September 30, 2007
September 20, 2007
Damn You Hillary Clinton and Your 24 Fellow Travelers
|
|
The final vote was 72-25, with three not voting. Those voting against "condemnation" were as follows, including her royal majesty Hillary Clinton. Why am I not surprised given her disgusting "willful suspension of disbelief" comment during the hearings with General Petraeus. Twenty five United States Senators are so afraid of the netroots, that they are afraid to vote FOR condemnation of a scurroulous advertisement by Moveon.org. Not only were they afraid to vote for the condemnation, but they were also so dhimmified as to vote AGAINST condemning the ad. Shame on you all, you are a disgrace to your office.
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
If one of these dispicable so called public officials above is one of your senators, write to them and let them know of your disgust.
September 19, 2007
Who Gets O.J. Simpson's Endorsement for President?
|
|
O.J. wants government medical care for knife victims, so he endorses.... (Short ad precedes video.)
Figures.
Now, with bail having been set on his latest adventure, O.J. can get back out on the golf courses to keep looking for the real killer, and with O.J.'s endorsement, Hillary can count on the support of murderers to help her slash through the opposition.
September 13, 2007
Clinton Buddy Quiz
|
|
How are Clinton fund-raiser Norman Hsu and former Clinton deputy White House counsel Vince Foster alike and how are they different?
They are alike in that they were both friends of Bill and Hillary Clinton. They are alike in that they were both connected with suicide notes.
They are different in that Hsu seemed to have written his suicide note while Foster's seemed to have been faked. They are different in that Hsu was found before he could follow through but Foster is dead.
Moral? Do what the Clinton's want or die trying--or, better yet, don't answer any of their help wanted ads.
References:
The Death of Vincent Foster: Evidence Of A Cover-up
Hsu Sent Suicide Note Before Disappearance
September 12, 2007
Confirmation Process In Reverse Order
|
|
Shouldn't we learn something about this guy first?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed on Wednesday to block former Solicitor General Theodore Olson from becoming attorney general if President George W. Bush nominates him to replace Alberto Gonzales."He's a partisan, and the last thing we need as an attorney general is a partisan," Reid told Reuters in a brief hallway interview on Capitol Hill.
I thought that the Democratically controlled Senate was supposed to hold the confirmation hearings first and then reject the Republican nominee after smearing his reputation. It was nice of Sen. Reid to put this one on the fast-track and reject Olson even before he was nominated.
I like that part about not having an Attorney General who is partisan. Maybe we could nominate and confirm a "non-partisan" acceptable to the Democrats, like Bill Clinton, who could have that cabinet post to keep him out of trouble while his wife runs for the presidency. She could make it permanent, if she wins and if non-partisan Janet Reno doesn't object.
September 07, 2007
Repay Scooter Libby and the American Taxpayers
|
|
We know the costly and extensive investigations made on behalf of the Democratic Party to investigate the outing of CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson and the report by her husband Joe Wilson that Iraq had not sought uranium for Niger. These costs went beyond dollars and destroyed the lives and careers of Scooter Libby and others. Maybe the Democrats and the Wilson's should take all the money that they raised from this fabricated scandal to restore the taxpayers and Scooter Libby for what they lost. Not likely.
Here is the 3 1/2 minute video from Hannity's America exposing the Wilson's. It is clear and documented.
The Wilson's Busted
Newly declassified documents shed light on pair.
To the Democrats, no cost is too high to win elections--as long as the costs are borne by individuals and taxpayers. Typical liberals--use other people's money.
August 23, 2007
It Depends Upon What the Definition of 'Kill" Is
|
|
Did Bill Clinton lie in the Fox interview last September when he erupted in anger and wagged his finger (where did we last see that) at Chris Wallace in answer to the question about whether his administration had done enough to get Bin Laden?
What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.
Not so fast. Sandy Berger may have destroyed other classified documents that he stole from the National Archives to help Clinton and himself on 9-11 failures, but he missed this report:
The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal “constraints” agency officials felt in the late 1990s.“The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)
In any case, the inspector general found that the CIA's failure to conduct effective covert actions against bin Laden prior to 9/11 was ultimately not because of ambiguous legal authorities but because it did not have effective assets on the ground who could mount a “credible operation” against him.
Just another "stain" from a...well, give Bill Clinton your own psychological profile title.
References from a non-professional
(G.M. would do better):
Can the President Think?
Personality scrutiny brings fewer presidential surprises
And, if you want to learn a little about Hillary Rodham-Clinton, as if we don't know enough, here's one, but don't read it. Trust me.
August 21, 2007
Liberal Wrongly 'Reads' Conservatives
|
|
A commenter at another site thought that I might be reading the same novel as he, because of my insight into something. I wasn't, and this was my reply:
rlc, I don’t know how everyone but me has time to read novels, with all the ball games and television that has to be watched.
That's not completely true. I don't read a lot of books, especially novels, but I do a lot of reading. The problem with most conservatives is that we actually have jobs and don't have the luxury to read by hanging out at coffee shops and lounging around the house. When we do read, it's a contract or research or a home repair book. We get more concerned about making it to the kid's ball game than reading up on the latest Republican conspiracy rumor. Frankly, most of us have lives and they don't.
Why am I bringing this up? Well, Patsy Schroeder* , president of the American Association of Publishers and a liberal, feminist, snivelling, Democratic former Colorado Congressman, was asked why liberals read more books than conservatives, and she responded with the following:
"The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: 'No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes. It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page." ...(Liberals tend to be policy wonks who) "can't say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion."
Maybe Patsy should put down her crying towel long enough to look around and see that all that reading of the liberals aren't doing them much good, and that conservatives are making use of more practical reading. That doesn't mean that we can't enjoy a good novel from time-to-time, but typically with conservatives enjoyment comes after responsibility rather than the other way around.
Conservatives get snippets from magazines and the internet for issues of government and politics. I prefer the "executive version" of comments and won't read a comment from a liberal that exceeds 400 words, and most of them do because they're either trying to confuse people with a lot of verbosity or they're incapable of getting a point across in a few sentences.
If book publishers were not so overwhelmingly liberal, then maybe there would be more books that conservatives would want to buy and read. But, like everything that liberals do, they cannot take responsibility and, in the case of the president of their association, they blame conservatives for their disappointing sales rather than look at their product.
Maybe they need to read some business books on how to make money and not insult customers. What a sorry bunch of phony, elitist snobs.
Footnote: * Crying is seen as wimpy, unless it’s seen as a sign of strength. Former congresswoman Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.), who memorably broke down upon announcing that she would not seek the Democratic nomination for president in 1988, leading to assumptions that she was too emotional, says that after the incident, she kept a file of all politicians who cried publicly.
Additional Source: AP-Ipsos poll: One in Four Read No Books Last Year
Next Day Additional, Additional Source: Boortz: LIBERALS READ MORE ... SO WHAT? - The fact is that non-fiction books by conservative authors consistently outsell books by liberals. ...Do you think that liberals read more books on business and investing than conservatives? Yeah .... Suuuuure they do. What does that leave us with? Liberals read more fiction than conservatives. Well, that fits. They live in an unreal fantasy world anyway. ... Wrong, Patsy. Liberals are just wordy. Their ideas are so inane and absurd they can't be efficiently expressed.
Simple and To the Point [Updated]
|
|
"And my view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House."
Update:
Obama Denies Wife Took Swipe at Clinton
"The whole thing about Hillary has been completely fabricated. You guys have got to get it off your minds."
Well, I'm glad that we cleared that up. Could've fooled me.
Could 2008 Be 1968 for the Democrats?
|
|
Have the Democrats failed to learn from history (they always do) to the degree that they will allow their 2008 Democratic convention and the presidential election to disintegrate into 1968 all over again? Will Denver be like Chicago with the radicals and anti-war protestors dominating and tearing the convention apart? It could be, if the following is a sample of what's to come.
.
in the House is Killing the Democratic Party
It's not just the Constitution that's suffering because of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's nutty and unprincipled "impeachment-off-the-table" position blocking any effort to impeach President Bush or Vice President Cheney for their many crimes and abuses of power....WE are the ones that put that Democrats back in power in Congress. We've been there for you, but you have let us down by not holding the current administration responsible for their crimes.
...Whether it is by turning to third party candidates, or just sitting out the next election, these angry and frustrated Democrats are showing that they've been betrayed one too many times by the Democratic Party. ....
"Surge" working in some areas (Comments)
☺NEW WAR ??? What is she ...Bushes sister? OMG I am not voting for her! - It's obvious that she plans to continue the illegal Iraq war. Well she voted for the war so I guess it makes sense that she thinks she could do a better job of mass murder. Maybe she can get her daughter to enlist and go help kill a few babies and mothers along with all our other baby killers.☺Hillary is a hawk and this only confirms it - She has supported Bush in the Iraq War all the way and what will haunt her is clips of her advocating the war.
Baby killers? Well, the Democrats made deals for the support of those crazies who still say such things. If the wackos believe that they are the power behind the party, and it sure seems that way given the way that the Democratic candidates kowtow to them, then the Kossacks and Dem Unders will be out in force at the Democratic convention demanding that the candidates do what the protestors demand--or else. I like the "or else" option for them the best. Maybe Karl Rove isn't really stupid, as they say.
Could 2008 Be 1968 for the Democrats?
|
|
Have the Democrats failed to learn from history (they always do) to the degree that they will allow their 2008 Democratic convention and the presidential election to disintegrate into 1968 all over again? Will Denver be like Chicago with the radicals and anti-war protestors dominating and tearing the convention apart? It could be, if the following is a sample of what's to come.
.
in the House is Killing the Democratic Party
It's not just the Constitution that's suffering because of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's nutty and unprincipled "impeachment-off-the-table" position blocking any effort to impeach President Bush or Vice President Cheney for their many crimes and abuses of power....WE are the ones that put that Democrats back in power in Congress. We've been there for you, but you have let us down by not holding the current administration responsible for their crimes.
...Whether it is by turning to third party candidates, or just sitting out the next election, these angry and frustrated Democrats are showing that they've been betrayed one too many times by the Democratic Party. ....
"Surge" working in some areas (Comments)
☺NEW WAR ??? What is she ...Bushes sister? OMG I am not voting for her! - It's obvious that she plans to continue the illegal Iraq war. Well she voted for the war so I guess it makes sense that she thinks she could do a better job of mass murder. Maybe she can get her daughter to enlist and go help kill a few babies and mothers along with all our other baby killers.☺Hillary is a hawk and this only confirms it - She has supported Bush in the Iraq War all the way and what will haunt her is clips of her advocating the war.
Baby killers? Well, the Democrats made deals for the support of those crazies who still say such things. If the wackos believe that they are the power behind the party, and it sure seems that way given the way that the Democratic candidates kowtow to them, then the Kossacks and Dem Unders will be out in force at the Democratic convention demanding that the candidates do what the protestors demand--or else. I like the "or else" option for them the best. Maybe Karl Rove isn't really stupid, as they say.
August 14, 2007
Hillary Rodham Clinton to Repeat History
|
|
No, not Hillary Rodham's Book "Living History," but John Kerry's history of concealment--also, known as "lying history," for which the Clinton's are so skilled. Surely, you remember that former Presidential candidate John Kerry (D-Mass) agreed to release all of his military medical records for public scrutiny but still has not done that. He just needs a little more time, but we gave up long ago on counting the days. Now, the next likely Democrat nominee for President, Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), has some records from her White House days that are locked away, and she might also need a little more time to open them. Of course, neither one has anything to hide. Why would you think that?
Archivists say the former first lady's documents at her husband's
presidential library won't be released until after the '08 vote.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cites her experience as a compelling reason voters should make her president, but nearly 2 million pages of documents covering her White House years are locked up in a building here, obscuring a large swath of her record as first lady. ....
But, if Hillary Rodham Clinton has nothing to hide, she will open up those records--just like John Kerry did. Right? It's not like those files are lost like the Rose Law Firm records that were suddenly found, years after being subpoenaed, in, of all places, the White House. Remember that?
After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's law firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980's....The release of the records is the latest of several instances in which the Clinton White House has declared a document search to be exhaustive, only to later stumble on important material. For example, White House officials initially said that Vincent W. Foster Jr., the deputy White House counsel, left no indication of why he committed suicide on July 20, 1993. But later, an aide found the remnants of a note describing Mr. Foster's disenchantment with Washington. ...
But, HRC will claim that it's not her fault, as seven years after leaving the White House is still not enough time to organize and destroy review critical files. Maybe if she is elected, she can appoint Sandy Berger to be in charge of the National Archives to expedite that.
Know what? Senator Rodham Clinton is going to be pressed for those files by her opponents, and the mass media will give her a pass on this. After all, electing a Democrat is more important than journalistic integrity. Who would have guessed?
So, we might have eight more years of Clintonese lying, back-room deals, pardons, and payoffs ; but, I bet that no one will accuse her of having an affair with a White House intern. No one needs a favor that badly.
August 11, 2007
Iraq - Talk's Cheap [Updated]
|
|
It's one thing to say something to get elected. It's another thing to make it work. The Democrats told us during the last fall elections that they will get us out of Iraq within months. How's that program coming along? Now, let's see how those words compare to the ideas of leading Democrats in the Presidential race today.
Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
...Among the challenges the next president could face in Iraq, three seem to be resonating the most: What to do if there is a genocide? What to do if chaos in Iraq threatens to engulf the region in a wider war? And what to do if Iraq descends into further lawlessness and becomes the staging ground for terrorist attacks elsewhere, including in the United States? ....
Talk's cheap. Responsible action is hard. But, honesty with the American people doesn't take any effort, and the Democrats won't even do that.
[Update]
My goodness, now The New York Times is beginning to provide cover for Democrats who know that reality cannot be doused with rhetoric. We cannot pull all of our troops out of Iraq immediately. Isn't that what we have been telling them? However, the NY Times makes sure to let people know that we have already lost.
...That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq: reduce the numbers — and urban exposure — but still maintain a significant presence for the next several years. It’s a tempting formula, reaping domestic political credit for withdrawal without acknowledging that the mission has failed....The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq. ....
August 10, 2007
The Homeless and Elections
|
|
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley reports that a city census shows only twenty-four homeless people living in downtown Chicago!
At last the people of Chicago can thank President Bush for ending homelessness, since he was blamed for it previously. (You never hear about the homeless when a Democrat is President.)
The thing that concerns me is that Mayor Daley's father ran the Democratic Machine that found "just enough votes" at the last minute in Cook County for John Kennedy to win Illinois and the Presidential election. So, when the 2008 election rolls around, will Chicago have found thousands of "previously missed" homeless people who will vote for the Democratic candidate--not just twenty four? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
It's funny how people disappear but suddenly turn up to vote in Cook County--the homeless, the dead, the relocated, .... It's amazing--not that the Democrats cheat, mind you.
