Today in my perusing the Drudge Report www.drudgereport.com I stumbled on a story about The First Global Peace Index. The index ranks 121 countries from first being the best and 121 being the worst.
No surprise but a Scandinavian country came in first, Norway. Take a guess at what was 121? Why, Iraq of course. Ready for a laugh? The United States came in 96th. Ninety-sixth?! I mean, we should be thankful that we are ahead of Zimbabwe, 106th on the list even though many of its people are fleeing to anywhere thanks to the dictator Robert Mugabe. And good ol' Venezuela, with that paragon of virtue and socialism, Hugo Chavez came in at 102. Israel, which has never sought war with its neighbors is third from the bottom at 119. Only Sudan and as noted Iraq are worse.
The study was made a group called the Economist Intelligence Unit and here is some of the criteria they used to come to the conclusions.
Peace is correlated to indicators such as income, schooling and the level of regional integration.
Peaceful countries of shared high levels of transparency of government and low corruption.
Small stable countries which are part of regional blocs are most likely to get a higher ranking.
Now, using that criteria, it should not come as a surprise that four of the top ten countries in the "peace index" are in Scandinavia. They are Norway, as noted number one, Denmark, number three, Finland, number six and Sweden number seven. They are also some of the most homogeneous countries on earth. In fact, all of the top ten nations in the top ten are very highly homogeneous. Therefore, they will obviously have a more peaceful and willing group than nations that are not homogeneous. Only number eight, Canada, does not have a strong overwhelmingly homogeneous, dominant group.
So, what does that mean? More racially pure nations are more likely to be peaceful? I do not know. The bottom ten are all nations with strong religious or ethnic tensions.
I think this whole "peace index" is a joke. The criteria makes the outcome predetermined and allows for those that would like to make Scandinavian socialism the world model, well it just backs up their already preconceived notions.
The fact that the United States is ranked 96 is a joke. We do, most of the time, have a transparent government. Is there corruption? Of course but what other nation would put those who are corrupt and caught on trial of a jury of their peers? For corruption alone, Mexico, which ranks 79 should be behind the United States. Is there income disparity? Yes, but this is the one nation where anyone can start at the bottom and become middle class and maybe even rich. Can't say that about Peru, yet it is ranked 70. Schooling? Now there is where we should get low marks. Only in the United States will a student spend more time in a classroom learning about sex than civics. Political correctness over a classical education that has been proven to work in the past. The fact that the United States is the sole superpower means that we have more responsibility. Sometimes, like it or not, we are the policeman of the world. Can't say that about Norway.
This "peace index" is really nothing more than propaganda and really not a true indicator of what constitutes real peace. The index rankings can be found here: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-30-2
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Joe Biden Is Pretty Smart After All
I have to give credit to Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) as he has announced that he will be at the debate sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and to be moderated by Fox News Channel. HT Politico http://politico.com.
Of course it may turn out to be a laugh fest because the only other announced Democrat candidates that will be there is congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel. But whether it turns out to be a joke or not shows a serious problem for the Dems in general.
So what if they are questioned by people from Fox News? I mean, if they think that Brit Hume, Wendell Goller and Chris Wallace did not ask good, penetrating questions of the Republicans in South Carolina, they can ask for three liberals-and there are liberals-from Fox to be the inquisitors. How about Juan Williams, Mara Elliason and Morton Kondracke? I do not think one would call any of the three conservative hacks. In fact, Mr. Williams and Miss Elliason work for-get this-National Public Radio.
The problem is that the Dems would rather make Fox News Channel a boogieman and mock it rather than going into the belly of the beast, so to speak, and take them on. This shows absolute cowardice on the part of people like John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson. They mock Fox News and want the American people to believe that they will take on the Islamofacists with both cannons and better than President Bush and or any Republican candidate. This proves that wrong.
Every candidate needs to get his or her message out to the widest audience possible and Fox News Channel, like it or not, is the number one cable news channel in the United States. Not all the viewers are conservative Republicans. Some of middle of the roaders and they will be the ones they will have to convince to vote for them. When these candidates, pressured by moveon.org and its ilk say they will not participate in a debate because it is sponsored by Fox News Channel, they will turn off some people who may actually vote for them. People will look harder at the Republicans because, for all our rightful indignation of the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media, we know to reach as wide an audience as possible, we have to be part of, not rejecting a part of the process.
So, I think that some people may watch to see whether Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich will make the most hilarious comment or statement, but I will watch to see a very serious candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, and what he has to say and how he stands up to being questioned by people from Fox News Channel. It is too bad that the rest of the serious Dems do not feel the same.
Of course it may turn out to be a laugh fest because the only other announced Democrat candidates that will be there is congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel. But whether it turns out to be a joke or not shows a serious problem for the Dems in general.
So what if they are questioned by people from Fox News? I mean, if they think that Brit Hume, Wendell Goller and Chris Wallace did not ask good, penetrating questions of the Republicans in South Carolina, they can ask for three liberals-and there are liberals-from Fox to be the inquisitors. How about Juan Williams, Mara Elliason and Morton Kondracke? I do not think one would call any of the three conservative hacks. In fact, Mr. Williams and Miss Elliason work for-get this-National Public Radio.
The problem is that the Dems would rather make Fox News Channel a boogieman and mock it rather than going into the belly of the beast, so to speak, and take them on. This shows absolute cowardice on the part of people like John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson. They mock Fox News and want the American people to believe that they will take on the Islamofacists with both cannons and better than President Bush and or any Republican candidate. This proves that wrong.
Every candidate needs to get his or her message out to the widest audience possible and Fox News Channel, like it or not, is the number one cable news channel in the United States. Not all the viewers are conservative Republicans. Some of middle of the roaders and they will be the ones they will have to convince to vote for them. When these candidates, pressured by moveon.org and its ilk say they will not participate in a debate because it is sponsored by Fox News Channel, they will turn off some people who may actually vote for them. People will look harder at the Republicans because, for all our rightful indignation of the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media, we know to reach as wide an audience as possible, we have to be part of, not rejecting a part of the process.
So, I think that some people may watch to see whether Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich will make the most hilarious comment or statement, but I will watch to see a very serious candidate, Sen. Joe Biden, and what he has to say and how he stands up to being questioned by people from Fox News Channel. It is too bad that the rest of the serious Dems do not feel the same.
Welcome Fred Thompson
It appears that all the talk is real and former Tennessee Republican senator Fred Thompson is going to enter the race for the Republican nomination for president. I say welcome aboard and lets get down to where Mr. Thompson stands on the issues.
From his record in the senate, Mr. Thompson is a solid conservative, scoring an overall rating of 86% from the American Conservative Union. That does marginally top Sen. John "F--- You" McCain by one point, but Mr. Thompson was in the senate a lot less time than Sen. McCain. So overall, Mr. Thompson had a stronger conservative voting record than does Sen. McCain.
Mr. Thompson is on the right side on the critical issues important to conservatives and Republicans and those maybe on the fence. Mr. Thompson is pro life, for the War Against Terror (but I am sure he will have a different approach than President Bush has had and even on the issue of the Iraq theatre), for tax cuts, for appointing constitutional jurists, not legislators from the bench, but there is one very serious, not fatal, but serious flaw particularly for conservatives. Mr. Thompson was for the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform", the last scam pulled over the American people by congress. That will already have lost Mr. Thompson some support from conservative Republicans.
What is so different about Mr. Thompson from the others running for the GOP nod? Two words: Ronald Reagan.
Yes, many people look to Mr. Thompson to restore the Reagan way to the Republican party. After all, like Mr. Reagan, Mr. Thompson is an actor, who just today quit his day job as New York district attorney Arthur Branch on the NBC hit show "Law and Order." He speaks plainly and is seen as committed to his positions, like Mr. Reagan was. But, what many do not remember is that in the fateful election of 1980, many were still leery of electing Mr. Reagan. After all, the media savaged him so that the polling in that election cycle showed incumbent President Jimmy Carter ahead or even with Mr. Reagan until the last week of the campaign. Does anyone think that the media, even more polarized today, will not do the same to Mr. Thompson? Go over to Hugh Hewitt's site, http://hughhewitt.com, for a great take on the Reagan years.
I think that Mr. Thompson is a great candidate and if he should become the Republican nominee has the potential to do what Mr. Reagan did-appeal to a certain group of people who, even now, are still Democrats but not happy with the direction of their party. One aspect will be the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill scam. Mr. Thompson has expressed strong displeasure with it. Under their breathes, so are some rank-and-file Democrats.
In essence, What Mr. Thompson, win or lose the nomination, will do is make the winner appeal outside of the conservative base and get some centrist voters back into the GOP fold. It is the oldest axiom of American politics. Win your base for the nomination and move to the center, not dissing the base, to win the general election. It is how great coalitions are built and that is what we need now more than ever.
So, Fred Thompson, welcome to the Republican race for president. I think you will do a lot of good for the party and the country.
From his record in the senate, Mr. Thompson is a solid conservative, scoring an overall rating of 86% from the American Conservative Union. That does marginally top Sen. John "F--- You" McCain by one point, but Mr. Thompson was in the senate a lot less time than Sen. McCain. So overall, Mr. Thompson had a stronger conservative voting record than does Sen. McCain.
Mr. Thompson is on the right side on the critical issues important to conservatives and Republicans and those maybe on the fence. Mr. Thompson is pro life, for the War Against Terror (but I am sure he will have a different approach than President Bush has had and even on the issue of the Iraq theatre), for tax cuts, for appointing constitutional jurists, not legislators from the bench, but there is one very serious, not fatal, but serious flaw particularly for conservatives. Mr. Thompson was for the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform", the last scam pulled over the American people by congress. That will already have lost Mr. Thompson some support from conservative Republicans.
What is so different about Mr. Thompson from the others running for the GOP nod? Two words: Ronald Reagan.
Yes, many people look to Mr. Thompson to restore the Reagan way to the Republican party. After all, like Mr. Reagan, Mr. Thompson is an actor, who just today quit his day job as New York district attorney Arthur Branch on the NBC hit show "Law and Order." He speaks plainly and is seen as committed to his positions, like Mr. Reagan was. But, what many do not remember is that in the fateful election of 1980, many were still leery of electing Mr. Reagan. After all, the media savaged him so that the polling in that election cycle showed incumbent President Jimmy Carter ahead or even with Mr. Reagan until the last week of the campaign. Does anyone think that the media, even more polarized today, will not do the same to Mr. Thompson? Go over to Hugh Hewitt's site, http://hughhewitt.com, for a great take on the Reagan years.
I think that Mr. Thompson is a great candidate and if he should become the Republican nominee has the potential to do what Mr. Reagan did-appeal to a certain group of people who, even now, are still Democrats but not happy with the direction of their party. One aspect will be the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill scam. Mr. Thompson has expressed strong displeasure with it. Under their breathes, so are some rank-and-file Democrats.
In essence, What Mr. Thompson, win or lose the nomination, will do is make the winner appeal outside of the conservative base and get some centrist voters back into the GOP fold. It is the oldest axiom of American politics. Win your base for the nomination and move to the center, not dissing the base, to win the general election. It is how great coalitions are built and that is what we need now more than ever.
So, Fred Thompson, welcome to the Republican race for president. I think you will do a lot of good for the party and the country.
Revolution In Venezuela-Where Is The MSM?
Today I took a cursory look at several websites of the true Axis Of Evil-the mainstream media, aka the Dinosaur, Drive-by, Mainstream Media (DDBMSM) looking for some kind of coverage of the mounting protests in Venezuela. Of course on the sites I checked, it was not even a headline except for Fox News Channel, which has been covering this major story. But, I wonder is it because the story is about a dictator, Hugo Chavez, closing down an opposition broadcast network that keeps the DDBMSM from talking about it?
The Chavez regime found a loophole, or possibly made one up, to close down the Radio Caracas Television this past Sunday at the stroke of midnight. He claims it is a "sovereign" decision and is threatening another opposition network, Globovision, with the same fate. Oh, if you are in Venezuela, you can turn on RCT but it will be a new government propaganda channel. To put it in perspective, it would be like President Bush using some kind of loophole to close down CBS and replace it with an NPR or PBS like network or even total government propaganda.
So, where is the coverage by the DDBMSM, other than Fox?
It is either buried deep inside of the main news section in a newspaper and nary any coverage on the broadcast organs of the true Axis Of Evil.
For some reason, closing down a television station seems to have riled the people to take to the streets and fight the goon squads of President Chavez. It does not matter, we should be doing everything we can to see that these people at the very least get the RCT back on the air. It had been the oldest private broadcast network in Venezuela. Because it dared to question and even openly oppose the Chavez regime and its near total dictatorial powers, poof, it is off the air.
One has to wonder the lack of coverage is due to a sympathy by these outlets that are losing readers, listeners, and watchers in droves. Lets face it, it would be much easier for the DDBMSM to not have anyone competing with them in the news and opinion medium. They liked having the monopoly for many years. But, technology did to the DDBMSM what other things could not. The Internet and blogs like this are giving them a run and they do not much like it.
I do not think that most would like to see any American president close down a network like Mr. Chavez has done. But the lack of coverage of the people of Venezuela finally standing up and saying no brings conspiracy theories out of the woodwork.
I think there is a revolution going on in Venezuela and the DDMSM needs to be out in front covering it.
The Chavez regime found a loophole, or possibly made one up, to close down the Radio Caracas Television this past Sunday at the stroke of midnight. He claims it is a "sovereign" decision and is threatening another opposition network, Globovision, with the same fate. Oh, if you are in Venezuela, you can turn on RCT but it will be a new government propaganda channel. To put it in perspective, it would be like President Bush using some kind of loophole to close down CBS and replace it with an NPR or PBS like network or even total government propaganda.
So, where is the coverage by the DDBMSM, other than Fox?
It is either buried deep inside of the main news section in a newspaper and nary any coverage on the broadcast organs of the true Axis Of Evil.
