In this whacky political season, it is fascinating to see that Virginia Senator George Allen (R-Virginia) is already being thrown overboard by the MSM(Mainstream Media) as a serious Republican candidate for president in 2008 for an alleged racist slur against a worker for his opponent in this year's senate race for his reelection.
The flap occurred when an Indian-American campaign worker for opponent James Webb, the Democrat candidate, was following Sen. Allen around on a day of campaigning and Allen, maybe or maybe not knowing, was videotaped pointing him out to the crowd and the senator then referred to him as a "macaca", an alleged slur that the overwhelming
majority of Americans never heard of.
For the record, it is allegedly a North African or Southern African term for monkey. Sen. Allen would have probably been better off calling him a monkey in the first place.
While many Americans were looking up this in their political correctness
dictionaries, the Washington Post felt this was such an outrage that there was three days worth of front page coverage on this.
Somehow, this "racial" slur does not warrant three days of coverage essentially calling Sen. Allen a racist.
Not only that, but it was rightfully pointed out, of course excessively, that the campaign worker is an American and infact Virginian born and raised.
I don't think that one thoughtless comment in the heat of the moment of a campaign automatically disqualifies one from running or even being considered a front runner for President of the United States. In two years, no one will remember this comment. People will remember that Sen. Allen defeated a one-time Republican who ran as a Democrat because he could not defeat the incumbent in a primary and is only running because he opposes the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror.
What the MSM should be focused on is what kind of record does James Webb have. How does a conservative suddendly throw all of the conservative positions overboard he held in a pique because he does not support our role in Iraq? What does he plan to do differently? Does he support the Ned Lamont position of cut and run and "work with our allies and talk to our enemies."?
But, alas, it is more important to see if a dumb comment by an incumbent warrants the news page, the front page no less, rather than where the opponent stands on current affairs.
It makes me wonder why the Islamofacists want to kill us since we really seem to care about real issues, only facades.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Monday, August 14, 2006
The Difference Between Liberman And Chafee
There are a lot of people that think it is ok that Connecticut Democrats threw Sen. Joe Lieberman overboard last week based on one vote, for the war in Iraq, and supporting the president in the overall War Against Terror.
The fact that Sen. Lieberman is an Americans For Democratic Action lifetime 80 percent rating does not seem to matter.
Yet, the media is all but in bed with Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee and wondering why he has a serious Republican challenger in Cranston mayor Steve Laffey.
Records and general approach do matter and Sen. Chafee is the worst Republican in the senate.
According to the American Conservative Union, Sen. Chafee has a lifetime 37 percent rating. That is worse that moderate Republican Senators Olympia Snowe(50 percent) and Susan Collins(55 percent), both of Maine and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn) at 45 percent.
What is more a test of party loyalty other than one vote or issue is the fact that in the 2004 presidential election, Sen. Chafee also bragged that he infact did not vote for President Bush, instead writing in former president George H. W. Bush's name.
Now, one does not doubt that Sen. Lieberman voted for John Kerry in 2004 and certainly for Vice-president Al Gore.
And the reward for overall party loyalty, an upstart Ned Lamont with the help of the radical lefty bloggers, beat Sen. Lieberman and want him to be stripped of all his committee posts.
So, back to Sen. Chafee.
The media is trying to paint Sen. Chafee as a "moderate" Republican who mostly votes with the party (see www.pasadenastarnews.com) Friday, August 11) when the opposite is true. Sen. Chaffee is so disloyal that he would essentially vote against President Bush in a close election in 2004. Infact, Rhode Island Republicans need to rid themselves of this Democrat lite and elect Steve Laffey.
Conventional wisdom is that Mr. Laffey would lose big and that Sen. Chaffee has at least a 50/50 chance at winning. Polls show both behind the presumptive Democratic nominee. If Mr. Laffee does win the Republican nomination, like the Democrats, Republicans will close ranks and deliver the money that Mr. Laffey needs to be competitive and potentially a winner.