Anyway, ony twenty-four homeless in downtown Chicago.... The people who took that census must be the same ones who count Republican votes in the city. It sure sounds low.
August 09, 2007
Compassion - and Sincerity
|
|
those sneaking across the Rio Grande.
Likewise, he must have felt a personal connection with those who fell with the bridge into the Mississippi River. If only Sen. Kennedy could have been there to help. Maybe twenty people could have used him as a raft.
Compassion and sincerity must define the greatest swimmer ever from Massachusetts.
Via Denny
August 03, 2007
What Could Be Worse Than Bush?
|
|
When polls don't count to the Left:
Zogby Poll: August 01, 2007 - Just 24% give the president favorable ratings of his performance in handling the war in Iraq, but confidence in Congress is significantly worse – only 3% give Congress positive marks for how it has handled the war.
Democrats Cheat? We Report. You Decide.
|
|
Emphasis mine. Decide for yourselves.
In a massive flare-up of partisan tensions, Republicans walked out on a House vote late Thursday night to protest what they believed to be Democratic maneuvers to reverse an unfavorable outcome for them.The rancor erupted shortly before 11 p.m. as Rep. Michael R. McNulty (D-N.Y.) gaveled close the vote on a standard procedural measure with the outcome still in doubt.
Details remain fuzzy, but numerous Republicans argued afterward that they had secured a 215-213 win on their motion to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Democrats, however, argued the measure was deadlocked at 214-214 and failed, members and aides on both sides of the aisle said afterward.
One GOP aide saw McNulty gavel the vote to a close after receiving a signal from his leaders....
When Democrats finally moved to consider the spending bill as the last vote of the night, furious Republicans left the chamber en masse to protest the maneuver. The House eventually recessed at 11:18 p.m. But Republicans quickly discovered that there was no longer any record of the controversial vote and immediately charged Democrats with erasing the bad result.
“Obviously, the Democrats don’t want to stand up against illegal immigration – so much so that they’re willing to cheat in order to win a vote,” Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) said in an e-mail. “They’re desperate – and it shows.”
The official House website did not show a record of the vote as of 1 a.m. Friday.
Democrats cheat? Say it ain't so.
I particularly like one comment to the article from frank, who is obviously a Democrat:
Whine on, Republicans but remember: elections matter.
I didn't know that elections gave the Democrats a right to cheat. Maybe the Democrats should keep that concept in mind the next time they accuse President Bush of something.
In Old news:
July 24, 2007
Minimum Wage To End Pay Problems Forever
|
|
Today the minimum wage went from $5.15 to $5.85 per hour. (Please reflect that in my next check, G.M.) Next July it jumps again to $6.55. Then, the year after that it goes to $7.25 an hour--a 41% increase over what it was yesterday. Now that the minimum wage has been raised and since the liberals insist that no one making more than those workers will want more, too, and that this will not cause any inflation, then this increase should be the final one for all time. Right?
July 17, 2007
Democrats Trim Budget Buster
|
|
Congressional Democrats have taken a magnifying glass to the federal budget and found the one, yes, the one agency that represents government waste and needs its funding cut. Any guesses as to what that agency does?
The new Democratic Congress has finally found a government agency whose budget It wants to cut: an obscure Labor Department office that monitors the compliance of unions with federal law.In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues. The House is set to vote Thursday on a proposal to chop 20% from the OLMS budget. Every other Labor Department enforcement agency is due for a budget increase, and overall the Congress has added $935 million to the Bush administration's budget request for Labor. The only office the Democrats want to cut back is the one engaged in union oversight.
...OLMS, the Labor office that watches over union disclosure forms, says that last year 93% of unions met its reporting requirements. But the other 7% deserve scrutiny. Union members deserve to know how their dues are spent. They might want to know that in 2005, the National Education Association gave more than $65 million to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and dozens of other liberal advocacy groups that have nothing to do with the interests of teachers. In 2006, 49 individuals employed at the national AFL-CIO headquarters were paid more than $130,000. "Union members are also discovering the extent to which their dues money is funding lavish trips for union officials to luxury resorts and other expensive perks unrelated to collective bargaining," says Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. ....
What else can we expect from this "most open, honest, and ethical Congress in history?" Next on the Democrats' list...the Department of Defense.
July 16, 2007
John Edwards Replaces Ambien [Updated]
|
|
This morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards appeared in a town hall meeting on ABC's "Good Morning America." When the camera was on Edwards alone, one could see that a participant behind him was clearly asleep. The director switched to another camera. During that time, it appeared that the first camera was relocated for a "better" perspective. Guess what this perspective showed...another person sitting behind Edwards with her eyes closed, too! To cut that, the camera zoomed in for a close-up of only Edwards' head so that we couldn't see how many people he had nodding off. Maybe Edwards' government health care plan includes substituting his message for sleep drugs. Then, I felt as if he was starting to put...me...to...sleeeeeeeeepppp.....
[Update]
NewsBusters provided before and after pictures and a big question from the Edwards townhall meeting.
. 
...Then Vanishes
Did "Good Morning America" physically remove a man who appeared to be dozing off during Democratic Senator John Edwards's town hall meeting on Monday? Early in the 7am hour, the man...appeared to be sleeping, or at least dozing, while Edwards discussed his plan for Iraq.Around 7:11, the individual, who was seated to the back and right of Edwards, mysteriously disappeared....
Maybe Criss Angel was there and made the man disappear. Yeah, that's it. ABC wouldn't pass up this story and remove the man unless...well, unless it was for a Democrat. You know it would be big news if this happened to a Republican.
July 12, 2007
Praying or Posturing?
|
|
Democratic Piety for Presidency
Illustration for TIME by Tim O'Brien
TIME Article: "Leveling the Praying Field"
Now, I don't want to judge, but do the candidates above associate more with God or the ACLU? I don't expect any rush by them to become pro-life, oppose gay marriage, allow Bibles and prayers in schools, or put the Ten Commandments in government buildings. Could it be, just maybe, pandering for votes from people who value religion?
To many, not necessarily saying them, religion is being good and moral--but, however they want to define it and practice it at the time. It's situational ethics versus unchanging standards.
Jerry Falwell is probably choking from laughter from above (as I did when I saw that illustration.) If Falwell were here, it might be interesting to watch those candidates fighting for a photo-op with him.
Will the American people believe the newly professed and publicized association with religion by the Democrats?
July 07, 2007
How To Get A Good Haircut And Save $387.00
|
|
Dear Senator Edwards,
Unfortunately, you have been the butt of far to many jokes about your hair, so, I thought I'd step in and give you a hand. Lord knows, right now you need it. Your fund raising is down, you are being laughed at, and people with little or no hair seem envious. The poor, whom you have always championed are aghast that you spend $400.00 on a tonsorial job, let alone fly a stylist down to Atlanta at the cost of $1250.00. Why, that would provide, at today's prices some 125 haircuts for the poor. They have to look nice too don't you think?
At any rate, I live in a fairly poor section of the United States, one of the poorest as a matter of fact. Your rival Hillary, and years ago her husband Bill (you remember Bill don't you Senator?) came to our little section of south Texas and raised millions of dollars for their campaigns, I suspect that you will too. Of course, leaving that money in the valley would do more to help the poor, but you have to run your campaign the way you think best Senator. Just ask Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. At any rate, as I said, I'm sure you will be down to the Rio Grande Valley to take money for yourself that could better be used elsewhere raise funds for your campaign at some time, and I have a couple of suggestions.
This is where I go for my hair styling. Yes, it really is a barbershop and yes, it really does have a red, white and blue striped barber pole out front and yes, there are old magazines, new newspapers, pictures of John Wayne and Pancho Villa and upside down horse shoes on the walls. There is even old Fearless Fosdic advertising Wildroot Hair Tonic on the wall. Johnny's is everything a barbershop should be. Now, of course I don't expect you to believe me when I say that I go there and have gone there for years. So, I thought I'd show you a picture of me sitting in a chair in Johnny's getting ready to have my hair cut. You see Senator, while I'm not poor, I just can't imagine spending $200.00 to $400.00 dollars for a hair cut, let alone fly a stylist anywhere so I can look nice for the ladies and the cameras. So, I spend about $10.00 for a haircut plus about a $2.00 or $3.00 tip, and of course, I tip because Johnny trims the hair out of my ears, makes my eyebrows look less bushy and at the end, uses his very strong hands to massage the back of my neck for a minute or so and believe me, though that might be worth an extra fin, he doesn't charge for it. and, as you can tell from my hair in the second photo, I absolutely need a hair cut.
Oh, In case I haven't told you about Johnny, let me tell you a few things about him. First, he is really a terrific fellow. He is always interested in bettering himself, and towards this end, takes college courses from time to time as money and interest allows. You see, Johnny's not a rich fellow either, he just believes in doing an honest amount of work for an honest dollar. I first met Johnny back in 1994 when he was a student in one of the courses I taught at the local Community College (Psychology if you must know). So, I've known Johnny for a few years and I think the world of him. You ought to get to know Johnny and quite a few more like him. I'd bet it would shake your belief in someone that charges $400.00 for a hair cut. But, Senator I digress. At Johnny's you could save $387.00 if you went to Johnny's when you get down here and then you could donate the difference to say The Food Bank where it might help poor people more than rhetoric does. And, you would even get a tax deduction. AND, if I may be so bold, you could even use that in your campaign against Hillary who asked for a deduction based on giving Bills "used silk underwear" to charity. That ought to be worth something don't you think?
But, again, I don't expect you to believe what I'm saying just because I, a lowly blogger says it, I would expect you to want to see "proof positive, that the cut is worth every bit of the $400.00 that you spent, but it only cost me $13.00 (including the tip of course). So you see Senator, you could turn back all the laughter and smirks at your expense by following my little bit of advice. Won't you think about it?
Oh, and Senator, you could save a few bucks on your house too. Like I said, I'm not poor, but I'm not wealthy either. I built the Mantle Clock you see peeking behind my right shoulder and, I made the Mantle Piece over the fire place too. Just think of how much you could save.
July 05, 2007
Free Government Hair Care [Updated]
|
|
Will we get free government haircuts and styling if John Edwards is elected President? Given the importance that he places on his hair and his desire to identify with the common man, this is something that he can promise everyone, regardless of income. However, you must use the government supplied stylist and may have to wait three months for your appointment.
Hair Stylist Behind Pricey 'Dos Details Long Relationship
For four decades, Joseph Torrenueva has cut the hair of Hollywood celebrities, from Marlon Brando to Bob Barker, so when a friend told him in 2003 that a presidential candidate needed grooming advice, he agreed to help.The Beverly Hills hairstylist, a Democrat, said he hit it off with then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at a meeting in Los Angeles that brought several fashion experts together to advise the candidate on his appearance. Since then, Torrenueva has cut Edwards's hair at least 16 times.
There was one cut for $300 in mid-July in Los Angeles, shortly before the Democratic National Convention, the one for $1,250 in August in Atlanta, another in Washington in early October before a debate with Vice President Cheney, and the last was in Ohio shortly before the election.
What I did was, there was too much hair on top, always falling down, and it made him look too youthful. I took the top down and balanced everything out. He couldn't see it. But then we went into the bathroom. He looked in the mirror and said, 'I love this,' and that was it."
I'm not going to say that Ann Coulter was right to refer to John Edwards like she did, but....well, does Edwards' relationship with his stylist and his preoccupation with his looks seem a little odd?
Oh, I guess it's okay if he flaunts it because, as many men know, "hair today, gone tomorrow."
[Update]
John Edwards - Magazine fashion cover boy, as reported by NewsBusters, on Men's Vogue, which described their cover boy thusly:
The hair, up close, is peppered with tiny strands of blond. Chestnut brown and so finely trimmed, mellifluous, smooth, and feathery, it could almost be a weave, the Platonic ideal as imagined by the Hair Club for Men. Along with the piercing blue eyes, slashing V-shaped smile, and a shimmering burgundy shirt tucked into stonewashed Levi's resting low on the hips, the hair completes the man: John Edwards, a populist Adonis, a golden god of a Southern Democrat.
Newsbusters had the right comment: Ooooh, sassy!
Adonis? Golden god of a Southern Democrat? Might I add, "Make me throw up."
Update: Blogfriend Fausta has more on Prettyboy Edwards
July 02, 2007
Democratic Voting Justice
|
|
Democrats guilty of interfering with the election process??!! Say it ain't so.
(AP) U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee ruled late Friday that Noxubee County (Miss.) Democratic Party leader Ike Brown and the county Democratic Executive Committee "manipulated the political process in ways specifically intended and designed to impair and impede participation of white voters and to dilute their votes."Noxubee County is a rural area along the Alabama line with a population of about 12,500, of whom 70 percent are black.
The judge said there was a pattern to Mr. Brown's efforts to keep all whites out of the county's Democratic Party, including holding party caucuses in private homes rather than public voting precincts and inviting only blacks to the meetings.
Brown, in fact, claims a number of whites as friends," Judge Lee wrote. "However, there is no doubt from the evidence presented at trial that Brown, in particular, is firmly of the view that blacks, being the majority race in Noxubee County, should hold all elected offices, to the exclusion of whites; and this view is apparently shared by his allies and associates on the [Noxubee Democratic Executive Commitee], who, along with Brown, effectively control the election process in Noxubee County."
To the Democrats, justice is spelled "just-us." Where's their outrage? Do you think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will go to the rescue?
June 18, 2007
Is Obama Walking The Walk? Not So Much.
|
|
Barrak Obama has about three times the amount of money in donations than reported from Tony Rezko, an indicted businessman who was indicted in an unrelated fraud scheme. Rezko has donated or caused to be donated around $168,000.00 but Obama had originally put the figure at about $30,000.00 to $50,000.00.
According to the Chicago Sun Times article:
Obama, who wants to be the nation's next president, has been purging some of those donations -- giving charities more than $30,000 he got from Rezko and three of his business partners referenced in Rezko's federal indictments. All three attended a lavish fund-raiser Rezko hosted for Obama four years ago.So, Senator Obama who opined on ethics once said:Obama, however, has kept $6,850 from others who also are referenced in Rezko's indictments. Obama also has hung on to contributions from doctors whom Rezko helped appoint to a state-government panel involved in some of Rezko's alleged fraud schemes.
"We've made our best effort to run the most ethical campaign possible in all ways and release donations when appropriate," Obama's press secretary, Bill Burton, said Friday."
This past Election Day, the American people sent a clear message to Washington: Clean up your act."Obama also said (on the Senate floor no less):"After a year in which too many scandals revealed the influence special interests wield over Washington, it's no surprise that so many incumbents were defeated and that polls said "corruption" was the grievance cited most frequently by the vote."
