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.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
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
Friday, May 11, 2007
VINDICATION!
Ah, to be a blogger and to be ahead of the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream Media (DDBMSM). I refer you to my post on March 29, 2007, "Democrat Congress Not Doing Much Better In Public Eyes."
Well, it took a while, but according to the Associated Press, the congressional approval ratings are. . .no better than President Bush's!
If the AP actually wanted to track this trend, all they had to do was check out Real Clear Politics http://realclearpolitics.com and the approval ratings average for both President Bush and congress. They have been consistently neck-and-neck since the ascension of the Democrat control of congress in January of this year. But, because the AP seemed to get the memo now, it is news.
It is not news. The AP, like the rest of the DDBMSM have been carrying the water for the Democrat congress. But, for whatever reason, the public is not buying it and has not. Thus, when you hear and Democrat on the Iraq issue say they are just doing what the public wants, have them explain does that mean leaving the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror without victory? How about leaving knowing that there will be a mass genocide?
Now that the DDBMSM is on to the unpopularity of the Democrat congress, will they call for them to change their minds on any issues? To compromise with President Bush? Of course not! They will find a way to blame President Bush for the unpopularity of congress.
Just the fact that a humble blogger as myself can be so far ahead on this is a sign that the DDBMSM does not have a clue and will continue to be discredited on many more issues.
Well, it took a while, but according to the Associated Press, the congressional approval ratings are. . .no better than President Bush's!
If the AP actually wanted to track this trend, all they had to do was check out Real Clear Politics http://realclearpolitics.com and the approval ratings average for both President Bush and congress. They have been consistently neck-and-neck since the ascension of the Democrat control of congress in January of this year. But, because the AP seemed to get the memo now, it is news.
It is not news. The AP, like the rest of the DDBMSM have been carrying the water for the Democrat congress. But, for whatever reason, the public is not buying it and has not. Thus, when you hear and Democrat on the Iraq issue say they are just doing what the public wants, have them explain does that mean leaving the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror without victory? How about leaving knowing that there will be a mass genocide?
Now that the DDBMSM is on to the unpopularity of the Democrat congress, will they call for them to change their minds on any issues? To compromise with President Bush? Of course not! They will find a way to blame President Bush for the unpopularity of congress.
Just the fact that a humble blogger as myself can be so far ahead on this is a sign that the DDBMSM does not have a clue and will continue to be discredited on many more issues.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Rudy Finally Coming Out Of The Abortion Closet
Finally it appears that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is coming out of the shadows on the abortion issue and is going to seek the Republican presidential nomination as an unabashedly "pro-choice" candidate. I think this is the beginning of the end of the Rudy juggernaut.
Consider that this week it was revealed that Mr. Giuliani gave a $900 donation to Planned Parenthood. Now, much has been made about the fact that Ann Romney, the wife of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave that whopping $150 donation to the same group in 1994. I would refer you to an earlier post on the subject as how irrelevant that is. Mr. Giuliani however is the candidate, not his wife. He said on Tuesday's Laura Ingraham radio show http://lauraingraham.com that one of the reasons he gave money to Planned Parenthood is the fact that they provide "information" for women in the situation that they may abort a baby. Of course, one should be suspect of what kind of "information" Planned Parenthood provides regarding abortion. After all, their business is in "family planning."
Mr. Guiliani has given tortured answers as to what kind of judges he would appoint to the federal judiciary, where eventually with a conservative majority on the supreme court would decide to possibly overturn Roe vs. Wade, which essentially made unfettered access to abortion the law of the land, usurping once again state's rights. He has said he would look at judges like Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito, but also said it would not matter if Roe vs. Wade were overturned or not. Not exactly music to the ears of "pro-lifers".
Unfortunately, Mr. Giuliani has based this whole campaign on his leadership of New York City in the days after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It was in fact, admirable leadership, but it is not his whole narrative and this is the beginning of the chinking of the armour of 9/11. And believe me there will be more than this issue.
That is why I absolutely believe it is a mistake for the Republicans to put all their eggs in the Giuliani basket. At the end of the day, he has not really shown that he has basic Republican principles. He does show that on the basic social issues that excite the GOP base, he is to the left all the way around. Again, as I will constantly write, when you put the "moderate" Republican against a "moderate" Democrat, the Democrat will generally win. Voters will say, why have Dem lite when we can get the real thing.
