Kowabunga

It should come as no surprise that the leading DFL candidates running for the U.S. Senate next year here in Minnesota are of a universal mind when it comes to health care. They do phrase things a bit differently. The Strib reports that they are varying on the issue, but really what they are saying is the same thing; the difference is how to get there.

Here's the statement from Al Franken:

It's absolutely crucial that we get to universal health care. ... I would mandate that every state go to universal health care, and they do it the way they like -- 51 different laboratories. But I'd mandate one thing, and that's that they do single-payer for all kids. That'll give us a point of comparison, five years out, to say, how does single-payer work, compared with non-single-payer, with a large population ... I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Aside from the fact that Franken doesn't know how many States there are in the Union (there are 50, not 51), he comes down on the side of socializing medicine, starting with our children then foisting it on the rest of us. Anytime government mandates something, it reduces Liberty and raises the costs of what ever service they are mandating.

Here's what jack Nelson-Pellmeyer said:

I'm going to work with every ounce of my being for a national single-payer health care system. The people are way ahead of the politicians on this. If we turn it over to the states, the states are already strapped for funds. ... We have to pay for it with progressive taxes, because the rich in this country have insulated themselves from the common good, and we need to bring them back in. ... If we can't get there, then you compromise. But you don't compromise before you fight.

Again, he wants to socialize medicine and pay for it with a Marxist tax policy at the federal level at pushing an agenda of class warfare. Typical leftist thinking. Let's give everyone a free lunch and make someone else pay for it.

Jim Cohen said:

There needs to be a single-payer, publicly funded, universal health care system in this country. ... This is a moral and constitutional civil right that we have. Everyone should be able to have quality and affordable health care, and we need a system that changes the disastrous administrative costs that we are paying. ... Our insurance companies are bilking the American people.

Again, he is calling for socialized medicine, this time falsely claiming that it is a constitutional civil right. There is no such right anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. As for his claim that everyone should be able to afford quality health care, he is right. The problem is that many people are so addicted to employer provided medical insurance that they have concluded that when you take a job (such as a high tech contractor) where the employer does not provide you health coverage, they are faced with a choice of purchasing their own health coverage, or not buying any. To force the rest of the working Americans to provide that which they are unwilling to provide themselves is contrary with the founding principles of this great country.

As for the bilking of Amercans by the insurance companies: government intervention and the implementation of HMOs has done more to arm the health care system than the individual insurance companies he accuses of "bilking" us. It's also another push for socialist class warfare by demonizing a capitalistic system.

Question: What did Americans do for health care before employers began to routinely offer medical insurance? Answer: They paid for what they used as they used it.

Mike Ciresi is rated as having the more benign position on health care with this statement:

Everybody's arguing about who pays, but nobody is talking about delivering good, effective, universal, accessible health care to people. ... We're spending 70 cents of every dollar on diseases that are preventable, towards the last six months of life. We have to get good preventive health care. ... My plan is to have a federal health board, equivalent to the Federal Reserve Board, that says [to insurers], you want to be a payer? Here's what you have to offer: Cover all preexisting conditions. Covers all essential benefits. It's portable. And it caps administrative costs.

Ciresi's message is a trifle confusing on his 70 cents of every dollar…"towards the last six months of life." I am not sure what he is getting at here. Is he saying that spending money on people in their "last six months of life" is a waste of money and health care resources? Weird statement. Not sure if I want to speculate on what he is getting at, but this could be very important.

His solution: create more Federal Bureaucracy, which means more tax dollars being spent on bureaucrats attempting to find ways to control how Americans live, then dictating to private insurance companies the products they must offer.

Sure, I think insurers should cover preexisting conditions and people that want those types of conditions should expect to pay more for their insurance, just as smokers tend to be charged higher premiums than non-smokers.

Ciresi wants more preventative measures taken. Does this mean he is going to push teaching children that abstinence is the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies?

Sure, preventative action will go a long ways to reducing the amount of health care usage in this country. Will it be mandated, or will incentives be made to encourage people to adopt a better style of living?

No matter how you slice and dice the four responses, they all come down to wanting to have more government and more taxes and taking away Americans right to control their lives.

Tags:

DFL Liberal Health Care Senate Franken Ciresi

Posted by Sqotty at 6:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I am not sure what happened, but when I went out to Michelle Malkin's blog to read an article about the infiltration of the Republican debate by Hillary campaign operatives, all I got is this page:

Hopefully this is just a hiccup on their service providers part, and not the result of nefarious activities. I sent a note to their "webmaster" email bucket, so hopefully they will be alerted to the problem soon and get things up and running.

UPDATE: Looks like they are back online now. Must have been a hiccup on their service providers part

Posted by Sqotty at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Not only is Comrade Hugo Chavez of Venezuela a tin-plated dictator and allied with terrorist thugs like Ahmadinejad of Iran, he is delusional as well. From Yahoo.com:

"I want the state prosecutor to look into bringing a suit against CNN for instigating murder in Venezuela," he said. "... undoubtedly it is part of the psychological warfare."

This came about when CNN made an error in a broadcast recently in which the dictator's image was erroneously used in a story about the death of a football star. The news anchor ordered the image taken down when the error was spotted.

For several years now, Comrade Chavez has claimed that there are U.S. plots to assassinate him in his various anti-American tirades. Why he is so popular amongst the people of Venezuela is beyond me as it is obvious he is a power-monger communist who idolizes Castro and wants to mold Venezuela into a South American Cuba. His unsubstantiated claims are nothing more than a ploy to bolster his position.

Tags:

Chavez Venezuela CNN

Posted by Sqotty at 10:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Time Magazine has a new interview with Stephen King, Maestro of Horror, posted on their website. In it, King states that the Bush administration should water board Jenna Bush and ask her if she thinks that is torture or not. I am not surprised by this line of thinking. The Moonbats and Chickendoves on the left routinely call for applying different standards to the Bush daughters, like having them drafted into the Army and shipped of to Iraq in a front line combat role. I figured King to be a Leftie, but am surprised that he would spew the same kind of rhetoric that his Leftie fans regularly spout.

From Times.com:

Yeah. You know, I just filmed a segment for Nightline, about [the movie version of his novella] The Mist, and one of the things I said to them was, you know, "You guys are just covering - what do they call it - the scream of the peacock, and you're missing the whole fox hunt." Like waterboarding [or] where all the money went that we poured into Iraq. It just seems to disappear. And yet you get this coverage of who's gonna get custody of Britney's kids? Whether or not Lindsay drank at her twenty-first birthday party, and all this other [bleep].

