OunceOfLogic

The American War

2009-04-19T06:41:00.000-07:00

After years of reading increasingly polarized comments one thing is crystal clear: This is not a debate.

Conservative commenters often write extensively researched pieces detailing how this or that assumption/policy/statement is incorrect; and the response is always-always-always the same: the commenter is lashed at for being a racist/fascist/water-carrier/christian or whatever other "demon of the day" term pops up in their magic 8 ball.

One constant: Liberals NEVER address the issues but default instead to name calling, unfounded accusations and the ever-present Bush hatred. Theirs can be called an argument only in the basest meaning of the word: Fight. Their only response is to attempt to discredit or - even better - silence the speaker. "Agree or Die!" The next two steps, imprison or Kill, cannot be far behind.

The masses of Obama supporters know nothing of what they support, and care even less. Obama is not Bush. Democrats are not Republicans. Nothing else matters. Knowledge, Reason, Facts, Logic are unnecessary. Al Gore showed the way with his global warming/cooling/changing hoax. All Liberal positions "settled science". The time for discussion is arbitrarily declared over, and opposing viewpoints are things standing in their way, and the destruction of those holding them are the only course of action.

Unfortunately we are fast approaching the point at which the only resolution will be the total annihilation of one side or the other. Meaningful dialog cannot take place in this climate, and the Liberal leaders not only know this, but are already planning for it: Obama's "private military force": his "enemies list" currently limited to ex-military and those with bumper stickers, but soon to include anyone who didn't vote for him; his all out assault on everyone with money or the chance of making it; etc. These are the first steps in the Civil War that they know is coming. They expect to win it and are preparing for it.

This is not a dialog... not a struggle... this is a WAR which is already underway. And Conservatives, stuck in their belief that there are certain Truths in this world - that Americans share certain Values - are unprepared and hopelessly naive of the extent to which their opponents are willing to go.

This will not end well.

An Actor is now our president.

2008-11-16T05:39:00.000-08:00

A half-dozen “entities”, most led by insane tyrants, are openly displaying their desire to attack or otherwise destroy the US and/or its allies.

Russia, anxious to reclaim super power status, encourages or directly supports most of these efforts.

China stands just off stage, hoping to fill the vacuum left by a diminished United States.
Most of the rest of the world roots, not so silently, for the Big Dog’s fall.

Our Allies (if they can be called that) hide in the bushes (no pun intended) – preparing their “I was with you all along” speeches to whoever wins.

Our own media would, apparently, like nothing better than to see America reduced to the level of, say… Canada; and regularly publishes every secret they can get their hands on (or invent) to hasten that end.

Not to mention the “perfect storm” which threatens to collapse the very foundation of our economy. The seeds of this collapse were planted by the Democrats and grew out of the very socialist agenda that Obama espouses, and they share at least equal guilt with Republicans for their eyes-closed supervision of the resultant economic catastrophe.

In the midst of all this, we elect the most radical, most socialist, most anti-war president this nation has ever had. A man who thinks he can talk his way out of anything. A man who, in two years as a senator, thinks he knows more about running a war that anyone. A man who wants to “spread around” our wealth, 33% of which has just vaporized. A man who shamelessly plays pre-emptive race cards. And a man who silences, or demeans, or dismisses as “distraction”, any and all opposing views or criticisms.

He (Capital He) has said that he will make everything better… and he has told us, in no uncertain terms, that he will solve our problems with the very same things that caused them in the first place. And we (very small we) have decided to trust him – even though his lies have repeatedly been exposed… even though his associates are undeniably anti-American… even though his penchant for secrecy and his thirst for power have been on obvious display for his entire public life.

But he talks so nice… he looks so good… he reads so well.

The Era of American Idol has come to fruition.

An Orator… an Actor without a screen credit to his name is now our president.

Slim hope for our future.

2008-11-03T04:12:00.000-08:00

Well, it appears that a majority of voters, led by the Oberman's, the NYTimes, and the rest of mainstream media, are about to elect a smooth talking nobody as President of this once-great country of ours.

Obama's many distasteful ties to criminals, racists, socialists have been ignored as "distractions".

His own words confirming his socialist leanings: ignored.

His total lack of experience: ignored.

His claim of post-partisanship (completely disproven by his record) is ignored.

His blatant use of Racism throughout his campaign (and his life) is ignored.

All labeled as "distractions"... as we roll onward with vague dreams of hope and change, supplied to us by a man who is totally without substance or experience... his only qualification for the office being that he has been running for it his entire adult life.

I am tempted again to say that we deserve what we will get; but most of us don't... because most Obama voters - blinded by their insane hatred of George Bush - have been fooled by the media, or forced by the Thought Police into thinking that voting against Obama is a racist act. If, indeed, we are that weak as individuals... maybe we do deserve what we will get for the next 4 years with radicals Pelosi & Reid & Murtha & Durbin & Schumer & Rangel & Wexler, et al, in total and unimpeded command of our Government. Checks & Balances, a system which has kept this country from veering too far in either direction, will no longer exist... and that is what scares me most.

The only bright spot that I can find here is the sincere hope that this cadre of radicals will be so caught up in their endless investigations attempting to blame everything on Bush, that they will not get around to completely dismantling the America that has led the world for 200 years. My hope is that America willl survive these next four years, that the socialist wing of the Democrat Party will have failed in its final attempt to transform the U.S. into its exact opposite, and that Democrat Party itself will become a historical footnote.

A nice thought, but a very slim hope, indeed.

Destroying America

2008-09-15T15:09:00.000-07:00

The ACLU crowd seems to think that the U.S. is already a fascist state, citing as evidence Guantanamo and wiretapping among others. I think that efforts to defend the U.S. against terrorists are being ham-strung by the fact that primary consideration must be given to "proper" treatment of those very terrorists as we pursue them and after they are apprehended.

So there you are. Two opinions that couldn't be more opposite, resulting in the exact same answer to the simplistic question about the country's "direction". Is the U.S. headed in the right direction? A rousing "NO" erupts from both ends of the spectrum and, I would assume, from most of the middle as well.

And yet, the media always - ALWAYS - presents this as a referendum against Administration policies.

Go figure!

This country will never again be "united". And maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing to be a 50-50, left-right country. It is the fanatics, the closed-minded radicals, who turn what could be a healthy give-and-take government process into a hate-filled internal war in which only the total annihalation of the opposing viewpoint is acceptable. Both sides have their "fringes", but the fringe comprises about 75% of the Left, making compromise impossible. So we're doomed. In spite of the inherant goodness, creativity, generosity and productivity of it's people, America's Political Class is well on its way to destroying our country.

Between the Rich and the Poor.

Between the Educated Elite and the Working Class.

Between those who want Racism to continue and those who want it to end (although both "say" pretty much the same thing.

Between those who are heavily invested in Inequality and those who pretty much think it doesn't really exist.Between those who the individuals are responsible for their own lives and those who think their lives, prosperity and happiness are the Government's responsibility.

Between those who believe in the rules and those who want to change them.

Between those who are Proud of America and those who are Ashamed of her.

A thousand opposing groups, some natural and real, most created for political purposes; but all exploited by this party or (more likely) that party to pit us against each other.

Kruschev said "We will destroy you from within" and America has responded to that with a resounding FUCK YOU, RUSSKI! WE'LL DESTROY OURSELVES!

Lindsay Lohan Lashes Out at Sarah Palin - WHAT????

2008-09-15T15:00:00.000-07:00

Are you KIDDING me????

When headlines like this (from some site called Showbizspy.com) are actually linked on Drudge, I'm afraid, the end of the world as we knew it cannot be far behind.

Lindsay Lohan makes Streisand seem intelligent. If there is one person on this earth who actually is influenced by what this insane teenybopper whorechild thinks about anything - much less about Sarah Palin or politics in general - I want to hear from you now. Please!

9/11 comments

2007-09-11T20:16:00.000-07:00

9/11 -- The Democrats would like us to forget the events of Sep 11, 2001 as they have. They think that acknowledging a threat brings attention to National Security, and that is the last thing they want us to think about because it highlights their weakness on the subject and if that happens... then the worst thing of all might happen: They might lose an election.

And nothing - I repeat - NOTHING could be worse than that. Political Power is the only thing that most Democrats hold dear. Everything else is secondary. Everything else can, and indeed, should be used in whatever manner necessary to promote the only item on their agenda - Winning - no matter what the cost.

Media Bias -- This is the most self-evident topic of the last century and I shouldn't even waste your time or my own with these few words. I made an observation today - yes, just today... I'm a little slow - that, in the past three years or so, there hasn't been an article written on Iraq, or the Military, or George Bush, or Petraus, or the Surge, or the War on Terror, or any other related subjec, which didn't mention that either Bush or the War was (and I think this is the exact phrase that has been used in 90% of those articles) is "increasingly unpopular".

If anyone locates an article without this phrase in any main stream article, please link me to it.

NYT suddenly concerned with ETHICS!

2007-07-11T20:27:00.000-07:00

Excerpt from NYT July 12, 2007

"McCain Call Raises an Ethics Question
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and MICHAEL COOPER

About 3 p.m. Tuesday, Senator John McCain ducked off the Senate floor, entered the Republican cloakroom and took out his mobile phone. Just hours after accepting the resignation of his two top campaign aides, he was making a conference call to his top fund-raisers to urge them to keep up the fight.

The call, however, may only have exacerbated an already tough week for Mr. McCain. Senate ethics rules expressly forbid lawmakers to engage in campaign activities inside Senate facilities. If Mr. McCain solicited campaign contributions on a call from government property, that would be a violation of federal criminal law as well."

No campaign activities inside Senate facilities??? Are you kidding?????? What else has been going on in there for the past 25 years? And how many life sentences do you think Harry Reid will get? At least Mcain had the decency to go to the cloakroom.

And it seems that the MMMedia is only interested in ethics when a Republican is involved. (Bill Clinton, William Jefferson... Harry Reid, anyone?).

Is it even remotely possible that the Times doesn't see the irony and hypocrisy of this article?

"America's most respected news source." BULLSHIT. I can't take much more of this.

Bogus Immigration Arguments

2007-06-03T06:20:00.000-07:00

Republicans (so the story goes) hate all Americans (except for Rich White Americans); Democrats love all Americans (except for Rich White Americans) but hate America herself [but don't call them unpatriotic, cuz they're not].

Racism/Bigotry – This ubiquitous accusation is the Left’s default charge against anyone who opposes any part of their agenda. Like most of the terms that Liberals use to demonize their opposition, it no longer has any meaning whether relevant or not.

In the case of Illegal Immigration the Race card is being played incessantly as the Democrats pursue more “poor” votes, whatever the cost to America.

A very large group of people have broken into our country, disrespecting our sovereignty and our laws, and have proceeded to disproportionately (and negatively) influenced our already over-loaded healthcare system, our welfare system, and our crime rate… adding significantly to our problems and very little to their solutions – [I know: “they do the jobs that we won’t do”… some do, yes, but many, many others join gangs, become criminals, milk our systems, and generally go about trashing our country. In any case, this “jobs we won’t do” thing is our problem and the marketplace would resolve it.]

That same group of people is demanding to be treated as American Citizens while waving Mexican flags and refusing to act like American Citizens – speaking English, for example.

Under these circumstances, I don’t care what color these people are; I don’t want them to be allowed to come here and behave this way. If that turns out to be racist, then I’m a racist.

“But what about the Irish? They were considered a bunch of trouble-makers and eventually made great contributions to America.”
True. But there are a few differences. In the era when the Irish (and others) were coming to the U.S. we had laws, and we were willing to enforce them… police were allowed to “police”… the Left had not yet invented political correctness (which will btw be the thing that finally destroys America) and the welfare state. These early immigrants came here to take advantage of the opportunities that America offered, and they demanded nothing – they worked for it, became Americans, melted into our pot and succeeded. They didn’t come here to take advantage of our systems, flaunt our laws, and pretend they still live in Ireland.

It’s a different America today, and in the next few decades it’s going to get a whole lot more different… and not in a good way.

Defining a CRISIS

2007-06-03T06:16:00.000-07:00

The failure of Social Security, which is unanimously agreed to be inevitable (not “if” but “when) which really is a consensus – is not a “Crisis” and is ignored.

The flood of illegal immigrants into our country is not a “Crisis”; and the 80-plus percent of Americans of all persuasions who want secure borders before amnesty for illegal immigrants – are ignored.

The Global Jihad, whose stated purpose is the destruction of Western Civilization and America in particular, and which, if allowed to continue to exist (whether it succeeds or not). will end “life as we know it” long before the climate takes its toll – is not a “Crisis” and is ignored or, at best, considered a law enforcement issue.

The damage to America’s credibility if we abandon our commitment to the people of Iraq (ie: the complete destruction of America’s position of leadership in the world – is not a “Crisis” and is never even mentioned.

The total and continued failure of our public education system – is not a “Crisis” and is ignored.

These and other immediate threats could change our way of life long before the highly debatable effects of Climate Change will ever be felt.

Global Warming is theory, which became an “issue”, and was quickly raised to “crisis level” by those on the Left, who see it as a opportunity bash Bush, promote socialism and big government, and above all, to make political gains. In this instance, a majority of legitimate climate science who acknowledge that the earth has warmed over the past century is extrapolated to mean that there is an undeniable “consensus” that global warming – sorry, climate change – is A) caused almost entirely by humans (ie: Americans) and B) will end life as we know it unless Government legislates behavioral changes.

These days, a "crisis" is a purely political term. A crisis is whatever gains votes for the Democrats, hurts Republicans, or or discredits America.

The greatest threat to the United States is the Democratic Party, which is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Far Far Left aiding and abetting every Anti-American movement in the world.

Jimmy Carter - PATHETIC

2007-05-24T05:48:00.000-07:00

Jimmy "peanuts" Carter makes Benedict Arnold seem patriotic.

He shamed the office of President (and America) when he held it.

He shames the position of Ex-President (and America) now.

IMMIGRATION: If the roof leaks, get floating furniture.

2007-05-24T05:45:00.000-07:00

May 23, 2007

We all know why the Democrats want amnesty and open borders. Votes. Pure and Simple. No one doubts it, and few even bother to deny it. More poor and dependent “americans”, legal or not, means more government programs and a bigger welfare state; and that equals more Democrats elected.

Conservative opposition to both amnesty and open borders is framed (by the left as always) as racism, sometimes with paranoia added.

Is it possible though, that the opposition from the Right is just as simple as the support from the left. Maybe Conservatives don’t support amnesty because they believe in the Rule of Law upon which this country was founded. Maybe the Conservatives oppose open borders because they know that the result will be another “non-amnesty” arrangement 10-20 years down the road.

National ID - ACLU

2007-05-08T05:50:00.000-07:00

May 8, 2007
What is the problem with a strict national ID program in this country? We are no longer able to travel outside the US without a passport, which while possible to obtain fraudulently, is far more difficult than getting a New Jersey driver’s license, for example. I didn’t hear a peep regarding the passport requirements for international travel. I must admit that I don’t know what they are but whatever arguments exist against the National ID, shouldn’t those same arguments apply to international travel requirements? Where’s the outrage. Or, in the case of the proposed National ID… where is the outrage coming from?
One rule of thumb that can be applied to any security related initiative: If the ACLU is against a program, that program is very likely good for America. The converse is also true.

Bias in the Headlines

2007-05-08T05:48:00.000-07:00

May 7, 2007
Headline: Bush's Approval Rate Falls to 28 Percent
Link: http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/5/6/151904.shtml?s=ic

Comment: To demonstrate how deeply the “bad news for Bush” bias has invaded the media, Newsmax, an admittedly conservative website, runs this misleading headline. I’m sure that all of the standard anti-Bush sites had run it days earlier. Citing a Newsweek poll on Bush’s “popularity” is one step above citing Rosie O’donnell’s opinion on the same subject.
There are no headlines citing the fact that Bush’s figures have not changed substantially in two years. No headlines citing a rise to 39% in Rasmussen’s poll, or 38% in Fox News’ poll. No mention of the equally dismal approval rates for Congress.
And you will never see such headlines, because news is no longer news. News is Agenda – the agenda being to destroy Bush the man and his presidency; and anything that does not conform to that agenda is simply suppressed.
Similarly, there has never been a single positive headline on Iraq since Saddaam’s capture; but every suicide bombing is trumpeted from the rooftops.
Bias. Agenda. Politics. That’s what passes for “news” today.