Abortion is the first of many issues that are now going to dog Mr. Giuliani and I think this will only help Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain
Consider that this week it was revealed that Mr. Giuliani gave a $900 donation to Planned Parenthood. Now, much has been made about the fact that Ann Romney, the wife of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave that whopping $150 donation to the same group in 1994. I would refer you to an earlier post on the subject as how irrelevant that is. Mr. Giuliani however is the candidate, not his wife. He said on Tuesday's Laura Ingraham radio show http://lauraingraham.com that one of the reasons he gave money to Planned Parenthood is the fact that they provide "information" for women in the situation that they may abort a baby. Of course, one should be suspect of what kind of "information" Planned Parenthood provides regarding abortion. After all, their business is in "family planning."
Mr. Guiliani has given tortured answers as to what kind of judges he would appoint to the federal judiciary, where eventually with a conservative majority on the supreme court would decide to possibly overturn Roe vs. Wade, which essentially made unfettered access to abortion the law of the land, usurping once again state's rights. He has said he would look at judges like Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito, but also said it would not matter if Roe vs. Wade were overturned or not. Not exactly music to the ears of "pro-lifers".
Unfortunately, Mr. Giuliani has based this whole campaign on his leadership of New York City in the days after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It was in fact, admirable leadership, but it is not his whole narrative and this is the beginning of the chinking of the armour of 9/11. And believe me there will be more than this issue.
That is why I absolutely believe it is a mistake for the Republicans to put all their eggs in the Giuliani basket. At the end of the day, he has not really shown that he has basic Republican principles. He does show that on the basic social issues that excite the GOP base, he is to the left all the way around. Again, as I will constantly write, when you put the "moderate" Republican against a "moderate" Democrat, the Democrat will generally win. Voters will say, why have Dem lite when we can get the real thing.
Abortion is the first of many issues that are now going to dog Mr. Giuliani and I think this will only help Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain
The Assault On Romney Hits The Big Time
I suppose that it had to happen eventually, because despite seemingly weak national polling numbers, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is now getting it from the DDBMSM judging from what has been leaked by CBS news "60 Minutes" http://drudgereport.com.
Veteran "reporter" Mike Wallace actually asked, I kid you not, if Mr. Romney and his wife, Ann, had premarital sex, a very big no-no according to Mormon, and most Christian, doctrine. What, no question about the undergarments? Oh, maybe "60 Minutes" is keeping that under wraps so that people will watch this on Sunday evening.
Then there is the cover of the upcoming Time magazine, which features Mr. Romney with the headline, "Sure, he looks like a president, But What Does Mitt Romney Really Believe?" http://hughewitt.com.
So, while the numbers are not there nationally, there are some state polls that the media may be taking seriously as when they go after someone like this, no question they take him seriously.
I am hopeful that these are not just DDBMSM hit pieces because, while it would be good for Mr. Romney, this would lead to a backlash and sympathy for Mr. Romney and more support.
The American people do not like hit pieces, and outright insulting as the "Reverend" Al Sharpton did Monday night.
I am just waiting for the hit piece on Sen. Barack Obama from the DDBMSM.
Veteran "reporter" Mike Wallace actually asked, I kid you not, if Mr. Romney and his wife, Ann, had premarital sex, a very big no-no according to Mormon, and most Christian, doctrine. What, no question about the undergarments? Oh, maybe "60 Minutes" is keeping that under wraps so that people will watch this on Sunday evening.
Then there is the cover of the upcoming Time magazine, which features Mr. Romney with the headline, "Sure, he looks like a president, But What Does Mitt Romney Really Believe?" http://hughewitt.com.
So, while the numbers are not there nationally, there are some state polls that the media may be taking seriously as when they go after someone like this, no question they take him seriously.
I am hopeful that these are not just DDBMSM hit pieces because, while it would be good for Mr. Romney, this would lead to a backlash and sympathy for Mr. Romney and more support.
The American people do not like hit pieces, and outright insulting as the "Reverend" Al Sharpton did Monday night.
I am just waiting for the hit piece on Sen. Barack Obama from the DDBMSM.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Hamas Mickey Being Taken Off The Air
Ah, it is nice to see that Hamas television has decided to take off the Mickey Mouse like character that teaches young, impressionable Palestinian children the joys of Jihad http://jpost.com according to the Jerusalem Post.
