Kowabunga

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

Now that 2008 is finally here and we are officially into the election cycle, it's time I get off the bench and be serious about who I like and don't like for President.

As can be easily guessed, there isn't anyone on the Democrat side that I would support. Not because they are Democrats but because of where they stand on the issues: Surrender in Iraq; amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens; tax increases and bigger government; socialized health care (crikey, that one I really don't understand how people who say they don't trust the government are willing to put it in charge of their medical decisions!); unwillingness to reform and privatize Social Security; gun control; abortion; and the list can go on and on and on.

So that leaves the GOP, and who have we got there?

McCain, who was part of the gang of 14 that, with the Democrats, helped to subvert the judicial nomination process and pushed to silence free speech during the election cycle. Those are probably the two biggest strikes against him. At least he won't surrender Iraq to Iranian supported terrorist groups. He is also solid on national defense. so, all though he has some negatives, he also has some positives.

Huckabee, who pushed hard to get a convicted rapist released on parole, then that felon proceeded to brutally murder a woman in Missouri. This is compounded by his record of numerous tax hikes and increased government spending in Arkansas. On other issues, it is a mixed bag of tricks.

Romney has been on my top three short list of candidates. He's a bit mixed on the economy, taxes and spending, but coming from the extremely liberal Massachusetts, its an improvement.

Giuliani supports sanctuary cities, as noted by his time as Mayor of New York City and his decisions to keep "sanctuary laws" in place there. He was also a strong supporter of the McCain-Feingold silence free speech act. He may have a good understanding of tax cuts (record reflects this), but should that outweigh free speech concerns?

Duncan Hunter is also on my short list. He's strong on National Defense, supports the liberation of Iraq, and securing our borders. Seems to be a bit mixed on taxation and spending. Hunter also gained the support of Chuck Yeager, which speaks volumes for his credibility as a candidate. As much as I like him, though, I think he would be better positioned to carry the bottom half of the ticket and would make one heckuva great V.P. Which is more than I can say about a lot of other folks. With California being so far left, he may have a bit of a struggle to carry his home state, but given the right combination, it could be done.

Ron Paul? Okay, what can I say? He's the "Dennis Kucinich" of the Republican Party. Although he is strong on taxation and Federal spending (meaning: big on cutting taxes and reducing spending), he is way off base when it comes to Iraq. In fact, he sounds like Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich rolled into one when it comes to Iraq. He is also anti-free trade, which is problematic.

Fred Thompson, the third person on my short list. Solid record on taxation and spending with the exception of "earmarks" (also known as pork barrel spending). Solid supportor of Iraq as an ally rather than letting it succumb to Islamic Extremists (the typical democrat position).

The next few weeks will be interesting indeed as we should start to see some of the second tier candidates drop from the race (goodbye Ron Paul!) and begin to see how the campaign shapes up going forward.

Hopefully we'll see either Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney at the top of the ticket with Duncan Hunter carrying the bottom half.

For an interesting perspective on candidate records, go to the Club for Growth website. They have reports on most of the candidates there.

Tags:

Presidential Election Republican Democrat Romney Hunter Thompson Ron Paul

Posted by Sqotty at 7:30 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

It's been a weird few days and haven't had as much opportunity to write as I would like. tomorrow is likely to be the same as it is the Minnesota GOP Straw Poll, and my friend, and State Rep., Pat Garofalo has offered me a ticket, which I greatly appreciate.

I haven't decided who I favor as the top of the chart for my hit parade for the 2008 campaign. I do hae several favorites, and several whom I have eliminated from consideration in the primary (those would be Giuliani and McCain).

I like Mitt Romney a lot, and his being LDS doesn't have any bearing to my choice. He has done a good job in Massachusetts.

I also like Mike Huckabee, especially after reading his website. We seem to be on the same page on most issues, especially the big ones (Iraq, the War on Terror, border security, Second amendment).