ABC and the DC Madam

2007-05-08T05:45:00.000-07:00

Headline: Network refuses to name clients of 'DC madam'
Link: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2516738.ece

Comment: ABC did not release the client list of the DC madam for one of two reasons. Either there were no prominent conservatives (Administration officials) on the list; or the list contained some prominent liberals. Don't fear. No publishing the list did not promote the Left's agenda.

Pissing in the Wind

2007-05-08T05:40:00.000-07:00

Foolishly, I have chosen to return to infrequent posting here at the internet's most desolate place. In my opinion this country is in a nearly hopeless state, and will continue to deteriorate unless and until some strong - and I mean STRONG - leadership emerges. That leadership is not on the horizon.

Nonetheless, there are things about which I simply can't remain silent. So even though it is very likely that no one will ever read my words, I am back to piss in the wind.

Another Canadian "Gets It"

2006-12-14T20:33:00.000-08:00

David Warren, writing in the Ottawa Citizen (of all places) gets it right on Iraq like no politically correct American writer or commentator has the balls to think, much less write or say.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/what_to_do_in_iraq.html

The generation that destroyed America

2006-12-10T05:19:00.000-08:00

In 2007 and for the foreseeable future – to be American means less. It means nothing good.

We are exactly what Osama bin Laden said we were: rich, fat, soft, lazy, selfish, unfocussed and unprincipled.

We have proven ourselves to be arrogant, self-flagellating cowards, bent on appeasing the rest of the world into loving us despite the fact that they never will, and despite the fact that in doing so, we will destroy the country, and ourselves, in the process.

Apparently embarrassed by our strength, we celebrate our weakness – seeking it out and happily exposing it to our enemies. We provide aid and comfort to our enemies while handcuffing our own forces.

We destroy our leaders who may be flawed but at least want America to continue to exist; and we elect new leaders who, for 50 years, have never failed to undermine America’s strength and progress – simply because we “are not happy” with the way things are going this week.

We break our promises without compunction or guilt. Many thousands will die when we surrender in Iraq – just as millions died when we abandoned Viet Nam… and we don’t care.

And, in breaking those promises, we betray our young men and women by asking them to fight and die in a cause that we have declared invalid.

We abandon our principles when we can’t get the courts to change them and we sentence our children and grandchildren to a world of hatred and violence. A world in which the United States of America, if it exists at all, will be a place – but no longer a dream.

I am ashamed to be a part of the generation that destroyed America.

U.S. - The funeral is over. The burial begins.

2006-11-12T07:31:00.000-08:00

It adds to the shame of the American People and their government that the most sincere criticism of recent events, and the most urgent and valid warnings of future events, is coming from non-Americans.

Mark Steyn and David Warren (Canadians, no less) make more sense than all of America’s media and blogs put together. Christopher Hitchens (although recently becoming a U.S. citizen) should be added to this list.

Having won the 2006 elections by undermining our war effort since day one, the Democrats, perceiving that they have been given a mandate to do so, will proceed in short order to abandon Iraq to Terror. At the same time – as Steyn and Warren so clearly explain – they will be abdicating America’s place as leader of the free world. With no one to replace the U.S., freedom itself is now doomed. It is only a matter of time. These Canadian writers and this ex-Brit know this; America's entitlement society will know it some years after it is gone.

Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, Biden and their crew started it. Chickenshit RINO’s piled on. The media pounded the message without interruption for two solid years or more. Bush allowed all this to happen without presenting a coherent defense. And the voting public (some 42% of eligible voters) has sealed the deal, abandoning the Iraqi people and betraying our brave soldiers one final time.

Americans, once the envy of the world, have become the pathetic, self-indulgent, weak-willed cowards that bin Laden claimed we were.

The funeral is over. The burial begins.

It's Hard Not To Be Optimistic

2006-11-10T05:34:00.000-08:00

Pelosi
Reid
Durban
Biden
Rangel
Conyers
Murtha
Kennedy
Clinton
Frank

These and other Leftists, Liars, Traitors and Race-baiters are the “leaders” who will take us into the future. These are the “leaders” who will “protect” us from Terrorism and an ever-growing number of Nuclear Bullies.

Every life that has been lost in the War on Terror is rendered irrelevant as is the war itself. Our servicemen could not be blamed for refusing duty and indeed should do just that. We - not they - are the deserters.

At this most critical point in modern history, the November 7 election has put into power a party whose only platform is to promote hatred (of George Bush) and class/race/gender/religious conflict. The Democrats have no suggestions, much less solutions, for the real issues of the day - issues that will destroy western civilization. The American People have spoken; and they have revealed themselves to be cowards and gullible fools.

It’s hard not to be optimistic. (If you are an Islamic Terrorist.)

Thank God for Stupid Voters

2006-11-06T05:36:00.000-08:00

Let me be the first to say (the day Before the election) how happy I am that Dick Morris – inventor of Government by Polling and Personal Destruction, self-professed political genius and Carl Rove wannabe – was wrong, wrong, wrong in his predictions of a Republican “Massacre” on Nov 7.

Mr. Morris sees politics as a game, where PR determines the outcome and, in many ways, he is correct. The Democrats (Clintons) began this approach under Morris’ guidance and have since nearly perfected the art to become a party which relies almost entirely on Illusion.

It is my deepest hope that the American People, when faced with a choice between relative safety (Republican leadership) and clear danger (Democrat leadership), will see past the Left’s slight of hand and will vote to remain America.

The Republicans will lose a few seats tomorrow as the incumbent party nearly always does in second term off year elections. Only the illusionists like Morris will be able to interpret this minor and expected defeat as a massacre.
The Dems and their media partners have been touting a landslide for months now, and anything less will be failure. But they will never admit that. Morris & Co. will see any such “loss” as a rift in the universe and will find excuses (outside their ideology of course) for the failure of the American People to realize the Left’s destiny.

On Nov 8 the Democrats will not be in control of either house of Congress.

Thank God for stupid voters.

Mark Steyn clears it all up here

2006-10-30T04:13:00.000-08:00

Quote of the Century (so far):

History is on the march and the anti-Bush crowd is holding the telescope the wrong way round. - - - - - Mark Steyn

Cancel all the disgusting political ads and speeches, cancel the commentary. Mark Steyn (A Canadian) has said it all in 17 words.

His article here is a complete and devastating case against Anti-War crowd.

Dems literally have no viable positions

2006-10-29T06:51:00.000-08:00

The anti-Bush/War/Etc crowd always presents the same tired set of false arguments issued by the DNC - designed to further hatred and fear of the opposition:
Repbulicans are Nazi's (3 yrs old)
Republicans steal elections (6 yrs old)
Republicans have pals in this or that big business (50 yrs old)
Rove-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis of evil (3 yrs old)
Republicans issue phony terrorist alerts (3 yrs old)
600,000 dead Iraqi's (1 month old)
Republicans are racists (40 yrs old)
Republicans are rich and therefore against the common man (50+ yrs old)
Republicans are religious zealots (10 yrs old)

In campaigning, just as in governing, the Democratic party has nothing but negativity to offer. They believe that politics is a game where positioning and trickery, not actions, determine the outcome. The Dems cannot comprehend, much less discuss, principles because they have none (other than gaining or preserving power). Go ahead, search any website you like and survey the articles and comments... other than their false promises to take everything away from "rich" America and give it to "poor" America (shameless vote buying), the Dems have not one positive reason as to why they should be given the reins of Congress. Not one.

Commentors supporting the right use actual arguments:
Republcans are stronger on security
Republcans are stronger on terrorism
Republcans are stronger on (and Dems are against) the Patriot Act
Republcans are stronger on (and Dems are against) the NSA program
Republcans are stronger on (and Dems are against) winning the War in Iraq
Republcans are stronger on (and Dems are against) reducing the tax burden
Republcans are stronger on (and Dems are against) fignting illegal immigration

While not perfect by a long shot, the Republicans overwhelmingly reflect the attitude of the vast majority of America on every one of these issues - issues that the Democrats refuse to debate. No wonder though - the Dems literally have no viable position on any of these subjects.

Peggy Noonan should be ashamed of herself

2006-10-27T21:57:00.000-07:00

Peggy Noonan has joined the conservative throng, thrusting her knife into the President’s back while mimicking any random leftist with accusations of incompetence, stubbornness and political motivation.

Peggy Noonan knows George W. Bush.

Peggy Noonan is a traitor.

Peggy Noonan is playing politics as much as John Kerry or Howard Dean.

She knows that none of these things she is saying about Bush are true and yet she writes her little assassination piece today, not because she believes it, but because she wants to ingratiate herself to the “true” conservatives that she expects to abandon the vote next week, purposely allowing the Left to take control of Congress.

Peggy Noonan should be ashamed of herself.

But instead, when the Republicans hold both the house and the senate on Nov 7, she will rework her "theory" to align herself with the winning side; and she will expect to be forgiven for her betrayal.

Viet Nam Redux - The Paper Tiger Strikes Again

2006-10-19T06:00:00.000-07:00

Viet Nam redux. We’re doing it again.

We are “fighting” a “war” using insufficient force and with our hands tied behind our back. In trying to fight a “pretty” and politically correct war we have set ourselves an unachievable goal; we have done a disservice to those who have fought and died valiantly; we have weakened America’s stance on the world stage; and we have shamed ourselves.

There is no such thing as a clean war. War is ugly. Innocent people die. War is meant to be fought to win. If you don’t fight to win you shouldn’t fight at all. If you don't fight to win, your enemies will cease to fear you. The end actually does sometimes justify the means.

We could end this war in a month; but we won’t. Instead we will continue to go through the motions, sacrificing a few dozen brave American boys and girls every month until the Democrats and RINO’s forfeit the game.

America has become the Paper Tiger that its enemies have always asserted.

The Media is Unbiased... Right.

2006-10-19T05:18:00.000-07:00

George Allen, Republican, VA Senator running for re-election, refers one time to an admitted video stalker who has been dogging Allen for months, as macaca. It turns out that macaca is a kind of monkey and in some European sub-cultures the word is used as a racial slur against some race or another. Not a single person in the United States knew that this word had racial application until the media informed us. Allen claims to be ignorant of the word’s meaning like the rest of us and apologizes every day for a month.

The Allen story “broke” in August and is to this day referred to every time Senator Allen’s name is mentioned.

The house minority whip, Steny Hoyer, a Democrat, repeatedly uses racial keywords against Republican candidate Michael Steele, Maryland’s current Lt-Gov. and a black man. Hoyer apologizes for this word, claims that word was taken out of context. The words involved were “slavish” and “token” – racially charged words that everyone knows the meaning of.

The story pops very small for one news cycle and it’s gone.

The media is unbiased.

Tom Delay is accused of misusing political funds and indicted by a fanatical prosecutor in Texas who is a known Democrat operative. Delay resigns immediately – his career is ended. Delay’s activities (still unproven a year later) are held up by the Democrats and their media mouthpieces as clear evidence of Republican corruption.

This story dominates all news outlets for a month, continuing even after Delay’s resignation.

Harry Reid accepts contributions from Abramoff (another “Republican corruption” icon). Reid also misuses political funds to tip his servants at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington. He also fails to report over a million dollars in income that he received from very shady real estate deals in his home district. Reid indignantly claims he did nothing wrong. He refuses to return the Abramoff money, but proceeds (without apology) to reimburse his campaign for the misused money, and amends his financial reports for the past 5 years.

This story is not even carried in mainstream media.

Boils down to this: A Republican Senator is accused of shoplifting – ACCUSED – and his career is over; while a Democrat who is actually caught robbing a bank simply returns the money and wipes the slate clean.

The media is unbiased.

Can we be this stupid?

2006-10-15T06:25:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned a few days ago, it is virtually unanimous that “the sky is falling” for Republicans on Nov 7.

This was to be expected from the eternally optimistic Democrats, whose “plan” has been to undermine the War Effort, the Administration and Republicans by any means necessary and then win by default, without presenting a position on a single issue.

The Leftist press has, of course, supported this “plan” by exposing national secrets whenever possible (NSA, secret prisons); by keeping any negative story (Cheney’s hunting accident, gay Foley) on the front page as long as possible; and by ignoring any story that might be considered positive for the U.S. or the Administration (economy, unemployment, safety) or negative for the Democrats (no ideas, Jefferson’s $90K freezer, Harry Reid’s shady dealings).

Pollsters, as always, skew their polls to come up with whatever “results” they want to.

Unfortunately now, most conservative pundits have fallen for this con, and are predicting a well-deserved and unavoidable landslide defeat for Republicans in Congress this Fall… to be followed immediately by predictions of a Democrat landslide in 2008. (The most recent - and most surprising - ship-jumper being Fred Barnes today.)

Politics has always been ugly, but this year is the worst I’ve seen. Positive ads or speeches or even positive statements are few and far between. Ask a Democrat why he/she should be elected and the answer will be “because my opponent is bad”.

I’ve seen back to back ads like this:

Candidate A’s ad: “Congressman B voted against increasing the minimum wage.”
Congressman B’s ad: “I voted to increase the minimum wage.”

Someone is lying and it should be pretty easy to prove who it is. But the Democrats have little interest in Truth, and the Republicans are incompetent at presenting it. The press, upon whom we used to rely to sort these things out, has abandoned Truth altogether.

According to the polls, the pundits and the Democrats, Americans are believing what they hear most often (ie: relentlessly) : that Bush and the Republicans have screwed things up, and therefore they have to go… period. Game Over. Democrats are the only choice.

This election is – according to most – going to have been decided by a combination of lies, over-exaggerations, and non-stories, while major – civilization threatening events are being completely ignored.

Once again I have to ask: Can we be this stupid? Or is it just Washington?

We’ll find out Nov 7.

Jack Straw is right - Take off the Veils

2006-10-13T20:16:00.000-07:00

Jack Straw is taking shit for stating the obvious about the veils worn by Muslim women. I’m not going to the effort to look up the “correct” word – because this is not about being “correct” and it is not about what the thing is called; and it is not about Religion, by which I of course mean ISLAM – the only religion that matters these days.

These full body veils are essentially disguises which prevent not only communication with but the simple identification of their wearers. They do not bear comparison to the Jewish skullcap, the cross, the collar, or any other religious item worn by followers of any other religion. Religion or not, we – the rest of the world – have every right to refuse to deal with people wearing these disguises.

A mall, an airline, a theme park, a bank, a doctor or any other business would not only be entitled, but would be smart, to refuse to deal with people who hide their face, identity, sex, weapons and whatever, behind a full body covering, whether it is in the name of religion or not. Muslim women: wear whatever you like but if you want to ride the bus, get a loan, shop for new underwear, go to school, or drive a car - take off the veils.

A year or so ago, a driver’s license agent in Virginia or somewhere refused to allow one of these Muslim fools to have her license picture taken wearing her veil. A court upheld that decision. Now Jack Straw joins the very small group who have had the sense – and the balls – to stand up to this politically correct bullshit while the rest of the world grovels before the threat of Islamic violence.

I guarantee no Democratic sweep.

2006-10-08T10:53:00.000-07:00

On this date – October 8, 2006 - I guarantee that the Democrats will not (repeat: WILL NOT) take control of either the House or the Senate on November 7. Democratic gains will be minimal (1 Senate seat, 4 House seats) at best.

I don’t say this based on any extensive polling or analysis.

I say this based on what I like to call Logic.

Yes, the War in Iraq has not been the “slam dunk” that the naïve and gullible American Public have come to “expect” by virtue of the last ONE war America was involved in.

And Yes, the Republican led Congress has accomplished virtually nothing of any value in the past two years (due to a large extent to that same undermining, obstruction and obfuscation by the “opposition” party and the overwhelmingly liberal media).

And Yes, there is a problem of corruption in our government which, although presented by the media as a nearly exclusive Republican problem, is correctly perceived by that same American Public as systemic and not tied to one party or the other.

