Kowabunga

The Wall Street Journal has an interview of America's worst president in history, Jimmy Carter, where he speaks highly of Barack Obama. In it, Carter states:

"Obama will be almost automatically a healing factor in the animosity now that exists, that relates to our country and its government"

I am not sure how Carter can come to this conclusion. Obama calls for the immediate abandonment of Iraq to terrorist and sectarian thugs which will allow Iran to surge into the fledgling democracy and rip asunder all that has been built in the last few years. Unless the "healing factor in the animosity" is that which is borne against us by terrorist groups like al Qaeda and nations that export terrorism, like Iran and Syria, then maybe he's right.

I have no doubt that abandoning Iraq today will have a similar impact as our abandoning South Vietnam in 1973. I also have no doubt that people like Jimmy Carter think that abandoning an ally to totalitarian regimes is a good idea.

Carter, during his time as president, did more to damage this nation's credibility than any other president in history. He did it with one simple act: He abandoned the Shah of Iran which fostered the rise of a tyrannical Islamo-Fascist regime in that country, and which then spread throughout much of the region.

The Shah of Iran may not have been a great leader of freedom, however he was a friend of the West, and was slowly moving his nation to more Western values. When he was deposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini, this threw Iran backward a thousand years as far as social progress is concerned.

Perhaps Carter likes Obama because he sees the potential of someone becoming a worse president than he was. In that, he could be right, although I think Hillary is far more capable of being a worse president than Carter was. Both, however, are very dangerous to this country and neither one is capable of any "healing" that this great nation needs.

Based on Carter's performance as President, anyone that he thinks would be great is going to be a bad president. One-term wonders can still do a tremendous amount of damage in a short time. Just look at what Carter did to Iran. It's been 30 years and we are still dealing with the fact that a pre-Western government was replaced by a pro-terrorist totalitarian theocracy.

Tags:

Carter Democrat Liberal Obama Iraq Iran Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 7:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

McCain pulled off a close victory in Florida. McCain had 36% with Romney at 31%. Giuliani was a distant third at 15% with Huckabee trailing behind the New York mayor at 13%. Ron Paul, the Dennis Kucinich of the GOP, came in last at a very distant 3%.

According to headlines on Fox News, Giuliani is expected to quit the race. Hopefully Huckabee and Paul will take a hint and drop out as well thus making it a two horse race.

Hillary had an unsurprising win in Florida, receiving 50% with Obama trailing at 33% and Edwards, in the "also ran" position, receiving 14%, meaning he did better than Huckabee and almost as well as Giuliani.

Florida was the battleground with a lot of negative campaigning and McCain claiming he is more conservative than Romney. We'll set aside McCain's claims of being a conservative. I don't like negative campaigning. I don't like it when one candidate claims to be more of something than his competitors, whether the claim is more conservative, more liberal, or more qualified.

I like issues driven campaigns. I want to know what a candidate will do for or, in the case of the Hillarys and Obamas, what) they will do to our country. I want to know where they stand in the War on Terrorism and rebuilding Iraq as a democratic nation and ally. I want to know how they will control Federal spending and if/how they will reduce the size of government. I want to know how they will go about reforming Social Security, secure our borders and deal with the some 20 million illegal aliens now living within the United States. I want to know how they will treat our Armed Forces and how they will manage our nuclear arsenal.

Claiming to have a bigger "tool" than the other guy just doesn't cut it. Especially when it comes from someone like McCain whose record shows him to be anything BUT conservative.

Next week is Super Tuesday. A lot of States will come into play, including Minnesota with its caucus system.

My field of choices has narrowed to one: Romney.

But when push comes to shove in November, I'll vote GOP, not because it is the right thing to do, but because any of the GOP candidates will be better than having Hillary or Obama as president and in control of our nuclear arsenal.

Tags:

McCain Romeny Giuliani Florida Primary Hillary Obama Ron Paul

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

There are Moonbats in Battleboro, Vermont. IN a show of utter contempt for our constitution, residents of Battleboro are pushing an initiative to have President Bush and Vice President Cheney arrested and charged with war crimes, perjury, and other assorted charges should the Dynamic duo ever appear in this small Vermont Village.

Ironically, Vermont is the only state that Bush has not visited since becoming president. This reduces the odds that Battleboro will ever be able to make "good" on their threats should this idiocy become law in March.

From The Rutland Herald:

According to Town Clerk Annette Cappy, organizers of the Bush-Cheney issue gathered enough signatures, and it was up to the Select Board whether Brattleboro voters would consider the issue in March.

I noticed that Battleboro has never made a similar such initiative against Bill Clinton, a man who was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice and lead America into a war in Europe in order to divert attention away from his philandering ways.

But then this comes as no surprise when you read the rest of the lunacy taking place in Vermont.

The man pushing this agenda is a guy name of Kurt Daims who apparently has nothing better to do than to distort the facts on the war in Iraq.

Daims said the most grievous crime committed by Bush and Cheney was perjury - lying to Congress and U.S. citizens about the basis of a war in Iraq.

First, perjury and lying involves a deliberate intent to deceive, which was never true in the case made for the Liberation of Iraq. The entire world, including every member of Congress, believed that Hussein was a threat and possessed weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical and biological agents. These assertions that were made by the Bush Administration were made based on the same intelligence that was available to Congress. There were no lies, no attempts to deceive Congress or the American People. Further, over 500 chemical weapons (not counting the two al Qaeda attempted to use against coalition forces, have been recovered and disposed of since the Liberation of Iraq. That fact alone proves that Bush was right in his claims that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. No lies there, no perjury.

But let's not let the facts get in the way of a "good" political axe to grind. In the style of Che Guevara, facts are irrelevant to the agenda at hand.

Daims goes on to push the inaccurate assessment that over 600,000 people have died in Iraq as a result of the U.S. led efforts to liberate Iraq.

According to the site Iraq Body Count, the number is closer to 80,000. Now, I admit that that is still a large number of people killed over a five year span, however the numbers also include people who were killed as a result of increased violent crimes that were not related to the "insurgency" or terrorist and sectarian death squad activities. It also doesn't break it down by how many are innocent civilians (no such thing in the eyes of al Qaeda) killed by terrorists and death squad operatives (remember Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army?) and how many were terrorists killed by the U.S. led coalition.

Daims also said he believed Bush and Cheney were also guilty of espionage for spying on American people and obstruction of justice, for the politically generated firings of U.S. attorneys.

For the espionage part, Daims must be referring to the eavesdropping on international calls made between known terrorists operating outside of the U.S. and their contacts within North America. There are very few, if any, U.S. citizens that were involved in that surveillance operation. And if there were, and they were conversing with KNOWN terrorists, I would want the government to know who they are and what they are saying. Wouldn't you? Further, the U.S. did cooperate with the various require legal authorities. However, with technology the way it is today, the good guys, meaning our Intelligence Agencies, have to be able to act fast with great fluidity. Taping into international calls that are using cellphone technology needs fast operational capabilities.

And then Daims claims that the dismissal of political appointees as constituting "obstruction of justice?" These appointees serve at the pleasure of the President, and are subject to dismissal at any time for any (or no) reason.

What really gets my goat is this final quote from Daims:

"If Hitler were still alive and walked through Brattleboro, I think the local police would arrest him for war crimes," Daims said.

Like the rest of the hard-left MoveOn crowd, Daims considers Bush to be like Hitler. Absolutely sickening and the people of Battleboro should be embarrassed to have such a person in their community.

Tags:

Battleboro Bush Cheney Iraq War Daims Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Fred Thompson announced today that he is withdrawing his candidacy for the presidency of these United States. Egads! What's a conservative to do? Couldn't he have hung in there another two weeks to at least see how he performs in some of the other upcoming primaries and caucuses? Okay, I am a bit selfish on that last point as the Minnesota caucus is two weeks out. It also directly impacts my short list of candidates to one.

Previously, my short list consisted of Thompson along with Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter. Hunter's campaign didn't even get out of the gate, which narrowed it down to Thomson and Romney. Now, with Thompson out of the race, that leaves Romney.

Not like Romney is a bad choice. He is a good choice and a major player. I just wanted to continue to see how things shaped up during the coming weeks between the various major candidates.

Thompson was a late comer to the campaign trail. It is possible, even probable, that this played against his being able to make it for the long haul.

From an announcement on Thompson's campaign website:

Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort.

The GOP nomination for president has been wide open for the first time my lifetime. With Thompson out of the race, the dynamics of the campaign over the next few weeks will change. My money is that it will change in Romney's favor.

Thompson is one of the few candidates of any party that I consider has the "right stuff" (and I don't mean right in the political sense) to be President and Commander in Chief. He is someone that I believe could be trusted with this nation's most awesome power: our nuclear arsenal. That is something I would never entrust to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Maybe, just maybe, Thompson will resurface in the V.P. slot. If so, he wold certainly give a good jolt to whoever the GOP candidate ends up being.

Tags:

Fred Thompson GOP Republican

Posted by Sqotty at 6:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I friend of mine mentioned to me that Barack Obama does not render
appropriate honors to the flag. I found this surprising that a U.S.
Senator and front-runner for the Democratic nomination to our Nation's
highest office would not render appropriate honors to the flag. By
this, I mean, in the case of a non-military person, placing your right
hand over your heart when the national anthem is played and the flag is
present, while standing at attention and facing the flag; or, similarly,
but without the anthem, standing at attention, right hand placed over
the heart, and reciting the pledge of allegiance.

Here's the youtube video:

In the case of the first example, with the National Anthem, there is
Barack Obama, standing at ease, his hands folded over his crotch, while
Hillary, a few feet away, is fidgeting with her right hand
over her heart.

This is the man who would like to lead our country?

Tags:
Barack Obama Flag Hillary Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 8:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

George McGovern, still bitter 35 years after defeated in his run for the presidency in 1972, has come out with an opinion piece in the Washington Post where he joins the clamorous hard-left Moonbats calling for the unwarranted impeachment of George W. Bush. In it, McGovern claims that the war has killed over 600,000 Iraqis and "laid waste their country."

First things first, the number of Iraqis is somewhere UNDER 60,000, which is 1/10 what McGovern claims. Most of those killed are either terrorists, sectarian death squad members, or their victims. There has been a few innocent bystanders killed by U.S. led forces, and a very few murdered by same (one instance of a family that I am aware of), but the vast majority of innocents have been killed by evil-doers bent on returning Iraq to a totalitarian regime. As for the laying waste of the country of Iraq, the U.S. led coalition has made great strides in restoring the infrastructure there while contending with terrorists trying to stop the coalition from rebuilding a country.

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world..

Name three instances of any of the above that can be verified and confirmed? And that last bit about our standing in the eyes of the world is laughable.

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

Again, laughable. I suspect that McGovern never studied U.S. History, or, if he did, he slept through the class and got an "F." Historically, the United States has declared war on only five occasions: War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, WW1, and WW2. The United States has fought many wars since its founding without a Declaration of War, starting with the Quasi-War with France in 1798 all the way up through today with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with dozens in between.

Further, the constitution does not require a Declaration of War, it merely states that the sole power to make such declarations resides with Congress. There is also an exception to that power defined in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution.

If this is the case, why did he not speak out in support of impeaching Bill Clinton for the wars he waged in Somalia and Kosovo? There was no declaration of war there, yet it was certainly a war being carried by the U.S. in both of those instances. Not to mention Vietnam, which he voted to authorize, and there was no Declaration of War there as we;;.

The war to liberate Iraq was NOT in defiance of the U.N., but in accordance with resolutions issued by that Dunsel body. No laws were violated, either at the national or international level.

As for the allegations of torture, the people subjected to water boarding and other tactics, are not protected by the Geneva Convention. They are not uniformed combatants, but terrorists, and are subject to the same rules as mercenaries and spies where the Geneva Convention is concerned. That means that they can be executed without trial, not that I would advocate doing so.

I can't say I like the idea of water boarding terrorists, but I am unaware of any law preventing it. Our military routinely subjects its own personnel to that treatment, so how can it be illegal?

How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?

It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an "imminent threat" to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks -- another blatant falsehood.

Again, lots of problems with McGovern's claims. It was never stated that Hussein had nuclear weapons, only that he was pursuing them; we have recovered over 500 chemical weapons (as of the2006 declassification of military documents on the subject), not counting the two that terrorists attempted to use in roadside bombs (one armed with mustard gas, the second armed with sarin nerve gas). Add to that the munitions banned under the cease-fire agreement that have been recovered, including the multi-warhead missiles manufactured by France and dated "2002," and you've got confirmed cases of "horrifying banned weapons" in possession of a rogue regime controlled by a totalitarian dictator who murdered at least a half-million of his own people. As for claims that Iraq was involved with 9/11, go back and check the records; you will find that the administration never made such claims; it stated that Hussein and his regime were sponsors of terror and provided some logistical support to al-Qeada; it never claimed Iraq was involved with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Consider the difference between the policies of the first President Bush and those of his son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United Nations, the European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of getting bogged down in a costly occupation, the administration established a policy of containing the Baathist regime with international arms inspectors, no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable country with little or no capacity to threaten others.

No Declaration of War there, either. Also, note that had the earlier President Bush finished the job and removed Hussein we would not have had to go in there in 2003 to get the job done.

There is more moonbattiness in the entire piece. I have no idea what McGovern has been smoking, but one thing is for sure. He is a Class-A Moonbat. Congratualtions Mr. McGovern, you are the latest recipient of the Moonbat Award.

Tags:

McGovern Iraq War Bush Impeachment al-Qaeda Weapons of Mass Destruction Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Iowa Caucus has spoken: Obama wins in that state for the Democratic Party and Huckabee wins for the GOP. This is a mixed bag of nuts for me. I am not surprised by the outcome. I am delighted that Hillary got her Donkey handed to her by Obama. Not sure how I feel about the GOP outcome. Admittedly, I hoped to see it turn out to be a closer contest between Huckabee and Romney, and not such a wide margin. It would have been nice if Thompson had beat McCain by more than a point. But such is life and politics.