Duncan Hunter has a lot going form him to. Chuck Yeager is a big supporter of his, and that speaks volumes in my book. No offense to Hunter, I am just not sure he can pull it off at the top of the ticket. He would make one heckuva a great VP.

Finally, there is Newt Gingrich. I don't think he is in the race at this point, and he has a lot of "baggage" to over come. At least, that is the popular thought. The thing is, the "baggage" he has only carries weight with people who wouldn't vote for any Republican in the first place: the MoveOn crowd (and I wish they would MoveOn...to France!).

My initial thoughts on Fred Thompson were favorable, however, I've changed my mid about him. I don't think he is the Reaganite that many people want us to believe him to be.

So, right now, those are my four choices: Romney, Huckabee, Hunter, and Gingrich. I have no idea how the straw poll will go tomorrow. However, I will write a post about it when I get home.

It should be a lot of fun as Jason Lewis will be there as well, kind of an MC or Keynote or something.

Tags:

Straw Poll Romney Hunter Huckabee McCain Giuliani Gingrich

Posted by Sqotty at 7:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

It's funny how the Dems and others keep accusing Romney of flip-flopping on some issues, yet something that is critical to national security, the entrusting of the ultimate weapon, and Hillary flip-flops, nobody notices.

From Washington Post:

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago.

"I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table," he said.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Our nuclear arsenal is probably one of the most important factors, if not THE most important factor, in how we choose a president.

When a candidate states unilaterally that they would not use nukes under any circumstances, then they show a level of weakness to our enemies.

This is what got Eisenhower in trouble with the U.S.S.R. when he signed a treaty to stop testing nukes. We stopped, the bad guys didn't.

There is a balance that needs to be reached. You can't belligerently go around saying you are going to nuke countries or cities as Tancredo has been reported as doing in respect to nuking Mecca. You also can't say the use of nukes is off the table. Both extremes send the wrong message to the bad guys in Iran, North Korea, China, as well as the Islamic Terrorists.

When it comes to entrusting such weaponry, there is no way I would consider Hillary with nukes. I'd be afraid she would actually use it on one of our allies as a result of "actionable intelligence."

Obama on the other hand, continues to show naiveté by saying he wouldn't use nukes under any circumstances.

The middle ground is not to say whether or not you would use nukes. Reason: you pray to God that using them will never be necessary, but remain prepared to use them should the need arise.

While Hillary flip-flops on how she plans to deal with terrorism and other foreign policy issues, Obama continues to prove that he is a lightweight by trying to follow Hillary's lead and failing to keep up with her.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Obama Nuclear Weapons

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

Obama has been catching a lot of flack about his saying he would invade Pakistan if he had "actionable intelligence."

I ran across this clip on youtube. IN it, there is an over lay of Hillary saying very much the same thing.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Pakistan

Posted by Sqotty at 6:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Elizabeth Edwards on her husband's campaign: "We can't make John black, we can't make him a woman."

No kidding. Could you at least make him smart? Can you get him to grow a pair when it comes to dealing with the war in Iraq and terrorism?

Probably not, even with Obama trying to portray himself as a chickenhawk wanting to invade an ally (Pakistan), Edwards will continue to take the chickendove stance on terrorism and Iraq.

It would be nice if they could even get him to be partially right on some of the major issues, like taxation, eminent domain, health care, and a host of other issues.

Instead, we get to hear of Edwards getting thousand dollar hair cuts and primping himself before the camera.

Edwards is the bottom of the heap when it comes to the A-list of Democratic candidates, trailing far behind the two front runners, Hilary and Obama.

I have no doubt that Hillary would be a lot happier if Obama would go away so that she could focus on besting Edwards, as anybody could beat him. No doubt the GOP would like it if Edwards would win the Democratic nomination. We can, hope, right?