"It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that this message was intended for only one party or politician. The votes hadn't even been counted in November before we heard reports that corporations were already recruiting lobbyists with Democratic connections to carry their water in the next Congress." [emphasis added]
The American people are tired of a Washington that's only open to those with the most cash and the right connections. They're tired of a political process where the vote you cast isn't as important as the favors you can do. And they're tired of trusting us with their tax dollars when they see them spent on frivolous pet projects and corporate giveaways."Senator, don't you think it is time that you too quit giving the appearance (if not the actual fact) of impropiety? You've been running on that plank. You are obviously talking the talk, but so far, you ain't walking the walk, and believe me Senator, we the people are getting fed up and plan to vote for people that are walking the walk. The culture of corruption continues, and the new boss is the same as the old boss. And maybe, just maybe the Democrats are worse because they pushed "ethics reform" as their number two goal to win the election."It's not that the games that are played in this town are new or surprising to the public."
"People are not naive to the existence of corruption and they know it has worn the face of both Republicans and Democrats over the years." [emphasis added]
H/T to Glen Reynolds
June 11, 2007
Death Of A Bad Bill
|
|
One of the greatest courtroom dramas of all time was Anatomy of a Murder., and over the last 48 years, I must have watched it at least a dozen times. Jimmy Stewart plays a small town lawyer who gets Ben Gazarra off of a murder charge by getting the jury to believe in an "irresistible impulse."
An Irresistible Impulse, one that far to many senators succumbed to in authoring and/or supporting a bad bill. Last week, America watched enthralled as the United States Senate debated, and ultimately killed the latest iteration of immigration reform. Earlier "comprehensive" reforms occurred in 1952 and again another in 1986. In the 1986 signing, President Ronald Reagan noted:
Distance has not discouraged illegal immigration to the United States from all around the globe. The problem of illegal immigration should not, therefore, be seen as a problem between the United States and its neighbors. Our objective is only to establish a reasonable, fair, orderly, and secure system of immigration into this country and not to discriminate in any way against particular nations or people.""Regain control of our borders." Well, that didn't happen as any one with a lick of sense could have told you (and many of us did.)"The act I am signing today is the product of one of the longest and most difficult legislative undertakings of recent memory. It has truly been a bipartisan effort, with this administration and the allies of immigration reform in the Congress, of both parties, working together to accomplish these critically important reforms. Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people: American citizenship." [emphasis added]
The fact of the matter was that when you handed out citizenship to earlier illegal immigrants, you did exactly what Pavlov proved would happen. Reward a behavior and you will get more of the same, in this case somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 to 20 million additional illegal immigrants since 1986. That should be tattooed on the inside of the eyelids of every man and woman that wants to be a United States Senator, let alone on the inside of the eyelids of each and every current U.S. Senator.
The latest "comprehensive" immigration bill was fraught with difficulty, hence, the multiple votes on amendments to the bill. Each amendment as proposed was to "remove a significant fault" or to add a "significant enhancement" either to the bill, or conversely from the bill, and the American people were up in arms.
The media kept telling us that a "majority" of Americans wanted a comprehensive immigration bill, and that is probably true, but like always, the devil is in the details. Just prior to the final ignominious defeat of the bill, a Rasmussen poll showed some 70 + percent of those polled did not like this particular bill or its multitude of provisions for an alphabetized system of visas. Indeed, they were probably perplexed by the bill.
George W. Bush, Harry Reid, John McCain (who probably tossed his presidential candidacy into the toilet) and Ted Kennedy all fought for the bill and ultimately, the people said "no." And it is a good thing they did. As I commented on another site (see, I don't spend ALL of my time here):
I’m surprised (as perhaps were other) that Marc, who touts polls left and right doesn’t mention that the most recent Rasmussen Poll indicates that a majority of Americans (presumably legal ones) do not indeed support “the Bush backed plan to grant legal status” to the illegals rather, a whopping 74% oppose this bill, many on just those grounds (and this includes Democrats, Republicans, independents and not a few legal immigrants from Mexico and other Hispanic countries.).You read correctly, Harry Reid said, and I quote:You can call them undocumented workers, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, or as the sublimely stupid Harry Reid said “undocumented Americans,” but the fact of the matter is that the majority of them are hear [sic] because of the last “flawed bill.” A flawed bill is not “better than nothing,” a flawed bill is bad law. [emphasis added, link to the exact quote added]
This week, we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong. [emphasis added]By the way, Dennis Miller did a wonderful take-down of "shallow Harry Reid" here (via Glenn Reynolds) but I digress. Those who were interested in establishing a "legacy" by passing this bill were shot down by the blogosphere (H/T to Danny Glover) both the left and the right calling it a bad bill, by individuals of the left, right, center and no stance at all wrote, telephoned, faxed, emailed and otherwise let their Senator know that this bill was no damn good, and 50 Senators responded. Now, despite what you have heard, the vote was NOT to defeat the bill, the bill was "defeated" because Harry Reid pulled the bill from further consideration (feeling, I guess, that discretion is the better part of valor here). The actual vote was merely to cease debate or not to cease debate. If the vote had been for cloture (that is ceasing debate) then the Senate could have voted in the affirmative (passed the bill - in which case it would go to conference committee to hammer out any differences between it and any bill passed by the house) or voted in the negative which would have effectively killed the current bill.
A vote to continue debate would have added amendments, removed amendments or otherwise bastardized an already bastardized bill. But the underlying principle of rewarding behavior remains unchanged. Once again, gentle reader, if you reward (visas, citizenship, voting rights, pathways, what ever you want to call amnesty without calling it amnesty) a behavior (illegal immigration), you get more of the same behavior. The are only a few real ways to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants (and don't call them undocumented Americans please).
Please understand, I am not advocating any of these positions, I'm merely saying that we will never gain control of illegal immigration unless we adopt some manner of gaining control of the borders and the American people understood that, even if 45 Senators did not. It seems as though, for once, 50 senators listened to either their conscience or their constituents. And I'd have to guess that in the outpouring of disdain to the U.S. Senate an awful lot of Americans succumbed to an "irresistible impulse."Adopt a draconian set of laws modeled almost exactly after Mexico's laws (and wouldn't that be a fine kettle of fish?) Fines and prison sentences for anyone caught crossing the border a second time after already being deported once for illegal crossing. Fines and prison sentences for those hiring more than a few illegal immigrants (big business has always supported illegal immigration, it allows them to pay substandard wages). Changing our constitution to eliminate the "anchor baby" phenomenon, thus, if you're illegal, any offspring born in the United States would not gain citizenship by dent of being born here.
Explosion at Fox News - Delightful To Watch
|
|
There was a massive explosion of wit and a major fisking on the Half Hour News Hour and you need to see it to believe it. Dennis Miller let's loose on Harry Reid (via Glenn Reynolds) with a 155mm broadside at point blank range. Sad to say (OK, OK, happy to say... there, is that better?) there is little left of that shallow little man.
June 09, 2007
Once Upon A Time...
|
|
Tail Gunner Joe to Witness:
Mr. Jefferson, Do you now, or have you ever owned, possessed, fired, or otherwise used a device called a gun? And if you have sir, and I remind you Mr. Jeffeson that you are under oath here in the Senate Hypocrisy Committee, have you ever supported anti-gun legislation?"
June 04, 2007
President Dennis J. Kucinich and "The Bomb"
|
|
In last nights New Hampshire edition of the Democrat Party Pander-A-Thon Debate, Dennis J. Kookycinich Kucinich stated:
But what I intend to do is to be a president who helps to reshape the world for peace -- to work with all the leaders of the world in getting rid of all nuclear weapons..."Hop into our little time machine and lets see how that worked out.
Whooooooooooosh, the year, 2009. The first 100 days of the new president... day 43:
Continue reading "President Dennis J. Kucinich and "The Bomb""
Don't Stop Thinking About (?) ...
|
|
Aren't these Democrats some of the same people who made fun of Dan Quayle?
You would at least think that Hillary Clinton, the smartest woman in the world, would have seen how her husband's presidential theme song was spelled on the record album cover...unless they were sitting around smoking weed, I mean "not inhaling" weed, when they listened to it.
Maybe they should have gotten someone who is homeschooled to check the signs for them, as the one who made these probably was taught in government schools.
Via Grouchy Denny
May 21, 2007
Buying Liberal Offsets? This Is The Place!
|
|
Are you sometimes ill at ease - even in Massachusetts - with the liberal tone of political discourse? GM and the WideAwakes are ready to help with the sale of Liberal Offset Certificates.
From the description by Kender on EBay -
Yes that's right, you can still say that the War in Iraq is wrong and as long as you have bought a sufficient amount of offsets your patriotism cannot be questioned. Walk around freely yelling "Bush lied - people died" and if you are confronted by a conservative, whip out your Liberal Offset Certificate and put them in their place. In fact you can spout almost any nonsense you want and as long as you have bought a Liberal Offset, nobody can say a thing.Here's how it works. When you hold liberal beliefs many people believe you are simply insane, and Liberal Offsets counter that simply by taking the money you have paid for the Offset and...well, much like Carbon Credits nobody is really sure how paying some Voluntary Guilt Tax is supposed to offset the pollution you create, but believe us it does. Just ask Al Gore.
Liberal Offsets work the same way.
When you buy a Liberal Offset that allows you to spout insane viewpoints Justin from Right ON The Right, Kender from Wide Awakes Radio and, indeed the ENTIRE Wide Awakes Radio crew will continue to hold view points that are based in logic and argue from a position of Common Sense and Patriotism.
It is that simple.
Now you can hold positions that directly contradict each other and not have to explain the disparity between them.
Each Liberal Offset Certificate comes personalized with the name of your choice. For a limited time each Liberal Offset you buy will have 4 FREE Offsets added to each order, for a Grand Total of 5 Liberal Offsets for the amazing low price of $5.00 plus shipping. That is 125 hours of argument for each certificate. That should be enough to last until the 2008 Presidential election. Handling Charges are included in shipping.
Peter Porcupine, Right on the Right, Mr. Ogre of the Carolinas and the other Wide Awakes will continue to pump rational argument into the hyperbaric chamber of liberal thought, in order to keep balance and rationality alive. For instance, Peter Porcupine will even provide cogent arguments agaisnt the banning of dihydrogen monoxide, and other such substances.
A link to obtain your certificate is HERE - Kender will help keep the progressive movement from spining off any number of cliffs with this handy trade-off.
May 20, 2007
Jimmy Carter Beats Around Bush [Updated]
|
|
You know that it's an insult when someones says that President Bush's administration is the worst in history. But, it's a double slap in the face when that criticism comes from, of all people, former President Jimmy Carter--or, maybe that should be a compliment considering the source. Carter is coming across as some old geezer screaming at kids for walking on his lawn.
(AP) 'I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history. ...The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me.'
Carter did such a great job with Iran, the Shah, and our embassay hostages. And, why is he going back to attack Nixon? Even Democrats generally give Nixon credit for his foreign policies and his advice to subsequent administrations.
Now, here's another good part of the story.
He spoke while promoting his new audiobook series, "Sunday Mornings in Plains," a collection of weekly Bible lessons from his hometown of Plains, Ga.
Those attacks are really Christian of Jimmy Carter. Maybe he should read lessons on overcoming defeat, anger, and bitterness. Does he look bitter in this picture accompanying the article? Maybe, just a little.
Carter wraps it up by attacking a foreign leader who supports our country, apparently Carter being unable to see that supporting our leader is the same as backing our nation. Well, I guess he might see it and doesn't like that.
Carter also lashed out Saturday at British prime minister Tony Blair. Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, the former president said: 'Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.'
That's no way to treat a friend.
Well, I'm optimistic that Carter will hang on to the titles of "worst administration overall" and the "worst former president." Double digit inflation, unemployment, and interest rates within our nation during his administration are hard to beat on top of his Iranian disaster, as are the totally unprecedented attacks against our nation and its leaders since he has left office.
[Update]
Bush White House fires back at Jimmy Carter
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - White House spokesman Tony Fratto...fired back. 'I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there. I think it's unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.' ....
Jimmy who?
May 17, 2007
Campaign Song Contest
|
|
Hillary Clinton wants help from "her supporters" to choose a campaign song for her. While her web site offers only nine choices, including one from the Dixie Chicks (who hoo!), they allow write-in votes, and I think that we can do better. Here's her plea.
Let me suggest "Lola" by the Kinks.
Well, I'm not dumb but I can't understandWhy she walked like a woman and talked like a man,
Oh my lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola
I don't know what you win, but I hope it's not champagne and a dance with Hillary at a club down in old Soho--unless you like that sort of thing...not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think that any songs like "God Bless America" and "God Bless the U.S. A." are out. Do you think that she will accept votes from the military?
What's your choice? And, while we're at it, maybe you can think of songs for other candidates, too. Get involved!
Porn Star Loves Clinton
|
|
Which Clinton? Probably both--but, separately. This is real.
Source: JustHillary.com (Emphasis mine.)
Jenna Jameson, who's been called the world's most famous porn star and is the author of the New York Times bestseller "How To Make Love Like a Porn Star," talked about Hillary Clinton in an interview with PR.com....May 17, 2007...PR.com: "Who's your favorite Democratic front runner for 2008? Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards?"
Jenna Jameson: "I love Hillary....
PR.com: "Do you find that the climate of the adult industry changes when there is a Republican administration versus Democratic?"
Jenna Jameson: "Absolutely. The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry and I wish that Clinton would run again. I would love to have him back in office. I would love to have Al Gore in office." ...
If there's anyone whose advice that you want for electing a president, a porn star has to be right at the top. Maybe she's hoping for a night in the Lincoln bedroom.
(I intentionally avoided all jokes and double entendres--and it was hard.)
Democrats Provide Change - After 185 Years
|
|
In a stunning move, House Democrats today revealed they will attempt to rewrite House rules that have gone unchanged since 1822 in order to make it possible to increase taxes and government spending without having to vote and be held accountable.
Why is this called a "stunning" move? I would say that it was quite predictable and typical.
May 16, 2007
Democratic Candidates Having It Both Ways
|
|
It's nice to be for something and against it at the same time--if you're a Democratic candidate for the Presidency. Everyone is happy and nothing gets done. It takes skill, though.
The Senate on Wednesday rejected legislation that would cut off money for combat operations in Iraq after March 31, 2008. The vote was a loss for Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and other Democrats who want to end the war. But the effort picked up support from members, including presidential hopefuls previously reluctant to limit war funding - an indication of the war's unpopularity among voters. The proposal lost 29-67 on a procedural vote, falling 41 votes short of the necessary votes to advance.
Well, the vote failure was a sure thing, so why not vote for legislation popular with the Left as long as you know that it will not pass? And, then, you can make a wishy-washy statement to please people on the other side, too.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democratic presidential front-runner, previously opposed setting a deadline on the war. But she said she agreed to back the measure "because we, as a united party, must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war."
Sen. Barack Obama, another leading 2008 prospect, said he would prefer a plan that offers more flexibility but wanted "to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the president and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course."