I caught part of some of the speeches on the drive home from my Townhall Meetup meeting (the Ron Paulite that promised to be there was a no show!) and I must admit that I was very impressed by Huckabee's speech. He spoke of the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and how "a soldier fights not because he hates those in front of him but because he loves those that are behind him." This resonated very well with me, and I give him credit for that. If he keeps making speeches like that, then he could become our next president. Not sure how I feel about that, and I may change my mind about him…again. I guess this means I'll have to review his position statements on the issues. We'll see how things shake out in the next few weeks.

The other speeches I caught parts of were John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, neither of whom spoke of the founding of our nation like Huckabee. Hillary said, where our nation is concerned, it is time to start over again. and beat up on the Bush Administration.

As usual. Edwards was a "homeboy" type speech and just didn't do anything for me.

I did not hear Obama's or any of the other GOP candidate speeches. I have no doubt that I will be treated to sound bites on the morning commute.

Tags:

Iowa Caucus Hillary Obama Huckabee

Posted by Sqotty at 10:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Former Congressman Cynthia "Assault and Battery" McKinney is using the Green Party in an attempt to make her self relevant again after she was voted from office in 2006. How? By running for the Green Party presidential nomination. How about that? An irrelevant former congressman running for president in an irrelevant political party.

From CNSNews:

"The Republicans have deceived us; the Democrats have failed us," McKinney said in a video news release posted on the runcynthiarun.org Web site last week to announce her candidacy for the White House. "It is time for a new beginning, a time for hope to rise from the ashes of despair.

Well, she is half-right, the Democrats have failed the hard-left in pushing the agenda of surrender in Iraq. I have yet to see any one who makes the claim that Republicans have deceived us actually prove it. Probably because there was never any deceit involved in our Liberating Iraq. There may have been some mistakes made, due to bad intelligence, but there has been no deceit, except on the part of Democrats like Cynthia McKinney.

She goes on to claim that the war in Iraq is: "illegal, immoral and undeclared." There she isn't even half-right. It may be undeclared, but there is nothing illegal about it, and liberating the people of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein (who murdered a half-million of his own people) is about as immoral as our liberating Europe from NAZI Germany in 1945. War was also used to end slavery in the United States. Was that also immoral? as for the war in Iraq being undeclared, let's look at some other wars that were also undeclared: the U.S. entry into WW2 (although a declaration of war did come after the first bombs were dropped), the Korean War, Vietnam War, Grenada, the Gulf War, Mogadishu, Bosnia, and the liberation of Afghanistan. And those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

Why is it that the left calls only the Wars in Iraq, both of them, as being "illegal, immoral and undeclared?" Why is it they only get bent out of shape when the U.S. is involved in a war, but not when the aggressors, whether it was Iraq when it invaded Kuwait, or the soviet Union when it invaded Afghanistan, or North Vietnam when it invaded South Vietnam for the final time? I could probably list a hundred other wars, but I think this is enough to get the point across.

According to McKinney, who is also described as "no stranger to controversy and unafraid of speaking truth to power," it is time to "break the vicious cycle where the poor go to war and veterans come home wounded and ignored."

Well, she is "no stranger to" hitting police officers who are only attempting to do their job, then screaming "racism" when called on the carpet for it. And this isn't the Vietnam War we're talking about, where the hard-left, people like McKinney, are the ones who spat upon are soldiers and called them "baby killers" when they returned home from that war. And her claim that it is "the poor" who go to war is also false. Even during Vietnam when there was a draft, this wasn't entirely true. Okay, there were people of wealth and privilege, like Bill Clinton, who milked the system in order to avoid military service, and many others who went to Canada. But there were also many people of wealth and privilege who served in Vietnam.

And if it is only "the poor" who are going to war, then why are active duty re-enlistments at record levels?

On the flip side, McKinney's campaign site gives yet one more reason to NOT support Ron Paul. One of the comments posted there reads:

I'm actually a Ron Paul supporter and was recently thinking "I hope Ron gets the republican nomination and runs with Cynthia McKinney."

That combination could cause me to vote for Hillary.

Tags:

McKinney 2008 President Green Party Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 4:59 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently Hillary Clinton and the hard-left have still not gotten over the fact that hey lost the 2000 election. Hillary had this to say in the latest rounds of debates (from MyWay news):

"I think we were making progress in the 1990s and I am very proud of the progress we were making until, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush, and we have been living with the consequences ever since," Clinton said.

This ignores completely the fact that the Gore campaign attempted to steal the election by having the Florida courts change Florida's election laws after the election took place; it ignores that thousands of voters in Florida were disenfranchised by the liberal media siding with Gore, calling the election for Gore before the polls were closed. This is especially galling as the Florida panhandle is in a different time zone and voter turnout there was substantially lower than normal. And finally it ignores the facts that the Gore attempted to have the absentee ballots of military service members serving overseas thrown out on a technicality (through no fault of the service members) and have the votes of convicted felons counted.

The Supreme court of the U.S. only stepped in because someone had to straighten out the Constitutional mess that the gore Campaign and the Democrats created. They did not give the election to Bush in any way shape or form.

The article goes on to include statements by her competitors for the Democratic Nomination:

Chimed in Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, "Whether it's fair or not fair, the fact of the matter is that my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, there are 50 percent of the American public that say they're not going to vote for her."

We'll set aside the fact that according to Democratic standards, Dodd should be considered AWOL during Vietnam. He misses a very important point: Bill Clinton never achieved 50% of the popular vote (unlike Bush who achieved over 50% of the popular vote in 2004). In 1992 he only achieved roughly 42%, a couple of hundred thousand votes (and a fraction of a percent) of the popular vote over then President George H. W. Bush. It does not take a majority of the popular vote to win the presidency; it takes a majority of votes in the Electoral College to win.

Despite what Dems claim, I still think she is their most likely choice, and also one of the greatest threat to the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life.

Tags:

Hillary Democrat Liberal Dodd Debates Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Sometimes I question President's Bush judgement. Not often, mind you, but sometimes, especially where the issue of illegal aliens is involved.

Newsday is carrying an article about a deal cut between President Bush and the State of New York where New York will implement a new form of secure driver's licenses in exchange to being able to issue them to illegal aliens. From the Newsday article:

The deal comes about one month after New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced a plan whereby illegal immigrants with a valid foreign passport could obtain a license.

Saturday's agreement with the Homeland Security Department will create a three-tier license system in New York. It is the largest state to sign on so far to the government's post-Sept. 11 effort to make identification cards more secure.

Spitzer, who has faced much criticism on the issue, said the deal means New York "will usher in the most secure licensing system in the nation."

Quite frankly, New York can implement this system of secure licenses without a provision for issuing them to illegal aliens. That New York is implementing the issue of driver's licenses to illegal aliens is not surprising as Spitzer is a hard-left Democrat.

Tags:

New York Spitzer Bush Dubya

Posted by Sqotty at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Mark Morford, an SF Gate columnist, has a lot to say this week about the state of the American education system and the quality of the education our children are receiving. It opens with him talking about a guy he knows that teaches at Oakland High School and is nearing retirement, and how this friend is so shocked at the low performance of the average student that he fears the U.S. will collapse and is considering moving to another country after he retires. By the time I finished the article, I figure his retirement country of choice is most likely France.

The piece, however, starts off simply enough, and I agree with some of what Morford has to say:

And he often writes to me in response to something I might've written about the youth of today, anything where I comment on the various nefarious factors shaping their minds and their perspectives and whether or not, say, EMFs and junk food and cell phones are melting their brains and what can be done and just how bad it might all be.

I'm not sure what an EMF is, but certainly the amount of junk food is having a devastating effect on kids, with obesity become more rampant than ever before. I am also surprised how many kids, albeit teenagers, have their own cell phones these days. They watch way too much TV (something I was guilty of as a kid). Not to mention computer games and iPods and other technology that helps dumb kids down.

Nor does he speak merely of the notion that kids these days are overprotected and wussified and don't spend enough time outdoors and don't get any real exercise and therefore can't, say, identify basic plants, or handle a tool, or build, well, anything at all. Again, these things are a given. Widely reported, tragically ignored, nothing new.

Wussified? Yep, I'll buy that. I've been seeing that happening, If they can't identify basic plants, handle a hammer or a screw driver, or any number of basic tools, who the heck is to blame and why is it happening? The basic starting point for a child's education lies with the parents, and that's the bottom line. God, I am glad my wife is able to be a stay-at-home mom, as I would hate to see what our daughter would be turning out like if she were in day care five days a week, which is where the vast majority of children spend their most formative years. Sure, she gets to watch a little bit of TV, but that doesn't mean her brain is getting fried, and it is on a very limited basis, less than an hour a day. Okay, maybe that's still too much.

Now it gets fun…

We are, as far as urban public education is concerned, essentially at rock bottom. We are now at a point where we are essentially churning out ignorant teens who are becoming ignorant adults and society as a whole will pay dearly, very soon, and if you think the hordes of easily terrified, mindless fundamentalist evangelical Christian lemmings have been bad for the soul of this country, just wait.

"Hordes of easily terrified, mindless fundamentalist evangelical Christian lemming have been bad for the soul of this country?" We now know exactly where this guy is coming from. His anti-Christian attitude, so prevalent on the Left, has surfaced. The Left, having fallen in love with the term "fundamentalist" insists on applying it to Christians with a negative connotation. There isn't such a thing as a fundamentalist Christian. Apparently, in his view, anyone who is a Christian is a mindless lemming. I think the fact of the matter is Morford believes anyone who disagrees with him must be a mindless lemming and bad for this country. By the way, countries do not have souls, people have souls.

There are ignorant people coming out of the school systems, but, again, where does the fault lie?

Morford goes on to relate how his imaginary friend (nowhere in the opinion piece is this person identified, so he could be like those unidentified world leaders Kerry used to claim bumping into at various times, urging him on) is dismayed that none of his students know how to use a ruler or define "agriculture" or "democracy".

It is, in short, nothing less than a tidal wave of dumb, with once-passionate, increasingly exasperated teachers like my friend nearly powerless to stop it. The worst part: It's not the kids' fault. They're merely the victims of a horribly failed educational system.

And why has our education system failed? Because of the Liberal Left that has done its utmost to foul things up. The best way to muck things up is by establishing a Federal bureaucracy. The U.S. Department of Education was established in 1979 by Jimmy Carter (I should have guessed!) and the Democrats who controlled Congress at that time. Once it was established, it went in and began messing up what was still a reasonably good education system. Get rid of the Dept. of Education and return things to local control, and we'll begin to see some improvements.

We also need to make sure that every family has a choice in how their children are educated, and are not forced to support a public school system that consistently fails to deliver results. School choice (something that pro-choicers should be able to get behind, if they truly believe they are "pro-choice"), whether through voucher systems, charter schools (a hot button ballot issue in Eagan, MN this year), access to private schools, home schooling. Families need to be able to have choices and pay for those choices, and not be forced into the public school systems that continue to fail their children (and I don't mean fail as in hold back a year in school). Public schools are turning more and more into indoctrination centers on many political issues, including, and most extensively, theories behind the cause of the current warming trend of the Earth's climate.

Then our discussion often turns to the meat of it, the bigger picture, the ugly and unavoidable truism about the lack of need among the government and the power elite in this nation to create a truly effective educational system, one that actually generates intelligent, thoughtful, articulate citizens.

Hell, why should they? After all, the dumber the populace, the easier it is to rule and control and launch unwinnable wars and pass laws telling them that sex is bad and TV is good and God knows all, so just pipe down and eat your Taco Bell Double-Supremo Burrito and be glad we don't arrest you for posting dirty pictures on your cute little blog.

Yep, here's the meat as Morford moonbats about the war in Iraq and other points. He really believes the stuff he is spewing out. First off, I am not aware of any laws proclaiming "that sex is bad or TV is good and god knows all" nor am I aware of anyone being busted for posting dirty pictures on their blog, unless it included kiddie porn. Blogs with "dirty pictures" are not something I would consider cute.

I have no doubt that the dumbing down of the American population will make it easier to control them as we see more examples of it everyday. And we have the Liberal-Left to thank for that.

I shouldn't be surprised by his attitude, he writes for a San Francisco based publication. He is, however, a definite example of the failures of our education system, which only proves the point his imaginary friend has made. With people like Morford running the future of America, maybe we'd all be better off moving to France.

Morford is a prime example of the master plan of the Liberal Leftist Elites succeeding in their campaign to control the population. It worked on him, but I'll be d@mned if I'll let it work on my children.

Tags:

Morford SF Gate Moonbat Education

Posted by Sqotty at 5:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I ran across a good opinion piece in the SF Chronicle online edition about my former congressman, Pete Stark. I lived in his district before moving to Minnesota, so it is a good thing to know what he's been up to. In this opinion piece Debra Saunders describes Stark as the Ann Coulter of the Democrat Party. That actually describes about half of the Democrat Party.

Last week, after President Bush vetoed a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover not only poor but also middle-class children, Stark accused Republicans of wanting "to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send them to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked Stark for his "inappropriate" comments.

This is a very sick statement on two counts: first that Republicans are only interested in killing innocent people and second that the president finds getting American soldiers killed as an entertaining past time. Fortunately I never voted for him, not because he's a Democrat but because he is a lousy congressman. Spewing a contemptible statement like that confirms my long standing opinion of him. Question for Stark: did you say the same thing about Kennedy and LBJ for Vietnam? How about Clinton with Somalia and Kosovo?

Stark, after finding himself in hot water, issued the following statement: "I have nothing but respect for our brave men and women in uniform and wish them the very best. But I respect neither the commander in chief who keeps them in harm's way nor the chicken hawks in Congress who vote to deny children health care."