You know, this morning, the two big stories on CNN are Kanye West's mother, who died, apparently, after having some plastic surgery. The other big thing that's going on is whether or not this cop [Drew Peterson] killed his... wife. And meanwhile, you've got Pakistan in the midst of a real crisis, where these people have nuclear weapons that we helped them develop. You've got a guy in charge, who's basically declared himself the military strongman and is being supported by the Bush administration, whose raison d'etre for going into Iraq was to spread democracy in the world.

So you've got these things going on, which seem to me to be very substantive, that could affect all of us, and instead, you see a lot of this back-fence gossip. So I said something to the Nightline guy about waterboarding, and if the Bush administration didn't think it was torture, they ought to do some personal investigation. Someone in the Bush family should actually be waterboarded so they could report on it to George. I said, I didn't think he would do it, but I suggested Jenna be waterboarded and then she could talk about whether or not she thought it was torture. And then the guy from Nightline said, "Well, obviously you've not been watching World News Tonight with Charlie Gibson." But I do - I watch 'em all!

As King served as a pitch man for the hard-left MoveOn.org during the 2006 election cycle, I guess it really shouldn't have come as a surprise.

At that time he claimed he knew scary. (allbusiness.com) "[G]iving this president and this out-of-control Congress two more years to screw up our future is downright terrifying." Just wait until we have either Hillary or Obama in The White House. Now there's some scary thoughts; the stuff of nightmares for potentially 8 years.

King does have a point though. The MSM spends way too much time focusing on celebrity frivolities, like Spears custody battle and Paris Hilton's jail time.

As for the Bush daughters, if King thinks they should be waterboarded as a case study, then he should also be prepared to undergo that same treatment. It won't change his mind any, but at least then he'll be able to say that he knows waterboarding just as he says he "knows scary."

King does deserve one additional acknowledgment for his call to waterboard Jenna Bush. Congratulations Stephen King, you are the latest recipient of the Moonbat Award. Does this mean you are the King of Moonbats?

Tags:

Liberal Stephen King MoveOn.org Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 5:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This came out a couple of days ago.

Comrade Hugo Chavez has now stated that anyone who supports him but votes against his new constitution for Venezuela is a traitor. If this is decided on a secret ballot, I don't know how he plans on determining which "No" votes are by supporters and which are cast by opposition (who he also considers traitors).

From BreitBart:

The proposed revisions would do away with presidential term limits, extend terms from six to seven years, let Chavez appoint regional vice presidents and eliminate Central Bank authority, among other changes.

Critics warn he would also have the power to shut down Venezuelan newspapers, television and radio stations by declaring a state of emergency, and the government could detain citizens without charges during such a period.

The power to appoint "regional vice presidents" is troubling enough and harkens back to the colonial days when the colonies were over seen by appointed Royal Governors. Eliminating the Central Bank authority is also troubling, especially for the Venezuelan banking industry. The power to declare a "state of emergency" where Chavez will be empowered to shutdown newspapers and broadcasters is also a significant concern, but pales next to the power to detain citizens (i.e. political opponents) without charge.

I'm not a betting man, but I wonder how long it will take once this new constitution is in place (I'll be surprised if it fails) for Chavez to declare his first state of emergency and use those new powers?

Tags:

Chavez Venezuela Constitution

Posted by Sqotty at 7:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I have a great deal to give thanks for this year. It has been a good year blessed with the joy of watching my daughter grow another year and begin to talk. Family is foremost in my thanks for they bring so much thrill to life.

There are the men and women in the Armed Forces, many of whom are in a far off land, and are unable to be with their loved ones while they serve under very trying and hostile conditions. Their courage, sacrifice, and perseverance for love of country and their fellow man is also something I give thanks for, for without those willing to defend our liberty, we would all be enslaved.

Most of all, I thank the big guy up in the sky, the creator of all that there is and all that there will be, from the heavens above with its brightly shining sea of stars to the earth beneath my feet.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Posted by Sqotty at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Michael Wigley of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota writing for the Red Star Tribune this week makes some interesting points in respect to a column by Lori Sturdevant recently published by the Strib.

Sturdevant unwittingly defines a fundamental liberal problem in her first paragraph:

"Reform of big, Byzantine public systems is cyclical work. It generally takes years of hand-wringing, analyzing and politicking to build a head of steam for noticeable change."

That should be a comforting thought to parents, especially in Minneapolis and St. Paul, sending their first-grader off to the big, Byzantine public school system. While legislators and bureaucrats are hand-wringing, analyzing and politicking, children are not learning to read or write or do arithmetic, but perhaps by the time the children are in the sixth grade ...

I'm not sure if anyone can be comforted by sending their kids off to a Byzantine public school system. I don't know how complex/intricate the public school systems are, but Wigley is right in that many kids are not being taught the basics (reading/writing/arithmetic). There are numerous failures in a system that is allowed to produce people that are not able to make change at a cash register without having a "deer in headlights" look on there face when you hand them when you hand them $5.52 for a for a $4.42 charge. (I have encountered this type of scenario numerous times when dealing with cashiers.)

It worries me that schools are resorting to computer technology for kids to use and perform their homework on rather than teaching them to use inherent cognitive processes. How are kids supposed to learn to spell correctly and use proper grammar when all they have to do is click spell check on a software program?

Wigley continues:

DFLer Mindy Greiling of Roseville wants to simply tweak the funding formula and add a billion dollars a year to the budget. In other words, the problem is not that children are not being educated; the problem is that the system is being challenged and needs to be supported better.

Or more accurately, the system doesn't have enough money, which is the constant cry, despite school districts providing lavish compensation deals to administrators. Remember the Apple Valley superintendent that was paid off to the tune of a half million dollars a few years back? Is there any sane person who would consider that a good use of taxpayer money? Or how about the Minneapolis case where the contract was broken by a administrator who wanted to go to Atlanta because the money was better? She broke her contract over taxpayer money! These are the poster child examples of the liberal cry of "It's for the children!" every time they call for new and bigger taxes to fund the schools.

Wigley then has this quote from Sturdevant:

"We'd love it from the feds ... . But when public work needs money, Minnesotans are acculturated to look first to state government."

Wigley correctly points out that regardless of the level of government, the money always comes from the taxpayers: that would be you and me and everyone else. Wigley also points out that the more layers of government involved, the greater the amount of bureaucracy and the less the money will actually buy. This is true whether we are talking education (public schools), welfare, social security, or nationalizing health care. The more layers of that is government involved, the less you get and the lower your return on your dollar, and the greater the amount of government waste there will be.

This is way the State and Federal governments should get out of the practice of providing certain social services, most especially the public schools, which should be controlled and funded specifically by the communities that they serve, as well as welfare programs (which would be best served if handled at the county level rather than involving higher levels of government). There are those who will cry out that some schools, especially those in poorer districts, will be shortchanged. Maybe, but there should be ways to handle that at the local level without involving higher levels of government that will introduce a lot of bureaucratic red tape and wasting taxpayer dollars by paying for more bureaucrats. One needs to remember that school districts normally cover more than a couple of schools, especially when we're talking mid to large sized cities.