Tags:

Edwards Democrat Hillary Obama

Posted by Sqotty at 6:50 AM | 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

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

It look's as though Obama is doing his best to appeal to the ant-American hard-left that controls the Democratic Party. I suppose this should not come as a surprise. Here is what he had to say about President Bush on Sunday in Kansas City, from MSNBC:

"The day that this president steps down, the entire world will breath a sigh of relief."

Just to name a few of those who will breathe a sigh of relief: Fidel Castro, murdering dictator; Hugo Chavez, communist thug; Kim Jong Il, murdering dictator; Ahmadinejad, terrorist thug; Osama Bin Laden, mass-murdering terrorist thug; al-Qaeda, terrorist organization bent on the destruction of America; Muqtada al-Sadr, Jidist running death squads in Iraq; Syria, Communist China, and the list goes on.

Why would they breathe a sigh of relief when Bush steps down?

Easy - it means that the bad guys have won. At least they will if we elect someone like Barack "we give up" Obama, or any one else from the Party of Surrender.

It means that Iran will have a free hand to develop nuclear weapons and North Korea will be incentivised to continue building bombs that may soon be capable of hitting North America.

It means that Hugo Chavez will continue to seize the assets of private businesses while marching his country on towards communism, oppression and poverty for all.

It means that when Castro finally passes on to the nether-reaches of Hell, he will be replaced by someone that will keep the Communist status quo, rather than leading Cuba out of the darkness of the tyranny of Marxism.

It means that Muqtada al-Sadr will have gained the upper hand in Iraq, with his death squads, and the flegdling democracy will founder and fail.

Syria will continue to support Hezbollah and other terrorist groups operating in Israel and within the Palestinian Authority, preventing any chance of a lasting peace and two-state solution.

These reasons, and many more, are why electing anyone like Obama, or Hillary, is not only dangerous to America, it is dangerous to the world as a whole.

Tags:

Obama Anti-American

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

Al Sharpton, after receivingin some critisism over a statement he made in a recent debate, is now claiming he didn't say what he said, or maybe he didn't mean what he said. Maybe he his doing the Flipper Kerry Boogie.

From FoxNews:

"As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation," Sharpton said Monday during a debate with Hitchens at the New York Public Library's Beaux-Arts headquarters.

youtube video available here:

That's a very bigoted statement to make about someone's religious beliefs, and coming from someone who purports to be a man of the cloth!

Sharpton is also one of those on the hard-left that castigated Imus for his on-air stupidity (which was a bigoted statement on the part of Imus) as well as the crucifixion of the Duke La Crosse players FALSELY accused of rape.

Sharpton, in an attempt at damage control, now claims:

"What I said was that we would defeat him, meaning as a Republican," Sharpton said. "A Mormon, by definition, believes in God. They don't believe in God the way I do, but by definition, they believe in God."

Perhaps what the (not so) Reverend Al Sharpton really means is that only Democrats believe in God, and that Republicans are nothing but godless heathens.

It is clear to me that Sharpton really meant what he originally said, "As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways…"

Last I checked, I believe in God, and I would vote for Romney.

Tags:

Sharpton Romney Mormon

Posted by Sqotty at 6:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Have you noticed how much the Democrats like to proclaim "The American People have spoken" when pushing their policy of surrender to terrorists? A little belated, this is off of FoxNews; Hillary Clinton speaks:

"The American people have spoken. The Congress has voted, as of today, to end this war. And now we can only hope that the president will listen."

The last I checked, the American People are, at best, divided when it comes to the ongoing military operations in Iraq. Many Democrats newly elected to the House and Senate won their elections in closely contested districts and states. My Congressman, John Kline (R-MN, 2nd District) won easily against his far-left anti-war opponent, Colleen Rowley.

For the Democrats to claim that the American People have spoken in support implies that all Americans support the call to set a date of Surrender to Terrorists. Although there is a pretty good sized segment of the population that wants to see America defeated by terrorists and sectarian death squads operating in Iraq, I seriously doubt that they constitute a majority.