Actually, he doesn't show a lot of respect for our troops by making outrageous statements. Further, he continues to show his moonbattiness by bundling socialized medicine (health care for children) into his reasons for not having respect for the president.

Surprisingly, Stark served in the Air Force in the '50s (was he drafted?), post Korean War. He was also anti-Vietnam War and had checks printed with the "peace sign" on it and even had one on the roof of the bank he started. He's may not be a chicken dove, but he is still a moonbat.

As Saunders points out in her piece, we are back to the return of the Chicken Hawks for another fun-filled campaign season. Saunders points out several interesting facts about the current field of candidates running for president and a bit of recent history:

Sure, in 2004 Democrats hurled the "chicken hawk" epithet at George W. Bush, who took America to war in Iraq even though he only served as a pilot in the Air National Guard. Then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who had no apparent qualms about President Bill Clinton's evasion of the draft, charged that Bush was "AWOL" during Vietnam.

You see, Democrats had nominated John F. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, who had voted for the Iraq war resolution. So, just years after President Clinton put U.S. forces into the former Yugoslavia and sent bombers over Iraq, Democrats argued that only a combat vet was suited to serve in the White House and put U.S. troops in harm's way. In that mind set, Kerry addressed the Democratic National Convention in martial terms: "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty."

The Democrats are very one-sided in their views on the military, especially when it comes to the Vietnam era. Clinton was a draft dodger, milking the system for all that it was worth by getting deferments. The Dems shoot back that Cheney also did so, ignoring the fact that Cheney was already close to being exempt from the draft when Vietnam was going on (I'm not sure about this, but I seem to recall that the draft was for those between the ages of 18 and 27, Cheney, being 5 years older than Clinton, had a lower likelihood of being drafted during the war). Basically, the Dems blast Cheney about his draft deferments but not Clinton.

What is worse is the Dems treatment of President Bush's service in the Air National Guard, during which service he flew one of the most dangerous (to the pilot) fighter aircraft in the inventory, and volunteered for a program called "Palace Alert", which, had he been accepted into the program, would have had Bush flying combat missions in Vietnam. This is hardly the mark of someone who was AWOL, despite the rantings of Dan Rather.

The Dems then wrapped themselves in the Flag and pushed hard for a combat veteran, preferably of the Vietnam era. They ended up with John Kerry and lost the election with Bush getting over 51% of the vote (and funny how they still claim he doesn't have a mandate, even though Clinton never broke the 50 percentile and they claim Clinton did have a mandate).

This year the field is truly interesting, as Saunders points out:

In 2008, Democratic hopefuls are twice as likely to have been in law school than in boot camp. Among eight Democrats, Mike Gravel served in the Army from 1951-1954, while Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who voted for the Iraq war resolution, served in the Army Reserves. By McAuliffe's lights, Dodd was AWOL.

Based on the 2004 election cycle, the only candidate that should be acceptable to the Dems is Mike Gravel, as all of the others never served or, as McAuliffe would say, AWOL. Meanwhile, the GOP has John McCain (not my favorite, but is gaining traction with me) whose story in the Vietnam War we all know, and Duncan Hunter, a decorated Vietnam Veteran. Oh, yeah, there's also Ron Paul.

Quite a contrast.

Of the Dems, both Hillary and John "Never Served" Edwards voted FOR the Liberation of Iraq. Barrack "Never Served Chicken Dove" Obama claims that if he were a senator then he would have voted against. Maybe that's true, but claims of what one would have done in office don't count.

Three years ago, Democrats shamelessly donned a military mantle. In a display of craven opportunism, they embraced an argument that seemed phony then, and now has vanished. They argued their candidate was better because he was a combat vet. Today none of the Dems' top three candidates has a military record.

Saunders his right on the money on this one.

Meanwhile, back to my former congressman Pete Stark, I have this to say to you: congratulations Congressman Stark, you are the latest winner of the Moonbat Award.

Tags:

Pete Stark Moonbat Chicken Hawks Chicken Doves Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This was in the Opinion pages of the Star Tribune the other day. It's by a left-wingnut complaining about the lack of participation at a recent rally to support terrorism (they call them "peace" rallies). In it she writes:

In Ken Burns' recent series, "The War," a veteran says the military knew that the longest a person could endure combat before going totally nuts was 240 days. We've been in Iraq roughly 1,650 days now, and though God knows most of us haven't been asked to do much more than sell off our children's future, I think we're all going a little nuts.

When people talk about the longest time a person can withstand the stresses of combat as being 240 days, they are talking 240 consecutive days on the battle lines without any rest and recreation time. The same logic she uses to come up with 1,650 days in Iraq as being equivalent to 240 consecutive days of combat would mean that the 1,346 days of WW2 for the U.S. would mean that every serviceman during that war should have gone nuts. She also fails to acknowledge that our troops serving in Iraq (and Afghanistan) receive regular R and R. They even had a gaming convention back in June (and a successful one at that).

This is not to say our troops in Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Kosovo, where we have been involved even longer) are not under substantial stress, 'cause thy are. This is why the deployments are limited in duration, anywhere from four months to 16 months (last I heard, that's the max). Then they come back to the States. After a chance to recuperate and rearm, they are sometimes deployed for a second (or third) tour. But all during the time of their deployment they get time off to kick back and relax (as best as one can under these circumstances).

She also claims that we are selling off our children's futures, yet Congress does exactly that when they increase taxes to provide welfare to people to lazy to get a job, or insists on top-down management of our local schools when it should be left to the municipality involved (the more layers of bureaucracy, the more things cost and the less you get for your bucks), or fails to secure our borders and deal with the illegal immigrant problem.

Then she rants about how Republicans don't care about children, health care and schooling. The fact of the matter is that we do care. Health care is a parental responsibility (something I take serious where my daughter is concerned) and education is very important and parents should have the right to choose the best education for their children and pay for that which they use. What I mean by that is that school vouchers should be implemented so that all parents have a choice and maybe the public schools will get their act together. We also need to get the Feds out of our public schools. They cause dramatic increases in the costs for zero benefit.

Iraq is a never-ending nightmare, and the Decider's mind seems decided on something catastrophic for Iran. We're drowning in debt. Our health-care system is great -- for those who can afford it. It's October and 80 degrees outside. Creepy.

Nightmare? She hasn't been over there so how would she know what it is like (I haven't either). It may well be a nightmare for the Iraqis being targeted by al Qaeda terrorists there and the sectarian death squads. It is certainly becoming a nightmare for those murdering thugs that insist on killing innocent Iraqi civilians.

Something catastrophic for Iran? We have Jimmy Carter to thank for that if we do have to go into Iran to stop them from becoming the purveyor of nuclear materials to al-Qaeda.

Drowning in debt? Yep, that has been the American way for way to long, and our government isn't any better. That's one point we agree on, but for differing reasons. I suspect she is ticked off about the cost of the war whereas I am concerned about all the wasteful spending like that bridge to nowhere in Alaska, the need to reform welfare so that people are not simply getting a handout, privatizing Social Security so that my children will have something to bank on rather than getting bilked as my generation is. Our health-care system is great, and no one has ever been denied emergency medical services, regardless of ability to pay. That's why Mexico sends ambulances across the border to border town hospitals and dumps their poor on our system.

October and 80 degrees? Maybe I missed something the first week of October here in Minnesota, but it didn't hit that while I was in California, and it hasn't been much above 50 since I got back a week ago.

I could go on (and on), but why bother.

Tags:

Susan Lenfestey Moonbat Star Tribune Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Jimmy Carter is back in the news in a big way, slamming the Bush Administration and calling Cheney the biggest disaster for this country since Jimmy Carter. Okay, I'm editorializing a bit there.

From Reuters:

"You know he's been a disaster for our country," Carter said.

At least Cheney hasn't brought us double-digit inflation like Carter, nor has he allowed an ally to be deposed and his country taken over by Islamic extremists as happened to Iran in the '70s, thanks to Carter, nor has he helped a Communist dictatorship achieve nuclear weapons as Carter helped North Korea by brokering that nuclear power plant deal with the Clintons.

"He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world," Carter told the BBC World News America in an interview to air later on Wednesday.

Like Clinton with Somalia and Bosnia? At least Bush and Cheney didn't use the Liberation of Iraq as a means of shifting media attention away from extra-marital affairs like Clinton.

It sounds to me as though Carter is still bitter over his own failures as President and the fact that HIS Administration was the worst in American history. (This is not an opinion but a fact.)

Tags:

Carter Moonbat Cheney Bush Iran Iraq Clinton

Posted by Sqotty at 6:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

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:

Scheer Biden SF Gate Iraq MRAP

Posted by Sqotty at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

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:

Dingell Loons Gone Wild Carbon Tax Economy Congress Energy

Posted by Sqotty at 8:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Soros OSI Democracy Alliance MoveOn Source Watch

Posted by Sqotty at 5:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Obama Hillary Social Security Taxes

Posted by Sqotty at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Hillary Clinton Democrat Petreus MoveOn Obama Biden

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

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:

Newt Gingrich GOP

Posted by Sqotty at 6:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Clfford D. May Iraq Star Tribune Churchill War Election

Posted by Sqotty at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

Posted by Sqotty at 7:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Obama president Iraq Vietnam Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 5:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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. 8 CBS/New York Times poll found that 30 percent of Americans supported removing all troops from Iraq, while 35 percent supported decreasing the troop presence there. The poll did not ask respondents about a timeframe for withdrawal.

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

Posted by Sqotty at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Pelosi Congress Iraq Petreus Vietnam chickendove Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Petreus MoveOn.org Kerry Hillary Obama Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 8:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

Posted by Sqotty at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Sanchez Petreus Iraq 9/11 Star Tribune

Posted by Sqotty at 7:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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.

Download file

"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:

MoveOn.org Petreus Betray Us Iraq Pariser chickendove

Posted by Sqotty at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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:

Al Gore Internet Election 2000 Florida

Posted by Sqotty at 6:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I received an email from Senator Barbara Moonbat Boxer the other day. To my (lack of) surprise, she is once again showing her complete and total ignorance of what a U.S. pull out from Iraq will mean to the millions of Iraqis, as well as a complete lack of knowledge of the impact of the U.S. withdrawal and consequent abandonment of South Vietnam.

In Boxer's email, she writes:

Did you hear President Bush last week talking about Iraq? Instead of listening to the vast majority of the American people on Iraq, President Bush is talking about how wrong it was to leave Vietnam.

I hate to break the news to you, but Bush is right about Vietnam. When we pulled out, the North Vietnamese moved in (just as Iran will do to Iraq the moment we pull out). Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese were put in gulags, and tens of thousands of people were murdered.

Things were worse in Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge liquidated over a third of the population, over two million people were murdered, while the rest of the population were used as slave labor.

That is what happened when we abandoned South Vietnam, at the insistence of the Democrats who ran Congress.

Democrats like Boxer are not ashamed of what happened in Vietnam, and, obviously, are willing to sacrifice millions of Iraqis to a similar fate, this time at the hands of a brutal totalitarian theocracy. Should we abandon Iraq, as we did Southeast Asia, the millions of Iraqis that have supported their liberation from tyranny and aided the formation of a democratically elected government will be forfeit.

Well, just a reminder to this President: U.S. troops stayed in Vietnam, in the middle of a civil war, for more than ten long and painful years. More than 50,000 of our young people died, countless wounded mentally and physically. Suicides and homelessness still follow too many of our Vietnam veterans. How many more would have died if George W. Bush had been President in the 1970's? How many more of our troops and innocent Iraqis will die if we don't finally end this war?

Yes, over 50,000 Americans died, and many thousands more were injured in Vietnam. As for the "suicides and homelessness" of Vietnam veterans, it is thanks to the hard-left that took control of the Democratic Party in the late '60s and early '70s that we have to thank for that. Instead of a hero's welcome, they were spat upon by the chickendoves, and called baby killers; even John Flipper Kerry referred to them as being nothing more than killing machines and war criminals.

Although how many Americans and Iraqis will die if we continue to work with Iraq in ending the terrorism and sectarian violence is valid, it is also valid, and critical, to ask "how many Iraqis will be murdered should we let the terrorists win?" We should also ask how many Americans will die at the hands of terrorists if we surrender to them now, as they will be greatly emboldened to carry out more and bloodier attacks against the U.S.

Boxer clearly doesn't understand what is at stake in Iraq, nor does she care.

Congratulations Senator Boxer, you are a Moonbat. I think we'll start calling you Senator Moonbat instead.

Tags:

Iran Iraq Boxer Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Presidential Candidate John Cox of Illinois was the only candidate present at the Minnesota Straw Poll held this week. as such, he gave a good speech to the couple of hundred Minnesotans present for the event.

A shot video of his speech, splitting it into two parts so that it will fit into YouTubes 10 minute parameter for videos.

Part 1 of John Cox

Part 2 of John Cox

A lot of what Cox said resonates well with me, and I suspect with others as well. That being said, there were two points he made in regard to Iraq that put me off. The first is that he said if the current, democratically elected, government of Iraq doesn't get off its keester and get its political act together, we can and should replace it, just as we got rid of Saddam Hussein. The second is that we need to get Iraq's oil producing infrastructure up and fully operational and moving to the U.S.

The second point is the shorter one to explain why it bugs me, so I'll start with it. By complaining about the lack of oil production in post-war Iraq, and the need to get it flowing plays into the leftist mantra that Iraq is a "war for oil." This is not to say that he shouldn't make mention of oil production in Iraq, but the way it is phrased is important.

The way he presents it makes it sound as though we are entitled to the oil (or, more accurately, it's our oil). Getting oil production up and running to full capacity is important for Iraq for a number of reasons: Job creation, stabilizing the economy, and bringing in desperately needed revenues to facilitate the reconstruction of Iraq. It should not matter to whom Iraq sells their oil to (however I would prefer it not go to communist countries like China), and, sure, I would prefer it end up in our gas tanks in the long haul. But that is secondary to using the oil production to getting Iraq back on its feet, which is the primary goal.