Wigley then asks a question:

The second implication of Sturdevant's comment, and perhaps the more frightening, is that she sees Minnesotans as a people who when faced with a problem "look first to state government" for a solution. Have Minnesotans become so domesticated by years of liberal hand-feeding that we are neither outraged nor embarrassed by the characterization of us as waiting placidly in the corner by our dish for a helping from the government gravy train?

The answer, unfortunately, but not surprisingly, is yes; most people, and not just Minnesotans, have grown accustomed to looking to government, and the bigger the better, to solve their problems. Didn't Reagan say that "Government isn't the solution to your problems, but is the problem" or something to that effect? The fact that many Americans have been domesticated into believing that the only way to improve our education system is through big government and bigger taxes tells us exactly how big of a problem conservatives will be facing in coming years. It's scary to realize that so many people believe that the way to solving America's problems is through top-down big (expensive) government, rather than relying on local government where most social services are concerned (like schools and welfare). One way leads to a welfare nanny state, the other leads to responsible local government.

One thing that people need to remember is that its far more difficult to justify tax increases to the people that will have to pay them if the elected officials have to look them in the eye every meeting. This is something I have been learning while serving on my town board; we don't have the power to levy a tax, only recommend and justify the money needed to run the township. That's local control and responsible government. That's what the founding Fathers envisioned for America: That the powers granted to government should be granted to the level of government that is most closely aligned with the people (local, state, and Federal), and no higher than is absolutely necessary.

Liberalism (or Progressivism as they now want to call it) can only lead us down one path and that is to the welfare state, wasting our money and bilking working Americans out of their hard earned money, while continuing to fail to educate our children the basic tools they need to succeed in life.

Tags:

Star Tribune Wigley Sturdevant Liberal Education

Posted by Sqotty at 6:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The big headline over at MyFoxLA is that Hillary was heckled by a Code Pinko during a forum on global Warming (Edwards and Kucinich were also speaking there). The Code Pinko disturbance was not much more than a blip on the radar screen for the event. It is far more interesting to learn a bit about where the candidates stand on energy and global warming.

Okay, we know that all ready: they stand with Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore.

All three of the candidates want to CUT energy consumption, anywhere from 15% to 20% over the next decade or so. How they expect to do that without crippling the economy, lowering the American standard of living (at least for those of us who are working-class Americans - the rich elites, like Edwards, Clinton, and the Boracle will continue to live as they do while telling us how we should curtail our energy consumption), throwing millions of Americans out of work, raising taxes on us, or putting our lives at risk by forcing auto manufacturers to produce lighter, less safe vehicles is beyond me. Nuclear energy is not an acceptable option for any of them.

That's the real story from the Grist forum. The Code Pinko was nothing more than a distraction (could he be a Hillary Campaign plant? Naw!) from the big picture. These people are not ready for prime time; they want power to control Americans in a "do as I say, not as I do!" fashion, and therefore should not be trusted with this nation's highest office.

Tags:

Hillary Code Pink

Posted by Sqotty at 7:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I wanted to write about this report on Global Warming when I read about it last Friday, however my time to write was severely curtailed over the weekend. Family comes first!

Canada.com Financial Post has a piece on the impact that alignment of the major planets in our solar system may have on the Earth's climate. According to Rhodes Fairbridge of Columbia University, when the planets Jupiter and Saturn are closely aligned in their orbits, they shift the solar system's center of gravity, and this has an influence on solar behavior. From Canada.com:

Changes in sunspots and other solar activity, scientists have realized for more than two centuries, correlate closely with the climate of Earth, explaining the ice ages and periods of great warming. But what, Dr. Fairbridge wondered, causes these changes in our sun?

The answer, he discovered with the help of NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, lies largely in the solar system's centre of gravity. At times, the sun is at the solar system's centre of gravity. Most often, this is not the case-- the orbit of the planets will align planets to one side or another of the sun. Jupiter, the planet with by far the largest mass, most influences the solar system's centre of gravity. When Uranus, Neptune and especially Saturn -- the next largest planet -- join Jupiter on one side of the solar system, the solar system's centre of gravity shifts well beyond the sun.

The sun's own orbit, he found, has eight characteristic patterns, all determined by Jupiter's position relative to Saturn, with the other planets playing much lesser roles. Some of these eight have orderly orbits, smooth and near-circular. During such orbits, solar activity is high and Earth heats up. Some of the eight orbits are chaotic, taking a loop-the-loop path. These orbits correspond to quiet times for the sun, and cool periods on Earth. Every 179 years or so, the sun embarks on a new cycle of orbits. One of the cooler periods in recent centuries was the Little Ice Age of the 17th century, when the Thames River in London froze over each winter. The next cool period, if the pattern holds, began in 1996, with the effects to be felt starting in 2010. Some predict three decades of severe cold.

This is interesting as I was unaware that such variations in the solar cycle existed. Shifting the gravitational center of the system in respect to the sun would be a lot like the influence that the Moon has on the Earth's tides, only instead of the Earth's tides it influences solar activity.

How much the gravitational effect that the various planets have on solar activity remains to be seen. It does indicate yet one more factor that the Al Gores of the world neglected to account for in their claims that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions. How many more variables unaccounted for remain is unknown and we may never learn all of the factors that influence the Earth's ever-changing climate.

The universe is a complex system. Perhaps that is why there are number of papers by solar scientists indicating cosmic influences on the Earth's climate are on the rise.

Tags:

Sunspots Fairbridge Jupiter Climate

Posted by Sqotty at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

My wife sent me an email quiz on a series of very Marxist sounding quotes, all of them attributable to Hillary Clinton. I poked around on snopes.com to see if it had any further enlightenment, and it confirmed that they are indeed accurate, but claims they are taken out of context.

Quote #1:

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common
good."

Snopes states that this is out of context as it was made at a fundraiser of well-to-do (wealthy) Democrats about the Bush taxcuts being for the wealthy and not the middle-class. Snopes does not cite the origin of this quote.

Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters - some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend - to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Okay, I agree that anyone who can pony up $10,000 to keep moonbats like Boxer in office probably don't need taxcuts. But the rest of us who have benefited to some greater or lesser degree sure do. Even though snopes claims the context was that the quote was targeted wealthy Democrats, it actually does apply to all working Americans as well.

What is also important to remember is that more money in the hands of the people who earn it use that money to further stimulate the economy by investing in companies, savings, and spending it to buy products. People don't squirrel money away between their mattresses these days, unless they are drugrunners.

Quote #2:

"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few... and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

Snopes again claims it s out of context in order to produce a socialist nature that is "undercut" when you give the complete quote. From a speech Hillary made on May 27, 2007 (and posted on hillaryclinton.com)

It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.

Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed.

This really is, when you take the full context, Marxist drivel. America became a great nation because of a society that promotes individual responsibility and free markets where people can choose their path to success (or not!).

The Russian revolution was based on the concept of protecting the workers and implementing a society of "shared responsibility" and "shared prosperity." What the people of Russia (and China later on) got was a new form of government of/by/for the few, the Soviet party hierarchy, which merely replaced the old aristocracy, the elimination of free markets and, consequently, the elimination of prosperity.

The rest of the quotes all have to do with health care, energy and global warming, and again, snopes claims that they are out of context, yet even when taking into account the full context of the quote, they are quite Marxist in nature.

In one example Hillary talks about the 45 million people who have chosen not to buy health insurance as if it is some sort of national tragedy that needs to be resolved by government, rather than by individual choice. I have known people who have not had health insurance, the reason being that they were working jobs that did not provide insurance to them (they were contractors) and chose not to buy their own. The problem is one of attitude: We have come to expect that our employers will provide health insurance, rather than it being a benefit that is offered as a lure to hire people.

I could go on, but it is snowing (what happened to "global warming"?) and my daughter is excited about that and wants to go outside and play.

Tags:

Hillary Snopes Quotes Marxism

Posted by Sqotty at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The U.S. House of Representatives has yet again passed an Iraq Surrender Bill, this time tying $50 billion of funding to a requirement to draw down troop levels (which is already in the works) and ending combat by 2008. That last is a signal to terrorists, sectarian death squads, and Iran that hey only have to wait out a year before they can stage a surge of Islamo-Fascism in Iraq. Good job, Nancy!

From BreitBart:

The legislation, passed 218-203, was largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who already has begun reducing force levels but opposes a congressionally mandated timetable on the war. And while the measure was unlikely to pass in the Senate-let alone overcome a presidential veto-Democrats said they wanted voters to know they weren't giving up.

So the House Democrats want Americans "to know they weren't giving up" even though that is exactly what they are attempting to do: surrender, er, I mean tactical withdrawal. Actually, I hope they keep trying to push their agenda of surrendering to terrorists.

For years now Democrats have been drawing comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. In part they are right. Militarily we were winning in Vietnam; the government of South Vietnam wasn't what we would like it to have been; and the same anti-war zealots are pushing to end our involvement in Iraq just as they did during Vietnam. The consequences of listening to the Dems and withdrawing from Iraq before the job is done will not be paid for by American troops, but, like Vietnam (and Cambodia), by civilians, and in blood.

Let's face it: the Dems want to pull us out of Iraq and let tyranny again take root there. If they were serious about forcing it as they want us to believe, they would cease all funding of military operations and Iraq's reconstruction immediately rather than continue to try and play both ends of the field by tying funding to timetables for surrender, I mean withdrawal.

Tags:

Congress Iraq Surrender

Posted by Sqotty at 9:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I had forgotten about the two deserters seeking asylum in Canada until a report showed up in the news that Canada's Supreme Court has refused to hear their case. The two deserters, Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, have been attempting to gain refugee status and asylum in Canada since they deserted the U.S. Army in 2004 in order to avoid service in Iraq. According to the report there are approximately 200 other deserters now residing in Canada.

From Canada.com (CanWest News Service):

Before Thursday's ruling, the Federal Court of Appeal last rejected the claims by Hinzman and Hughey, who crossed the border rather than face possible court martial and imprisonment for refusing to serve in a war they say they morally oppose and is illegal because it was not sanctioned by the United Nations.

First things first: the United Nations does not have the power to determine what is and what is not a "legal" war. Wars are waged by nations for various reasons, some good and just and some not, depending on who starts the war. The United Nations has no power to enact laws, determine what is legal, or otherwise tell a sovereign nation such as the United States what to do and how to do it. Further, the war was waged in Iraq with the "blessings" of the United Nations as it had passed resolutions that said it was okay for the U.S. led coalition to take action against Saddam Hussein. One also must remember that this is also a response to the many and repeated violations by Iraq of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement.

These two deserters and the 200 others like them may not agree with the war, however they took an oath to obey the lawful orders of their superiors. They failed to keep their oath and chose to desert rather than serve their country when called upon to do so.

Unlike the Vietnam-era draft dodgers that went to Canada, these deserters volunteered to serve in the Armed Forces. They are not conscripts.

The two men have also argued they face persecution in their home country because of their political opinion.

What they face are a couple of years in a military prison and a bad conduct (at least!) discharge. Beyond that, most Americans will forget all about them. As for persecution, that is doubtful, unless you count being denigrated for their desertion as persecution. Typically, refugee status is reserved for people being persecuted for their religion or for their political beliefs (as in political dissidents in communist countries).

If these deserters truly believe that they are just in their reasons for desertion, then they should return to the U.S. and stand court-martial and accept the consequences. Then they can move back to Canada and good riddance!

Tags:

Deserters Hinzman Hughey Iraq Canada Army

Posted by Sqotty at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Now that Spitzer's plan to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens in New York has fallen apart, Hillary has to change her tune in a Kerryesque Flip-Flop fashion. It was just a little over a week ago that Hillary came out in support of Sptizer's plan to license illegals in his state, and she did her best to make it clear that she was in favor of amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens without using the word amnesty. Now she is changing course with the winds of change.

From MyWayNews:

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal," Clinton said in a statement. "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

What this means, liberally speaking, is that illegal aliens only have to wait until after the 2008 election at which point, if Hillary is elected, there will be a hard push for amnesty (better known as "fixing our broken system"). Once amnesty is granted, they will no longer be considered "undocumented people" (liberal speak for "illegal alien") and so can get drivers licenses and other documents.

If our immigration system is broken it is because Congress has failed to enforce our laws, as failed to secure our borders despite the calls from across America to do exactly that, it has failed to put the breaks on "sanctuary" cities by cutting Federal funding to cities that enact such laws. We don't need immigration reform; we need our current laws enforced.

Hillary continues to show that she doesn't get the illegal alien and immigration issue. Immigrants are not living "in the shadows" as the hard left often claims. Illegal aliens are, and that is because they have broken many of our laws, not just the ones involving crossing our border.

Hillary's position is quite clear on her own campaign website:

…a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar.

Setting aside that illegal aliens routine violate, not respect, our laws, what is the "high bar" Hillary speaks of? None is defined. If respecting our laws is a prerequisite to legal status (amnesty by any other name is still amnesty), then it would not be possible for illegal aliens to gain legal status: they've already failed to meet muster.

It is paramount that our current laws be enforced and sanctuary cities eliminated (starting with San Francisco), in addition to securing our borders BEFORE any form of immigration reform can be discussed. What the Leftists and other elites (there are some on the right as well) want to do is grant amnesty first and start the whole cycle of illegal aliens overrunning our borders again. Only 20 years from now it won't be 12-20 million illegals to contend with; it will be 50 million.