But a citizenry can only be relied on to be so naïve and gullible, as the Left is about to find out. At some point, reason and logic will surface. Although I would have said (and did say) this same thing in 1996, 2000 and 2004, in this – the most important decade in modern American History - any Logical analysis of the current world situation, could not possibly allow this country to be led by the Democratic party.

If I am right, it will be business as usual; with the Democrats continuing to try to prevent any positive action of any kind; but there will still be hope for America because a majority of its people will have shown that they still can manage to think for themselves.

If I am wrong, then I hold out no hope for America’s future. A Democratic win in 2006 and worse, a Democratic President in 2008, will be the beginning of the end and the United States, as we know it, will cease to exist sometime in the next 12 years.

Liberals, be careful what you wish for. You are much more effective and – even more importantly, much less accountable – as the minority.

Happy Anniversary to Me

2006-10-07T06:51:00.000-07:00

It has been one year since I began my sporadic blog and, in that year, I have received not a single comment and , I assume, have been read by no one.

This, even though, having re-reading many (not all) of my sometimes overly opinionated and under-reasearched posts, I have found them to be well in advance of and usually more honest than similar observations by much-read writers in both MSM and the blogosphere.

I do not take this to be a "commentary" on my opinions or a judgement on my skills as a writer-observer. I assume it is for the most part a function of glut. Nonetheless, I would have (and did) expect that some wayward reader would have by now stumbled into my little space here, and left some sign of his agreement or disagreement.

This has not been the case and I can't in good faith expect that it will change during my lifetime. However I will continue my sporadic postings as I find it a small antidote to the endless politicizing of important issues with which we are inundated. Someday someone will read my rants; and, in my tiny way, I will have documented for posterity that - as the United States laid on its deathbed - there was still at least one sane American who realized that he was attending a funeral and behaved accordingly.

Ounceoflogic.

Q & A

2006-10-07T06:47:00.000-07:00

Question:

Can the actions of a single individual or an infinitesimally small group of individuals be extended to reflect the policy of the group to which they are associated?

Answer:

Yes. If the small group or individual is a member of a) the American Military [ Abu Graib, the 7 Generals, etc.], or b) the Republican Party, [Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley]; and if the actions in question can be used to undermine the a) Bush Administration, b) war effort, or c) the safety or integrity of the United States.

No. If the group (regardless of its size) or individual is a member of a) the American Left [Sheehan, Baldwin, Wilson + 100], b) Mainstream Media [NYTimes, Dan Rather, CNN, AP, Reuters, +1000], or c) the Democratic Party [Murtha, Durbin, Pelosi, Kennedy, + 1000]; and if the actions in question might jeopardize the chances of the Democrats returning to power.

Philip Shenon: Schizo

2006-10-02T18:55:00.000-07:00

Philip Shenon: Fair and unBalanced.

This guy Philip Shenon, apparently a writer for NYimes, has invented a whole new journalism. As you see below, he writes a byline on October 1, 2006 stating that the 9/11 Commission wasn’t told about this Tenet-Rice Meeting in 2001.

The very next day, he writes an article that completely and utterly disproves everything he said the day before while completely ignoring his totally wrong and inflammatory article of the previous day.

He writes a bogus story one day and gets his big scoop on all the left wing sites… then he shreds his own story the next day without ever mentioning the first byline. Check this schizo's snips below.

By the way... if Shenon's second story is true (and he does cite Richard Ben-Veniste, note exactly a Bush shill)... the Bob Woodward is a liar. Hmm?

October 1, 2006
9/11 Panel Members Weren’t Told of Meeting
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — Members of the Sept. 11 commission said today that they were alarmed that they were told nothing about a White House meeting in July 2001 at which George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, is reported to have warned Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, about an imminent Al Qaeda attack and failed to persuade her to take action.

October 2, 2006
Records Show Tenet Briefed Rice on Al Qaeda Threat
By PHILIP SHENON and MARK MAZZETTI

Mr. McCormack also said records show that the Sept. 11 commission was informed about the meeting, a fact that former intelligence officials and members of the commission confirmed on Monday.

But both current and former officials took issue with Mr. Woodward’s account that Mr. Tenet and his aides left the meeting in frustration, feeling as if Ms. Rice had ignored them.

Mr. Tenet told members of the Sept. 11 commission about the July 10 meeting when they interviewed him in early 2004, but committee members said the former C.I.A. director never indicated he had left the White House with the impression that he had been ignored.

“Tenet never told us that he was brushed off,” said Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the commission. “We certainly would have followed that up.”

Mr. McCormack said the records showed that, far from ignoring Mr. Tenet’s warnings, Ms. Rice acted on the intelligence and requested that Mr. Tenet make the same presentation to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

But Mr. Ashcroft said by telephone on Monday evening that he never received a briefing that summer from Mr. Tenet.

FLASH: War Results In Violence

2006-09-24T08:23:00.000-07:00

Some Washington committee today announced – no doubt after months and millions spent on investigating – that… (better sit down now)… there is more Terrorism today than there was five years ago.

Let me clarify this blockbuster revelation:

After the tremendous “success” of the WTC bombings, the many appeasements from the Spanish, French, Danish, German and even our own governments, and the tremendous support that they are getting in the Worldwide Media, the Terrorists (amazingly enough) have become emboldened to increase their activities.

One more time – and remember Millions of YOUR Dollars were spent to make this incredible observation:

There is more war during the war than there was before the war began.

Whooda thought?

This, of course, is proof positive to the Left that the War on Terror essentially created Terror; and therefore, logically, George Bush is the cause of all of today’s problems. If only he hadn’t "started" this war there would be no problems.

Make sense?

Fight with Dollars

2006-09-24T06:24:00.000-07:00

A thought:

We stop - not curtail - STOP buying oil from Iran, Venezuela, and any other country actively promoting conflict with us.

Result 1: $4 gas. $5 gas.
Result 2: The bottom falls out from under the insane tyrants who run these countries as if they were launching pads for their personal careers on the international stage.
Result 3: The people of these countries get fed up with it and overthrow these maniacs, replacing them with more reasonable leaders who are able to maintain a relationship with the rest of the world.

I, for one, am willing to make this contribution to the "war effort". But it won't happen for two reasons.

Our government doesn't have the balls to do anything that might impose a "hardship" on the populace. While politics and power are the obvious driving forces behind the cowardice of our govenment, the bottom line is that our "leaders" suspect that we, the American People, will no longer accept any incovenience... any interruption or intrusion into our everyday lives... and than anyone who imposes such a thing will be immediately voted out of office.

In the 50 years since WWII, when nearly every American truly and willingly made sacrifices for the war effort, we have become entirely self-centered and selfish to the point where we will most likely, in the next few years, transfer power to a faction (the Democrats) which we are fairly certain, will (excluding taxes, which we will be made to think affect only "the rich") never ask us to make any direct contribution to this country's survival.

Blaming government for our problems is just another example of this sea change in America. Placing the responsibility where it truly is - on us, the voters - would make us liable. Our government in general reflects, not necessarily the thoughts, but the personality of the citizenry. We are the selfish cowards, and we will get what we deserve.

The Torture "Debate"... is a joke.

2006-09-23T06:23:00.000-07:00

The “debate” surrounding our interrogation of detainees is, in historical context, pretty much a very unfunny joke.

The two sides base there arguments on completely contradictory positions. The Administration side claims that we are at war with terrorists who swear no allegiance other than religion, and who are fighting an “anything goes” war against Western Civilization in general and America in particular.

The opposing viewpoint seems to be that the “threat” is far less serious than the Administration would have us believe; that these “insurgents” are merely lawbreakers, similar to the gangs of L.A., who were driven (by the actions and attitudes of the U.S.) to do the only thing they could to preserve their “way of life” in the face of our arrogant imperialism; and as such, they should be treated as victims, not as aggressors. They (the Left) want us to try to “understand” why these people want to murder all of us.

But each of these arguments, and all arguments in between, have one thing in common. No mention of this issue is complete without the insertion of the phrase “short of torture” or something very similar.

I am reminded of the classic Seinfeld show dealing with the gay issue, where every mention of homosexuality was immediately followed with “not that it’s a bad thing”.

Let me present a view that is outside the current universe of debate:

I do not believe that our military or our “spy” networks want to torture people. When they think that rough methods will produce results that will save American lives (or even European lives), I trust them to make that decision without having to get John McCain’s approval.

I’m not interested in understanding why these murderers chop off heads or blow up innocent people, or even why they think that none of us are innocent. I’m not interested in understanding how someone could be so ignorant as to think that their god would provide them with 72 virgins as a reward for chopping off the heads and blowing up innocent people. I am interested only in stopping them from doing it by whatever means necessary. I want our guys to be able to do whatever they need to do to eradicate this menace from the Earth. If and when they go overboard (by some reasonable standard – not John Kerry’s) we’ll deal with the offenders.

The opposing views boil down to this: trust vs distrust.

Don’t believe everything you read

2006-09-21T05:17:00.000-07:00

The consensus among press and pundits seems to be that the “American voter” supports the Democratic Party on all domestic issues. I disagree completely.

It is true that a large portion of the voting population still holds the opinion that the Government can and should solve all of the nation’s domestic problems. Some hold that opinion to in an effort to assuage some residual and imagined “guilt” or to prove their humanitarian nature without actually having to do any humanitarian acts; others hold this opinion because they have been dependent on the Government for generations and do not want to accept responsibility for their own success or failure.

There is a third, increasingly vocal, and generally disregarded group of voters, who realize that personal responsibility is the key to the past and the future of this country, and who are tired of Government inefficiently throwing money at “social problems”; a practice which has been unsuccessful for the past 50 years or so and grossly unappreciated by its beneficiaries.

Conservatives realize that Social Security must change or die. The Left (if pressed) would do some “tweaking” of this clearly doomed system.

Conservatives understand that cutting taxes stimulates the economy – a proven truth. The Left sees taxation of the “rich” as a bottomless source of revenue with which they can penalize their favorite whipping dog (the "Rich") and fund their social agenda to promote class animosity, thereby retaining their control of the “dependent” wing of the American populace.

Conservatives understand that personal responsibility and personal and institutional accountability are essential parts of a successful society. The Left believes that Government and its “agents” are either its downfall (the “private sector”, churches, upper class) or its salvation (Entitlements, taxation, judicial branch).

Conservatives see the deficit as evidence of Congressional overspending. The Left sees the deficit as proof that taxes are too low that the defense budget is too high.

Conservatives know that the key to America’s success on all levels is Commerce. The Left sees “Business” as the enemy – the tool by which the “rich” abuse the “poor”.

By making people responsible and institutions accountable, Conservative policies (if followed) would grow the economy, add jobs, increase tax revenues, decrease the deficit, lower the rate of poverty (dependence), improve all aspects of government (education, welfare, justice, etc.).

The Left is, has always been, and will apparently always be the more vocal point of view in America; and currently receives about 90% of this country's media coverage. That does not make it the more popular view. The Left has been taken over by anti-American radicals and crazies - ranging from clearly insane fringies like Michael Moore, Sheehan, and Alec Baldwin, to establishment radicals like Kennedy, Pelosi and Reid. The extremist and negative nature of the "new" Liberal position has become increasingly distasteful to the true majority of Americans.

The Conservative movement in this country is not entirely based on issues of National Security and is far more pervasive than you have been led to believe.

Don’t believe everything you read.

There is no threat.

2006-09-18T05:19:00.000-07:00

The Left wants us to think that the War on Terror (if it exists at all) is a war against Usama bin Laden which was basically made up by George W. Bush. Eliminate bin Laden and you will eliminate Al Queda and Bush's trumped up "War" will be over. The Left knows better of course; but they over-simplify for one reason and it is the same reason that motivates everything single thing that they do: Hatred of George W. Bush specifically, and Conservatives in general.

UBL remains at large, al Queda remains viable, and therefore the Republican President has failed to protect us. (It should be noted here that this same Left – comprised of the Democratic Party, mainstream media, and the “French” school of appeasement which includes elitists worldwide – have done everything in their considerable power to obstruct and/or undermine all efforts of the current Administration to do so.)

The truth is that a large number of insane Muslim radicals have no interest in sharing this planet with “infidels” and want nothing more than to eradicate the non-Muslim population of the earth. Period. These jihadists are silently supported by the billion or so Muslims throughout the world who have yet to publicly denounce the barbarism of the past 5 years.

This war actually is personal, but not in the way the Left wants us to think. These jihadists want us all dead; me, my son, the TV newscasters who promote their cause, the journalists who expose our secrets, the Europeans who bow to their every demand, the Congressmen who obstruct the President… Everyone.

In their attempt to personalize and thereby minimize the threat that exists, the Left chooses (as they always do) politics over all else, and does great disservice to the American people and the world in general.

Calling all Muslims

2006-09-17T07:16:00.000-07:00

Homicide bombers attack mosques, trains, buildings, busses, restaurants, wedding parties, and on and on. Innocent civilians of every age, race and religion are indiscriminately killed in the name of Allah every day, now numbering in the tens of thousands. And barely a peep from the “Arab world”, from the Muslim community.

The excuses fly: “Islam has no distinct leadership to speak for it… Muslims are afraid to speak out.” Blah-blah… the point remains… BARELY A PEEP… when civilians are murdered, when hostages are beheaded, when direct threats are made to wipe Christians, Jews, and all of Western Civilization from the face of the earth.

And yet… someone draws a cartoon of Muhammed, or strings the words “Islamist” and “fascist” together, or makes a direct quote from a seven hundred year old speech… and all hell breaks loose.

Suddenly, Islam finds its voice. Suddenly the Muslim world stands and speaks as one and shouts its outrage, quite often followed by real and threatened violence which does nothing but reinforce the “offending” statement.

Let me speak directly to Islam now that the Pope's speech (or more accurately, the Media's misrepresentation of it) has got you paying attention for a day or two:

The fact that you are not offended enough to speak out against homicide bombings, beheadings, etc. committed on your behalf disqualifies you from being offended by a cartoon, or a speech, or by a little extra screening at the airport.

With your silence you support the horrible barbaric acts committed in the name of your religion, thereby forfeiting your right to voice greivances in the civilized world.

Stand up… or shut up.

Why the Dems will never win again

2006-09-14T18:09:00.000-07:00

In November, the Republicans will hold on to their majorities in Congress, and then they will continue to squander that majority by cowering to the politically correct crowd. The Democrats, although still in the minority, will retain control of Washington.

Until recently, I was of the opinion that the Democrats were fools to take positions so contrary to mainstream America. It was clear to me that they would never regain their power - even though there is an alarmingly high percentage of us who seem to be able to swallow the swill that the Left spews.

But lately it has dawned on me that the Democrats are crazy like foxes. The Left invented the current culture of blame - where there is no personal responsibility and someone else is always to blame, and which, incidentally, is responsible for poverty in this the richest nation in the world, as well as the tension between races and classes that continues to tear this country apart long after the "oppression" has ended.

The buck stops THERE!

Let someone else make the mistakes.

Having finally made the connection, I can only wonder why it took me so long to realize it... and why no one else yet has:

Why would the Dems want the responsibility and accountability of "leadership" when they can control everything from below with their obstructionism and without ever revealing their true position on anything? The Democrats are the wizard behind the curtain and everyone knows it, and no one cares.

Having done nothing but obstruct they have virtually brought government to a standstill for the past two years or so... they have weakened our nation... and our will. They have painted such a bleak picture and tarred the Republicans unmercifully, to the point where they may have actually overplayed there hand in Bush's second term. They underestimated how stupid 50% of us are and are in danger of actually winning sometime soon.

Winning however, is the last thing the Democrats want; it would spoil the game. America loves the underdog - even when the underdog runs the show.

2006-09-14T16:53:00.000-07:00

I try - I really try - to read opposing viewpoints to my own.

Now I'm not well enough read to know the entire list of publications, websites or writers whose opinions have no legitimacy due to their extreme bias. So I'll naively read an article like "The Myth of the Ticking Time Bomb" by McCoy at the Progressive. Now I don't mean to pick on McCoy specifically - his is just one of hundreds of daily examples... millions of daily words printed for the sole purpose of reinforcing anti-Bush talking points that are now years old.