Current oil production in Iraq is about 2 million barrels per day, only slightly below the target production of 2.1 million barrels. All in all, that's not too shabby a record.

As for the point on replacing the government of Iraq, Cox needs to remember that it is a democratically elected government, and as such, it should not be our decision to replacing it with something that might be more "friendly" to us. It is also an ally, and one should not threaten to remove our allies from power.

There have been numerous mistakes made in Iraq, including by the government that we helped to build and hope to see achieve good things. The Iraqi government has, with our blessing, made deals with murdering thugs like Muqtada al-Sadr, who is more interested in destabilizing the government and bringing in a totalitarian theocracy such as that which rules its neighbor, Iran.

Iraq also has to deal with rebuilding all of its infrastructure, particularly its military and police forces. This is a big job, and even though there are plenty of Iraqis who have shown the willingness to step up to the plate, they have also made themselves big targets for the terrorists. How many police stations and recruitment depots have been bombed killing and wounding hundreds of people?

On the upside, Cox resonates well on many of the issues.

He supports replacing the IRS with the "Fair Tax," which is a good move as it will encourage savings and investment by placing the tax burden on consumption.

He gets border security and illegal immigration. As he said, we don't need to reform our immigration laws but enforce the current laws.

In fact, he is right on the money on nearly issue.

It's just on those two points on Iraq that I found to be a turnoff. I hope that if he reads this he'll understand where I am coming from and reconsider his position on those two points. If he does, he will resonate much better with the mainstream Conservatives that make up the GOP.

Tags:

Minnesota HRCC GOP Cox Straw Poll

Posted by Sqotty at 8:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

The Washington Times is running a piece on an Op-Ed that Rep. John Boehner wrote for Townhall.com this week. The thrust of both articles is how the GOP can regain the majority in Congress in 2008. I think Boehner hit it out of the park.

In his Op-Ed at Townhall.com, Boehner talks about what he has learned from constituents at local town hall meetings; what is important to Americans: border security, illegal aliens, the price of energy, health care, and more.

Mr. Boehner said Republicans can take back control of Congress next year with a focus on conservative principles, despite sluggish fundraising numbers and poll numbers that favor Democrats.

Yep, it can be done…the question is: will it be done?

House Republicans are hoping to build enthusiasm with their base by focusing on issues like immigration, the Democratic leadership and, to a lesser extent, the war in Iraq. They say this re-branding with the base, if successful, will pay off in increased financial contributions in time for next year's elections.

"You can always count on the Democrats to behave like Democrats," said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Ken Spain. "While they continue to falter, we need to continue to provide a clear alternative."

It isn't so much a need to "re-brand" but to go back to the roots that has made Conservatism successful: limited government, lower taxes which stimulates economic growth, and enforcing our immigration laws, just to name a few of the issues.

Boehner raises good points in his piece, including:

America faces the problem of rising health care costs. Millions of Americans go without health care every year, and Democrats have refused to let small businesses offer high-quality coverage and prevented workers from taking their coverage from job to job. In Ohio, people were asking why Democrats cut free market Medicare Advantage programs to pay for health benefits for illegal immigrants. And they were concerned by Democrats' plan to expand government-run bureaucratic health care to families making up to $82,000 a year, cleverly billed as an extension of "children's health insurance." We need less government and more health care; Democrats just want more government.

There are a lot of people who rail about government being too involved in their lives, including the so-called "surveillance society" of easier eavesdropping on international phone calls involving known terrorists. Yet these same people want to entrust the government with managing their health care decisions. This makes no sense! But then Liberal/Progressives rarely do make any sense.

One of the biggest issues with health care, aside from escalating costs, is being able to transport your coverage when transitioning between jobs. There are stories around about how someone with a long-term health issue is unable to get continued coverage for it when changing jobs as the new insurer refuses to cover pre-existing conditions. Maybe they found a loop hole in the coverage when people are transitioning, maybe those people made a bad choice for interim coverage that caused the loss of their condition being covered. However, there needs to be a better way of handling it so someone doesn't get surprised by the loss of coverage on a long term/permanent illness (like diabetes).

As for government pushing its health care plan on me, no thanks. When they can't, or are unwilling, to enforce our laws, how can I trust them to manage my health care? And will it be as good as what I have now, or will it be reduced to Canada Care, where everyone waits in line?

Too many Republicans believe the way to win is to lean left in order to appear "moderate." This doesn't work as the people that such politicians are attempting to appeal to will never vote for a Republican. The "fiscal conservative, social liberal" Republicans end up alienating the Conservative base and still lose to the hard-core liberal-progressives.

The bottom line is that Boehner is right: The way to win in 2008 is to get back to our conservative roots and rediscover Reaganism (minus amnesty for illegals, Reagan's one great mistake). Cut the spending and the taxes, grow the economy, secure the border, enforce the laws and win the war.

We need to open up new sources of oil production, including drilling in ANWR and the outer continental shelf. We need to embrace nuclear energy rather than live in fear of it. And we need to let Americans do what they do best: innovate without the shackles of excessive taxation.

Tags:

Boehner Republicans GOP

Posted by Sqotty at 4:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

In 2006 John Kerry said that if you don't do well in school you get stuck in Iraq. This year Barack Obama has said that our military is doing nothing but air raiding villages and killing civilians in Afghanistan. Kerry wanted to be president and lost to George W. Bush. Obama wants to be President; hopefully he will also go down in defeat.

Yet they both echo the reigning sentiments of the Democratic Party and the hard-left that controls the party's agenda.

The Gateway Pundit posed this question:

Why do democrats hate the military so much?

It's a good question.

Another one to ask is: Why would I want one of them to be "Commander in Chief" of our Armed Forces? This is especially relevant for those currently serving in uniform. Do you want someone in the position of command who thinks you are doing nothing but "air raiding villages and killing civilians?"

As a former serviceman, USAF in the '80s, I would not want for my Commander in Chief who thinks that that is all our military does.

Obama has also threatened to invade Pakistan, one of our allies in the region. Pakistan may not be a role-model of Democracy, however the government there is struggling to keep radical Islam in check. If Obama were to invade Pakistan, we would end up with greater problems in the Middle East than we now have, as well as another war. By attacking an ally we would deservedly become a country that could not be trusted.

Obama talks tough when it comes to the dictatorial regime of Castro in Cuba, and how America should spread and encourage democracy. Yet he has always stood against the removal of the murdering tyrant who ruled Iraq with a blood-soaked iron fist, and would prefer to send that country back down the road of tyranny rather than standing strong with the fledgling democratically elected government.

Another major consideration for selecting a president is to remember that whomever we elect will have their finger on the proverbial "button," control of our nuclear arsenal.

Both Hillary and Obama have made statements that the use of nuclear weapons is never an option. This sends a green light to the dictators of Iran, China and North Korea that they can expect to have carte blanche should either of these two be elected. It also sends a signal to the terrorists that they should continue their pursuit to gain nuclear materials from their benefactors, especially Iran.

Bill Clinton was well known for his disdain of the responsibility of the nuclear arsenal by losing the launch codes and frequently leaving behind the man with the nuclear "football" when traveling by motorcade. (Read Dereliction of Duty by Robert Patterson.)

It would also explain the current trend in Russia as President Putin rebuilds its military and undertakes military exercises with Communist China, as well as sending out long range bomber patrols reminiscent of the cold war.

Whomever we choose as president to succeed Bush has got to be able to understand that it is one thing to disdain the use of nuclear weapons and another to be always vigilant in the event that their use is necessitated. And a prospective president, or any member of Congress for that matter, should never disparage the men and women who choose to serve our country in the Armed Forces of the United States.

As the 2008 Campaign for the Presidency goes into full swing, those are truly important questions to ask yourself: What kind of commander in Chief will they be, and how well can they handle the responsibility of managing, and, God forbid, using our nuclear arsenal.

Tags:

Obama Hillary Democrats Military

Posted by Sqotty at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is looking for a bumper sticker slogan for the 2008 campaign.

Here's my recommendation: "We Surrender!"

You can find the slogan center at: BS Slogan

Tags:

DSCC We Surrender Democrat

Posted by Sqotty at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

There is a proposed ballot initiative in California that would change the way it allocates electoral votes in the electoral college from a winner take all to allocation by congressional district with the overall winner of the state receiving an additional 2 electoral votes.

As California has the most electoral power, with 55 electors, in the country, this change would translate into a more balanced representation of the people in the election of our president. It will also mean that candidates will have to spend more time (and money) campaigning in the state as they can no longer afford to ignore the more rural regions of California. It will really change the dynamics of presidential elections in that state.

From CSN News:

Supporters call the plan more democratic because it would better represent the popular vote. But critics say it would needlessly tamper with the Electoral College for purely partisan gains.

Both sides of the debate have valid points, however there was a move by Democrats to make this same kind of change in Colorado a few years ago for the exact same reason: to divide up the electoral power to get better representation.

Quite frankly, I am in favor of such a change, especially starting with the largest states in the Union. I hate the idea of living in a state where my vote doesn't matter as it is a forgone conclusion that the other guy will get all of the electoral votes. Having electors chosen by Congressional District is more in keeping with how the Founders set up the electoral process. Each state is accorded electors based on their Congressional Delegation. That's one for each Congressional District plus two for the state overall.

The Founding Fathers also left it up to the individual states to determine how their electors are allocated.

In an interview with Cybercast News Service, Kevin Eckery, a spokesman for Hiltachk, said California is in the frustrating situation of having 55 electoral votes -- 21 or 22 more than any other state -- but because it leans either solidly Republican or Democrat, politicians tend to take its electoral votes for granted.

This is a darn good point. Of course, I don't know if California has leaned Republican since Ronald Reagan. It certainly hasn't in the last four election cycles.

As for taking California for granted, that makes since. Why should a candidate spend substantial amounts of money in a state he knows he has no chance of carrying. Whereas, if electors are decided by Congressional Districts, they will naturally want to spend time in California, most likely focusing on districts where they have a chance of getting good results, like San Diego for the GOP or San Francisco for the Democrats.

Eckery added that adopting the Maine-Nebraska model would be an improvement over the current "winner-take-all" method of choosing electors.

"In the case of presidential elections ... all it takes is a plurality of votes in California, and you win everything. President Clinton, for example, in 1992 carried 46 percent of California but all of its electoral votes -- in effect disenfranchising the majority of the state's population."

This is actually true in most states where the winner take all mentality is in place, and validates the necessity of changing the electoral process.

The current intention is to have it on the ballot in the 2008 Primary so that it would take effect in the 2008 Federal election.

Currently, only Nebraska and Maine follow a system similar to what is being proposed in California.

Tags:

California Election Reform

Posted by Sqotty at 5:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I am rapidly becoming a fan of Clifford D. May, and am astonished that the Red Star Tribune carries his opinion pieces. Today he tackles the actions of Congressman (woman?) Nancy Boyda (D-KS).

It's tough being a member of Congress. Even if you're in the majority, as is Democratic Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, you never know when your ears may be assaulted by outrageous and offensive ideas.

Like what? At a recent hearing of the Armed Services Committee, retired Gen. Jack Keane said "progress is being made" by U.S. military forces in Iraq; "We are on the offensive and we have the momentum," he added. The freshman congresswoman was so distressed by these remarks that she got up and walked out.

There was "only so much" she could take, she explained, so she "had to leave the room ... after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to." She said she was worried, too, that Keane's remarks "will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country." Hey, that could happen!

My first big problem with Boyda is not that she is a pro-terrorist Congressman who believes we should let the bad guys win in Iraq and elsewhere, but that she walked out of the Armed Services Committee briefing. How many of you can get up and walk out of a meeting for no reason at all and not get fired or suffer other disciplinary action? I sure can't. But apparently it's okay for a congressman because they are fed up with hearing good news on the situation in Iraq.

Congressman Boyda needs to be reminded that she has been elected to serve the People of the United States, not herself. If this is the way that she is going to behave then she deserves neither the honor nor the privilege of serving in that high office, or in any elected office.

When a Congressman is assigned to a committee, walking out during a committee briefing simply because you don't like what you are hearing is unacceptable behavior.

I believe that the Kansas Second district should consider replacing Boyda with someone who will take their obligations to the people seriously.

May has a lot more to say about Boyda and her not wanting to hear the facts on how things are going in Iraq. It is a darn good read.

Tags:

Clifford May Congress Boyda Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Senator-who-would-be-Queen Hillary Clinton moonbats it out of the park in a response to VP Cheney's refusal to allow the disclosure of Iraq plans from the Pentagon.

From Myway News:

She used even tougher language in an appeal sent to supporters of her presidential bid: "I couldn't care less what Dick Cheney says about me. But when he plays politics with the lives of our troops, you had better be sure I'm going to respond. And I know that you want to respond too."

As the saying goes "kettle, black."

It amazes me how often the hard-left accuses Conservatives of playing politics with the lives of our men and women who serve, especially since they are the ones who are playing hardball politics with our troops by tying funding for continued operations in Iraq to timetables for withdrawal (that's Democrat for surrender). It was a Democrat named Kerry who proclaimed "I voted for the $86 billion before I voted against" in regards to funding that was destined to provide needed equipment, including body armor, for our boots on the ground in Iraq.

Every time a Democrat attempts to tie funding to timetables or other tactics to micromanage the war, they are playing politics with the lives of our troops.

The politically charged debate began in May when Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sought a briefing on how the Pentagon is planning to eventually remove troops and equipment from Iraq.

Undersecretary for Policy Eric Edelman wrote to the New York senator last month that such discussion boosts "enemy propaganda." Clinton called that answer "outrageous" and accused the Pentagon of ducking a serious issue.

Edelman s right in that talks of pulling out in Iraq sends a message that all the bad guys have to do is keep on doing what their doing and they will, like in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, win. They just have to wait out the American will to achieve victory and let the pro-terrorist activists and their proxies in Congress win the war for them.