Enforcement first then we can discuss the rest of the issues around immigration reform.

Tags:

Hillary Amnesty Spitzer

Posted by Sqotty at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Global Warming and the Chicken Littles at the U.N. are pushing the release of the latest IPCC report that is supposed to release a summary of the thousands of pages of scientific papers on the subject of Global Warming. Yvo de Boer of the U.N.'s IPCC has stated that it is "criminally irresponsible" to ignore the urgency of Global Warming. In other words, if the U.S. continues to refuse to ratify Kyoto and subsequent emissions control treaties, we're "criminally irresponsible."

From Yahoo News:

Environmentalists and authors of the report expected tense discussions on what to include and leave out of the document, which is a synthesis of thousands of scientific papers. A summary of about 25 pages will be negotiated line-by-line this week, then adopted by consensus.

So we have a bunch of folks at the U.N., many of whom have an axe to grind with the U.S. who are going to decide what information on global warming will be included in this "synthesis" of scientific papers, and what will be suppressed. I am willing to bet that the vast material that will be included will be material claiming it's "our fault" that the Earth's climate is changing, while papers that prove that factors such as sun spots and the solar wind, variations of the Earth's tilt and orbit about the Sun which play a significant role in climate change, will be censored out of the final documents. It will suppress facts such as the ice growth on Mont Blanc, the Greenland ice sheet (where nearly 300' thick sheet of ice formed to cover a squadron of aircraft forced down there in WW2), as well as expanding ice in most of Antarctica, while the Antarctic peninsula where ice is receding accounts for only 3% of that region will, no doubt, be heavily cited.

If the U.N. and the IPCC were a deliberative body dedicated to the truth, it would not seek to censor out information that disproves their political agenda of seeking to control mankind. Of course, the U.N. being the corrupt organization that it has been allowed to become, this comes as no surprise.

This latest document is supposed to "sum up the scientific concensus" on the current state of Global Warming: It's Man produced carbon dioxide. Never mind the conflicting data that has been produced over the last 30 years. Never mind that there isn't a scientific consensus on the subject. Forget about the fact that the computer models used to produce the results are only as good as the data used, and that the parameters for such models can be manipulated to return the desired results (the ultimate in "garbage in, garbage out").

And, according to this report, the IPCC has "established that the climate has begun to change because of the greenhouse gases emitted by humans," according to Chicken Little de Boer.

The fact of the matter is there are a number of theories and the IPCC has established NOTHING. The Earth's climate is cyclical and there are millions of variables involved, probably more than we shall ever know. The only thing about global warming provable as being a scientific fact is that the Earth has warmed slightly (0.8 degrees Celcius) since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850.

Avery and Singer showed in their book, Unstoppable Global Warming that increases in carbon are a result of increased temperature, not the other way around as Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore and the Moonbats at the U.N. would have us believe.

Which ever theory you subscribe to, whether it is Man caused carbon emissions or the result of the natural cycle of the Universe, the IPCC owes it to humanity to publish all of the data regardless of how it fits into their agenda, not just that which supports their agenda while suppressing that which contests their claims. Anything less than that is "criminally irresponsible." Of course, we are talking about the U.N. here, which is famous for such scandals such as "food for sex" in Africa and various pre-Liberation oil deals with Iraq, so I won't hold my breath waiting for that organization to do anything other than push its political agenda on the world.

Tags:

IPCC United Nations Carbon Dioxide

Posted by Sqotty at 8:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I am not surprised to learn that the Hillary Political Juggernaut is planting questions at open forums. I am surprised that they are admitting to it.

FoxNews has a report on this admission by Clinton staffers that state that they planted questions in a townhall forum in Iowa. From the FoxNews report:

"After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff '10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. 'They were canned,' she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton's speech. 'One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],' she said.

"Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

"But the source of the question was no coincidence — at this event 'they wanted a question from a college student,' Gallo-Chasanoff said."

It seems odd that with all of the brain-washed kids out there these days, Hillary still has to plant questions on the topic of global warming in order to push her energy agenda which includes the trading of carbon credits ala the Al "Carbon Bigfoot" Gore plan where the wealthy continue to live as they do in mansions that use far more carbon-based energy in per month than the average American uses in a year, while the middle class who can't afford to buy carbon credits get stuck footing the bill.

What I especially like is her plan that all Federal buildings be carbon emission free. That must mean they will shut down all Federal buildings and eliminate all Federal jobs.

Hillary also claims that her plan will create 5 million jobs. The only jobs government creates are government jobs, so she must intend on expanding government by that much, which is too much, especially since the average American will be forced to pay for all of that through increased taxes.

If Hillary has to stoop to planting shills in an audience in order to advance her cause, then that must mean there is something dreadfully wrong about her "cause."

And how will Iowa respond to the fact that Hillary has to have these shills in their midst?

Tags:

Hillary, Iowa, Townhall

Posted by Sqotty at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It's becoming more difficult every day to take Hollywood seriously (Sorry John!). The reason is they simply don't get it when it comes to war, politics and, yes, global warming. This has been made very clear when it comes to the war in Iraq in a piece posted on BreitBart.

Hollywood is mystified over the poor returns of the anti-war films they have been turning out, films focused on the war in Iraq. After all, many of these films were well received at the Cannes Film Festival prior to their release. The films are not only performing dismally at the box office, the reviews they are getting are also fairly brutal.

Redford's "Lions for Lambs" and De Palma's "Redacted" are due out soon. The chances are they will also under perform. I wonder why?

Now I admit that I have had zero interest in seeing any of these films thus far. There may be one, reported to be in pre-production now, which I may go see, but that is a long way off. Oh, and that one is on Afghanistan, not Iraq.

From BreitBart:

Lew Harris, the editor of website Movies.com, said the films have struggled to be successful because the subject matters of Iraq and 9/11 remain too close to home. And in many cases, the films have not been entertaining enough.

"These movies have to be entertaining," Harris told AFP. "You can't just take a movie and make it anti-war or anti-torture and expect to draw people in.

Harris has a very good point, although I think if you are pushing an anti-war theme you will have to have a lot more going for it than being entertaining and having Redford and Cruise in it. It has to have substance, and be accurate in the facts. Whether or not these films are can be debated, but not be me as I haven't seen any of them.

Harris then points out that the Iraq war is too current and that Hollywood didn't start making movies about the Vietnam War until years after. Like "The Green Berets" (1968). Okay, it wasn't until 2002 that we got a truly great Vietnam War film in "We Were Soldiers…", so there may be something to the claim that it may be years before we see a good film on the war in Iraq.

