Lebanon, he continues his assault by stating (Jerusalem Post):
Kucinich, a strong anti-war opponent who trails far in the US presidential polls, also said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal."I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."
The last I checked the Iraqi Government still wanted us there. does this mean we are also maintinaing illegal occupations of Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, and a number of other countries where we maintain a military presense?
I find it repugnant that a man who so easily accuses our military of mass murder should want to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. There is no doubt that Kucinich is a chickendove and a Moonbat.
By the way, it is interesting to note that Kucinich has the video of his Syrian TV interview linked up on his website.
Tags:
Kucinich Democrat Military Iraq Occupation Syria President Moonbat
Red Star Strikes At Petreus
The Red Star Tribune, in living up to its leftist agenda, is running an editorial today, the Sixth Anniversary (for lack of better words) of the attacks of 9/11. It starts off benignly enough, mentioning that today two airliners slammed into the World Trade Center, killing some 2700 people. It also mentions the other two aircraft in the attack, but not that one was used to successfully attack the Pentagon.
It goes on to say that Americans are looking for a sense of unity and purpose.
It then heads into the thrust of the piece: Iraq.
Instead, the nation is divided this week over the messy and distracting issue of Iraq. Gen. David Petraeus went to Capitol Hill on Monday to give a long-awaited report on the war, and far from reassuring voters that their military is making progress, he couldn't even convince them he is using accurate measures of success. In what might have been the most depressing news of the day, the Washington Post reported that a majority of Americans don't even trust Petraeus -- whom President Bush chose precisely because of his trustworthiness -- to be square with them about the war.
This paragraph ignores the point that Congress unanimously approved Petreus' appointment to lead the troops in Iraq. In listening to the testimony, it is clear that The House of Representatives, at least those amongst the Democrats, ignored what Petreus stated and instead focused on some obscure polls produced by the BBC and ABC. I call them obscure as they are not widely known. Even Petreus and the Ambassador Crocker who was with him stated they were unaware of these polls. Yet the leftie moonbats, especially Loretta Sanchez (D, CA) continued to push that these polls are the real facts rather than what Petreus is reporting.
There is a big difference between accepting polls taken by biased media outlets versus the unbiased work of the troops on the ground.
But Sanchez, along with her MoveOn benefactors, don't care about that. Nor, obviously does the editorial staff at the Red Star Tribune.
Progress has been made in Iraq. It may not be as much as we would like to see: we would all like to see our troops come home sooner than later. However, as Petreus stated, things have improved sufficiently that we may soon be able to begin drawing forces down to pre-surge levels.
There are still challenges in Iraq. But the solution is not to cut and run, as the MoveOn crowd wants. It is to work with the people of Iraq so that they can secure and maintain their liberty.
It is bad enough that Sanchez implied that General Petreus is a liar. It is just as detestable that the Red Star Tribune has bought into that line of thinking as well.
As for the Red Star's desire to find unity and purpose: How about Victory in Iraq rather than perpetrating a desire for defeat.
Tags:
September 10, 2007
MoveOn Calls General Petreus Traitor!
MoveOn.org has gone too far this time. They have taken out an ad that reads, in part: "General Petraeus or General Betray us?" It then goes on to purport that Petraeus, a man who has dedicated his life to serving his country, unlike those who run that hard-left anti-military organization, has "cooked the books" in regards to his report on Iraq and accuses him of painting a rosier picture than is depicted in reality.
"General Betray Us" they call him. They have called General Petreus a traitor. Sickening!
Republican leaders have condemned the as published in the New York Times. The Times could have chosen to decline publication, however they chose to. Is this because they agree with it or because they are as morally bankrupt as the people who make up and support MoveOn.org, as well as those who receive MoveOn's campaign support.
According to a FoxNews article, Democratic leadership has not condemned the MoveOn ad outright, instead taking a middle ground at best. From Fox News:
Asked whether there was willingness on Democrats' part to publicly condemn the group, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's spokesman sought to downplay the criticism of Petraeus - a target of attack by Reid last week - to focus more on whether the troop surge is achieving what it set out to do."The issue isn't General Petraeus," Reid spokesman Jim Manley told FOX News. "He is a good man and a fine soldier. The problem is that he was brought in to administer a war that had already been badly mismanaged by President Bush."