"I'm not crazy about the language in the Feingold amendment, but I am crazy about the idea that we have to keep the pressure on," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., who also wants the Democratic presidential nomination.
Is this true leadership? Why is it so hard for them to make a decision, take a stand, and stick with it?
It's getting to the point that they were for the war before they were against it, before they were for it again, after they were for something in-between, before they said what they thought they were for before they realized that they didn't mean what they said, after they....
May 13, 2007
May 09, 2007
Democrats Explained
|
|
Get an appropriate poster for a friend or yourself from Despair, Inc. Something is bound to fit.
May 08, 2007
May 06, 2007
The Beginning of the Undoing of the Democrats
|
|
You could see it coming. Democrats should have been careful with the partnerships that they forged in recent elections, as they put short-term gains over long-term considerations. Now, the Democrats could be locked into an agenda dictated by radical-left organizations, with money and influence, that the Democrats are not otherwise inclined or able to make into law.
MoveOn.org is not going away and the Democrats are going to have to appease them to get their desired support, or incumbents could face stern opposition in the primaries from more radical candidates who could win the nominations but get clobbered in the general elections.
WASHINGTON, May 4 — Every morning, representatives from a cluster of antiwar groups gather for a conference call with Democratic leadership staff members in the House and the Senate.Over the last four months, the Iraq deliberations in Congress have lurched from a purely symbolic resolution rebuking the president’s strategy to timetables for the withdrawal of American troops. Behind the scenes, an elaborate political operation, organized by a coalition of antiwar groups and fine-tuned to wrestle members of Congress into place one by one, has helped nudge the debate forward.
But there are tensions in the relationship between the groups, which banded together earlier this year under the umbrella of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, and the Democratic leadership.
On Thursday, leaders of the liberal group MoveOn.org, including Tom Matzzie, the group’s Washington director who also serves as the campaign manager for the coalition, sent a harshly worded warning to the Democratic leadership.
“In the past few days, we have seen what appear to be trial balloons signaling a significant weakening of the Democratic position,” the letter read. “On this, we want to be perfectly clear: if Democrats appear to capitulate to Bush — passing a bill without measures to end the war — the unity Democrats have enjoyed and Democratic leadership has so expertly built, will immediately disappear.”
The letter went on to say that if Democrats passed a bill “without a timeline and with all five months of funding,” they would essentially be endorsing a “war without end.” MoveOn, it said, “will move to a position of opposition.”
I hate it for them.
What Democrats Know
|
|
You knew that this would be a short post just from the subject line.
Well, here's the news...only 39% of Democrats believe that President Bush did not know about the 9-11 terrorist attacks in advance, which means that 61% of Democrats think that Bush knew in advance or are not sure and think it possible. Source: Rasmussen Poll
I guess that shows the power of suggestion to weak minds.
May 01, 2007
Too Funny Not To Pass On
|
|
H/T to my friend Cao
April 19, 2007
Gosh Senator Reid, Really?
|
|
I'll bet absolutely no one is surprised but Good Ol' Harry Reid, (Idjit - Nevada) has come out denouncing the United States Supreme Court's decision upholding the ban on partial birth abortion. Now, abortion is a heavy subject and good people disagree on whether or not it should be allowed. Personally, I'm against abortion, but be that as it may, many folk disagree with that position. I'm also against partial birth abortion in part because I have yet to see any scientific reason for it to be performed. Yeah, yeah, I know, maybe it's to save the life of the mother, but I've not seen any case where that has been documented.
But you know what is really funny? When congress voted to ban partial birth abortions, Harry Reid (Hypocrite - Nevada) VOTED FOR IT., yeah, for the ban, and now that it has been upheld by the USSC, he's against it. You don't suppose it's politics do you? You don't think that Harry Reid (Profiteer - Nevada) voted FOR something he felt was unconstitutional just because he wanted to appear on the right side of the issue 4 years ago, and now wants to appear on the right side of the issue of his liberal supporters do you? Nah, not Harry Reid (Jerk - Nevada)!
Jonathan Adler writing in the Volokh Conspiracy perhaps says it best:
So, despite his repeated support of legislative restrictions on abortion, Reid's latest comment suggests that he believes the Supreme Court's decision was regrettable and wrongly decided, and that a law that he supported is unconstitutional. To me, the latter is of greater concern. Call me old fashioned, but I believe that if a member of the Senate believes a law is unconstitutional, he or she should vote against it.
Hey, Senator Reid? You forgot that the blogosphere will fact check your ass every time.
April 17, 2007
Tax Returns of the Rich and Famous
|
|
No, it's not mine...or G.M.'s. But, if you are curious about Barack Obama's 2006 income tax return, you can read about it HERE and download a pdf file of it at THIS SITE. He made more than I did, but I'm just part of America's working families. I hope your refund was as nice as his, but I don't understand why he doesn't just donate his overpayment to some Democratic giveaway program.
April 16, 2007
April 14, 2007
Democrats First 100 Days
|
|
During the fall campaign, Democrats promised to pass six urgent matters of legislation in their first 100 days. Well, none were passed and some never received votes. These issues are implementing all of the 9-11 Commission recommendations, the minimum wage, stem cell research, interest rates on student loans, the Medicare prescription-drug plan, and a comprehensive energy policy. Who would have guessed that the Democrats wouldn't do what they promised?
However, there have been nine bills signed into law during this period to rename post offices and courthouses. We now have the Rush Hudson Limbaugh Courthouse, so the session has not been a total waste.
Isn't it nice to have them change the way things are run in Washington?
Democrat's Standards of Justice
|
|
Eight Democrats running for three nominations to be judges in Philadelphia's Traffic Court owe parking fines, and three of those owe over $1,000 apiece. I guess they hope to win so that they can dismiss their own fines.
March 20, 2007
Pres. Bush Tells Dems to Take It or Leave It
|
|
WASHINGTON (AP) - A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down. Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I have proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."
He added that federal prosecutors work for him and it is natural to consider replacing them. "There is no indication that anybody did anything improper," the president said.
Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me," Bush said.
Bush said his White House counsel, Fred Fielding, told lawmakers they could interview presidential counselor Karl Rove, former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and their deputies—but only on the president's terms: in private, "without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.
The president cast the offer as virtually unprecedented and a reasonable way for Congress to get all the information it needs about the matter.
"If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed," Bush said. "If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see."
Bush said he would aggressively fight in court any attempt to subpoena White House aides.
"If the staff of a president operated in constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations, the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served," he said. "I'm sorry the situation has gotten to where it's got, but that's Washington, D.C., for you. You know there's a lot of politics in this town."
As Scooter Libby learned, the Democrats will try to hang you any way that they can, and it doesn't matter if the offense is just having a bad memory on something that wasn't a crime. There's no reason to expose other members of the Executive Branch to a minefield of hidden and sweeping legal interpretations on issues unrelated to the duties of Congress.
We knew that Democrats would start one investigation after another once they controlled Congress. Now they have put politics and mud slinging as higher priorities than dealing with Iraq. Remember which issue the American voters placed highest in the fall elections? I guess that once the Democrats fooled the people into voting for them on one thing, they will now do what the party wants rather than what the people elected them to do.
March 15, 2007
Ann Coulter Exonerated - Sort Of
|
|
After Ann Coulter was roundly attacked for her bad joke about John Edwards, it appears that one Democratic candidate may be seeing what she saw.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) slipped in a compliment — of sorts — about a fellow 2008 hopeful during his appearances on the Iowa stump last weekend. “I want to wait and hear what John Edwards has to say, he’s kind of good-looking,” Obama envisioned Iowa caucus-goers from the small town of Clinton telling themselves. During an appearance in West Burlington, Iowa, the phrase appeared again, this time with Edwards as “kind of cute.”
Well, if your other choice is this, I'm not going to say how people should view others.
March 11, 2007
Truth Surfaces from Chappaquiddick
|
|
I feel so badly. I was once mislead to believe that Ted Kennedy killed a young woman in 1969 by driving his car with her off of a bridge and let her drown, while he saved himself and took time to create a cover-up story. Well, now, someone who fits the profile of the Reality Based Community, has shared the real story of Chappaquiddick--as told by an eye-witness! There's a lesson here.
...I guess it's time to tell the version I heard, supposedly from a horse's mouth, of what really happened there almost 37 years ago.Continue reading "Truth Surfaces from Chappaquiddick"
March 10, 2007
Democrats - Lying Pansies [Updated]
|
|
Democrats have no backbone--and lie. They are ruled by MoveOn but give phony reasons to do the bidding of the left-wing radical group.
The Nevada State Democratic Party is pulling out of a controversial presidential debate scheduled for Aug. 14 in Reno and co-hosted by Fox News, according to a letter released late Friday from state party chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev)....Collins and Reid wrote that comments on Thursday by FOX News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, when he jokingly compared Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the junior senator from Illinois, to Osama bin Laden, "went too far," and prompted Nevada Democrats to end the partnership.
...A statement released Friday night from Fox Vice President David Rhodes said: "News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe, out-of-state in interest groups, not the Nevada Democratic Party. In the past, MoveOn.org has said they 'own' the Democratic party. While most Democrats don't agree with that, it's clearly the case in Nevada."
Fox officials also argued that Ailes' remark about Obama, made at the Radio and TV News Directors Foundation Awards, was meant to poke fun at President Bush, not the Illinois senator.
Of course, the Democrats wouldn't say a word if the Republicans boycotted liberal media that said something bad about them--which is most of them most of the time. No, of course not.
[Updates] - More details below:
Continue reading "Democrats - Lying Pansies [Updated]"March 03, 2007
Phony Democratic Apology Demands
|
|
To add to G.M.'s recent post titled The Psychology Of The Apology, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is outraged and demands that Republican candidates denounce journalist and entertainer Ann Coulter for alluding to Democratic candidate John Edwards as a "faggot" at the current Conservative Action Political Conference. I'm so tired of self-righteous indignation, especially from those who would have a lot of apologizing to do themselves using similar standards. Dean and the Democrats need to grow up, grow some thicker skin, or quit pretending.
The world doesn't give everyone a free pass to go through life not being offended, but it's up to individuals to go through life not pretending to be offended just for personal gain.
And, apologies should be offered, not demanded. An apology given under pressure is usually not sincere. And demands for apologies are usually just attempts to win a point through embarrassment, which is wrong, too.
Now, will the Democrats apologize to our troops in Iraq and Viet Nam veterans for the Democrats' roles in encouraging our enemies and prolonging the wars and apologize to the American people for trying to ruin our country by driving it down the road to big government socialism? No, I really don't mean that, because the Democrats would never admit that they are wrong on something that they really believe, and I know better than to even ask.
March 02, 2007
An Unlikely Marriage - Soros and Halliburton
|
|
I actually did several double-takes on this report, confident that it had come from a satiric publication like "the Onion." It's real all right, which proves that leftists don't always put their money where their mouths are.
Normally, I'm willing to overlook the hypocrisy of the liberal elite. ...But the latest move by globe trotting, hyper-liberal billionaire George Soros borders on being too much. According to papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of ... hold your breath ... Halliburton.Soros, of course, is the dean of Democratic money giving. And Halliburton, of course, is the company that embodies everything the Democrats see as evil. Dick Cheney is its former chief, for goodness' sake.
It's so ironic that Halliburton will be helping Soros to fight Halliburton, and that Soros will be helping Halliburton with capital funding and stock support. What's next...Al Gore holding stock in an oil company? Whoops, that's not a joke either. Is nothing sacred?
March 01, 2007
Following Al Gore's Example on Carbon Offsets - Cheat
|
|
Al Gore has justified his home's high energy consumption by claiming that he purchases "carbon offsets" to make him "carbon neutral." Can you guess who receives the money that Gore pays for the carbon offsets? Why, it's himself! How "convenient."
As the controversy over global warming doomsayer Al Gore's voracious energy-eater mansion rolls on, there's an angle I think merits deeper investigation than it is currently getting. While much of the focus has been on whether or not Gore is an environmental hypocrite, the story has raised the profile of the role of "carbon offsets" in achieving a "greener," more environmentally friendly world.In its original story, The Tennessean reported that Gore buys "carbon offsets" to compensate for his home's use of energy from carbon-based fuels. So far, so good. But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:
Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. ...In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.
I hereby declare myself carbon neutral because I gave myself money from an ATM today. If it works for Gore, then it works for me.
If Al Gore refers to me as a global warming denier, then I'll just refer to him as a global warming deceiver.
February 17, 2007
Not All Democrats Are Nuts, And Certainly Not This One
|
|
Sentaor Bill Frist penned a comment about the cloture vote in the Senate today. In essence, he shows why he thinks the Democrats were wrong in filing for cloture, but as Frist is a Republican, one can expect him to hew to the Republican line. However, that is not the thrust of this post. This post concerns one Jeff Jay, a commenter on Frists article. Mr. Jay says:
As a Democratic supporter, I am woefully confident that the Democratic leadership in Congress will create the conditions for a full-fledged civil war in the Middle East, one that will extend beyond international boundaries. Originally, even I did not wish the current administration to become involved with the MIDEAST MENACE long (2000)before ANY of these world events. In April 2000 I did surmise that we would be pulled into conflict in that arena, only because of our historical democratic ideals--exactly the ones that brought us rescuing the pathetic world in the past century.As the title of the post says: "Not All Democrats Are Nuts, And Certainly Not This One" Mr. Jay, I don't know who you are or where you live, but I would certainly like to share a strong adult libation with you!The current Democratic power will only be satified when they have catalyzed a crisis situation while simultaneously sitting in the peanut gallery complaining, whining, and moaning and doing nothing to problem-solve and end war. They seem to enjoy a complicitory, mentating, schadenfreud, "isolationalist yet meddling" stance that will, mark my word, historically prove to be the low-road on international policy. This is certainly NOT following the lineage of FDR and the TRUE DEMOCRATIC heritage.
a disappointed DEMOCRAT
February 08, 2007
A Wingnut Knuckle-Dragging Neandertholic Conservative Defends Marcotte And McEwan: Free Speech Is Exactly That ~ Free Speech!
|
|
I haven't blogged about Amanda Marcotte or Melissa McEwan, primarily because they really don't have anything to say that makes much sense to me. Both tend to be potty mouths and I'll be here to defend their right to cuss all they want. I've visited their blog a few times and found them to be both potty-mouthed and intransigent.
Now, this may sound like heresy to a lot of my friends, fellow conservative bloggers and readers, but hear me out. John Edwards is running for the Democratic nomination for president, but as a campaigner, he has much to learn. Too, I don't think he has a snowball's proverbial chance in hades to win the nomination, let alone the election, but he is wiley enough to know that there is something out there called the "internets" and he needs someone savy enough to get him an in with the netroots folk. Edwards looked around, talked (no doubt) to a number of advisors and was told that Marcotte and McEwan were some of the best in the business at laying it on the line against us warmongering knuckle-draggers. Fine!