For some reason, closing down a television station seems to have riled the people to take to the streets and fight the goon squads of President Chavez. It does not matter, we should be doing everything we can to see that these people at the very least get the RCT back on the air. It had been the oldest private broadcast network in Venezuela. Because it dared to question and even openly oppose the Chavez regime and its near total dictatorial powers, poof, it is off the air.
One has to wonder the lack of coverage is due to a sympathy by these outlets that are losing readers, listeners, and watchers in droves. Lets face it, it would be much easier for the DDBMSM to not have anyone competing with them in the news and opinion medium. They liked having the monopoly for many years. But, technology did to the DDBMSM what other things could not. The Internet and blogs like this are giving them a run and they do not much like it.
I do not think that most would like to see any American president close down a network like Mr. Chavez has done. But the lack of coverage of the people of Venezuela finally standing up and saying no brings conspiracy theories out of the woodwork.
I think there is a revolution going on in Venezuela and the DDMSM needs to be out in front covering it.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Cindy Sheehan Thrown To The Wolves
It is with some pleasure that I read that anti-war loon Cindy Sheehan has decided her welcome mat has been pulled out from under her and called it quits as an anti-war advocate. But, where there is some sadness is that it is a case study as when a person such as herself decided to criticize some of her most ardent backers, the anti-war Democrats, they turned on her and threw her to the wolves.
It is what the left does. They take advantage of a clearly grieving mother who's son, Casey Sheehan, had been killed in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. In her grief, she became an ardent critic of the war in the Iraq theatre and a rallying point for those who have been against it from the beginning. But, as she became the rallying point she also went off the deep end and started to pontificate on issues that had nothing to do with the war in the Iraq theatre and also bought into some of the wild conspiracy theories about the terror attacks of 9/11. She wrote a lot on her blog and some of her commentary was way out there.
So, she realized that the Democrats were really craven on the issue of the Iraq theatre. Many ran against the war, won their elections, and then when push came to shove, they played a dance of political kabuki theatre. The Democrats had a perfect opportunity of putting their money where their mouths were and cut off all funding for the Iraq theatre and the troops would have to come home. But, in their kabuki dance, they in the end gave President Bush what he wanted and no timeline to pull the troops out of Iraq.
Mrs. Sheehan became as much of a critic of the Democrats and with rightful indignation. They essentially went back on their selling point to win back control of congress-stopping the war in the Iraq theatre. But, alas, this put a crimp in the Democrat plans to take the White House and keep control of congress. So their allies began a campaign against Mrs. Sheehan and she saw the writing on the wall. She gave up.
Mrs. Sheehan is going to sell the so-called "peace house" in Crawford, Texas near the Western White House. She is going home to put back the pieces of her life and try to have a relationship with her surviving children and maybe put back her marriage. And all for what did she do this sacrifice? The people who heaped adulation on her in the end turned on her. She may have loony ideas, but she is not a masochist.
Here is the lesson . The left likes people for their cause as long as they play their game. When they stop or realize that they are being taken for a ride, they are chewed up and spit out like cheap chaw. There is no room for honest disagreement, as I believe that Mrs. Sheehan had. When they are on the road to power, they can not have a nail in the road to hit that tire. And that nail was, Mrs. Sheehan.
So, now she will try to put her life back together and for that I hope she will. And I hope she has learned a lesson about her "friends."
It is what the left does. They take advantage of a clearly grieving mother who's son, Casey Sheehan, had been killed in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. In her grief, she became an ardent critic of the war in the Iraq theatre and a rallying point for those who have been against it from the beginning. But, as she became the rallying point she also went off the deep end and started to pontificate on issues that had nothing to do with the war in the Iraq theatre and also bought into some of the wild conspiracy theories about the terror attacks of 9/11. She wrote a lot on her blog and some of her commentary was way out there.
So, she realized that the Democrats were really craven on the issue of the Iraq theatre. Many ran against the war, won their elections, and then when push came to shove, they played a dance of political kabuki theatre. The Democrats had a perfect opportunity of putting their money where their mouths were and cut off all funding for the Iraq theatre and the troops would have to come home. But, in their kabuki dance, they in the end gave President Bush what he wanted and no timeline to pull the troops out of Iraq.
Mrs. Sheehan became as much of a critic of the Democrats and with rightful indignation. They essentially went back on their selling point to win back control of congress-stopping the war in the Iraq theatre. But, alas, this put a crimp in the Democrat plans to take the White House and keep control of congress. So their allies began a campaign against Mrs. Sheehan and she saw the writing on the wall. She gave up.
Mrs. Sheehan is going to sell the so-called "peace house" in Crawford, Texas near the Western White House. She is going home to put back the pieces of her life and try to have a relationship with her surviving children and maybe put back her marriage. And all for what did she do this sacrifice? The people who heaped adulation on her in the end turned on her. She may have loony ideas, but she is not a masochist.
Here is the lesson . The left likes people for their cause as long as they play their game. When they stop or realize that they are being taken for a ride, they are chewed up and spit out like cheap chaw. There is no room for honest disagreement, as I believe that Mrs. Sheehan had. When they are on the road to power, they can not have a nail in the road to hit that tire. And that nail was, Mrs. Sheehan.
So, now she will try to put her life back together and for that I hope she will. And I hope she has learned a lesson about her "friends."
Lindsay Lowlife
Well, I guess I have fallen victim to the pop culture beyond Rosie and her antics on The View. I will refer you to Lindsay Lowlife, aka Lindsay Lowhan.
Young Miss Lowlife, how she will be referred to here, has a very serious problem. She is an adict. To what? Fame, booze and drugs. In and of itself, no one should really care. That is her business. But over this past weekend, Miss Lowlife made her descent into Hell l every one's business.
Miss Lowlife, who is 20 years old, and already in trouble for underage drinking and a stint in rehab, was at one of her club haunts in the Los Angeles area. She had a driver, supposedly, but that did not stop her from taking off from one of the clubs with her friends, sans the "driver." That was a bad mistake. For young Miss Lowlife had a hit and run car accident. But, she knew she did something wrong for she tried to leave the scene of the crime. That, my friends, is called hit and run. She was busted by the police for drunk driving. But, ah, that was not enough for our young Miss Lowlife.
The very next day, she went out partying again. She was caught on the front page of the New York Post http://nypost.com passed out.
Where are Miss Lowlife's parents? Well, it seems that dad Michael does care and wants to talk to Miss Lowlife. Mr. Lowlife should know as he just got out of jail recently for alcohol related charges. Where is mom, Dina? Well, she is playing cover up, trying to explain to the world that Lindsay is just a misunderstood teenage girl. Oh, and she is often seen partying with her daughter. Nothing like keeping it in the family?
You may wonder, why am I so harsh on this young girl and her family?
Because they are a symptom of what is wrong in our culture today. Having a mom going out with her underage daughter and carousing used to get called a mom like that a slut. And that was not good. For some people, it is not a bad thing that Dina Lowlife is out with her daughter. After all, Lindsay is 20 years old, almost 21 and then will be able to do anything-legal-she wants. Dina is being her friend. No, Dina should have been being a mom first and foremost. And dad, well he is nothing but a hanger on and now feels remorse. I am glad he does, if it is real. But, I am not sure.
Yes, we all do dumb and stupid things when we were young, even I. But, I had parents who would tell me when I was wrong. They instilled something missing today-guilt. Yes, there is bad guilt but there is good guilt that can make you think about something you did wrong. It can make a bad choice possibly into a good decision. But without that parental guidance, a child like Lindsay grows up like she has become. And, that is a problem for society. A society in which very impressionable young girls look up to Lindsay, Britney Spears and the brain surgeon, Paris Hilton. Why they are looked up to, I do not know, but they are and all three have gone on very destructive paths and have enabling parents that do not seem to know that they are going down a very sad path.
I hope that Miss Lowlife will be serious this time as she will apparently go into rehab for a second time. Maybe for Miss Lowlife, she will have to get out of the fame and slink back into the real world for a while and realize that there are consequences for her actions. Maybe Paris Hilton will be able to share her experience as a guest of the County of Los Angeles and it will be eye-opening for both of them. I really wish both well.
If they both can kick their addictions, that will be something for young girls to look up to.
Young Miss Lowlife, how she will be referred to here, has a very serious problem. She is an adict. To what? Fame, booze and drugs. In and of itself, no one should really care. That is her business. But over this past weekend, Miss Lowlife made her descent into Hell l every one's business.
Miss Lowlife, who is 20 years old, and already in trouble for underage drinking and a stint in rehab, was at one of her club haunts in the Los Angeles area. She had a driver, supposedly, but that did not stop her from taking off from one of the clubs with her friends, sans the "driver." That was a bad mistake. For young Miss Lowlife had a hit and run car accident. But, she knew she did something wrong for she tried to leave the scene of the crime. That, my friends, is called hit and run. She was busted by the police for drunk driving. But, ah, that was not enough for our young Miss Lowlife.
The very next day, she went out partying again. She was caught on the front page of the New York Post http://nypost.com passed out.
Where are Miss Lowlife's parents? Well, it seems that dad Michael does care and wants to talk to Miss Lowlife. Mr. Lowlife should know as he just got out of jail recently for alcohol related charges. Where is mom, Dina? Well, she is playing cover up, trying to explain to the world that Lindsay is just a misunderstood teenage girl. Oh, and she is often seen partying with her daughter. Nothing like keeping it in the family?
You may wonder, why am I so harsh on this young girl and her family?
Because they are a symptom of what is wrong in our culture today. Having a mom going out with her underage daughter and carousing used to get called a mom like that a slut. And that was not good. For some people, it is not a bad thing that Dina Lowlife is out with her daughter. After all, Lindsay is 20 years old, almost 21 and then will be able to do anything-legal-she wants. Dina is being her friend. No, Dina should have been being a mom first and foremost. And dad, well he is nothing but a hanger on and now feels remorse. I am glad he does, if it is real. But, I am not sure.
Yes, we all do dumb and stupid things when we were young, even I. But, I had parents who would tell me when I was wrong. They instilled something missing today-guilt. Yes, there is bad guilt but there is good guilt that can make you think about something you did wrong. It can make a bad choice possibly into a good decision. But without that parental guidance, a child like Lindsay grows up like she has become. And, that is a problem for society. A society in which very impressionable young girls look up to Lindsay, Britney Spears and the brain surgeon, Paris Hilton. Why they are looked up to, I do not know, but they are and all three have gone on very destructive paths and have enabling parents that do not seem to know that they are going down a very sad path.
I hope that Miss Lowlife will be serious this time as she will apparently go into rehab for a second time. Maybe for Miss Lowlife, she will have to get out of the fame and slink back into the real world for a while and realize that there are consequences for her actions. Maybe Paris Hilton will be able to share her experience as a guest of the County of Los Angeles and it will be eye-opening for both of them. I really wish both well.
If they both can kick their addictions, that will be something for young girls to look up to.
Good To Be Back
I had a pretty good Memorial Day weekend up in the heart of Blue America-San Francisco. I hope that you did too.
I will say that while San Francisco is very liberal and quirky, it has a certain undescribable charm that draws someone like myself to go there and observe. One is not disapointed by the fact one will see a homeless person in the downtown area almost everywhere that one looks. Or that there are so many different subcultures that it would take a very long entry to go into such detail.
But, everyone should go there. There is really something for anyone, even a conservative such as myself. I for one took in a Giants baseball game at AT&T Park. The Giants were playing the Colorado Rockies. Barry Bonds did not hit a home run, which is good since he will earn the title of home run king in the most dishonest of ways pumping up his body with baseball illegal steroids. The Giants lost, of course, and that is music to this Dodger fan's ear. But I will say that I really like AT&T Park. It is like an old style baseball park with non-symmetrical dimensions and a lot of charm. No World Series championship, but lots of charm.
The next day, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I went to church at Grace Cathedral. For all you Episcopalians in the Los Angeles area, take note. Grace Cathedral is what a cathedral should be-not the monstrosity that calls itself a "Cathedral Center." It was a great service and not overly politically correct, considering that the Diocese of California is one of the most liberal Episcopal dioceses in the United States.
After church we went to Golden Gate Park which has to be the Central Park West. It is a real achievement to have what they have there. And, we only scratched the surface in what we saw.
I would say, no matter how conservative you are, go to San Francisco sometime. Maybe some of that conservatism can rub off on them. . .NOT!
Anyway, there is so much to blog about and I am glad to be back.
I will say that while San Francisco is very liberal and quirky, it has a certain undescribable charm that draws someone like myself to go there and observe. One is not disapointed by the fact one will see a homeless person in the downtown area almost everywhere that one looks. Or that there are so many different subcultures that it would take a very long entry to go into such detail.
But, everyone should go there. There is really something for anyone, even a conservative such as myself. I for one took in a Giants baseball game at AT&T Park. The Giants were playing the Colorado Rockies. Barry Bonds did not hit a home run, which is good since he will earn the title of home run king in the most dishonest of ways pumping up his body with baseball illegal steroids. The Giants lost, of course, and that is music to this Dodger fan's ear. But I will say that I really like AT&T Park. It is like an old style baseball park with non-symmetrical dimensions and a lot of charm. No World Series championship, but lots of charm.
The next day, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I went to church at Grace Cathedral. For all you Episcopalians in the Los Angeles area, take note. Grace Cathedral is what a cathedral should be-not the monstrosity that calls itself a "Cathedral Center." It was a great service and not overly politically correct, considering that the Diocese of California is one of the most liberal Episcopal dioceses in the United States.
After church we went to Golden Gate Park which has to be the Central Park West. It is a real achievement to have what they have there. And, we only scratched the surface in what we saw.
I would say, no matter how conservative you are, go to San Francisco sometime. Maybe some of that conservatism can rub off on them. . .NOT!
Anyway, there is so much to blog about and I am glad to be back.