I think that even fanatic television, yes Hamas has its own television station, realizes that there are certain things that are sacrosanct, like Mickey Mouse. Not only that, but even Jihadists realize that they have to have the right tool for hateful propaganda. Mickey Mouse throwing grenades just did not cut it.
Again, we in the United States must realize that this is the kind of enemy that we are fighting. Yes, it is hard, but defeat will be more than an embarrassment. It will show the world we have no fight in us. I believe that we do. I watch the Republican presidential candidates and compare to the Democrats and realize that at this point, the Democrats do not want to face reality. To varying degrees, the Republican candidates do realize what kind of hate we are fighting and want to defeat it, not contain it. This is not containable.
Taking Jihad Mickey off the air of Hamas television is a minor victory. But it is a small victory in a very long struggle.
I think that even fanatic television, yes Hamas has its own television station, realizes that there are certain things that are sacrosanct, like Mickey Mouse. Not only that, but even Jihadists realize that they have to have the right tool for hateful propaganda. Mickey Mouse throwing grenades just did not cut it.
Again, we in the United States must realize that this is the kind of enemy that we are fighting. Yes, it is hard, but defeat will be more than an embarrassment. It will show the world we have no fight in us. I believe that we do. I watch the Republican presidential candidates and compare to the Democrats and realize that at this point, the Democrats do not want to face reality. To varying degrees, the Republican candidates do realize what kind of hate we are fighting and want to defeat it, not contain it. This is not containable.
Taking Jihad Mickey off the air of Hamas television is a minor victory. But it is a small victory in a very long struggle.
This Is Not A Real News Story
According to ABC News http://abcnews.go.com former Massachusets governor Mitt Romney's wife, Ann, gave a whopping $150 donation to Planned Parenthood. . .in 1994! I am glad that ABC News waited for this revelation until the 21st century!
It is a clear desperation story. This comes along the heels of the "Reverend" Al Sharpton's lovely comments that, essentialy, Mormons do not believe in God, in a clear reference to Mr. Romney.
So Mrs. Romney may not agree with her husband on abortion. What a shock, a wife not agreeing with her husband! Or, like her husband, she too has had a change of heart on the subject. A lot of people do and it is usually due to some life changing experience. Also, it should be noted that Laura Bush does not agree with George W. Bush on abortion. She is "pro-choice" and he is "pro-life." Barbara Bush does not agree with George H. W. Bush. She is "pro-choice" while he is "pro-life." See, there is not the lock-step orthodoxy on abortion that husband and wife may not agree with each other on such a critical moral issue.
We should not be concerned about a 13-year story like this. We have to look at Mr. Romney now, for it is he, not Mrs. Romney, who is running for president. The record for Mr. Romney is that when he was the governor of Massachusetts, he did not expand abortion nor did he try to pass anti-abortion lesgislation. It was as he said when he was running for governor, he would respect the state law but would not look to expand abortion. And if Mr. Romney holds his ground now, he will appoint the kind of judges that will overturn Roe vs. Wade and return the abortion issue to the states, where it belongs.
Fascinating how now 13 year old stories and asserting that somehow being a Mormon means that you do not believe in God are coming now, from the left. Lets see how this plays out.
It is a clear desperation story. This comes along the heels of the "Reverend" Al Sharpton's lovely comments that, essentialy, Mormons do not believe in God, in a clear reference to Mr. Romney.
So Mrs. Romney may not agree with her husband on abortion. What a shock, a wife not agreeing with her husband! Or, like her husband, she too has had a change of heart on the subject. A lot of people do and it is usually due to some life changing experience. Also, it should be noted that Laura Bush does not agree with George W. Bush on abortion. She is "pro-choice" and he is "pro-life." Barbara Bush does not agree with George H. W. Bush. She is "pro-choice" while he is "pro-life." See, there is not the lock-step orthodoxy on abortion that husband and wife may not agree with each other on such a critical moral issue.
We should not be concerned about a 13-year story like this. We have to look at Mr. Romney now, for it is he, not Mrs. Romney, who is running for president. The record for Mr. Romney is that when he was the governor of Massachusetts, he did not expand abortion nor did he try to pass anti-abortion lesgislation. It was as he said when he was running for governor, he would respect the state law but would not look to expand abortion. And if Mr. Romney holds his ground now, he will appoint the kind of judges that will overturn Roe vs. Wade and return the abortion issue to the states, where it belongs.