It seems that the Bush Administration really wants to torture people; and uses this so-called "War on Terror" as an excuse to justify their hobby. Torture, as you know by now, is anything that makes someone uncomfortable.

Apparently, this same excuse is used to promote another deep desire of George Bush and his cronies: spying on average Americans. This whole premise of trying to avert crises before they happen is just a ruse to put together the mechanism whereby the Government (meaning of course, the Republicans) can eavesdrop on me when I'm calling for a tee time. I have never been told exactly why the Republicans want so badly to know what I'm saying or what they inted to do with all of the personal information they crave so much.

Innumerable other articles reiterate the same tired points. No WMD (Lied us into war). Iraq is not part of the WOT. Culture of corruption. Undermining the war effort is not patriotic. The Rich (blah blah blah). And of course, the biggest and most reliable talking point of all: Racism, which has been the bread and butter of the Democrats for decades.

I read them... and they are all the same.

Now I do know some to skip... MoveOn.org, DailyKos, NYT, BBC, AP, any of the Big 3: all worthless Anti-American rags. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Murtha, Kennedy, Durbin: all politics, all the time. Dixie Chick (or any musician), Sean Penn (or any actor), Madonna (or any Englishman), Neil Young (or any Canadian) and, on an even less relevent level, Jimmy Carter have absolutely nothing to say that I am interested in hearing. But sometimes I don't recognize the name and I read the article, full of the same old bashing rhetoric, only to find at the end, that the "author" is some professor from some ultra-liberal university and that I have wasted yet another 5 minutes of my life.

The Left's sudden concern with "Truth and Accuracy"

2006-09-09T04:24:00.000-07:00

“Everyone” is circling the wagons, protesting ABC’s 9/11 film, scheduled to air September 10 and 11.

Sandy Berger, (Proven Liar),, the guy who stuffed national security documents pertaining to the Clinton Administration down his pants; the guy who is not in jail (or worse) only because the Bush Administration chose not to prosecute him for his treasonous behavior. He’s against it.

The DNC, the group which spearheads the Left Wing’s uninterrupted politicization of everything from terrorism to immigration to weather, and still finds time to accuse Bush of politicizing every time he mentions the word Iraq. They’re against it.

Bill Clinton, (Proven Liar), to whom “legacy is everything”, and who is remembered only for his blow jobs and his lies. He’s against it.

Madeline Albright who, since her reign as the worst Sec of State this country has ever had, has spent her time bashing the Bush Administration. She’s against it.

Arthur Schlezinger, who has been against everything Republican since Day 1, is leading a small group of elite college professors in protesting the movie.

Al Gore, (Proven Liar), the insane inventor of the internet and global warming fanatic. He’s “deeply concerned.”

Where were all of these people when Michael Moore was rewriting history during the last presidential campaign? Oh, that’s right, they were at the premiere!

Has any one of these deeply offended "preservers of history" spoken out against the group of professors charging the Bush Administration of orchestrating the WTC attacks?

And what happened their tremendous “concern” for free speech?

The hypocrisy of the power-hungry Left is so bold and blatant that it is literally impossible for me to believe that a single American voter with a sixth-grade education could even consider voting Democrat. And yet, the Democratic Party is still a viable political force in this country, driving us closer and closer to oblivion.

Elections are coming again, and we as a nation will get what we deserve.

Dumbest Poll Yet

2006-09-08T04:36:00.000-07:00

CBS and NYT have combined their ignorance and bias to come up with perhaps the stupidest poll yet reported. The question? "Do Americans feel safer now than before 9/11?"

Let me paraphrase: "Do you feel more or less safe, now that you know one-third of the Muslim world wants to kill you and is willing to die to accomplish that goal?"

The surprising thing is that this poll wasn't 100% "Less Safe". The result actually was 14% More Safe, 39% Less Safe, and 46% Same. So maybe some of the responders saw through the CBSNYT custom designed question. No one said polls were designed to seek out the truth.

Now, just in case their bias wasn't clear enough in the question itself, the commentary on the results emphasises the point:

"Do Americans feel safer now than before 9/11? For many, the answer is no, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. Fifty-four percent of Americans say they generally feel safe, but 46 percent say they feel somewhat uneasy or in danger."

See that? 54% feel "generally safe" but the headline reads "Many Americans Feel Less Safe".

For comparison check any (repeat "any") headline dealing with the Presidents disapproval numbers, now hovering around 55%. Find me a single headline that says "Many Americans Approve of Bush's Job Performance".

Politics is disgusting enough when practiced by politicians. When "journalists" become politicians, as MSM has, it is sickening.

Israel: an unwinnable argument

2006-08-27T05:24:00.000-07:00

Look. I don't know every nuance of the history of the Middle East, particularly as it applies to the State of Israel. I don't know who "really" owns this land. I don't know which religion laid the first claim, and guess what: I don't really care.

But I do know that when you put a cat in a dog pound (or a dog in a cat pound, if you prefer) you shouldn't be surprised when the result is not harmonious.

It seems to me that in the "Israeli Problem" we have a 2000 year old disagreement, the basis of which can never be conclusively proven one way or the other, and even if proof were available, one side or the other would reject it.

I could certainly be wrong on the facts, but my unenlightened impression is that the People of Israel more or less abandoned the land in question for well over a thousand years - way past any statute of limitations that I've ever heard of - and only began their effort to "reclaim" it in the 1940's, at which time the basically Christian alliance who won WWII honored the claim and began the longest running peace effort in history.

The Jews do not acknowledge anything that happened between (approximately) 1000 BC and 1935. The surrounding Muslims don't count anything that has happened since the 7th Century. Tough to find common ground. Personally, I'm more of a "last hundred years" kind of guy in case you were wondering.

The solution - the only solution that doesn't wipe out one civilization or another - is to move Israel out of the dog pound. Whereas Muslim "civilizations" - who, in the past 1500 years or so, have contributed absolutely noting but oil to the advance of civilization - are demonstratively and permanently mired in the distant past, the Jews - who already control a vastly disproportionate percentage of the world's wealth - are a demonstratively resilient people, who will survive and flourish wherever they end up.

Surely there is a comparable, or even better, patch of land somewhere - Florida for instance - where the Jews would be free to pursue their future without constant attacks from their neighbors.

If the sticking point is some little piece of "Holy Ground", who cares that much?

If it's a matter of principle - who wins, who loses - both sides can claim victory: The Muslims can return to their 7th Century existence, and the Jews can devote the 50% of their wealth and energy that they now spend defending themselves, to further advancement.

We've all walked away from an unwinnable argument.

Really, why not?

Can we be this stupid?

2006-08-27T05:11:00.000-07:00

The talk from most of the Democrat talkers and the LeftMedia is that the Democratic Party is about to win big in November and (most likely) in 2008 as well. I don’t see how this talk can be anything but i-think-i-can optimism.

Say something enough and people believe it. This is the new tactic of the Left and it has changed the face of news/politics forever – just as suicide bombers and civilian targets have changed warfare.

We are deep within World War IV and, unless we find some way (ie: some WILL) to win in Iraq, our future involvement in warfare will be merely as victims. So has the Left’s hollow campaign against American interests convinced enough voters to the point where they will turn their country over to a group who has no problem backing out of a commitment (Iraq), who will consult with France before making a decision (Kerry), who will viciously attack those who risk their lives to defend us (Murtha), whose most important issue during this the most dangerous time in our history, is raising the minimum wage?

Every logical bone in my body says that this can’t happen… but… those same bones said the same thing about Clinton in 1996? Was it possible that the voting public would re-elect this likely rapist… this proven liar… this obvious slimeball? And we all know the answer to that one.

And now… in 2006…

Is it possible that the Left has convinced a majority of the voters that there is no threat?

Is it possible that the voters do not see the importance of defeating Terrorism?

Is it possible that the voters do not believe that Iraq is the place where the first major battle of WW4 is being fought?

Is it possible that the voters truly believe that the Democrats will protect our interests in the world?

Is it possible that the majority of us do not realize that the Democrats are not the solution but are instead a large part of the problem?

Is it possible that we will give real control to the party whose only contribution to the war effort since Day 1 has be to obstruct it at every single turn?

Again… every bone says “no way”. And that scares me.

H.L.Menken once said “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” If the Dems win back a significant number of Congressional seats in 2006 that slogan can be officially changed to ““No one ever lost an election underestimating the intelligence of the American voter.”

If that theory is proven correct by GOP defeats this year, then expect the attacks and the content-free promises to “do things differently” to be even more relentless (yes, it could) leading up to 2008. And if they succeed in recapturing the White House, say goodbye to the United States as we once knew it.

Just as it did in 1996, it seems impossible to me that we, the People, can be that stupid; but I’m not betting on it.

There is no threat.

2006-08-26T06:09:00.000-07:00

Having used the "no threat" argument successfully against the Iraq War, the LeftMedia has decided to expand the Denial Approach to virtually everything else that the President is involved in.

Recent ramping up of airport security is "kabuki security" and totally unnecessary according to CBS News.

Bush is mongering fear in an effort to gain support for his bogus war, according to Newsweek.

Efforts to monitor terrorist activity (NSA, data minint, etc.) are thinly veiled progams whose main intent is to spy on ordinary Americans.

Those who strap bombs on themselves and their children to blow up a wedding party, a bus, a coffee shop, a plane, a building, are described as "insurgents" or "disillusioned youth" or anything but the murderering, cowardly, fanatical Muslim animals that they really are... and never, NEVER as Terrorists.

And of course, if it weren't for George Bush, the idiot cowboy and puppet master Dick Cheney, none of this would have ever happened.

We all remember the LeftMedia's big push to downplay the danger of having open borders and (bonus) turn any effort to tighten border security into a racial issue; just like they do with Katrina, airport security, law enforcement, intelligence gathering, poverty, personal responsibility, education, political elections, and on and on and on and on. (The Racism charge ALWAYS works, because the mere denial of the charge is PROOF of it.)

Challenge: Name one subject that the Left hasn't turn into a racial issue.

America is committing suicide.

not peace... but power

2006-08-19T05:56:00.000-07:00

Democrats believe that if they can force us to leave Iraq, they will have proven that everything they have ever said about George W. Bush was right.

No concern for the people of Iraq, who will be left at the mercy of the tyrannical sect who will immediately take over their country upon our departure.

No concern for the standing of America's military might, which - unfortunately (for the Dems) but undeniably - has averted any number of confrontations over the past 60 years.

No concern for the Americans who will be attacked and killed by the jihadists once the "distraction" of Iraq is gone.

No. The Democrats concern has only two aspects: Bush Hatred and recapturing political power. I'm not sure which comes first. Both are truly obsessions.

The argument - implied by most and stated by many - is that there was no threat to begin with and will be no threat once the U.S. withdraws (surrenders) from the War on Terror.

If by chance some threat arises, it will, of course, be a residual result of Bush's previous aggression; and the Democrats will deal with it after the fact with their attorney army.

The enemy's stated and demonstrated cause is to kill all Infidels. Not just the ones "invading" their lands. Not just the ones who voted for GW. ALL Infidels must die.

To deny this threat is to deny reality.

All Americans want Peace; it is our fondest desire. So it is hard to blame those of us who have swallowed the line of crap coming from the Left. But those who should and do know better... John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, Carter (worst of the worst), Nancy Pelosi, et al, should be ashamed of themselves. They have tried, for five years, to undermine our security and sell out our future... for votes. Their goal is not peace but power... at any cost.

Joe Lieberman

2006-08-10T14:51:00.000-07:00

In CT the single-issue Democratic Party has proven itself to be even more self-destructive than the Republicans. Next session the one and only sane Democrat in the Senate... will be an Independent.

Rule 1: Bush is Always Wrong

2006-07-16T07:11:00.000-07:00

AP:July 15, 2005 wire article states: "Bush blamed Hezbollah's rocket attacks at Israel from its base in southern Lebanon, and the militant group's capture of two Israeli soldiers for triggering the fierce fighting."

AP says this as if there is some alternate opinion as to who or what triggered the current warring in Israel's neighborhood, which no thinking person has proposed. But Bush said it, so there must be another interpretation - a "correct" interpretation - because Bush cannot ever be right.

If Bush said that the Sun lights the Earth, or that night follows day, it would be presented as an opinion, with the clear implication that it was the wrong opinion, merely because Bush was the one saying it. MSM is so obsessed with anti-Americanism and Bush hatred that it has lost all objectivity.

MSM has followed the lead of the supermarket tabloids, whose headlines - "My Baby's Father Is An Alien" "2-Year-Old Weighs 1400 Pounds" - have been chuckled at, then ignored, by all but the most simple-minded among us for decades. The tabloids agenda was simple: Shock and Profit. The MSM agenda is political and they will say anything to promote it, fully expecting their readers to believe the headlines; and sadly, 39.8% of us do.

The truth is that the blame for Israel's eternal strife does ultimately rest in a place some fifty-eight years back. If you throw a goldfish into a shark tank, it is hard to blame either the goldfish or the shark for the inevitable results.

Main Stream Media Publishing Requirement #1

2006-06-13T20:14:00.000-07:00

An article in MyWay.com gave a blow-by-blow description of the President’s surprise visit to Iraq on July 13. Details and quotes in what I was briefly fooled into thinking was a fair report… until the middle of the piece when the authors - Steve Holland and Omar al-Ibadi – noticed that they had forgotten to insert today's liberal talking points (my emphasis):

“Others had expected to see him at Camp David on Tuesday where a videoconference with Iraqi officials was due to be held.

The U.S. death toll in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion is approaching 2,500, and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died.

U.S. public unease with the war is growing in a congressional election year and Bush faces calls to set a timetable for withdrawal of some 130,000 U.S. troops.

On Monday he reiterated they would stay until conditions improved to the point where they could be withdrawn.”

Now why are these two statements randomly inserted between two virtually unrelated paragraphs? It is as if these talking points are a requirement to be published these days, like a copyright notice.

Here are a few examples of my own:

The President – whose popularity is at all-time low – went jogging this morning.

President Bush – whose attempt to privatize Social Security was a miserable failure – arrived in Baghdad at 9AM local time.

Republicans – the party of disgraced Congressman Duke Cunningham – voted in favor of adjournment.

An Iraqi source, told reporters today that he had seen George Bush stop his car and ordered his secret service to beat seven children senseless on his way to a meeting with the President of Iraq – a country in which 2500 American servicemen and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis (mostly babies in their mother’s arms) have died during the war.

And so it goes.

Jonathan Chait's Common Sense Free Zone

2006-06-11T19:56:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Chait (whoever he is) is probably an ivy league genius of some sort, surely he does much more research than I do, and he's a far better writer... but he lacks one thing: Common Sense. In todays (7/11/06) LATimes he proves it.

A “study by William Niskanen of the Cato Institute, found that the conservative "starve the beast" strategy does not work. Indeed, since 1981, he found that tax cuts tend to produce more spending, while tax hikes produce less.”

The theory is, according to Chait, that the Democrats will not cut spending so that the Republicans can --Worn Out Cliche ALERT-- “give tax cuts to the rich”; and only "when Republicans agree to raise taxes, large numbers of Democrats will join them to cut spending." In other words, the Democrats will cut spending only if we, the People, give them more money; but take away “their” money by cutting taxes, and they will spend more.

Chait is disappointed that more conservatives haven’t commented on Niskanen’s devastating dismantling of their faith in tax cuts. Hey Jonathan! The reason that you haven’t seen many comments is that the “study” (while it may indeed be true) is Stupid on its face and requires no commentary. This argument doesn't even have to be about Democrats or Republicans to be ridiculous. Politicians spend every dime they get... always have... always will. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool (no offens Johnny). The ONLY way to reduce spending is to reduce the dimes.

What Chait and Niskanen seem to be arguing is that the Democrats are so bent on obstruction that they will spend more and more of our money until they get their way... their way being to TAKE more of our money through taxes. Then and only then, Chait promises with a straight face, will they consider reducing spending. When that day comes - and the Democrat's spite will not let up until it does - I presume they will take the excess money gained from additional taxes and spending cuts and put it in a box somewhere. In other words... one way or another, they're gonna get our money.