As anyone familiar with my blog knows, I seldom use or tolerate cussing. It's not my style and this is my blog. In my Rules For Commenting, I swiped a phrase from Kat at Cathouse Chat who had swiped it from La Shawn Barber. It is pretty simple in it's formulation.
"this is my weblog and I pay for the hosting. The First Amendment protects my right to speak on this site, not yours. The amendment prohibits government from infringing on my right of free expression. On this blog, your expression is a privilege. On your own blog, your expression is a right. Learn the distinction."I also added
There will be no swearing, invective (look it up), or ad hominem attacks of a juvenile nature...The point being here that Pandagon where Marcotte and McEwan blog is their blog and they are, by law allowed to say just about anything they want. Nuff said?
They may (or may not have been) much of persuaders in the lefty corner of the blogosphere, and now the controversy has arisen regarding the tendency of these two to rant, rave and cuss on their blog. Guess what folks, I rant and rave but seldom cuss because that just ain't my style. It is apparantly their style and that is OK.
Of course, when the news came out there was a lot of pseudo-outrage that the two were potty mouths, that (and this was likely real outrage) they had made disparaging remarks about the Catholic Church and Christians and that Edwards must have holes in his head for hiring them without looking at the stuff they put on Pandagon (you may have noticed that I haven't linked to their site - nor will I, if you want, go find it on your own). But, I digress, the outrage was all over the blogosphere from righties and even from some lefties. But folks, we are the same ones that were outraged at the Muslims who rioted over cartoon's of Mohammad. Was the blog-riot of the same type? Are we so locked into our own partisanship so tightly that we cannot see the bigger picture?
And a bigger picture it is. It is the right of each American in this country to say just about what they want, where they want and how they want to say it. It is codified into one of our most cherished documents, the Constitution. And I for one believe that each amendment means what it says and that is that. Now, that seems pretty simple doesn't it? You will find, for example, many lefties that don't think the 2nd Amendment or the 9th or 10th Amendment don't mean what it says very plainly. But that is their right to say that. Doesn't matter if it makes sense that some amendments say what they mean and others don't.
Freedom of speech is then, the issue. You either have it, or you don't and the Constitution guarantees that Marcotte and McEwan have it, as do I, as do you.
And just after typing the above, but before I published it, I read Glenn Reynolds Instapundit and see that the Beltway Blogroll has an entry on just this subject and it's pretty good too. A sample:
You can tell they are working for a political campaign now because they are apologizing just like politicians.Of course, this is the typical mealy mouthed non-apology apology of politicians and others who have transgressed but don't have the guts to admit it, but, you know what, it is still their right to say what ever they want. And it is my right to criticize it but it is not my right to shut them up. I suspect the electorate will do that just fine.Rather than saying "I am sorry," for instance, Marcotte wrote, "I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics." And this from McEwan: "It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way.”
Basically, Marcotte and McEwan have agreed to muzzle themselves while working for Edwards.
UPDATE: Eugene Volokh writing in his own inimitable style reports on attempts to crush free speech at San Francisco State University. This is a good read folks and underscores my point that free speech isn't free unless it is free for everyone.
Professor Volokh has a link to F.I.R.E. (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) which has more on the issue and while niether post is about Marcotte or McEwan, both underscore my main point.
February 04, 2007
Two Americas
|
|
Of all the demogogues of both the left and the right (yes, you read that correctly) John Edwards has to be scored at or near the top on any list. Really!
John Edwards, he of Two Americas fame. You know who I mean, the Vice Presidential Candidate in 2004, the one that ran as second banana to John "I have the hat" Kerry? Yeah, that one!
The fellow that rants about how we treat our poor, but who sues the crap out of docs who treat the poor to enrich himself. The same guy that is building his own multi-million dollar dwelling somewhere in the Carolinas when he could use some of that ill gotten gain to help so many homeless folk. Now Mr. Edwards, who really, honestly thinks he has a shot at the Presidency (gag me with a spoon folks) has weighed in on Iran and their nukes. Yeppers, and like his former running mate, he was against them before he was for them. His first shot at it when speaking before the Herzliya Conference in Israel:
...Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president’s statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats." [emphasis added]"My country hasn't done enough...abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans"? When it is his party demanding those very things? Since he spoke in Israel, I guess we ought to just mark it up chutzpah!
Ahh, but dear readers, that is not the half of it. Two weeks later, in an interview with Ezra Klein, Edwards answers a question thusly:
Klein: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?How's that for double speak? Yeah, yeah, I know, repubs do it too. So, that makes Edwards duplicity OK? Nope, all it does is underscore the need to elect honest folk, of which you will find damned few in the halls of Washington D.C.Edwards: "I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we’ve … " [emphasis added]
Two Americas? You bet. One that is sick of the duplicity of politicians of all stripes and one that will defend this kind of crap because it comes from one of their guys.
A tip 'O The GM Derby 
to Oxblog
February 01, 2007
Lies, Damn Lies and Hillary Clinton!
|
|
As any reader of this blog will undoubtedly know, I'm no big fan of Hillary Clinton, in fact, there are fewer people in politics that I despise more for their politics. When the harridan from New York via Little Rock via Washington via Chicago announced for the Senate in 2000, no one who could think in coherent sentences doubted that her only goal was to run for president. Her constant lies about "not decided yet" not-withstanding, she was running from the first day her husband was running. Anyone remember the famous "two-fer" she uttered during the '92 campaign? That alone should have made it obvious.
Now, she is "officially" running and true to the ideals of Bill, she is lying up a storm and expecting no one to notice. In Iowa, she said:
I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies. So [President bush] took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it, and I regret that deeply. And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority." [emphasis added]Wow, the smartest woman in the world was duped by the dumbest president ever! Whoda thunk it? But wait, she has, on record, other statements about her vote, one that kinda, sorta, perhaps, maybe, ah hell, definately puts the lie to her statement in Des Moines when she justified her vote to Code Pink:
There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefulling reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way part of this decision." [emphasis added]There you have it, out of her own mouth. Yeppers, the big lie, repeated often enough will be believed (but only by those who can't think their way out of a wet paper sack (you sure are getting fond of that phrase Roper... ed!) I wonder if "I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies," includes her husbands foray's into Kosovo without UN sanction? Hmmm?
January 18, 2007
Democrats on Iraq and WMD's
|
|
Hmmmm. Hypocrisy by Democrats on Iraq...again? I'm sure there's a way that they can blame Bush for their earlier statements--even those before he was President. Really watch this. It's a little under four minutes.
From Denny
Democratic Hypocrisy on Iraq? Nooooo.
|
|
The Democrats don't create or explain their plans for Iraq. They just listen to what President Bush says and they go in the other direction. If something goes awry, which occurs in war, Democrats can always say that their ideas would have worked, although there can be no proof of that. But, what happened when President Bush accepted an idea of a leading Democrat? Take a look.
On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason. "In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops. Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable. "We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.
The chairman's "double-talk" did not go unnoticed. Among others, Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, says such blatant "hypocrisy" undermines both national security and the war on terrorism.
But, to Democrats, winning political battles are more important than winning battles with lives at stake.
I think that we need about 25,000 more Democrats in Iraq--just to get them out of our country. As the lawyer joke goes, it's a good start. Who goes first?
January 10, 2007
Playing Politics With Iraq: Hypocrisy of Democrats
|
|
It's politics when Republicans do something but not when the Democrats do the same thing.
November, 2005 - Democrats Accuse Republicans of Playing Politics with Iraq Troop Vote:
"Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives pulled a stunt last Friday that can be likened to the actions of a child throwing a tantrum. In an attempt to divide Democrats over the war in Iraq, Republicans rushed the legislative chamber into voting on a hastily conceived resolution to immediately withdraw troops from the conflict. ...Playing politics is always irresponsible, but playing politics with a matter of life and death is evil." The Badger Herald
"Republican Leadership Plays Politics With Iraq War Vote...The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, a vote engineered by the Republicans that was intended to fail. Democrats derided the vote as a political stunt." Associated Press via The Huffington Post
"A top Democrat -- Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) -- said in a floor speech that Bush and Cheney have "shamelessly decided to play politics" over Iraq." The Washington Post
January, 2006 - Democrats Plan Iraq Troop Vote
"Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war." The New York Times
Democrats hypocritical? Nooooooo. And, you won't find the major media pointing that out, either.
January 09, 2007
More on Sandy Berger's 9/11 Document Theft
|
|
We recently commented on Sandy Berger's theft and destruction of classified documents which had been requested by the 9/11 Commission in its investigation of that terrorist attack--Sandy Berger Confused Trash Can for Archives File. Berger had served as the National Security Advisor in the Clinton administration and, more recently, had been appointed by Clinton to review documents and prepare testimony for the 9/11 inquiry.
Now, the government report on the Berger/Clinton theft has been released, and it raises serious concerns about, not only the theft itself, but also the disturbing misrepresentations of the National Archives and the Justice Department in trying to gloss over it. It's bad enough that we were not prepared for the attacks. It is criminal that anyone would continue to lie about information that could save future lives.
'(Rep Tom Davis') staff’s investigation reveals that President Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger compromised national security much more than originally disclosed,' Davis said. 'It is now also clear that Mr. Berger was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience.'The 9/11 Commission relied on incomplete and misleading information regarding its access to documents Mr. Berger reviewed. No one ever told the Commission that Mr. Berger had access to original documents that he could have taken without detection.
'We now know that Mr. Berger left stolen highly classified documents at a construction site to avoid detection. We know that Mr. Berger insisted on privacy at times to allow him to conceal documents that he stole. One witness with a very high security clearance believed he saw Berger concealing documents in his socks.
...'The Justice Department’s assertion that Mr. Berger’s statements are credible after being caught is misplaced. One wouldn’t rely on the fox to be truthful after being nabbed in the hen house. But the Justice Department apparently did.'
Here is the complete report, which is worth reading, including the conclusion:
Staff Report- Sandy Berger's Theft of Classified Documents: Unanswered Questions (PDF)
But, I suspect that Sandy Berger was only doing what President Clinton asked him to do.
It's ironic that the Democrats, in their first 100 hours, planned to address national security by implementing all of the 9/11 Commission security recommendations. It's too bad to find out that the 9/11 recommendations were made with incomplete information...thanks to other Democrats. Maybe they could address that problem in their ethics reform, but I wouldn't count on it.
January 05, 2007
How Do You Spell Ethics Reform Business As Usual?
|
|
I guess the question is really a misleading one, everyone with a lick of sense knows the Democratic Party (as opposed to say, any particular Democrat) uses Ethics against Republicans only at election time or when they think they can embarrass a Republican big-wig.
Thus, one can see that the Democrats who were "aghast" at the antics of Mark Foley would stand up and applaud (the "infamous" Democratic standing ovation) Jerry Stubbs for having sex with a page while calling Foley's emails part of the culture of corruption. Then too, we have a Republican member of Congress (Bohnner) recalling
Pelosi, who has served in Congress since 1987 and was part of the last Democratic majority, should recall that corruption well. It wasn't that long ago that gifts and personal loans from S&L interests to a Democratic committee chairman, made in hopes of winning favorable treatment from regulators, resulted in a half-trillion dollar scandal and a $125 billion tab for the American taxpayer. Nor was it that long ago that the Democratic chairman of the House Administration Committee stood idly by while drugs were being dealt from the House Post Office, hundreds of Members of Congress were bouncing checks and floating themselves zero-interest loans from the House Bank, and lobbyists were being given assigned parking spots on the Capitol grounds. Nor was it that long ago that the Democratic chairman of the Ways & Means Committee was trading taxpayer-purchased stamps for personal cash, leading to his conviction and jail time in 1993.Well, Democrats have done it again. They have given William Jefferson, (D - La) a standing ovation. William Jefferson, you remember him don't you, the fellow that is under investigation for accepting a $100,000.00 bribe?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the same day that the 110th Democratic-led Congress convenes with a plan to immediately pass lobbyist and ethics reforms, the Congressional Black Caucus Thursday gave a standing ovation to Rep. William Jefferson, the Louisiana Democrat who faces an FBI probe into bribery allegations.Yep, same old, same old!!!
Party of reform my hind foot!
January 03, 2007
Minimum Wage: Democrats Fail Economics 1
|
|
How much do you know about the minimum wage? Test yourself with this question from an actual college economics mid-term exam.
3. T or F - A binding minimum wage raises the quantity of labor supplied and reduces the quantity of labor demanded.
Answer below the fold.
Continue reading "Minimum Wage: Democrats Fail Economics 1"December 21, 2006
Sandy Berger Confused Trash Can for Archives File
|
|
In case you missed this on CNN (yeah, right), do you ever wonder exactly what it was that Sandy Burger stole from the National Archives involving his and the Clinton administration's failures or cover-ups in fighting terrorism. Do you remember when Berger said that taking the documents was an "honest mistake?" Let's see from a recent release.
President Clinton's national security adviser removed classified documents from the National Archives, hid them under a construction trailer and later tried to find the trash collector to retrieve them, the agency's internal watchdog said Wednesday....Officials told The Associated Press at the time of the thefts that the documents were highly classified and included critical assessments about the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium terror threats as well as identification of America's terror vulnerabilities at airports and seaports.
...Berger took a break to go outside without an escort while it was dark. He had taken four documents in his pockets. "He headed toward a construction area. ... Mr. Berger looked up and down the street, up into the windows of the Archives and the DOJ (Department of Justice), and did not see anyone," the interview notes said. He then slid the documents under a construction trailer, according to the inspector general. Berger acknowledged that he later retrieved the documents from the construction area and returned with them to his office. ...The notes said that Berger had "destroyed, cut into small pieces, three of the four documents. These were put in the trash."
Honest mistake. And, O.J.'s killing his wife was an "honest mistake." Yet, the major media will give the Democrats another pass on this, which is why the Democrats are so brazen about their crimes. Berger should have been given serious prison time rather than a misdemeanor charge for lying during the 9-11 investigation and weakening our war on terror. He was supposedly our National Security Advisor under Clinton. What would have been done to a Republican in a similar case?
And, I supppose that Clinton and the Democrats will go on accusing President Bush entirely for 9-11, now that they have destroyed and sanitized the complete record on themselves. What information are we missing? We'll never know.
December 18, 2006
The Democrats: A Gift That Keeps On Giving
|
|
Filed under Democrats
From the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON - Former Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards intends to enter the 2008 race for the White House, two Democratic officials said Saturday.Only a couple of Democrats could think that because they don't give their names they haven't let John Edwards "cat out of the bag."
[...]
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to pre-empt Edwards’ announcement." [Emphasis added].
December 10, 2006
Democrats Put Power Above Principle
|
|
I bet that title really shocked you. Imagine that.
The House Ethics Committee Report includes new information that top Democrats were also aware in 2005 of Mark Foley's inappropriate e-mails to congressional pages at about the same time as outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert's office was informed.While the report is critical of Hastert and his staff for not taking sufficient action, nowhere is there any evidence that the Democrats followed up.
Of course, we knew it all the time. Isn't it amazing that the major media failed to catch this before the election? But, now they know it and suddenly protecting young people from congressional predators is not important to them. It never was to the Democrats.
November 27, 2006
Why Didn't They Just Ask Me?
|
|
If they had asked me, I could have saved the pollsters a lot of money to discover what people think of John Kerry.
Democratic Sen. John Kerry, mulling a second bid for the U.S. presidency, finished dead last in a poll released on Monday on the likability of 20 top American political figures.
Kerry disputes the results saying that his exit polling showed him ahead. He should be glad that the military vote was not considered.
November 24, 2006
Beware of Democrats Changing Voting Methods
|
|
Whenever Democrats want a change in the voting process, you can bet that it's not because they actually believe the change is fair or that it is good for democracy. One recent notable case was trying to make every Arizona voter eligible for a million dollar lottery. Vote for us! We'll give you a million dollars! There are many cases of rushing to register illegal aliens and multiple law suits to fight voter identification laws. Sure we'll let you vote without an ID, but you better have one to buy cigarettes! They know that illegal votes and fraud helps Democrats. You do, too.
The latest crusade for voting change comes from Oregon's Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury, who is writing and campaigning with other Democrats and the usual suspects to have all states adopt the new Oregon voting process of vote by mail. Watch out.
Continue reading "Beware of Democrats Changing Voting Methods"November 15, 2006
Shocking! Voters Realize Democrats Have No Iraq Plan
|
|
Now, we find out. The Democrats do not have a plan to get out of Iraq afterall, and they want to wait on a study led by Republicans before they will take a position--a position which, naturally, will be non-specific and will continue to blame President Bush. It's the typical avoidance of responsibility and action that we have come to expect from the Democrats. Do nothing, don't get blamed, and point fingers at someone else. It's amazing that an entire political party can act like a teenager.
More Americans rank Iraq as the top priority of the new Democratic-controlled Congress, but nearly three out of five say the party does not have a plan to deal with the war. (Actual Poll Here)...No doubt, the election results have put Democrats in something of a box, said Stephen Biddle, a defense policy expert at the Council of Foreign Relations. "It's a very, very awkward thing to run a war from the Congress," he said. "The public wants them to do something. And they don't want to go into 2008 and be accused of being the do-nothing 110th Congress."
For now, Democrats appear willing to wait for the recommendations of a bipartisan Iraq study group led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group's findings are expected within the next few weeks. The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, also wants a bipartisan congressional summit to debate Iraq.
Why wait on a bipartisan study? Why have another summit or debate? Do something like you promised. Or, maybe the Democrats do not already have a plan for Iraq and are just wanting a basis to blame the Republicans for their own failure for a solution. How many Americans and Iraqis are going to die in the meantime because of the Democrat's delay in sharing their bold plan for withdrawal--certainly not to be confused with victory?
Or, can we say, "Democrats lied, people died." Well, we know that they lied. Let's see if they take responsibility for continued deaths in Iraq, but don't hold your breath. In the meantime, we'll have to pray for the best Iraqi outcome from another source.
Surprised?
November 13, 2006
Democrats Will Implode
|
|
Just wait. The radical arm of the Democratic Party is not going to let the (ahem) "moderates" wrest control of the party from them. It's just starting. The George Soros funded "shadow party" is already attacking elected Democrats so that its left-wing radical agenda is put first. If Democrats can't govern and control their own party, they sure are going to have a tough time doing it for an entire nation. Here's how a George Soros group is now fighting soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi over her pick for majority leader.
Washington, DC – Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) questioned soon-to-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) commitment to eradicating corruption with her endorsement of one of the most unethical members in Congress, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), to be Majority Leader of the House of Representatives.Rep. Murtha was listed in CREW’ report Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch). As reported in the study and by the news media, Rep, Murtha has been involved in a number of pay-to play schemes involving former staffers and his brother, Robert “Kit” Murtha.
Murtha? Unethical? Even by Soros standards? What are the Democrats coming to?
The Democrats made a deal with the devil and now they are going to find out the price.
November 09, 2006
Let the Gridlock Begin - Bolton Stuffed
|
|
"I see no point in considering Mr. Bolton's nomination again in the Foreign Relations Committee because, regardless of what happens there, he is unlikely to be considered by the full Senate," said Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Bolton's 2005 recess appointment came after Democrats blocked repeated attempts by GOP leaders to grant him Senate confirmation. Democrats said Bolton was a bully who lacked the diplomatic skills necessary to broker international deals.
Again, why was he not confirmed in the first place? Why, he was mean to some employees. Whaaaaa! What a great reason to reject someone for a job where someone needs to be tough. (See Aljazeera Magazine on " Bush's UN nominee a 'bully' "--which also shows who agrees with the Democrats.)
I guess that the Democrats cannot stand a U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations who actually puts United States interests ahead of the rest of the world (See WND: Bolton KOs Kerry) and who leaves no doubt about our intentions--thus, ignoring honest and logical opinions that Bolton is exactly the type of person that we need at the U.N. at this time. (Newt Gingrinch in 2005: America needs John Bolton because the U.N. has to change.)
Bolton stood up to the corruption and ineptitude of the U.N. and its battles against U.S. interests, but now he must be replaced for the satisfaction of the Democrats, who decided long ago that their politics override concerns for our county and that a Republican President should not receive the respect of confirming his choices to serve the White House. Do the Democrats favor the internationalist views of France, Russia, and China over the interests the U.S.? If that isn't their motivation, it certainly is their result.
If the Democrats put power over the interests of our country, then we need the gridlock to keep them in check just as they need it to cater to the extreme left.
November 08, 2006
Jim's Predictions
|
|
My friend, and commenter Jim Hitchcock posted the following comment at Marc Coopers bloog. I found it so damn funny, I had to steal it. Jim, if you object I'll take it down... but folks, honestly, this is good!
My predictions (Democratic):Hillary Clinton hires James Carville, but is soon forced to fire him when, during an argument, Carville calls Hillary `an ignorant slut’. Al Gore hires Bob Schrum and relearns how to sleep after six years of manic wakefulness. Unfortunately, this occurs mostly during strategy sessions. Dennis Kucinich hires a new hairdresser, and is cast as a regular in the new season of `Lost’. John Kerry buys a bong from Tommy Chong, and wisely decides to sit this one out. Russ Feingold, in a stunningly bold move, hires the California Cheese people, and goes on to sweep the primaries
Feingold running for Prez? OMG... pass the smelling salts.
Filed under Democrats
November 06, 2006
Democrats Getting Nervous About Election
|
|
Republicans Cut Democratic Lead in Campaign's Final Days:
Republican gains in the new poll reflect a number of late-breaking trends. First, Republicans have become more engaged and enthused in the election than they had been in September and October. ...The Republicans also have made major gains, in a relatively short time period, among independent voters. ...Notably, President Bush's political standing has improved in the final week before the election. ...The final pre-election survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted among 2,369 registered voters from Nov. 1-4, finds that voter appraisals of the national economy also have improved. ...In addition, Sen. John Kerry's "botched joke" about the war in Iraq attracted enormous attention.
Republicans More Likely to Vote:
The Pew poll showed that the Democratic advantage had dropped to 47 percent to Republicans' 43 percent among likely voters, down from 50 percent to 39 percent two weeks ago. The poll found a drop in Democratic support among independents, but Pew Director Andrew Kohut said the most significant change over the past two weeks is that Republicans now outnumber Democrats among likely voters. ...Democrats, mindful of the Republicans' success in getting their voters to the polls in the past two elections, expressed nervousness at signs of tightening in some national polls. But they said private and some public polling in contested House districts continued to show their party in a position to win enough seats to claim the majority. "I don't know what to make of it," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican chairman, said polls showed that Republicans and conservatives “were coming home,” which he said “is what happens when voters focus on the choice before them.” Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Democrat leading his party’s effort to win control of the House, said, “It’s inevitable that there would be some tightening in the end.” Still, Mr. Emanuel, who has been careful this campaign to avoid the public expressions of optimism voiced by other Democrats, added, “This is making me nervous.”
Weather Forecast--Wide Spread Rain:
A new study of voter behavior confirms something political operatives have long suspected: rain hurts Democrats and helps Republicans. The study found that 1 inch of rain reduces overall turnout by slightly less than 1 percent and cuts the Democratic vote by 2.5 percentage points. ...Democratic strategists acknowledge that their party is more affected by bad weather but say they boost their turnout efforts by giving out rain ponchos (LOL) or adding more vans to give voters a ride to the polls.
So, Democrats Already Starting with the Excuses:
In an interview from her Capitol office, Pelosi...cautioned that the number of Democratic House victories could be higher or lower and said her greatest concern is over the integrity of the count -- from the reliability of electronic voting machines to her worries that Republicans will try to manipulate the outcome. "That is the only variable in this," Pelosi said. "Will we have an honest count?''
But, I'm not confident despite the Democrat's worries. However, I feel better knowing that the Democrat's are losing confidence themselves. Let's pray for heavy showers tomorrow.
G.M. UPDATE: In a previous thread, one of my favorite contrarians who typically is fairly obnoxious in his comments (reg) complained that we thought only the educated should vote and that we were racist etc. (read the whole thing and all the comments). But then comes along a typical liberal/democrat who posts a comment on this Huffington Post post:
Instead, I talk with Wingers and feed into their conspiratorial mistrust of politicians and government in general, with catch phrases like: "They're all a bunch of crooks! Your vote doesn't count anyway! It makes no difference who you vote for, they do what THEY want anyway!" Helping to keep stupid people FROM voting is my goal in this election, and it is relatively easy to do.Yeah reg, you were saying?
November 05, 2006
Democrats Support Troops More than Republicans?
|
|
Someone of the liberal persuasion tried to prove a point with me using flawed logic and data--naturally. He said that Democrats are much more supportive of our military than are Republicans, and he used something called the Action Fund of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) for that purpose. Really? Their criteria was so narrow and so misrepresentative of the conclusion, that it was...well, the Left as usual. Next are results of their study, and you can compare your representatives to others. They rank them from A (excellent) to F (failure.)
First, here's their A-Team. Recognize any faces? (Gotta love that picture of Chris Dodd.)
Now, for their F Troop. Oh, nuts. My patriotic, pro-military, ultra-conservative representative got an F. Who would have guessed?
Here's the full ratings list: Posted Grades. How did your representatives do? How would you rank what you know against the conclusions of the IAVA list? Let me help you. John Kerry got a grade of B. I guess calling our soldiers stupid, rapists, baby killers, and terrorists took away 2 or 3 points--or, added points on this study for some.
Filed Under: Liberals and Democrats, Democrats and Militaria
Democrats Find Religion
|
|
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes....
If the Democrats win the House, then Rev. Rep. Charlie Rangel will become chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for tax legislation. How does he feel about current tax rates?
On Sept. 20, he told Bloomberg News that he "cannot think of one" of the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush that merits renewal. Nearly all of those cuts expire at the end of 2010. When asked whether as chairman he would consider tax increases across the table, Mr. Rangel replied, "No question about it," according to the Sept. 26 edition of CongressDaily PM.
Clearly, Rangel is a man who has read Romans. Now, I'm going to have to take take a step of faith and pray that I will have the money to pay for the Democrats' new found religion.
November 01, 2006
October 10, 2006
It's All Bush's Fault - Again!
|
|
A tip 'O The GM Derby
to Baron Bodissey at the Gates of Vienna
[Update]
From Drudge Report, here is a clip of Secretary of State Madeline Albright's toast with Kim Jong Il, to show you "the rest of the story" from the picture above. This is actually an ad that the GOP has refused to run.
October 05, 2006
Make Your Own Caption - The Religious Left?
|
|
.
I'm sure that you can come up with some caption for the picture above. It's an easy assignment.
The group responsible for the sign, Grassroots Dems, had this post on its purpose: Jesus Cares, which states: “The whole thing behind it is to counteract the Christian right and their so-called monopoly on religion.” and to the Christian right "...your Jesus is pro-rich, pro-war, and only pro-American, and your monologue is over." Does that sound Christian to you? And, what's wrong with being pro-American?
Also, you may want to check out another post from this "progressive" organization titled The Left Hand of God. Here's part of the discussion.
GRSD Progressive Book Club discussed The Left Hand of God by Michael Lerner on Thursday, June 8. Rabbi Lerner touched upon fundamental basic sense a lack of spiritual direction and fulfillment in America. He contends that this sense of lack that lead us to reach out to one another is being used and abused by the political right to undermine basic principles that spurred the growth of our country.The group discussed how the right hand of God, that of fear, is used to promote detrimental military, environmental, and economic policies. Lerner believes that instead we need to turn to the left hand of God which fosters hope – a hope that by embracing the spiritual aspects of our shared humanity. It is also his assertion that Democrats/Progressives cannot ignore the spiritual needs of Americans if they want to guide the country to a return of the American promise for all citizens.
It's the right which uses fear to promote environmental policies? As Mr. Subliminal would say, global warming. Military policies? deaths in Iraq Economic ones? government health care Run that by again. Actually, the book might make for an interesting discussion, but it would surely be one of politics rather than religion, as the Left has a hard time separating politics from anything.
Ironically, the post preceding that one on God is titled Petition Drive to Refer South Dakota Abortion Ban . It encourages people to sign a petition to make abortions legal again in the state through a popular vote overriding the legislature. It's rare that you find any one from the left wanting a popular vote rather than an activist judge to decide things.
In a skillful twisting of words, that same post refers you to a group calling itself South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, which, unbelievably from the name, is a pro-abortion group. I have never considered a family as healthy when a member of it has been murdered. Part of the family is dead. And, I have never considered that those who promote abortion to have the blessings of God, despite His left hand that the "progressives" claim for hope above. No hypocrisy here, huh?
Anyway, Democrats claim to care for the poor, just like Jesus. Maybe they will heal the blind, too, so that people can see through them.
September 30, 2006
Urgent Reason to Stop Smoking
|
|
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"
Oh, yes. Smoking also causes cancer and heart disease, if you thought that global warming wasn't enough reason to quit--but, the global warming fanatics, who defend Gore, might label you as a wacked-out "skeptic" to think that cancer is to be feared more than global warming.
Found at Drudge Report
P.S. "Then, Gore had his staff opened a stack of cardboard boxes to begin selling his new book, "An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It," $19.95, to the U.N. diplomats."
Put me down for none.
September 26, 2006
Clinton: It Depends Upon What the Definition of "The Truth" Is
|
|
The Democrats are trying to claim some kind of victory with former President Clinton's eruption on his FOX interview, but Dick Morris, who worked for the Clinton's and knows the score, disassembles Clinton and his claims.
The real Clinton emerges
By Dick Morris, 09/26/06
From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.But beyond noting the ex-president’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the “definition of â€is’ is” could perform.
Read the balance of the article to see how various Clinton claims on fighting terror come apart once truth is defined by standards other than his; i.e., the honest truth.
Once again, we're seeing a former Democratic President working hard and after-the-fact to resurrect his legacy years later, ala Jimmy Carter. Do they think that we can't read history? Maybe some can't, but their failures are being exposed. And, it's too bad that the media cares more about protecting the reputations of these men than in exposing their failures to protect Americans.
September 23, 2006
9-11 as "Covered" by a Psycho Former President [Updated]
|
|
If you had to name a living former President who is a liar and sociopath, who might he be? Well, if you want to see a psycho-president in action, then catch former President Clinton in his interview for FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, which discusses the President's failures in fighting terrorism and to dispose of Osama Bin Laden. You'll want to see the entire interview this Sunday, but here's part of it, and I understand that there are other similar exchanges within that interview:
A bit dog barks, and Bill Clinton come across a pit bull when he's questioned. G.M. covered strong reactions of President Clinton and his supporters on recent and related revelations in his posts The Path to 9-11, Inaccurate? and The Path To 9-11: The Left Is A Comedy For Our Times. Wouldn't it have been better to write a good history when one is in office than re-write the actual one after he leaves?
But, I'm not interested in assessing blame. There are far more complications on dealing with terrorists than those to which I'm privy. However, when responsiblility or failure is clear in some areas, why can't Clinton be a man and own up to it and quit trying to cover himself by dragging down others? I don't lose respect for someone, but gain it, when he's honest and admits his failings. I suspect that this will be the pattern for as long as Clinton lives. Students of history and future policy decision makers deserve accuracy to guide them in directing our policies going forward.
(P.S. - To help out you Lefties shouting that President Bush is a liar, there is a difference between out-right lying and passing along information believed to be true from normally reliable sources but later having it questioned.)
[Update]
Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, believes that it was partly an act when Bill Clinton "lost his temper" with Chris Wallace.
LET'S DO A THOUGHT experiment: Perhaps Bill Clinton, an experienced and sophisticated politician, knew what he was doing when he made big news by "losing his temper" in his interview with Chris Wallace. Perhaps Clinton's aides knew what they were doing when they publicized the interview by providing their own transcript to a left-wing website as soon as possible Friday evening, and then pre-spun reporters late Friday and Saturday. Maybe it was just damage control. Or maybe Clinton did what he wanted to do when he indignantly defended himself, blasted the Bush administration, and attacked Fox News. What could Clinton have been seeking to accomplish? Three things.Continued in article:
Why Clinton "Lost His Temper"
The former president knew what he was doing.
Maybe Wm. Kristol is right, but I'm not sure that this was all an act. It's probably true that Bill Clinton did intend to produce spin for the Democrats and for his legacy, but I still have to believe from experiences that psychopaths cannot help their rage, and I have to think that even Bill Clinton couldn't turn purple simply on cue, although his bullying was surely intended. He's cunning, but he's still nuts.
September 21, 2006
Political Quiz [Updated & Updated & Upd....]
|
|
Today's pop quiz on world politics has one question. Good luck!
Question:
Who recently labeled President Bush as a devil, imperialist, fascist, assassin, stupid, criminal, killer, madman, and genocidal murderer?
Possible Answers:
A. Hugo Chavez
B. Sen. Harry Reid
C. Al Franken
D. The New York Times
E. All of them
F. Answer is A, but the rest didn't disagree.
Voters should be concerned when you cannot distinguish the crazed rants of a South American communist dictator from the impressions given by a major U.S. political party and its mouthpieces.
[Update]
Rep. Charlie Rangel, a Harlem Democrat who has called President Bush just about every name in the book including "our Bull Conner," just concluded a press conference on the Chavez anti-Bush speech in which Rep. Rangel said, "You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, but do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State."
Well, when I heard him, I admit that I was surprised. Maybe he hates the competition on attacking President Bush. But, Rep. Rangel did let some people of the world know that we may have squabbles among ourselves, just like a family, but that doesn't mean that we want outsiders to come here and attack our family members. That's how it should be. Let's see how many other Democrats and members of the media follow suit.
[More]
Leading Bush critic at home calls Chavez a "thug"
One of President George W. Bush's fiercest political opponents at home took his side on Thursday, calling Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a "thug" for his remark that Bush is like the devil. "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday. "Hugo Chavez abused the privilege that he had, speaking at the United Nations," said Pelosi, a frequent Bush critic. "He demeaned himself and he demeaned Venezuela."
If this keeps up and if Michael Moore comes out to defend President Bush, then I'll know that I've entered "The Twilight Zone" or "Bizarro World."
UPDATE AGAIN (But this time from GM) Well, that didn't take long, for ole Tom Harkin (DIM-0-crat, Iowa) to up the ante:
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a democrat, today defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's United Nations speech in which Chavez called President George Bush the devil. Harkin said the comments were "incendiary", then went on to say, "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies." Harkin continued what has been frequent criticism of the president's foreign policy."What an ass this man really is. What happened to politics stops at the waters edge?
Oh, no! How bad can it get? Further talking about President Bush, Hugo Chavez said, "He walks like John Wayne." And, what's wrong with John Wayne? Chavez is producing more gas than Citgo.
Well, here you can see the kind of person that Hugo Chavez does like....
I'll take John Wayne any day, thank you.
September 16, 2006
The Democrats Plan For The War On Terror
|
|
Now the TRUTH can be told; my super-duper, secret, covert, undercover operative has discovered the democratic party's plan to conduct the war on terror.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
September 12, 2006
Dem Majority = Struggle to Impeach Bush = Chaos for America
|
|
Democrats deny it, but the signs are that they will make the impeachment and conviction of President Bush a priority if their party wins a majority in Congress. Power and payback combined with irrational hatred takes precedence over urgent issues such as fighting terror, energy independence, and building our economy. The efforts of the Democrats and the radical left are so pervasive, that a search engine reveals over five million results when the words "impeach Bush" are entered. Shouldn't the American public know more about this rarely mentioned Democratic agenda and know that the Democrats will put their interests ahead of doing work for our nation?
Consider the following examples of attempts to bring the Left together on impeaching President Bush, and this Left is the same coaltion of people who now control the Democratic Party.
As a light starter, maybe you would enjoy the site of Impeach Bush Coalition, which includes a sidebar stating, "How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power"--certainly true and an impeachable offense in their minds.
Perhaps, another site titled Impeach Bush would be more interesting, because it offers arguments and talking points to the great unwashed about how to counter any rebuttal to impeachment--besides the usual statements that someone is stupid and full of s#!+, which is what I usually hear. Oh, their arguments don't have to be truthful or logical. They just have to be stated repeatedly and with force to shut up critics. You just cannot find such precise instructions on conservative sites, whose readers can make up their own minds and arguments.
Maybe the Demoratic progressives (I love that tag) at Democrats.com will convince you that Bush needs impeaching for reasons from their long lists which extend from "Lying about Iraqi WMD's to Congress and the American people" to "Reading 'My Pet Goat' during the attack" to "Turning the world against the United States" (Oh, my!) to "Packing the courts with right-wing judges to outlaw abortion" to "Stealing the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004" (and, isn't their loss of power to him the real issue?) on to "Allowing global warming, which will cause massive environmental damage" continuing to "Illegally 'outing' CIA agent Valerie Plame, an important anti-terrorism official" to, hold on, "Letting a gay male prostitute roam free in the White House." (Don't tell Barney Frank about that one.)
These sites offer t-shirts, bumper stickers, and coffee mugs for the cause. Liberals are suckers for these things.
We could pass these impeachment activists as nuts, but they are the ones who are now in control of the Democratic Party. In addition, there are serious people on the left who push this. For instance, consider an article in The Nation titled "The Impeachment of George W. Bush" by former Democratic representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who gives us this how-to formula for impeachment (emphasis added):
Mobilizing the nation and Congress in support of investigations and the impeachment of President Bush is a critical task that has already begun, but it must intensify and grow. The American people stopped the Vietnam War--against the wishes of the President--and forced a reluctant Congress to act on the impeachment of President Nixon. And they can do the same with President Bush. The task has three elements: building public and Congressional support, getting Congress to undertake investigations into various aspects of presidential misconduct and changing the party makeup of Congress in the 2006 elections.
So far, this scenario is playing out just as scripted, and Democrats throughout the nation are holding non-binding votes (of course) to impeach President Bush. If and when the Democrats gain a majority in the House and possibly the Senate, the impeachment issue that they don't mention in their campaign ads will move to the front of their priorities. Then, reasons that the Democrats used to oppose the impeachment of President Clinton will not matter, anymore. (Can we just "move on?") The Democrats want power and want revenge, and those matter to them more than anything that is good for the United States.
They need to admit it but won't, and the American voter needs to know their plans to put the party ahead of the real work for our country. The way to stop them is to reject their agenda and to support their Republican opponents. The fall elections are important and the future or America is at stake.
Who do you want in charge--people who have kept us from another terrorist attack or people who think that attacking our President takes priority over America's interests and protection?
The Democrats and the Left have been very busy. What are you going to do about it?
August 29, 2006
Democrats, Give Me a Break #1 & #2
|
|
Give Me a Break #1 - Bush blamed for Max Cleland's depression.
Former Sen. Max Cleland, who has battled bouts of depression since losing an arm and both legs in Vietnam, is being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder. Cleland, who represented Georgia in the Senate from 1997 to 2003, said he believes the condition...was in part triggered by the ongoing violence in Iraq....A former VA administrator under President Jimmy Carter, Cleland...is a vocal critic of the Iraq war and is traveling the country to help Democrats campaign for office.
If I had a brain like Max Cleland's, I would be depressed, too. Georgia voters kicked him out of the Senate because his votes went to help the Democratic Party and not the people of Georgia--and, he's still in denial. Now, he drums up this phony issue for helping Democrats.
Give Me a Break #2 - Sen. Kerry and Al Gore Should Swap 'War" Stories
Sen. John Kerry didn't contest the results at the time, but now that he's considering another run for the White House, he's alleging election improprieties by the Ohio Republican who oversaw the deciding vote in 2004. ...He used the power of his state office to try to intimidate Ohioans and suppress the Democratic vote," said Kerry's e-mail.
You lost. Get over it.
What's sad are the idiots who fall for these claims.
August 05, 2006
Mideast Headline With No Surprise - #2
|
|
The second "headline with no surprise" comes courtesy of former President Jimmy Carter. Surely, at this point, no one is surprised when Carter criticizes President Bush (and America) and tries to make people think that he really has all the answers. Let's see. Carter let our Iranian Embassy be taken over by radical Islamic fanatics, and it took him 444 days to get our hostages out of there--but, wait. That didn't happen until President Reagan was sworn into office!
Carter: Bush 'worst ally Israel has had'
Carter said the United States should work for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah and the world community should concentrate on a long-term solution, but he is uncertain whether Bush can accomplish a cease-fire."It depends on whether world opinion is strong enough to get the administration to change its erroneous policy, which has been to encourage the continuation of attacks on both sides."
President Carter also called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Carter has the answers? Well, consider the following book discussion from the ultra-left wing magazine "The Nation," which I use out of every consideration to make Carter look good, which turns out to be impossible. (It also mentions a previously disproved claim about a Republican "October Surprise," which the Democrats claim in one form or another every September.)
Henry Kissinger in particular felt that Carter's foreign policy was "weak-kneed" and that Carter himself was "ill prepared and poorly suited" for the presidency.("Taken Hostage" author David Farber) doesn't necessarily disagree with Kissinger's assessment. He portrays Carter as catastrophically unaware of the escalating situation in Iran until events had spun completely out of control. Reading Farber's account of Carter's earnest yet clumsy handling of the hostage crisis, one can't help but share Gary Sick's assessment that the White House seemed to be approaching Iran from a position of "unrelieved ignorance." Certainly Carter's unconsidered praise of the deeply unpopular Shah and his appraisal of Iran as "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas in the world," indicates a shocking lack of insight into a country that almost everyone, including the President's own ambassador to Iran, recognized was on the verge of chaos and revolution.
But Carter's failure to anticipate and adequately deal with events in Iran was not entirely owing to his lack of political acumen. America's intelligence community had been severely handicapped....
...which he handicapped more. Yeah, let's listen to this man. He makes President Bush look like a genius in Iraq.
Sometimes we just need to be reminded about what President Carter actually did when he was in office before we consider taking his advice today.
August 01, 2006
Re-elect Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
|
|
"What?," you say. Yeah, re-elect Cynthia McKinney as the U.S. representative from Georgia's fourth district.. The same Georgia representative who attacked a Capitol policeman and then tried to play the race card to blame him. The same McKinney who thinks that President Bush knew of the World Trade Center attacks in advance and was responsible for the break in New Orleans levees. The same person who gets most of her contributions from out of state and whose contributors include groups that support Islamic terrorism. The same McKinney who said that she would take the $10 million from a Saudi prince that was turned down by NY Mayor Giuliani, because the money required an admission that the U.S. bore some responsibility for the WTC destruction.
Why re-elect Cynthia McKinney? Well, first off, look at the fine group who is endorsing her: Andrew Young, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and organized labor.
Next, consider how much the left wants her replaced. She's been an embarassment to Democrats and a distraction from their attempts to look moderate. That's good!
Her opponent is going to vote on issues about like McKinney, so there is no difference there to America. The difference is that she reflects the positions of the Democratic Party and is a great spokesman for them. She needs to continue speaking for Democrats and to be their face. Plus, she provides a lot of entertainment. Support her.
July 27, 2006
July 26, 2006
On Iraq, Democrats Less Trusted than Bush
|
|
The Democrats have made Iraq a central theme for the upcoming mid-term elections. Look at the contrast between what the Democrats say and do and what the American people think, according to this article: A message for Democrats
Here's what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says:
Part of the (Democratic) message...has to include Iraq. The Bush administration, Pelosi said, was "wrong on the premise going in, wrong on the reception we would receive, wrong on the reconstruction and how soon Iraq could pay for it, and wrong on an exit strategy of mission accomplished. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, and they say 'stay the course.'"
Here's what the American people say:
While 59 percent of Americans told an Associated Press poll this month that they disapproved of President Bush's handling of Iraq, 64 percent disapproved of the Democrats' handling of it. While 62 percent of Americans told a Washington Post/ABC News poll last month that they disapproved of Bush's handling of the war, an even higher percentage of respondents, 71 percent, said the Democrats do not offer clear alternatives.
It seems to me that if a political party is going to focus on an issue, its leaders should first determine if they have any better alternatives and if they have the approval of the voters. But, we're talking logic and Democrats here--two words that do not go together.