Fascinating how now 13 year old stories and asserting that somehow being a Mormon means that you do not believe in God are coming now, from the left. Lets see how this plays out.
The More We Know About The Ft. Dix Six
Several things are very clear about the arrest of the so-called "Ft. Dix Six".
The most obvious is that all were Islamic. Not Middle Eastern, but Albanian. And that they were not necessarily directly linked to Al-Queda. But, that is not definite yet, so we must wait and see as far as whether or not there is a direct link to Al-Queda. Remember, the way that Al-Queda is set up, most if not all of the individual cells are independent of each other. There is no command structure like a regular armed forces or garden variety terrorist group.
Vigilance by regular Americans. Apparently, a tip from a video store employee led to the investigation that has led to the arrest. While we have heard a lot about how terrible it was that many passengers were concerned enough about the now infamous "Flying Imams" to alert USAir officials at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, this is proof that Americans should not be discouraged from being vigilant. What alerted the store clerk is when one of the suspects brought in a VHS tape to transfer to a DVD. On the tape was military training but a lot of it was terrorist laced with the "Allah Akbar!"-God Is Great in Arabic.
More than likely, having the Patriot Act in place helped monitor and infiltrate this cell.
Most important is the fact that while, try as they might, the left and the anti-war crowd is once again discredited by the reality that the Jihad is up and running right here in the United States. This cell was broken, and maybe others we do not know anything about. There will be more but there will be one we can not break and an attack and it will occur. That is what has to keep all those on the front lines fighting the threat. Not soliloquies that there is no real war against terror and that we should just wait around for the next attack.
The more we learn about these six suspects, the more that the threat of the terror war sticking here on our shores all the more real.
The most obvious is that all were Islamic. Not Middle Eastern, but Albanian. And that they were not necessarily directly linked to Al-Queda. But, that is not definite yet, so we must wait and see as far as whether or not there is a direct link to Al-Queda. Remember, the way that Al-Queda is set up, most if not all of the individual cells are independent of each other. There is no command structure like a regular armed forces or garden variety terrorist group.
Vigilance by regular Americans. Apparently, a tip from a video store employee led to the investigation that has led to the arrest. While we have heard a lot about how terrible it was that many passengers were concerned enough about the now infamous "Flying Imams" to alert USAir officials at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport, this is proof that Americans should not be discouraged from being vigilant. What alerted the store clerk is when one of the suspects brought in a VHS tape to transfer to a DVD. On the tape was military training but a lot of it was terrorist laced with the "Allah Akbar!"-God Is Great in Arabic.
More than likely, having the Patriot Act in place helped monitor and infiltrate this cell.
Most important is the fact that while, try as they might, the left and the anti-war crowd is once again discredited by the reality that the Jihad is up and running right here in the United States. This cell was broken, and maybe others we do not know anything about. There will be more but there will be one we can not break and an attack and it will occur. That is what has to keep all those on the front lines fighting the threat. Not soliloquies that there is no real war against terror and that we should just wait around for the next attack.
The more we learn about these six suspects, the more that the threat of the terror war sticking here on our shores all the more real.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
A Rock Band Worth Supporting
I listen to a lot of music when not blogging, working, church and a whole lot in between. But, I have to admit, I had not heard much from the band Five For Fighting.
The band's name in itself is wonderful for it is named after one of the many infractions an ice hockey player can make and land, five minutes in the penalty box.
An article in National Review http://nationalreview.com on the band most importantly points out that this may be one of the few right wing bands in rock, sort of the antidote to Rage Against The Machine.
If you thought that the world of Hollywood was left wing, rock music is downright socialistic in its outlook. But this band, led by John Ondrasik is bucking the trend in the trendy Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) age.
Support the band http://fiveforfighting.com, buy their music, download it but whatever you do, make sure to show support for this band.
The band's name in itself is wonderful for it is named after one of the many infractions an ice hockey player can make and land, five minutes in the penalty box.
An article in National Review http://nationalreview.com on the band most importantly points out that this may be one of the few right wing bands in rock, sort of the antidote to Rage Against The Machine.
If you thought that the world of Hollywood was left wing, rock music is downright socialistic in its outlook. But this band, led by John Ondrasik is bucking the trend in the trendy Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) age.