This is what passes for logic among liberals in the “We’ll-show-you” Party.

Take away our money and (We’ll-show-you”)…we’ll just spend even more.

Try to do something about anything - immigration, welfare, healthcare, social security, etc. - and (We’ll-show-you”)… we’ll obstruct you.

Try to win a war which will make Republicans look even stronger on security and (We’ll-show-you”)… we’ll undermine you.

Win an election and (We’ll-show-you”)… we’ll accuse you of cheating.

Someone tell me how 48% of America can be stupid enough to swallow this crap.

Congratulations, New Chocolate City

2006-05-20T20:35:00.000-07:00

Goodby New Orleans,

With the re-election of Ray Nagin you have shown us all that racial bigotry does indeed still exist in this country. The man that you elected – AGAIN - has already proven himself to be one of the most dangerously incompetent politicians in the U.S. (and in this case the term absolutely applies - he KILLED hundreds of your fellow citizens with his negligence). You have re-elected an incompetent, arrogant and racist mayor whose only talents are his ability to blame others for his own mistakes and his willingness to demand hand-outs.

For me, New Orleans is now gone; and I turn my back on New Chocolate City. Henceforth you should get what you deserve and the next time you will be right when you say it is because of the color of your skin – but it will have been by your own doing. You elected this man for one reason and one reason only: because he is black, and that is disgusting... and that is... RACIST.

So from now on stop accusing me of being a racist – you are the racists.

From now on stop whining about your victimhood – you have just volunteered for it.

From now on don't blame Washington for your failures when you have just re-elected a colossal and proven failure to be your mayor.

We paid $100 billion for your laziness and your corruption and your ineptitude. Don’t expect us to pay a dollar for your stupidity.

Goodby, New Orleans... I've lost a playground... you've lost a future.

A Lesson From the Illegal Immigrants

2006-05-20T07:40:00.000-07:00

The illegal immigrants have taught us a valuable lesson: if a group of potential voters decides that to openly break the law and demands loudly to be rewarded for breaking it, they will be given what they want.

This lesson has been taught to us – U.S. Citizens – by a group of people who A.) are not Americans; B.) for the most part speak minimal English; C.) purportedly have no money of their own and no major monetary support as a group; and D.) are very poorly organized.

Imagine what an organized group of LEGAL Americans with money who speak our language – actual voters – could do!

So what’s stopping us?

Ironically what is stopping us are two things that were once considered essential to getting along in life (this was in the days before the government took on that responsibility for each of us); and they are the same now archaic traits, the utter absence of which, has made it possible for some in this country to assume a pro-illegal immigration stance: COMMON SENSE and MANNERS.

Politicians have, once and for all, revealed themselves to be a shameless, self-serving group of panderers, bent only on prolonging their time at the public trough, no matter what the cost to America or its legal citizens.

It is now possible for citizens of one poor and powerless country to dictate the actions, laws and politics of another, much stronger and richer country - without a single shot being fired - and in less time that it would take for the stronger country's own people to do the same thing. Mexico's Stealth Army - comprised of landscapers, hotel staff, with a smattering of criminals - has invaded, over-taken, and now occupies the United States of America. A new warfare has been invented... a new war has been fought... and we have lost it.

And those of us who just want to be able to live our lives, with minimal interference from the Government, have allowed it.

Shame on us.

Unlike Bill Clinton...

2006-05-20T07:08:00.000-07:00

Unlike Bill Clinton, who always includes in his speeches descriptions of his Oval Office sexual escapades…

Unlike Bill’s wife Hillary, who regularly explains her involvement in the Vince Foster “suicide”, the Whitewater scandal, et al, when speaking to private groups …

Unlike Al Gore, who never fails to talk about his duties as bag man for the Democratic Party while he was vice president…

Unlike Teddy Kennedy, who openly discusses that night, back in the 60’s, when he left Mary Jo to drown while he swam to safety and slept it off before calling police the next morning to report the accident...

Unlike the rest of the liberals, who always acknowledge and openly discuss their own mistakes and misdeeds, Dick Cheney, in his commencement speech to LSU graduates, conspicuously omitted talking about the defining moment in his life: the hunting accident earlier this year. Ironically, while addressing an audience about to embark on careers of their own, he chose to talk about his early life!

Carl Limbacher felt the need to point this out to his readers (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/19/155411.shtml?s=ic) in his report on Cheney’s speech, which contained several personal revelations about his early life which were actually relevant to the listeners. Apparently Limbacher believes that this glaring omission goes to show, once again, the evil nature of the Bush Administration in particular and the Republicans in general and needed to be brought to our attention, probably because the lap dog media so rarely “exposes” the dark side of the administration.

There’s always room for one more basher.

Telephone Database - What "Furor"?

2006-05-17T07:08:00.000-07:00

The media descriptions of the public “furor” over the “massive database” of phone calls collected by the NSA is, shall we say, premature? Or shall we say… a LIE.

First of all, anyone who did not believe that the Government (and virtually anyone else who wants to) can search our personal phone records is a fool.

Secondly, I know no one who is upset about this in the least.

For the hundredth time this year, the media is trying to start a fire without kindling. In their blind hatred of George W. Bush, they have repeatedly failed to see the fact that the vast majority of Americans see almost any steps taken towards protecting our security as a good thing.

Also, the vast majority of Americans have nothing to hide.

Also, the vast majority of Americans see the “Government” as inept, corrupt and ineffective, but not as a evil machine whose sole purpose is to destroy the liberties of its own people. The latter, however, is the filter through which the media view everything - before presenting it as "news".

If the people of America want to find their freedoms being eroded, they need not look under every stone in Washington DC, to find the things that have been taken or kept from them, mostly by the Left, not by the “Fascist Right”.

The freedom to buy reasonably priced gasoline for whatever car they Choose to drive.

The freedom to speak out against issues without being described as racist or sexist or (even worse) Christian.

The freedom to smoke.

The freedom to be given news on the events of the world without having it first distorted by those who give it.

The freedom to succeed without being made to feel guilty for doing so.

The freedom to get a job because they are qualified for it, regardless of the color of their skin or the contents of their pants.

The freedom to offend other people.

The freedom NOT to have the ACLU and PC Police looking over their shoulder.

The freedom to be patriotic without being labeled with some derogatory term.

The freedom to be seen as Americans and to not be classified as dumb or smart based on the way their state voted.

The freedom to choose what schools to send their children to.

The freedom to pay their fair share – and only their fair share – of taxes.

The freedom to demand that welfare be given only to those who deserve it.

Bias Big and Small

2006-05-16T21:32:00.000-07:00

CNN's "big-time" bias... never in question... surfaced again yesterday when they - and only they - started broadcasting President Bush's speech while he was still preparing to begin. The result was 16 seconds of slightly embarrassing footage of the President delivering a few lines and listening to or watching someone off camera.

CNN should be embarrassed, but isn't (of course) claiming yet again that it was just another one of those accidental things that happen so often [when Republicans are broadcasting].

Now here's an example of small-time bias coming from KTHV's website (http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=28597)

Troy Anderson, "The 72-year-old mayor of Waldron has been charged with patronizing a prostitute and abusing the public trust for allegedly using his official position to obtain sex."

OK... stupid little story about corruption on a small scale but check through this article or any of the several articles on the subject scattered around the internet and you won't find a single mention of this clown's party affiliation. Wonder why? Because he is a Democrat and, as everyone knows, Democratic Party corruption is not newsworth. Actually the articles that I read didn't even mention this sleezebag's name.

MSM: "protecting our friends, destroying our enemies"

A noble policy if it werent' for the fact that America is their stated enemy.

Thank you CNN

2006-05-15T06:19:00.000-07:00

In an apparent effort to prove two of the points that I (and hundreds of others) have raised regarding the meaninglessness of polls and the ridiculous level of bias in the media, CNN released this weekend, a "poll" showing that Clinton outperformed Bush.

I have not, and likely will not read the article.

As I have said before - a poll can achieve whatever results the pollster wants to achieve.

These two cases can rest now. Thank you CNN.

Pelosi - pawn in the Conspiracy

2006-05-14T09:55:00.000-07:00

Some idiot named Ross Baker in the LATimes is now claiming that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the wacko leftists in government are essentially a creation of Carl Rove.

“It's now pretty clear that the Republican strategy for retaining control of both houses of Congress is to present to the American people a parade of horribles: zany leftists with radical social agendas taking over Congress and, like diabolical Lilliputians, tying down Bush with investigations, subpoenas and special prosecutors.”

Is this guy nuts? Republicans did not invent these people or these issues. And Republicans are not parading them. The actually ARE the “horribles” and “zany leftists”. The plots that he cites as if they are fantasies - are REAL.

Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Dick Durbin, et al are part of the Right Wing Conspiracy? This is the most outlandish conspiracy theory that I’ve seen and isn’t worthy of a second rate blog, much less a third rate national newspaper. Why is this clown being published?

Oh wait... i forgot the first rule of American Media in the 21st Century: If it makes Bush look bad, it leads.

Why stop here? Why not just go ahead and claim that Rove is the head of a vast child pornography ring? Or that Bush and OBL are fraternity brothers? Or that Cheny got rich importing cocaine from Bolivia?

Being an American in America these days is an embarrassment.

New Scandal: Secret Service caught looking at average citizen!!!!

2006-05-13T17:07:00.000-07:00

The New York Times… or the Washington Post… or CNN… or Howard Dean… or USA Today… or… Well anyway, someone “reported” today that a Secret Service agent glanced at several innocent American citizens last week when scanning a crowd. The Secret Service would neither confirm nor deny the incident.

This new evidence of the Bush Administration’s “above-the-law” attitude has raised questions among the press. Everyone from Nancy Pelosi to George Clooney has denounced this act as reminiscent of Hitler’s SS troops. Howard Dean predicted that, unless the Democrats gained control of Congress in this years election, “there will be a new holocaust…this time a real one… only this time it will be average Americans who are transported to the gas chambers”.

Henry Caphontian of Trenton, New Jersey, was one of the law-abiding citizens who came under the gaze of the Secret Service agent, who has been suspended pending Congressional investigation.

“He looked at me for what must have been a tenth of a second and it made my skin crawl. It looked to me like he was about to pull a gun and shoot me. I actually feared for my life.” Said Caphontian. “My only crime was standing in a crowd.”

Senator Arlen Spector, the most powerful man in Washington, immediately called for an investigation into the incident, stating that “this is not the first time the Secret Service has indiscriminately looked at someone.” Another 112 committee hearings are already underway, a number second only to the hearings into the flushing of a book down a toilet.

Ted Kennedy, who is chairing 103 of those committees, made the following statement: " Bush is a lying, big oil loving, Nazi liar. Americans will not stand to have their daughter's raped and murdered by an alcoholic Congressman... er... " His statement was revised shortly thereafter, as follows: "Mr Kennedy was more than usually drunk at the time of his statement. What he meant to say is that The President has gone too far. The current administration has no respect for the privacy of the American Public."

John Murtha's office said that this event was further proof that our troops were 100% against the Iraq war.

Nancy Pelosi said "What they said."

Jesse Jackson immediately found a live TV camera and announced that "Black America should Rise Up! Rise Up and smite the racist Republican government that is spying on and threatening every black man, woman and child in this countreh." Reminded that Mr. Caphontian was actually a white man, Mr. Jackson immediately found a live TV Camera and announced that the "racism of the Secret Service can no longer be tolerated. We must Rise Up! Rise Up! and demand that black men and women be spied on and shot by the Secret Service in equal numbers."

The White House apologized to everyone in the crowd who was seen by a Secret Service agent, offered $200,000 each for pain and suffering , even though an anonymous spokesman assured this reporter that Secret Service are forbidden to look at law-abiding Americans for more than one millionth of a nano-second. A full review has been ordered.

In response to this incident, Secret Service agents have been instructed to keep their eyes on the ground until Congress can get to the bottom of this latest episode in the scandal plagued Bush Administration.

A poll conducted by some liberal think tank asked 3 people this question: “Should the President’s Gestapo be allowed to shoot unarmed Americans for no reason?”

An overwhelming 67% of those polled said Absolutely Not and 33% had No Opinion; further confirming the public’s disdain for Bush’s authoritarian tactics.

POLLS MEAN NOTHING

2006-05-12T16:20:00.000-07:00

What credence would you give to a poll conducted by… say… The American Anti-Smoking League... and the results of that poll announced that 77% of those polled thought that smoking should be outlawed in all public places.

Or

If there a poll by the National Rifle Association said that 82% of those polled thought that the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment?) is the most sacred part of the Constitution. Would you swallow it?

Or

Suppose the NYT (or whoever) conducted a poll asking “Do you think that the Federal Government should monitor everything you say on the telephone?” Of course, a goodly percentage would say no to that question (although not as many as you think); but regardless of the numbers, would you believe the result to be reflective of the American Public's opinion of the phone database that is fueling today's moral outrage on the Liberal side?

Or

How about those "direction of the country" polls?

Our laws are not enforced… people are free to walk across our borders and demand the same (or better) benefits as our citizens… fat people blame McDonald’s for their obesity… where Cynthia McKenney gets re-elected… Jesse Jackson is a black leader… the media feels “obligated” to expose our military secrets… George Clooney is the spokesman for the Democratic Party… being abused as a child gives you a free pass for anything you do later in life…Republicans “control” the White House and Congress and act like they lost the last 4 elections… and on and on.

Who in the hell doesn’t think this country is headed in the wrong direction? Those are the people that I want to hear from. So the poll says 62% or 99% believe we are headed in the wrong direction and that constitutes (to MSM) some sort of mandate against GW Bush. Wild extrapolation!

In order to drum up opposition to anything Bush related, the media characterizes issues in a false and inflammatory way, distorts any facts that actually get included in the story, or just flat out lies, and then makes its “case” – against a false and distorted issue.

And – as always – the rest of the ducks quack the same story, and most of us end up just where they wanted us to be: believing it. The point is that polls are designed to get a desired set of results. Both sides do it, although the liberal biased poll results get much much much more exposure.

At least polls have a subtle fragrance of legitimacy.

Rumor-mongering and outright fabrication requires much less effort and is, therefore, far more prevalent - again, practiced by both but with much greater success by the liberals.

Did Bush lie about WMD? Everyone knows that he did not; that he merely said what everyone in the intelligence community and everyone in Congress believed at the time. Maybe he (and all the others) made a mistake, maybe not – that is yet to be proven.

Is Bush tied to Big Oil? There isn’t a shred of evidence to prove this tired statement; but Bush was at one time an oilman so there is that possible connection. This is one area where the Democrats are safe: no president or presidential candidate that I know of has ever had any job but politics or “rich kid” (Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Kennedy, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Kerry, Gore) whereas most Republican presidents or candidates have at one time or another actually done something other than politics (Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush, Bush) [Not sure about Nixon.] No Democrat will ever be accused of collusion with his previous industry because they have no previous industry – their only experience is politics.

Is the economy in bad shape? By every single measure, the economy is doing extremely well; but that doesn’t stop the stories.

Liberals are only doing what liberals do. We, the people, have no one to blame but ourselves, not just for believing them but for listening at all.

P.S. -- Liberals who respond to this post will first look for misspellings or grammatical errors and, if found, they will use those to insult my intelligence and discount anything that I have said here. Others will check the bios and find that Lyndon B. Johnson once worked at a carnival. The older ones will remember that JFK was a real war hero (as opposed to John Kerry). They will focus on any such discrepancy and will ignore the points of this post (that POLLS MEAN NOTHING) and concentrate on some tiny research error or generalization. --- but the thing is: I don’t need to do in-depth research to know what I know so, rather than attack me for not being “investigative” enough, defend your boys (MSM & all the rich kids) against my accusations. Or is that asking too much of a liberal?

New Orleans: Your Last Warning

2006-04-22T15:19:00.000-07:00

Here's the deal, New Orleans:

If you folks re-elect Nagin as your mayor (or as your Sewer Commissioner or anything else) your federal aid will be withdrawn. End of discussion.