I hate using comparing Iraq to Vietnam, however the Democrats have politicized the war in Iraq to the point where it is, in the political sense, like Vietnam. If we pull out of there now, a million Iraqis will either be forced to flee to other countries, or they will die. We will then lose Afghanistan as the Taliban will be reinforced by jihadis and the will for the U.S. to win there will also erode, turning Afghanistan into a 21st Century Cambodia. We will lose Pakistan as an ally as well, and probably other countries in the region.

Hillary Clinton is an expert at playing politics with the lives of our troops as well as the lives of those who want our help in securing their liberties.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Iraq War Cheney

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

Obama is talking tough on terrorism, but has he got the male equipment to do the walk or is he all wind? For some of his talk, it had better be whistling Dixie, as he is talking committing an act of war against Pakistan, who has been somewhat of an ally since 9/11.

From ABCNews (and other places to boot):

In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism scheduled for this morning, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan - with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama will say, according to speech excerpts provided to ABC News by his campaign, "but let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

It is one thing to send troops into another country at their invitation, it is another to invade an ally, no matter how weak they are as an ally. That would be an act of war, just as Iran committed an act of war by taking over our embassy and holding our diplomatic staff hostage back in the '70s. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and would most likely use them in the event we did invade.

Obama attempts at talking tough shows a complete ignorance of what is at stake when it comes to the war on terror. He shows it when he claims our best bet at eliminating al-Qaeda leadership took place in 2005. Actually, the best chance was in the '90s when Sudan offered to extradite bin Ladin to the United States and Clinton turned them down. There were other opportunities to eliminate al-Qaeda early on that Clinton took a pass on as well.

The opportunity that Obama is referencing would have put a strain on our relations with Pakistan as well as carrying substantial risk, and may have failed.

Obama, whose father was Muslim, makes clear that he does not share the views of Democrats who downplay the risk of Islamist terrorism. In language rare for a Democratic presidential candidate, Obama will talk about Muslims who seek to create a repressive caliphate. "To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for."

And if Obama doesn't know that by now, he never will

Right now the debate is on as to who will be more dangerous to this country: Obama or Hillary. Right now it looks like Obama is the biggest threat to this country.

Tags:

Obama bin-Ladin al-Qaeda Pakistan Iraq War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 7:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

There are a couple of good pieces in the news today on the war in Iraq. The first is a piece on how firebrand Joe Lieberman is taking his formerly fellow Democrats in the Senate to task not just on the war in Iraq, but the Greater War on Terror as well.

From the Hill:

"I think either [Democrats] are, in my opinion, respectfully, naïve in thinking we can somehow defeat this enemy with talk, or they're simply hesitant to use American power, including military power," Lieberman said in a wide-ranging interview with The Hill.

"There is a very strong group within the party that I think doesn't take the threat of Islamist terrorism seriously enough."

Lieberman is, once again, proving that when it comes to the War on Terror and establishing democracy in the Middle East, he gets it, and the Dems in Senate do not.

He goes on to say that part of the problem is that many Democrats automatically take the attitude of anything Bush is for, then they will be against. This type of attitude brings out the worst in politics and is bad for the country. (Exception: if Hillary is in favor of something, then it may be that you should be against it.)

I don't agree on every issue with Lieberman, but I am happy to say on this issue (and probably a few others) we are in agreement.

Meanwhile, House majority Whip James Clyburn, is advocating a wait and see strategy to see what Petraeus' report will be like before continuing the push to surrender Iraq to the terrorists.

From the Washington Post:

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Clyburn's comments came as House and Senate Democrats try to figure out their next steps in the legislative battle. Clyburn said he could foresee a circumstance in which House Democrats approve a measure without a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, which has been the consistent goal of the party throughout the months-long debate. But he said he could just as easily see Democrats continue to include a timetable.

With reports coming in that July had the lowest death rate of American troops in eight months, there could be strong indications that things are, in fact, turning around in Iraq. Granted, like everyone else, I would be much happier if the casualty rate in Iraq was zero. But getting the lowest in eight months, and with the surge only now having completed its first month of full operations, I think that is a good sign. I hope that a month form now we can claim the lowest death rate in a year, or more.

With 47 "Blue Dog" Democrats in the House who are likely to side with Republicans should things move in a positive direction vis-à-vis Iraq, it is possible we may stop hearing constant calls from Congress to "let the terrorists win."

Things may well be looking up for the people of Iraq. Let's hope so, as the price of failure will be very high, and it's the people of Iraq who will be making the down payment for that failure.

Tags:

Iraq Blue Dog Congress War On Terror Lieberman

Posted by Sqotty at 6:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

From FoxNews (who else?):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags:

Fox News Freedom of the Press MoveOn DailyKos

Posted by Sqotty at 8:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet Obama wishes to meet with them without conditions.

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

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

Tags:

Obama Clinton Cuba Iran Iraq North Korea

Posted by Sqotty at 6:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

From Politico:

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

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

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

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

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

Then, when John Edwards was questioned, he said:

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

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

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

Tags:

Edwards Carbon Footprint

Posted by Sqotty at 6:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

From the Hill:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags:

Cindy Sheehan Pelosi Impeach Bush Iraq Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

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

From the Strib editorial:

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

What the NIE report states is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Strib seems to not get it:

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

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

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

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

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

Tags:

al-Qaeda NIE Iraq War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 11:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

From NYPost:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags:

Hillary Edelman Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

From DeseretNews:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags:

Senate Defeat-o-Thon Reid Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 4:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags:

Obama Sex Ed

Posted by Sqotty at 6:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

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

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

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

Tags:

Obama Defeat-O-Thon Senate

Posted by Sqotty at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

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

From the Senate record (Senator Durbin speaking):

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

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

Senator Dodd, from the Senate Journal, said yesterday:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Cornyn later said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags:

Senate Iraq Durbin Cornyn Defeat-o-Thon

Posted by Sqotty at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags:

Keith Ellison Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 4:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the Left, any and all tax cuts are only of benefit to the rich. I guess in their limited brain capacity, I and everyone I know is rich beyond their wildest dreams, rather than being just a bunch of hard working Americans trying to make ends meet.

she gets another point right when she says that Americans are heavily indebted, getting further behind, with the average household carrying $6,600 of credit card debt. The number is slightly surprising as I thought it would be higher.

This next point also gets my goat:

America grew strong on Yankee ingenuity and scientific progress. Yet three Republican candidates for president question the theory of evolution, a building block of modern biology. The Bush administration's hostility to embryonic stem cell research is disappointing, but its efforts to talk down its potential are a disgrace. Add to that its public doubting of the science on global warming, then half-hearted measures to address the threat. Something has changed since America put men on the moon.

First, she implies that the theory of evolution is in fact a scientific law. No one has ever proved that the theory is correct. She further implies that divine creation is bogus, and anyone who believes in creationism must be off of their nut. Admittedly, no one has ever proved that the theory of creationism is a scientific law either. People who accept creationism do so as a matter of faith. What's wrong with that? On the flip side of the coin, people also accept evolution as being fact based on a matter of faith, just not religious faith. Of course it is also possible that evolution is a part of God's plan, making both real, however believing such is also a matter of faith.

On the matter of stem cell research, there is nothing preventing the Left from putting their money where their mouths are and investing their own dollars into embryonic stem cell research. In their limited view, things are only good of government does it for you.

Finally, we get to Global Warming, one of my favorite topics. No one, and I do mean no one, in the political arena, or elsewhere, is denying that there is a current warming trend in the Earth's climate. What is under debate is what is causing the current warming trend. The rabid Moonbats on the left foam at the mouth about it being manmade carbon emissions, while many scientists, for decades now, have been providing research that indicates that it is changes in solar activity, combined with cosmic radiation, as well as variations in the Earth's orbit and tilt, that is causing Global Warming. The lefties trot out their computer models that "proves" their point that it is carbon causing climate change despite the existing body of scientific evidence that proves their models wrong, and ignores the fact that the models are flawed (even the engineers behind them say they are not accurate), can not recreate known historical climate variations, and can be programmed to provide any results that they would like to "prove" their point. These climate computer models are nothing but crystal balls used with a bunch a mumble-jumble to hoodwink Americans (and, indeed, the world) into believing it is man that is causing Global Warming.

Indeed, something has changed since we put men on the moon. The Democratic Party has let itself be taken over by hard-core Leftwing Moonbats bent on destroying all that is good about America. And Froma Harrop is on their side.

Tags:

Iraq America Froma Harrop

Posted by Sqotty at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Al Franken is sharpening his anti-war credentials with an open letter to Senator Norm Coleman published in the Star Tribune on Tuesday:

"Since this war began, you have voted to support the president's policy of endless war and demonized those who stood up in opposition. Meanwhile, 3,600 of our men and women have died in Iraq, including 54 from Minnesota. Tens of thousands more American troops have been wounded. ... Several of your Republican colleagues have, in recent days, admitted that the president's current strategy is not working and called for a change of course. Unfortunately, you have not taken this step. It's time to do what's right for the country."

In Franken's mind, doing what is right for America is to let the terrorists win in Iraq, and allow that country to fall into total chaos and let it become a despotic tyranny once again.

The tragic loss of American lives should not be used as a benchmark on when and why we should end military operations. If it were, we would have surrendered to Japan before Christmas 1941. Perhaps if the likes of Franken were in control of Congress we would have.

To the hard-left, for which Franken is a drug-abusing poster child of, we are in an endless war. I guess if one were living in 1942, with 10s of thousands of dead, and even more wounded, one could call it an endless war and capitulate to the enemies of freedom. Again, if they were in charge, would we have given in to Germany and Japan?

For America, and the people of Iraq, to win, we must persevere and destroy the sectarian death squads, the terrorist groups and those who support them. For the terrorists and death squads to win, all they have to do is wait until America loses the will to win and elects more people like Al Franken.

If Al Franken wins, he will be one more member of the "We Surrender" Caucus in the U.S. Senate. This would be bad for America as well as for the people of Iraq who dream of living in peace and prosperity.

As for the current strategy, it didn't take long for the hard-left to condemn it as being a failure, even though it has only had a few weeks since being fully implemented. They waste no time at claiming failure, but are long on pushing for victory.

Tags:

Franken Iraq War Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 4:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The campaign for the Democratic nomination is heating up, so is the GOP nomination.

Hillary Clinton, stomping around in Iowa, made it clear that we can expect to see a return of HillaryCare. From BreitBart:

Clinton said she soon will meet with doctors, nurses, hospital administrators and patients to get their input on her health care plan.

The disturbing thing about the Democratic Primary is not that Hillary intends to take away our healthcare rights and place it in the hands of government bureaucrats (and we know that then we will lose our medical privacy rights as well…look how they've been doing with social security number security lately), it's that all of the major front-runners want to do the same thing: Degrade our healthcare the responsibility of the government.

Why am I not surprised?

Tags:

Billary Hillary Clinton Health Care

Posted by Sqotty at 7:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Scooter Libby has had his sentence commuted, reduced to probation and a $250,000 fine. It is not as good as the pardon I believe he should have received, however, it is possible that a pradon will come done the pipe prior to President Bush leaving office.

Libby was convicted of lying during the Valerie Plame CIA-leak investigation, in which no underlying crime was committed. The original conviction came done to Libby's word versus the word of witness on who leaked the name when.

The original allegations that various laws to protect the identity of CIA operatives was not violated. As such, Libby was a victim of a witch hunt lead by Democratic operatives bent on finding someone to hang for a non-offense.

It's unfortunate that Scooter Libby has to pay the price when he had not violated the laws that originally triggered the investigation. At least he will not be spending time in prison.

Tags:

Scooter Libby Justice

Posted by Sqotty at 6:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

As it has been in the news pretty much everywhere, the McKennedy Amnesty para Illegals was voted down yesterday on a procedural vote.

This time I took the time to send Senator Coleman (R-MN) a thank you note for his vote on killing this bill.

Any takers on how long before we see it resurface?

Tags:

McKennedy Amnesty Immigration Reform

Posted by Sqotty at 5:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Matt Drudge has posted this audio clip on youtube:

Kerry, speaking out against free speech, shows his ignorance on how free markets work. when the "Fairness" Doctrine was eliminated in the '80s, resulting in the birth of Talk Radio, there was little political discourse on the air waves, except for the left-wing tripe put out by taxpayer supported NPR an d the Public Broadcasting Corporation.

Let's face it: The left hates talk radio as it gets out the facts on what is going on in Congress and they have been unable to make headway in that field. Look at their attempt with Air America.

Except for a couple of markets where the leftist ranting is still on (like in Minnesota), it's pretty much dead air. Why? Because there isn't a market for the leftist/liberal/progressive/socialist (or what ever they call themselves these days) tripe on the air. That's one of the reasons that money was illegally shifted from a couple of New York charities early on to get it air America going.

Instead of competing openly in the arena of ideas, this is how the self-proclaimed "party of the people" operates: pushing government interference in eliminating opposing views.

If I didn't know any better, I would have mistaken Kerry's message for Hugo Chavez, Dictator of Venezuela.

It's about Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Choice. Either we have the right to listen to what we ant, or we don't.

If Kerry's of the world have their way, how long will it take for them to extend this "doctrine" to the Internet?

Tags:

Kerry Free Speech Fairness Doctrine

Posted by Sqotty at 6:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

I sent the following note to Senatpor Coleman via his website:

Dear Senator Coleman:

A few weeks ago I was delighted that you voted against cloture on the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (aka McKennedy Amnesty Act). Now I am disappointed that you have supported cloture. I understand that you have aneeded amendment that may be added on to this legislation. Howeer you know as well as I do that any and all amendments may be stripped from the final bill during joint session.

This bill is a bad bill for many reasons, mnost specifically it allows any illegal alien to gain legalization with forged documents. Even if an amendment is added on by the Senate to require a secure passport be presented, that would likely be stripped away in joint session.