Support the band http://fiveforfighting.com, buy their music, download it but whatever you do, make sure to show support for this band.
Would NOT Having The Patriot Act Stopped This?
Today the FBI announced that six suspected Islamic terrorists were arrested in a plot to kill as many soldiers as possible at Fort Dix, New Jersey http://FoxNews.com.
The only question to ask is would this have been the outcome if there was not a Patriot Act? We can always ask the congressional authority on the subject, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) who was shouted with glee "We killed the Patriot Act!"
The only question to ask is would this have been the outcome if there was not a Patriot Act? We can always ask the congressional authority on the subject, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) who was shouted with glee "We killed the Patriot Act!"
Romney The ONLY One To Go All The Way
There is something interesting in this, the longest presidential campaign ever. We are being told by the pundits and the political professionals that we will know each parties nominee by or around February 15, 2008 because of the many states moving their primaries to or around February 5, 2008.
Well, I do not think that may be the case, because for that reason. Too many states for candidates to campaign in and expect to win. Some will be favorite-son states and some will be up for grabs. Also, there is no geographic rhyme or reason as to where all these states are. They are all over the country.
When you look at that, the question comes up, who is the candidate, either party, who can campaign in every state and will not go into debt.
That would be one, and only one, Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massuchusets. Why? Because he is a self-made millionaire who can dump a lot of money to be competitive everywhere in the truncated primary season.
If Mr. Romney wins either Iowa or New Hampshire or both, he will definatly have the "Big Mo' " and can go into every state with fresh money and volunteers.
In one sense, thanks to so-called campaign finance reform, this is what it hath wroght.
So, while as many as 20 states or even more will have had their primaries by February 15, 2008, it does not mean that the party nominations will be in the bag.
But, if it comes down to one candidate that can use money wisely and be competitive in every state to that point, that may help that party in general to get money out to congressional and senatorial candidates.
Something to think about as Mr. Romney's numbers are vaulting him to the lead in New Hampshire and competitive in Iowa.
Well, I do not think that may be the case, because for that reason. Too many states for candidates to campaign in and expect to win. Some will be favorite-son states and some will be up for grabs. Also, there is no geographic rhyme or reason as to where all these states are. They are all over the country.
When you look at that, the question comes up, who is the candidate, either party, who can campaign in every state and will not go into debt.
That would be one, and only one, Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massuchusets. Why? Because he is a self-made millionaire who can dump a lot of money to be competitive everywhere in the truncated primary season.
If Mr. Romney wins either Iowa or New Hampshire or both, he will definatly have the "Big Mo' " and can go into every state with fresh money and volunteers.
In one sense, thanks to so-called campaign finance reform, this is what it hath wroght.
So, while as many as 20 states or even more will have had their primaries by February 15, 2008, it does not mean that the party nominations will be in the bag.
But, if it comes down to one candidate that can use money wisely and be competitive in every state to that point, that may help that party in general to get money out to congressional and senatorial candidates.
Something to think about as Mr. Romney's numbers are vaulting him to the lead in New Hampshire and competitive in Iowa.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Send In The Disney Army
I have to admit, I never thought that I would support the Walt Disney company in much these days, but this disturbing video http://FoxNews.com showing what looks like a very chubby Mickey Mouse advocating Jihad and showing children how to throw a grenade and shoot at "the infidels."
The video is shown on Hamas television. Yes, the Palestinian thug government of Hamas has its own television station and shows this kind of demented propaganda to young, impressionable children. No wonder they have so much hate towards Israel, the United States and the west.
When the propaganda network takes the most beloved cartoon character in the world and turn him into the next suicide bomber advocate, something should be done, of course there is not really much that can be done that will make these sickos stop using this character to promote Jihad. However, maybe the Disney company can round up an army of its cartoon characters and take out the Hamas television station.
It is only slightly in jest, but this should show any rational American that this is the kind of perversion we are dealing with. And, we will not be able to change so many minds overnight.
And in reality, the American people who these days have the attention span of a coked-up Jack Russell terrier, do not have the patience to wage the kind of long struggle that the cold war was. We expect to have everything wrapped up in a one-hour episode on any given night in the wonderful world of American television.
I have to say, those who by into what the current crop of Democrat presidential candidates are saying, or not saying, about the War Against Terror will have a lot to answer for if a Democrat is elected and a major terror attack happens right here in the homeland and their response is how they exposed it during their maiden presidential debate.
All anyone has to do is see this video and judge for yourself if we should "talk" to them or take them out? I think the answer is clear.
The video is shown on Hamas television. Yes, the Palestinian thug government of Hamas has its own television station and shows this kind of demented propaganda to young, impressionable children. No wonder they have so much hate towards Israel, the United States and the west.
When the propaganda network takes the most beloved cartoon character in the world and turn him into the next suicide bomber advocate, something should be done, of course there is not really much that can be done that will make these sickos stop using this character to promote Jihad. However, maybe the Disney company can round up an army of its cartoon characters and take out the Hamas television station.
It is only slightly in jest, but this should show any rational American that this is the kind of perversion we are dealing with. And, we will not be able to change so many minds overnight.
And in reality, the American people who these days have the attention span of a coked-up Jack Russell terrier, do not have the patience to wage the kind of long struggle that the cold war was. We expect to have everything wrapped up in a one-hour episode on any given night in the wonderful world of American television.
I have to say, those who by into what the current crop of Democrat presidential candidates are saying, or not saying, about the War Against Terror will have a lot to answer for if a Democrat is elected and a major terror attack happens right here in the homeland and their response is how they exposed it during their maiden presidential debate.
All anyone has to do is see this video and judge for yourself if we should "talk" to them or take them out? I think the answer is clear.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
The French Get This One Right-Literally
In today's second round of the French presidential elections, the French finally did something right and elected Nicolas Sarkozy to be the next president/He beat Socialist candidate Segolene Royal with 53% to 47% count with over 85% of French citizens voting. It is historic because most observers feel he is more like a Margaret Thatcher leader and that is France needs at this point in its history. Best of all, Mr. Sakozy wants better relations with the United States and that is a good thing. Vive, Sarkozy!
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Saturday, May 05, 2007
The Constrast Between The Dems And The GOP
Now that the first debates of the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates, courtesy of MSNBC are in the can, here are a few observations.
Firstly, I think that MSNBC takes the Democrats more seriously than the Republicans. The reason? Who they had "moderating" each debate. For the Dems, they had the A team of NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams. For the Republicans they had Democrat party hack Chris Matthews, host of "Hardball" on the low-rated MSNBC. Clearly, Mr. Williams asked the Democrat candidates serious questions. None really dealt with what a Democrat president will do concerning the issue of the day, the War Against Terror. Mr. Matthews thought that, in his frantic yet best school marm way that asking the Republican candidates if they believed in the theory of evolution or not was a serious question. It was a classic "gotcha" question, hoping maybe to embarrass someone like a Mitt Romney into saying no. Only three of the Republican B listers, Sen Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo raised their hand to say no. I do not think that is an important question to ask the next potential leader of the free world.
Second, the format is absolutely stifling for both parties candidates to answer a question in a reasonable, understandable time frame. Essentially, because the network let every candidate from each party on stage, they had to find a way to ask and answer within 30 seconds. None of these candidates is that good.
Third, get rid of the clearly loons from each party. For the Democrats, does anyone really think former Alaska sen Mike Gravell is a serious candidate? I mean, he was "frightened" by some of the candidates that are in the United States senate, which is almost all of them. Or Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich? Yes, he gives the anti-war Dems a near orgasm, but if he is not a one percenter at best, no one is. For the Republicans, Tom Tancredo's whole candidacy is based on illegal immigration. Yes, a serious problem that in fact is tied into the War Against Terror. But, he sounds like the white hood is tightening around his head. Also, Texas congressman Ron Paul, the libertine, er libertarian end of the GOP spectrum. He is not a serious candidate.
A lot of people think that both parties do not have the best candidates running for the highest elected office in the land. Seeing these losers makes that true and takes away from the candidates that are in the race for real and have something serious to say.
Lastly, why did any of the Republican candidates agree to do a debate conducted by MSNBC? I mean, do Democrat will do one conducted by Fox News Channel because they are "biased" to the right, as if having Chris Matthews "moderate" a Republican debate is fair and balanced!
Hopefully, as this endless political season continues and there are more debates, the next sponsor and or conductor needs to set some serious ground rules and let the candidates be able to actually answer a question, no matter how inane.