Six Fucking Generals!

2006-04-20T04:42:00.000-07:00

Six – yes 6 – disgruntled, retired generals are calling for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. Six out of over 4,000. That’s .15% - point one, five percent – less than two tenths of one percent or 1 and a half generals out of each thousand. That means that 998.5 of every thousand retired flag officers either support Rumsfeld or are afraid to voice their opinion. My point: it’s a pretty small group that’s creating this ruckus.

So howcome one-tenth of one percent or so, are right when they say that Rumsfeld should resign, while 2400 times that proportion of Americans (36%) are wrong when they say the President is doing a good job?

Howcome 6 generals, most of whom probably never met the Secretary of Defense, are presented as truth-telling heros whose motives should not be questioned, when dozens of Swiftboat Vets who served with John Kerry were universally dismissed by the media as crackpots with a (Conservative) agenda?

Guess with me: because the generals are promoting the media’s message.

That’s how it works in this country these days. To get media attention, all you have to do is make some wild accusation against the Bush Administration.

That’s why you know who Cindy Sheehan is.

That’s why you still remember Alec Baldwin.

The Death of America

2006-04-08T06:53:00.000-07:00

The Democratic Party, and its wings in major media, academia, Europe and Hollywood, have masterfully played the opposition game. Nipping at the heels of the President at every slip, creating slips if needed, giving no ground; this 5-year onslaught has taken its toll, as fire ants can bring down an elephant, who then finds itself half-eaten before it dies.
-
But unfortunately, that is all they have. Negativity for its own sake. Their goal is only to regain power. They offer nothing to replace that which they have destroyed.
-
Yes, the Left has perfected the art of Negativity. During perhaps the most critical period in our history, they essentially invented a subtle civil war in America, turning us against each other – their historical specialty. They have created a citizenry which accepts no responsibility or accountability for its own actions, and in the process they have destroyed the United States.
-
The mortally wounded elephant struggles on, thinking that its might, or its right, must logically prevail. But the elephant is being eaten alive and will not survive. A "dead man walking", who is coming to the realization that logic does not apply in today's universe.
-
Just as we have found in the War on Terror, America – Real America – does not understand the concept of pure hatred as a motivating force. We find it hard to fight an enemy who wants nothing but our death, and is willing to pay any price to achieve it.
-
The Left has learned the game well and played it masterfully. It is a game in which they create the rules and change them at will. If it was just a game, they would be applauded for their skills, having handed a convincing and humiliating defeat to the greatest opponent in modern history: The United States of America.
-
If only it was just a game.

Cynthia McKinney: a joke

2006-04-03T19:35:00.000-07:00

Cynthia McKinney: a joke that has been happening for 12 years.

Standing out amongst a group of generally reprehensible public "servants" in the U.S. Congress, McKinney distinguishes herself as one of the worst politicians of this or any other time. This woman, to whom nothing - absolutely nothing - but race matters, has predictably played the race card in her Capital screening incident, adding the sexual harrassment innuendo. Disgusting is her middle name.

McKinney spokesman' Coz Carson said of the investigation: "We're aware that the wheels are turning in Washington. We have no control over what they decide to do. We will make the appropriate statement and take the appropriate action once we know where they're going."
And, unless the officer and his supervisor are dismissed, unless an official apology is made to this bogus, racist abuser of the public trust, the appropriate statement will be that "blah, blah, blah... because I am a black woman."

McKinney herself is not deterred by the proceedings against her. "Rest assured, I am doing the work they sent me to Washington to do. Nothing is going to keep me away from my responsibilities," McKinney told a crowd of supporters in Atlanta Monday.

This, on the same day that she was forced to admit spending office supply money to fly Isaac Hayes to Atlanta to open some building or other, a distinct and blatant violation of House rules. Her solution is to pay back the money, and she thinks that should resolve the issue, which she surprisingly admitted this act without mentioning her race or gender - possibly a first. But "rest assured" those two citations will be made should the House Rules Committee take any action against her.

I can't believe that I'm writing about Cynthia McKenney. In the highly unlikely event that anyone ever happens to read this post, I apologize for wasting your time on this sorry subject.

Miss White America

2006-03-30T05:46:00.000-08:00

Miss White America
The White Congressional Caucus
The White Entertainment Network
The White Family Reunion
National White History Month
The Hollywood White Film Festival
The White Music Research Journal
The National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People
White Music MonthThe White America WebWhiteAmericaToday.com
The National White Women's Health Project
The National White Chamber of Commerce
The National White Child Development Institute
The National White Police Association Homepage
The National White Arts Festival
The National White United Front
The National White Theatre
The National White Business Council, Inc.
The National White Nurses Association, Inc.
The National White Programming Consortium
The National White Deaf Advocates

None of these things exist, nor should they; nor would they be allowed to in spite of that free speech thing that we hear so much about.

Substitute Black for White, however, and all of these things exist, along with thousands more entities designed to promote, or at the very least, encourage, racism in America.

Racism still exists... only now it comes from a different direction.

No race (as a whole) will succeed when it (as a whole) insists on separating itself from the American People (as a whole).

Conditional Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

2006-03-29T05:12:00.000-08:00

11 million? 30 million?

It is unrealistic to suggest that we track down this many people and eject them. This is a costly and ineffective plan which - because of current anti-profiling procedures - would turn the entire population of this country into suspects - (see TSA).

It is impractical to simply forgive this serious flaunting of our laws. American Citizenship has always been a priveledge and any amnesty program further devalues that priveledge. It's time to add that value back with a strict but fair proposal. Here's one:

Every illegal immigrant must do the following:

1. Pay all back taxes.
2. Serve 2 years probation.
3. Supply fingerprint and DNA identification.
4. Pass the citizenship test within 2 years.

Successful completion of these four requirements grants conditional citizenship and expungement of the conviction. Failure to pass the citizenship test in the allotted time shall result in expulsion and disqualification from future Conditional Citizenship consideration.

Conditional citizenship so acquired will be restricted as follows:

1. applies ONLY to the individual - not to his or her family - for the first 5 years, after which full citizenship is granted.
2. commission of certain types of felonies as a conditional citizen will result in revocation of citizenship and expulsion and placement on a watch list which prohibits or severely restricts future citizenship processing.

The keyword is ILLEGAL

2006-03-25T16:14:00.000-08:00

Tell me how can people in good conscience protest the enforcement of immigration laws?

Tell me how people who commit a felony by entering our country illegally and then proceed to steal (or be given) a geometrically disproportionate percentage of the benefits available to poor American citizens - that's CITIZENS - how can these people have the audacity to complain when we ask them to abide by the law?

How can they "demand" anything? And why does anyone listen when they do?

This country has always welcomed legal immigrants, and I believe it always will. Very few on the other side of this are against immigration. We are against ILLEGAL immigration. Let me say that again: We are against ILLEGAL immigration.

And somehow - after 230 years - that has become a bad thing.

This country is very sick.

"Insurgents"... Brilliant!

2006-03-24T06:50:00.000-08:00

People who kill innocent men, women and children are called "insurgents".

This single choice of substituting the word insurgent for "terrorist" in order to make Iraq appear to be an internal affair which poses no threat to the U.S. and in which we should not be involved, was a brilliant move by the (anti-)American Media.

I can just hear the meetings now in February of 2003.

"There's going to be a war and if we win this war, Bush will look good and the Republicans might win the next election. My God! Hillary might never be President!!! What can we do?"

"Let's say that Bush is going there because he wants to avenge his father... haliburton wants Iraq's oil... he is a stupid cowboy... he just loves war... you know, all the regular stuff"

"Nah. That won't keep us from winning the war. We need to make it seem Not like a war."

"Maybe we shouldn't use the word terrorist. Everybody hates terrorists."

"Brilliant! What should we use then?"

(Pause)

"Underdogs?"

"Freedom Fighters?"

"Challengers?"

"Little People?"

"Insurgents?"

"That's it! Insurgents aren't "bad" people. Insurgents have a "cause". Insurgents represent the grass roots. Yep. Insurgents it is. OK pass the word: from now on Terrorists will be referred to as Insurgents."

"But won't the American people see right through that? I mean, these terrorists - i mean, insurgents - are murdering innocent people."

(Brief pause... then laughter all around.)

"Good one, Sandy. Now go get us some more Danish."

Media, not Government, is Big Brother

2006-03-21T05:45:00.000-08:00

It is one thing to "interpret" events in light of one's own bias. It is another thing to suppress facts that conflict with that bias.

The mainstream media - virtually all media - has moved into this second stage of action. The complete and utter misrepresentation of the Dubai Ports affair and the near total suppression of the significantly revealing analysis of captured documents and tapes signify that the press no longer has any interest in "the Truth". The "people's right to know" has become "the people's right to know what we (the media) want them to know".

One of the most lasting images that the liberal press has used over the years against any and all conservative thought is the "Big Brother" mantra. The truth is: mainstream media has itself become Big Brother.

Five things that will never happen...

2006-03-19T06:05:00.000-08:00

Shut down the borders until our legislators can resolve the issues.

Institute a loser pays court system for civil suits - like every other civilized country.

Allow law enforcement to do its job.

Impose term limits on Congress. Why just the President?

Enforce the laws governing Treason during times of war.

Republican back-stabbers

2006-03-11T06:22:00.000-08:00

They deny their bigotry, but many of those who so fiercely opposed the Dubai Ports World deal are just that. I never heard a single complaint about the ports that are "controlled" by the Chinese. The rest are liars Some are both, characterizing the deal as a takeover of control of our ports by ARABS. At the same time, anyone who suggested that the TSA pull aside anyone wearing a turban, would be crucified. The ACLU, of course, remained silent on this one, confused, I presume, by the dichotemy that these victims of racism are also rich - what to do?

Democrats suddenly concerned over security? Not a chance. I expect them to become "proponents" of anything that might make GW look bad. They have no belief system other than that... no standards... and above all, no shame. But I was surprised and disgusted by those Republicans who took this opportunity to distance themselves from the President, and in doing so, did far more damage than the predictable and impotent Liberals.

I don't think the deal was the smartest political move the Administration could have made. This group really isn't very good at public relations. It smelled bad from the start but, had it been squashed before becoming a public issue, the NYTimes would have been the first in a long line protesting the bigotry of the Administration - (no standards).

Politics is a repulsive business. We would be better off "electing" random citizens or, better still, having no Congress at all.

Andrew Sullivan: Ship-jumper

2006-03-06T20:13:00.000-08:00

Sensing that the political winds may be changeing, Andrew Sullivan has become the latest "conservative pundit" to abandon his support of the War in Iraq (magically disassociated now with the War on Terror).

First in his March 6 Time article, as if to show us what lofty company he keeps, Sullivan cites William F. Buckley Jr, George Will and Francis Fukuyama, other recent ship-jumpers. Then he makes the statement that "The shock of 9/11 provoked an overestimation of the risks we faced."

In reality, the "shock" of 9/11 forced us to see the risks that were out there by revealing, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is a sizable contingency out there in the world, who want ALL Americans dead and are willing to die themselves in order to contribute to that goal. It also made it quite clear to us how much damage a very small group of people can do when they are willing to kill themselves to do it. How then can that "risk" be "overestimated"?

He further asserts that "the WMD intelligence debacle, something that did far more damage to the war's legitimacy and fate than many have yet absorbed."

Sullivan is wrong here too. The war has been deligitimized only as a result of the massive and unrelenting efforts by the Fourth Estate and the "Loyal Opposition" over the past 4 years to deligitimize anything and everything that George Bush touches. Sullivan is merely swallowing the story along with 50+% of the rest of us. Since it was clearly known that Saddam had WMD's in the mid-nineties, and since he had not complied with the U.N. order to destroy those weapons and report their destruction, it was by no means a failure for intelligence, but rather an extremely logical process, to assume that those weapons still existed. Hussein himself, in fact, encouraged that assumption by failing to provide the proof that would have established his compliance and saved his skin.

For his third airball, Sullivan quotes and agrees with Fukuyama "about the inevitability of democratic change, and its ease. We got cocky." But, however cocky "we" may or may not have been, no one ever told us that establishing democracy in Iraq or anywhere else would be easy.

Sullivan also seems to think that "we" were suprised by the resentment that was "provoked" by our efforts in Iraq. This resentment has been there for decades. It was kind of obvious from the celebrations that broke out in the Muslim world on September 11th, 2001. This hostility was not provoked but merely found a focal point in the Iraq War.

Perhaps auditioning for Air America, he jumps on the "too few troops" bandwagon, the "incompetence and misjudgement" bandwagon, the "civil war" bandwagon, and of course, the "torture" bandwagon.

With his egotistical regret concerning his role in leading us into war with his erroneous reasoning, Andrew Sullivan has "cleansed his soul", abandoned his neo-con label, and cleaned his slate for his next -ism.

He does not withdraw all hope - Wars and Democracies, it seems, are long term enterprises and anything can happen - but one has to wonder who will lead us, now that Mr. Sullivan has abdicated his post. God what pompous asses these men are! And the roles grow daily.

Fickle is one thing but...

2006-02-26T06:41:00.000-08:00

The Dubai port issue has been framed entirely and wildly exaggerated by some who oppose it,others who don't understand it (and don't care to), and by Democrats who see it as an opportunity to look strong on security - even though the issue itself has very little to do with security.

Fickle is one thing but... if "the public" abandons George Bush and/or (worse) thinks that the Democrats are stronger on national security than Republicans, based on this trumped-up issue, (as Rasmussen, at least, seems to think), then there is no hope that any elected official or party will ever again be able to run this country safely or efficiently.

I propose the implementation of a new system for "electing" our leaders: Daily elections.

A daily poll or vote could be taken via internet, phone, and polls, in which registered voters, felons, illegal immigrants, and foreigners express (via internet or phone) their daily preference for all elected offices. A daily election, if you will. ("Who should be president tomorrow.")

Had this process been in place, we would have had 32 presidents in the past year. Among them: Cindy Sheehan, John McCain, Jimmy Carter, Bode Miller, John Murtha, Harry Reid, Harry Belefonte, Hugo Chavez, Janice Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Abramoff and, of course, George Clooney.

And we'd be exactly where we are today: a country whose sole obsession is political power; whose only motivation to action is opposition to the "other" party; a country that can't get anything done; a country that is on its way off the world stage.

Bandwagon

2006-02-25T21:37:00.000-08:00

William F. Buckly ("Iraq is Lost") has now jumped on the Failure Bandwagon.

Why does everyone hate GWB so?

In America (and maybe the world) today, Hate trumps Love (as it always has), but it also trumps logic, sanity, civility, reality and patriotism.

Soon... very soon... these voices of failure will prove right. That does not mean that they are right now; it means that a negative, repeated often enough, becomes fulfilled.

It is no longer a case of how much the world hates us; it is how much we seem to hate ourselves.

Seeing this makes me sad.

Jimmy Carter - ex-President, Traitor

2006-02-25T06:29:00.000-08:00

Are bowlers really "athletes"?

Are rappers really "musicians"?

Are pennies really "money"?

Are polls really "news"?

Is Teddy Kennedy really a "public servant"?

Are people who ask Jimmy Carter's opinion really "reporters"?

Don't strain yourself; the answer to all these questions is a resounding NO.

There is no less newsworthy personality on this earth than Jimmy Carter; unless being both an ex-president and a traitor is newsworthy.

I would rather read the opinion of Mary at the Convenient Store up the street.

Bryant Gumble - black when it's useful

2006-02-21T06:03:00.000-08:00

Who remembers Bryant Gumble from the Today show days? (small spattering of applause)
Now, who can remember one thing Bryant Gumble has done since he left the Today show for the big time. (Dead Silence)

Anyway, he quit the today show because he was just too big for the format. The plan was that he would become the next Barbara Walters - big names would clamor for an hour with Bryant the Great. Didn't happen - not even once. No one has heard his name or his voice for 10 years... so to correct that he (as he always has) has to bring up his favorite subject: Race.