No set amendments can fix a bad bill, and this is an extremely bad bill.

I implore you to end your support of this legislation and opose it as you previously have done.

Thank you

Todd C. Hansen

We'll see if it does any good.

As for Amy Klobuchar, for what good it will do, I sent the following:

Dear Senator Klobuchar:

I am writing to you in regards to the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 now before the U.S. Senate.

I oculd go on for pages on why this is a bad piece of legsilation, however I think I will stick to one major point.

The requiremnet for legalization is a couple of easy to forge documents with which an illegal alien can then forge a new identity. At the very least, aliens wishing legalization under this act should be required to provide a secure passport with biometric data.

However, I recognize that even if the Senate were to approve an amendment to make such a requirement, there is a high likelihood that it will be stripped away during joint session.

No set of amendments can fix a bad bill, and this is a very bad bill that poses signifcant national security risks.

I implore you to opose this bill, regardless of the amendments attached to it.

Sincerely

Todd C. Hansen

I have no doubt that the only way to defeat this bill is here and now in the Senate. For some reason I wasn't surprised that it was borugh back to life so soon after its initial defeat.

Tags:

McKennedy Amnesty Immigration Reform

Posted by Sqotty at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Either Paul Newman is a fool and ignoramus who doesn't know what he is talking about, or he is a serious leftwing Moonbat. Politico has an email be distributed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in which Newman uses scare-mongering tactics to get gullible Americans to give money in order to elect more anti-American Socialists to the Senate.

In it, Newman writes:

"It was one of my life's proudest achievements.

"More than the films, more than the awards - finding out that I was on Nixon's Enemies List meant that I was doing something right.

"Nixon didn't like my campaigning for Democratic presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy. But then again, he didn't much care for debate, dissent, or the Constitution either.

"I was proud to stand with Democrats against an imperial president back then. And I am proud now to stand with a new generation of Democrats against a president who poses what I believe to be the biggest internal threat to American democracy in my lifetime.

"That's why, when I was asked to send this message on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), I quickly agreed. A Democratic Senate is the best defense against this administration. I am as frustrated as all of you that Congress hasn't made more progress on issues we care about here in 2007. But I also know that Democrats only have a 51-49 majority in the Senate - and that Republicans, with threats of filibusters and vetoes, have tried to block just about everything.

"We've got to preserve and strengthen our Senate majority in 2008, and the best way to do that is by supporting the DSCC. No other Democratic Party organization - not even the DNC - is focused exclusively on electing Democrats to the Senate.

"The DSCC is only $114,941 away from their crucial second quarter fundraising goal. They need you to get there.

"Click here to make a contribution of $50, $75 or more to make sure Democrats keep control of the United States Senate. Make a contribution now and a group of Democratic senators will match every single dollar you give, effectively doubling your contribution.

"You can take your pick of issues where Republicans are seriously damaging this country: Iraq, global warming, civil liberties. But I resent them most for how they've destroyed the American spirit by using xenophobia and fear to hold onto power.

"It's scare-mongering pure and simple, and it is the only thing Republicans have left to offer.

"We need to preserve and expand the slim 51-49 Democratic majority in the Senate, and we need to do the hard work to make it happen now.

"Click here to make a contribution of $50, $75 or more to make sure Democrats keep control of the United States Senate. Make a contribution now and a group of Democratic senators will match every single dollar you give, effectively doubling your contribution.

"One seat is all that separates Republicans from retaking the United States Senate. That's why the 2008 elections are so pivotal.

"The DSCC needs to raise $114,941 by June 30. I'm more than happy to help. I hope you'll join me.

"After all, the Senate hangs in the balance, with only one seat making all the difference.

"Let's do our best to keep it in Democratic hands."

There is also a video in which Newman sys that this White House is making America less strong. What has Newman been smoking?

In his hit piece he claims that Republicans are "seriously damaging this country," and then cites the war in Iraq, global warming, and civil liberties (I guess he is referring to the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform). He also purports that Republicans have "destroyed the American spirit by using xenophobia and fear to hold onto power." The "American spirit" by the liberl/progressive/socialists and the drugged-out hippies of the '60s that have taken over the Democratic party, not by Republicans.

What's some of the proofs on this? Easy: The Clinton Adminstration, along with his DNC cohorts in Congress gutted our intelligence agencies, as well as our military, during the '90s. They also treated Osama bin Ladin and al-Qaeda as being a law enforcement issue, and never took the threat seriously, including passing by an opportunity to have bin Ladin extradited to the U.S. End result: 9/11.

It was Democrat Jimmy Carter who handed Iran, at that time a staunch ally of the U.S. to the Ayatollahs and Mullahs, resulting in a tyrannical theocracy that is fueling terrorism and moving towards nuclear weapons.

Carter also hamstrung the nuclear energy industry by banning the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods, causing these spent, radio-active, fuel rods to be stockpiled as hazardous waste.

It was John Kerry who pushed the Winter Soldier campaign during the Vietnam War era and Democrats who abandoned our ally, South Vietnam, and surrendered South East Asia to communists, resulting in the brutal murder of millions of men, women and children.

It is Democrats who are pushing hardest to legalize millions of illegal aliens, rather than enforce out laws.

It is Democrats who are pushing to silence free speech on the radio waves by reinstating the "Fairness" Doctrine.

On Iraq, it is the Democrats that have sounded "retreat" and are pushing towards abandoning our fledgling ally, Iraq, which will result in chaos and a killing field that will dwarf what happened in Cambodia in 1975.

Democrats are also wrong on Global Warming, but that is because they worship at the altar of Al Gore rather than read the science on the subject and learn that current climate warming trend is a natural phenomenon, and not caused by mankind.

The real scare-mongers are the Democrats and their shills. They have done more damage to the American spirit, and done more to assault the Constitution in my lifetime than the GOP has done since it formed in the 1850s.

If Paul Newman serious believes that Republicans have destroyed the American Spirit, then he must not have any clue as to what the American spirit actually is.

Congratulations, Paul, you are the latest recipient of the Moonbat Award.

Tags:

Paul Newman DSCC Democrat Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Senate has voted to move ahead with the McKennedy Amnesty bill, also known as the Imimigration Reform Act of 2007.

I am very disappointed that both of my Senators, Coleman and Klobuchar, voted for cloture. I am especially disappointed in Coleman as previously he voted against cloture.

The question now is: how many people will be rushing the Border in the McKennedy Race For Amnesty?

Tags:

Amnesty McKennedy Immigration Reform

Posted by Sqotty at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Ever notice how people on the hard-left like to twist the facts so that they resemble their own perception of reality? Richard Cohen wrote this for the Washington Post:

There are two ways to predict the winner of the 2008 presidential race: Check the polls or read some history. The polls tell you that with George Bush's approval ratings abysmally low; with the war in Iraq becoming increasingly unpopular; with the GOP lacking a dominant candidate; and with the party divided over immigration, social issues and even religion ( Mitt Romney's Mormonism), the next president is bound to be a Democrat. History begs to differ.

Is assessment of the current state of the GOP is fairly accurate, but a little short-sighted. I don't think religion is as big an issue to most people who vote (or may vote) GOP as some of the leftist pundits believe. Or want us to believe. There are less divisions over social issues in the GOP than in the DNC, and the issue of immigration is probably going to cost some incumbents votes during the next election cycle, regardless of party affiliation.

What is interesting is the historical comparison he makes with the current political topography and 1972 when Nixon was re-elected in a land-slide election. One point he makes is comparing Vietnam to Iraq (why am I not surprised) and how it seemed that no one knew how to get us out of Vietnam, and the general electorate did not like the ideas presented by the Party of Surrender, I mean the Democrats, on how to end that war. I guess his driving point with that part of his comparison is that many people do not like the ideas put forth by leading Democrats and the advocates of capitulation to terrorists. There, he would be right.

But he goes on to compare Nixon and his opponent McGovern to the 2004 match-up of Bush and Kerry. There Cohen shows that he is a bit of a loon. He equates Bush's Air National Guard service to being a "slacker," ignoring the fact that Bush volunteered for a program called Palace Alert, which, had he been qualified on the F-102 Delta Dagger (one of the toughest jet fighters to fly) and accepted into the program, Bush would have been sent to Vietnam as a combat pilot. This is not the kind of thing a slacker, like Bill Clinton, would do.

He also compares McGovern to Kerry, however, I don't believe that is a good comparison either. McGovern is a better man than Kerry can ever hope to be, despite the decorations Kerry was awarded. Kerry, unlike McGovern, testified to Congress that our military operating in Vietnam committed many war crimes. "Winter Soldier." Kerry also claimed that he had gone into Cambodia on secret missions, yet not only has he failed to prove his claims, these claims have been disproved by those with whom he served.

…during the campaign, the Republican ticket and its allies in the Swift boat veterans movement managed to paint Kerry as a quivering liar. The character attack was so bold, so outrageous, that it of course worked.

The Swift Boat Veterans were made up of men who served with Kerry in Vietnam. They did paint a very unattractive picture of Kerry. How much of a contribution they made to Kerry's failure in the polls is debatable. I believe Kerry's Senatorial record did himself more damage than the Swifties managed to dish out. Remember, it was Kerry who said "I voted for the $86 billion before I voted against it," in reference to funding that would buy, among other things, body armor for troops serving in Iraq. The Swiftie message was that Kerry was unfit to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. As men who served with him during war, I'd say they would have a pretty good idea of what kind of C-in-C Kerry would have made.

"Paint Kerry as a quivering liar"? One word: Cambodia.

Kerry also claimed at one point to have thrown his medals over the White House fence as part of anti-war protest, then later claimed they were somebody else's medals, and that he only tossed his ribbons over the fence in protest. Which is it? Does it matter? The ribbons are considered to be the equivalent to the actual medals. Does discarding the one reflect a rejection of the other? Yes! Is Kerry just an opportunist, shifting his position to fit the times? Like volunteering for duty in Vietnam before the anti-war movement took hold, then joining the anti-war movement after his discharge from the Navy. The same Kerry who waffled on voting for funding our troops serving in Iraq. The same Kerry who pushed for gutting our Intelligence Agencies during the '90s, brining us 9/11.

Besides, the measure of a President is not how they performed in war, but how they have served the electorate in elected office.

The GOP is adept at painting Democrats as soft on national security. It is equally adept at saying so in the most scurrilous way. And while most Americans would like the war to end, they do not favor a precipitous withdrawal and neither have they forgotten Sept. 11, 2001 -- the entirety of Giuliani's case for the presidency, after all.

Facts are tenacious things. The Democrats have proven themselves to be soft on national security at every turn, including when it comes to securing our borders. Not since LBJ have they had a serious leader when it comes to National Security. "Scurrilous" tactics are not necessary to get that point across. While we're at it, let's remember that Democrats are also soft on crime. The only thing they are big on is taxing working Americans into oblivion.

As for the war in Iraq, sure we would all like to see it end. The difference between myself, and many people I know, and the leftists now in control of the DNC is how…I want to see it end in victory for the U.S., our allies, and especially for the people of Iraq. The lefties want us to abandon the people of Iraq and let the terrorists and Islamo-Fascists seize power and turn Iraq into a puppet state of Iran.

Ask yourself this: which is the better way to end the war in Iraq? There are only two possibilities, and the one that we may eventually get will be diced in the next couple of years.

As for Cohen, I have to wonder which way he wants the war to end as well. Some how, I suspect he likes the idea of surrender. But then, I could be wrong.

We don't know who will be leading the charge in either party at this early stage. The field of candidates on the DNC end are all on the side of surrendering to terrorists, while most of the GOP candidates are for victory. So, once you've figured out how you would like to see the war in Iraq end, ask the candidates how they would like to see it end. And do the answers match?

Tags:

Cohen Kerry Bush Nixon Election Iraq Vietnam

Posted by Sqotty at 8:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA, my home state) announced on "Fox News Sunday" that she would consider reinstating the Fairness Doctrine on broadcast radio. This move would stifle conservative talk radio. I guess that in Feinstein's world "silence is golden."

Feinstein's reasoning stems from the ongoing debate on Immigration Reform and the current legislation before the Senate: The McKennedy Amnesty Act, or, as it is otherwise known as, The Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

From UPI:

"This is a very complicated bill," said Feinstein. "Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty -- we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system."

In Feinstein's example she sites a few reasons, including that talk radio is inciting Americans to react to this legislation without being fully informed, and referring to it as "amnesty." If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's a duck, and the proposal being floated on immigration reform is amnesty.

If she had pulled out the half-baked notions presented in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth as an example of why the fairness doctrine needs to be returned, I'd say she has a point. I still would not want it brought back.

As for the "flaws in our broken (immigration) system," if it is broke it is because of left-wingnuts refusing to enforce our existing laws and our Federal Government not taking action against communities that declare themselves sanctuaries. Instead of cutting off Federal funding to these "sanctuary" cities, they just let them continue on.

The border fence which was approved last fall is yet to have serious work performed on it.

Meanwhile, with the promise of new amnesty, there is a bigger run for the border to get in to the U.S. while the getting is good.

The bottom line is: enforcement begins at home.

Before any new immigration reform act should be considered, let alone implemented, Congress should first secure our borders (North and South), put in place a serious means to allow employers to filter out illegal aliens based on social security numbers presented (the Feds can implement a database lookup to verify that the name and SSN provided to an employ in fact match, and if they do not, that person is denied a job and reported to the INS).

Before any illegal alien is put on any path of legalization, they must first pass any and all background and health checks that a legal immigrant must pass. (I suspect that with the way things are currently, there will be a lot of "wiggle room" to allow exemptions to the health/security checks.) If they fail, they are denied reentry into the U.S. Further, they should have to prove that they have in fact resided in the U.S. using the same timelines and documentation as was required in the 1986 Amnesty bill.

As for the "Fairness Doctrine," that is nothing more than a Hugo Chavez like tactic to silence opposition, something that is the antithesis of free speech.