But, there is a lesson here for the Republicans, too. If the Bush administration is sure of its course in Iraq, then it needs to do a better job explaining it. If the administration is not sure that we are on the correct course, then the American people are right and adjustments need to be made--just not to the Democrats who are less trusted.
July 14, 2006
What Does A Living Wage Look Like?
|
|
NO HORSE SINCE 1933 HAS COME TO HIM FOR SHOESES.
The Democratic Party and the left (not always the same thing) have been agitating for a substantial raise, to a "living wage" the federal minimum wage law. Currently, and for many years, the federal minimum wage has been $5.15 an hour and the generic left (in which this time I'm including the Democrats) would like to see that raised. I've seen suggestions ranging from $6.00 an hour up to $12.00 an hour. When anyone suggests that price increases passed on by businesses and or job loss from small firms may result, the outcry typically is that Republicans and Conservatives (again, not necessarily the same thing) hate the poor and don't want the rich to have to pay anything out of their pockets. And, depending on the blog you go to, the language to describe generic conservatives (this time I'm including Republicans) is a whole lot worse.
Well, the fact of the matter is that there will be a tradeoff. Companies, large and small will either have to raise prices and/or lay folk off in order to keep profit margins within the realm of feasibility. What's that you say? No they won't? How silly, of course they will. No politician is going to pass a law limiting profit (unless it's big oil and a windfall profits tax - and you see how well the last one worked) because they know that the funds for re-election come essentially from the pockets of investors and owners of small and large businesses. So, ask for the moon, you have as much a chance of getting that.
But, I digress, back to the issue of the minimum wage. Many states and localities have already passed minimum wages for residents in their respective political subdivisisons, so why aren't the generic leftists prodding them for increases and the rest of the country to catch up? Simple really, again politics. To effectively "buy" votes for the Democratic Party, there needs to be a national stage for Democratic politicians to run from.
It just won't do to have a bunch of Democrats touting a higher minimum wage as a local issue (although they are doing so for state wide initiatives). Ahhhh, but "The Democratic Party forced the administration to raise the minimum wage can be a national cry and be much more effective. But, that is still not the whole answer.
The rest of the answer lies in the amount of the raise. If $9.00 an hour is "OK" but not where it should be, why stop at $9.00, or $10.00 or even $15.00? Let us go all the way to $30.00 an hour for all entry level jobs, regardless of skills, education, or experience. Those don't matter anyway, because a minimum wage is just that... the minimum that you can pay someone for work received. But, you know, I've never had a generic lefty say "OK, you bet, let's do it." They all say something along the lines of "Don't be ridiculous." But, I'm not being ridiculous! If that, or some other figure exceeding a figure of say $18.00 an hour is what it takes to reach the "livable wage" criteria, why heck, lets do it.
If we did however, while the Democrats could claim victory for that election's pandering, it wouldn't hold up over the long term. No, not even close, in fact the resulting economic displacement and chaos would be horrendous. You see, the Democratic party really doesn't give a damn my dear, about the "little guy" they only want policies that insure his vote. Look at all the "grand coalition" of special interest groups called the Democratic Party and where they are today. The Democrats ruled congress and the senate from 1954 through 1994, with a single exception of the U.S. Senate on the coattails of Ronald Reagan's landslide, and that only lasted a couple of years. Are those groups substantially any better off now than they were then? Blacks? The Poor? The Hungry? The Homeless? Labor? Or, as it seems to me the Dems are running on the same issues that they have always run on? Except of course when a Democrat is in the White House. Whole different ballgame then friends.
So, why not raise the minimum wage all the way at one time? Because they want to use that issue again, and again, and again. $7.00 an hour now, in a couple of years, another $0.75 then another a dozen years after that. Each time decrying the lack of a livable wage. Yeppers dearly beloved readers, a platform they can run on forever, and never be held accountable for. No wonder the horses haven't been to the smithy since '33, same old tired platform, same old tired policy.
Thoughtful comments from generic lefties requested. No vitriol please or I'll take your comment down.
More on the Minimum Wage and other egregious fibs from my good friend Donald Luskin on my blogroll, who writes "The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor And Stupid." By the Bye, if Luskin isn't on your favorites list, he ought to be.
June 20, 2006
A Lexicon For The Left
|
|
I absolutely LOVE liberals. If it weren't for liberals those of us who can think rationally would have nothing to laugh at. For example, I was reading about the Governor of Maryland today and the words used for him was "Moderate." Now, the Governor of Maryland is a Republican, he is also conservative and has beaten back many of the really stupid, anti-business, anti-citizen, anti-just about everything except taxes, and that he has beaten back many pro-tax initiatives of the heavily Democratic legislature. So, to tick off the conservatives, who are somewhat upset with some of the Governor's actions, they call him a "Moderate." As if that will keep the conservatives from voting for the only Republican Governor elected in a very blue state for some time. So, let us begin:
Abortion: Does not exist, in its place is an action of a woman exercising her right to privacy and full control over her body. Full control over her body does not apply to the concept that unprotected sex may lead to pregnancy and if it does, it’s the damn guys fault anyway.
Cold Blooded Murder: Prejudging any action by a soldier in a combat zone if and only if done before an investigation is concluded, charges have been filed or guilt (if any) ascribed to a specific individual. If a Republican administration initiates an investigation before anyone else knows about a suspected illegal action but charges are not filed against the President, Vice President, Karl Rove or a high ranking General, then it is called a Cover-up.
Cover-up: See Cold Blooded Murder immediately above.
Culture of Corruption: Any Republican for any reason or for no reason at all. This opprobrium does NOT apply to Congressman Jefferson (D., La.) or Congressman Jim Moran (D., Va.) or any other individual at the local, state or national level if they have a D behind their name.
Free Speech: Any thing uttered in any circumstances by a Democrat. Given the same circumstances when uttered by a Republican it is called Hate Speech.
Hate Speech: An utterance by a Republican that points out the error of thinking as applied to “affirmative action,” “abortion,” or “the marriage amendment/laws,” or anything else the Democrats dislike.
Indictment: Any legal action that should have been taken against Karl Rove but wasn't (See also Culture of Corruption above).
Democratic Moderate: A Democrat who toes the Democratic Party line and adopts the Democratic Party Talking Points regardless of that individuals voting pattern (Republicans use the term Liberal). This applies to everyone except Joe Lieberman (D, Conn.) who is according to the Kossacks and DUers a turncoat. It does not apply to Senator Zell Miller (D., Ga.) who gave a fine address at the Republican Convention in 2004, he is also a turncoat.
Lied us into war: This applies to any mention of WMDs or any other reason mentioned by Bush, Cheney, Rove, any neo-con or any member of either Bush Administration. Of course, they cannot pin down any specific lie, the fact that not only the United States intelligence had them in Iraq, German Intelligence had them in Iraq, French intelligence (yes, that is an oxymoron) had them in Iraq, Russian intelligence had them in Iraq and British intelligence had them in Iraq. That doesn't matter, nor does it matter that Saddam Hussein (pieces be on him like his protégé Zarqawi) tried really hard to convince everybody that he had them.
Moderate: A conservative Democrat who they don't want to use, or a liberal Republican they want to stay put. Sometimes it also means a conservative Republican who has some "moderate" bits to his record so the other Republicans won't vote for him. (and yes, him as used here, is the inclusive pronoun - PC language be damned)
Pro-choice: Any action taken to insure that the prospective mother does not give a live birth. (See also Abortion)
Tax cuts for the rich: Oh, this is a goody. Of course the Democrats cannot explain why the amount of taxes paid by the rich has increased, nor can they explain why tax revenues have substantially increased to the point where the deficit may be halved 3 years earlier than forecast. According to the Democrats, if you make more than the poverty level, you are rich and all of your income should be turned over to them for them to decide how it should be spent. If you are Paul Krugman, you are just clueless anyway.
Speaking Truth to Power: A term that originally meant telling someone in power something they didn’t want to hear and that could get the speaker tossed in jail, or executed or loss of something significant. For Democrats, it is applied to scoundrels such as Jack Murtha (D., Pa.) who mouth off at the administration about anything that the Democrats think will elect them in the fall or give them back the White House in 2008.
Whistle blowing: An act by a Democrat or Democrat sympathizer that exposes anything a Republican administration does, up to and including exposing national security information that would land anyone else in jail. This specifically does not apply to anything a Republican does, that is called illegal outing of a covert operator (read spy) in order to get even with a former ambassador who lied about his actions anyway and has been exposed by numerous bodies as a liar. When legal charges are applied to members of the media it is called “suppression of free speech.”
This concludes today’s lesson, I’ve talked about these things in the past and this message/lesson has been brought to you as a public service. If you have additional words to add please add them in the comments section. That’s all of my time and I thank you for yours.
June 19, 2006
Real Problem Story Book Lesson [LINK UPDATE]
|
|
.
May 04, 2006
A Kennedy Wrecks Speeding to Congressional Vote--at 2:45 in the morning? [UPDATED]
|
|
Have you heard this one? A member of the Kennedy family and a member of Congress was involved in an early morning car wreck while under the influence, and the wreck was covered up. déjà vu!
From Drudge Report:
ROLL CALL reports: ...the wreck took place at approximately 2:45 a.m. Thursday when Kennedy's car, operating with its running lights turned off, narrowly missed colliding with a Capitol Police cruiser and smashed into a security barricade at First and C streets Southeast.“The driver exited the vehicle and he was observed to be staggering,” Baird’s letter states. Officers approached the driver, who “declared to them he was a Congressman and was late to a vote. The House had adjourned nearly three hours before this incident. It was Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy from Rhode Island.”
Baird wrote that Capitol Police Patrol Division units, who are trained in driving under the influence cases, were not allowed to perform basic field sobriety tests on the Congressman.
...This morning's incident comes just over two weeks after Kennedy was involved in a car accident in Rhode Island.
Talk about bad luck. At least, when he made his explanation and then released a revised explanation, Congressman Kennedy was not having to wear a neck brace like his poor dad did when explaining his famous wreck. Regarding the attempted cover-up, the Kennedy's are like Castro in thinking that a separate system exists for them.
[UPDATE]:
WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE?
Kennedy Blames Accident on Sleep Medicine
Rep. Patrick Kennedy crashed his car near the Capitol early Thursday, and a police official said he appeared intoxicated. Kennedy said he had taken sleep medication and a prescription anti-nausea drug that can cause drowsiness.Kennedy, D-R.I., addressed the issue after a spate of news reports. His initial statement said, "I consumed no alcohol prior to the incident."
Later, however, he issued a longer statement saying the attending physician for Congress had prescribed Phenergan on Tuesday to treat Kennedy's gastroenteritis, an inflammation of the stomach and intestines.
Kennedy said he returned to his Capitol Hill home on Wednesday evening after a final series of votes in Congress and took "prescribed" amounts of Phenergan and Ambien, another prescribed drug that he occasionally takes to fall asleep.
"Some time around 2:45 a.m., I drove the few blocks to the Capitol Complex believing I needed to vote," his second statement said. "Apparently, I was disoriented from the medication."
Now, for another viewpoint....
U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy insisted yesterday that he had consumed “no alcohol” before he slammed his Mustang convertible into a concrete barrier near his office, but a hostess at a popular Capitol Hill watering hole told the Herald she saw him drinking in the hours before the crash.“He was drinking a little bit,” said the woman, who works at the Hawk & Dove and would not give her name.
Leaving his office late last night, Kennedy refused to say whether he’d been to the Hawk & Dove the night before.
...Patrolmen’s union president Lou Cannon told the Associated Press that officers were fuming that police brass intervened and blocked attempts to give Kennedy sobriety tests. “The officers just want to be able to do their jobs,” Cannon said.
Leaving his Capitol Hill office last night, Kennedy told reporters: “I asked for no special treatment.”
After Kennedy responded to the swelling scandal with his first letter, a Herald reporter visisted bars where Kennedy is known to socialize.
A bartender at the Tune Inn, which is next to the Hawk & Dove, also said Kennedy was spotted in the Hawk & Dove Wednesday.
Hawk & Dove manager Edgar Gutierrez said Kennedy is a regular in the bar. Gutierrez said he was working Wednesday night but did not see the congressman. (Providing cover will get you a big tip and repeat business!)
Kennedy, who has battled booze and drug problems in the past, said in his first statement: “I will fully cooperate with the Capitol Police in whatever investigation they choose to undertake.” (Well, that would be a switch from his earlier actions with them.)
Despite the wreck, Kennedy took part in normal business at the Capitol yesterday and appeared unshaken by the incident as he chatted with other members. But one Rhode Island political insider said there has been talk of Kennedy’s bizarre behavior of late. (Of course he was unshaken after a drunken wreck. He learned from the best--his Dad.)
“He has looked terrible lately,” the source said. “He’s been acting goofy, kind of zany.” (Would you want this guy voting on how to spend billions of tax dollars and representing you?)
In addition to seeking substance abuse treatment as a teen, Kennedy has acknowledged being diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
A spokeswoman for Kennedy’s father, U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, said the senior Massachusetts senator would have no comment on the matter. (Where's a father when his son needs him? Oh, maybe they need to check the Hawk & Dove for him, too. He could be passed out on the floor from his pills.)
Do you think that if this had been a Republican that there would be outcries from the left and from the media for him to immediately resign? You betcha.
April 25, 2006
Kerry Lied! So, What Else Is New?
|
|
Speech in Boston by Senator John "Do You Know Who I Am?" Kerry (D. Ma.) in which he delivered the following line:
No wonder Thomas Jefferson himself said: 'Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism.' " [emphasis added]Website for Montecello, home of Thomas Jefferson, Third President of The United States Of America:
There are a number of quotes that we do not find in Thomas Jefferson's correspondence or other writings; in such cases, Jefferson should not be cited as the source. Among the most common of these spurious Jefferson quotes [emphasis added] are:Is there any wonder we didn't elect this guy President?1. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." [emphasis added]
2. "We should build an aristocracy of achievement based on a democracy of
opportunity."
3. "An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy."
4. "Information is the currency of democracy."
5. "A nation is as good as its values."
6. "There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal
people."
7. "When the government fears the people, there is liberty; When the people
fear the government, there is tyranny."
8. "I have nothing but contempt for anyone who can spell a word only one
way."
9. "I am a big believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I
have."
And a tip 'O the GM Derby to James Taranto
April 10, 2006
Jimmy Carter: "Kill the Wabbit"
|
|
Do you remember the episode when President Jimmy Carter was attacked by a killer rabbit--as documented in the picture below?
Well, a lot of people made fun of Carter, but there is good news. A killer rabbit has been caught which may redeem the reputation of our former president. Click on this link and listen to our former commander in chief order the successful dispatch our enemy, which is shown captured in the next picture.
This won't win a peace prize, but can he have his reputation back?