Gumble is upset that there aren't more black luge pilots, ski jumpers, ice skaters. It doesn't bother him that the Olympics of the Summer is about 92% black; nor does it bother him that the NBA is 99.7% black. He would say that's where the talent is. Fair enough. But Race Street is one-way and Bryant is upset about the ski team's whiteness.

If Bryant Bumble is anything at all these days, he is a joke. He got his only good job in the days when putting a black man in the morning anchor chair was good for business. He made millions hawking other people's books and eating ravioli at 7AM. He became famous primarily for being an arrogant asshole. He believed his own hype - went out on his own - and promptly disappeared. Thank God for small favors.

Don't confuse Bryant with his younger (and much more successful brother) Brad - a top end sports anchor who doesn't seem to use skin color to form his opinions. Bryant is to Brad as Jimmy Carter is to Billy (if he were alive) - an embarrassment - and no, I don't have that backwards. Jimmy Carter is a whole nother (but similar) story.

Celebrity

2006-02-18T06:50:00.000-08:00

I played baseball in high school - that doesn't make me an athlete today.
I was in the marching band - that doesn't make me a musician today.
Richard Dreyfuss made a movie or two in... the 80's?. Celebrity is a term used pretty loosely these days.
Alec Baldwin's claim to fame is... that he is Alec Baldwin?

I happen to like most Johnny Depp movies. Maybe I'm unusual... but I don't walk out of those movies thinking to myself "Good Movie... I wonder how Johnny thinks I should vote?"

At least Johnny had the honesty to leave the country that he hates - he just makes all of his money here. Baldwin (and others) use the threat of their leaving this country to try to force us to their way of thinking. (Oh God! We can't let Alec Baldwin get away - we must vote for Kerry.)

Expertise (or luck) in one area of life does not indicate expertise in another... but that appears to be the assumption by many "celebrities" (like Clooney, Penn, Streisand, et al). who seem to believe that they are obligated to use their fame to forward their politics. And sadly, we listen.

Even more sadly, we listen to those "celebrities" whose stature - even in their area of success - is historical at best. These pathetic cases (Dreyfuss, Robbins, Baldwin, et al) seem to think that stating their politics will some how bring back their celebrity status.

In a time when the media is 99% controlled by flaming liberals, there is no surer way to get your name in the media than "announcing" your opposition to George W. Bush. And, as we do with so many of the forces that are destroying the American way of life, we allow it.

"Fact"check.org

2006-02-11T05:05:00.000-08:00

I don't go there often... neither should you.

Factcheck.org did what they would like us to believe is an "analysis" of President's State of the Union address. Their analysis "found nothing that was factually incorrect" in the address, but was very careful to point out several omissions, most of which referred to statistics and events from the President's first term, and most of which would have a negative effect on the address. Their general observation seems to be that the president, in the SOTU, emphasized the positive aspects of the present and future - imagine that!

The Factcheck people also give us their view of the Democratic response - honestly headlining it as the Democratic State of the Union Attack. [Redundant: any statement by a Democrat is an attack against the President. Attacking is, afterall, what the Democrats understand to be the meaning of "opposition party".] The analysis of the response points out several clear misrepresentations (the Democrats gave "a misleading picture of Bush's record on jobs", the Democrat response took "liberties with a New York Times story that said the lives of 300 troops might have been saved with "improved" body armor. The ad calls it "proper" body armor, a term not used by the Times story.", an accusation of "underfunding" of the No Child Left Behind program is "misleading because federal aid for elementary schools and high schools actually has increased 33 percent under Bush".

So... in balance... the President omitted negative 5-year old facts from his State of the Union Address, and the Democrats lied and mislead in their response in an effort to make Bush look bad. Factcheck offers no opinion of those two "facts" from their analysis, presenting both actions as virtually equivalent; and, in doing so, exhibits its own bias.

Cartoons & Hillary the Clueless

2006-02-08T19:15:00.000-08:00

The response of the "Muslim World" to the Danish cartoons is a clear example of the insanity of these fanatics and those who are so easily and blindly led to always violent over-reaction. Could one expect more from a people, mired in the 10th Century (or is it the 4th?), who turn their children into bombs and cut off the heads of innocents? I think not.

While it is true that this is a war against "radical" Islamists, it is apparently just as true that a very large portion of the Muslim population can become a "radical" Islamist at the drop of a hat - or an obscure cartoon - or an erroneous story in Newsweek.

As much as it is denied, this is a war of civilizations. It is the past versus the future. In our overly-sensitive political-social environment, we have begun to adjust our behavior out of fear of the reaction of this irrational and violence prone group of people.

Meanwhile, Hillary (among others) taunts the Administration for "playing the fear card". Clueless and without shame... fools like her know nothing but politics.

Joel Stein - an honest piece of shit

2006-01-24T20:59:00.000-08:00

"I DON'T SUPPORT our troops." said Stein in LATimes article and followed it with the usual chorus of Bush lied, no threat, oil, blah blah. At least he is honest about his hatred for America. I'd respect him if he would leave.

The Porking of America

2006-01-23T06:10:00.000-08:00

Pork, (or as it is now politely referred to: Earmarks), is the simplest way that Congressmen buy (literally Buy) votes from their constituencies; and, When the only purpose of being in Congress is to remain in Congress, who can blame them?

The process is forever.

The electorate will not stop pork - because they are the ones who benefit from it. These Congreessional Ponzi-schemers are literally bribing the very people who have the power to stop the bribery... so it ain't gonna happen in the election process.

The only people in position to stop the porking are other Congressmen, most of whom by necessity are bent on using the same vote-buying techniques in their own districts. The few who stand up to the Porking of America, are usually idealistic and naive "rookies" who are quickly either convinced of the value of having this ability to bribe their constituency or, failing that, are punished by the power brokers who have no interest in reforming this system.

Attempts to purchase votes are not going to stop until the incentive to buy them stops. Term Limits... period... is the only way to stop pork.

"Politicizing" 9/11

2006-01-22T08:02:00.000-08:00

One of the most used - and most lame - Democratic attacks/accusations is that the Republicans are "politicizing 9/11". This, of course, from a group of people to whom everything - Everything! - is political.

I'm sure I'm not the first to reveal this secret, but I'll reveal it anyway:

September 11, 2001 is the most significant single day in American history, if not in the history of the world. On that day every American was forced to realize and admit, if only for a week or so, that there are people in the world who not only dislike us, but want to and will... and Did... Kill us. Not just our leaders or our armies - Us... every single one of us.

And that realization changed the world as far as Americans are concerned - not for a while - but forever. Anyone who denies that fact is unqualified to hold public office. But the Democratic Party as a whole, appears to be bent on forgetting 9/11.

There have been wars. There has been hatred. There has been tension. But prior to 9/11, all of it was merely a struggle for power - equal power, greater power, whatever. The only enemy that most of us knew before 9/11 was "Communism". The Communists wanted to dominate the world. They wanted to overthrow our system of government. They wanted to impose their ideology. And annihilation was a possibility but it would have been an accident. Now - annihilation is the stated goal of our enemy. They want us dead - ALL of us... period.

That belief by our enemy Requires an entirely different approach to defense... an entirely different approach to life in general. 9/11 DID change everything... and everything we do MUST take the change of that day into consideration.

Every one of us wishes for the pre-9/11 feeling of "security" - false as it may have been. But pretending, as the Democrats do, that 9/11 was just another event that politicians use to increase their standing and then move on to the next "event" - like Katrina, or Rodney King, or abortion - is not only unrealistic... it is insane.

No one in their right might doubts that if the Left could use 9/11 to its own political advantage, it would. But they can't, because of their historical and notorious weakness in the areas of Defense and Security. Therefore, because it is of no "use" to them, they persist in their attempts to deligitimize and trivialize this most significant day in American history.

Typically, the Democrats accuse the Republicans of exactly what they are doing themselves - Politicizing 9/11.

Scumbags: n. professional politicians

2006-01-20T15:26:00.000-08:00

When anyone speaks out against a "critic" of the War on Terror/Iraq, it's "slander".When a Bush-basher calls the President a terrorist, it's "debate".

Democrat "criticism" may have no basis in fact and may, indeed, be outright lies.Republicans who point out discrepancies or falshoods are "attacking".

Indicted Republicans are guilty.Indicted Democrats are persecuted.

Politicians, in general, suck - they steal, they lie, they cheat, they lie, they connive, they lie, and they manipulate the system for their own personal gain (power/money). But today's Democrats have taken sucking to new levels.

Considering the depth of depravity now being plumbed by these disgusting leaches (professional politicians) in Congress, there is no hope for this country without congressional term limits.

I'd sooner be ruled by a jury-duty-like lottery. Throw them all out, I say. There is a whole lot of bathwater and very little baby.

Jack Bauer

2006-01-02T16:17:00.000-08:00

"There seem to be no rules in Bush’s world when it comes to the war on terror. Only wimps like the whining bureaucrats on “24” would balk at torture, spying, propaganda — whatever it takes." --- Craig Crawford, CQ Columnist.

Mr. Crawford has impressive credentials - news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and “The Early Show” on CBS - Liberal credentials, that is, as it would not be hard to guess from his article headlined in Realclearpolitics.com as "George Bush is the Jack Bauer of presidential power".

First of all, how does crap like this get on Real Clear Politics anyway? It isn't like the surrenderists can't find outlets virtually anywhere else.

Crawford, like all Liberals, finds some small commonality and extrapolates that to imply equality. Jack Bauer doesn't trouble himself with warrants - nor does Bush. Jack Bauer also saws off peoples heads, kills his fellow workers, and performs whatever is necessary to achieve his goal. We already know that terrorist suspects have been "water-boarded" and, even worse, forced to take off their clothes; so by association and implication therefore, the President would chop off someone's head, too - and likely has.

Not a single American worthy of his drivers license would vote against the President's decision to use NSA technology to track and trap those engaged in terrorism. Very, very little uproar was heard in the real world even when the ("Nazi-like") humiliations at Abu Graib were exposed.

And yet, the hard left continues to be more concerned with those who are plotting to kill us than it is with the Americans that they are trying to kill... More concerned with destroying or at least embarrassing George W. Bush than they are about protecting the United States. They can't think in any other terms but political.

If George W. Bush is Jack Bauer, then the Left is an ostrich with its head in the sand. In this new world, I'll take my chances Jack Bauer every single time.

Someone is very wrong in their reading of the American people. I pray it isn't me.

A Surplus of Critics

2005-12-30T07:12:00.000-08:00

Official British support for the U.S. in the War on Terror has been unwavering. Tony Blair has been eloquent when George Bush was not. His support, and the support of his government have lent legitimacy to the effort and disproved the accusations from the rest of Old Europe (and the New Left here in the U.S.) that we acted “unilaterally”. Thanks Tony. Thanks U.K.

That support, however, does not necessarily qualify everyone in England with a computer to criticize (British) every aspect of American life and politics any more than my going to a nude beach qualifies me as an expert on Nudism. Britain has a lot in common with America; but no one who hasn’t lived here – lived, not visited – can truly understand what America is all about.

My message to the British Press and the rest of the world media that have been so happy to jump on America’s liberal media bandwagon: Shut Up and Mind your own business!

The U.S. has a surplus of many things; and our supply of blowhard, left-(and right)-leaning know-it-alls may be the most conspicuous surplus of all.

Mexico is Upset

2005-12-19T22:15:00.002-08:00

Mexico is upset that we Americans would like to slow the flood of Mexicans from coming into the U.S. illegally and stealing our money and resources. Here's my response: Fuck Mexico.

Canada's leadership is upset that our government would ask them to tone down their constant streams of anti-American rhetoric that flows from their mouths. Canada says we have no business asking them to back off a step or two. Canada will, however, continue - as it has for the past 150 years - to hide behind America's skirts, while spending $29 a year to defend itself. My response: Fuck Canada.

And Europes big and little "guns" - the leaders of France, Germany, Belgium, Spain - always have something negative to say from their imaginary positions of moral superiority. Fuck Germany, France, Belgium, and the horse they rode in on.

Sure, maybe the people of Canada, France, Mexico are ok. Maybe they don't hate America. But they keep electing people who do, and who are anxious to express that hatred. There should be a cost for that - and maybe if there is, these "ok" people will vote differently.

Since when did friendship become a one-way street? Since never. It isn't. And it shouldn't be.

Calling an asshole by another name - "France" for instance - doesn't make it any less an asshole. It's time to start treating our friends like friends, and our enemies like enemies. It's time to stop wasting our money (billions) and our goodwill where it is not appreciated.

Arrogant but true: these whiny, defenseless countries need us a lot more than we need them.

America supports the economies of both Mexico and Canada. America is in the process - for the third time now - of saving Old Europe's ass from the fire. America is carrying the fight for the whole world. And in exchange, not only do we get no financial help, but we get constant criticism and meddling.

Time to start charging dues.

Iraq still unstable... After 11 whole months.

2005-12-19T22:15:00.001-08:00

It has been nearly a year now since Iraq set out on its journey towards Democracy. And now, 11 months and three elections later, the success of Iraq's Democracy is, unbelievably to some, still... STILL... in doubt.

What fools we are to listen to - much less believe - the drivel that we read in the papers and hear on the news. As if, in anyone's wildest imaginataion, and under the absolute best of circumstances, a stable democracy could be expected to be fully formed in the time-frame allowed by the left.

No. Even the most hardened, New York Times reading, Socialista, Bush-hater knows the ridiculous nature of the standard that they are using to discredit the literally astounding progress that the people of Iraq have made.

Here we are - the epitome (supposedly) of Democracy - and yet, after 230 years, it could be honestly said that American Democracy is far from stable. We don't have suicide bombers (yet) and we don't have assasinations (yet); but we do have an even more destructive and deceptive force working to promote chaos in the United States. No longer "Far, the Left has hijacked the Democratic Party and turned it into a terrorist organization of an even more devious sort.

Instead of confronting their enemies, the Left chooses to undermine every single effort of those who would try to make the world a better place. They choose to gnaw away at our national (and personal) confidence, mistakenly thinking that a weak enemy will make themselves stronger.

Makes me yearn for the days of tar and feathers... the days when we, once red-blooded Americans wouldn't have put up with such treason - and that's exactly what it is.

But we "regular Americans" have become too timid... to fearful of the wrath of the Left; and we allow this cancer to take over our beloved country. We watch George Bush try to fight the overwhelming forces unified against him. Maybe we hope he will win... maybe... but not enough to stand by him. We keep our heads down and pray (silently) that the most radical major party in the history of America doesn't accuse us of being radical.

Sad days.

post-Conservatives

2005-12-19T22:15:00.000-08:00

George Will among others... has become a deranged pseudo-libertarian to whom any activity that might hypothetically threaten his own personal privacy must be stopped, regardless of the purpose, intention or practice of that activity. Nowadays, potential for abuse of any kind - no matter how far-fetched or unsubstantiated - is sufficient reason for quashing any plan, no matter how necessary or useful that plan may have been.

The NSA-spying-on-your-mother crap is only the most current example. Think of Abu Graib, the Anwar drilling battle, the torture 'debate', terrorist's rights cases, Guantanamo... or any of dozens more examples.

Many previously conservative pundits and politicians have fallen into this trap. They have adopted the leftist position that Americans will always do the wrong thing if given the slightest opportunity. And, while pretending to support this country's efforts to protect itself and the world, these neo-libertarians are dismantling that ability.

The communists of the 40's, the socialists of the 70's, and the bush-haters of the 21st Century, could not have envisioned the success that the post-conservatives are handing to them. And the Leftist press revels in giving us every detail as America is dismantled before our very eyes.

Treason of the Press

2005-12-18T04:50:00.001-08:00

Why does John Murtha, the heretofore totally invisible senator(?) from um... Pennsylvania(?), continue to get press coverage on an almost daily basis?

His plan consists of leaving Iraq as soon as "practicable". In other words, Murtha proposes breaking our promise to the Iraqi people and abandoning them to the terrorists who infest their country - terrorists who, according to Murtha, are only there because we are.

It is Murtha's constantly stated opinion that we have caused the trouble in Iraq, that our forces are weak, and that our staying there only makes things worse and it is his belief that we are losing the fight.