"Serious questions have been raised, and will continue to be raised, about the veracity of some of the statistics that will be cited by the White House and General Petraeus. As General Petraeus himself said during his confirmation hearing in January, the objective of the surge was to provide Iraq's national government time to reach political reconciliation, and by every independent assessment made so far, that simply hasn't happened," Manley said.
This kind of response, even from a staffer, is unacceptable. It is high time that the Democratic Party distances itself from MoveOn.org and its extreme anti-American agenda.
We should make it clear to candidates of any political party that receives aid, whether directly or indirectly, from MoveOn.org or its affiliates and staffers will be considered to accept the MoveOn agenda and that they support such outrageous acts as calling a dedicated American Soldier "General Betray Us."
Any political candidate that fails to denounce MoveOn.org and refuse any and all support from that organization is unqualified to enjoy the honor and privilege of public office.
By late morning, MoveOn issued a statement defending the ad's accuracy."We stand by our ad - every major independent study and many major news organizations cast serious doubt on Petraeus' claims," said Eli Pariser, executive director MoveOn.org's political action committee.
I suppose it is easy for a 27 year old chickendove who has never done a d@mn thing for his country to sling outrageous names at those who have dedicated their lives so that these chickendoves can make such remarks. Pariser should try moving to Cuba and saying something like that about Castro, or maybe North Korea and Kim Jong Il. But he probably thinks that Castro and Kim are great men rather than mass-murdering tyrants.
As Hugh Hewitt summed it up today, if you are taking MoveOn's money (or volunteer time, etc.) you agree with them that Petreus is a traitor. The same is also true of those who give time and or money to MoveOn.org.
Tags:
September 7, 2007
The Globalization of G.I. Joe
Hollywood, and this time Paramount Pictures in particular, has veered far-left yet again. They are changing an all-American icon of heroism into a globalized entity for the sake of political correctness and "International appeal." What are we talking about? G.I. Joe is being transformed from "Government Issue Joe" into "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity." Say what?
A lot of us as kids had G.I. Joe action figures. Who wants to play with a "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity?" Entity? Good God, they aren't even people, but entities?
From FoxNews:
Paramount has confirmed that in the movie, the name G.I. Joe will become an acronym for "Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity" - an international, coed task force charged with defeating bad guys. It will no longer stand for government issued, as in issued by the American government.The studio won't elaborate, saying filming hasn't begun and details are still in the works, but the behind-the-scenes rumblings are that the producers have decided to change the nature of G.I. Joe in order to appeal to a wider, more international audience.
The word is that in the current political climate, they're afraid that a heroic U.S. soldier won't fly.
Okay, so we have some pack of numbnuts who would rather appeal to the International market rather than to the American people. As usual, Hollywood is clueless.
Here's an idea. Instead of changing G.I. Joe from being the original American hero into some P.C. dehumanized and emasculated object, how about keeping him as is: male, heroic and American. Instead of making films like Redacted how about a film where we have a group of G.I. Joe's teamed up with their Coalition equivalents (especially some guys like the El Salvadorans who made headlines a few years back) and Iraqi soldiers, all equally heroic and representing their nations, battling the evil terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, spreading freedom and democracy in their wake?
Let me guess, they don't think it would appeal internationally. I suppose that it is too much to ask for from Hollywood to produce something that will appeal to Americans, especially those who have answered duties call by serving in the Armed Forces.
Retired Army Col. David W. Hunt, a FOX News military and terrorism analyst, called the scheme to make a whole new Joe "a shame.""G.I. Joe is a U.S. guy," Hunt said. "What are we going to call it - Global Joe? International Joe? It's kind of stupid. It's ridiculous that they're doing that."
Paramount wouldn't say whether an American would be part of the new "global entity," nor would it offer specifics about the storyline or the characters.
So, has Paramount figured out what will be so appealing to Americans to see a film about a bunch of global entities?
Does Hollywood hate our military so much that they have to distance themselves from all of the important, and good, American military icons? do they believe that Americans would rather view a bunch of "Global Entities" rather than American Heroes? Do they even care? Or are they suffering a total disconnect?
From IGN:
Who needs A Real American Hero? Not Paramount or Hasbro it seems. The studio's live-action feature film version of G.I. Joe will no longer revolve around a top-secret U.S. special forces team but rather an international operation.In a follow-up to their confirmation that Stephen Sommers will direct G.I. Joe, Variety offers this new description of the team: "G.I. Joe is now a Brussels-based outfit that stands for Global Integrated Joint Operating Entity, an international co-ed force of operatives who use hi-tech equipment to battle Cobra, an evil organization headed by a double-crossing Scottish arms dealer. The property is closer in tone to X-Men and James Bond than a war film."