Friday, May 25, 2007
NO BLOGGING UNTIL TUESDAY
There will be no blogging until Tuesday, May 29 as Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I go deep into the belly of the beast, in the intestine in Blue America, San Francisco.
I will have a full report as I, not the missus, will be attending a Giants game at AT&T Park and that all in itself should be an adventure.
Please have a safe Memorial Day and remember two things. To pray for those soldiers who went before us to make this land safe and free and to pray for those now throughout the world in the War Against Terror.
I will have a full report as I, not the missus, will be attending a Giants game at AT&T Park and that all in itself should be an adventure.
Please have a safe Memorial Day and remember two things. To pray for those soldiers who went before us to make this land safe and free and to pray for those now throughout the world in the War Against Terror.
The Diffrerence Between Racism And National Security
In this intense debate over the "comprehensive immigration bill" scam, a very bad trend has occurred that needs to be addressed. It is that those who favor the Bush-Kennedy-McCain approach are rearing the ugly head that those who oppose the bill-scam as is are racists and some conservatives are not only falling for it but taking the bait.
What I mean is that the ones that are buying into it are pundits like Pat Buchanan who basically are arguing that "white America" will soon be a minority. There is a column today in National Review Online http://nationalreview.com that argues that same thing. Why is anyone who calls them selves a conservative taking the race approach? Is this what we really want to argue about over the immigration bill-scam? NO, not by a long shot. The issue is national security first, then after a period of time we can have sane immigration policies. Those of us that are trying to have this debate on that basis, which is almost anyone on the blogosphere, need to denounce those who want to argue race statistics.
When Geraldo Rivera says that "white America is afraid of a brown tide" I absolutely believe that is wrong. But if there is a wave of Islamic men entering our nation illegally, we are afraid and need to act accordingly.
Legitimate concerns beyond that is those that actually want to become citizens are slow, if ever, to assimilate into the American society. They want to be catered to and are encouraged by liberals to make it an issue of race and or language. Also, while we are offering a "path to citizenship," a lot of those who are here illegally from Mexico do not want to become citizens. Has anyone looked at the Bracero program, which is a guest worker program that was done in the 1950's?
I do not worry about the fact that people who are coming here are from primarily third-world countries, but that they do not want to become AMERICAN like our forebarers. They do not want to speak English, they do not want to blend in with whites, blacks, other Hispanic groups. They want to be separate. Also, nothing, not one aspect of this legislation addresses a critical issue, especially here in California involving health care.
Hospital emergency rooms are closing down at an alarming rate because many illegals use the public hospitals, have no means to pay and hospitals are providing services that they will never be paid for. After all, they do need to make some money. Also, because they are illegal, they may not get the proper immunizations and maybe carrying third world predominate diseases such as TB.
I do not think I write this in racist, but realistic terms. That is the experience in Southern California. Many of those who do not get it do not get out of the rarefied air of the Washington beltway.
I want, once the borders north and south are more secure than now, sane, legal immigration and to uphold the American dream for all who want to come here, be citizens or guest workers, and enjoy the fruits of liberty. But, if the national security issues that are legitimate are not looked at, then this bill-scam should die and go back to square one. But, we should never fall into the trap the left sets for us by making this an issue of race alone. It is not and the left knows it. But to buttress their case, they bring up Pat Buchanan and while he should be loosening his white hood, he is an embarrassment to those of us wanting sane, secure, legal immigration.
What I mean is that the ones that are buying into it are pundits like Pat Buchanan who basically are arguing that "white America" will soon be a minority. There is a column today in National Review Online http://nationalreview.com that argues that same thing. Why is anyone who calls them selves a conservative taking the race approach? Is this what we really want to argue about over the immigration bill-scam? NO, not by a long shot. The issue is national security first, then after a period of time we can have sane immigration policies. Those of us that are trying to have this debate on that basis, which is almost anyone on the blogosphere, need to denounce those who want to argue race statistics.
When Geraldo Rivera says that "white America is afraid of a brown tide" I absolutely believe that is wrong. But if there is a wave of Islamic men entering our nation illegally, we are afraid and need to act accordingly.
Legitimate concerns beyond that is those that actually want to become citizens are slow, if ever, to assimilate into the American society. They want to be catered to and are encouraged by liberals to make it an issue of race and or language. Also, while we are offering a "path to citizenship," a lot of those who are here illegally from Mexico do not want to become citizens. Has anyone looked at the Bracero program, which is a guest worker program that was done in the 1950's?
I do not worry about the fact that people who are coming here are from primarily third-world countries, but that they do not want to become AMERICAN like our forebarers. They do not want to speak English, they do not want to blend in with whites, blacks, other Hispanic groups. They want to be separate. Also, nothing, not one aspect of this legislation addresses a critical issue, especially here in California involving health care.
Hospital emergency rooms are closing down at an alarming rate because many illegals use the public hospitals, have no means to pay and hospitals are providing services that they will never be paid for. After all, they do need to make some money. Also, because they are illegal, they may not get the proper immunizations and maybe carrying third world predominate diseases such as TB.
I do not think I write this in racist, but realistic terms. That is the experience in Southern California. Many of those who do not get it do not get out of the rarefied air of the Washington beltway.
I want, once the borders north and south are more secure than now, sane, legal immigration and to uphold the American dream for all who want to come here, be citizens or guest workers, and enjoy the fruits of liberty. But, if the national security issues that are legitimate are not looked at, then this bill-scam should die and go back to square one. But, we should never fall into the trap the left sets for us by making this an issue of race alone. It is not and the left knows it. But to buttress their case, they bring up Pat Buchanan and while he should be loosening his white hood, he is an embarrassment to those of us wanting sane, secure, legal immigration.
DING! DONG! Rosie's Gone!
ABC has announced that paragon of the "truth", Rosie O'Donnell, has left her "women's" talk fest, "The View" earlier than the announced date of her leaving http://FoxNews.com. All I can say is what took so long?!
After her blowup with fellow host Elisabeth Hasselback, who is the token conservative, the "victim" Rosie had supposedly taken the day off yesterday and today the network announced that she is gone for good.
After months of Miss O'Donnell harassing Mrs. Hasselback over her conservative views and defense of the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror, Mrs. Hasselback just had it and let it rip. It was a beautiful sight to see.
What made it beautiful was that in the end, Miss O'Donnell played the victim card, referring herself at one point as the "big, fat lesbian". AAAHHH, that is so bad! We are so sorry for you Rosie!
PLEASE! She is not a victim. She just did not realize that Mrs. Hasselback had it. Mrs. Hasselback finally told her the truth about herself, that she asks rhetorical questions and does not back them up. And, according to Miss O'Donnell, Mrs. Hasselback should have done more to defend her when she appeared of FNC's "Hannity and Colmes." Hello?! That is not Mrs. Hasselback's job, especially when she does not agree with her.
This is a case study on how the left reacts when they are called out on facts. They resort to calling themselves victims and slink off into the night and can not be challenged on their positions.
Well, maybe Miss O'Donnell can now take a well deserved rest, get checked out, remedicated and show up back on Air America. That is the perfect place for her.
After her blowup with fellow host Elisabeth Hasselback, who is the token conservative, the "victim" Rosie had supposedly taken the day off yesterday and today the network announced that she is gone for good.
After months of Miss O'Donnell harassing Mrs. Hasselback over her conservative views and defense of the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror, Mrs. Hasselback just had it and let it rip. It was a beautiful sight to see.
What made it beautiful was that in the end, Miss O'Donnell played the victim card, referring herself at one point as the "big, fat lesbian". AAAHHH, that is so bad! We are so sorry for you Rosie!
PLEASE! She is not a victim. She just did not realize that Mrs. Hasselback had it. Mrs. Hasselback finally told her the truth about herself, that she asks rhetorical questions and does not back them up. And, according to Miss O'Donnell, Mrs. Hasselback should have done more to defend her when she appeared of FNC's "Hannity and Colmes." Hello?! That is not Mrs. Hasselback's job, especially when she does not agree with her.
This is a case study on how the left reacts when they are called out on facts. They resort to calling themselves victims and slink off into the night and can not be challenged on their positions.
Well, maybe Miss O'Donnell can now take a well deserved rest, get checked out, remedicated and show up back on Air America. That is the perfect place for her.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
The Waste Of Time Congress
As expected, both houses of congress passed the contentious $124 billion war funding bill essentially the way that President Bush wanted it and showed that at the end of the day, the Democrat majority balked and caved in to the president. In reality, that is good news. Now for the bad news.
Of course there is still roughly about $10 billion in "emergency" spending, re: pork. Since the president does not have the line item veto, he will have to sign the bill.
Then there is the theatre of the Democrat candidates, real war opponents and charlatans getting their last dig by voting against the bill. Of course Sens. Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Christopher Dodd voted against the bill. Sen. John "F--- You" McCain voted in favor. In the house, Reps. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo on the GOP side voted for it. Republican gasbag Ron Paul voted against it. And the one time ineffective mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, Democrat Dennis Kucinich voted against it. No surprises.
But, what is most disturbing is the fact that the Democrats dragged it out this long. If they had no intentions of cutting off funding, which would end the war, then all of this was taking their shots at President Bush and at no real cost to take a tough stand, as in cutting off the war funding. In reality, the Democrats showed that they are indeed political paper tigers. It is not enough that they are military and foreign policy paper tigers, but they could not beat a battered president at one of the lowest points in his presidency. And the war in the Iraq theatre of the War Against Terror is what has dragged President Bush to the low-water mark without a doubt.
Those that in the end voted against funding the troops that are not just serving in Iraq but Afghanistan and all over the world knew they could take the vote and go home, knowing that the majority of their fellow Democrats would vote to continue the funding. Some profile in courage. I'm sure that former President John F. Kennedy is looking down so proud of his fellow Democrats turning their back on an ally in the War Against Terror.
Hence, this can be called without a doubt the Waste Of Time Congress. They dragged out a funding bill that should have been passed in February. And they could make their pointless opposition votes to the war in the Iraq theatre and pay no political price.
I hope that this congress stops wasting its time and the time of those who pay their salaries-we the American taxpayer.
Of course there is still roughly about $10 billion in "emergency" spending, re: pork. Since the president does not have the line item veto, he will have to sign the bill.
Then there is the theatre of the Democrat candidates, real war opponents and charlatans getting their last dig by voting against the bill. Of course Sens. Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Christopher Dodd voted against the bill. Sen. John "F--- You" McCain voted in favor. In the house, Reps. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo on the GOP side voted for it. Republican gasbag Ron Paul voted against it. And the one time ineffective mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, Democrat Dennis Kucinich voted against it. No surprises.
But, what is most disturbing is the fact that the Democrats dragged it out this long. If they had no intentions of cutting off funding, which would end the war, then all of this was taking their shots at President Bush and at no real cost to take a tough stand, as in cutting off the war funding. In reality, the Democrats showed that they are indeed political paper tigers. It is not enough that they are military and foreign policy paper tigers, but they could not beat a battered president at one of the lowest points in his presidency. And the war in the Iraq theatre of the War Against Terror is what has dragged President Bush to the low-water mark without a doubt.
Those that in the end voted against funding the troops that are not just serving in Iraq but Afghanistan and all over the world knew they could take the vote and go home, knowing that the majority of their fellow Democrats would vote to continue the funding. Some profile in courage. I'm sure that former President John F. Kennedy is looking down so proud of his fellow Democrats turning their back on an ally in the War Against Terror.
Hence, this can be called without a doubt the Waste Of Time Congress. They dragged out a funding bill that should have been passed in February. And they could make their pointless opposition votes to the war in the Iraq theatre and pay no political price.
I hope that this congress stops wasting its time and the time of those who pay their salaries-we the American taxpayer.
More On The Vancant "Mind" Of John Edwards
Yesterday, I posted that former North Carolina Democrat senator John Edwards had a vacant mind since he denounced the War Against Terror as some kind of Bush administration gimmickry. There was a good reason for that analysis, but I can not take all the credit for it.
Former John Kerry campaign staffer Bob Shrum has written a devastating book http://www.tnr.com, http://washpost.com that says, among other things that Mr. Edwards is "a Clinton who hadn't read the books." and recounts other tasty tidbits that essentially says that Mr. Edwards will repeat stories every time as if it was the first time he had told that person the story, and what I think is devastating for a liberal Democrat.
According to Mr. Shrum, he had asked Mr. Edwards his view on gay rights and Mr. Edwards answered "I don't feel comfortable around those people." and then, according to Mr. Shrum, Mr. Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, piped up to say that what Mr. Edwards said was not right.
Now, I don't want to say what is really in Mr. Edwards heart, that is between him and God, but to say what he said about gay and lesbians, had it been said by anyone on the right, would have been roundly condemned and rightly so because what does it mean one is not comfortable around gay and lesbian people? Does Mr. Edwards think that some gay man is going to hit up on him? I mean, blogger Andrew Sullivan has said how cute he is. Is Mr. Edwards that vain and unsure about his sexuality?
The irony is that a liberal Democrat can do and say whatever they want, as long as they say the right things to fellow travelling lefties. I mean, William Jefferson Clinton apparently is a serial sexual harasser, but because he says and does all the things that the feminist crowds wants, they don't seem to care.
Also, according to Mr. Shrum, Mr. Edwards will say whatever it takes and has basically no core.
I think that if the Democrat party wants a serious candidate to be their nominee for president, they will have to look away from this charlatan and look to serious people. In the earlier post regarding Mr. Edwards, I noted that New Mexico governor Bill Richardson would be a great choice. But, I am afraid that the Dems will go for as far to the fringe without falling off the cliff and that leaves Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-New York), Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and this creepy ambulance chaser, John Edwards. What a rouge gallery that is!
Former John Kerry campaign staffer Bob Shrum has written a devastating book http://www.tnr.com, http://washpost.com that says, among other things that Mr. Edwards is "a Clinton who hadn't read the books." and recounts other tasty tidbits that essentially says that Mr. Edwards will repeat stories every time as if it was the first time he had told that person the story, and what I think is devastating for a liberal Democrat.