There is also another classic bit from the piece on the debate:

In an exchange that may resonate as the campaign continues, both Obama and Edwards declined to endorse military retaliation for a hypothetical simultaneous attack on two American cities that the United States knows Al Qaeda perpetrated. The two said they would analyze U.S. intelligence and homeland security failures first and while they did not absolutely rule out military retaliation, their answers looked inward. Obama said he would "potentially take some action" against Al Qaeda. Edwards said "there are more tools than bombs."

What Obama and Edwards are saying is that they would appease and surrender to terrorists. "Let al-Qaeda win," to paraphrase a line from Star Wars.

The culture of terror is one that does not respect the "turn the other cheek" philosophy, instead interpreting non-action or appeasement as weakness, which invites further attacks.

On the point of laughable, during the debate some candidates asked if they ever had a gun in their home, to which Kucinich raised is hands. Earth to Kucinich, they did not mean squirt guns.

Tags:

Hillary+Clinton Obama Edwards Kucinich

Posted by Sqotty at 6:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Hillary Clinton may have learned from her husband’s mistakes while he was the Commander in Chief; the question is, will be it be sufficient to overcoming her history of disdain for all things military. After all, Hillary is still an anti-military leftist attempting to pass her self off as a pro-American hawk. From the NYTimes:

During his 1992 campaign, Mr. Clinton was attacked for avoiding the Vietnam draft and organizing antiwar marches in the 1960s. After taking office, his early focus on gay men and lesbians in the military drew sharp criticism from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin L. Powell, and other officers. Even his ability to salute properly was called into question.

Mrs. Clinton, to use a phrase, has been practicing her salute. As a senator and now as a presidential candidate, she has cultivated relationships with generals and admirals, prepped herself on wartime needs and strategy, and traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan.

"I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation's business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn't have before the White House," said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.

Maybe she has learned a bit about the military, however, like her husband, she will never be one of us. This is not to say that no one who has never served in the Armed Forces is incapable or unqualified of serving as Commander in Chief of the military. It is Hillary’s anti-military (Vietnam War!) past that will need some over-hauling if she should become our next president (God forbid!). Dereliction of Duty details some of her treatment of military officers during the Billary Administration.

Anyone can practice saluting, attempting some form of perfection that will be perceived as respectful of those who served. It takes far more than practice and a few years in the Senate to truly understand what the military is about and how it should be used.

The article also points out that there are some in the military who are wary of Hillary, and concerned that she will redistribute funding away from the military in order to push a socialist agenda, just as was done in the ‘90s under her husband. It was during their administration that the military was gutted in order to “balance” the budget. With current hostilities, and the potential of having to deal with a nuclear-armed Iran and North Korea, and possibly even al-Qaeda, gutting the military again is not an acceptable option.

If Hillary is elected to our nation’s highest office, will there be a sudden downsizing of the military by soldiers who decide not to continue with a military career? That was a distinct possibility had Kerry been elected in 2004. I knew a number of young Army officers who intended to leave the service had Flipper become president.

In the event of a mass exodus from the military, will Hillary push for re-instating the draft? Or will she do so even if there is not the thundering of boots heading for the nearest exit?

She is playing both ends of the field, attempting to fit in with the military and supporting the ongoing mission in Iraq, all the while attempting to appease the left by criticizing the manner in which the war is conducted. Never mind the fact that it was not that long ago that she, and other leftists in the Senate, were calling for increasing the number of troops in Iraq. It’s amazing how that when they get what they want, they decide it is time to shift gears and find other ways to undermine efforts in Iraq.

"By surrounding herself with military brass, it reinforces an image of her as strong and hawkish," Mr. Carpenter said. "But is that an authentic image? Would she really give dollars to the Pentagon instead of to cherished domestic programs?"

Even money she’ll claim that there is a need to increase taxes in order to push her socialist agenda as well as maintain the military.

