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.