According to Mr. Shrum, he had asked Mr. Edwards his view on gay rights and Mr. Edwards answered "I don't feel comfortable around those people." and then, according to Mr. Shrum, Mr. Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, piped up to say that what Mr. Edwards said was not right.
Now, I don't want to say what is really in Mr. Edwards heart, that is between him and God, but to say what he said about gay and lesbians, had it been said by anyone on the right, would have been roundly condemned and rightly so because what does it mean one is not comfortable around gay and lesbian people? Does Mr. Edwards think that some gay man is going to hit up on him? I mean, blogger Andrew Sullivan has said how cute he is. Is Mr. Edwards that vain and unsure about his sexuality?
The irony is that a liberal Democrat can do and say whatever they want, as long as they say the right things to fellow travelling lefties. I mean, William Jefferson Clinton apparently is a serial sexual harasser, but because he says and does all the things that the feminist crowds wants, they don't seem to care.
Also, according to Mr. Shrum, Mr. Edwards will say whatever it takes and has basically no core.
I think that if the Democrat party wants a serious candidate to be their nominee for president, they will have to look away from this charlatan and look to serious people. In the earlier post regarding Mr. Edwards, I noted that New Mexico governor Bill Richardson would be a great choice. But, I am afraid that the Dems will go for as far to the fringe without falling off the cliff and that leaves Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-New York), Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) and this creepy ambulance chaser, John Edwards. What a rouge gallery that is!
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The Vacant "Mind" Of John Edwards
The new flavor of the moment for the nutroots crowd, former North Carolina senator John Edwards, Democrat candidate for president, showed today why he is not ready for prime time by fully declaring that there is no War Against Terror.
In a speech today before the Council On Foreign Relations, Mr. Edwards said that the War Against Terror is a "bumper sticker slogan" that President Bush had to use to justify everything from abuses at Abu Grahib prison to the invasion of Iraq http://breitbart.com.
Of course, then Sen. Edwards voted for the "invasion" of Iraq and once it became unpopular, he became a leading voice in saying that he made a mistake in voting for the "invasion" in the first place.
Among other tidbits, Mr. Edwards said that he would create a "national security budget" that would be under one umbrella and include the Homeland Security, Energy and the Pentagon. Hmm, does that mean he would create more of a mess by combining the Homeland Security, Energy and Defense departments? We have seen what a wonderful job the Homeland Security department has done.
Of course he offered the same pablum that is standard fare for the Democrats these days saying that President Bush walked in to the terrorist's trap and has embarked on a war on Islam and that he would restore the United States "moral leadership" in the world.
Wow! So, according to Mr. Edwards, we do not have "moral leadership" because he and his left wing pals do not like the fact that the United States under President Bush HAS exhibited moral leadership by fighting back, not against the whole of Islam, but those who pervert it like Osama bin-Laden and his ilk. "Moral leadership" of the Edwards model is cowardice and truly playing into the hands of the enemy. If there was little or no response to the attacks of 9/11, no country would trust the United States if it could not stand up for itself.
What Mr. Edwards is saying is what the American left has been saying since shortly after 9/11. That there is no war against radical, not all, Islam and that we may have brought on the attacks ourselves. By saying there is no war, we just pull out the troops from Iraq, and eventually Afghanistan and go back to the days of the Clinton administration which buried it's head in the sand when attack after attack occurred starting with the 1993 World Trade Center attack and ending the Clinton years with the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. There was no response and the Clinton crowd took the "law enforcement" approach and the one time they tried a bombing to get bin-Laden, they bombed an aspirin factory in the Sudan.
Hence, Mr. Edwards is exactly the kind of unserious man we do not need in this very serious time in not just American but world history. We can not go back to our collective heads in the sand when it comes to fighting the radical Jihadists. We have to take the fight to them and always be a step ahead in their nefarious plans. Remember, all it takes is one mistake for a successful terror attack that may include biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons.
I am sure there are serious Democrats in the field, like maybe New Mexico governor Bill Richardson who maybe their best candidate, but because they are so beholden to their left wing, they will marvel at the words of a vacant mind named John Edwards.
In a speech today before the Council On Foreign Relations, Mr. Edwards said that the War Against Terror is a "bumper sticker slogan" that President Bush had to use to justify everything from abuses at Abu Grahib prison to the invasion of Iraq http://breitbart.com.
Of course, then Sen. Edwards voted for the "invasion" of Iraq and once it became unpopular, he became a leading voice in saying that he made a mistake in voting for the "invasion" in the first place.
Among other tidbits, Mr. Edwards said that he would create a "national security budget" that would be under one umbrella and include the Homeland Security, Energy and the Pentagon. Hmm, does that mean he would create more of a mess by combining the Homeland Security, Energy and Defense departments? We have seen what a wonderful job the Homeland Security department has done.
Of course he offered the same pablum that is standard fare for the Democrats these days saying that President Bush walked in to the terrorist's trap and has embarked on a war on Islam and that he would restore the United States "moral leadership" in the world.
Wow! So, according to Mr. Edwards, we do not have "moral leadership" because he and his left wing pals do not like the fact that the United States under President Bush HAS exhibited moral leadership by fighting back, not against the whole of Islam, but those who pervert it like Osama bin-Laden and his ilk. "Moral leadership" of the Edwards model is cowardice and truly playing into the hands of the enemy. If there was little or no response to the attacks of 9/11, no country would trust the United States if it could not stand up for itself.
What Mr. Edwards is saying is what the American left has been saying since shortly after 9/11. That there is no war against radical, not all, Islam and that we may have brought on the attacks ourselves. By saying there is no war, we just pull out the troops from Iraq, and eventually Afghanistan and go back to the days of the Clinton administration which buried it's head in the sand when attack after attack occurred starting with the 1993 World Trade Center attack and ending the Clinton years with the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. There was no response and the Clinton crowd took the "law enforcement" approach and the one time they tried a bombing to get bin-Laden, they bombed an aspirin factory in the Sudan.
Hence, Mr. Edwards is exactly the kind of unserious man we do not need in this very serious time in not just American but world history. We can not go back to our collective heads in the sand when it comes to fighting the radical Jihadists. We have to take the fight to them and always be a step ahead in their nefarious plans. Remember, all it takes is one mistake for a successful terror attack that may include biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons.
I am sure there are serious Democrats in the field, like maybe New Mexico governor Bill Richardson who maybe their best candidate, but because they are so beholden to their left wing, they will marvel at the words of a vacant mind named John Edwards.
Boehner Right On The Money
House Republican leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is apparently not a fan of the "comprehensive immigration bill" scam being debated in the senate according to The Hotline http://thehotline.com.
Mr. Boehner is so upset that he has referred to the bill-scam as "A piece of s--- bill." and many of us could not have said it better ourselves.
While he tells it like it is, he is not fighting it and the Bush administration is going to look for Democrats in the house, if it gets out of the senate, to vote for this bill-scam.
That is what is wrong. Mr. Boehner needs to show leadership and tell the president that he will not have the votes, he will not fight for this bill unless there are major changes, which have been outlined here in earlier posts, and let the chips fall where they may.
If Mr. Boehner does not like the bill-scam, he needs to make sure that his imprint is on it and needs to lead the house fight for the changes. If he does not, then he will be seen as nothing but a puppet for President Bush on this issue. I think it is time for Mr. Boehner to lead on this issue. He will be around after the 2008 election, not so Mr. Bush.
I hope that his sentiments will lead Mr. Boehner in a direction to fight rather than just be on the side lines. That is what being a leader, whether it is in the minority or majority is all about. Mr. Boehner, you expressed how you really feel, time to take that with you and lead a fight for a better bill so that we will not have to keep referring to it as a scam, or as you put it, "A piece of s--- bill."
Mr. Boehner is so upset that he has referred to the bill-scam as "A piece of s--- bill." and many of us could not have said it better ourselves.
While he tells it like it is, he is not fighting it and the Bush administration is going to look for Democrats in the house, if it gets out of the senate, to vote for this bill-scam.
That is what is wrong. Mr. Boehner needs to show leadership and tell the president that he will not have the votes, he will not fight for this bill unless there are major changes, which have been outlined here in earlier posts, and let the chips fall where they may.
If Mr. Boehner does not like the bill-scam, he needs to make sure that his imprint is on it and needs to lead the house fight for the changes. If he does not, then he will be seen as nothing but a puppet for President Bush on this issue. I think it is time for Mr. Boehner to lead on this issue. He will be around after the 2008 election, not so Mr. Bush.
I hope that his sentiments will lead Mr. Boehner in a direction to fight rather than just be on the side lines. That is what being a leader, whether it is in the minority or majority is all about. Mr. Boehner, you expressed how you really feel, time to take that with you and lead a fight for a better bill so that we will not have to keep referring to it as a scam, or as you put it, "A piece of s--- bill."
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
WAY TO GO ANAHEIM DUCKS!
Tonight, the Anaheim Ducks beat the Detroit Red Wings, 4-3 to go to the National Hockey League Stanley Cup Finals. This is great news for Orange County, which for us would be Republican Mecca, and for Southern California that may make ice hockey as important a sport as baseball, basketball and football.
The Ducks will play the Ottawa Senators which makes this Final even more exciting as it will be between Canada and the United States. While the hockey powers-to-be do all they can to destroy the sport (kind of sounds like Bud Selig doing to major league baseball), the sport continues even though its television contract is on a cable network no one has ever heard of-for the record its VERSUS-rule changes that do not add anything but confusion, the players play on and there is nothing in pro or college sports like the Stanley Cup Playoffs. What happened tonight at the end of the game is something you do not see in other sports. The players on each team line up and congratulate each other, the winners and the losers. There is also nothing like seeing a playoff game go into sudden-death overtime and a game going as many as four, 20 minute periods of overtime before someone scores to end the misery.
Well, I for one can not wait until Saturday night when game one is played in Anaheim. I can not wait for Red America to beat the Blue Canucks! Prediction: Ducks in five games. GO DUCKS!
The Ducks will play the Ottawa Senators which makes this Final even more exciting as it will be between Canada and the United States. While the hockey powers-to-be do all they can to destroy the sport (kind of sounds like Bud Selig doing to major league baseball), the sport continues even though its television contract is on a cable network no one has ever heard of-for the record its VERSUS-rule changes that do not add anything but confusion, the players play on and there is nothing in pro or college sports like the Stanley Cup Playoffs. What happened tonight at the end of the game is something you do not see in other sports. The players on each team line up and congratulate each other, the winners and the losers. There is also nothing like seeing a playoff game go into sudden-death overtime and a game going as many as four, 20 minute periods of overtime before someone scores to end the misery.
Well, I for one can not wait until Saturday night when game one is played in Anaheim. I can not wait for Red America to beat the Blue Canucks! Prediction: Ducks in five games. GO DUCKS!
McCain vs. Romney Ding! Ding! Ding!
Oh, the campaign season is in high gear and in the gutter as Republican presidential candidates Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney had it out over the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill scam.
Because Mr. Romney dared to question and express opposition to major components of the scam, Sen "F--- You" McCain had this lovely quip:
"Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes, since its changed in less than a year. Maybe his solution would be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn or something."
To update the short hand of Sen. "F--- You" McCain, he is referencing that Mr. Romney has changed from supporting the current scam bill in the senate to opposing it because it is not strong enough on border enforcement, employer sanctions and amnesty. Mr. Romney has not changed his position, it has been that for quite a while. The reference to the small varmint gun is due to Mr. Romney trying, albeit too hard, to appeal to gun-owner voters and saying he is a lifelong hunter when he really is not. The Guatemalan reference is due to the company that Mr. Romney used for gardening allegedly had Guatemalan illegals working for it.
Hmm, while Mr. Romney voiced opposition to the scam bill on the merits, Sen "F--- You" McCain went to unbecoming personal attacks on Mr. Romney. Of course he did not address the legitimate concerns of Mr. Romney, just went for the cheap shot. Mr. Romney did have a good response:
"I have respect for Sen. McCain, and I guess it shows that even when he's wrong, he's amusing."
Short, not offensive and to the point. But the bigger problem is with Sen. "F--- You" McCain is that he has not shown the ability to defend the scam bill on the merits. As he told Texas Sen. John Cornyn, "F--- You! I know more about this legislation than any of you here." All Sen. Cornyn was trying to say is that while Sen. "F--- You" McCain was busy for the past five weeks campaigning, he was not around to do the heavy lifting dumped on his fellow Arizona Sen. John Kyl to get this abysmal compromise that, does not really address the issues that people like Sen. Cornyn and Mr. Romney are bringing up.
A lot of people are speculating that Sen. "F--- You" McCain's anger is coming up is due to the fact that, while he tries to fight the good fight for the GOP nod, because of this he is going to be finished even before a vote is cast early next year. I concur. Sen. "F--- You" McCain is probably thinking to himself "I am going to lose to these guys? I can't believe it! They should just give me the nomination by acclamation for all I have done!"
For the record, all his fingerprints are on things that matter most to Republican primary voters such as the "Gang of 14" that scuttled many of the Bush administrations choices for federal judges so a deal could be worked out. Also, his continuous drivel about treating terrorist suspects like signatories to the Geneva Convention on POWs and now, this cherry on top-the "comprehensive immigration bill" scam.
It is too bad because Sen. "F--- You" McCain is a great American and most of the time a good conservative Republican senator. But when he goes down this road, it is very bad and shows the American people a side that I do not think they want in their leader.
Hopefully, Sen. "F--- You" McCain can actually defend the questions that many Republicans, and some Democrats, have on this legislation.
Because Mr. Romney dared to question and express opposition to major components of the scam, Sen "F--- You" McCain had this lovely quip:
"Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes, since its changed in less than a year. Maybe his solution would be to get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn or something."
To update the short hand of Sen. "F--- You" McCain, he is referencing that Mr. Romney has changed from supporting the current scam bill in the senate to opposing it because it is not strong enough on border enforcement, employer sanctions and amnesty. Mr. Romney has not changed his position, it has been that for quite a while. The reference to the small varmint gun is due to Mr. Romney trying, albeit too hard, to appeal to gun-owner voters and saying he is a lifelong hunter when he really is not. The Guatemalan reference is due to the company that Mr. Romney used for gardening allegedly had Guatemalan illegals working for it.
Hmm, while Mr. Romney voiced opposition to the scam bill on the merits, Sen "F--- You" McCain went to unbecoming personal attacks on Mr. Romney. Of course he did not address the legitimate concerns of Mr. Romney, just went for the cheap shot. Mr. Romney did have a good response:
"I have respect for Sen. McCain, and I guess it shows that even when he's wrong, he's amusing."
Short, not offensive and to the point. But the bigger problem is with Sen. "F--- You" McCain is that he has not shown the ability to defend the scam bill on the merits. As he told Texas Sen. John Cornyn, "F--- You! I know more about this legislation than any of you here." All Sen. Cornyn was trying to say is that while Sen. "F--- You" McCain was busy for the past five weeks campaigning, he was not around to do the heavy lifting dumped on his fellow Arizona Sen. John Kyl to get this abysmal compromise that, does not really address the issues that people like Sen. Cornyn and Mr. Romney are bringing up.
A lot of people are speculating that Sen. "F--- You" McCain's anger is coming up is due to the fact that, while he tries to fight the good fight for the GOP nod, because of this he is going to be finished even before a vote is cast early next year. I concur. Sen. "F--- You" McCain is probably thinking to himself "I am going to lose to these guys? I can't believe it! They should just give me the nomination by acclamation for all I have done!"
For the record, all his fingerprints are on things that matter most to Republican primary voters such as the "Gang of 14" that scuttled many of the Bush administrations choices for federal judges so a deal could be worked out. Also, his continuous drivel about treating terrorist suspects like signatories to the Geneva Convention on POWs and now, this cherry on top-the "comprehensive immigration bill" scam.
It is too bad because Sen. "F--- You" McCain is a great American and most of the time a good conservative Republican senator. But when he goes down this road, it is very bad and shows the American people a side that I do not think they want in their leader.
Hopefully, Sen. "F--- You" McCain can actually defend the questions that many Republicans, and some Democrats, have on this legislation.
More Depressing News in The Culture Front
As if the continuing battle in the culture war is not enough, a high school in Colorado http://FoxNews.com has published a yearbook that show high school students drinking and taking drugs and the student yearbook staff defending it as a reflection of what is going on in the life of many high school students.
Now, full disclosure. I went to high school in 1978-1982, the tail end of the drug-cultured 60s and 70s. My high school actually had an area, I kid you not, where students could smoke cigarettes. Now, other herbal substances were clearly done in this area, but I could not tell you if the smoking area even still exists. I was not immune to the culture of the time.
That out of the way, our four years of yearbooks never had such references to current events in that way. It dealt strictly with school life which includes athletics, clubs, photos of students, teachers and some candid shots. No, none of the candid shots showed kids toking up a marijuana joint or guzzling a bottle of Jack Daniels.
What is more disturbing is that the teacher in charge of the yearbook staff had a lame excuse that she did not know what the student staff was doing. Please!
Of course many parents were outraged. After shelling out $58 dollars for a yearbook, they have to see pages with images of high schoolers toking a joint and guzzling adult beverages. I am sure many of these parents were the type that are active in their children's education and some just took a glance and realized. . .the horror!
It is not that I am a puritan and don't think this goes on in high schools and, regrettably, junior high schools all across the nation. But the message sent is that as far as this school is concerned and the students, this is something that should be in the yearbook and exposed, for whatever reason.
What this shows also is that the teacher "advisor" to the yearbook staff has such little control, then one gets what they deserve. It is this permissive attitude that leads to yearbooks having tokers and guzzlers featured so prominently.
Of course it is really too late to do anything about this yearbook issue that would remove the offending pages. The yearbook has been published and is being distributed now. So, a lot of students who do not participate in such beyond extracurricular activities have to have this in a yearbook that should be a celebration of high school life, not showing the dark side. It does nothing to make the debate any more edifying and also sends a signal that the schools do not have any control.
We as a society wonder why there are problems with our young people. This is a start. We who are supposed to be the adults can not be a "friend" to our children first. After all, we are the ones they LOOK to for guidance, not always for affirmation when they especially are knowingly doing something wrong. We must be the guides first and "friend" second. Thus, a teacher is also supposed to be a guide, not a "friend" and when the lines are blurred, this is what we get.
Now, full disclosure. I went to high school in 1978-1982, the tail end of the drug-cultured 60s and 70s. My high school actually had an area, I kid you not, where students could smoke cigarettes. Now, other herbal substances were clearly done in this area, but I could not tell you if the smoking area even still exists. I was not immune to the culture of the time.
That out of the way, our four years of yearbooks never had such references to current events in that way. It dealt strictly with school life which includes athletics, clubs, photos of students, teachers and some candid shots. No, none of the candid shots showed kids toking up a marijuana joint or guzzling a bottle of Jack Daniels.
What is more disturbing is that the teacher in charge of the yearbook staff had a lame excuse that she did not know what the student staff was doing. Please!
Of course many parents were outraged. After shelling out $58 dollars for a yearbook, they have to see pages with images of high schoolers toking a joint and guzzling adult beverages. I am sure many of these parents were the type that are active in their children's education and some just took a glance and realized. . .the horror!
It is not that I am a puritan and don't think this goes on in high schools and, regrettably, junior high schools all across the nation. But the message sent is that as far as this school is concerned and the students, this is something that should be in the yearbook and exposed, for whatever reason.
What this shows also is that the teacher "advisor" to the yearbook staff has such little control, then one gets what they deserve. It is this permissive attitude that leads to yearbooks having tokers and guzzlers featured so prominently.
Of course it is really too late to do anything about this yearbook issue that would remove the offending pages. The yearbook has been published and is being distributed now. So, a lot of students who do not participate in such beyond extracurricular activities have to have this in a yearbook that should be a celebration of high school life, not showing the dark side. It does nothing to make the debate any more edifying and also sends a signal that the schools do not have any control.
We as a society wonder why there are problems with our young people. This is a start. We who are supposed to be the adults can not be a "friend" to our children first. After all, we are the ones they LOOK to for guidance, not always for affirmation when they especially are knowingly doing something wrong. We must be the guides first and "friend" second. Thus, a teacher is also supposed to be a guide, not a "friend" and when the lines are blurred, this is what we get.
Monday, May 21, 2007
A Minor Victory In The Senate
It appears that cooler heads are prevailing in the epic showdown over the "comprehensive immigration bill" scam and debate will not start until June http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070522/D8P9600G1.html, and some thanks has to go to Senate majority leader, Harry Reid (D-Nev).
This delay gives both liberal Democrat and conservative Republicans time to line up votes to block the legislation, if necessary by filibuster, if there is no other way to stop it. I think that this is a sign that those who have been trying to ram this ill-advised legislation down the senate, and the country's throats are beginning to crack. As is usually the case in this kind of ram down that does not get past Go, the chances diminish and there is so much wrong with it, both sides know this will not be the final product by a long shot.
Also, much credit has to go to Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com, who has been on this from the beginning last week. He has actually read through and has it in a seven-part synopsis at the web site. It makes for good reading to know how crappy legislation gets hobbled together in the dead of night in a Capital Hill backroom.
Hopefully, this delay will get both sides working on a serious plan that addresses first and foremost, national security concerns, then what to do about the illegal immigrants now here and what to do in the future. Ramrodded bad legislation is not the answer.
This delay gives both liberal Democrat and conservative Republicans time to line up votes to block the legislation, if necessary by filibuster, if there is no other way to stop it. I think that this is a sign that those who have been trying to ram this ill-advised legislation down the senate, and the country's throats are beginning to crack. As is usually the case in this kind of ram down that does not get past Go, the chances diminish and there is so much wrong with it, both sides know this will not be the final product by a long shot.
Also, much credit has to go to Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com, who has been on this from the beginning last week. He has actually read through and has it in a seven-part synopsis at the web site. It makes for good reading to know how crappy legislation gets hobbled together in the dead of night in a Capital Hill backroom.
Hopefully, this delay will get both sides working on a serious plan that addresses first and foremost, national security concerns, then what to do about the illegal immigrants now here and what to do in the future. Ramrodded bad legislation is not the answer.
Idaho Shooter Identified-Not An Islamic
According to Fox News Channel http://FoxNews.com the name of the suspect in the shooting rampage in Moscow, Idaho is Jason Hamilton. And he apparently is not Islamic. Unfortunately, his rampage apparently started at his home as he also killed his wife. It is a tragedy. As I noted in an earlier post, because it took so long to identify the gunman, I suspected the media was going to do a whitewash if it was in fact an Islamic shooter. I am glad it was not, but I am sorry he shot his wife and others.
Speculation On Idaho Shooting Rampage
On Saturday night, a gunman in Moscow, Idaho went on a shooting rampage trying to lure as many people as possible to the county courthouse where the sheriff substation is located. Three people were killed including the gunman. Seems like a case of a man going wild and maybe nothing more, but I wonder as there has been no identification of the suspect. This is not the first time that it has taken a while for authorities to release the name of a suspect.
What is perplexing is the possibility of, and I stress the possibility of the gunman being Islamic and a possible extremist. Why? Because this is not the first time that the background of an Islamic attacker has been downplayed in the United States. Just earlier this year, a gunman from Kosovo went on a shooting spree in a mall in Salt Lake City. The Islamic background was totally downplayed by the DDBMSM crowd. Of course there is nothing new from that investigation.
Then there is a case in North Carolina that the DDBMSM crowd can not cover up and that is the case of an Islamic driver who decided to try to kill as many people as possible with his car. He admitted to the act and said his allegiances where to al-Queda.
So, why has it taken so long to identify this accused mass murderer? I will be interested to know the identity of this gunman and if it is someone of an Islamic background whether the DDBMSM will downplay it?
What is perplexing is the possibility of, and I stress the possibility of the gunman being Islamic and a possible extremist. Why? Because this is not the first time that the background of an Islamic attacker has been downplayed in the United States. Just earlier this year, a gunman from Kosovo went on a shooting spree in a mall in Salt Lake City. The Islamic background was totally downplayed by the DDBMSM crowd. Of course there is nothing new from that investigation.
Then there is a case in North Carolina that the DDBMSM crowd can not cover up and that is the case of an Islamic driver who decided to try to kill as many people as possible with his car. He admitted to the act and said his allegiances where to al-Queda.
So, why has it taken so long to identify this accused mass murderer? I will be interested to know the identity of this gunman and if it is someone of an Islamic background whether the DDBMSM will downplay it?
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Graham Not Getting Love Back Home
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), got a less than enthusiastic reception back home in Columbia, South Carolina at the state GOP convention http://thestate.com/154/story/69054.hmtl due to his strong support for the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill, er scam.
True, he got cheers for his support for the Iraq war theatre in the War Against Terror, but at the end of the day, he was booed and hissed relentlessly for supporting this amnesty bill. Of course, he argues that it is the best that the senate could have come up with? Oh, really?
How about what I have suggested. Enforcement first. That means building all of the 854 mile fencing, which would be double-spaced fencing. Then, see if strong sanctions against employers who knowing hire illegal aliens would work. Then, more than likely, many of those here illegally would simply go home. That would lead to humanely having people here illegally go home. I have to agree that rounding up over 12 million people is impossible and inhumane. NONE of that is addressed in this bill to my knowledge. Also, why can't the other provisions that would lead to a guest worker program be phased in once the enforcement policies are truly evaluated over a period of time?
That is the reason that Sen. Graham, Sen John F--- You McCain and company are getting the boos and hisses. Also, because without a doubt this was done in the secrecy of a backroom and there is no wanting of a serious debate on this that will produce a bill that works. Hence, it is a scam and the American people know a scam when they see it.
I hope that the reaction that Sen. Graham got among fellow Republicans in his home state will make him think twice about this abysmal legislation. But, once the backroom is open and the stench comes out and you say it is lovely, it is hard to say no, it is stench. Please, take that message back to Washington and lets have a real debate and a bill that really works.
True, he got cheers for his support for the Iraq war theatre in the War Against Terror, but at the end of the day, he was booed and hissed relentlessly for supporting this amnesty bill. Of course, he argues that it is the best that the senate could have come up with? Oh, really?
How about what I have suggested. Enforcement first. That means building all of the 854 mile fencing, which would be double-spaced fencing. Then, see if strong sanctions against employers who knowing hire illegal aliens would work. Then, more than likely, many of those here illegally would simply go home. That would lead to humanely having people here illegally go home. I have to agree that rounding up over 12 million people is impossible and inhumane. NONE of that is addressed in this bill to my knowledge. Also, why can't the other provisions that would lead to a guest worker program be phased in once the enforcement policies are truly evaluated over a period of time?
That is the reason that Sen. Graham, Sen John F--- You McCain and company are getting the boos and hisses. Also, because without a doubt this was done in the secrecy of a backroom and there is no wanting of a serious debate on this that will produce a bill that works. Hence, it is a scam and the American people know a scam when they see it.
I hope that the reaction that Sen. Graham got among fellow Republicans in his home state will make him think twice about this abysmal legislation. But, once the backroom is open and the stench comes out and you say it is lovely, it is hard to say no, it is stench. Please, take that message back to Washington and lets have a real debate and a bill that really works.
What Is Jason Giambi Implicating?
In a recent article quoted in USA Today, New York Yankee slugger Jason Giambi indicated that he thought that major league baseball owed the fans an apology concerning the steroids scandal that threatens to engulf major league baseball as San Francisco slugger Barry Bonds is near breaking Milwaukee/Atlanta Braves Henry Aaron's 755 home run record.
Giambi feels that major league baseball put pressure on the players to perform and that is why so many took anabolic steroids to put on some bulk and see many home run records fall. In the Associated Press article http://pasadenastarnews.com/search/ci_5333679 Mr. Giambi sounds contrite and also trying to put the blame for steroid use on others. Mr. Giambi also has never denied or affirmed if he himself used the banned substance.
The issue I have is that once again, while claiming to have been upfront about his potential use, or not, Mr. Giambi really has not been and seems to be ready to blame others. While there was some truth potentially to it, the point is that he, along with all that did take the steroids should and must come clean. The more that there is any suspicion, the more it will look like there is something to hide.
And that is what it looks like, a cover-up. Whether there is any conspiracy or not is not important, responsibility is. Players need to take responsibility for their actions, not blame it on others and let the chips fall where they may.
Mr. Giambi, Mr. Bonds and the others that have been implicated need to take responsibility and at the appropriate time, so do the powers to be in major league baseball. But sloughing off one's responsibility on some one else is just as wrong. Come clean, Jason, et al.
Giambi feels that major league baseball put pressure on the players to perform and that is why so many took anabolic steroids to put on some bulk and see many home run records fall. In the Associated Press article http://pasadenastarnews.com/search/ci_5333679 Mr. Giambi sounds contrite and also trying to put the blame for steroid use on others. Mr. Giambi also has never denied or affirmed if he himself used the banned substance.
The issue I have is that once again, while claiming to have been upfront about his potential use, or not, Mr. Giambi really has not been and seems to be ready to blame others. While there was some truth potentially to it, the point is that he, along with all that did take the steroids should and must come clean. The more that there is any suspicion, the more it will look like there is something to hide.
And that is what it looks like, a cover-up. Whether there is any conspiracy or not is not important, responsibility is. Players need to take responsibility for their actions, not blame it on others and let the chips fall where they may.
Mr. Giambi, Mr. Bonds and the others that have been implicated need to take responsibility and at the appropriate time, so do the powers to be in major league baseball. But sloughing off one's responsibility on some one else is just as wrong. Come clean, Jason, et al.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Thoughts On The Immigration Reform Bill Scam
Now that we have had about roughly 24 hours to digest this "comprehensive immigration reform" bill scam, here are some thoughts.
Firstly, President Bush has wanted this legislation since he first ran for president in 1999. He talked endlessly about the need for immigration reform, always with an eye on having an amnesty but under another name and a guest worker program.
Taking the guest worker program first, why? Do we really have a shortage of American workers or is it that we have a shortage of cheap labor? Of course there is a shortage of cheap labor. We have been told that unless we have Mexicans come over from south of the border to pick the crops, we will be paying $5 for a head of lettuce. How do we know that? Have Americans ever gotten a job picking crops and been paid the low-wages that a Mexican, more than likely, illegal aliens? Of course not. But, if no one was here to do those jobs, of course Americans will flock and have to be paid at the very least decent wages.
Secondly, why do we think that 12 million, and we know it is so much more, will flock to come either here as citizens or as guest workers? The illegal aliens and their enablers like things the way they are. The cheap labor comes here illegally and the enablers pay cheap wages. The illegals go back and forth to Mexico, either send money or take money there. Quite a bit of the Mexican economy depends on the money the illegal and even legal citizens send back to Mexico.
Why is the United States giving Mexico a pass in trying to legalize these people so fast?
Mexican president Felipe Calderon has said that it is necessary for the United States to do something about illegal immigration. Hello?! How about YOU doing something Presidente Calderon about your corrupt, psudeosocialist, bankrupt economy that forces people to come here out of sheer desperation? In all of this, I have not heard President Bush put any pressure on Presidente Calderon to make substantial changes in Mexico. Presidente Calderon, as his predecessor Victente Fox basically want to dump as many people into the United States and anywhere else so they do have to deal with them. Presidente Calderon, your not wanting to make the kind of changes that will take Mexico out of the third world and an equal with the United States and Canada is the problem.
As I pointed out yesterday, what is so grievous about this proposed bill is the lack of security, which is the most important issue for me. It cuts the fence from 854 miles to 350, if that. There are no real safeguards. Also, to those that say a fence will not be effective, that is a falsehood of the first order. According to congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif) the fence that has been built on the San Diego-Tijuana border has kept many from using that point of entry. The problem is that with out more fence, people will just find another way or area to sneak in. More fencing means less easy access. That is the point! To follow the left's illogic, it is a wall to keep people out and it is like the Berlin wall of the communist European era. Hello again! The Berlin Wall was built by communist East Germany to keep people from escaping a totalitarian, communist state that East Germany was. The fence is like any fence built, to keep people out who do not belong in an area or home.
Politically, it is a moronic deal for Republicans of any stripe to support. Because when they took control of congress in 1994 and did not repeal the so-called "Motor Voter" act that just made it easier for people to register to vote that have no business voting in the first place, do they really think that when all these people become "regularized" are going to flock to the GOP? If the GOP does not offer the goodies that the Democrats will, forget it. The congress had a wonderful opportunity to revoke the "Motor Voter" act when they had control of congress and the White House, but they did not.
On this, Karl Rove is not the magician but the schmuck.
All I can say is that, as I have been doing, send your congressman and senators e-mails and call to let them know to stop this bill now and start over. It was done in a lousy, back door way and without any input from the senate and house and unless they are involved in any final product that may make the major adjustments needed possible. Go to National Review http://corner.nationalreview.com and look for all contacts to the members of the house and senate.
As I wrote yesterday, we need to stop this bill because it is not even a 50% kind of bill Republicans and rational Democrats can not support.
Firstly, President Bush has wanted this legislation since he first ran for president in 1999. He talked endlessly about the need for immigration reform, always with an eye on having an amnesty but under another name and a guest worker program.
Taking the guest worker program first, why? Do we really have a shortage of American workers or is it that we have a shortage of cheap labor? Of course there is a shortage of cheap labor. We have been told that unless we have Mexicans come over from south of the border to pick the crops, we will be paying $5 for a head of lettuce. How do we know that? Have Americans ever gotten a job picking crops and been paid the low-wages that a Mexican, more than likely, illegal aliens? Of course not. But, if no one was here to do those jobs, of course Americans will flock and have to be paid at the very least decent wages.
Secondly, why do we think that 12 million, and we know it is so much more, will flock to come either here as citizens or as guest workers? The illegal aliens and their enablers like things the way they are. The cheap labor comes here illegally and the enablers pay cheap wages. The illegals go back and forth to Mexico, either send money or take money there. Quite a bit of the Mexican economy depends on the money the illegal and even legal citizens send back to Mexico.
Why is the United States giving Mexico a pass in trying to legalize these people so fast?
Mexican president Felipe Calderon has said that it is necessary for the United States to do something about illegal immigration. Hello?! How about YOU doing something Presidente Calderon about your corrupt, psudeosocialist, bankrupt economy that forces people to come here out of sheer desperation? In all of this, I have not heard President Bush put any pressure on Presidente Calderon to make substantial changes in Mexico. Presidente Calderon, as his predecessor Victente Fox basically want to dump as many people into the United States and anywhere else so they do have to deal with them. Presidente Calderon, your not wanting to make the kind of changes that will take Mexico out of the third world and an equal with the United States and Canada is the problem.
As I pointed out yesterday, what is so grievous about this proposed bill is the lack of security, which is the most important issue for me. It cuts the fence from 854 miles to 350, if that. There are no real safeguards. Also, to those that say a fence will not be effective, that is a falsehood of the first order. According to congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif) the fence that has been built on the San Diego-Tijuana border has kept many from using that point of entry. The problem is that with out more fence, people will just find another way or area to sneak in. More fencing means less easy access. That is the point! To follow the left's illogic, it is a wall to keep people out and it is like the Berlin wall of the communist European era. Hello again! The Berlin Wall was built by communist East Germany to keep people from escaping a totalitarian, communist state that East Germany was. The fence is like any fence built, to keep people out who do not belong in an area or home.
Politically, it is a moronic deal for Republicans of any stripe to support. Because when they took control of congress in 1994 and did not repeal the so-called "Motor Voter" act that just made it easier for people to register to vote that have no business voting in the first place, do they really think that when all these people become "regularized" are going to flock to the GOP? If the GOP does not offer the goodies that the Democrats will, forget it. The congress had a wonderful opportunity to revoke the "Motor Voter" act when they had control of congress and the White House, but they did not.
On this, Karl Rove is not the magician but the schmuck.
All I can say is that, as I have been doing, send your congressman and senators e-mails and call to let them know to stop this bill now and start over. It was done in a lousy, back door way and without any input from the senate and house and unless they are involved in any final product that may make the major adjustments needed possible. Go to National Review http://corner.nationalreview.com and look for all contacts to the members of the house and senate.
As I wrote yesterday, we need to stop this bill because it is not even a 50% kind of bill Republicans and rational Democrats can not support.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The GOP Sellouts Risk Losing The White House In 2008
It appears that it is a done deal, this "comprehensive immigration reform" scam. I will hold out hope that there are 41 sane United States senators that will filibuster this travesty.
But there are those Republican senators that are tone deaf to not just it's base but to the desires of the American people. The American people want border enforcement first and foremost and this legislation cuts in half one of the most important aspects of border enforcement. That would be the building of a fence for 750 miles, not the 350 miles that the Republican sellouts, led by, guess who? Why, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) of course have done.
Yes, some people feel that the fact that Sen. McCain's fellow Arizona senator, John Kyl was part of the negotiation was because he believed that something is better than nothing. Not this time Sen. Kyl, not this time.
If this legislation does become law, I think that this maybe a straw that broke the camel's back for many Republicans.
We did not build a conservative majority within the Republican party to be sold out to get accolades in the New York Times, and the rest of the Axis of Evil, the big three broadcast networks, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.
I strongly advise Republican voters to look at candidates who oppose amnesty and watering down border enforcement. One who has spoken out is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney http://mittromney.com. Also California congressman and '08 hopeful Duncan Hunter, who spearheaded the successful fence along the border in San Diego has spoken out against it.
Here is the thing. If we as a Republican party say we are fighting a War Against Terror, we must secure our borders first. No border security or a little bit will make us a sitting duck for a future attack. It should not be about politics as it has become. I do think that Sen McCain has guaranteed that he will not be the Republican nominee for president in 2008 or anytime. Now, we must rally around the strongest border security Republican to be the nominee in 2008.
Selling out for a little something and not even the 80% that Rudy Giuliani has talked about in the past he agrees with the Republican base is tragic. Let us hope that it does not ruin Republican chances in 2008.
But there are those Republican senators that are tone deaf to not just it's base but to the desires of the American people. The American people want border enforcement first and foremost and this legislation cuts in half one of the most important aspects of border enforcement. That would be the building of a fence for 750 miles, not the 350 miles that the Republican sellouts, led by, guess who? Why, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) of course have done.
Yes, some people feel that the fact that Sen. McCain's fellow Arizona senator, John Kyl was part of the negotiation was because he believed that something is better than nothing. Not this time Sen. Kyl, not this time.
If this legislation does become law, I think that this maybe a straw that broke the camel's back for many Republicans.
We did not build a conservative majority within the Republican party to be sold out to get accolades in the New York Times, and the rest of the Axis of Evil, the big three broadcast networks, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.
I strongly advise Republican voters to look at candidates who oppose amnesty and watering down border enforcement. One who has spoken out is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney http://mittromney.com. Also California congressman and '08 hopeful Duncan Hunter, who spearheaded the successful fence along the border in San Diego has spoken out against it.
Here is the thing. If we as a Republican party say we are fighting a War Against Terror, we must secure our borders first. No border security or a little bit will make us a sitting duck for a future attack. It should not be about politics as it has become. I do think that Sen McCain has guaranteed that he will not be the Republican nominee for president in 2008 or anytime. Now, we must rally around the strongest border security Republican to be the nominee in 2008.
Selling out for a little something and not even the 80% that Rudy Giuliani has talked about in the past he agrees with the Republican base is tragic. Let us hope that it does not ruin Republican chances in 2008.
For All Of You Jerry Falwell Haters
Today on Fox News Channel http://FoxNews.com comes word that the wackos from Wichita, the "Reverend" Fred Phelps and his merry band of haters from the Westboro Baptist Church are going to protest at the funeral of the Rev. Jerry Falwell this coming Tuesday.
You see, these haters think that the Rev. Falwell was bad because, I kid you not, he said that God loves everyone, cavorted with non believers and Jews, and of course did not do enough to condemn homosexuality as these people do.
For all those who have been online, blogging and on websites like TMZ celebrating the death of the Rev. Falwell, realize that he was not bad. He was, again to the best of his understanding and ability, trying to bring the world to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. It may have not always been the way I would, but he did not exhibit the wicked hate that the "Reverend" Phelps and his kooks do. Rev Falwell was following the command of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, "Go ye therefore and baptize all of the nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
That is what is so bizarre about the Phelps crowd. Do they want people to become Christians? I can tell you, if they are what is representative about Christianity, I certainly would not have become a Christian. But I know that these people are not what the Christian faith is all about.
So, remember that the Rev. Falwell did not do the horrible protests and wickedness that the "Reverend" Phelps and his sickos are planning to do. Like realizing that radical Islam is the real enemy, fringe people like this are also the enemy, not the mainstream of Christianity.
You see, these haters think that the Rev. Falwell was bad because, I kid you not, he said that God loves everyone, cavorted with non believers and Jews, and of course did not do enough to condemn homosexuality as these people do.
For all those who have been online, blogging and on websites like TMZ celebrating the death of the Rev. Falwell, realize that he was not bad. He was, again to the best of his understanding and ability, trying to bring the world to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. It may have not always been the way I would, but he did not exhibit the wicked hate that the "Reverend" Phelps and his kooks do. Rev Falwell was following the command of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, "Go ye therefore and baptize all of the nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
That is what is so bizarre about the Phelps crowd. Do they want people to become Christians? I can tell you, if they are what is representative about Christianity, I certainly would not have become a Christian. But I know that these people are not what the Christian faith is all about.
So, remember that the Rev. Falwell did not do the horrible protests and wickedness that the "Reverend" Phelps and his sickos are planning to do. Like realizing that radical Islam is the real enemy, fringe people like this are also the enemy, not the mainstream of Christianity.
This Is What Drives Republicans Crazy
It appears that the Democrat senate, with appeasement from the minority Republicans, and the White House have reached a scam of a deal on so-called comprehensive immigration reform http://FoxNews.com.
The biggest problem is the fact this whole process. We have been told by President Bush that there has to be a "comprehensive" approach to illegal immigration. On the surface, no disagreement. But, where he, the Democrats and compliant Republicans are not getting is the national security interests. So, as part of the scam there will not be a 700 mile fence along our southern border but a roughly 350 mile fence. All the other provisions such as employer sanctions for knowingly hiring illegal aliens are very watered down.
Here is what drives many of us crazy. Why do Republicans always cave when it comes to illegal immigration and let the Democrats get what they want-an alleged new slew of voters to compensate for the voters that they have been losing for more than a quarter of a century?
I mean, there needs to be a real fence, not a scam. We can a should get this fence built now. There are a lot of American workers that would probably volunteer to build this fence. And many would be Mexican Americans, a silent majority that oppose illegal immigration.
For some reason, President Bush thinks that unfettered immigration is OK for America. Has he been here in Southern California? As our emergency rooms are overcrowded and closing, American citizens that actually need emergency services are being squeezed. Mr. Bush touts No Child Left Behind, a noble experiment. Well, since there are so many children of illegal immigrants in our schools, it should be Some Children Will Be Left Behind.
I wish that the politicians would actually listen to the people for once and not the special interests. The Democrats are looking for new voters and listen to the Hispanic special interests. The Republicans want cheap labor and don't look at the overall cost to society. The rest of us for once would like to have a say in this process, but it looks like we will not get it once again.
I am afraid that unless the Republican candidates for president do not come out against this scam and offer a real plan, voters may remember in 2008 and just stay home.
The biggest problem is the fact this whole process. We have been told by President Bush that there has to be a "comprehensive" approach to illegal immigration. On the surface, no disagreement. But, where he, the Democrats and compliant Republicans are not getting is the national security interests. So, as part of the scam there will not be a 700 mile fence along our southern border but a roughly 350 mile fence. All the other provisions such as employer sanctions for knowingly hiring illegal aliens are very watered down.
Here is what drives many of us crazy. Why do Republicans always cave when it comes to illegal immigration and let the Democrats get what they want-an alleged new slew of voters to compensate for the voters that they have been losing for more than a quarter of a century?
I mean, there needs to be a real fence, not a scam. We can a should get this fence built now. There are a lot of American workers that would probably volunteer to build this fence. And many would be Mexican Americans, a silent majority that oppose illegal immigration.
For some reason, President Bush thinks that unfettered immigration is OK for America. Has he been here in Southern California? As our emergency rooms are overcrowded and closing, American citizens that actually need emergency services are being squeezed. Mr. Bush touts No Child Left Behind, a noble experiment. Well, since there are so many children of illegal immigrants in our schools, it should be Some Children Will Be Left Behind.
I wish that the politicians would actually listen to the people for once and not the special interests. The Democrats are looking for new voters and listen to the Hispanic special interests. The Republicans want cheap labor and don't look at the overall cost to society. The rest of us for once would like to have a say in this process, but it looks like we will not get it once again.
I am afraid that unless the Republican candidates for president do not come out against this scam and offer a real plan, voters may remember in 2008 and just stay home.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
More Double Standards
I have to admit, I can not believe this story. The viciousness of those involved in this crime is beyond unbelievable. But not totally unexpected in today's moral relativist society. Can we tollerate this in any way? NO! This is a beyond hate crime. It is a real sign of mental illness. But, what the Democrats want to do in federalizing "hate crimes" may not include this-black on white hate. Maybe we should send this to ALL members of congress!
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Another Clash Against Civilization
In the wake of the death of the Reverend Jerry Falwell, this item on the Fox News site http://FoxNews.com should get the lefties realizing the real enemy we are fighting is not the so-called "Christian right" but Islamofacist fanatics who are reducing themselves to threatening that if Christians do not convert to Islam, they will be killed.
I would like to ask those who have found time to bash a man who is now with God and show that intolerance is definitely alive and well among those on the left, what do you think about terrorists threatening people with death if they do not renounce what they believe to be the truth for their version of the truth? Did Rev. Falwell ever give the heathens or non-believers a 24 hour window or the whacking begins? NO and you know it!
I have tried to understand why the left thinks that the real enemy is George W. Bush, people like the Rev. Falwell and many other Americans. I can not come up with anything but this. The left is all about emotion. They really hate facts for most, not all but most, of the time it undermines their emotional tantrums and lowering themselves to snide remarks instead of a debate of facts.
Here is a clue. Islamofacist terrorists want to kill as many Americans as possible. They will not stop if there is no Israel tomorrow. They will not stop if we just take the Ron Paul approach to foreign policy and come home and hope everything turns out OK. They are hellbent on world domination under a fanatical Islamic Caliphate.
Those who have expressed their real feelings on the death of Rev. Falwell also leave out one important fact. He was not a terrorist trying to Christianize the world by the sword. He was just an American who got fed up with the way he saw the United States going and decided to get involved. He did not take up arms and go into non-Christian areas and demand they convert or die.
The clash against civilization is between radicalized Islam and those of us who seem to have a real appreciation for freedom, and that is the west.
I would like to ask those who have found time to bash a man who is now with God and show that intolerance is definitely alive and well among those on the left, what do you think about terrorists threatening people with death if they do not renounce what they believe to be the truth for their version of the truth? Did Rev. Falwell ever give the heathens or non-believers a 24 hour window or the whacking begins? NO and you know it!
I have tried to understand why the left thinks that the real enemy is George W. Bush, people like the Rev. Falwell and many other Americans. I can not come up with anything but this. The left is all about emotion. They really hate facts for most, not all but most, of the time it undermines their emotional tantrums and lowering themselves to snide remarks instead of a debate of facts.
Here is a clue. Islamofacist terrorists want to kill as many Americans as possible. They will not stop if there is no Israel tomorrow. They will not stop if we just take the Ron Paul approach to foreign policy and come home and hope everything turns out OK. They are hellbent on world domination under a fanatical Islamic Caliphate.
Those who have expressed their real feelings on the death of Rev. Falwell also leave out one important fact. He was not a terrorist trying to Christianize the world by the sword. He was just an American who got fed up with the way he saw the United States going and decided to get involved. He did not take up arms and go into non-Christian areas and demand they convert or die.
The clash against civilization is between radicalized Islam and those of us who seem to have a real appreciation for freedom, and that is the west.
Wanting To Rape A Black Women=30 Days. Dumb Racial Remark=YOU'RE FIRED!
I have waited to see what would happen to horrible "shock jocks" Opie and Anthony over remarks about raping Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, First Lady Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain. The verdict is in and why am I not surprised?
Opie and Anthony got, essentially, a pass from XM Satellite Radio as they were suspended for 30 days. Don Imus makes a racially insensitive comment and he got the door.
Does any one see the double standard?
The Imus remarks were directed to the Rutgers women's basketball team. We have been told that these are young women and that some of them have commented because Mr. Imus referred to them as "Nappy-headed Hos" that they are scarred for life.
So, shouldn't Miss Rice be scarred for life when a supposedly homeless man describes in great detail about forcing himself on her and raping her, one of the most violent crimes imaginable? How about Mrs. Bush? How about Queen Elizabeth?
Well, you see, most of the Rutgers women's basketball team is black and they had an advocate in the "Reverend" Al Sharpton when Mr. Imus blathered his dopey comments. And they played up the victim card to the hilt.
On the other hand, Miss. Rice, Mrs. Bush, and Queen Elizabeth do not have the "Reverend" Sharpton as an advocate and they are not playing the victim card. Oh, and only Miss Rice is black. But you see, she is not the right kind of black. She is a conservative and a Republican. That does not fit into the black-as-a-victim template.
So, where is the "Reverend" Sharpton? Or the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson? How about making Opie and Anthony bow down to the feet of the "Reverend" Sharpton and apologize profusely on his radio show?
They are no where to be found for again, they will not stand up for a successful, articulate, conservative black woman. The reality is, a bunch of college students, who are adults, are not scarred for life by the dopey Imus remarks. Some may even get a contract and play in the WNBA. Oh, and if you think that the Imus remarks were bad, go to a college basketball game sometime and listen to the fans in the stands. But, having a couple of horrible human beings eck on a "homeless" man's sick rape fantasy, one would think that the authorities would be looking into this for he was advocating a crime, and Opie and Anthony were laughing their heads off.
All Opie and Anthony get is a 30 day vacation. Don Imus is looking for a job. Tell me, where is the real justice in this?
Opie and Anthony got, essentially, a pass from XM Satellite Radio as they were suspended for 30 days. Don Imus makes a racially insensitive comment and he got the door.
Does any one see the double standard?
The Imus remarks were directed to the Rutgers women's basketball team. We have been told that these are young women and that some of them have commented because Mr. Imus referred to them as "Nappy-headed Hos" that they are scarred for life.
So, shouldn't Miss Rice be scarred for life when a supposedly homeless man describes in great detail about forcing himself on her and raping her, one of the most violent crimes imaginable? How about Mrs. Bush? How about Queen Elizabeth?
Well, you see, most of the Rutgers women's basketball team is black and they had an advocate in the "Reverend" Al Sharpton when Mr. Imus blathered his dopey comments. And they played up the victim card to the hilt.
On the other hand, Miss. Rice, Mrs. Bush, and Queen Elizabeth do not have the "Reverend" Sharpton as an advocate and they are not playing the victim card. Oh, and only Miss Rice is black. But you see, she is not the right kind of black. She is a conservative and a Republican. That does not fit into the black-as-a-victim template.
So, where is the "Reverend" Sharpton? Or the "Reverend" Jesse Jackson? How about making Opie and Anthony bow down to the feet of the "Reverend" Sharpton and apologize profusely on his radio show?
They are no where to be found for again, they will not stand up for a successful, articulate, conservative black woman. The reality is, a bunch of college students, who are adults, are not scarred for life by the dopey Imus remarks. Some may even get a contract and play in the WNBA. Oh, and if you think that the Imus remarks were bad, go to a college basketball game sometime and listen to the fans in the stands. But, having a couple of horrible human beings eck on a "homeless" man's sick rape fantasy, one would think that the authorities would be looking into this for he was advocating a crime, and Opie and Anthony were laughing their heads off.
All Opie and Anthony get is a 30 day vacation. Don Imus is looking for a job. Tell me, where is the real justice in this?
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Jerry Falwell, RIP
Today, longtime Christian conservative leader, the Rev. Jerry Falwell died in the office of the place he loved the most, Liberty University. It marks the passing of a serious and driving leader in what we now call today the culture wars.
Of course, the Falwell haters have had a ball on the Internet and the blogosphere, showing what kind of class they have-none! But, I think he will be remembered as a man of God who tried, to the best of his understanding and ability, good in the world.
Unfortunately, when one is against a lot of things that seem to be the case of Rev. Falwell, he will be viciously attacked in some cases. But, when a man has gone to meet the Lord, respect should be given. He is no longer here to defend himself.
In some ways, I can not say I would always be in theological or even political agreement. I consider myself an evangelical, he a fundamentalist. I a conservative, he may be was a right-winger. But, he loved the Lord and again, I think that as he got older, he mellowed as we all do or will. But the zeal of his convictions did not, agree or disagree.
Thus, we have lost a Christian giant today and we should be praying for he and his family, not making vicious, hateful comments that those who are making them would condemn him for.
Of course, the Falwell haters have had a ball on the Internet and the blogosphere, showing what kind of class they have-none! But, I think he will be remembered as a man of God who tried, to the best of his understanding and ability, good in the world.
Unfortunately, when one is against a lot of things that seem to be the case of Rev. Falwell, he will be viciously attacked in some cases. But, when a man has gone to meet the Lord, respect should be given. He is no longer here to defend himself.
In some ways, I can not say I would always be in theological or even political agreement. I consider myself an evangelical, he a fundamentalist. I a conservative, he may be was a right-winger. But, he loved the Lord and again, I think that as he got older, he mellowed as we all do or will. But the zeal of his convictions did not, agree or disagree.
Thus, we have lost a Christian giant today and we should be praying for he and his family, not making vicious, hateful comments that those who are making them would condemn him for.
The GOP Debate Tonight
WOW! What a performance by the Republican candidates for president and what a superior way this debate was handled compared to the farce that MSNBC tried to do 12 days ago.
Now, one could say that I am biased towards Fox News Channel and I think anything they do is right. Not always (you should watch the train-wreck of a show called "Red Eye" on at 11pm-I watch to see the first Don Imus moment!). But, they had the moderator, Brit Hume, the questioners, Chris Wallace and White House correspondent Wendell Goller in a dignified manner and respectful of all the candidates, even the moonbat Texas congressman Ron Paul!
The questions were generally insightful and elicited serious, most of the time, responses from the candidates.
So, you ask, who won? Well, I think that Rudy Giuliani scored big in responding to the Texas gasbag, Mr. Paul who essentially asserted that it was United States foreign policy that led to the 9/11 attacks. I swear that if they gave him the rope, Mr. Paul would have given the Rosie O'Donnell view of the collapse of World Trade Center Number Seven. But, back to Mr. Giuliani, he was very comfortable on this, the reason for his candidacy, than most issues, including those thorny "social issues" he clearly hates talking about.
John McCain was so-so. He lost me when he attacked former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney when Mr. Romney attacked the so-called McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" as an assault on free speech. He never attacked the substance, but Mr. Romney. Sen. McCain really lost me when he went on his tangent against using torture to get information from terrorist suspects. He just does not get it. Terrorists are not signatories to the Geneva convention. They operate this way to not be part of the civilized world. Giving them the respect of abiding by an outdated treaty so as to keep our "prestige" in world opinion is ridiculous when it may be a matter of life or death. Sen. McCain was a prisoner of war with a legitimate government. Yet, he was tortured. I think he just looks like this whole process has been eight long years and he is showing the wear of waiting.
Mitt Romney took a couple of hits, but overall, continued to be head and shoulders above the rest in knowledge and ideas. I really liked that he talked about preventing a terrorist attack rather than just how he would react to an attack. Also, he scored big by saying we should double the size of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, not close it down. He just keeps looking and sounding more and more presidential.
Out of the bottom tier, I really like California congressman Duncan Hunter. In any other year, he really would get some serious consideration. He knows what he is talking about, does not sound unreasonable about border security and is the kind of all around candidate. I will say that he will be seriously considered for defense secretary in a Republican administration.
Tonight also showed the candidates that should not be on the same stage, led by the Texas gasbag, Ron Paul. At some level, I don't always disagree with some of his positions, particularly on domestic issues. But, seriously suggesting that 9/11 was brought on ourselves gets you put in the Rosie O'Donnell league-a league of his own! Also, Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo just looks out of place. He is running only as the most anti-illegal alien candidate. His whole candidacy is on the issue of illegal immigration. Sorry, Tom but it is just part of the puzzle and until you can get all the pieces together, you are not a serious candidate. Lastly, former Virginia and Wisconsin governors James Gilmore and Tommy Thompson are just . . . Z Z Z Z Z, did either one say anything!
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback did a little better, but it will not help. He will not go far at all, but should be in future debates. Also, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is the one of the bottom tier that could get up and be looked at as a serious alternative to the top three.
The real winner is the Republican party. The debate showed that they on the whole are serious and have serious, for the most part, candidates that take the issues of the day seriously.
I tell you, I just do not understand why the Democrat candidates will not go on Fox News Channel for a debate in the same format. The reason, they could not stand the questioning and they would have to actually answer the questions. The Republicans went on MSNBC and most serious political analysts thought that format and the questions asked were a joke.
Whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination, even Rudy Giuliani, will make the American people focused on 2008 while the Democrats will simply chant the mantra, "Blame Bush! Blame Bush!" I think we saw why Republicans will make a big comeback in 2008 tonight in South Carolina.
Now, one could say that I am biased towards Fox News Channel and I think anything they do is right. Not always (you should watch the train-wreck of a show called "Red Eye" on at 11pm-I watch to see the first Don Imus moment!). But, they had the moderator, Brit Hume, the questioners, Chris Wallace and White House correspondent Wendell Goller in a dignified manner and respectful of all the candidates, even the moonbat Texas congressman Ron Paul!
The questions were generally insightful and elicited serious, most of the time, responses from the candidates.
So, you ask, who won? Well, I think that Rudy Giuliani scored big in responding to the Texas gasbag, Mr. Paul who essentially asserted that it was United States foreign policy that led to the 9/11 attacks. I swear that if they gave him the rope, Mr. Paul would have given the Rosie O'Donnell view of the collapse of World Trade Center Number Seven. But, back to Mr. Giuliani, he was very comfortable on this, the reason for his candidacy, than most issues, including those thorny "social issues" he clearly hates talking about.
John McCain was so-so. He lost me when he attacked former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney when Mr. Romney attacked the so-called McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" as an assault on free speech. He never attacked the substance, but Mr. Romney. Sen. McCain really lost me when he went on his tangent against using torture to get information from terrorist suspects. He just does not get it. Terrorists are not signatories to the Geneva convention. They operate this way to not be part of the civilized world. Giving them the respect of abiding by an outdated treaty so as to keep our "prestige" in world opinion is ridiculous when it may be a matter of life or death. Sen. McCain was a prisoner of war with a legitimate government. Yet, he was tortured. I think he just looks like this whole process has been eight long years and he is showing the wear of waiting.
Mitt Romney took a couple of hits, but overall, continued to be head and shoulders above the rest in knowledge and ideas. I really liked that he talked about preventing a terrorist attack rather than just how he would react to an attack. Also, he scored big by saying we should double the size of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, not close it down. He just keeps looking and sounding more and more presidential.
Out of the bottom tier, I really like California congressman Duncan Hunter. In any other year, he really would get some serious consideration. He knows what he is talking about, does not sound unreasonable about border security and is the kind of all around candidate. I will say that he will be seriously considered for defense secretary in a Republican administration.
Tonight also showed the candidates that should not be on the same stage, led by the Texas gasbag, Ron Paul. At some level, I don't always disagree with some of his positions, particularly on domestic issues. But, seriously suggesting that 9/11 was brought on ourselves gets you put in the Rosie O'Donnell league-a league of his own! Also, Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo just looks out of place. He is running only as the most anti-illegal alien candidate. His whole candidacy is on the issue of illegal immigration. Sorry, Tom but it is just part of the puzzle and until you can get all the pieces together, you are not a serious candidate. Lastly, former Virginia and Wisconsin governors James Gilmore and Tommy Thompson are just . . . Z Z Z Z Z, did either one say anything!
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback did a little better, but it will not help. He will not go far at all, but should be in future debates. Also, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is the one of the bottom tier that could get up and be looked at as a serious alternative to the top three.
The real winner is the Republican party. The debate showed that they on the whole are serious and have serious, for the most part, candidates that take the issues of the day seriously.
I tell you, I just do not understand why the Democrat candidates will not go on Fox News Channel for a debate in the same format. The reason, they could not stand the questioning and they would have to actually answer the questions. The Republicans went on MSNBC and most serious political analysts thought that format and the questions asked were a joke.
Whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination, even Rudy Giuliani, will make the American people focused on 2008 while the Democrats will simply chant the mantra, "Blame Bush! Blame Bush!" I think we saw why Republicans will make a big comeback in 2008 tonight in South Carolina.
The MSM Does Not Like This First
Today on National Review online http://nationalreview.com, Rich Lowry has a great column about the fact that our friends in the DDBMSM do not seem to like the fact that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney may have a serious shot at becoming the first member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, aka the Mormons, to become president.
I have to admit, I never thought of it the way that Mr. Lowry does. But it does ring very true.
Also, I think tonight's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina will give ample time to let Mr. Romney expand on what he believes as a Mormon and how that affects what he does in his everyday life.
I have to admit, I never thought of it the way that Mr. Lowry does. But it does ring very true.
Also, I think tonight's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina will give ample time to let Mr. Romney expand on what he believes as a Mormon and how that affects what he does in his everyday life.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Rudy Will Be Knocked Down Big Tomorrow
As many of you know, I am not the biggest Rudy Giuliani fan in the blogoshpere. I do not think he is a conservative Republican, and not a real good Republican when as the mayor of New York City in the seminal election year of 1994 chose to support. . .Democrat New York governor Mario Cuomo for reelection. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) maybe a lot of things, but he is a Republican and has never backed a Democrat with he same stature as Mr. Giuliani did in the case of Mr. Cuomo.
Having said all of that, if by miracle of miracles he does turn out to be the Republican nominee for president, I will hold my nose and vote for him for president. He will be marginally better than any, and I mean any Democrat.
Now, I believe that tomorrow night in the second Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Rudy Giuliani is going to get an old fashioned beating and it is going to be from all sides.
Since the last debate in at the Reagan Library here in California, Mr. Giuliani has been having to explain in tortured detail his position on abortion. For Mr. Giuliani, it has been nothing but all abortion all the time. Not one of the explanations satisfies anyone. And that is a problem. Look, Mr. Giuliani is "pro-choice." I do not agree with his position, but I would have some respect for Mr. Giuliani if he stuck to that position and let the chips fall where they may. By going all over the ballpark, he does not sound like the leader he wants us to believe but like just another politician dancing all over the place. Oh, and one more on the abortion subject. As a practicing Roman Catholic, the church believes that human life begins at conception. Thus, when you answered Fox News' Chris Wallace that you do not know when life begins, that is just as disingenuous as all the other answers you have been on the subject.
Same on same-sex marriage. He had been a proponent of it and now says he is not, but supports civil unions. However, even there it is hard to know where he really stands.
It is not just social issues. I still do not know where he stands on taxes, domestic spending, and a whole other host of domestic issues. Which leads to essentially the whole basis of his candidacy, his leadership during the time and days after 9/11.
There, he was wonderful and even amazing. He showed how to lead the city of New York back from the abyss, and never lost sight of that.
But, I do not think that the Republican party should reward him with the nomination for president. Head of Homeland Security in a Republican administration, absolutely, but not the president.
I think that he will be reminded of that in South Carolina tomorrow night.
Having said all of that, if by miracle of miracles he does turn out to be the Republican nominee for president, I will hold my nose and vote for him for president. He will be marginally better than any, and I mean any Democrat.
Now, I believe that tomorrow night in the second Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Rudy Giuliani is going to get an old fashioned beating and it is going to be from all sides.
Since the last debate in at the Reagan Library here in California, Mr. Giuliani has been having to explain in tortured detail his position on abortion. For Mr. Giuliani, it has been nothing but all abortion all the time. Not one of the explanations satisfies anyone. And that is a problem. Look, Mr. Giuliani is "pro-choice." I do not agree with his position, but I would have some respect for Mr. Giuliani if he stuck to that position and let the chips fall where they may. By going all over the ballpark, he does not sound like the leader he wants us to believe but like just another politician dancing all over the place. Oh, and one more on the abortion subject. As a practicing Roman Catholic, the church believes that human life begins at conception. Thus, when you answered Fox News' Chris Wallace that you do not know when life begins, that is just as disingenuous as all the other answers you have been on the subject.
Same on same-sex marriage. He had been a proponent of it and now says he is not, but supports civil unions. However, even there it is hard to know where he really stands.
It is not just social issues. I still do not know where he stands on taxes, domestic spending, and a whole other host of domestic issues. Which leads to essentially the whole basis of his candidacy, his leadership during the time and days after 9/11.
There, he was wonderful and even amazing. He showed how to lead the city of New York back from the abyss, and never lost sight of that.
But, I do not think that the Republican party should reward him with the nomination for president. Head of Homeland Security in a Republican administration, absolutely, but not the president.
I think that he will be reminded of that in South Carolina tomorrow night.
The Real Issue Of The United States Attorney Dissmissals
So, it appears that there is a real story behind the Bush administration dissmissal of United States attorneys and there were more to come. It is voter fraud. No surprise, as John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has even written a book on the subject. And another surprise is that these were in heavily Democrat areas. Maybe they are trying to deflect that information.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Goodbye 7th Heaven
After over 10 years on television, one of the most beloved family shows gave us their swan song tonight as the CW network's "7th Heaven" said goodbye.
Last season was suppose to be the last as the WB network became the CW (nobody knows what these initials mean, so please do not write to ask me!) But the CW needed some kind of continuity as they killed most of the other WB shows. So, this show about a minister in a California town raising his children with his wife gave us over 200 episodes about life, and most importantly, one of if not the only shows on mainstream television to talk about God and even Jesus Christ in the most positive of ways.
This was not preachy, which probably would not sell on secular-dominated television, but you know that Rev. Eric Camden, played by Stephen Collins, would always have the right answer and it always involved God. His wife, Annie, played by Catherine Hicks took care of-the horror-family as an active stay-at-home-mom. What a concept!
The brood of children dealt with all of the real problems in today's overwhelmingly secular, Godless society, but the mom and dad did not let them get away with it the way that it happens on secular television. And that is what made the show unique and why I really believe that it will be sorely missed. Like any other show, it probably went on a little too long, but again, what I found special is the family-friendliness of the show. And that it had a stable mom, dad, children and a dog. What more can you ask for?
While "7th Heaven" now off in the sunset, here is hoping that some network will be able to produce the next version of that show. We know it can succeed and the American families are so yearning for that kind of wholesome entertainment.
Goodbye 7th Heaven!
Last season was suppose to be the last as the WB network became the CW (nobody knows what these initials mean, so please do not write to ask me!) But the CW needed some kind of continuity as they killed most of the other WB shows. So, this show about a minister in a California town raising his children with his wife gave us over 200 episodes about life, and most importantly, one of if not the only shows on mainstream television to talk about God and even Jesus Christ in the most positive of ways.
This was not preachy, which probably would not sell on secular-dominated television, but you know that Rev. Eric Camden, played by Stephen Collins, would always have the right answer and it always involved God. His wife, Annie, played by Catherine Hicks took care of-the horror-family as an active stay-at-home-mom. What a concept!
The brood of children dealt with all of the real problems in today's overwhelmingly secular, Godless society, but the mom and dad did not let them get away with it the way that it happens on secular television. And that is what made the show unique and why I really believe that it will be sorely missed. Like any other show, it probably went on a little too long, but again, what I found special is the family-friendliness of the show. And that it had a stable mom, dad, children and a dog. What more can you ask for?
While "7th Heaven" now off in the sunset, here is hoping that some network will be able to produce the next version of that show. We know it can succeed and the American families are so yearning for that kind of wholesome entertainment.
Goodbye 7th Heaven!
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Brownback Needs To Know Where He Is
I am afraid that Kansas GOP senator and presidential candidate Sam Brownback needs to know when he makes certain football anaologies where he is and what star to use. For instance, I don't think he should have used Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning to make a point when he was deep in the heart of Green Bay Packer territory. . .speaking to the Wisconsin Republican party convention. Not when the local hero is quarterback Brett Farve. This is just not something he can recover from!
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)