I think if there is anything she has learned since 1992, it is that you can’t hope to win the presidency if you are perceived as anti-military.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Military Hillary Billary

Posted by Sqotty at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Hillary on gays in the military - this is off of the Bloomberg News via National Journal:

"Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."

As I recall, "Don't ask, don't tell" was implemented by the Clintons early in their administration. Prior to that, it was a matter for the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Regardless of whether you believe gays should be allowed to serve in the Armed Forces, the current state of the military system is such that gays are not allowed (at least openly gay people currently).

I have no doubt that there are a number of experts on both sides of the issue that have a lot to say. There are times when I am not even sure which side to take. Both sides have valid points; like why should people who want to serve their county be banned vs. it creates various issues in regards to sexuality (like communal showers) and morale.

It's just interesting to note that a policy implemented by the Clintons is now found to be wanting in the eyes of the woman who would be queen, I mean president, and would want to go back to the way things were when I wore the uniform.

Tags:

Hillary Military Gays

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

Hillary Clinton, contrary to her own belief, is no JFK. From New York Post:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the campaign of the nation's lone Catholic president, John Kennedy, last night as she talked about her challenge in becoming the first female commander-in-chief.

"He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic. A lot of people back then [1960] said, 'America will never elect a Catholic as president,' " the White House hopeful told the New Hampshire Democrats' 100 Club fund-raiser here.

"But those who gathered here almost a half century ago knew better," she said. "They believed America was bigger than that and Americans would give Sen. John F. Kennedy a fair shake, and the rest, as they say, is history."

A few subtle differences:

JFK cut taxes on the wealthy, significantly, which spurred economic growth in the first half of the ‘60s. Hillary has yet to meet a tax increase she didn’t like.

JFK was a virulent anti-communist, supported our allies in Southeast Asia who were struggling against totalitarianism. Hillary has never met a commie she didn’t like.

JFK was willing to nuke the U.S.S.R. over the Cuban missile crisis. Hillary would rather let the U.N. control our missile codes.

JFK was a bonefide war hero and recipient of the Medal of Honor. Hillary was an anti-war protestor during the Vietnam era, married a draft dodger, and has a history of displaying contempt for those who serve their country in the armed forces (check out Paterson’s book Dereliction Of Duty).

Bottom line is, Hillary ain’t no JFK.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton JFK Kennedy

Posted by Sqotty at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

According to Matthew Gross on the John Edwards Blog, Fox News is not giving Edwards a "fair and balanced" coverage. Nor are they expected to give any candidate that's a Democrat a fair shake. As if CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, or any other arm of the DNC, I mean, Main stream Media, gives a Republican candidate a fair shake. The facts on the matter are clear. Fox News is far more balanced when it comes to the political arena than any other news outlet.

Here's a sample of what Gross wrote on the subject:

You may have heard by now that John Edwards was the first candidate to officially say no to the Fox News debate in Nevada -- and because of the hard work of so many grassroots and netroots Democrats, news is breaking tonight that Fox is out.

Fox has already started striking backat John for saying no. (There's a surprise - Fox attacking a Democrat.) Last night, Roger Ailes - the life-long Republican operative who is now Chairman of Fox News Channel - said that any candidate "who believes he can blacklist any news organization is making a terrible mistake" and "is impeding freedom of speech and free press."

And John's not their only target. Tonight Fox News Vice President David Rhodes is telling news organizations not to get involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus because of "radical fringe" groups - meaning grassroots Democrats (that would be you) - who objected to Fox's long history of spreading Republican propaganda at the expense of Democratic leaders.

The whole right-wing is getting in on the attack; the Drudge Report is blaring the headline: "War! Dems Pull Out of Fox News Debate."

Enough is enough. It's time to send a clear message to Fox News and their allies that their right-wing talking points and temper tantrums won't go unchallenged anymore - when it comes to what Democrats should do in the Democratic primary, we'll decide - no matter what they report.