"M*A*S*H' was a highly successful anti-war film. It was made at the time of Vietnam War, but set in Korea for the reasons Harris mentions: it was contemporary to Vietnam. It was also highly entertaining and, as I was a kid, never realized it was an anti-war film. But then I was a kid at the time, so maybe I missed something.

Even Steven Bochco admits that it is hard to make a film or series successful about the war in Iraq as it is perceived as being a "hugely unpopular war." Who ever heard of a popular war? There are wars that need to be fought, and wars that shouldn't be fought, and it all comes down to the perpetrators of the conflict. WW2 was made necessary by the Nazi's and by Japan. That does not mean it was a popular war, especially if you were one of the ones drafted into the Army to fight it (on either side).

Bochco continues (also from BreitBart):

Iraq films remain a difficult sell for audiences because of the swirl of confusion surrounding the rights and wrongs of the conflict, he added.

"World War II was hugely romanticized in terms of its fiction. There were unambiguous villains, and the feeling we were fighting the right people over the right issues, as opposed to this war, which many people feel is misguided.

And this explains why Hollywood doesn't understand why their anti-war films about Iraq are doing miserably: Because they believe it is misguided and there no "unambiguous villains" then everyone must feel that way.

Until Hollywood realizes that the Iraq war has had a whole series of unambiguous villains from Saddam Hussein and his sons, Uday and Qusay (with their rape rooms and torture chambers) to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr, and the various sectarian death squads.

Instead of focusing on how the U.S. led coalition is doing good for the people of Iraq, Hollywood brings us films like "Redacted" where we are treated to the brutal rape/murder of an Iraqi girl by several soldiers, all of whom have been convicted of this heinous crime and serving long prison sentences (hopefully taking big rocks and turning them into little rocks, or something like that). Yes, the subject matter of "Redacted" is important, however I believe Hollywood could better spend their energies making movies showing the good side of the war and the heroics of our armed forces, and those of the coalition partners (especially the new Iraqi military). I have no doubt that if Hollywood were to do so they will also find such a film quite profitable. Unless they were to cast Julia Roberts in it as Cindy Sheehan.

Tags:

Hollywood Movies Iraq War Bochco

Posted by Sqotty at 6:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Barack Obama is truly full of himself these days. I really do hope that he beats Hillary out of the Democratic nomination and has to face someone like Mitt Romney, John McCain, Duncan Hunter, or Fred Thomson. Yes, McCain has been gaining traction with me lately. I can't fault the man completely for being wrong on two important issues when he gets the other important issues right.

Obama on the other hand has yet to be right (as in correct not conservative) on any issue. He seems to think he can bring about change in this country, more so than Hillary. The kind of change he represents is actually the same kind as Hillary and means ending the Constitution and all that defines America: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

From FoxNews:

"There's no doubt that we represent the kind of change Senator Clinton can't deliver on. And part of it's generational," Obama told FOX News." Senator Clinton and others have been fighting some of the same fights since the '60s. It makes it very difficult for them to bring the country together to get things done. And I think that's what people hunger for."

Okay, so there is a generational issue here. This is news to me. How is Obama planning on brining the country together? What has he accomplished in his two years in the U.S. Senate? Zero! Let's remember that Obama was elected to the Senate with 70% of the Illinois vote, which would be impressive except he was running virtually unopposed (the token effort by Keyes was merely a show, not a real campaign). Receiving 70% under the conditions in whcih he ran is rather embarrassing low.

"You can have all the establishment you want and all the Washington endorsements you want, but ultimately people are going to make a choice on who really cares about them and who has a track record for fighting for them."

Okay, he is partially right; most Americans are tired of the Washington political machine. I certainly am. That's why I am pulling for someone other than Giuliani as the anointed savior of the GOP. As for Obama, I seriously doubt he cares about the people as a whole and his track record thus far is the same as his record in the Senate: Zero! Nada! He has none. His plans: abandon Iraq to terrorists and Iran; invade Pakistan, which is still an ally (although we can't be sure for how much longer with the troubles they are having); raise taxes on working Americans; maintain the status quo on Social Security, or expand its taxation rather than reform and privatize the beast (which is the right thing to do); amnesty for illegal aliens and putting them on the path to citizenship, skipping ahead of those who play by the rules.

He added that voters are "tired of the tit for tat. They're tired of divisive politics. What they want is somebody who can unify the country, push back against the special interests and stand up for what they really believe in."

Obama is not capable of uniting the country. Quite frankly, I don't know if any one is capable of doing so. At least not so long as the hard-Left controls the Democratic Party and groups like MoveOn.org continue to spew their venom against men who have served their country for their entire adult lives (like they did to General Petreus with their "Betray Us" ad). When groups like MoveOn flourish with their messages of hate and anti-Americanism, it creates such a poisonous environment for all Americans and divisiveness is the rule, rather than the exception.

Yes, I hope Obama wins the Democratic Nomination and the top of the ticket in November, 2008. Why? Because Obama is a candidate that even Ron Paul can beat. What do you think will happen if he faces a team like Romney/Hunter?

Tags:

Obama Hillary

Posted by Sqotty at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Debra Saunders over at the SF Gate, and picked up by the Star Tribune, has a lot to say about Barbara Boxer and Global warming. It's a fine piece and I encourage reading it.

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California delivered a speech in the Senate last week in which she linked global warming to the San Diego wildfires, Darfur, the imminent loss of the world's polar bears and even a poor 14-year-old boy who died from "an infection caused after swimming in Lake Havasu," because its water is warmer.

Forget arson. Forget genocide. Forget nature. There is no tragedy that cannot be placed at the doorstep of global-warming skeptics.

I missed Boxer's speech, but I am not surprised by her claims that all that is bad in the world right now can be blamed on Global warming and, consequently, on America as it is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases alleged to be causing the current warming trends (despite the volumes of scientific evidence to the contrary!).

Saunders enlightens us to some history on Boxer's stand on Global Warming: Boxer was one of 95 senators that voted in support of a resolution directing then President Clinton NOT to sign on to any global warming treaty (Kyoto!). Now she has changed her tune, and she has done so with a vengeance.

There is also the ongoing battles between Boxer and Inhofe on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe strikes me as someone who looks at the facts and doesn't eliminate those that do not fit the conclusions he wants to push.

Last month, Inhofe took on the Al Gore suggestion that polar bears are in peril because of global warming. Inhofe pointed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services estimates that show the polar bear population at about 20,000 to 25,000 bears -- up from the estimated 5,000 to 10,000 polar bears in the 1950s and 1960s.