Although his absurd plan created a discussion that might eventually be helpful in solidifying the country's attitude (to the limited extent that solidification is still a possibility), no one - absolutely no one in their right mind - has jumped all the way on Murtha's Retreat Express. Every single expert has stated that leaving Iraq prematurely would be a disaster for the Iraqi people and their new government.

And yet... every single day... another Murtha article, speech, press conference, or high profile appearance. His anti-American statements get even more coverage than the more experienced and familiar Wacko's, Sheehan, Clooney, Streisand, Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy... (enough! that list is way too long).

Why? Because his statements keep negativity on the front burner. And negativity on the front page might sway even more unthinking Americans to the dark view of the war and the military and - most important of all - George W. Bush. And that, afterall, is the purpose of our free press these days.

Aren't there laws against treason?

NYTimes: Third House of Congress

2005-12-18T04:50:00.000-08:00

It is not news that the New York Times is the owns and controls the Democratic Party; but it may surprise some to realize that the Times has become the third (and superior) House of Congress, influencing public policy far more than either of the Junior Houses.

Representatives and Senators alike follow the lead of the Timesmen for agenda and policy positions. Votes in the two Junior Houses are guided by polls and postion statements coming out of the House of Time. Those few who stray from the agenda, they are severely repremanded by their far more powerful colleagues in New York.

It is the Times from which we, the American People, receive the rules by which we must live (political correctness, unrestricted abortion, anti-Christianity, and so on).

It is from the Times as well, that we get the opinions that we hold (war is wrong, Bush lied, the economy is in bad shape, Republicans are corrupt, and so on) and even the polls telling us what percentage of us hold them.

And the Times, more than any other single influence, determines who will serve in all of the Federal Government's other branches.

Specifically protected by the Constitution of the United States, the House of Times is not subject to re-election or recall and is accountable to no one but itself. [No need to point out that the readers "vote" with their wallets. The Times does not require readers in the general public. As long as it is published, and without regard to circulation figures, the Times will be the "paper of record" and its statements will be presented as gospel by all of its underlings in the world media.]

It is a sad day when the very institution that is supposed to tell us what happened in the world, is allowed to determine what WILL happen. Talk radio and the blog-world aside; that day has come.

Torture is good

2005-12-14T05:53:00.000-08:00

Kinsley's Slate article on torture appears to be vaguely against the proposition that torture is sometimes justified and particularly discredits Charles Krauthammer's attempt to define those conditions and their limitations (which is, I admit, equally vague). While ridiculing the very likely "ticking bomb" scenario, which has strangely become the base argument against torture restrictions proposed by McCain, Kinsley's argument for a total ban on torture is itself based on even more unlikely extrapolations (kill the scientist and his family, "go door-to-door killing people before they kill others").

I happen to believe that torture can be a useful tool in the hands of professionals. Kinsley posits that if you would torture to save a million lives, why not a thousand, a hundred - at what number is torture no longer justified. When applied to terrorism, my number for justifying torture happens to be ONE AMERICAN.

McCain says torture never works. McCain is dead wrong on that issue and Kinsley wisely avoids supporting that false claim.

To rely on selective breaking of this "total" ban on torture is foolish on its face. It also hands the left a club with which they will beat every Republican President for eternity.

The point that no one seems to be presenting here is that torture - or more accurately, the threat of torture - is an immensely valuable tool in the War on Terror. Take that tool away; tell the terrorist that we might turn off the air conditioning but, under no circumstances will we allow the temperature in his cell to rise above 78 degrees, and you have given up your advantage.

A football team that unilaterally declared that they would not tackle anyone who ran up the middle would never win another game, and that is exactly what a total ban on torture would amount to.

Here's my rule on torture for commanders in the field:

Do what you think needs to be done but be prepared to justify it later.

That simple rule will give our military the leeway that they need; it will enable the Left to continue to pursue their endless complaints against them; and it will allow our chicken-hearted congress to keep forming committees to investigate this or that. Everybody wins.

We have the best team in this game that has ever existed. Enough rules are in place to prevent the American Military from taking over America, as if they ever would. (Not that it would be a bad thing.) Too many (politically correct) limitations already exist to allow our guys to win a war the way we all know they could.

So let's not add any more restrictions to an already impossible assignment. Let's allow the professionals to fight the war that we all agreed, once upon a time, needs to be fought. And let's thank them for doing it.

Now who's dreaming?

Nuts on Planes

2005-12-09T04:43:00.000-08:00

Dec 7, 2004 - You know the story: Some nutcase gets on a plane with a backpack and starts acting crazy, says he's got a bomb, and runs up and down the aisle singing "Go Down Moses" before bolting off the plane, ignoring Air Marshall warnings and acting in an otherwise threatening manner. He gets shot. Dead.

Everyone involved says the Air Marshalls acted according to their assignment except for one passenger.

Passenger John Mcalhany told The Associated Press on Thursday that Alpizar bumped into him as he ran off the aircraft, and he did not hear him say anything about a bomb.

"The first time I heard the word bomb was when I was interviewed by the FBI McAlhany said. "They kept asking if I heard him say the B-word. And I said, 'What is the B-word?' And they were like, 'Bomb.' I said no. They said, 'Are you sure?' And I am."

"This was wrong," McAlhany added. "This man should be with his family for Christmas. Now he's dead."

Put a reporter in front of some people and they can't seem to help themselves. They have to say something bad about the Government. This Mcalhany guy didn't hear the word bomb so, naturally, the nutcase couldn't have said it. What do you think the odds are that Mcalhany leans left in his politics?

I'm sure we'll be seeing more of him in the MSM, as we do anyone who "speaks out" against the Fascist States of America. That's all it takes these days to be a media star. Maybe this guy can take over for Cindy Sheehan.

And if the nutcase had been carrying a bomb, and the Marshall's had not acted as they are trained, who do you think would have been the first in line to sue Homeland Security for not doing its job? Passenger John Mcalhany.

Howard Dean is insane

2005-12-06T05:47:00.000-08:00

No quotes needed
Everyone (on both sides) already knows

Howard Dean is insane
Howard Dean is a liar

Who better to lead the Democrats?

Leftist Logic?

2005-12-05T05:29:00.000-08:00

Just one example of Democratic... um... logic?... case-making?... um... thinking?.... or... bullshit?

Hillary Clinton (in a Chicago speech):

"I disagree with those who believe we should immediately pull out," she told the crowd. "And I disagree with those who say we should stay there forever."

So this is the tactic: present one side (which is inherently foolish) and contrast it with another (which is grossly insane and btw completely made up).

Here are a few other debate suggestions the left could use to "center" itself, like Hillary does:

On Abortion: "I disagree with those who believe we should suck brains out of full term babies (the actual position of the Left), and I disagree with those who say we should let all pregnant women die in back alleys (the made up "contrasting view").

On Judicial Activism: "I disagree with those who believe that judges should dictate every aspect of American life (the actual position of the Left), and I disagree with those who say we should go back to the days when white men could own slaves and women (the made up "contrasting view").

On the Justice System: "I disagree with those who believe that criminals deserve the same rights as free citizens (the actual position of the Left), and I disagree with those who say that we should execute people who tear the tag off of their mattress (the made up "contrasting view").

On Corruption: "I disagree with those who believe that all Republicans are corrupt (the actual position of the Left), and I disagree with those who say Republicans are messengers of God (the made up "contrasting view").

On Religion: "I disagree with those who believe we strike down all references to Christianity in our society (the actual position of the Left), and I disagree with those who say we should force every American to go to a Christion church (the made up "contrasting view").

The Definition of Disingenuous

2005-12-03T08:09:00.000-08:00

I don't know many details about this Iraq payola scandal - US funds for placement of positive articles in Iraqi publications - and I don't care.

What I do care about is the fact the the mainstream media seems appalled by the fact that someone would have the audacity to bypass their strangle-hold on the information business. MSM is offended not by the stories themselves, but by the fact that the Government has had even a single success in getting out its side of the story.

The NY & LA Times, the Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and everyone other "news outlet" does exactly the same thing; paying particular writers gross sums of money precisely because they will write stories slanted the way the editors (who are also paid based on their bias) want.

Here is an example from the LATimes "editors":

"THE GANG THAT COULDN'T shoot straight is firmly ensconced in Washington. The State Department trains Iraqi journalists how to be independent and fair; at the same time, the Defense Department contracts with an organization that secretly pays Iraqi publications to print stories making the American occupiers look good.

As often happens with propaganda, when daylight exposes the secret, the stench is overpowering."

Now that is truly amazing isn't it? This writer shows his stripes with the first five words of his article. Who in their right mind would expect anything but propaganda to follow that introduction? Then this clown - I mean Editor - goes on to make one of the most hypocritical statements in the history of pencils: "As often happens with propaganda, when daylight exposes the secret, the stench is overpowering." I don't even know what word would apply to a person who would write that line in the LATimes with a straight face.

Neither this "writer" or any other that I have seen claims that these alleged "Government planted stories" are untrue. The offense here seems only to be that they are positive, and MSM simply can't have that.

It is getting pretty crowded at the bottom of the food chain - lawyers, doctors, politicians, lobbyists, and so on - but "journalists" have shown themselves in the past few years to be as low as any, and far more destructive and dangerous than most. America under their control has become a pretty disgusting place.

Goodbye America

2005-11-29T04:47:00.000-08:00

Politics is a sad joke. It is no longer practiced by "politicians". Those professionals merely follow instructions from polls, special interest groups and partly leaders. Having finally realized the power potential as a protected institution, the "Press" has assumed its totally inappropriate but unquestionable role as the most powerful force in politics - perhaps the most powerful force of any kind, in history. Because, in fact, the Media controls history, past, present and future.

Perhaps it has always been this way; but never so blatantly. Back in the day, deep down, even the media had the interest of the country at heart. This is clearly no longer true. The clear goal of MSM is the destruction of the United States as those of us above the age of fifty know it - internally and internationally.

And they will succeed. Because we are not smart enough to know, or ambitious enough to find out how much we are being lied to by these rewriters of history. And because we believe in ourselves as a country enough to think that we can survive any physical crisis (which we can), any economic challenge (which we can), any military attack (which we can).

But America is not strong enough to survive this onslaught. America is disintegrating from within.

I agree with the ACLU!

2005-11-24T08:16:00.000-08:00

OK... here's a first. I am on the same side as the ACLU. It would worry me if it weren't for the fact that we are on the same side for completely opposite reasons. I'll leave it to the ACLU and the rest of the media to present their reasons.

The issue is re-incarcerating sex offenders in New York after they have served their sentences. The argument is a good one: these men - always men btw - are still considered a danger to society. The fact remains though, that they have served their time and that, is the real issue. As much as I hate to see these animals back on the street, their "debt" to society was declared by a lenient justice system; and that debt has been paid.

The bottom line here is that if these crimes were appropriately punished, the question of releasing these monsters wouldn't come up.

The ACLU would, of course, argue against that too.

Republicans Reject Springsteen as Great American - and so do I

2005-11-20T17:50:00.000-08:00

Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Corzine put forth Bruce Springstein's name for Senate recognition as a great American.

Those nasty Republicans wouldn't approve the resolution. Lautenberg said he couldn't understand why anyone would object.

"Even if the Republicans don't like (Springsteen's) tunes, I would hope they appreciated his contributions to American culture," Lautenberg said.

Several Cindy-Sheehan-like quotes by BRUCE SPRINGSTEIN were found in a 5 minute google; some of what Bruce has "contributed" to American culture.

"It is time to impeach the president and put in somebody that knows what they're doing."

"I felt we had been misled. I felt they had been fundamentally dishonest and had frightened and manipulated the American people into war. And as the saying goes, "The first casualty of war is truth." I felt that the Bush doctrine of pre-emption was dangerous foreign policy. I don't think it has made America safer."

"Senator Kerry has to make people pay attention to the man behind the curtain. He has to take the risk and rip the veil off the administration's deceptions. They are a hall of mirrors and a house of cards."

" I am a dedicated Times reader, and I've found enormous sustenance from Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd on the op-ed page."

"that the president hasn't shown up at a single military funeral for the young people who gave their lives for his policies, is disgraceful."

And Lautenberg doesn't know why the Republicans would object. "Sustenance from Paul Krugman"??? Obviously, Springsteen has bigger problems than not getting a Congressional Resolution. This isn't about his way over-hyped ability as a song writer and Lautenberg knows it. It's about Springsteen's objectionable big mouth and the venom that he spouted during the Presidential campaign.

Iraq Timetable

2005-11-20T06:30:00.000-08:00

We will reduce our troop strength in Iraq on one of two "timetables".

1. ... When the Iraqi Government is established and the Iraqi security forces are of sufficient number and training to insure the protection of that government.

or

2. ... When the majority of Congress decide that the United States should surrender Iraq, the Middle East and, soon after, the World, to the islamofacist terrorists.

A more precise timetable will be provided when Presidents Roosevelt and/or Truman provide a date for withdrawal of troops from Germany and Japan.

John Murtha ? ? ? ? ? ?

2005-11-17T14:24:00.000-08:00

John Murtha???

A show of hands please... who has ever heard of this bonehead before today?

Just as I thought.

The only sure way for a politician to get his ugly face on TV is to bash Bush or come out against the "big mistake" of Iraq... or both.

A pure publicity stunt... and MSM gladly complies.

What do the "Insurgents" want?

2005-11-15T07:33:00.000-08:00

What do they want?

The common opinion seems to be that the "Iraq Insurgency" wants just one thing: the U.S. out of Iraq.

The Liberals say that we essentially caused the "insurgence" by going there in the first place and imply that the "insurgence" will magically disappear the day we leave. The Conservatives (those few who still have spines) know that these groups want us out of Iraq so that they can resume their Sadaam-like reign of terror, unimpeded and unobserved by the outside world, and create a base from which to expand their control.

Bush has repeatedly said that we will leave when Iraq is prepared to stand on its own. This clearly means that the U.S. Forces will go, when the violence and turmoil subsides to some managable level.

So... the question is... are these terrorists so dumb as to not realize that their ongoing attacks serve only to keep us there? Wouldn't it be much easier - if the stated goal were really true - to just go into hiding until the Coalition decides it's alright to leave? That wouldn't take long considering the mood of America under current Liberal control. No suicide bombs for 30 days would initiate a withdrawal. Why go to all the trouble of blowing up your own people and killing so many innocents, when you could achieve the same goal - more quickly - by simply doing nothing?

And the answer is that the simplistic view is not the case. These people are for the most part not "insurgents" as they have come to be known; they are terrorists. And their activities in Iraq are just the beginning. These people buy their way into heaven by killing Infidels!!! They want to dominate the World and Iraq is the starting point. And if they can't dominate the world then they will destabilize it. Those that cannot be dominated must be killed. Those are the only acceptable options for this mindset.

Our liberal politicians in both parties are playing right into the hands of the terror movement.

Leaving Iraq prematurely will be just the beginning.

We will win the war on terror when - and only when - every terrorist is dead. Period.

Agendas

2005-11-14T05:40:00.000-08:00

The most important things to Conservatives are:
Economic Growth & Development
Reigning in Activist Judges
Winning the War in Iraq
Strengthening National Security
Forming a sensible Energy Policy

The most important things to Liberals are:
Bashing George W. Bush
Protecting Abortion in all of its forms
Exposing Corruption (in the Bush Administration ONLY, that is)
Preserving and Expanding the Welfare State
Fighting the "threat" of Global Warming
Improving America's "Image" in Europe

(Notice here, that neither group really cares much about reforming government, controlling expenditures, protecting our borders, or Education reform.)

Now I'm not saying that either group is actually doing anything about the items on their respective list, but the agendas themselves speak volumes. As ineffective as the Republicans have been with their newfound power, the Democrats offer nothing but silly non-issues as an alternative.

Once GWB is gone, there will be nothing to unite the Liberals. Robbed of their "bogeyman", the sheep who comprise their largest block of voters will have no focus. They will be forced to think for themselves or (far more likely) to stop voting. Without Bush, there is nothing to attract any new voters. The Dems will have become the party of various fringe extremist groups and (less and less) the black voting block.