Party loyalty does mean something. Sen. Lieberman has been a loyal Democrat and got thrown overboard by some radicalized Democratic primary voters. Sen. Chafee deserves to be thrown overboard for a Republican candidate that will at the very least support the president or presidential candidate for election.
The fact that Sen. Lieberman is an Americans For Democratic Action lifetime 80 percent rating does not seem to matter.
Yet, the media is all but in bed with Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee and wondering why he has a serious Republican challenger in Cranston mayor Steve Laffey.
Records and general approach do matter and Sen. Chafee is the worst Republican in the senate.
According to the American Conservative Union, Sen. Chafee has a lifetime 37 percent rating. That is worse that moderate Republican Senators Olympia Snowe(50 percent) and Susan Collins(55 percent), both of Maine and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn) at 45 percent.
What is more a test of party loyalty other than one vote or issue is the fact that in the 2004 presidential election, Sen. Chafee also bragged that he infact did not vote for President Bush, instead writing in former president George H. W. Bush's name.
Now, one does not doubt that Sen. Lieberman voted for John Kerry in 2004 and certainly for Vice-president Al Gore.
And the reward for overall party loyalty, an upstart Ned Lamont with the help of the radical lefty bloggers, beat Sen. Lieberman and want him to be stripped of all his committee posts.
So, back to Sen. Chafee.
The media is trying to paint Sen. Chafee as a "moderate" Republican who mostly votes with the party (see www.pasadenastarnews.com) Friday, August 11) when the opposite is true. Sen. Chaffee is so disloyal that he would essentially vote against President Bush in a close election in 2004. Infact, Rhode Island Republicans need to rid themselves of this Democrat lite and elect Steve Laffey.
Conventional wisdom is that Mr. Laffey would lose big and that Sen. Chaffee has at least a 50/50 chance at winning. Polls show both behind the presumptive Democratic nominee. If Mr. Laffee does win the Republican nomination, like the Democrats, Republicans will close ranks and deliver the money that Mr. Laffey needs to be competitive and potentially a winner.
Party loyalty does mean something. Sen. Lieberman has been a loyal Democrat and got thrown overboard by some radicalized Democratic primary voters. Sen. Chafee deserves to be thrown overboard for a Republican candidate that will at the very least support the president or presidential candidate for election.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
The President Finally Says It The Way It Is
President Bush today, finally, said the "Islamofacist" word and it is about time.
It is because Mr. Bush said a word that the CAIR crowd has already condemened that we are framing what the War Against Terror is all about.
It is not about subjugating that masses of Islam to Christian rule or to convert them to Christianity. It is to take the fight to those that have so scared the majority of peaceful adherents to Islam. They are to be called by their proper name-Islamofacists.
Mr. Bush has done his best to point out that most Islamics are peaceful people and trying to do their best to follow their religion to the best of their understanding.
What Mr. Bush has failed to do until today is frame the War Against Terror in undeniable terms. To refer to the thugish adherents as what they are. Today in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Mr Bush, praising British officials fot thwarting the next 9/11, he said "Islamofacists" and it is about time.
Of course the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) went ballistic because Mr. Bush took the gloves off. We need the gloves to come off and call the enemy what it is and to continue the fight, whether it is in Afghanistan, Iraq or the shadowy world that is Islamofacist terrorists.
Now, Mr. Bush must not succumb to Democratic and left-wing opinion and try to take back that comment. He must continue to say the I-word every chance he gets. It frames the debate and takes it out of the leftist shadows and the "gray areas" that they so like.
Like it or not, this is a titanic struggle of good vs. evil. Not Christianity vs. Islam, but good people of both and the Jewish faith, the world's three monotheistic religions fighting those who will pervert Islam and throw the world to a dark age of misogynist rule under a caliphate or caliphates.
Now, President Bush that you have said the I-word, keep it up. Let the American people and the enemy know that we know what we are up against.
It is because Mr. Bush said a word that the CAIR crowd has already condemened that we are framing what the War Against Terror is all about.
It is not about subjugating that masses of Islam to Christian rule or to convert them to Christianity. It is to take the fight to those that have so scared the majority of peaceful adherents to Islam. They are to be called by their proper name-Islamofacists.