The polar bear population, much like the timber wolf and bald eagle, has been on the rise, despite global warming. Yet Boxer is cited as claiming otherwise:

Boxer rejected Inhofe's claim that there are more polar bears, selectively citing the "best-studied population" of Canada's western Hudson Bay that found a 22 percent reduction of polar bears from 1987 to 2004. Then she referred to a World Conservation Union prediction that the polar bear population will drop by 30 percent by 2050

Of course for the area that Boxer cites to prove her point is accurate FOR THAT AREA. That is not sufficient to make a global claim when other data shows just the opposite.

Saunders mentions the new book by Bjorn Lomborg called "Cool It, the Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming," which mentions the polar bear population studies, and what Saunders cites from his book also refutes the Boxer/Gore claim that polar bears are heading towards extinction. I'll have to add this book to my reading list.

The bottom line isn't a matter of whether or not the Earth's temperature is climbing and that the climate is changing. It is! We can debate the causes of the changes on end, as long as scientific fact is fully included and recognized in the debate. But to use scare-mongering tactics and blaming all of the Earth's woes on global warming doesn't do anybody any good. Unless you are running against Boxer when she comes up for re-election in 2010. This could provide plenty of ammunition to a GOP opponent looking to unseat Boxer.

Let's face it: fear-mongering makes good press and plays well to the Leftist agenda while scientific fact is forced to take a backseat.

Tags:

Debra Saunders Boxer Gore Polar Bears

Posted by Sqotty at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Ahmadinejad is spewing forth on Iran's nuclear program with the announcement that Iran now has 3,000 centrifuges (used in the refinement of uranium ore0 online and fully operational, with plans to expand that to 54,000 centrifuges in coming years.

The Jerusalem Report states that with 3,000 centrifuges online, Iran is in a position to generate enough weapons-grade uranium to have its first nuclear bomb within a year. It is important to remember that the only thing slowing Iran down in this respect is the need to generate sufficient material to build nukes. The technology for building nuclear weapons has been available to them for decades.

From the JR:

The US and some of its Western allies believe Iran is using its civilian nuclear program as a cover for weapons' development. Teheran denies this, insisting its nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity, not a nuclear bomb.

Of course Tehran denies that they intend to use these facilities to develop nuclear weapons. All they have to do is refine uranium-235 in sufficient quantities for weapons (this can be as small as 12 pounds of material), pass it off to al Qaeda or Hezbollah, and then let the terrorists do the dirty work of building and detonating a bomb in New York or Tel Aviv. The only thing preventing mushroom clouds over major Western cities right now is the availability of uranium-235 or plutonium in sufficient quantities.

Despite Iran's claims that they are only intending to use nuclear technology for electricity, can we really be sure that is the case, and can we afford to accept their claims at face value? It wasn't that long ago that North Korea made these same claims and now we have to deal with another communist dictatorship in possession of nuclear weapons. The two major differences between North Korea and Iran is that the U.S. taxpayer isn't footing the bill for Iran's nuclear tech, and North Korea isn't an Islamo-Fascist state that has a history of supporting terrorist organizations and calling for the annihilation of Israel.

Ahmadinejad continues to defy the U.N. and refuse to enter into talks regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"I, as your representative, told those who brought the message that we didn't ask for talks ... If talks are to be held, it is the Iranian nation that has to set conditions, not the arrogant and the criminals," Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad is half-right: conditions for talks should not be set by "the arrogant and the criminals." That being said, Ahmadinejad, being an arrogant criminal and supporter of terrorists that have killed hundreds (more likely thousands) of Americans going back to the Beirut Marine barracks bombing in the '80s. Not to mention is alleged involvement in the Embassy hostage crisis in Iran when the Ayatollahs seized power in that country, deposing the Shah of Iran (thank you, Jimmy Carter).

Iran and its totalitarian rulers have proven time and again that they cannot, nor should they be, trusted. The line of "we're only using it for peaceful purposes" has been used and abused before by North Korea. We cannot afford to assume that Iran is any different in their claims than North Korea was. We could choose to believe that Iran is sincere in its claim that it is for electricity only. Let us hope and pray that we don't learn the hard way that Iran was lying through its teeth.

Tags:

Ahmadinejad Iran Nuclear Weapons

Posted by Sqotty at 8:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It was just a week or so ago that Prince made the news when it was revealed that his representatives had demanded the removal of a family home video from youtube because it contained a short music clip of his in the background. The video was reported as being a 30-second clip of an 18 month old child dancing to a Prince song playing on the radio. The article I read mentioned that the parent at the receiving end of Prince's demand to remove the video from youtube was shocked by such a demand. It was at that time that it was revealed that Prince spends significant amounts of time trolling the Internet looking for people who have posted anything that may be his.

Copyright laws are specific about allowing fair use. It is one thing to have a 30-second video of a child dancing with the background music being in the background (and poor audio quality) and not in the foreground, and another to put the entire song on the web for people to download. To Prince, audio quality and fair use be damned, sue them all!

Now the Guardian in the UK is reporting the next wave of Prince's activities to squash his fan base and free speech. His attorneys are threatening to sue fan sites for publishing a variety of content and demanding compensation.

A coalition named Prince Fans United, representing Housequake.com, Princefans.com and Prince.org, has been formed by the website organisers to fight back. They said they would contest the action on the basis that it was an attempt "to stifle all critical commentary about Prince". They added that the "cease and desist" notices went as far as calling for the removal of pictures taken by fans of their Prince tattoos and their vehicles carrying Prince-inspired licence plates.

Okay, he may have a point when it comes to a fan site publishing transcriptions of his songs without permission. But Prince is also demanding the removal of pictures that his fans have taken of their "Prince" tattoos. Okay, maybe he has a point there, too. Just not the same point as publishing the transcriptions of his songs.

Overall, it sounds like Prince is over-reacting to the many fan-sites out there, and may well alienate a lot of his fans. For some of those fans, it will be easier to change their license plates on their cars than removing their "Prince" tattoos. And Prince may not even be able to give away his next album.

Tags:

Prince Music Purple Rain Internet Fandom

Posted by Sqotty at 6:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Sometimes I think the Clintons are not as smart as people want us to believe they are. From MyWay News:

In a presidential nomination fight growing more intense by the day, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama also criticized the former first lady for having voted in the Senate against incentives for ethanol production and higher fuel efficiency standards. And 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards challenged her to spell out what she would do about Iraq.

The week after Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign accused her rivals of "piling on," those foes showed no sign of easing up. They even went so far as to criticize the former president, a strategy that comes with risks in a party filled with voters who admire him for resurrecting the party in the 1990s.

According to the Hillary camp, opponents who ask her point-blank as to what she intends to do in Iraq if elected president, or questioning her Senatorial record, is called "pilling on." I thought it was a matter of getting the public informed on the issues to better empower the People to make a good choice for president.

It gets better:

On Monday, in defense of his wife against political critics, Bill Clinton cited the "swift boat" television ads of the 2004 presidential campaign that questioned John Kerry's patriotism and the campaign commercials in 2002 that suggested Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia was soft on terrorism.