Wow. A Real Globally Integrated Hero! Can we assume that this "double-crossing Scottish arms dealer" is Destro since he was one in the comics? And does that mean there will be no Cobra Commander in it?
So why the changes? Hasbro and Paramount execs recently spoke about the challenges of marketing a film about the U.S. military at a time when the current U.S. administration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are at a low-point in global polls. When a studio makes a film as expensive as G.I. Joe will likely be, they want to know that as many people as possible around the world will want to see it. In other words, G.I. Joe -- "A Real American Hero" -- is a tough sell.
So they will instead come up with an X-Manish style film with International appeal as it will sell better in France, rather than depicting "A Real American Hero" winning battles and risking his life to save a fallen comrade.
Let the X-Men do X-Manish films and leave James Bond to Sean Connery, and put the hero back into G.I. Joe.
When G.I. Joe becomes G.I.J.O.E., it will no longer be anything I will want to see.
See also Conservablogs' write-up on de-Americanizing of G.I.Joe.
Tags:
Townhall Meetup, Spet. 2007
Townhall meetup was sparely attended, probably due to the close proximately to the long weekend and people still off doing summer things. Even with only some ten people there, we had some good discussions on current events.
Pretty much all of the current issues in the news were touched on, including Norman Hsu, the major Democratic backer who has been a fugitive from justice for some 15 years and how all of the Dems he has supported are now having to distance themselves from Hsu and his money. Kind of reminds me of the Abromoff (spell?) scandal last year.
A round robin survey of who people like of the various candidates seems to have Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter as two of the favorites. General agreement is that Hunter would also make one heckuva V.P. Huckabee is still well liked and there was also mention of Obama and Giuliani.
Obama is interesting to talk about as the hard-left keep claiming that his race will play a role in his electability, as well as his name being Islamic (Obama is a Christian). So far, form what I have seen, it’s only the Dems and the hard-left that are making an agenda out of those minor points. It’s where he stands on the issues (he is and out-of-closet Marxist, while Hillary is Marxist in sheep’s clothing) that will defeat him.
Quite frankly, I rather hope Obama tops Hillary in the primaries. I don’t know if he can do it, but I hope he pulls it off. He is far more beatable on the issues because he is so blatantly far-left. He is also not as smart or Machiavellian as Hillary, so even if he were to be President, I don’t think he could do as much damage to this country as Hillary.
All of it depends on who is selected to move forward by the GOP and who the running mates for both parties will be.
It was a splattering of topics and a good time.
Tags:
September 6, 2007
Townhall Meetup Tonight
Tonight is my monthly beer and politics night with the Townhall Meetup group. This group has been going strong for about four years now.
No idea what we'll be discussing, except I bet Senator Craig and the Minnesota Foot Tappers Association will be on the list of talking points.
Possibly even Chuck Schumer's denigrating our troops in Iraq again as well.
Schumer said on the Senate Floor:
And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.
He also makes mention of the Warlords who currently hate al Qaeda more than they hate us as being a significant contributor to the changes now occurring in Iraq.
What is with this guy?
September 5, 2007
Gore Claims No Longer Sore Over 2000 Defeat
Over on Drudge there is a piece that sites an interview that al gore gave to Vanity Fair in which he blames the "unfairness" of the MSM for his election loss.
Gore tells Peretz that he does believe that some of his words were distorted and that certain major reporters and outlets were often unfair, and admits that the tendency of the press to twist his words encumbered his ability to speak freely.
Let's see, the MSM helped him in Florida by making an early call that Florida was his and that the polls were closed when in fact they were still open, which had a serious impact on the Florida panhandle voter turnout as it is in a different time zone than the rest of that state.
Gore was castigated for his assertion that he brought about the Internet, which was twisted into his claiming to have invented the Internet. Whatever the claim in that regards, the Internet dates back to the '60s when it was formed as DARPANet for the military, then expanded from there to what it is today. Not Gore, nor any politician, had much of an impact on its development, if any. Regardless, having his words twisted to "I invented the Internet" did nothing more than create a catch line for satire.
The media treated Bush far worse than they treated Gore, with claims that he was just filling in for "daddy," couldn't think for himself, and was a draft dodger, which is really weird as he served in the ANG and volunteered for service in Vietnam (Palace Alert in the ANG).
It was also Gore that started all of the lawsuits and attempted to force changes in Florida Election Law after the fact through the courts, which was later overturned by the Supreme Court: You can't change election laws and apply them to elections that have already occurred!
What is really funny is this bit:
"Modern politics seems to require and reward some capacities that I don't think I have in abundance … such as a tolerance for … spin rather than an honest discussion of substance. Apparently, it comes easily for some people, but not for me," Gore says.
If he lacked a capacity for spin in 2000, he has certainly made up for that lack since then with his Inconvenient Truth on Global Warming. And he has also learned to show a disregard for "honest and open discussion of substance" especially when he his very likely to be proven wrong on the facts.
Although he has not intimated plans to run in 2008, he can at least look forward to having his wife's support. At least that's one vote he can count on.
Tags:
September 4, 2007
Ridley Scott On Death of Cinema
The Scotsman has a piece on Ridley Scott ranting about how technology is killing big-screen cinema.
THE Hollywood director, Ridley Scott, warned yesterday that new technology is killing off the big-screen experience. The Oscar-winning County Durham-born movie mogul said mobile phones and computers threatened movie-making on an epic scale.
Is Scott right? Is high tech and the Internet bringing about the demise of the big-screen movie experience?
"People sit there watching a movie on a tiny screen. You can't beat it, you've got to join it and deal with it and also get competitive with it. But we try to do films which are in support of cinema, in a large room with good sound and a big picture."However, Scott admitted: "I'm sure we're on a losing wicket, but we're fighting technology. While it has been wonderful in many aspects, it also has some big negative downsides."
Actually, I don't like watching movies on my computer screen or via youtube. I like a nice viewing space so I can capture the richness of the film. this is not to say that eh Internet and youtube video doesn't have a place or serve a purpose. It's not suitable for watching The Wrath of Khan, but it is okay for catching video clips from the campaign trail.
The piece goes on to talk with Mark cousins, a former director of the Edinburgh Film Festival. He points out that the demise of the film industry has been predicted since the introduction of sound, and then again with the rise of television. Yet film making still goes on.
Mr Cousins said: "We still go to big cinemas at weekends collectively, but we also watch movies individually at home with our big TVs and sound systems."He added that the message was more important than the medium. Mr Cousins said: "I take the view that content is king - it's the story and it's not what format it presented on. That has always been the case."
I think Cousins has it right. It's the quality of the product that is important. The number of great films being produced is no where near what it once was. This is not a reflection on Ridley Scott who has made some great films, including Blade Runner, but on the bulk of product being produced. Remakes up the wahzoo! Many not even close to being as good as the originals they masquerade as.
Some examples: Mission Impossible which takes the legendary Mr. Phelps from the TV series and makes him into a bad guy. This was such a put off for me I refused to see any of the subsequent entries into the series. Star Trek, the series I grew up with, was hit or miss with the series of ten movies produced. Even the various new TV incarnations ranged from dismal to excellent, depending on the episode and specific incarnation.
Ocean's Eleven, a classic Rat Pack picture, was remade with chickendove George Clooney, and sent the message of crime does pay, unlike the message of the original, where they pulled off the crime only to see all of the cash go up in flames.
That is probably one of the biggest problems with modern film (and television) productions: they send the wrong moral message: Crime, infidelity, promiscuity, drug abuse, and so on. The bad guy wins.
It used to be that films sent out positive messages: Heroism, integrity, criminals go to prison, and the good guy always wins.
Another probable cause contributing to the demise of film is the cost of going to the theater. The price of movie tickets varies wildly across the U.S. It's sufficiently high that one is better off waiting for the DVD release and buying or renting it on DVD and watching it in your home.
A great film with a inspiring story, like Harry Potter, can overcome the box office price hurdle, where as the upcoming release of Get Smart will most likely disappoint the Hollywood moguls.
In other words, make more films like Alien and Black Hawk Down and fewer films like Legend and rehashing great television of the past. Innovate rather than regurgitate.
Tags:
September 2, 2007
Minnesota State Fair, 2007
Yesterday my wife, daughter and I went to the Minnesota State Fair. We did our usual thing of driving to the shuttle lot by the Mall of America and headed up on the shuttle bus. This year we bought tickets in advance, and darn glad we did as the lines to buy tickets at the gate were about 30 minutes long.
Our first stop was the All-You-Can-Drink Milk Barn then sought a place to sit and eat lunch as it was 12:30. Yes, we got a late start. Unfortunately, the first place we stopped to eat did not have the deep-fried chocolate covered sushi on a stick.
After lunch, and a second shot at the Milk Barn, we began our quest for fun, which isn't very difficult.
First stop was the AM1280 patriot booth, where the NARN was broadcasting live. Ed and Mitch were on deck and working the audience. Somehow they managed to pick the one Moonbat in the crowd for a long diatribe which was entertainingly laughable. It's amazing how gullible some people are. Until you realize that they are the same ones that have accepted Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth as gospel.
|
|
We then ducked around the Horticulture building seeking a snack and found the apiary display and honey ice cream. Beekeeping is something that interests me so we picked up some info and a dish of ice cream. IN the Horticulture building there were a number of displays on prairie development as well as agriculture and gardening.
From there we strolled down one of the main drags looking, and finding cheese curds and one of Sue's favorite radio stations. No, not Air America, but one of those FM Rock and Roll stations. Sue was after the freebies. They didn't know where to find the deep-fried chocolate covered sushi on a stick.
We stopped by the Norm Coleman booth and filled out a survey and chatted with the volunteers and getting directions to the GOP booth. They also didn't know where to find the deep-fried chocolate covered sushi on a stick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eventually we meandered into the GOP where Sue and Anna kicked back and relaxed while I filled out the straw poll and then bought some chocolate chop cookies at Sweet Martha's next door. Talk about a big bucket of cookies. Good too. We spent a chunk of time chatting with some folks in the GOP booth and eating a few cookies, before heading over to the livestock barns to see the sheep, cows, horse and other critters.
Still no sign of the elusive deep-fried chocolate covered sushi on a stick.
There we met some folks that breed alpacas, something I am interested in getting into and took some cow quizzes.
|
|
|
|
After that, it was back to the Milk Barn and then over to the "Miracle of Birth" barn where they have newly hatched chicks, and newborns of all types, including piglets, sheep and cows. A very interesting display and worth touring through.
By this time it was time to head home as we were beat. We decided two things for next year: take a couple of days off and go during the week and spend two days at the fair. There just isn't enough time to see it all in one day.
Oh, yeah, we also walked by the Al Frankenstein booth.
|
|
Maybe next year we'll find the deep-fried chocolate covered sushi on a stick.
Tags:
Al Frank-N-Furter Campaign Committee
Al Frank-N-Furter and his Campaign Committee
Gotta wonder where he stands on the issues.
Oh yeah, surrender Iraq to Muqtada al-Sadr and his sectarian thugs.
Socialized Health Care which will further degrade our health care system.
Inflation and increased unemployment via higher minimum wage laws.
And accountability means keeping corrupt politicians like William Jefferson, and his freezer of money, in office.
Al Franken Frank-N-Furter Senate
Search
Categories
- American Politics
- Armed Forces
- Away Missions
- Border Security
- Campaign 08
- Chicken Doves
- Civil Liberties
- Clan MacDude
- Country Living
- Current Events
- Disaster Relief
- Doctor Who
- Draft
- Dubya
- Election 2008
- Energy
- FAQ
- Folklore
- GWOT
- Global Warming
- Illegal Aliens
- Klingon Karnival
- Liberty
- MN Politics
- MNGOP
- MSM
- Military Aircraft Gallery
- Misc
- Mission Reports
- Moonbat Award
- Movies
- Red Star Tribune
- Religion
- Reviews
- SF Fandom
- Satire
- Science
- Shut-Up and Sing
- Site News
- Surf Log
- Surf Sites
- Taxes
- Townhall
- Tributes
- U.S. Events
- Victory Caucus
- Vox Blogoli
- Wicked Witch
- World Events
- World Politics
Archives
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- March 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- March 2003
Recent Posts
- Hit or Miss
- Global Warming: Loons Gone Wild #8
- Scheer On Funding MRAPs For Troops In Iraq
- Global Warming: Loons Gone Wild #7
- The Soros Money Machine
- Global Warming: Loons Gone Wild #6
- Obama Wants To Raise SS Taxes
- Ahmadinejad and Columbia University
- Ahmadinejad To Be On 60 Minutes
- Hillary, Biden, Obama Side With MoveOn on Petreus Ad
Powered by
Movable Type 3.33
Movable Type 3.33