Mr. Bush has done his best to point out that most Islamics are peaceful people and trying to do their best to follow their religion to the best of their understanding.
What Mr. Bush has failed to do until today is frame the War Against Terror in undeniable terms. To refer to the thugish adherents as what they are. Today in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Mr Bush, praising British officials fot thwarting the next 9/11, he said "Islamofacists" and it is about time.
Of course the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) went ballistic because Mr. Bush took the gloves off. We need the gloves to come off and call the enemy what it is and to continue the fight, whether it is in Afghanistan, Iraq or the shadowy world that is Islamofacist terrorists.
Now, Mr. Bush must not succumb to Democratic and left-wing opinion and try to take back that comment. He must continue to say the I-word every chance he gets. It frames the debate and takes it out of the leftist shadows and the "gray areas" that they so like.
Like it or not, this is a titanic struggle of good vs. evil. Not Christianity vs. Islam, but good people of both and the Jewish faith, the world's three monotheistic religions fighting those who will pervert Islam and throw the world to a dark age of misogynist rule under a caliphate or caliphates.
Now, President Bush that you have said the I-word, keep it up. Let the American people and the enemy know that we know what we are up against.
Thank You Great Britain For Saving Thousands From The Islamofacists
We owe a tremendous thank you to the British MI5 and Pakistani intelligence for preventing a horrific terror attack on the scale and brutality of 9/11.
apparently, more than 20 individuals were plotting to fly aboard airliners from Great Britain to the United States, use some kind of liquid explosive and blow up the planes, simultaneously as on 9/11 and kill maybe thousands of people. Unlike 9/11, there would be no survivors.
Anywhere from six to 20 planes may have been used in this mayhem.
But, because Great Britain realizes at some level they are in a War Against Terror, or maybe the years of dealing with the Irish Republican Army(IRA), the so-called civil liberties of the suspects were not an issue. When the plot was discovered and verified, the authorities stepped to the plate and hit a grand slam, nabbing much of the conspiracy before the attacks could occur.
With lightning speed, police in Birmingham nabbed as many as 24 terrorists and of course there are probably more. But the British are on the case and looking for all the potential thugs with vigor.
It is a stark reminder of the world that we live in. It is a world in which Islamofacists are going to stop at nothing to rain terror and subjugate the world under their fanatical view of Islam. These are not people who want to negotiate anything. They want what they want and, with the promise of 72 virgins in "paradise" if they martyr themselves, we must do all that we can to prevent and stop the terrorists where ever they are and with all means that democratic nations have at their disposal.
One wonders if the Democrats were in control would there be anything of this nature being prevented or even stopped? With Connecticut Democrats drinking Kool-aid and voting for Ned Lamont to run for the United States senate, it is a resounding no. But I believe that the American voters are smarter than that and will keep Republican majorities in both houses of congress.
It is events like this that make Americans realize that President Bush is trying all that he can to keep America safe and willing to do almost anything.
But today, a huge "Thank you" to Great Britain for stopping the next 9/11
apparently, more than 20 individuals were plotting to fly aboard airliners from Great Britain to the United States, use some kind of liquid explosive and blow up the planes, simultaneously as on 9/11 and kill maybe thousands of people. Unlike 9/11, there would be no survivors.
Anywhere from six to 20 planes may have been used in this mayhem.
But, because Great Britain realizes at some level they are in a War Against Terror, or maybe the years of dealing with the Irish Republican Army(IRA), the so-called civil liberties of the suspects were not an issue. When the plot was discovered and verified, the authorities stepped to the plate and hit a grand slam, nabbing much of the conspiracy before the attacks could occur.
With lightning speed, police in Birmingham nabbed as many as 24 terrorists and of course there are probably more. But the British are on the case and looking for all the potential thugs with vigor.
It is a stark reminder of the world that we live in. It is a world in which Islamofacists are going to stop at nothing to rain terror and subjugate the world under their fanatical view of Islam. These are not people who want to negotiate anything. They want what they want and, with the promise of 72 virgins in "paradise" if they martyr themselves, we must do all that we can to prevent and stop the terrorists where ever they are and with all means that democratic nations have at their disposal.
One wonders if the Democrats were in control would there be anything of this nature being prevented or even stopped? With Connecticut Democrats drinking Kool-aid and voting for Ned Lamont to run for the United States senate, it is a resounding no. But I believe that the American voters are smarter than that and will keep Republican majorities in both houses of congress.
It is events like this that make Americans realize that President Bush is trying all that he can to keep America safe and willing to do almost anything.
But today, a huge "Thank you" to Great Britain for stopping the next 9/11
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Mad Mel In Perspective
Like most Americans, I have been troubled by the revelations of a drunken Mel Gibson, being nailed by a consiencious Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy, for DUI(Driving Under the Influence) going off an a rambling, profanity laced, anti-Semitic screed. But what troubles me is not the remarks, it is the man himself and the state that he is in.
What the media has not asked except for columnist Cal Thomas (www.townhall.com) is what is a married man with seven children doing gallivanting around Malibu getting drunk and hanging all over very attractive women and eventually meeting his fate?
The problem is selective morality.
It seems that to many people, ranting about the "fucking Jews" is of more consequence than what kind of husband and father and yes, role model he is.
I think it is all relative. No one thing is worse than the other.
What is bad is that Mr. Gibson has had an ongoing love other than his wife, who he himself referred to as a saint for putting up with him. That love is the bottle.
The bottle, Demon rum, the Devil's urine, whatever one wants to refer to it as, has such a stranglehold on Mr. Gibson that he fit the classic pattern of an alcoholic.
When first confronted by deputy James Mee, who for the record is Jewish and thus part of the conspiracy, he was sheepish and genuinely ashamed of his actions. Then he got angry and belligerent and then, well you know the rest.
Why would a man with such talent that he produced the hauntingly wonderful "Passion of the Christ" have this serious problem? How does it affect the relationship with his wife and children? Where does it come from?
No one knows that for sure, and not even Mr. Gibson, but by focusing on the drunken comments, those who should be concerned about the family that is his are taking their eye of the ball. Thus, the serious problem of his alcoholism, which it is known to make sane people insane, is not addressed.
For the record, I admire Mr. Gibson for his holding on the the traditional Roman Catholic church. As a Protestant and a Christian first and foremost I do not agree with many of the theological teachings of that church, but he does have the conviction to take a serious stand for Jesus Christ from that tradition.
My hope is that faith is what leads to recovery and peace for Mr. Gibson and that it renews him, his wife and family. That is the real issue. The anti-Smithson that his deep in his soul will also work itself out in recovery and that will be a positive for all concerned.
What the media has not asked except for columnist Cal Thomas (www.townhall.com) is what is a married man with seven children doing gallivanting around Malibu getting drunk and hanging all over very attractive women and eventually meeting his fate?
The problem is selective morality.
It seems that to many people, ranting about the "fucking Jews" is of more consequence than what kind of husband and father and yes, role model he is.
I think it is all relative. No one thing is worse than the other.
What is bad is that Mr. Gibson has had an ongoing love other than his wife, who he himself referred to as a saint for putting up with him. That love is the bottle.
The bottle, Demon rum, the Devil's urine, whatever one wants to refer to it as, has such a stranglehold on Mr. Gibson that he fit the classic pattern of an alcoholic.
When first confronted by deputy James Mee, who for the record is Jewish and thus part of the conspiracy, he was sheepish and genuinely ashamed of his actions. Then he got angry and belligerent and then, well you know the rest.
Why would a man with such talent that he produced the hauntingly wonderful "Passion of the Christ" have this serious problem? How does it affect the relationship with his wife and children? Where does it come from?
No one knows that for sure, and not even Mr. Gibson, but by focusing on the drunken comments, those who should be concerned about the family that is his are taking their eye of the ball. Thus, the serious problem of his alcoholism, which it is known to make sane people insane, is not addressed.
For the record, I admire Mr. Gibson for his holding on the the traditional Roman Catholic church. As a Protestant and a Christian first and foremost I do not agree with many of the theological teachings of that church, but he does have the conviction to take a serious stand for Jesus Christ from that tradition.
My hope is that faith is what leads to recovery and peace for Mr. Gibson and that it renews him, his wife and family. That is the real issue. The anti-Smithson that his deep in his soul will also work itself out in recovery and that will be a positive for all concerned.
Who Is The Bigger Threat, Mad Mel Or Mad Mahmoud?
In recent days, the American media has been obsessed with a talented, but drunkard actor/director, Mel Gibson who in a drunken stupor after being nailed for a DUI (Driving Under the Influence) charge referred to the "fucking Jews" and went on a tirade about the "fucking Jews" being the cause of all wars. Yes, it is awful what he said, but that is for another posting.
What should be of more concern to Americans is the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or as Michael Medved (www.michaelmedved.com) refers to him as Ahmadiwhackjob.
He is the leader that the French foreign minister thinks the west can deal with.
To list all of his off the chain statements would take multiple postings, but his latest solution to the war in the mideast seems simple enough. An immediate cease fire. Where have we heard that before? But the long term solution to Mr. Amadinejad is the elimination of Israel. One can not make this stuff up.
The difference between Mr. Gibson, he is a loudmouth drunk at worst. He is not in charge of a nation, let alone his personal life at the moment. Mr. Ahmadiejad is the leader, or co-leader, of a growing nation that is restless to exert its rising power and sees a State of Israel as getting in the way of that. This is a leader who may within a short time be the triggerman of nuclear war when Iran develops nuclear weapons. This is the real threat to America and the west.
The troubling aspect is while President Bush maybe the only one that realizes the stakes in this showdown between Israel and Hezbollah, those around him are waffling.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is waffling, but that is alas what a diplomat does.
Many of Mr. Bush's close aides and advisors are suggesting a phased in cease fire. A loss for Israel and the United States in the War Against Terror.
It is no secret that Mr. Ahmadinejad is pulling the strings of Hezbollah and Sheik Nasrallah, or nauseating. If the threat of Nasrallah to strike Tel Aviv is carried out, it will be from direct orders of Mr. Ahamdinejad and that will lead to "uncharted waters"
We must not lose sight of this.
Yes, Mel Gibson having such hostile feelings to Jews is troubling, but having a real anti-Semite in charge of a nation, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a recipe for real trouble and serious consequences for the United States
What should be of more concern to Americans is the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or as Michael Medved (www.michaelmedved.com) refers to him as Ahmadiwhackjob.
He is the leader that the French foreign minister thinks the west can deal with.
To list all of his off the chain statements would take multiple postings, but his latest solution to the war in the mideast seems simple enough. An immediate cease fire. Where have we heard that before? But the long term solution to Mr. Amadinejad is the elimination of Israel. One can not make this stuff up.
The difference between Mr. Gibson, he is a loudmouth drunk at worst. He is not in charge of a nation, let alone his personal life at the moment. Mr. Ahmadiejad is the leader, or co-leader, of a growing nation that is restless to exert its rising power and sees a State of Israel as getting in the way of that. This is a leader who may within a short time be the triggerman of nuclear war when Iran develops nuclear weapons. This is the real threat to America and the west.
The troubling aspect is while President Bush maybe the only one that realizes the stakes in this showdown between Israel and Hezbollah, those around him are waffling.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is waffling, but that is alas what a diplomat does.
Many of Mr. Bush's close aides and advisors are suggesting a phased in cease fire. A loss for Israel and the United States in the War Against Terror.
It is no secret that Mr. Ahmadinejad is pulling the strings of Hezbollah and Sheik Nasrallah, or nauseating. If the threat of Nasrallah to strike Tel Aviv is carried out, it will be from direct orders of Mr. Ahamdinejad and that will lead to "uncharted waters"
We must not lose sight of this.
Yes, Mel Gibson having such hostile feelings to Jews is troubling, but having a real anti-Semite in charge of a nation, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a recipe for real trouble and serious consequences for the United States
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)