The "swift boat" ads in question did not question John Kerry's patriotism, but rather questioned his ability to lead this country and serve as Commander in Chief of our Armed forces. Legitimate questions in a presidential campaign. As for Max Cleland being "soft on terrorism," well, so was Bill Clinton, who had Osama bin Laden offered up to him on a silver platter by the Sudan; Clinton also failed to act on operational intelligence that would have allowed our forces to eliminate bin Laden years before the attacks of 9/11. Now that's soft on terrorism. The fact of the matter is that most Democrats now serving in Congress are "soft on terror." That's why they want to abandon Iraq to the Islamo-Fascist extremists.

Clinton is also wrong in comparing the questioning of his wife's ambitions as being ‘swift boating." He is way of base and, surprisingly, I agree with Dodd on that (Obama pulls some other wackiness out of his, er, brain).

"I wasn't at my best the other night," Clinton said on CNN.

A president has to be at their best every single day and night, not just once in a while.

Dodd is right in that anyone who will cry foul anytime they are questioned by their rivals should not be president. Presidents, and people seeking that office, need to always be prepared to answer the tough questions, and that includes discussing plans for Iraq, securing our border and dealing with the millions of illegal aliens now residing in this country, and how best to enforce our current laws rather than changing them because they don't want to enforce them.

Tags:

Hillary Democrat Liberal Dodd Debates Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 7:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It is clear to me that Hillary Clinton is solidly on the side of granting amnesty and citizenship to illegal aliens, people who by their being here are in violation of U.S. laws. From CNN.com:

Asked by reporters Sunday why it's taken so long for clarification Clinton admitted she "wasn't as clear as [she] should have been" but added, "I broadly support what governors like Elliot Spitzer are trying to do."

And what is it governors like Spitzer are doing? Failing to uphold their oath of office by defending and protecting our constitution and enforcing our laws, including and specifically, our immigration laws. This is not limited to governors like Spitzer, but to mayors of cities like San Francisco and new York that set up sanctuary laws that frustrate immigration officials and allow illegal aliens to live in this country illegally.

Clinton said governors around the nation are left with the burden because she said the Bush administration and the federal government as a whole have failed to bring about comprehensive immigration reform.

Thus it is Bush's fault, despite the fact that Bush is in the same court Hillary is and wanted to grant amnesty and a path to citizenship to illegal aliens. How about putting the blame where the blame is due? On congress for failing to supply our Federal law enforcement agencies with the manpower and the tools to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders? How about on governors like Spitzer who push to legitimize illegal aliens by issuing them drivers licenses? How about on the cities that pass sanctuary laws and then again on Congress for not cutting federal funding to cities that do so?

"But finally I do not believe we can resolve this problem unless we bring people out of the shadows," Clinton said, adding that undocumented immigrants should have a pathway to citizenship but they'd need to register, pay taxes, pay fines, learn English, and wait in line after those who've come to the United States legally. Those who have committed crimes, she said, should be deported.

It is more accurate to say that we can not resolve this problem by not penalizing cities that pass sanctuary laws, allowing illegal aliens to flourish. Granting illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship is not an acceptable answer, just as deporting the 12+ Million illegals already here may not be a viable solution.

Illegal aliens commit identity theft, frequently using the social security numbers of real Americans in order to fraudulently obtain jobs. They buy cars and drive without legitimate drivers licenses and without insurance. By the way, even in California, there is a serious problem with people WITH licenses not maintaining auto insurance. Just by giving illegal aliens drivers licenses does not mean the problem of them (or any other person) driving without insurance will go a way. (For those of you who are interested, in California you only have to provide insurance at the time you renew your vehicle registration. The tactic used is that people get insurance for that one month when they need to register their vehicle and get their tabs, then they cancel the policy.)

The only way to solve the illegal alien problem is by first securing our borders, and then enforcing our existing laws. We don't need immigration reform, nor should we be giving amnesty to illegal aliens nor passing laws that serve as a backdoor to amnesty, such as the DREAM Act that would grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. We should also terminate all Federal funding to cities that pass sanctuary laws.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Democrat Liberal Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Senator Joe Biden has been busy brainwashing 4th graders in New Hampshire. From BreitBart:

How did the war in Iraq start? Biden compared the war in Iraq with the invasion of Afghanistan.

"Osama bin Laden set up camps there, and he was getting a lot of help from folks running that country called Afghanistan. And that's where he planned an attack on America to bring the World Trade Towers down and kill all those innocent Americans. We had a right to, and we should've gone, to Afghanistan to try to get bin Laden and those people who've done very bad things to America," he said.

"But the president, I think, he got a little confused," he continued. "I think he thought the folks in another country, way, way far away, far from here, it's also far from Afghanistan, called Iraq. He said, 'The guy in Iraq he helped bin Laden do bad things to us,' and he didn't. He wasn't a good guy, but he didn't help. So we used that kind of as an excuse to attack Iraq."

I doubt many of those fourth graders will be reading this post, but I think we need to set the record straight. Biden use "simple" talk to call President Bush a liar. That's the way what he said will be interpreted. Now, of course, the leftist mantra for years now has been "Bush lied, people died" even though the president never stated that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11. What bush did claim is that Hussein was a sponsor of terror, providing funding to terrorists throughout the region, especially amongst the Palestinians where the families of suicide bombers received substantial amounts of money. Hussein also provided a safe haven for terrorists to meet and plan, although there is no evidence that any of the planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in Iraq.

Another reason that Bush gave for invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power is that Hussein had a large stock pile of chemical and biological weapons, and was attempting to acquire materials for a nuclear bomb. We all know that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons; just ask the Kurds about that. Although we don't know what became of the bulk of the biological agents (there were reports that some viles containing botulinum toxin were recovered), over 500 chemical (not including the two used against U.S. forces by terrorist groups) have been recovered as well as tons of precursor materials that could be used for building more chemical weapons. Then there is also all of the missiles recovered capable of delivering chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads that were recovered, many of which were acquired in violation of the Gulf War cease fire agreement.

And let us not forget the occasional pot shots, also in violation of the cease fire, which the Iraqi military took at U.S. aircraft.

What we have here is a clear case of a Senator who would like to be president, who is lying to children. It is one thing to be a chickendove and disagree with the president on the necessity of war (didn't Biden vote in support of liberating Iraq back in 2002?), but it is a whole different matter to lie to children about what the president said, and to call the president a liar.

Congratulations Senator Biden, for your moonbatting to children about the reasons we went in to Iraq, you are now a recipient of the Moonbat Award.

Maybe I should design a certificate and send it to these whackos.

Tags:

Biden Bush Iraq Moonbat Chickendove

Posted by Sqotty at 6:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions