The Politics of Personal Destruction

Michael Ramirez Nails It!

Pandering Politicians Packing Polling Places with Pathetic Populace

I have always opposed the lowering of the voting age to below the age of twenty-one. Young people can follow orders and give birth, but that does not automatically give them the widsom and experience to cast intelligent votes. But, the Democrats, always on the prowl to register uninformed people for their votes, have a new champion.

Kucinich at Dem Debate: "I Would Give 16-Year Olds the Vote"

But probably the most important point from an underdog - maybe the most important point made by any candidate - came from Dennis Kucinich, who said he not only favored lowered the drinking age to 18, but the voting age to 16. I seriously support such a lowering of the voting age - I've been saying for years that it should be lowered to 14 - an age at which, according cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget, people have completely adult reasoning processes, and have had them for at least two years.

If some Democrats trust the wisdom of kids to vote, then maybe they will lower the ages for drinking, smoking, driving, statutory rape, obtaining credit, and running for office.

Maybe my dog should vote, because she listens and follows commands better than most teenagers, plus she barks at Democrats.

12 HOURS!

You are on a dark lonely road out in the middle of nowhere, up ahead you see an accident and pull up. Then you notice that it is your spouse behind the wheel of the car wrapped around the tree. It is obvious that your spouse is gravely injured and unresponsive. You pull out your cell, hoping you are in range and dial 911 with some difficulty because the tears blur your vision. An operator comes on, you advise the operator of the need for an immediate ambulance and medical care and the operator calmly says, "I'm sorry, you will have to make application and it will be at least 12 hours before we can get a medivac chopper to you."

Think about that scenario and keep it in the back of your mind as I tell you about three kidnapped G.I.s as blogged by Ace at Ace of Spades HQ:

Last May, Iraqi terrorists kidnapped three American soldiers.

American intelligence officials searched for cyber-signals about the kidnapping... and actually found them. They found the kidnappers talking to each other on-line.

However, they had to stop listening because the signals were passing through an American-based server and under the law that meant there could be no eavesdropping without a warrant.

So they stopped listening in on foreign terrorists holding kidnapped American soldiers.

For ten hours, officials worked to get "emergency authorization" to resume eavesdropping.

This then required the personal okay of AG Gonzales, who couldn't be reached for two hours.

12 Hours! One of the soldiers has been recovered, dead, mutilated, tortured. 12 Hours! Almost immediately, American forces had a live listen to the kidnappers but couldn't listen. 12 Hours!

Ace goes on to note:

The law has been changed to expressly permit eavesdropping in this situation, and some Democrats such as Rep. Reyes (D) are arguing for a rollback to the previous rule."

12 hours that may have made a difference. 12 Hours!

The rules are now that in an emergency you don't need permission to "listen in." 12 Hours! And some want to go back to that? Bastards!

We find ourselves back on that lonely road, watching the rescue chopper touch down. 12 Hours! The medics find two bodies. Your spouse who died of the injuries and you, who died of a broken heart! 12 Hours!

A tip O' The GM Derby to Larwyn

Remember Liberals Laughing at "Star Wars?"

President Reagan proposed a missile defense system (SDI) during the cold war and the liberals in the media and the Democratic Party couldn't wait to attack it as too expensive and something that would not work. They worked overtime to try to ridicule President Reagan.

Well (as Reagan would say with a tilt of the head), the facts are that liberals were not very good at dealing with the Soviet Union and were perfectly willing to take away any defense advantages that the U.S. might have. As it turned out, Reagan was right and the liberals were wrong, as Reagan's strategy ended the cold war.

Now the left has something else to be unhappy about. Another missile defense test was successful! Why, it must kill them to think that we have been working on Reagan's long-term plan, which offers additional hope for protection against new nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea and, oh yes, China, for whom we have President Clinton to thank for upgrading their missile guidance systems with our secrets to hit us.

Here's the bad news for the left and good news for the intelligent.

U.S. missile defense test successful

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - A ground-based missile successfully intercepted a target missile Friday in a test of the nation's defense system, the Missile Defense Agency said.

An intercontinental ballistic missile interceptor blasted out of an underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base shortly after 1:15 p.m., and tracked a target missile that had lifted off from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska, the Boeing Co. said in a statement.

The Missile Defense Agency said initial results show the interceptor's rocket motor system and kill vehicle performed as planned. Boeing said the warhead was tracked, intercepted and destroyed.

It seems that the Democrats and liberals have been against a lot of good military ideas in the past. We just keep proving them wrong and will continue to do so. This test is more good news for us.

References:
Real Problem Story Book Lesson (On Missile Defense)
Reagan's Address to the Nation on Defense and National Security

An Interview With John O'Neil

Leave it to Lurch John Kerry to be involved in any and all mess-ups! (Update - Kerry apparantly tried to settle things down - good for him**. An interview with one of the attendee's here who saw the whole thing) This time, a student at a University of Florida gets tasered at a John Kerry bash.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. A good friend, one John Moore became involved in the dump Kerry movement in the 2004 elections. John is the author of Useful Fools, a website that has been somewhat quiescent of late. Noting a link however, I took a tumble over there to see what John has been up to as I've not heard from him for awhile. John posted "Behind the Scenes: Swift Boat Veterans vs. John Kerry" John interviewed John O'Neil who was involved in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on Veterans Day in 2004. That interview is available in full, and in shorter clips. This is something that is a must "listen" and the time you spend won't be wasted. Welcome back to blogging John Moore, your intelligence, your honesty and your ability to gig the left has been sorely missed.

** Update note: It pains me sometimes, but when I gig the left and found out I was wrong, I'll post a correction. John O'Neil wasn't wrong though!

La Esposa de Silky Pony Strongly Condems MoveOn.org

Elizabeth Edwards strongly condemned MoveOn.Org during an interview in Des Moines in the runup to the Iowa caucases:

I'd like to ask MoveOn.org — if they want to debate on issues, on positions — we certainly disagree with nearly everything they said on their add today — um but uh it's quite another matter for these personal attacks that the things they have said over the years not just about General Petraeus but about other Democratic candidates — it lowers our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it. So I want to use the opportunity … to ask them politely stop the personal attacks."

Oh, wait, my bad! This is what she actually said:

Someone who’s spent their life in the military doesn’t deserve ‘General Betray Us’.”

The first is a condemnation of Ann Coulter with a few substitutions made for effect. Nice to see the Democrats condem the devisive slurs and tactics of personal destruction adopted by the nutroots.

A tip O' The GM Derby to Don Surber

It Depends Upon the Meanings of "Associated" and "Betray"

As widely publicized, Moveon.org (which never moves on) ran a full page ad on Monday in The New York Times (discounted by $102,000) attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, with the headline "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

At an important Congressional hearing, Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified on the U.S. future in Iraq. At that hearing, this exchange took place:

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida): "...I offer my colleagues the opportunity to use this hearing to distance themselves from the despicable ad that was published today calling into question the patriotism of General Petraeus.”

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii): "Point of order, Mr. Chairman! Nobody has to distance themselves from something they weren’t associated with.”

Liberals defended the ad and said that the inference that that the general is a traitor is wrong because "the word 'traitor' appears nowhere in the MoveOn.org ad.... The word 'betray' used by MoveOn in the ad implies many meanings, but does not directly imply 'traitor'."

Here are my thoughts:

• The ad is wrong and offensive to say that our commanding general in Iraq betrays our country.
• The Democrats do not consider that taking money from MoveOn.org, accepting its publicity, and participating at its convention is the same as associating with that organization.
• The word betray, when used in context of military leadership, clearly suggests that the general is a traitor.
• The Democrats are not distancing themselves from the ad, much less condemning it.

It's bad for a major suporter of Democrats to suggest that our general betrays us, it's bad for an elected U.S. represetative to not "distance" himself from such a statement, it's bad to hide behind the word "associated" and an unexplicable definition of it, and it's bad to defend the ad with a strange definition of "betray."

The Democratic dictionary sure keeps people confused (not to mention that they end sentences with prepostions.)

Can't the Democrats quit hiding behind words and just come out and say that the ad is wrong because they are loyal Americans and serve in Congress? (You don't have to answer that.)

But, just to show how simple this should be, the word "betray" has a clear meaning when used to describe a military person, it is offensive and misleading to use that term to describe this general, I have no association with MoveOn.org, yet, I can not only distance myself from its ad but, as a patriot, I condemn it as well.

Try it yourself. If we can show Democrats that we can condemn the MoveOn.org ad, then maybe they will know that it's possible.

In the meantime, people should be reminded of the cowardly refusal of the Democrats to do the right thing, and people should continue to pressure them to condemn disgusting attacks on a good and competent general. We wouldn't want the Democrats to be put into a position where others would say that they betrayed our soldiers and our country.

Oh, THOSE Weapons of Mass Destruction

I think that we have a clue as to what happened to some of the WMD's that the U.N. inspectors said were not in Iraq. They were certainly right about these not being there.

Dangerous Iraq chemicals found stored at U.N. in NY

(Reuters) Aug 30, 2007 - United Nations officials found vials of dangerous chemicals, which had been removed from Iraq a decade ago, in a U.N. building in New York.... The material was phosgene, a chemical warfare agent.... The Iraqi weapons inspectors came across the material as they were closing their offices, which are housed in a building near the U.N. headquarters in Manhattan....

Oops. I bet that these guys were just as surprised as Hillary Clinton was when someone found the Rose Law Firm billing records in the private living area of the White House. Maybe Hussein or the U.N. thought to have Sandy Berger sneak out the rest of the WMD's in his socks.

Keep moving, folks. There's nothing to see here. No evidence of WMD's. Keep your eyes forward and keep moving. No talking.

Another Note to Liberals - Dems Betray U.S.

While the left-wing and liberal Democrats decend upon the men's rooms of Idaho, there is a more serious issue threatening our country--the sell-out of America to foreign nations for Democratic campaign funds. We've seen this with Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Congressional Democats, and back to Clinton II. When I raised the issue of illegal Chinese contributions made to Hillary Cliinton in another thread, this is how one idiot (a polite term) responded:

reg Says: Has anyone noticed that Woody lambastes Hillary for taking money from “the Chinese”. The guy in question, who proabaly is attempting to stuff Hillary’s coffers via third parties and might well have violated campaign finance lawas - is a New York businessman in the rag trade. But, of course, he’s one of “the Chinese”. The racism is stinking up this thread…

Racism--what a popular but inaccurate way to deflect the truth and attempt to halt debate--whether it's about Chinese espionage, Mexican illegals, profiling Arab terrorists, or criticism of a black quarterback for dog fights.

It doesn't work, and I'm not going to let that pass. Here was my reply:

reg, you're such an idiot. The reference to Chinese was not about a race of people but of a communist nation that threatens both the U.S. and deprives freedom to hundreds of millions of people and pays the Democrats to betray us.

The man in question is from Hong Kong, despite your weak effort to deflect that by saying that he simply is a New York businessman. He also is a fugitive from justice and guilty of grand theft.

China has been engaged in extensive espionage in our country and that nation paid Bill Clinton laundered campaign money to obtain our missile guidance systems, which it uses to aim 13 of its 18 ICBM's at the U.S. and which can now carry ten warheads apiece rather than just one. Remember Johnny Chung?

The Clinton's have sold out American interests for illegal foreign contributions and continue to do so. In addition, Al Gore, John Kerry, and multiple Democrats have benefited from these illegal contributions.

THAT should be your worry rather than phony charges of racism, Idiot.

The Democrats will betray our nation for money--whether it's for campaigns or "services" in retirement. It's happened before, but we need to shine light on this problem so that it doesn't continue to happen. Maybe I'm a "racist" against traitors.

I've got to stop responding to jerks and idiots at liberal sites before G.M. shoots me, as I asked him to do if I did that again. But, the disdain for America by the left-wing and liberals cannot be ignored. In this case, we can honestly say, "It's for the children," whom I do like.

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.

How Canada's Health System Gets By

A Canadian couple received more blessings than they originally expected.

Woman has rare identical quadruplets HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- A 35-year-old Canadian woman has given birth to rare identical quadruplets, officials at a Great Falls hospital said Thursday.

Congratulations! ...but, wait. Where were the children born? Why?

The Jepps drove 325 miles to Great Falls (Montanna) for the births because hospitals in Calgary were at capacity, Key said. "The difficulty is that Calgary continues to grow at such a rapid rate. ... The population has increased a lot faster than the number of hospital beds," he said.

So, that's how the Canadian government health care system gets by. It's because their citizens come to the U.S. for care when their system fails. The expectant mother drove 325 miles to a U.S. hospital because Canada's hospitals were at capacity. I'm surprised that this fact even made it in the news, although it did, barely, as a side item.

If we ever expect to have quadruplets (no chance), you can bet that it won't be in Canada. And, Canadians just need to plan their heart attacks so that they have time to make it to our land of timely and private medical care--while it lasts.

Want to read more?

Continue reading "How Canada's Health System Gets By"

Whac-A-Liberal

Do you ever feel as if arguing with liberals is like playing the arcade game "Whac-A-Mole?" Liberals stick their heads through the hole and say something and you whack them back down with the conservative mallet of truth and logic. A little while later, they think that they have a great come-back, so that head pops up and you whack it again. They just keep coming and we keep wacking 'em. If we got points for whacking liberals, they would have to change the scoring to the millions because it's so easy. But, moles are smarter, so those scores are lower.

Compassion - and Sincerity

Ted Kennedy on why he supports amnesty for
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

Blame Bush for Coal Mine Cave-In

You knew it was coming, didn't you? But, did you know that it would take only one day for liberals to blame President Bush for the coal mine cave-in in Utah?

The Utah Mine Trap - It's George Bush's fault.

Despite unions ensuring that miners work in safe environments, President Bush has gone to lengths to gut workplace safety standards and union strength. While the exact cause of the mine collapse is currently under debate, the tragedy has raised important questions about the safety standards of the miners that have been neglected under the Bush administration.

At the presidential forum last night, one widow whose husband died in a mine accident "asked how candidates would strengthen worker safety laws," as mine safety standards have plummeted under the Bush administration.

Why does George Bush hate coal miners? We will soon hear how Iraq and tax cuts were also involved in this disaster. Tomorrow, the Left can invoke global warming as the cause.

There is no disaster so terrible that the Left and Democrats will respect enough to keep them from using it to get votes and money and to blame Bush. Yesterday it was the bridge, today it's the mine, and tomorrow it may be an earthquakes.

If the Presidential Election Were Re-held

If you had to vote for President all over again, given the choices and even what we know now from 2004, would you vote for Bush or that French guy?

This is how the election came out:

These were our choices:

Images from Respublica and Zete-Tic

Think we have problems now? Maybe we would be going along with U.N. resolution number 426 condemning Hussein, and the U.N. still taking bribes if this country had gone the other way. Think of the Supreme Court justices that we would have gotten rather than what we have. Think of the taxes that would have been added and the negative impact of those on the economy.

I have a lot of problems with President Bush, but nothing compared to what might have been. When people want to bash Bush, remember the other choice that we had--no choice.

(Note: This post is not from G.M., who may have a varying viewpoint.)

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?

Democrats Eliminate Budget Buster

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.

Liked School Busing? Want to do it again?

Like school vouchers, too? Oh, too bad on that one. Maybe you'll like "housing vouchers," though.

John Edwards wants the federal government more involved in local school systems and, if races do not mix voluntarily in them, then he'll make it happen with buses going both ways and housing vouchers for inner city residents to move to the suburbs.

Edwards has plan to diversify schools
By: Mike Allen

Sen. John Edwards plans to warn later this week that the nation’s schools have become segregated by race and income, and he will propose measures to diversify both inner-city and middle-class schools.

The plan calls for beefing up inner-city magnet schools to attract suburban kids, and providing extra money for schools in middle-class areas as a reward for enrolling more low-income students.

...As explained by people who have been consulted about the program, Edwards wants to set aside $100 million to help school districts implement economic integration programs. The money will help finance buses and other resources for schools that enroll additional low-income children.

Another prong of the program would create one million housing vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods. ....

Maybe we can have one great federal government school system using the unified system in Los Angeles as a model.

There is a lot that I could say, but I'll just leave it to you to think how well those proposals will go over. Me? I can move sixty miles further out or put some cars in my yard and on blocks so that no one would want to live near me.

P.S. Catch the update three posts down on the John Edwards sleeping man.

Fire Union Fighting Fire With Mud [Updated]

You would think that Democrats would be opposed to the tactic of "swiftboating" someone. Not so. With sixteen months until the Presidential election, the Democrats, through their obedient unions, are in the process of "swiftboating" Republican candidate Rudi Giuliani.

Firefighters Union Call Giuliani an 'Urban Legend'

(CBS) NEW YORK The International Association of Firefighters has gone on the offensive against "America's Mayor" Rudy Giuliani, releasing a 13-minute video that viciously rips into the former New York mayor, who has been using his leadership demonstrated on September 11th to urge people around the country to support him in his quest to become President of the United States.

The video, released early Wednesday evening, is titled "Rudy Giuliani: Urban Legend," and offers testimonials from various members of the organization and family members of firefighters lost in the terror attacks.

...The firefighters say they want America to hear and see their take on the former mayor. “When America knows the decisions he made pre 9-11 and then on 9-11, I don’t think they'll ever support him for president,” Cassidy adds. ....

Of course, one difference between what the Democrats are trying versus what the Swift Boat Veterans did with John Kerry is that no one proved that the Swift Boat Veterans were lying whereas the Democrats will make deceiving smears with the blessings of mass media and will count on less intelligent voters to not see through them.

I'm not a Giuliani supporter, but the Democrats need to be called to task for this mudslinging against this man who provided outstanding leadership on and after the 9-11 attacks.

It's also a shame that the good names of our public safety workers will be tarnished by their union heads, who put the Democrats ahead of its own members and our nation. For now, the fire union has hooked its hoses to the Democratic mud hydrants.

[Update]

Are there any connections between the Democrats and this union?

Via Gateway Pundit -- Guess who is linked to the liberal attack ad against Rudy Guliani by the International Association of Fire Fighters?

That's right...
Hillary Clinton and "good friend" IAFF President Harold Schaitberger.

They are so close, in fact that the IAFF President, Harold Schaitberger, introduced his "good friend" at the Democratic Leadership Council event in July 2002 and has spent time with her at her Washington home!

...Schaitberger was the national cochair of the Kerry for President committee and therefore the most important non-politician in the Kerry leadership.

Democrat or Dictator? Government Healthcare [Updated]

It's gotten so that you can't tell a Democrat from a socialist dictator. It's class warfare, and if you can afford something that someone else cannot, well, that's not fair! The Democrats/Dictators will change medicine to where you will have no personal options and must obtain health care wherever the government tells you--if not today, then tomorrow. It's only fair.

Chávez threatens private healthcare

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- President Hugo Chávez said Tuesday his government will nationalize Venezuela's privately owned hospitals and clinics if they fail to reduce healthcare costs. ''If the owners of the private clinics don't want to obey the laws, then the private clinics will be nationalized,'' Chávez said in a nationally televised speech.

Venezuela has a two-tiered health system in which wealthier, insured patients often can afford prompter, better treatment at private hospitals.

''This is the evil of capitalism,'' Chávez said of the healthcare costs at private clinics. ``We have to regulate this progressively, transforming the savage capitalist market into a market of solidarity.''

Chávez has expanded the public-health system, building new clinics and refurbishing hospitals, but many public hospitals lack basic medical supplies and sufficient personnel. He has also sent thousands of Cuban and Venezuelan doctors to live in poor neighborhoods, where they provide free care.

Looking forward to having Hillary Clinton as President?

Update:

Here's a good article by John Stossel on the subject of government dictated health care:

Live and Let Live(Selections)

Increasingly, it seems that the biggest difference between conservatives and "liberals" is that the conservatives know government is force.

Michael Moore may not have thought about it, but there are only two ways to get people to do things: force or persuasion. Government is all about force. Government has nothing it hasn't first expropriated from some productive person.

In contrast, the private sector -- whether nonprofit or a greedy business -- must work through persuasion and consent.

Live and let live" used to be a noble approach to life. Now you're considered compassionate if you demand that government impose your preferences on others.

Liberals Generous With OPM

No, OPM is not opium...it's "Other People's Money."

You can't call San Francisco 'sicko' (Selections)
City's universal health care initiative signs up
its first applicants in Chinatown
Heather Knight, Chronicle Staff Writer

(San Francisco's) elected leaders, who in a rare display of unanimity agreed last summer to begin providing health care to all San Franciscans. At a time when the broken state of the health care system is at center stage -- in the race for president in 2008 and at movie theaters where Michael Moore's documentary "Sicko" is filling a lot of seats -- San Francisco is the first city in the country to try to tackle the problem itself.

The initiative, dubbed Healthy San Francisco, aims within 18 months to cover all 82,000 people in the city who lack health insurance. Immigration status, pre-existing conditions and employment status don't matter in enrolling for the program.

Healthy San Francisco is estimated to cost $200 million a year and will be paid for through a mix of public funds, participants' premiums and co-payments and employer contributions.

The city is mandating that employers who don't currently offer health insurance to their employees contribute to Healthy San Francisco starting Jan. 1. The Golden Gate Restaurant Association has sued to block this component of the program, saying small business owners simply cannot afford it. Both sides are due in federal court Aug. 31.

Do you qualify?
For information on Healthy San Francisco and to see if you qualify for coverage, call (415) 615-4500, e-mail info@sfhap.org or visit www.sfhap.org.

This should end well. Everyone who is poor or in the U.S. illegally should move to San Francisco immediately.

Be sure to thank the small business owners before they are forced to close and fire employees because of added taxes and unfunded government mandates.

Michael Bloomberg: King Maker or Spoiler?

Is Michael Bloomberg (here-in-after known as Bloomy) the Big Bad Wolf with his billion dollar treasure chest? And, if he is, who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Not me, and I'm pretty sure not any of the Republican candidates. Here's why. First, Bloomy was never a Republican in any sense of the word except for running under that banner to get elected. Bloomy figured, rightly as it turned out, that he could fool a lot of republicans by "turning in" his Democratic loyalty and becoming a Republican. Now, Bloomy had been a liberal Democrat all his adult life, so why the sudden switch? Well, pretty simple, he thought (rightly again) that he would have a difficult time getting the Democrat nomination for the Mayor's job with the fairly large field running. So, in 2001 he turned in his liberal Democrat credentials and ran as a Republican winning some 50% of the vote to Mark Green's 48%.

As you will recall, the Primary's were set for September 11, 2001 but because of the jihadist attack killing some 3000 people and bringing down the Twin Towers, the primary was re scheduled. Bloomy had Giuliani's endorsement against Giuliani's foe Mark Green. Bloomy was elected again in 2005 and is prohibited from running for a third term.

Because he had no compunctions about running as a Republican when he had been a life-long Democrat, he likewise figured that since he can't run for Mayor again, he no longer needs the Republican party in New York as a backer and so once again he switches this time to being an "Independent." This of course allows him to finance his own presidential run should he decide to run.

What kind of Mayor he has been may indicate what kind of President he would be should he win an election. Mr. Bloomgerg is pro-abortion, anti-gun, anti-smoking and willing to tell restraunts what kinds of fat they can use in their various recipes. He has angered the US Federal Attorney for running sting operations looking for gun dealers who "don't follow the law" all the while breaking the law in doing so. He has police officers issue citations to citizens smoking; the activity being legal, the place where you do the activity being tightly scrutinized by police officers whose time might be better spent in pursuit of other, say higher profile criminals. In short, Mr. Bloomberg just might issue in the nanny state in spades. Oh, and he is pro gay marriage as well.

I have a hard time believing that Bloomy, in spite of his wealth (he is the 142^nd wealthiest billionaire according to Forbes) will be able to attract enough right, center right and center votes to win any election in a three way race. He may however be a spoiler for the Democrat running much as is Ralph Nader if you believe that Nader took sufficient votes from Al Gore in 2000 or that Ross Perot took sufficient votes from George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Doubtless, Bloomy will be perceived to run well to the left regardless of how he attempts to run if the Republicans have anything to say about it. And, if Hillary gets the Democrat Nomination for President, Bloomy will be up against the fearsome Clinton machine, not something to sneeze at despite his wealth.

And, since we are on the topic of his wealth, note that spending his own money won't have the same constraints on him that the Democrats and Republicans will have. Bloomy can afford a massive, effective and widespread media buy and have his name on every two bit journalist's notebook as they pursue the story of the rich maverick. And, the MSM do indeed love a maverick; look at the ink that flowed when John McCain ran in 2000 with his "Straight Talk Express."

In fact, being liberal, and a proponent of the nanny state (and he really doesn't care if you have to pay for it with your taxes, after all, he's already made his. I can see it now, the Federal Department of Fats, The Food, Drug and Cigarettes Administration and even perhaps the United States Gun Confiscation Commission. I know, I'm being a little facetious but there may be some hidden truths here in that Bloomy has already tested those waters in New York and the slavish population has gone along without serious revolt.

All kidding aside, a Bloomberg candidacy may well throw the presidential race into the house of representatives if he gets enough states to deny 270 electoral votes to the leading candidate. Then you also have the factor of how many candidates there are at present. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are running a lot of people in the primaries. Those that lose, and that will be all of them save one from each party, may be stiffed and angry, much as McCain supporters were in 2000. Should enough stay home or vote for Bloomy out of spite, that could possibly change the complexion of the election. A fractured party is not unusual for Democrats ("I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat" said Will Rogers - and things haven't changed that much) and sometimes, not that unusual for the Republicans (remember the tiff between Goldwater and Rockefeller in 1964 and between Reagan and Ford in 1976, let alone Bush and McCain in 2000). And, in each case concerning both Democrats and Republicans, the tiffs hurt their focused campaigns.

Currently, the Democrats are all running to the left as fast as they can to satisfy the netroots, that mishmash of hard leftists who are nothing if not anti-war and that seems to be all that drives them (where oh where are the classical liberals in the Democrat party besides Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman?) Then, when the race is decided and the winning Democrat moves back to the center as they will no doubt do because that's where the winning votes are the radical left will be without a champion. Now, all of this is of course speculation, but the possibility is definitely there and Bloomy could conceivably take votes from the Democrat nominee more so than from the Republican nominee. And that would drive the Democrats totally bonkers. Truth be told, enough leftish folk voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 that it probably, nay, likely cost Gore the election. It is very doubtful that anyone voting for Nader would have voted for Bush, though I could be wrong about that. But the fact remains that Nader took 97,488 votes in Florida and had Nader not run, the vast majority of those votes would have gone to Gore and thus Florida's 25 electoral votes and the election. This could happen again with a Bloomberg candidacy.

So, will Michael Bloomberg be a Kingmaker for the Republicans, A Spoiler for the Democrats or vice versa? You decide.

Will Michael Bloomberg hurt the Republicans, the Democrats or will he have no effect at all?
	Help the Republicans
	Help the Democrats
	Spend a lot of money and have no discernable effect
	Michel Bloomberg will WIN the election
	Who Is Michael Bloomburg
	Man O' War in the Fifth at Hialeah
pollcode.com free polls

Technorati Tags: Democrats, Republicans, Election '08, Bloomberg

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."

"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]

"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 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 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]

You read correctly, Harry Reid said, and I quote:

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).

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.

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."

The Differences Between Republicans and Democrats

This is an old joke, but perhaps relevant:

Fred Thompson and Hillary were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.

The Republican, Fred Thompson, gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Thompson 's pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.

Now, do you understand the difference?"

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:

Thank you for joining me on this conference call Mr. President and Mr. President

You're Welcome Mr. President, and hello to you Mr. President

Thank you Mr. President, and to you Infidel, Death To America

Continue reading "President Dennis J. Kucinich and "The Bomb""

HRC: What's Yours Is Mine [Updated]

Having trouble digesting some bad food and you need it to come up? Don't waste your money on medicine. Just read what Hillary Clinton plans for America.

Clinton: Shared Prosperity Should Replace 'On Your Own' Society

(Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, wife of only the second President ever impeached) said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.

"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Forget the fancy words and slogans. It's socialism pure and simple. We won the battle over collective economics abroad and now we have to win it again at home.

I hope you had a barf bag when you read and understood what she was saying. If she wants what's mine, I have my special bag to hand her.

[Update]

Neal Boortz, a conservative and Libertarian, has written a stronger opinion on these remarks by Sen. Clinton to a high school class. The link to his entire commentary is below, and selections are found by clicking on "Read More."

Boortz on HRC: Attack of Individuals (05/30/07)

Continue reading "HRC: What's Yours Is Mine [Updated]"

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.

A Spark, An Ember, A Tiny Flame, A Conflagration

The title of this post is the state of my mind since May 12, 2007 when I received an email from my friend and fellow conservative Lew Waters. This is a convoluted post, but one that has weighed heavily on my mind for several days as I decided what I needed to say. This was, to put it bluntly, too important for me to just put up a post linking to another post though Lew's post is one great read. This goes to my core, my essence, what it means to me to be an American, and a conservative.

My earliest remembrance of war, killing, and those left behind was in '52 or '53 when Dad had returned from the Korean War. He and mom had gone to some kind of shindig and left us 4 kids at the after hours child care center on base at Fort Benning. I remember one very nice lady who had brought chocolate covered cherries for all the kiddies and I remarked on that to Mom and Dad when they picked us up much later that evening. I recall that Dad said something about her husband being shot down over North Korea and killed in action. I remember living in San Antonio when Dad was in Korea and missing him greatly, but of having no understanding whatsoever of where he was or why he was not with us. It was later that year that I began to understand what my Dad did, he was a Warrior, a Soldier, an Infantryman (the Queen of Battle!)

Over the next few years, a special holiday came to mind as I took part in celebrations of one kind or another, visits to a military cemetery, placing flags at graves of friends of Dads, watching parades and listening to military bands and the sorrowful sounds of a bugle, blowing Taps. A dirge for the fallen.

Memorial Day you should be thinking, the last Monday of May, the day in which Americans world wide honor those fallen in our defense. The first Memorial Day wasn't called that, it was called Decoration Day.

Memorial Day was officially proclaimed on 5 May 1868 by General John Logan, national commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, in his General Order No. 11, and was first observed on 30 May 1868, when flowers were placed on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery. The first state to officially recognize the holiday was New York in 1873. By 1890 it was recognized by all of the northern states. The South refused to acknowledge the day, honoring their dead on separate days until after World War I (when the holiday changed from honoring just those who died fighting in the Civil War to honoring Americans who died fighting in any war).

Memorial Day, a day of sadness, but yet too of rejoicing! Rejoicing for the lives of the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who have given all for us. A day in which "Flanders Fields" is read, time and time again.

In Flanders Fields
John McCrae, 1915.
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Which in turn, inspired Monia Michael to write another brief, but so very meaningful poem also.

We cherish too, the Poppy red
That grows on fields where valor led,
It seems to signal to the skies
That blood of heroes never dies.

You will note that I have emphasized parts of both poems, because to me, those are telling verses, strong verses and verses that proclaim to the world that America will always stand ready to defend ourselves, defend freedom, defend democracy even at the cost of our beloved best.

I take great umbrage at the thought that anyone, anywhere, at any time would denigrate our fallen, our dead, our heroes who gave their lives, not willingly, but with conviction. Not always bravely, though to stand before bullets and bombs, before traps and torpedoes is brave enough in its own right, but always as Americans doing the right thing. Always!

Too be sure, we have had our share of brigands and blackguards, but for the most part, we have had individuals who knew what they were about and though they may not have known all of the politics of a particular piece of war-making, they knew that they were part of America.

Memorial Day thus, is sacred, a day to commemorate those who have given the last thing they had to give for an ideal that not all may have understood, but all were a part of. And so it is with anger, a high degree of anger that I post this post, and feel "A Spark, An Ember, A Tiny Flame, A Conflagration" because one of our candidates for the presidency has chosen to use Memorial Day to make petty points, to put himself up as "leader" when he is not leading, but pandering to the most base instincts that we have. One who decries Two Americas, but always chooses to live a the top of only one of those two.

If you haven't guessed yet, I'm talking about John Edwards, one term Senator, one time VP nominee and full time rats behind. Edwards has taken politicking to a new low and has published a website to garner support for his "anti-war" stance. In the fullness of time however, Edwards not only voted for the war, he co-sponsored with Joe Lieberman (I-Conn. - then a Democrat) .J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution because not only, in Edwards Words, was it the right thing to do, but because he wanted (later) to be elected VP. As was mentioned in a conversation with George Stephanopoulos when questioned about his initial Iraq war stance and his later support of that vote:

But Scott Lehigh of the Boston Globe last month wrote a story that said that you did not counsel that kind of candor during the 2004 campaign. Here’s what he wrote. He said (with graphic on screen): “According to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with the Al Qaeda… ‘I specifically remember Edwards having a very distinct take,’ says one person in attendance… ‘We should stand by our votes, say we would vote that way again. If you admit a mistake, it shows weakness in time of war. That’s what the Republicans want us to do.’

So, now Mr. Edwards, you want to do what the netroots want you to do, rub the faces of our fallen into the dirt via your changing of your mind, not because you have thought about it, but because you want the vote of the far left to get a nomination and you don't mind trashing the dead to do it.

Lew noted in his email:

John Edwards has put a new website up Support The Troops. End The War. proclaiming they are "reclaiming patriotism." What I see as totally outrageous is a call for sheeple followers of his to create signs calling for an end to the war at picnics and then display them at Memorial Day Parades. Equally outrageous is he wants photos taken of these actions and sent to him so he can display such disrespectful actions against our Fallen Heroes on the new website.

As a Veteran, Memorial Day is a Sacred Day to remember those who gave their all to keep us free. It is not a day to be used by opportunistic Politicians as a cheap stunt pandering to the anti-war left!"

This Memorial Day, let us remember our fallen heroes. And when voting day comes, if you are a democrat, also remember the perfidity of the far left in general, and John Edwards in particular and vote for someone else. And, come November 2008, on election day, remember also who is willing to prosecute a war against a terrible and implacable foe and vote for that person, because waving a white flag is not an option if western civilization is to survive.

Technorati Tags: John Edwards, Democrats, Memorial Day, Politics, Elections

Is There An Answer?

I have a couple of questions.

First, why is it bandied about by the left that it was a bad thing for George Herbert Walker Bush to have abandoned the Iraqi people, but OK for the Democrats to do the same thing?

Why do Democrats and the MSM call it a Culture of Corruption for Congress members with an (R) after their names to steer federal dollars to family members , but not much is said about Senator Feinstein's steering of mega-bucks to her hubby's businesses?

Why do Democrats pass ethics rules as soon as they take over congress and then abandon those same rules within weeks?

Why does Harry Reid... ahhh, never mind!

A tip O' The GM Derby to The Anchoress

Big News - Celebration Time Again

On Saturday, G.M. is going the distance of giving his daughter's hand in marriage. I know that everyone will want to congratuate G.M., who is rightfully proud, and to give your best wishes to his daughter Jennifer on her big day Saturday.

You may remember that G.M. announced the engagement earlier this year and provided a picture of the lovely couple in this post: It's Celebration Time!

Also, we want to keep G.M. in our thoughts. As you know, he went through a serious crisis last year, and now he has a new one. His son-in-law to be, Michael, is a liberal and a Democrat! From this day forth, Michael will be known as "Meathead."

Congratulations to everyone, especially the groom, who is getting more than he deserves.

Have a great wedding and a life full of happiness!

Oh, some of us at the office took up a collection and bought this beautiful cake for the wedding, which can be seen by clicking on the continuation button. It's the thought that counts.

Continue reading "Big News - Celebration Time Again"

Impeach Bush & Cheney, Convict 'Em And Bring On President Pelosi

I think the time has come dear friends for the United State House of Representatives to pass bills of impeachment for both George Walker Bush and Richard Cheney. Both have egregiously misled the country, not fully as the left would have it, but in mismanagement of the war on terrorists when the cause was just and the work of solid value. For not vetoing massive spending bills that have caused the deficit to soar in spite of huge revenues from the tax cuts (just think, we could almost be well on the way to resolving the national debt if it weren't for this), for poor leadership and a decided abandonment of the conservative principles on which they were elected - in effect, lying to all and sundry about what they were about. For failure to effectively communicate why they were elected in 2000 and that while Mr. Gore did indeed receive more votes, he lost the election under the constitutional principles currently (and in 2000) in play.

For failure to convince the European Union that the CO₂ issue is a non-starter and that while the earth really is warming, damn little was effectively done about the real causes and the wasteful profligacy of using fossil fuels from countries that hate us and not taking the steps necessary to use our own fossil fuels more effectively without harming the environment. For not demanding that the oil companies build more refineries and the electricity conglomerates more nuclear power plants, tide generators and windmills and jailing those whose real objections is essentially NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) such as Ted Kennedy.

I also urge the Senate to conduct a fair and impartial trial of the President and the Vice President and then to convict them and remove them from office. Immediately following I will joyfully watch the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court swear in Ms. Nanci Pelosi as the first female President of the United States of America.

I will listen to her inaugural address stating that America's long national nightmare is over, that we will see peace in our time and that as soon as congress re-convenes, laws will be passed which will insure that everyone in America lives in a truly just and happy country.

What can we expect?

Initially, all of our troops in Iraq and possibly in Afghanistan will be withdrawn post haste. The celebrations in the Middle East will be loud and vociferous, the crowns and elected leaders of the various countries will all congratulate the United States on its joining the community of nations. Europe especially Spain and France will assert that finally, we have grown up and are ready, after some 230 years grown into a halfway decent society. England may be disappointed, but what the hell, we are really two countries separated by a common heritage. Soon after our troops are withdrawn, violence in Iraq will cease entirely and Iraqi's will unite, hand in hand, singing Kumbaya! The Saudi Crown will double the amount of cash to Wahhabi schools in America, Canada and Europe, and maybe even England to prepare for the coming influx of Muslims that will no longer fear the trepidations of the islamofascists.

In America, Taxes on the wealthy will rise to the level in the 50's under Eisenhower and the coffers will overflow. Big Oil will be taxed for every egregious nickle that they have stolen from the American people and will be forced to shut down the importing of oil, because the new cost has risen too high. Of course, we will not have the 10 years lead time we need to develop our own oil shale, Canadian Oil Sands or off shore resources so gasoline will cost a bundle and interstate and intrastate traffic will grind almost to a halt forcing people to walk more, ride horses more and the Sky will be much cleaner as a result. Too, think of the health benefits.

In the Cities, because people will have to walk, people will move in much closer to work causing a building boom in the inner cities but at the same time causing a slump in prices for homes in the exurbs and suburbs. On the other hand, minorities who now live in the city and are forced out by the gentrification of down town's will be able to afford to live in the exurbs and suburbs so that is an even trade. They will be just as poor and still won't have any work or educational opportunities, but hey, that's progress.

Health care will now be free to all citizens of the United States and to any illegal undocumented workers which of course will cause VA outpatient type services to be the standard, but it is free so people shouldn't gripe.

The newly empowered Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate will be united as never before knowing in their heart of hearts that they have done the right thing. They will pass draconian laws regarding finance reform and shut down those bothersome blogs, require equal time and effectively shut up loudmouths such as Mr's Limbaugh, Beck and O'Reilly and folk such as Ms. Malkin and Ingram. But mostly, think of all the right wing blogs (not including this one of course, after all, I'm using this post to protect myself) that will be eliminated.

My only worry, is that the Democrats will pass enough laws so that no one ever does anyone any harm for any reason and the trial lawyers will find themselves having to find a new way to make a living.

And to think, all this in the first 9 months. By March of 2008 we will see changes in the world wide condition that will make the current City Shining on the Hill superfluous.

In Iraq, Al Qaeda will become transcendent under the benign tutelage of Iran, dissidents will be stoned and otherwise removed from both power, and the living. Gays will be slaughtered en mass either by stoning, beheading, hanging or being thrown from high buildings just for that resounding splat. Women will be given their rightful place in the world and the milliners will be come rich making new and improved Burkas, and, since there will be insufficient oil available, artificial fabrics such as nylon, rayon and other miracle fabrics will be done away with and cotton and wool will become transcendent. Of course, there will need to be a massive breeding of sheep and much more acreage planted in cotton thus cutting down on food growing. Many millions will starve but that will relieve the pressure on Mother Gaea.

The United Nations will attempt to extend its Suzerainty over the United States as a "dangerous" entity, but the Democrats will rebel and withhold funds (not that there are any left anyway) forcing the UN to retreat to Switzerland or France.

In November of 2008, the American People, seeing what a disaster the Democrats have been will elect a Republican House, Senate and Administration reducing the Democrats to three members in the House (Jack Murtha, William Jefferson and possibly (but no guarantees, John Conyers) all of whom will not cease their pontificating and profound inanities and one in the Senate (Joe Lieberman) who though a Democrat, is not a Dhimmicrat.

Free Carbon Credits !!!

To address "global warming" and if you want to be considered "carbon neutral" and if you want to "feel good," you may pretend to offset your "carbon footprint" by obtaining "carbon credits or offsets," which are available at a price from Al Gore's own company. On the other hand, I like to try something before I buy it, and I like things that are free. Given that, Denny in Atlanta has shared a source that gives FREE CARBON OFFSETS. This could solve melting glaciers and all evils against nature by mankind.

Here's my carbon offset certificate! I now can leave the air conditioner running in my house all summer without destroying the Earth. I did my part.

Get your very own certificate suitable for framing from Free Carbon Offets (link)! Give some as presents, too! Won't your kids be excited on their birthdays to receive carbon offsets rather than video games? The wife would especially like this for your wedding anniversary. Trust me.

Sorry, Al. That's the way the free market works. The world is saved!

UPDATE: This is GM, normally I don't add to or change Woody's posts, but this is too important, we must save the world from Owlgores hot air which is heating up the planet. To do that, I have created our own Certificate of Carbon Offsets and placed it below this paragraph. To use, simply right click on the certificate, save it to your computer, print it, write in your name, date it, and take it to your nearest Garden Center. There, purchase an OAK TREE, pay for it in full and take it home and plant the tree. You will have done something for the children (hey, we can't let the Democrats be the only ones doing "it" for the children.). In fact, you can print as many as you want, then everytime you buy something green to plant in the garden, a container, the flowerbox or on the patio, you too will feel smug and superior.

Send 'Em The White Feather

Dear Majority Leaders of the United States Senate and United States House Of Representatives: The following is for you! I'm sure you can fathom it's meaning!

Liberals and Democrats

H/T Chrys

What Does The Second Amendment Mean Exactly?

There is a Danger of This

original drawing from the Economist

Becoming This

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I am always surprised that when some members of the left state that the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution means exactly what it says or the 14^th or the ______ (fill in the blank) that they do not believe that the 2^nd also means exactly what it says (let alone the 10^th). Scholarly attempts to tie the second amendment to the existence of a militia are numerous, and wrong-headed.

The last citation noted (well worth reading in its entirety) states very clearly:

Let’s go at this from another direction. Imagine that a Borkian inkblot covers the words “well regulated militia.” All we have is: “A [inkblot] being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” To make an intelligent guess about the obscured words, we would have to reason from the independent clause back to the dependent phrase. We would know intuitively that the missing words must be consistent with the people having the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, anything else would be patently ridiculous. Try this: “A well-regulated professional standing army (or National Guard) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That sentence would bewilder any honest reader. He’d ask why such unlike elements were combined in one sentence. It makes no sense. It’s a non sequitur.

Imagine the deliberations of the Committee of Eleven, the group of House members to which Madison’s proposed bill of rights was referred. Assume that one member says, “We should have an amendment addressing the fact that the way to achieve the well-regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state is for the national government to respect the right of the States to organize and arm militias.” “No,” replies another member. “The amendment should reflect the fact that the way to achieve the well-regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state is for the government to respect the people’s right to bear arms.” If both members were told to turn their declarative sentences into the imperative form appropriate to a bill of rights, which one would have come up with the language that became the Second Amendment? The question answers itself.

Indeed, courts are now ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and indeed, the gun ban in Washington, D.C. has been overturned by the courts as unconstitutional. It is likely, however, that this ruling will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court where it is believed that the individual right, as opposed to a collective right, to keep and bear arms will be affirmed, but this is not a guarantee of outcome of course.

Yet, with an increasingly conservative court, it is entirely possible that this issue will be settled in favor of individual rights. Be that as it may, it is also possible that a future, more liberal court will find that the individual right does not exist, precedent not-withstanding. So, where does that leave us? The Democrats became anti-gun in the early 90's and it probably cost them dearly in the '94 elections. Of course, by 2006, guns were not an issue (except perhaps those being used in Iraq) and the Democrats were given majorities in both houses of congress. Now, with the shootings at Virginia Tech, the outcry for banning guns is once again in full force, but there are many Democrats that, having learned a lesson the hard way, will treat the issue like the third rail so to speak. And yet, there are still those who would ban the sale and manufacture of handguns based only on their use.

Of course, to a 2^nd Amendment supporter, this is a curious POV in as much as no one believes that automobiles should be banned and they kill far more than guns do. There is the cry "Guns Kill People" and the opposite cry "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Saying guns kill people is similar to saying a knife and fork make people fat, and that is obviously not the case.

Guns are tools, nothing more, nothing less. Handguns are tools to prevent harm to people, and, when used properly, they do just that. But, like any tool, guns can also be misused. If a person is stabbed, do we seek to ban knives? If a multitude of people were stabbed, would we? How about clubs, or swords or machetes? How about cars?

When the Democrats passed a ban on "Assault Weapons" all they were really doing was passing a ban on semi-automatic weapons that had the appearance of being an assault weapon. The cry then was no hunter needs an AK-47 to hunt with, but they would have had no problem with using say, an M-1 or perhaps a Benelli R-1, a Remington Model 7400 or even the discontinued Ruger 44 autoload. So really, it was only the appearance of being a military assault rifle that was banned. "Not so!" claim the proponents of the ban, AK-47s can easily be altered to fire automatically. Well folks, that is true of virtually every semi-automatic fire arm, pistol or rifle.

Today, some semi-pundits (Lawrence O'Donnell for one) would have you believe that Cho used automatic pistols and "sprayed" bullets at his victims. As Glenn Reynolds notes of O'Donnell:

Really, this kind of ignorance is inexcusable, at least among people who pretend that their opinions matter. It's like commenting on sex education when you don't know which bodily parts go where."

And this also applies to the clueless individual(s) who blamed the Virginia Tech Massacre on Charleton Heston and the Republicans for allowing the "Assaut Weapons Ban" to expire; and the beat goes on, and the beat goes on!

Of course, a substantial part of the problem is not necessarily who uses a gun to what purpose, it is that we have essentially become a nation of victims. Personal responsibility has been effectively taken out of the equation, Klebold and Harris were the victims of harrassment, Cho was the victim of racism and classism, yet, no one speaks of the real victims that might (underscore might) have been saved had a few well trained, pistol packing individuals been present at the time. And this is the real tragedy, requiring "Gun Free" zones only work if you follow the law, obviously, Cho as well as Klebold and Harris did not follow the law nor would any other individual planning to use a gun in the commission of a crime.

There is an answer out there somewhere, but banning guns isn't it.

Hillary Rides To The Rescue!

Obama shows up in Selma to comemorate the civil rights movement. Not satisfied with her attempt to get Obama for the defection of David Geffen, Hillary shows up with a faux Southern accent. In fact, Hillary is in a dither because of Obamas entry into the fray!

Then comes along Don Imus with his trash talk calling the Rutgers ladies basketball team "...nappy headed ho's." Now, I don't know about you, but I find that comment offensive on a number of levels, not the least of which is as a father. I can only imagine what those young ladies (and their speaking up show that they are classy young ladies indeed) fathers must have felt; as a dad myself I would have wanted to punch Imus in the nose just to hear the "splat."

Obama was somewhat delayed in his condemnation of Imus and his mouth, but still faster than Hillary:

Her Democratic presidential rival, Barack Obama, was faster out of the gate, with this to say on Monday: “The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds. With a public platform, comes a trust. As far as I’m concerned, he violated that trust.”

But old Hillary may have gone one better, with a bit of pandering that is not to be believed. Oh Hillary, have you no shame at all?

None? Not a shred? Zero, zip, zilch, nada?

Have Reid and Feingold Read The Constitution?

I'm left pretty much speechless today. Jeff Goldstein notes that Harry Reid and Russ Feingold have announced:

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.

“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”

“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”

The language of the legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

Continue reading "Have Reid and Feingold Read The Constitution?"

Pres. Bush Tells Dems to Take It or Leave It

Bush Warns Dems (Selections)

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.

America Loves a Winner

When I watched "Patton" again the other night for the upteenth time, I thought about its opening speech and that Americans would do better to take Gen. Patton's advice from back then rather than that of the Democrats today. Patton's speech is worth reading and hearing to remind us of American pride and our will to win. The actual written words and the video recreation can still inspire those of us today who want our nation to succeed.

Many forgot Gen. Patton's WWII advice during the Viet Nam conflict, and those people who let us down were not the soldiers fighting. Today, we face a similar problem with people who put their politics above our nation's success and reputation. Just so that others of us can remember and appreciate the message of winning, let's take time to absorb it one more time.

The Famous Patton Speech

Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. You are here today for three reasons. First, because you are here to defend your homes and your loved ones. Second, you are here for your own self respect, because you would not want to be anywhere else. Third, you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight. When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players.

Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.

Here is a link to the entire actual and unedited speech of Gen. Patton to his troops along with an interesting and detailed description of it. It comes from the first chapter of a book titled The Unknown Patton by Charles M. Province. Take the time to read it and think about what this should mean for us today.

General Patton's Address to the Troops

Next, view the below recreation of the speech in the film's opening scene. As fine a performance as George C. Scott provides, I can only imagine what the real speech must have been like and how it motivated our troops and made them determined to win.

There's nothing that I can add. The speech says it best. Just think about how this applies to us today.

That's all.

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.

My Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick Story(abridged with emphasis added)

...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"

Nobel Peace Prize Living Up to Reputation

The Nobel Peace Prize typcially goes to people who hold disdain for the United States and speak against it in international circles. Jimmy Carter, who needs no introduction, was a winner. So, was Betty Williams, who last year told hundreds of school children that "I would love to kill George Bush." Not to break with tradition, this year a nominee for the prize is Al Gore. If attacking the U.S. helps you win, Al Gore is well on his way. John Kerry is working towards next year. Leftists celebrate.

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?

Excuse Me While I Laugh

Perception vs. Reality

Although he frequently makes a point of finding something charitable to say about his opponents’ arguments, Sen. Barack Obama almost always ends up voting liberal. “The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact,” the Illinois Democrat wrote in “The Audacity of Hope,” a memoir published last year.

[Update]

Obama comes clean... At least Biden didn't say that O'Bama was pretty sober for an Irishman.

Dems and Libs, Iran Offers You New Chance

We've heard so much second guessing from Democrats and liberals about Iraq. Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with U.N. inspectors for years and was warned of possible action if he didn't comply. He didn't, the U.N. was bribed, and President Bush acted. Well, thanks to Iran, we can give liberals a new playing field and let them tell us how now to handle this new situation from the start--not from hindsight.

Iran bars 38 U.N. nuclear inspectors

Iran has barred entry to 38 inspectors from the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency after hardliners demanded retaliation for U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran last month, officials said on Monday.

The West accuses Iran of seeking to build atom bombs under the cover of a professed civilian nuclear energy program, while Tehran insists it aims solely to generate electricity.

IAEA inspectors carry out regular checks of Iran's atomic sites to try to verify it is not diverting materials into bomb production in violation of the NPT.

The U.N. sanctions imposed on December 23 ban transfers of sensitive materials and know-how to Iran's nuclear and missile programs over its refusal to stop enriching uranium, a process that can yield fuel for power stations or material for bombs.

Man, that sounds familiar. Okay, liberals and Democrats, how would you handle this familiar problem this time? Maybe twelve years of sanctions? That ought to do it. By that time Iran will have nuclear weapons and will be shaking in their boots. Don't wait to second quess. Share your plans now.

(What do you want to bet that they'll live up to expectations and ignore any meaningful actions against Iran until it's too late?)

Global Warming: Hysteria Will Prevail Over Science [Updated]

The battle over global warming is over. We lost, "we" meaning skeptics who don't want to jump the gun on expensive and likely useless solutions. There's just no official representative to raise the white flag. Why is the battle lost? Is it based on science or something else? It's the something else. Global warming activists will keep up their rabid attacks until every scientist who doubts them is destroyed and every skeptic is silenced.

Hysteria over global warming: the extent of it, the causes of it, the solutions for it--all credibility issues, have prevailed over reason and cooler heads. It's like a lie about someone's reputation that gets spread so far and so fast that there is no hope of redemption.

If man-made global warming is so real, then why has politics replaced science, why have well-meaning skeptics been demonized, why does liberal media present only one side, and why does this require indoctrination of young people in schools? Like most things, conservatives are going to lose this battle--not for lack of scientific honesty, but because the left totally dedicates itself to radical causes, especially those that cripple capitalism, while the rest of us put our priorities on maintaining responsible jobs and families. They gradually wear us down.

Here are some of the latest efforts to ram global warming's radicalism down our throats. For time reasons, I will provide links and selected quotes from several articles which illustrate this problem. They are found on the next page. It's long, but enjoy.

Continue reading "Global Warming: Hysteria Will Prevail Over Science [Updated]"

Jimmy Carter's Son Responds To Criticism of His Dad

People who know G.M. and me also know that we're no fans of former President Jimmy Carter. We have taken our share of pot shots at him ranging from the killer rabbit to being kicked off the island of great Americans to liking dictators more than us to his bad advice to his threat to New Orleans. Most of our comments are in fun, but we clearly are disappointed in his actions as an ex-President just as we were when he was in office. However, we also respect honest discussion and debate about his Presidency and his political positions and activities in recent years.

In one of my local papers, The Citizen, there have been running on-line duels between one writer, Richard Hobbs, and one of Jimmy Carter's sons, Jeff Carter. I know that Hobbs likes to tweak Jeff, and he probably is egged on because Jeff seems to take it quite seriously and personally and can get his feathers ruffled. Well, it is about his dad. However, Jeff also provides a lot of information and facts that most of us would not consider except for him bringing them up. Now, I certainly don't always agree with the information that he provides or his interpretation of it, but I do respect his integrity and sincerity and intelligence, and he has been polite in exchanges with me.

Below is a recent attack and counter-attack between those two, which I have abbreviated, so you would have to refer to the links to get the entire picture. The subject has to do with the recent resignations from the Carter Center of some of the trustees and others over mideast positions written by President Carter in his most recent book.

You may find interest in the reactions of a son of a President to others who criticize him, and you may learn something that newspapers and internet sites don't offer. Also, if you wish, you may add your comments to that discussion, but remain cordial and you will receive cordial responses.

Here's the story about the book and resignations, and below that is the discussion on the matter.

14 Carter Center advisors resign (AJC)

Fourteen members of a Carter Center advisory board – including a former U.S. ambassador – quit today in protest of Jimmy Carter's latest book, which they view as being critical of Israel. In a letter to Carter, the members of the Board of Councilors wrote that the former president had "clearly abandoned your historic role of broker, in favor of becoming an advocate for one side."

Jimmy Carter, the Titanic Presidency (The Citizen, by Richard Hobbs)

Now even his friends are bailing out of Jimmy's maniacal world view regarding his ignorance over the Middle East. From the Article above, 14 Carter Center advisors have resigned in protest over our beloved Ex-president, Jimmy Carter's newest book, which contends, (now hold your boot straps) that Israel is to blame for all that is wrong in the middle East, and the Palestinians and Hamas are just misunderstood and have a right to defend themselves.

The only thing that Jimmy did right the entire time he was president seemed to have been with Israel and Egypt, but now, I'm beginning to really wonder what Rosilyn has been putting into his coffee every morning.

Now that Arafat is gone and Castro is on the way out, who is going to take their seats at Jimmy's funeral. He's been writing his funeral plans of late, so what foreign despot will take those seats.

This is another piece I found interesting from the Wall Street Journal's online version.

Begin Quote:
Is Jimmy Carter an anti-Semite? Shmuley Boteach, who styles himself "America's rabbi," argues in the Jerusalem Post that the answer is no:

Jimmy Carter is not so much anti-Semite as anti-intellectual, not so much a Jew-hater as a boor. The real explanation behind his limitless hostility to Israel is a total lack of any moral understanding....

Lies Mr. Hobbs, Submitted by Jeff Carter

I will not attempt to analyze the worms inside Mr. Hobbs mind that causes his shockingly macabre and grotesque fascination with my father’s funeral. ...Mr. Hobbs rants against my father’s book citing a person who “styles himself as America’s rabbi.” ...Mr. Hobbs took it upon himself to initiate this discussion and said Jimmy Carter’s book states that “Israel is to blame for all that is wrong in the Middle East, and the Palestinians and Hamas are just misunderstood...” I contend that this is an outrageous and bald-face lie perpetrated by him and I challenge Mr. Hobbs to cite references in the book to uphold his allegations.

Because he is a traitor, Submitted by Richard Hobbs

About that lie Mr. Hobbs, Submitted by Jeff Carter

And, it goes on and on. I guess it's a little like exchanges here, but we're so nice.

How Will the New Congress Fight Terrorism?

9/11 Bill Contains Little-Known Provisions

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is starting off her first week in power with H.R. 1, a hefty bill designed to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations that she says remain undone. Here's our take on some smaller points in the 279-page bill....

43,000 New Union Jobs

TSA unionization: Ever since the Transportation Security Administration was created in a hurry in the days right after 9/11, the country's airport screeners–a force that today includes about 43,000 people–have been unable to formally unionize. The House bill gives all TSA employees collective bargaining rights.... John Gage, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, a government union, said Monday..."The new legislation will improve security by stabilizing the workforce and improving morale."

Money for Muslim Children

Funds for Muslim schoolchildren: 9/11 commission member Tim Roemer praised Democrats on Monday for introducing a bill that would ensure "progress on winning hearts and minds around the world." Democrats plan to create an International Arab and Muslim Youth Opportunity Fund that would invest in public education in Arab and Muslim countries. No word in the bill on how much such an effort would cost.

I bet that you didn't know that those provisions were essential recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to protect us from terrorism. Please refer back to G.M.'s post titled "How Do You Spell Ethics Reform Business As Usual?". What a surprise.

Still Doubt That Saddam Hussein Had WMD's?

No weapons of mass destruction? Bush lied? Read selections from the following article.

Tape bares Saddam's chilling admissions of war crimes
By JOHN F. BURNS, New York Times, Published on: 01/10/07

In audio recordings made years ago and played this week in his absence, Saddam was heard justifying the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s, predicting they would kill "thousands" and saying he alone among Iraq's leaders had the authority to order chemical attacks.

In the sequence of scratchy recordings — some with the dialogue quite clear, some barely decipherable — Saddam repeatedly showed the ready resort to brutality that made Iraq a nation seized with fear during his 24 years in power.

One recording revealed, more clearly than anything before, Saddam's personal involvement in covering up Iraq's attempts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the program that ultimately led to President Bush sending U.S. troops to overthrow him. Talking to the Iraqi general heading Iraq's dealings with U.N. weapons inspectors until weeks before the 2003 invasion, he counseled caution in the figures being divulged on the extent of Iraq's feed stocks for chemical weapons, so as to disguise the use of unaccounted-for chemicals in the attacks on the Kurds.

But it was Saddam's chilling discussion of the power of chemical weapons against civilian populations that brought prosecutors and judges to the verge of tears, and seemed to shock the remaining defendants. One of the recordings featured an unidentified military officer telling Saddam that a plan was under development for having transport aircraft carry containers packed with up to 50 napalm bombs each rolled out of the back of the cargo deck and dropped on Kurdish towns.

(Television footage taken in the aftermath of the Halabjah attack, which more than any other event focused world attention on the atrocities committed under Saddam,) showed the horrors: a father wailing in grief as he found his children lying along a street littered with bodies; dead mothers clutching gas-choked infants to their breasts in swaddling clothes; young sisters embracing each other in death; and trucks piled high with civilian corpses. "I ask the whole world to look at these images, especially those who are crying right now," Faroun said, referring to the outpouring of sympathy for Saddam.

U.S. Justice Department lawyers who have done much of the behind-the-scenes work in sifting tons of documents and other evidence gathered after the invasion of 2003 had never hinted that they held the trump card, judicially and historically, that the audio recordings seem likely to be.

I give credit to the administration for keeping details of the evidence about Iraq's WMDs secret to obtain a conviction rather than giving it up simply to silence Democratic and foreign critics.

Is everyone satisfied, now, that Hussein had and used weapons of mass destruction, or do you have to experience them yourself to be convinced? How long would you have allowed these mass murders to continue if you were President? So much for "Bush Lied." At what point would more weapons be manufactured and provided to terrorists for use against us? Did we have to know any more to be worried about our security and about justice and to act, while the U.N. stalled as its officials were profiting from Hussein's payoffs?

Are there any admissions of being wrong on this issue and apologies forthcoming or just more blind patisan denials?

Finally, where do we go from here? Pull out and abandon the Iraqi people again to terrorists and tyrants or stay until we win the battle?

Net Neutrality or Gov't Control of the Internet?

Internet Freedom Preservation Act is introduced

Democrats, who all but sank major communications reform legislation in the previous congressional session over the issue of so-called 'Net neutrality, marked the first day of the new Congress by introducing a bill that will mandate 'Net neutrality, which is intended to guarantee the equal accessibility and flow of content over the Internet.

It sounds like government control and Democratic desire for more liberal content and less conservative content on the internet. Do we need this? In case you aren't sure if you are for or against this, here are some of the bill's co-sponsors: Democratic Senators John Kerry (Mass.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.).

I've read enough. I'm against it.

Is Everything About Iraq?

I found this story somewhat amusing and realized how it can reflect the difference in how different groups perceive the world. Read the story and I'll explain more at the end.

Begin Story

Tandem Writing Assignment
The following is a true story (True? I doubt it, but who cares.) received from an English professor.

You know that book "Men are from Mars, Women from Venus"? Well, here's a prime example of that. This assignment was actually turned in by two of my English students: Rebecca (last name deleted) and Gary (last name deleted).

First, the Assignment:

English 44A
SMU
Creative Writing
Prof. Miller

In-Class Assignment for Wednesday:
Today we will experiment with a new form called the tandem story. The process is simple. Each person will pair off with the person sitting to his or her immediate right. One of you will then write the first paragraph of a short story. The partner will read the first paragraph and then add another paragraph to the story. The first person will then add a third paragraph, and so on back and forth.

Remember to re-read what has been written each time in order to keep the story coherent. The story is over when both agree a conclusion has been reached.

And now, the Assignment as submitted by Rebecca & Gary:

Continue reading "Is Everything About Iraq?"

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"

The Eye Of The Beholder

Allow me to paint a word picture for you:

You enter a room, quietly close the door behind you and sit in the rose colored easy chair next to the lamp on the south side of the room. Looking around, you take in your surroundings. The room is warm, and comfortable. You glance around looking at nothing in particular finally noticing a brightly colored square of paper on the coffee table. You pick it up and try to think of the name of the color. Forrest green you decide. No, wait, perhaps a deep emerald green. Yes, that's it. You take the paper to your spouse and note the deep shade of green, scintillating in the light. Your spouse looks at you in confusion and says "No sweetheart, that is scarlet red." Confused, you ask your children and they too say red. For a week, everyone you ask says "red," but you still see green."

The reality is that it doesn't matter what other people say, your experience of the square of paper is green, that is your perception of reality and it matters not what other peoples reality is. The knowledge that you are colorblind, that you will always see one color when other's see another matters not. In the case above, green is your reality.

So too it is with politics. It doesn't matter a whit if you are a conservative or liberal, a communist or libertarian, a socialist or anarchist. Your perspective is colored by your world view. Now, to say that some world views, some political systems are more, shall we say, realistic than others ought to be a no brainer. And so it is. I am amused by liberals that proclaim that they are "Proud Members Of The Reality Based Community" as if by proclaiming that, they are the only purveyors of truth, justice and the American Way! Of course, the entire purpose of the Reality Based Community canard is to provide an internal boost to what must be a very lonely position, say that of seeing a green square of paper when most everyone else sees red.

My real problem with liberals is that they see the world as they want it to be, not as it is. Their reality is not based in reality, but is completely colored by their perception, and too often, it is not a pretty sight. Take education for example. The liberal position is that we need a federal bureaucracy, more teachers unions, more money, longer school days; we need to fix the broken "structure" of education. It doesn't seem to matter that the so called structure is the same as it has been for the last 75 years or so and that it worked pretty well in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's and with the advent of the professional educator the so called structure seemed to break down yielding 4 year olds being charged with sexual harrassment, a multitude of "pride" days and high school teachers being terminated for teaching real as opposed to say "culturally correct" history.

The coloring of politics has also entered the vaunted main stream media or MSM as we bloggers call it. I know, I know, the soi disant reality based community (shall we abbreviate this as RBC for the rest of this article?) maintains that the MSM is owned by corporations and thus must be "conservative" but that is reflective of their world view; all corporations are money grubbing conservative organs of the state who protects corporations via tax structure forcing the weak and the poor to feed their hard earned dollars to the fat cats. Of course, the "real" reality is that newspapers are owned by corporations but staffed by graduates of schools of journalism and anybody that believes that those schools are not "generally" bastions of left leaning thought are not only not thinking, they are not using one scintilla of their supposed brain power.

Thus, we get headlines like posted in the L.A. Times: "Monthly U.S. toll in Iraq at 2-year high". The headline is the political view of an organization viewing casualties and other stories from Iraq through the liberal prisim, but it is the "green square of paper" we talked about above. The reality is (courtesy of Greyhawk at The Mudville Gazette):

Barring a New Year's Eve plane crash, 2006 looks like a slightly better year in Iraq for US casualties

...the year total of 816 as of Saturday morning, is on course to be slightly lower than last year's 846 U.S. fatalities.

The number of U.S. wounded also declined this year, from 5,947 in 2005 to 5,676 so far this year.

(We should also note that the majority of troops wounded in Iraq returned to duty within 72 hours.)

O.K. Roper, this means what? Well, simply put the American people are getting a description of the War in Iraq as a massive US failure and George Bush as a bumbling idiot at best and a war criminal at worst. The reality, as opposed to the view of the RBC, is that the massive civilian casualties in Iraq are the work of Iraqis against other Iraqis. Sunni vs S'hia as it were. Some call it civil war, but that is a little misleading because it is sectarian violence by one tribe of Muslims against another tribe of Muslims. The common ground here is that many of the illegal combatants here believe their version of Allah is better than the other version of Allah and that alone gives them license to kill other Muslims.

Now, has United States policy played into this? Sure, somewhat. Back some time ago an arrest warrant was issued for Moqtada Sadr:

An Iraqi judge has released an arrest warrant for Moqtada Sadr in connection with the death of a moderate Shia leader, Abdul Majid al-Khoei, in April 2003, just two days after the fall of Baghdad.

Moqtada Sadr strongly denies any role in the murder.

His supporters have also clashed with followers of Ayatollah Sistani.

He has visited neighbouring Iran since Saddam Hussein was ousted, meeting senior officials in Tehran.

Got that did you? I'll repeat for any liberals reading this blog: "He has visited neighbouring Iran since Saddam Hussein was ousted, meeting senior officials in Tehran."

Iran? Iran, you say? What does that have to do with the criminal liability of George Dubya? Well, it should show those in the RBC that the violence in Iraq is not necessarily the fault of GWB, but rather the involvement of Iran in an act of state supported terrorism. The same will go for the Syrian version of Wormtongue (with all due apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien). That the RBC cannot see this because it is a red square of paper should not be surprising. All they can see is the green because of their own inability to understand that their perception is not the so called real world.

There will, no doubt, be those who would challange this understanding, but that is OK, it is, again, their perception. The reality is, despite what the majority of the left would think, that the sectarian violence in Iraq is sponsored by two states, Syria and Iran. Oddly enough, those with clear eyes can see that, can see that Moqtada Sadr is a puppet with a famous name (his father, a revered S'hia cleric, was reportedly assassinated by Saddam's orders).

So, if you do indeed have the ability to think, to reason beyond your own perceptions, think through who benefits from an unstable Iraq? Who is rapidly running out of the ability to bring their oil to the market because they have ignored their infrastructure from the beginning of the so called mullahocracy:

"They need to invest $2.5bn (£1.28bn) a year just to stand still and they're not doing it because it's politically easier to spend the money on social welfare and the army than to wait four to six years for a return on investment," he said.

"They've been running down the industry like this for 20 years."

For 40 of my 60 years on this earth the MSM has been pissing on my shoes. I didn't believe it was rain then, and I don't believe it now, but then, my eyes aren't blind to reality even though I see things through a conservative perspective.

Who Wants Cynthia McKinney Parkway Renamed?

Strip McKinney's name off road, lawmaker says

A Republican state lawmaker is seeking to strip U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney's name off a DeKalb County road, saying she "has brought embarrassment to the state of Georgia."

McKinney's former campaign manager, John Evans, called Walker's resolution a "mess." And as for Walker's claim that McKinney has caused embarrassment to Georgia, Evans said: "He must be talking about white folks or uppity black folks."

Clinton News Update [UPDATED]

First, regarding what happened during Bill Clinton's administration:
Princess Diana was bugged by US secret service - I guess Bill Clinton wanted to know if she was available, if you know what I mean. Where's the outrage from the press that you could expect if a Republican had allowed or requested this surveillance? This action is probably going to grow to be a bigger deal than we realize at this time.

[Update]: From the linked article...."Both US and British intelligence then forced Diana to change her plans.... Instead the princess took the fateful decision to take a summer break with Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed. This ultimately led to her going to Paris with his son Dodi, where they died in a car crash."
...which leads to this: "Clinton spied. A Princess died." (Sorry.)

Next, from the junior Senator from New York:
Hillary Clinton Releases New Edition of "It Takes A Village": Keep your village people away from my kids. I can do fine without you and could do with less government intrusion into our lives. And, if Janet Reno is in your village, this goes double.

A Portent Of Things To Come? - UPDATED

This post is filed under Liberals And Democrats because it is about Liberals and Democrats. So, what else would I blog in a blogsite devoted to the POV of a right wing, knuckle dragging, neandertholic, conservative? But, I digress.

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) is the presumptive Speaker of the United States House of Representatives when the next congress convenes in January, 2007. The newly elected Majority Leader is Jack Murtha Steny Hoyer. Hoyer IS is NOT a friend of Pelosi, and in fact, lost to Pelosi in the race for minority leader two years ago. This setback for Pelosi brings to mind a question as to her competence to be the Speaker (not that Denny Hastert was any shining example). Too, Pelosi has proposed a number of folk for leadership positions that absolutely call into question her fitness for the job. She has proposed, as a sop to the Congressional Black Caucus the elevation of Alcee Hastings to the chair of the House Intelligence Committee over Jane Harmon. The CBC wants Hastings because of the (gasp) ethics problems of William Jefferson (D-La). This is compounded by the fact that Pelosi doesn't like her fellow Californian Jane Harmon. Ruth Marcus, commenting in the afore linked Washington Post article a week prior to the election notes:

Pelosi is in a box of her own devising. The panel's ranking Democrat is her fellow Californian Jane Harman -- smart and hardworking but also abrasive, ambitious and, in Pelosi's estimation, insufficiently partisan on the committee. So Pelosi, once the intelligence panel's ranking Democrat herself, has made clear that she doesn't intend to name Harman to the chairmanship." [emphasis added]

Insufficiently partisan? For the Intelligence Committee? Isn't that what Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have railed against? What happened to the Democrats cry's for bipartisanship when they lost an election?

In fact, there is some evidence that a Pelosi "speakership" will be frought with multiple problems in getting her liberal agenda through. There are the so called "Blue-Dog" Democrats, 44 by last count, who represent a little less than 1/5^th(19.3832599% to be a little more precise) of the incoming "ruling" Democrats. What are "Blue-Dog" Democrats you ask? Simple, they are moderate to conservative Democrats who ran and were elected as Democrats in spite of (because of?) not running as Liberals. The website Capital Questions states that Blue-Dog Democrats are

The Blue Dogs, [,,,] are less fiercely partisan, and they do not all hail from the South. They seek to build ideological bridges to the Republican side of the aisle, are known for their independence from the leadership of their own party, and tend to be more pragmatic than partisan.

This alone presents an interesting connundrum for Pelosi and the other liberals in the Democratic House Heirarchy. Will her hyperpartisanship (despite her photo-ops with George W. Bush and pronouncements to the contrary) cause her to run up against the Blue-Dogs as often as she will the Republicans? Note also, that many of the "defeated" Republicans were what many conservatives called RINOs (Republican In Name Only).

As I have stated in a previous post, the coming battles may well prove to be a target rich inverionment for this and other bloggers. In fact, my blog-father, a big time "progressive" (he dosen't like the term liberal applied to himself) Marc Cooper, alluding to the missteps by Pelosi regarding her selections and appoitments saying:

In the end, it's a stupid, pointless fight and regardless of its outcome a dumb first move by Pelosi that focuses the debate on flawed ethics rather than on bold leadership.

Cooper also noted that his friend (and fellow liberal progressive Doug Ireland had this to say about Pelosi: "...she just ain't all that smart"

Just who is Nancy Pelosi, the lawmaker from San Francisco with an exagerrated reputation for liberalism? She's an opportunist and a trimmer, who -- just two days after the Democrats re-took both houses of Congress and her Speakership was assured -- proclaimed, "We must govern from the center." When she was first elected to lead the House Democrats six years ago, I investigated Pelosi's background for the L.A. WEEKLY. And one of the things I found out in my digging was that she just ain't all that smart.

Pelosi is catching it from the right as well. Lorie Byrd said (in an article titled "From Moderate To Moonbat In Less Than A Week":

Nancy Pelosi said, “the American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.”

In spite of those words, she backed John Murtha over Steny Hoyer for the position of majority leader, even as conservative talk radio hosts played over and over again a decades old tape of Murtha’s involvement in the Abscam scandal.

Byrd was not the only one on the right (as can well be imagined) who picked up on the faux moderate => to moonbat transformation, Neo-Neo Con notes:

We expected her stand to offend Republicans; that's not news. But it offended Democrats as well, not to mention Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, previously labeled "...probably the most anti-Bush reporter currently assigned to the White House by a major news organization" by John J. Miller of National Review.

And there you have it beloved readers, Nancy Pelosi (DIMocrat - California), incoming Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is an airhead and catching it (and well deservedly so I'm sure) from both the right (which is expected) and the left (which is icing on the cake). I'm sure that this is a portent of things to come and I just can't wait!

Cross Posted At The Real Ugly American.

"New" Democrats Seek War Advice from Old

McGovern to Meet With Congress on War

George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.

June? Why should it take them so long? Oh, and let's tell the terrorists our withdrawal timetable so that they know how long to hold out.

It's not taking long for the Democrat's true colors to start showing. They're just as bad as the old ones. Why didn't someone warn us?

Liberals Get Easily Offended

Imagine that you'e a student leader in a college with 28,000 students and you just have to handle something of such great importance that you put it ahead of everything else. You could do something to work out problems between the administration and students, you could start a fund-raiser for a good cause, you could set up a tutoring program for students needing help, ...why, you could even be planning the homecoming parade or trying to get more soft drink machines in classroom buildings. But, rather than taking on traditional tasks, what did the student leaders at a California college consider the highest priority?

Students at Calif. College ban Pledge of Allegiance

The move was lead by three recently elected student trustees, who ran for office wearing revolutionary-style berets and said they do not believe in publicly swearing an oath to the American flag and government at their school. ..."That ('under God') part is sort of offensive to me," student trustee Jason Bell, who proposed the ban, told Reuters. "I am an atheist and a socialist, and if you know your history, you know that 'under God' was inserted during the McCarthy era and was directly designed to destroy my ideology."

Yes, that was the most important thing that they had to do that day. I'd like to go up to those student "leaders" and wish them a "Merry Christmas" just to make sure they are completely offended. Is that what we have to look forward to from future generations? No wonder the Democrats seek the student vote and get it.

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

Pitiful Pelosi Prattles Poppycock!

Nancy Pelosi (Dimwit-California) is running hard to be speaker of the house, and it is a possible (though not likely) outcome of this November's congressional elections. Recently, she uttered the unbelievable statement "It shouldn't be about national security."

From the Washington Post:

Then came the questions. "This is now the third election in a row in which they've raised security issues just before the election," the first questioner said of the Republicans. "Why won't it work for them a third time?"

"We won't be Swift-boated on the national security issue," the minority leader maintained.

"As you know," came the follow-up, Republicans "are citing past votes by you and other Democrats."

Pelosi was defensive. "I have five children," she said. "Five grandchildren, going on six. And I consider myself the ultimate security mom." By way of clarification, she felt compelled to add: "Democrats are committed to hunting down Osama bin Laden."

A third questioner pointed out that Republicans have regained the lead on national security. "This is what, I guess, campaigns will be about," Pelosi conceded with some reluctance. "It shouldn't be about national security."

I don't think I've ever heard such a dimwitted response from a member of congress (though a number from Jack "I surrender" Murtha and John "I have the hat" Kerry could concievably qualify).

Uh, Ms. Pelosi, if we don't have National Security, we won't have anything else. Tell your grandkids that!

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.

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?

Clinton Lies Again And You Have To Ask Yourself Why?

Clinton is called by many on the right a pathological liar. He is even called that by some on the left, for example Former Senator Bob Kerrey once said "He's [Clinton} an uncommonly good liar." He's lied about this, about that, he's lied by commission and by omission. One of my favorites is when he was attending Ron Brown's funeral and he was video taped walking with another member of his entorage laughing at something until he saw the camera, then he quivered his lip, wiped his eye. What an actor! Clinton is most famous for his "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewensky..." He told that to his wife, his child, his cabinet and only fessed up cause Monica Dearest saved a certain blue dress.

He was recently caught in another lie, one he didn't have to tell, and one that he must have known he'd be caught at. He was in St. Lewis this weekend campaigning for some Democrat or other and made a talk or twelve. He was taped by radio station KMOX and heard by a new friend of mine Wayne. Wayne writes:

Something of interest occurred on Sunday. I regularly listen on the internet to radio station KMOX in St. Louis on Sunday mornings. Bill Clinton had spent Saturday in St. Louis campaigning for some congressman (name I don't recall). KMOX played several excerpts from his talk and repeated the excerpts several times through the morning programming. One excerpt I heard then paid more attention to the second time I heard it was this: Clinton:

"When I was at the World Trade Center the next day after the attempt to bring it down in '93, an Arab man came up to me and said: 'Mr. President, in no way do we Arabs support this bombing and I hope that all of us are not included as sympathizers."

As I recall, Clinton never did visit that site at anytime. Am I correct or wrong on this? This is so typical of the way Clinton lies to make a good story with whomever he is talking. Another strange thing about the lie: An Arab just walked up to him and started talking? No way. It disappointed me that KMOX continued to play this excerpt of Clinton knowing that he had to be lying (at least I would assume they knew he was lying). Clinton on many occasions would bald-face lie, full well knowing that everyone would soon enough realize it. Clinton is the epitome of the pathological liar."

No Wayne, you are not mistaken, not only did William Jefferson Clinton not visit the site of the WTC on February 27th (the next day), no Secret Service Agent worth his salt would let an Arab male just walk up to the President and begin a conversation. Not after the attempt by Squeeky Fromm against President Ford AND the attempt on President Reagan, just didn't happen.

So, why would Clinton tell a lie that is so easily disproved? In the words of Dick Morris: "Because He Could."

Liberals: Crow and Frogs Legs for Plame Banquet

Regarding claims and investigations about Valerie Plame and "Smokn' Joe" Wilson (and, I'm not saying what he smokes), imagine, for a moment, that a Republican had made charges against the Democrats similar to those that Joe Wilson and the Democrats made against the Republicans. Well, we would expect that the major media would have buried the story in that case. So, I'm not surprised that major media is burying the revelation that, as many knew, Joe Wilson, himself, was the one most responsible for exposing his wife's role with the CIA--and, oh yes, lying about his Iraq report.

Liberals Imagined Sign of Guilt at White House

But, somewhere away from the front page, the Washington Post comes forward to set things straight.

We're reluctant to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband....

I bet. Just like all the liberal Democrats are reluctant to return to the subject now that they've been proved wrong. But, major media didn't thinik that too much attention was devoted to claims with no proof before.

Then, the Washington Post does offer this accurate summary after, naturally, suggesting that high level Republicans must still be guilty in some fashion even absent a conviction. Note that the summary rightly goes beyond the initial charge of who identified Ms. Plame and addresses the fact that Joe Wilson also lied about his report on Iraq shopping for uranium, for which Christopher Hitchens received flak (to put it mildly) with his evidence, as did I whenever I referenced Hitchens' columns.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy.

Exactly. However, the paper doens't address who is supposed to reimburse taxpayers for the needless costs of the grand juries and the special prosecutor's investigations against our highest government officials. Would that be Joe Wilson or the Democratic Party--both who profited from the lies? Shouldn't the losers pay?

Then, the Washington Post offers this polite way to end the discussion on Joe Wilson:

It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Unfortunate, indeed.

And, just who might have been among those who were telling everyone to take this seriously during the Presidential election? Could it beeeeeee Satan?! No, but that's close. It might be the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, CBS, etc.--not to mention the Democrats, Moveon.org, and every left-wing blog. How "unfortunate" that they got this wrong. Perhaps, they will do a better job of helping to restore the good reputations of those damaged. Don't hold your breath.

May I suggest a better a more appropriate way to end this matter. If you're one of those liberal Democrats who made outrageous statements against Republicans on this matter, follow these instructions.
(1) Print out this post.
(2) Write the word "crow" boldly across it.
(3) Eat it.

I like my way better.

Oh, and if we really want justice on this matter, let's allow Joe Wilson to have his wish:

Wilson wants leak culprit 'frog-marched'

Whoever released the name, Wilson said, "potentially engaged in outing a national security asset. "If that was determined to have been a crime, I would love to see them frog-marched out of the White House," he said.

Joe Wilson, can you say "ribbet?" Those frog legs could be your own.

PlameGate...Ohhh, This is Good.

By now, you know that the Democrats' claims and attacks against Geroge Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, & Co. on the Valerie Plame "outing" turned out to be false. I said it all along and said that it was nothing but politics, i.e., helping Kerry's campaign, and making money, i.e. book deals. Liberal after liberal told me how stupid I was and that Rove and Cheney would soon be at the gallows. They weren't. But, as I am a gracious winner, I will leave the comment section open for them to come apologize and concede that I, and we, were correct.

That wasn't the good part. This is. Oyster (nice picture) did a very good job on PlameGate in her post titled "Yes, I'm smirking." She also included some good links to others who are smirking. In particular, I liked the "short 'n sweet" wrap-up in the Jawa Report that she referenced. It's a worthwhile visit to Oyster's "Soy Como Soy" site for a recap.

The comment section is now open. Liberals, try not to fill it up.

Russell Shaw - Is This Guy For Real?

WILL THE REAL RUSSELL SHAW PLEASE STAND UP?

Confused? Can't figure out if Russell Shaw is as his photograph on the Puffington Host, or a Pig, or a Death's Head? Well, after his latest, join the club, many others can't figure it out either. Because you see, Russell Shaw is a liar, a conman or perhaps evil in disguse as a member of the "reality based community" (or what ever the far left calls themselves these days). You decide:

That realization has led my brain to launch a political calculus 180 degrees removed from my pacifist-inclined leanings. An entirely hypothetical yet realpolitik calculus that is ugly, and cold-hearted but must be posited:

This is a type of calculus that Pentagon war games planners and political consultants do all the time- a combination of what-if actions and consequences that are unpleasant to consider but are in the realm of plausibility.

What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the "he's kept us safe" revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate and be in a position to:

Block the next Supreme Court appointment, one which would surely result in the overturning of Roe and the death of hundreds if not thousands of women from abortion-prohibiting states at the hands of back-alley abortionists;

This guy, despite his claims to the contrary, wonders if another terrorist attack wouldn't sicken enough Americans so that they would vote democratic and thus bring about all kinds of "goodies" that the Democrats want.

I can't figure it out, is he for real, a pig or a death's head? What say YOU?

Do Democrats Have Better Plans?

If one reads comments from the left on a regular basis, you find out that they are all about complaining, but they offer few realistic solutions--perhaps, because they are afraid that people will scrutize their ideas and reject them.

Particularly on Iraq, I don't want to wait until after the fall elections to discover what are the Democrat's "Secret Plans." Put everything on the table now. Just in case they don't, let's be reminded of how great their foreign policy ideas have worked before and consider their current broad proposals to buy votes with other peoples' money.

Do we really want Democrats in charge?
By Larry Elder, August 24, 2006

Sixty percent of Americans, according to recent polls, consider Iraq a mistake. Given the unpopularity of the war, Democrats expect to capture one, if not both, chambers of Congress this fall. Assuming this happens -- and I still don't believe so -- will Americans be better off?

Knowing what I know and expect now, I'll have no choice but to hold my nose and vote Republican again in the fall. The other alternative is too scary and dangerous for our country.

Good News! Conservatives Outbreed Liberals

The Fertility Gap

Liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. ...Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections.

How does one liberal columnist explain this?

"Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation."

In other words, liberals don't have children "for the children!"

Well, we now know that liberals may be spending too much time sc---ing around with our lives rather than spending time just sc---ing around. (Is it okay to say that, G.M.?)

What a Shock! The Left is Hateful

What we already knew that a Democrat is just finding out....

Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton and a Lieberman supporter, complained Tuesday about anti-Lieberman comments he found on liberal blogs. "I came to believe that we liberals couldn't possibly be so intolerant and hateful," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong."

Welcome to the club of the hated and insulted.

Screedblog Has it ALL!!!

James Lileks is one of the more popular bloggers out there, and with damned good reason. I love his blogging on matchbooks, his uncanny ability to find illustrations from the golden age of advertising in the 50's and his ability to nail down a good and popular screed. This one in particular is awesome:

The energetic head of the DNC had this to say:

“If you think what’s going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn’t, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn’t get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.�

The problem with Moral Authority is its antonym, the Palestinian Authority. Does Dean mean the Oslo accords? President Clinton had been in office less than a year. There‘s a reason they’re not the Little Rock Accords: Norwegian diplomats did all the heavy lifting. (Specifically, suspending disbelief about Arafat’s motives, which can throw your back out if you’re not careful.) Does Dean mean the Camp David negotiations, which ended in the bloody second intifada? Details, details. Moral authority, that’s what counts. Doesn’t stop wars, but it makes the bad guys look extra guilty. Ingrates!

Be sure and read the whole thing here

Now We Find Out: Kerry was better. Just ask him.

Boy, did we blow it. We had two choices for President and guess what we now find out from this article.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass....took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict. "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," said Kerry during a noon stop at Honest John's bar and grill in Detroit's Cass Corridor.

Do you think that Sen. Kerry stopped a little too long at Honest John's bar before making that statement? Did he mention leading some swift boat attacks to bring peace in Lebanon?

What Does A Living Wage Look Like?

UNDER THE SPREADING CHESTNUT TREE THE VILLAGE SMITHY SNOOZES,
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.

Valerie "Plame Nuts" [Updated]

This should be good. Valerie Plame is suing V.P. Dick Cheney, Presidential advisor Karl Rove, and others saying that they ruined her career by leaking her identity as a CIA employee. The law suit can be found at The Smoking Gun. Hey, Valerie, while you're at it, sue your husband Joe Wilson, too, because of this report from National Review:

So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself.

Was she even a covert agent? Was she outed? After an exhaustive investigation, special counsel Pat Fitzgerald hedged his answer in a press conference:

Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

Her $2.5 million book deal didn't work out, so she may have found some lawyer's name from a television ad to help her manufacture a claim. Maybe the lawyer can go for whiplash after Plame's head gets snapped so fast after the lawsuit is tossed out. For someone who pretended to want anonymity, she sure likes the public spotlight.

But, if her and her husband's name is new to you, then you can learn more from "Who's Who" beginning in 1999, during Clinton's presidency. Wow! How secret can that be?

Valerie Plame doesn't sound like a secret agent. She just sounds like another shrill Democrat after a fast buck, some fame, and hatred for the Bush administration. Maybe she and Cindy Sheehan should have coffee together some time--after the hunger strike is over, of course.

[Update]

What a bad break for Plame...Wilson and Plame drew Judge John D. Bates -- and a quick glance at his rulings will no doubt have the Left fuming.

Democrats New "Champagne and No Shame Campaign"

We could sub-title this post "Democrats Show Disgusting Hypocrisy - Part 10,482." Do you remember when the Democrats and the left became vitriolic in condemning President Bush's campaign ads which used three seconds of footage from the destroyed World Trade Center in a defining moment of his leadership? They said that it was exploitive and insensitive--in their more polite moments. Well, now the Democrats are using footage of the caskets of American soldiers killed in combat for their ads, but no outrage there, of course! No insensitivity or exploitation either, I guess.

Here are mild examples of the left's earlier feigned "outrage" of Bush's ad: Salon with "Has Bush no shame," over to The Nation with "Exploiting 9/11, Badly," at Working for Change with "Bush exploiting 9/11", and a brief recap of them with comments from Little Green Footballs. The Democrats had similar attacks that can be found from a search but have become inaccessible.

Now, you can view this new Democratic campaign ad showing rows of the soldiers coffins, courtesy of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. No hypocrisy here, huh?

At least President Bush cared about the 9-11 victims and has defended America so that we have not had another such attack at this point, with no help from the left. This is unlike the Democrats who break out the champagne every time another milestone is reached by the deaths of American soldiers, whom they never really supported.

Let's wait for the outrage from Salon, The Nation, the mass media, and wacko leftists sites. I'm afraid that there will be a strong silence from them regarding this and the Democrats.

Bush showed respect for the 9-11 victims. The Democrats do not respect our military, but they can use its and our dead soldiers to try to get votes.

I guess that the Democrat's new ad and movement could be titled "The Champagne and No Shame Campaign." How disgusting for them.

Democratic Underground in Spoof (Surely)

You know that President Bush blew up the Twin Towers on 9-11 just like he bombed the levees in New Orleans. Well, here's a classic making the rounds about someone from the Democratic Underground "proving" that the planes that crashed into the buildings could not have brought them down. Implied Conclusion: Bush bombed the buildings. Check it yourself. You have to see the pictures.

.

Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.

"1. I set up the following experiment using steel rabbit fencing as the steel structure supporting a heavy cement block.
2. Then I damaged the "columns" by cutting them with wire cutters:
3. Just inside where the gash was made in the outer wall, I placed a cup of kerosene (jet fuel), and there was newspaper around the bottom on the structure.
4. Then I put a heavy cement block on top, weighing about 15 pounds. I don't think the wire structure would hold more than three of these blocks, so the "safety factor" was not particularly high.
5. Then I tipped over the cup and lit the kerosene:
6. Then fire burned for about twenty minutes, and toward the end, I put my foot on the structure to see if it would extra weight. It still did:
7. The structure held up fine after the fire died:
8. After the fire was hot, the "columns" were not hot at all:

"What I conclude is that a fairly flimsy steel structure does not distort and bend and collapse very easily from a simple hydrocarbon fire. And thus, it is not clear why the much stronger steel columns in the WTC towers weakened so much from fires that the towers underwent global collapse."

My own conclusion? I cannot believe this is a real experiment. I have to think that The Onion is pulling a fast one on us or that the Democratic Underground did this as a spoof to make conservative bloggers look gullible for anything bad about the left. This is just too nuts to be real.

No sir, they couldn't fool me. Even I don't think that the Democratic Underground is that DUmb.

Let the Excuses and Lies Begin - Dems and Elections

In the last Presidential campaign, the Democrats tried to scare every kid and parent by claiming that President Bush had a secret plan to reinstate the military draft after the election. Well, that "secret plan" must be super-secret because we never saw it. Now, the Democrats are poised with made-up accusations again--this time that President Bush has a secret plan to bring home the troops right before the November elections--a "November Surprise". I guess that's a way to say that they thought of it first if Bush does (possible, but not a timetable) and to start laying out the excuses for when the Democrats do poorly in the mid-term elections. Let their lying begin.

Real Problem Story Book Lesson [LINK UPDATE]

Do you see this unstable dictator.....and his ICBM?

.

Continue reading "Real Problem Story Book Lesson [LINK UPDATE]"

Al Gore Admits Global Warming Lie [UPDATED x2]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the left practices situational ethics. Their causes are so noble (to them), that any means to achieve success is okay--lying especially. Al Gore gave further support to this claim when he said the folowing:

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

He's serial...I mean serious.

Via Maggie's Farm and Free Republic--both with good comments

UPDATE: From comments left at "Free Republic" (with thanks for the borrowing extended to ancient geezer)

"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
-- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; see also (Dixy Lee Ray in 'Trashing the Planet', 1990) and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." (Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect"
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)

"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!"
-- Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)"

MORE UPDATES AND ADDITIONS

What do you do about a leading climatologist who won't toe the liberal line on global warming? Why you demand that he be fired!

From Drudge Report:

'GLOBAL WARMING' PROTESTERS CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF HURRICANE CENTER DIRECTOR
May 31, 2006

SILVER SPRING, MD – Hundreds of concerned citizens and leaders from across the nation will join Hurricane Katrina survivors Wednesday to call for the resignation of the heads of the National Hurricane Center and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration....

(A)dvocates will demand that NOAA stop covering up the growing scientific link between severe hurricanes and global warming while insisting on real solutions to the problem of global warming....

Yet, despite a flurry of peer-reviewed scientific studies linking planetary warming to storms like Katrina, leaders at NOAA and the NHC continue to claim that the recent hurricane devastation is part of a "natural cycle."

Don't tell these same people that the sun is at the center of our solar system. They may want other scientists hung for heresy.

NEXT--

Scientists Say Arctic Once Was Tropical
May 31, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) - Scientists have found what might have been the ideal ancient vacation hotspot with a 74-degree Fahrenheit average temperature, alligator ancestors and palm trees. It's smack in the middle of the Arctic.

First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally.

Skeptics of man-made causes of global warming have nothing to rejoice over, however. The researchers say their studies appearing in Thursday's issue of Nature also offer a peek at just how bad conditions can get.

"It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

Wow! Forget about getting hot and rising sea levels. With mosquitoes that big we're going to have one serious outbreak of the West Nile virus. Can you imagine the itch that bite would cause? But, isn't one thing funny? Rather than seeing the obvious point that global warming is part of natural long-term cycles in our climate, the left tries to tell us that this should be a warning as to how bad that it can get if we don't start solving GW now. Well, what was Bush and mankind doing 55 million years ago that caused this problem?

See. With the worshippers of the Global Warming God, everything proves their case--even the things that refute it.

You know. With the lying, firing your critics, and the cover-ups, I'd think that we would be covering Watergate rather than global warming believers. I guess the left admires Nixon more than we knew.

One More--

Finally, from our buddy and a self-described global warming expert on Gore's (or someone's) penchant to lie:

Environment II by Mark A. York:
(Yes, that Mark A. York aka Jake Elmore whose site gives his purpose: "Dedicated to bashing the myths perpetuated by the untrained conservative mind on environmental and other political issues facing the world at this critical juncture.")

Yeah
May 30, 2006

Swift Boating the Planet, By Paul Krugman

"Al Gore and others who hope to turn global warming into a real political issue are going to have to get tougher, because the other side doesn't play by any known rules."

I haven't read it but I know what he said.

What rules? Lying, firing qualified scientists who see otherwise, scaring people, stealing money for research instead of helping people? It seems that the left has a monopoly on cheating rather than playing by the rule book. (You're welcome for the link, Mark, as much as I appreciate your insight.)

Make Me Gag: Murtha Accepts JFK Profile in Courage Award

As I type this, I'm watching a CBS host interview Caroline Kennedy, Democratic Rep. John P. Murtha, and former Navy general counsel Alberto J. Mora about today's ceremony to award Congressman Murtha with the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. The interview is actually a love fest attacking the U.S. military--not individuals who broke rules, but the entire military. Look for extensive coverage of this by the main-stream media, which gets a "two-fer:" the first when the award was announced in March and today when the award is presented in a ceremony.

Here's a recap from Real Clear Politics that summarized at the time why Murtha won the award and why the choice seems contradictory to the award's purpose:

Profile in Courage? Not John Murtha (Excerpted)

In its announcement of this year's winners, the Foundation described its reasons for honoring Murtha: "Congressman Murtha... was recognized for the difficult and courageous decision of conscience he made in November, 2005, when he reversed his support for the Iraq war and called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the conflict. His... dissent also made him the target of withering political attacks and resulted in efforts by political opponents to discredit his Vietnam War decorations."

What the Foundation did not describe is how these reasons were consistent with President Kennedy's definition of courage. How did Murtha's opposition to a U.S. presence in Iraq contravene popular opinion? If opinion polls and press reports are to be believed, most Americans oppose the Iraq War.

Furthermore, how did Murtha's Iraq announcement threaten him with "the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men"? If anything, Murtha arguably benefited from his reversal. For one, he now stood with the vast majority of his fellow Democrats. And rather than bring him ignominy, his switch made him a prominent voice in the debate over Iraq. He was either a guest or a topic of all the Sunday morning talk shows.

A significantly better example of political courage is that shown by Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. In contrast to Murtha, Lieberman has been a consistent supporter of American efforts in Iraq. And in further contrast to Murtha, Lieberman has faced real consequences for this stand.

Is this the best that they can do with the award? I guess so, since politics to the left overrides honor.

Oops. That Shouldn't Have Gotten Out

Here are four interesting stories found today at Drudge Report. The Democrats, the left, and most of the liberal press didn't mean for these reports to get too far, but we are glad to help pass them along.

* * * * *

I.
Democratic National Committee Worked To Defeat Nagin

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) secretly placed political operatives in the city of New Orleans to work against the reelection efforts of incumbent Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean made the decision himself to back mayoral candidate and sitting Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu (D-LA), sources reveal.

Dean came to the decision to back the white challenger, over the African-American incumbent Nagin, despite concerns amongst senior black officials in the Party that the DNC should stay neutral.

It sounds like the Democrats are returning to their roots. They don't like the Republican Uncle Tom's, as they call them, and now they don't support blacks in their own party, either. Yet, the Democrats take the black vote for granted.

* * * * *

II. Website (Leftist) Issues 'Partial Apology' Regarding Rove Indictment Report... (from TruthOut)

On Saturday afternoon, May 13, 2006, TruthOut ran a story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." The story stated in part that top Bush aide Karl Rove had earlier that day been indicted on the charges set forth in the story's title.

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted.

I guess that the story is "fake but accurate." It will be hard to track this one as the web site is being constantly updated to try to justify their reporting error. They are still saying it's true, but that they are just too far ahead of the curve. If you think that organization is nuts, just read the first comment from one of their typical readers. This same organization concerned with truth also presents us with this other true story: "West's Failure Over Climate Change "Will Kill 182 Million Africans"

* * * * *

III. Caught On Tape: Dem congressman accepting $100,000 in $100 bills... (AP)

A congressman under investigation for bribery (Rep. William Jefferson, D-La) was caught on videotape accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded, according to a court document released Sunday. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer.

That's $100,000 in cold cash. We've heard about this Democratic congressman before: Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who represents New Orleans, led a daring mission at the height of the flood crisis to help an African-American resident of New Orleans to salvage his possessions and to be evacuated.

* * * * *

IV. Give and take across the border...

Roughly 10 percent of Mexico's population of about 107 million is now living in the United States, estimates show. About 15 percent of Mexico's labor force is working in the United States. One in every 7 Mexican workers migrates to the United States.

Last year, Mexico received a record $20 billion in remittances from migrant workers. That is equal to Mexico's 2004 income from oil exports and dwarfing tourism revenue. Arriving in small monthly transfers of $100 and $200, remittances have formed a vast river of "migra-dollars".... The money Mexican migrants send home almost equals the U.S. foreign aid budget for the entire world....

Are our Mexican restaurants better than theirs? It must be something.

Who Could Be Worse Than Bush?

Democrats and their left cheer reports of Bush's declining poll numbers but fail to read the end of article.

Poll Gives Bush His Worst Marks Yet - The New York Times, May 10, 2006

(according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll) Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who was Mr. Bush's opponent in 2004, had a lower approval rating than Mr. Bush: 26 percent, down from 40 percent in a poll conducted right after the election. And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics.

This reminds me of the joke that ends "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you." Democrats don't understand that the Republicans don't have to be good to be elected. They just have to run better than Democrats.

The Words They Use ~ A Study In Misdirection

I love blogging, I love reading blogs, left, right, center it doesn't matter to me. I have blogger friends on the left, on the right and in the center. I have blogger friends who are RINO's and Die Hard Republicans, who are DINO's and Yellow Dog Democrats. I even know a few libertarians.

One of the things I love the most is the use of language. Especially the language of the left, meant as one thing, but really a misdirection. Let me explain. The liberal mind is incapable of saying what they mean. I first came on this phenomenon while reading leftish blogs, in particular, the use of the phrase (since 2004) "Reality Based Community." Why is this a phenomenon? Simply because the word means 1 : an observable fact or event and 2 : an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition. So, lets take a look at what the left means by "Reality Based Community." A Google search yields (today) over three million hits of the term. Acccording to the Wikipedia, the term means:

Reality-based community" is a popular term among Internet bloggers that is an example of political framing. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community," was first used to suggest the blogger's opinions are based more on observation than faith, assumption, or ideology and that others who disagree are unrealistic. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality." Some bloggers have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole."

So those who say that they are members of a so-called (full disclosure: here my use of the term "so called" indicates doubt and derision of the term) reality based communities are saying that they have the power to observe and those that do not adhere to that concept are merely faith based and have nothing to draw on. Oh really?

Yes really! Matthew Yglesias notes:

But now that shrill, Bush-hating libertarian Gene Healy is suggesting "Reality-Based Community" T-shirts it appears that the anti-Bush coalition may at last, thanks to an anonymous White House advisor, have found a unifying theme. We are not merely the Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill, which may turn off some of your more mild-mannered Bush opponents, we are, proud members of the Reality-Based Community. On the other side is, well, the other guys."

How quaint. Those folk can say that they are not just shrill oppositionalists but actually (according to Wikipedia) people who "believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality." Yet, I've yet to see any real "solutions" from the left, mostly carping and caterwauling without proposing anything solid in terms of a solution. One of the most obvious of these is John "Do you know who I am?" Kerry who throughout the 2004 Presidential election cycle said he had a plan to end the war in Iraq, a plan to improve the economy a plan to... Well, insufficient voters believed him and he lost. So, now that he doesn't need to keep his Nixonian plans secret any more, where are they. Can we say of these supporters of Kerry and Kerry himself that a continued silence condems Americans and Iraqi's to ongoing war? Can we say that the economy doesn't need his plan? Of course not, Kerry had no such plan because keeping it "secret" now would be pointless. Unless of course he is planning to run again in 2008 and I don't think even Kerry is that stupid. On the other hand....

But, I digress. Let's go back to the reality based community. They observe and come up with detailed plans whereas we on the oppositie side of the political fence merely have faith that our plans will work, not based on any understanding of human nature or facts, but merely based on, well, nothing. Balderdash! The so called reality based community still doesn't understand, in spite of observations since the 1930's at the minimum that you cannot bow down to terrorism, whether of non-state actors or state actors. Whether they be members of Al Qaeda or of the Government of Iran. Whether they be Hitler wanting to annex the Sudatenland in Czechoslovakia or Osama bin Laden blowing up an American warcraft or planning and carrying out one of the biggest acts of terrorism in the history of the world on September 11, 2001. So much for their "judicious study of discernible reality."

Other words and terms also come to mind. For example the term "Pro-Choice" when of course they don't mean pro choice, they mean pro-abortion. But this is another example of "framing." If you frame the argument as pro abortion vs. pro-life, the pro abortion team loses the argument. However, if you "re-frame" the argument as "pro-choice" then you get to say that those who oppose you do not want women to have a choice in managing their bodies. It seems to me that in very few instances (rape, incest for example) the choice comes from having unprotected recreational sex. Now don't get me wrong, I am all for sex, it just means more if it is in a committed relationship. If not in a committed relationship, and it is unprotected it almost invites pregnancy, disease and other unfortunate consequinces.

Another term used by the left to misdirect is "Tax cuts for the rich." Oh, this one is especially pernicious, and egregious and truly sloppy. Any cursory "judicious study of discernible reality" will tell you rather quickly that the so called rich are paying MORE TAXES than they did before the so called tax cuts for the rich. A true "judicious study of discerniable reality" will show that the percentage of receipts by the government have increased "from the rich." Bruce Bartlett writing in Real Clear Politics last December notes:

...we now have data for Australia from the Australian Taxation Office. In 2003, they show the top 5 percent of taxpayers paying 30.2 percent of all income taxes, the top 10 percent paying 41.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paying 63.8 percent. But the top income tax rate in Australia is 47 percent. Thus we see that the country with the highest top rate also brings in the least amount of total income tax revenue from its richest citizens in percentage terms.

At some point, those on the left must decide what really matters to them -- the appearance of soaking the rich by imposing high statutory tax rates that may cause actual tax payments by the wealthy to fall, or lower rates that may bring in more revenue that can pay for government programs to aid the poor? Sadly, the left nearly always votes for appearances over reality, favoring high rates that bring in little revenue even when lower rates would bring in more."

Oh, I'm not even close to being done yet, you'll have to click on the link below to continue reading and see what else I'm going to have to say...

Continue reading "The Words They Use ~ A Study In Misdirection"

Kennedy Skipped Oral Exam, Fails Written One

You have to see this from The Smoking Gun. It's a page from the police report of another recent auto accident involving Rep. Patrick Kennedy. Now, in the latest accident at the Capitol, Kennedy failed to pass the bar--no, I mean a real bar, not the law exam. Kennedy was given a pass on the breathalyzer test in that one. However, he was actually given a written test on this earlier incident in R.I., for which Kennedy's answers, in his own handwriting, that were attached to the police report are shown below. There is some debate as to what language he used. This should clear up any questions, and does it ever. Couldn't they have given him a take-home test, instead?

Castro Worth $900 Million - Credits Cuban System

And, all this time I thought that the Cuban economy was bad and that Cubans were repressed. Well, apparently, not all of them.

Castro worth $900 million: Forbes

Castro, who says his net worth is nil, is likely the beneficiary of up to $900 million, based on his control of state-owned companies, (Forbes) the U.S. financial magazine said in its annual tally of "Kings, Queens & Dictators" fortunes on Thursday.

...Castro had said he was considering suing after Forbes released its 2005 list, scoffing then his wealth was estimated to be close to that of the queen of England. ...This year, Castro would be well above the British monarch. Queen Elizabeth came in with some $500 million in estates, gems and a stamp collection built by her grandfather.

Well, this explains how Castro can afford those expensive Cuban cigars and why the newest South American presidents are getting cozy with him. They want to use his expensive beach condo.

Of course, you won't read much about Castro's wealth from leftists, who like to portray Castro as a great leader and socialism as great system. Well, it has worked for him.

May I Have $6.00 A Gallon Please?

Chuck Schumer (Dem., N.Y.) recently asked "If $75 a barrel oil and a $3 average for a gallon of gasoline isn't a wake-up call, then what is?" and as the Wall Street Journal notes it is indeed a fine question for Senator Schumer to ask. They go on to note:

In fact, Mr. Schumer and most of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate--the very crowd shouting the loudest about "obscene" gas prices--have voted uniformly for nearly 20 years against allowing most domestic oil production. They have vetoed opening even a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas production. If there is as much oil as the U.S. Geological Survey estimates, this would increase America's proven domestic oil reserves by about 50%."

[...]

The dirty little secret about oil politics is that today's high gas price is precisely the policy result that Mr. Schumer and other liberals have long desired. High prices have been the prod that the left has favored to persuade Americans to abandon their SUVs and minivans, use mass transit, turn the thermostat down, produce less consumer goods and services, and stop emitting those satanic greenhouse gases. "Why isn't the left dancing in the streets over $3 a gallon gas?" asks Sam Kazman, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who's followed the gasoline wars for years."

This graph shows the average price of gasoline, per gallon, in both the United States and some European countries. Click this Link to see where Mr. Schumer really wants gas prices to go (he won't tell you, I just did) Is that what you want Mr. Schumer? If it is, then be at least honest enough to say so without the fancy footwork designed to make you look indignant (when you aren't) and gouge the American People under the guise of concern which you are obviously trying to do.

Let us be honest in this debate about gasoline prices. First, there is no evidence of price gouging to date. Since the 1990's the SEC and FTC have been scrutinizing the oil companies without finding any evidence. Second, the inflation adjusted price of gasoline today is less than the cost of gasoline in 1979/80. View image! As you can see from the graph, the cost of gasoline of gasoline was higher in 80/81 than now. That does not mean that gasoline won't go still higher and break records but the reasons for that are not necessarily under the control of the oil companies. It is called supply and demand and with India and China feverishly working to increase their supplies, that will drive the price up all else remaining the same.

Looking at the cost as a percent of personal comsumption expendatures on a monthly basis, you will see that while expenditures are indeed up, the cost are still below the '80/'81 levels View image. Again, while the costs and expense for families is high, it has been higher.

We also need to take a look at where the real costs of gas at the pump come from. The hype of the left is that the oil companies get it all, or at least that is what they want you to believe. The reality is that the cost of crude (and remember we import way too much oil) is 47% of the cost. So, at $3.00 a gallon $1.47 of that is just for the cost of the oil to make the gas. Add to that another $0.69 for state and federal taxes and you are already over two thirds of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. But wait, we aren't done yet. It costs $0.36 to get the gasoline to you and to advertise their product and we are now up to $2.46 of the cost of a gallon of gas at $3.00. That is just shy of 84% of the cost. View image According to the Energy Information Administration: Department of Transportation: Bureau of Economic Analysis, those folks charged with knowing how much you have to pay for gasoline, only about 27 cents is profit and another 27 cents goes into refining costs. TWENTY SEVEN CENTS!!! Yeppers, that's price gouging. NOT! Economics are obviously not the forte of Mr. Schumer and his cohorts.

There are other reasons for the significant rise in the cost of gasoline that the liberals/Democrats don't want you to know. While the UN dithers with Iran, world concern regarding supplies have driven up costs lest the Iranians block the exit to the Persian Gulf or other major disruption of oil transshipment. There are also currently seventeen types of "botique" blends of gasoline and ethanol that are mandated by congress and or the states. This causes disruptions in delivery and where in one locality one type of fuel has to be turned down because it is not a mandated type. There is a move afoot in congress to whittle that number down to six.

Just a lowly eight months ago, Congress passed and the President signed an energy bill with significant tax breaks to get the oil companies up and moving because of the major disruption caused by Hurricaine Katrina and Rita. The disruption of the refinary capacity has caused part of the problem and we have not built any new refinaries in over 20 years. That is also part of the problem because the majority of refinaries located on the Gulf Coast were damaged and supplies disrupted. Now, congress is debating on rolling back the tax breaks but that will only increase receipts to the government because the fact of the matter is that corporations do NOT pay taxes. You do. Taxes are part of the economic mix that are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices IN ADDITION to the taxes you pay at the pump.

Then there is the move by the President to halt filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that is almost full anyway and this will hardly make even a small dent in the cost of gas. Bold move Mr. Bush. NOT!

Which brings me to the Republican's efforts (What efforts?...Ed! - precisely) in this mess. They are as busy with double talk and crapping on the oil companies making it look like they are so concerned and are acting just like Democrats. In fact, it is getting harder and harder to tell the two parties apart (execept the Republicans don't have anyone near as deadly as Schumer when it comes to getting between Schumer and a TV camera). I fear the Reps will find out that we really don't need two liberal parties in November and that the population will just vote for Democrats rather than Republicans acting like Democrats. But, maybe the Reps will wake up, it is not too late. YET!!!

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?

1979: Killer Rabbit Circles President in Boat Attack

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.

Ehhh, What's Up, Doc?

This won't win a peace prize, but can he have his reputation back?

"Give In or We'll Turn America Upside-Down"

I'm not going to recount arguments about amnesty for illegal immigrants. There are plenty of articles and web sites that already do that. I simply want to share the image to the left. Groups of illegal immigrants are massing in our streets waving their flags and chanting ¡Sí, Se Puede!--for which the intended meaning is "hell, yes, we can do it!" Does this image and do these sounds give you pause?

Dignan is RUNNING

Dignan is going to run for congress. Against Cynthia McKinney no less.

Dignan says:

Cynthia McKinney is not unfit for her job because she is liberal. There are plenty of liberal Democrats in this country who serve their constituents well, even though I often disagree with their positions.

Cynthia McKinney is unfit for her job because she is a do-nothing demogogue whose apparent goal in life is self-promotion through race-baiting and conspiracy theories.

So I am throwing down the gauntlet.

Unless a better candidate appears, I will run for Congress against Cynthia. If I have to spend every day after work knocking on doors in my district for the next 20 years, I will do what it takes to defeat her. If I have to places calls to every person in this country asking for donations to the campaign, I will do it.

Go Dignan!!!

And a delighted tip of the GM Derby to Glen Reynolds