Tags:

Feinstein Fairness Doctrine Free Speech

Posted by Sqotty at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I find it both disturbing and ironic that the liberal/progressive-left seem to believe that they must have control of the political conversation, and when they don't, they insist that there is unfairness. So it is with talk radio. Think Progress (must be an oxymoron) has put forth a piece in response to a report published by The Center for American Progress and Free Press (another oxymoronic name) on why Conservative Talk Radio needs to be stopped.

The new report - entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" - raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.

No entity, whether it is commercial broadcasting companies, print media, or taxpayer supported Public Broadcasting stations serve "the listening needs off all Americans." The reason is that not everyone wants to listen to the same thing.

For instance, I prefer to listen to classical music on the radio, yet it is darned difficult, short of NPR, to find a station that plays classical music. And the problem with NPR is that I have to either put up with their left-wing bias, their frequent pledge drives (they get enough of my money through taxation) or, worse still, Garrison Keiler. Thus I end up changing stations.

I don't like most of the rock stations for some similar reasons: most of the "on air personalities," what used to be called disc jockeys, are crude, rude, and obnoxious. There are some exceptions, but not enough to make me want to stay tuned for more than a couple of tunes before switching stations. The same is true with country stations, but their DJs are actually not as obnoxious as those on many rock stations or Garrison Keiler.

I've listened to Air America on a number of occasions and found the discourse to be rude, crude, ignorant and one-sided. This is probably why it hasn't even made a dent into the realm of talk radio.

Conservative Talk Radio, with few exceptions, is intelligent, concise and, unlike Air America, kid friendly (no crude language). It is also a sharp counter-point to the leftist controlled, taxpayer supported, NPR and public broadcasting in general.

They produced some fancy statistics;

While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, right-wing talk reigns supreme on America's airwaves. Some key findings:

- In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.

- Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk - 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

- 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

Gotta wonder, what is the source of their data, and did include the hundreds (or is it thousands) of ours of leftist broadcasting that takes place on NPR and the "public" broadcasting system.

The next part is the meat of their argument:

Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem. The report explains:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.

What they are claiming is that the FACT that the free market economics has worked in favor of conservative talk radio and the resulting failure of Air America, they would rather blame it on bad regulatory controls. In other words, since they can't win in a free market and get their ideas out, they want to take control of the airwaves in order to squash opposing views.

The bottom line is: since they can't compete in the free market based on their ideas, they need to come up with a new strategy to short-circuit free choice.

Tags:

NPR Talk Radio Free Press

Posted by Sqotty at 7:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

That is the name of the opinion piece in which Michael Evans writes about Jimmy Carter and the disastrous policies he implemented that wrought the problems in the Middle East of today. It seems we have a lot to thank former president Jimmy Carter for, and Evans scores his points accurately and concisely. This is a must read piece.

We just don't get it. The Left in America is screaming to high heaven that the mess we are in in Iraq and the war on terrorism has been caused by the right-wing and that George W. Bush, the so-called "dim-witted cowboy," has created the entire mess.

The truth is the entire nightmare can be traced back to the liberal democratic policies of the leftist Jimmy Carter, who created a firestorm that destabilized our greatest ally in the Muslim world, the shah of Iran, in favor of a religious fanatic, the ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter viewed Khomeini as more of a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution than a founding father of modern terrorism. Carter's ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young, said "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint." Carter's Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said, "Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure." Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed in a Newsweek interview on February 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid, but a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty."

The shah was terrified of Carter. He told his personal confidant, "Who knows what sort of calamity he [Carter] may unleash on the world?"

It was Carter who pressured the Shah of Iran to release political dissidents and ease censorship, which in less troubled times would make since, but not at that time for Iran. And not those particular dissidents. As Evans points out, "Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter." He is right about that.

Evans outlines a lot of issues we still have to deal with thanks to Carter.

The Iranian revolution that replaced the pro-Western Shah of Iran with the totalitarian Islamo-Facist Ayatollah Khomeini was only the beginning. It was also during Carter's administration that the Iran-Iraq War broke out, resulting in millions of dead and wounded. It was also at this time that the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and marked the rise of Osama bin Ladin and the foundation for al-Qaeda was laid.

Carter's response to crisis? He made an ineffectual attempt at obtaining the release of our embassy people held hostage by Iranian terrorists in the name of Khomeini. He boycotted the Moscow Olympics in response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. He believed that every crisis can be resolved by diplomacy alone. Such a mindset is what resulted in World War II and the murder of some six million Jews in the holocaust. It is this mindset, instilled throughout the Democratic Party, that resulted in two aircraft being driven into the World Trade Center, killing thousands of people, while a third was crashed into the Pentagon and a fourth slammed into a farm field. That day could have been far worse if it had not been for the courage of the passengers on that fourth airliner.

Thanks a lot Jimmy.

Tags:

Jimmy Carter Iran Iraq War Terrorism al-Qaeda bin Ladin Khomeini

Posted by Sqotty at 6:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Live Earth concerts scheduled for July are reported to be making headway in reducing, but not eliminating, carbon emissions in relation to the concerts. There is a report on it on the Reuters website.

In the article, Yusef Robb of Live Earth outlines some of their plans, like making a choice between "dirty" lightbulbs and "greener "lightbulbs. His words, not mine. Franlkly, if the lightbulb is dirty, just dust it off. But that isn't what he means. He is talking about the amount of electricity used to power the bulb, and how much carbon emissions that would account for.

I'm all for using energy efficient lightbulbs. I have a lot of them in my house (nearly all of my light fixtures are equipped with fluorescent bulbs…it is easier to count the ones that aren't so equipped). Power to them for going that direction.

They have also hired a number of "green" consultants to help reduce the carbon footprint of their concerts. According to the article one venue has contracted for "green electricity" which the article notes as being wind and solar. Gotta wonder if they are contracting a "green" electrical company, which routinely supplements their power supplies with nuclear and/or coal/natural gas generators?

They are also attempting how to best run their generators on biodiesel, despite the following article by Steven Milloy recently published on FoxNews:

a study published in Chemistry and Industry, a journal of the Society of the Chemical Industry, reported that biodiesel, another alternative motor vehicle fuel, "could increase rather than reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional diesel."

According to the media release, researchers compared the emission of greenhouse gases by the two fuels across their overall life cycles from production to combustion in cars.

Though the results showed that biodiesel (derived from rapeseed grown on dedicated farmland) emits nearly the same amount of carbon dioxide as conventional diesel when burned in an engine, growing rapeseed emits significant levels of nitrous oxide (laughing gas), which is 200 to 300 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Sounds pretty darn Earth-saving green to me. NOT!

But the biggest carbon emission problem will be the performers and crews traveling to the venues, most likely by carbon emitting private jets and limousines, not to mention the predicted millions of people (they are expecting 1 million attendees at Rio alone) who have to get to the venues some how, and no doubt many of them will be traveling either by air or car to get to the cities where the concerts will be held.

I can't even begin to imagine how much carbon and other pollutants (is the smoke from their joints a green house gas?) will be dumped into the atmosphere in the name of "Stop Global Warming," but I bet there is someone working on figuring it out. Maybe Steven Milloy will do the job for us.

Of course, they could be buying out the market of carbon credits courtesy of Al gore and his UK based company dealing in the darn things.

Tags:

Al Gore Live Earth Carbon Dioxide

Posted by Sqotty at 7:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I ran across a brilliant opinion piece by non-other than legendary rocker Ted Nugent. It begins simply enough by taking another legendary rocker, Paul McCartney, to task for firing roadies for the minor "offense" (if you are a nutter vegetarian) of eating a hamburger. I always thought that the folks on the left were all about free choice? Yet McCartney, who is a hard-core vegetarian, has to force his vegan ways on the people he employs.

Nugent is right, in more ways than one, when he points out the whole agenda of PETA and their supporters is to ban the consumption of meat. They want to take away OUR right to choose what we eat.

If those of us who love a good barbecued steak every now and then, or a rack of babyback ribs, were to try and force our meat eating ways on the vegetarians among us, there would be such a hue and cry that it would be deafening. Yet when a radical vegetarian can fire employs for eating meat, silence is golden.

But the party of choice is not the Democrats, nor are the hard-left liberals all that keen on free-will.

They want to take away our right to drive the kind of vehicles we drive in the name of protecting the environment, falsely claiming that carbon emissions is the cause of global warming (which is a natural cycle of the Earth's climate, not caused by man).

They do not want us to be able to choose between eating in restaurants or going to bars that allow smoking versus those that do not. They take away that right through smoking bans locally, or at state level as has been done in my native California and Minnesota (begins Oct. 2007) where I now live. Yet those of us who are conservatives, and many of us who are non-smokers, like myself, would not force others to dine out only in smoke filled rooms.

They want to take away our right to defend ourselves and our families, making all of us victims by forcing our cities to be "gun-free" zones, where only government and criminals are armed. Yet, as Nugent pointed out, conservatives would never dare to force someone to carry a gun who does not want to.

What I like best from the piece is this passage:

Recently, Danny Glover, an otherwise fine actor, embarrassingly abused his uniquely American freedoms by siding with the communist Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez to finance what clearly appears to be an anti-American propaganda film. Nice.

Meanwhile, right there in that communist country, old Hugo is shutting down an entire media network for daring to challenge his heavy handed, corrupt, dictatorial policies.

This is a leader who has proudly sided with terrorist support groups, and Danny Glover gives him a big hug.

Cindy Sheehan also gave hugs and kisses, okay maybe not kisses, to the Dictator of Venezuela.

There are also many folks on the hard left that think Castro is just peachy-keen as well. And they call Bush evil.

Nugent nails the hard-left dead-center when he wrote:

As for the American left: One hears the words of Mao Tse-Tung come broiling out of the mouths of its heroes, when Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton et al unflinchingly push for "redistribution of wealth."

They call themselves the party of tolerance, yet the hard-left, including the Clintons, Kennedy, Obama, and Al Gore, are anything but tolerant. They don't want you to have the ability to decide how you should live.

Tags:

Ted Nugent McCartney Chavez

Posted by Sqotty at 6:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

When the leadership of the United nations was handed over to Ban Ki-moon, there was a lot of hope that we would see a change in the attitude within the U.N. towards the U.S.A. It looks like we're being proved wrong. From Breitbart:

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, in an article published Saturday.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change," Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column.

According to Ban Ki-moon, the Darfur conflict, which has raged on for several years now, is to be blamed on "global warming," which in turn is blamed on carbon emissions, which, according to the hard-left and their lackeys in the media and political arena, is all America's fault. Let's not blame all of the corrupt governments in that region of the world, or that this is more of a religiously motivated cleansing.

Meanwhile, Al "I invented the Internet" Gore has unavailed his new favorite wine. It turns out he is so upset that the media is focused more on Paris "I don't want to go to jail" Hilton and her bouncing in and out of the pokey, Gore has taken to complaining to the Sun that it just isn't fair.

He believes we have just TEN YEARS to begin saving the planet before it is too late.

But he struggles to get his message across when TV networks are donating the majority of their airtime to American socialite Paris Hilton's stint behind bars.

He goes on to talk about his proposed "Save The Earth" concerts that will be responsible for dumping untold tens of thousands of carbon into the atmosphere, the very gas that he claims in his factoid "An Inconvenient Truth" is the cause of the current climate warming trend. Let's see, we're going to save the Earth by polluting even more with carbon-dioxide? Tell me again, Al, how does that work?

And then there is this from News.com:

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

The question now is, how will Al Gore account for these trends? Or is he so full of hot air that he is a one man global warming machine?

Tags:

Al Gore Carbon Dioxide

Posted by Sqotty at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Schwarzenegger may end taking some heat for remarks made at the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. From the SF Chronicle:

"You've got to turn off the Spanish television set" and avoid Spanish-language television, books and newspapers, the Republican governor said Wednesday night at the annual convention of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

"You're just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster," Schwarzenegger said.

I don't think I would have used the word "forced" in his talk if it were me making the statement. It is more accurate to say that if you are immersed in a language you will learn it faster. Saying "forced" implies you have no choice. There is always a choice.

Other than the word choice, the Governator is absolutely correct. If immigrants who do not already speak English come here and are fully immersed in the English language, not only will they become fluent much more quickly, they will also be more likely to assimilate into the American culture. Both of these are good things.

As a point of fact, when I was in sixth grade, many moons ago, and before bilingual education became the thing of the day, there was a Spanish girl in my class. On day one she didn't know any English. By the end of the school year she was nearly fluent. You don't achieve that kind of English proficiency through bilingual education.

Tags

Schwarzenegger Governator English bilingual education

Posted by Sqotty at 6:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

There is discussion going on in Congress to repeal, or at least provide relief, from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The problem is, they can't agree on who is wealthy and what the line is to dfine who is in the middle-class and deserving of a cut, versus those who are not.

Here's a concept: every American deserves a tax cut. Just abolish the AMT in total. Problem solved. Better still, revamp the tax code to a simple one page code that says every American will pay X% of their income regardless of income. Again, problem solved, and it makes filing our taxes easy. One tax rate can fit all. And the lower it is, the better.

From the Washington Post:

The debate has focused attention on a different surtax proposed by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. That plan would eliminate the AMT and replace it with a 4 percent surcharge on income over $200,000 for families and $100,000 for singles, cutting taxes for 22 million households and raising them for more than 3 million.

"Our plan is as simple as can be. And only 2 percent of the whole population would have to pay it," said Leonard E. Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center. The plan has the added benefit of abolishing the complicated AMT at all income levels, Burman said, an approach some lawmakers find attractive.

Except for the 4% surcharge on people making $100K, or families with $200K incomes, the plan sounds pretty good.

But wait, there's more:

On the other hand, fewer families' taxes would be cut, diminishing the ability of Democrats to capitalize on the plan politically. Since they took control of Congress in January, Democrats have made repealing or scaling back the AMT a top priority in hope of establishing tax-cutting credentials and seizing the issue from Republicans for the 2008 campaign.

Of course no issue is not without politicization. It's all about the Demos trying to look good to the voters, especially the middle class who makes up the majority of voters while sticking it too the so-called wealthy, or roughly 2% of the voter base, that carries the bulk of the tax burden.

Why am I not surprised.

The bottom line is that our current tax code is a voluminous mess that is greatly in need of being replaced with something that anyone can understand, rather than everyone making more than minimum wage being forced to hire a tax professional to deal with all of the convoluted laws.

Tags:
AMT Tax Reform

Posted by Sqotty at 9:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The McKennedy Amnesty Bill, also known as the Immigration Reform Act of 2007 has been defeated…for now. "We are not giving up. We are not giving in," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass threatened.

For those keeping score of how the Senators voted, the roll call vote is on the Senate website.

In the bipartisan effort to defeat this bill, it is interesting to note that more Democrats voted against than Republicans voted in support of it.

For my own state, Norm Coleman got it right, casting a "no" vote, while the hard-left Moonbat Amy Klobuchar voted in support of granting amnesty to illegal aliens, many of whom have broken more laws than just crossing our border.

What is truly surprising is that hard-left Moonbat from California, Barbara Boxer, voted against it. Surprising but true.

From FoxNews:

"There are a lot of good things in this bill," Reid said. "I'm a creature of the Senate. I understand we live by the rules that govern this body. I accept that. We're going to do everything we can to pass this bill as soon as we can. When is that? I don't know, but we're going to work hard and try to put aside the hurt feelings that we have. The country needs and the Senate needs to do this."

Good things if you are here in this country illegally. Illegal aliens are rewarded under this act for having jumped the immigration line by not having to return to their country of origin at get at the back of the line. What does this tell the millions of immigrants (and hopefuls) who play the rules and worked their way through the immigration process?

I have a better idea: rather than passing this bill, or a similar bill, how about we enforce our existing immigration laws. That's what I call Immigration Reform.

Tags:

McCain Kennedy McKennedy Amnesty Immigration Reform

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

This is the "it's about time" category, as it has been announced that Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) has FINALLY been indicted on bribery and corruption charges. From the FoxNews report:

A federal grand jury on Monday indicted Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson on 16 charges relating to a long-running investigation into bribery, racketeering, obstruction of justice and money laundering.

Calling it a "broad range of serious crimes," federal prosecutors called the case one about "greed, power and arrogance."

"The 16-count indictment alleges a pervasive pattern of self dealings, bribery and corruption by Mr. Jefferson, in violation of his oath of office, of his duty to the United States Congress in which he served, and of the duty to the citizens of the United States," said Chuck Rosenberg, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Jefferson is the guy who last year was found to be hiding some $90,000 in a freezer wrapped with his fish. Most people use newspapers. At that time it was already coming out that he had been involved in bribes and corruption in the U.S. and South Africa, using his position as a Congressman to facilitate various deals in violation of his oath of office.

It was also last year the Congressman, now Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi promised America the most honest Congress in the history of this country. Now that Jefferson has been indicted, and, unlike Tom DeLay who was acquitted of wrong doing, Jefferson will most likely be convicted on the many felony counts.

DeLay was forced from office on trumped up accusations that lead to no where for political reasons.

Jefferson is accused of bribery and corruption, hiding 90 big ones in his home (is tax evasion on the list?). Will the Democrats, lead by Pelosi, oust Jefferson from Congress, or will they circle the wagons around him and protect him from being ousted?

Tags:

William Jefferson Congress Bribery Pelosi DeLay Corruption

Posted by Sqotty at 6:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The ACLU has come out on the side of al-Qaeda. From the World Tribune:

Boeing has been sued by suspected Al Qaida operatives transported by the CIA to Arab countries for interrogation and torture.

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan on behalf of three Al Qaida suspects transported by the CIA under the so-called "extraordinary rendition program."

Why am I not surprised.

Clearly this is an attempt by the hard-left organization to force companies to not provide aid to the U.S. Government in the War on Terror. I guess they will sue any common carrier moving troops and materials to Iraq for similar reasons.

Tags:

al-Qaeda Boeing ACLU

Posted by Sqotty at 5:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

If this isn't a Moonbat moment, I don't know what is. Hillary Clinton this week, from LasVegas Now:

Senator Clinton told members of the Culinary union that corporate America was trying to pull the rug out from under the middle class.

She said, "I have nothing against rich people... but what made America great is the middle class."

I would be surprised if Hillary had something against rich people, as she puts it, since she is not only very wealthy, but from a wealthy family. As for the rest of her statement, she is half right about the middle class. We've made great contributions to America, always striving for the American dream: making life better for our children. What makes America great is the Liberty we all enjoy; it enables us to pursue our dreams and achieve our goals, in the process some of us will become wealthy.

Since Hillary has never been one of us (Middle Class), it isn't surprising that she doesn't understand this.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton HIllary Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Big Dubya's popularity with me is taking a bit of a nose dive over the McKennedy Amnesty bill, more properly known as the Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

It is being reported that Bush has said that any reference to this legislation is scare-mongering and empty rhetoric. He has also said that the immigration system is in need of reform.

Earth to Dubya: the immigration system is in need of enforcement!

One of the biggest problems with the proposed legislation is that it will begin temporary "Z" visas to illegal aliens the day it is signed into law. It also requires that only about half of the fence (or wall, barriers, etc) be completed. These so called visas for illegals will be available BEFORE even that little bit of border security is completed. Add to that the fact that the documentation that can be used to "prove" that an illegal alien was in country prior to January 1, 2007, are easily counterfeited and you have a system designed, by intent, to allow millions more illegal aliens to be on the path to permanent residency than the 12+ million already here.

When Ronald Reagan authorized the first amnesty program in 1986, there were provisions in it that specified that our borders would be secured so has to eliminate the influx of aliens across our borders. The borders were never secured. The amnesty was also supposed to be a one time deal, and the proof required to receive legal status was far more stringent, including having to be able to prove that any given individual had resided in the U.S. for more than five years.

Whether or not we implement a program to put the over 12 million illegal aliens currently living within the United States is one thing. It may be the right thing to do. Hard to say, and my crystal ball is not currently working. However, doing so without first securing our borders, North as well as South, is to court an additional influx of aliens intent on participating in the proposed program.

Legal immigration has always been a part of our nation's history, as well as playing a significant role in its future. The legal path places many hurdles in the path of those who seek to come here, including criminal background checks and health checks.

With the advent of millions of people entering our country illegally, bypassing these checks, we suffer increased crime rates as well as a resurgence of diseases that had previously been eradicated from the United States, including tuberculosis.

I don't have a problem with establishing a guest worker program, or even granting "Z" visas to illegal aliens wishing to stay here if first we secure our borders before any such visas are issued, and second, that they pass ALL security, criminal and health checks that people who have sought entry to our country have had to undergo.

My two cents, for what it's worth.

Tags:

Bush Immigration Reform Illegal Aliens Amnesty

Posted by Sqotty at 6:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Cindy sheehan, who abandoned her family and destoryed her marriage in order to protest the war in Iraq and consort with totalitarian dictatotors like Castro and Chavez, has announced that she is retiring from the Anti-War movement.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Check out the report on Foxnews.

Tags:

Sheehan Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I have yet to figure out how the editorial staff at the Red Star Tribune could be so wrong about things so often. Today's installment form the Paper of Surrender concern's former President jimmy Carter's statement about the Bush administration being "the worst in history." At least in regards to foreign policy and standing in the world community. This coming from a one-time loser who had the absolute worst administration, whose policies, both foreign and domestic, were such failures that he was ousted after four overly-long years in office.

A little comparison is in order.

During the Carter years, the U.S. economy stagnated under double-digit inflation. At that time, interest rates, both on loans and on deposits were sky high. The two are directly related and tightly intertwined. The more expensive it is to borrow money, the higher resulting interest rates.

Carter hamstrung the nuclear energy industry by pushing an agenda that resulted in laws being passed that eliminated the industry from being able to reprocess spent fuel rods. This resulted in the mess we are in today where power plants are stuck stockpiling the radioactive waste instead of shipping them to other reactors that could use the waste to generate more energy.

He also reinstated draft registration, which has set the stage for the possibility for implementing a draft, eliminating the all-volunteer military and setting it back to the Vietnam era and forced conscription of recruits. Bad idea.

Perhaps Carter's biggest failure is in regards to Iran. He failed to support one of our closest allies in the Middle East - the Shah of Iran. When the Shah was deposed and replaced by radical Islamists, Iran became an anti-Western totalitarian theocracy. The fall of Iran was followed by the embassy hostage crisis which Carter failed to resolve due to his ineptitude.

President Bush, on the other hand, inherited from his predecessor, an economic recession and failed economy. The economy continued to flounder and sink after terrorists struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people and causing massive destruction.

Under Bush, America responded to the terrorist attacks by invading Afghanistan and removing the repressive Taliban regime, co-sponsors and protectors of al-Qaeda, perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

The American economy prospered under a series of tax cuts, which also resulted in increased tax revenues. Unemployment fell to lows not seen since before the .COM bubble, and remains low even today.

The Bush Administration correctly perceived that Saddam Hussein was a threat to stability in that region, as well as being a co-sponsor of terror. Iraq had been used as a safe haven for terrorists to meet and plan. Hussein also had chemical weapons that he continued to hide from the Dunsels sent by the United Nations to inspect. Hussein was also directly responsible for the murder of over 500,000 Iraqis during his rule. Kidnappings, rape and torture were the rule of the day. Iraq routinely fired on U.S. and other allied aircraft that were patrolling the skies in accordance to the Gulf War cease fire agreement.

It is clear to me that given the historical facts, it is the Carter Administration that is "the worst in history."

Tags:

Bush Carter Iraq Dubya Foreign Policy

Posted by Sqotty at 7:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It looks as though the Star Tribune is changing its name to the Surrender Tribune, as it rails against the probable capitulation by the Democrats in Congress on setting conditions of surrender to terrorists in regards to funding our Armed Forces currently operating in Iraq. So far, the attempts made by the Party of Surrender to force a timeline for withdrawal, as been vetoed, and they do not have the support to over ride the vetoes.

From the Strib:

What a joke the Democratic majority in Congress risks becoming. On Tuesday, as nine more American soldiers were dying in President Bush's failed Iraq war, the Democrats were caving to Bush and agreed to pass a supplemental war appropriation with no meaningful strings attached. Will the challenge to Bush's Iraq policy mandated powerfully by last fall's congressional election come to such a pitiful, mewing end? It should not.

Although things have not gone anywhere near as well in Iraq as any of us would like, there are a number of reasons why this is so, beginning with the hard-left, including John Kerry, voting against the $86 Billion in funding for equipment the troops on the ground needed. Especially body armor.

The hard-left Democrats, in their rush to pull our troops from Iraq are short-sighted, and only prove that they are willing to do anything to discredit President Bush, even if it means handing Iraq over to terrorists and thugs.

Things could have gone better in Iraq. We all know this. We should never have trusted and negotiated with Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of an armed militia that has been fueling sectarian violence since 2004. 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't mean squat in the long run, and we don't have a time machine capable of sending people back to correct the mistakes.

As for having received a "mandate" in 2006, that is hardly the case. If they had received such a "mandate" from the American people, there would be no problem in achieving the votes needed to override a presidential veto.

Members of Congress have done the job the American people expected of them. They've given Bush the war money he needs, but he rejected it. The ball is in his court. He can accept a timeline for ending American involvement in the war, or he will get no funding, and the Pentagon can begin withdrawing from Iraq sooner rather than later. The American people simply will not agree to continue funding a war without end.

Actually, this is half-true. They've voted to grant the funding only with conditions that UNCONSTITUTIONALLY shifts power away from the executive to the legislative branches. Under our Constitution there is only one Commander-in-chief - the President.

Congress is expected to provide the funding that will adequately equip our troops to continue to do the job that is needed to assist our fledgling ally in securing liberty for its people. If we withdraw before that is accomplished, then it will send a signal to Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Qaeda and the terrorist networks, and the Mullahs of Iran that Iraq is now theirs for the taking. And the sacrifice our troops of made will be in vain.

If the hard-left continues to fail to provide the funding that will provide the equipment that will improve our troops ability to survive in the hostile environment, including the new v-shaped hauled combat vehicles that have proven more resilient at protecting our troops than the more vulnerable Hummer.

To claim that legislation that authorizes funding with a timetable for surrender, I mean withdrawal is the same as saying that there will be no funding provided.

Failure to properly equip our troops in the field the latest and best technology for them to accomplish their mission on the part of Congress means that more of our precious troops lives will be in greater risk. Their blood will be on the hands of the hard-left controlling Congress for their continued refusal to provide them with that which they need, and their mouthpieces in the media, including the Star Tribune.

Tags:

Iraq War on Terror al-Qaeda Muqtada al-Sadr Star Tribune

Posted by Sqotty at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

FoxNews has a disturbing report about the attitude of U.S. Muslims and terrorism:

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say homicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.

That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.

Although the overall majority is against homicide bombings, there is a disturbing trend amongst those under 30 that believe such terrorist attacks are legitimate.

The terrorist groups always purport that their attacks are in "defense" of Islam, yet the truth does not bear this out. Whether looking at the attacks against the U.S. and its allies, or attacks in Israel, it all comes down to the same thing, and it ain't "defense" of Islam. It's about power and destroying those they, the terrorist organizations, perceive as a threat to their being able to re-establish a Caliphate.

That there is such a large segment of Muslim youth within the U.S. that think terrorism is okay, and homicide bombings are terrorism, is not surprising. This matches similar trends in other Western counties where tolerance and freedom of religion is the law of the land (funny that many Muslim countries do not reciprocate on that score), and the growing use of technology by terrorist groups to di