The so called grassroots and netroots of the Democrats are radical groups like MoveOn, which is about as far left as you can get, and has a history of posting repugnant comparisons of President Bush to Hitler. Many of them are about as anti-American as you can get.

What I mean by anti-American is that they do not support the basic principles on which this great nation was founded: liberty, personal responsibility, self-government. What they push is a reliance on, and expansion of, government; controlling population through social programs and banning free will. They do not want Americans to have a choice on many issues (except for abortion, which is contrary to the Declaration of Independence guarantee of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happinesss").

Whether or not Ailes of Fox news is accurately quoted is something I don't know. I would like to see the entire film clip so I can see the context.

As for the Nevada debate, Edwards has a right to not attend. He's being pretty short-sighted, but, in a free country, that is his prerogative. It's no biggie to me.

What Gross then writes is that so-called "temper tantrums" by the supposed "right-wing" is not okay and will not be unchallenged. However, left-wing temper tantrums are perfectly okay. Go figure.

One thing is certain, it's going to be one heckuva campaign, and a long one at that.

Tags:

John Edwards Fox News

Posted by Sqotty at 7:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Barack Obama's financial wheelings and dealings with some of his biggest donors is getting some coverage. From Drudge Report:

The paper claims, according to newsroom sources: One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.

This is pretty typical. Buy stock in a company and use political influence to push through an agenda that will benefit the company and your stock holdings in said company. I wonder what the name of the company is.

The paper's Mike McIntire and Chris Drew get front placement [side by side with Libby Coverage] for details of Obama's most recent financial disclosure:

It shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.

Based on the little information, I am not as concerned about this one, but would like to know what the company is and who these donors are. It is not as if they gave him the stock, or contributed to his campaign as a result of his investment. However, it is something that should be watched.

The piece also mentions that a spokesman for Obama claims the Senator did not know he had invested in either company. That's a load of bull and not the kind you find on Wall Street. Okay, maybe you can find it there. Regardless, how can he invest in two companies without realizing he has invested in them. Doesn't he monitor his investments?

Still, there is not enough information available to accuse him of any wrongdoing. A little stupidity maybe, but not wrongdoing.

Tags:

Obama Wall Street Investents Drudge

Posted by Sqotty at 7:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

John Edwards claims to know what Jesus would think on a variety of issues we face today. Has Edwards been talking with Jesus? From BreitBart.com:

Edwards, in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country's willingness to go to war "when it's not necessary."

"I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," Edwards told the site. "I think he would be appalled, actually."

Edwards also said he was against teacher-led prayers in public schools, but he added that "allowing time for children to pray for themselves, to themselves, I think is not only OK, I think it's a good thing."

In an attempt to appeal to both the Christian right and the anti-war Left, Edwards is claiming that Jesus would be against the war to liberate Iraq, describing it as an unnecessary war. Question to Edwards: is Iraq better off today, even with the al-Qaeda terrorists and sectarian death squads, than it was under Hussein and his terrorists and death squads?

As for ignoring those who are poor and suffering, Americans do more than any other people on the face of the Earth to help those in need. Take a look at such organizations as the United Way and the Salvation Army. Or is Edwards implying that we should be taxed more so as to create more inefficient government bureaucracy in order to provide handouts to people, rather than helping hands?

Is statement about allowing children to pray in school is clearly an attempt to appeal to the Christian right, attempting to paint himself as a moderate.

There is one thing I will say as a positive. In the piece, Edwards is said to have discussed is rediscovery of his faith after the death of his teenage son. I have no doubt that he is sincere there. I've spent a goodly amount of time lost in the wilderness myself, and am finding a keen desire to reconnect with my faith as well.

Regardless, he is a Leftie in sheep's (moderates?) clothing.

Tags:

John Edwards Iraq War Christianity

Posted by Sqotty at 7:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
View blog reactions

Hillary Clinton is appears to be working hard to appease the anti-war zealots that make up the hard-left core of the Democratic Party. In a piece on the New York Times online edition, it is pointed out that she is avoiding apologizing for her initial support in the 2002 vote for war in Iraq, or denouncing said vote as a mistake. To her credit, she refers to such tactics as being nothing more than a gimmick. Instead, she is favoring rhetoric used by John "Flipper" Kerry in 2004, the "If I knew then what I know now" tactic.

She is also attempting to appeal to the anti-war crowd by threatening to have the authorization for the war revoked if the troops are not redeployed beginning in the next 90 days.

Whether or not her rhetoric is sufficient to overcome her past votes on military operations in Iraq remains to be seen. It is obvious that it will not appeal to those who support establishing a free and democratic society in Iraq, but then she knows most people who support such will not vote for her any way. Thus her best option is that of appeasing the anti-war crowd, and allowing Iraq to become a 21st century Cambodia.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Iraq War On Terror

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

Since Barack Obama, the current flavor of the month or the Liberal-Left, is in the news yet again. In this piece from the Examiner, we learn:

"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," the Illinois Democrat wrote in "The Audacity of Hope," a memoir published last year.

There are two problems with this statement by Obama. The first is that he must be implying that conservatives to not base their arguments in reason and fact. This is rather insulting and condescending for someone to claim, especially from a would be president.

Frankly, on many issues, Liberals do not base their arguments on reason or fact. Take the Global Warming hysteria. Sure, the climate is warming, but this is part of the natural cycle of the Earth. It was only 40 years ago that the hysteria was about a coming ice age. Go figure.

The War on Iraq, the Liberal-Left claim, cannot be won. Yet just a year or so ago, many, including former presidential candidate and still senator Kerry were claiming we needed to send more troops to Iraq in order to win.

Social Security reform is another issue that Dems refuse to discuss, despite the fact that it will go belly up probably in the next decade.

Basing their arguments of reason and fact? Sounds like a combination of scare tactics and hogwash to me. But that doesn't mean anything to the MoveOn (to France) crowd. And so long as that is true, the Liberal-Left will continue to dish out the propaganda and ignore reason and facts.

Tags:

Barack Obama

Posted by Sqotty at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Flipper Kerry announced that he will not seek the Presidency in '08. There is plenty of time to live up to his moniker and change his mind. From Boston.com:

"Two years ago I sought the presidency to lead us on a different course. I'm proud of the campaign that we ran," Kerry said.

"We came close, Mr. President, certainly close enough to be tempted to try again," he continued. "There are powerful reasons to want to continue that fight now. But I've concluded that this isn't the time for me to mount a presidential campaign. It is the time to put my energy to work as part of the majority in the Senate, to do all I can to end this war and strengthen our security.

He didn't come all that close, something like missing at by a couple of million votes. Plus close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and nuclear weapons. Be that as it may, based on Kerry's recent performance in the '06 campaign, it should still prove to be fun to watch as he continues to "botch jokes" and have other mishaps involving snowboarding and secret service agents.

I have no doubt that the main reason he is not running is who he would face in the primary. The leftie-duo of Hillary and Obama, both of whom can out campaign Kerry faster than you can say "Swift Boat Veteran." Both are far more liberal and dangerous to American Liberty than Kerry would be.

Election '08 is off to an interesting start, with Hillary harnessing the new technology to its fullest. Something the GOP better get a grasp of before to long, otherwise, we could be hearing Madame President and First Philanderer two years from now.

Tags:

Kerry Hillary Obama Election '08

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

GOP Bloggers is running their fifth 2008 straw poll for the Presidential Election.

I am moderately surprised by the current result for first choice is:

Gingrich leads at 26%

Giuliani follows at 25.2%

It is not a scientific poll, and I am not sure if there are mechanisms in place to filter repeat pollers(?).

Here's the link to the current straw poll:

Tags:

Straw Poll

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