Firstly, I think that MSNBC takes the Democrats more seriously than the Republicans. The reason? Who they had "moderating" each debate. For the Dems, they had the A team of NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams. For the Republicans they had Democrat party hack Chris Matthews, host of "Hardball" on the low-rated MSNBC. Clearly, Mr. Williams asked the Democrat candidates serious questions. None really dealt with what a Democrat president will do concerning the issue of the day, the War Against Terror. Mr. Matthews thought that, in his frantic yet best school marm way that asking the Republican candidates if they believed in the theory of evolution or not was a serious question. It was a classic "gotcha" question, hoping maybe to embarrass someone like a Mitt Romney into saying no. Only three of the Republican B listers, Sen Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo raised their hand to say no. I do not think that is an important question to ask the next potential leader of the free world.
Second, the format is absolutely stifling for both parties candidates to answer a question in a reasonable, understandable time frame. Essentially, because the network let every candidate from each party on stage, they had to find a way to ask and answer within 30 seconds. None of these candidates is that good.
Third, get rid of the clearly loons from each party. For the Democrats, does anyone really think former Alaska sen Mike Gravell is a serious candidate? I mean, he was "frightened" by some of the candidates that are in the United States senate, which is almost all of them. Or Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich? Yes, he gives the anti-war Dems a near orgasm, but if he is not a one percenter at best, no one is. For the Republicans, Tom Tancredo's whole candidacy is based on illegal immigration. Yes, a serious problem that in fact is tied into the War Against Terror. But, he sounds like the white hood is tightening around his head. Also, Texas congressman Ron Paul, the libertine, er libertarian end of the GOP spectrum. He is not a serious candidate.
A lot of people think that both parties do not have the best candidates running for the highest elected office in the land. Seeing these losers makes that true and takes away from the candidates that are in the race for real and have something serious to say.
Lastly, why did any of the Republican candidates agree to do a debate conducted by MSNBC? I mean, do Democrat will do one conducted by Fox News Channel because they are "biased" to the right, as if having Chris Matthews "moderate" a Republican debate is fair and balanced!
Hopefully, as this endless political season continues and there are more debates, the next sponsor and or conductor needs to set some serious ground rules and let the candidates be able to actually answer a question, no matter how inane.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Paris Hilton Finally Getting What She Deserves
It seems to good to be true, but finally someone famous will be going to jail in Los Angeles county.Hilton Hotel heiress, Paris Hilton is going to spend 45 days in jail because she thought it was all right to violate her probation and drive with a suspended liscense. Oh, it was suspended because she pleaded no contest to driving drunk. I am glad that she is getting hers, but not because she is wealthy but because she sends an awful message to children and young adults. Miss Hilton and her posse of Brittany Spears and Lindsey Lohan seem to like running around Los Angeles nightclubs with skirts exposing the fact they do not wear underwear, drink like fishes and God only knows what else. Like or not, young girls look up to the Three Stooges as role models. Why, I do not know. But, while Miss Hilton starts her time as a guest of the County of Los Angeles on June 5, maybe she can turn her pathetic life around and really become a good role model for young women.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Thursday, May 03, 2007
It Looks Like Romney Won The GOP Debate
I will write this disclaimer, I did not watch the Republican presidential debate tonight from the Reagan Library. Like many, I was coming home from work and since MSNBC had a monopoly on it, I had to listen to instant analysis from Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com.
While Mr. Hewitt did make the disclaimer that he is the author of the book on Mitt Romney, "A Mormon In The White House? 10 Things Everyone Should Know About Mitt Romney," According to him, many in the blogosphere, and National Review http://nationalreview.com, Mitt Romney won the debate and may have had the breakout moment of his candidacy making him finally a serious second or even front runner on the GOP side.
I will say this. As much as Chris Matthews is more or less a partisan hack for the Democrats, he was a much better moderator for this than say, oh Keith Olberman, who worships at the God of the Democrat donkey.
This much from my perusing the web, Mr. Matthews asked some dumb questions, but got pretty good responses from Mr. Romney, which made him look presidential and one who could go tow-to-tow with an Obama or Hilary.
Apparently, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) looked not all that good and Rudy Giuliani looked rather out of his element and fumbled around some serious questions which Republican voters look seriously at and one was on faith. Not that it is not important to some Democrats, but a majority of Republican voters see this as a hot button issue.
The second tier showed that this was a good night for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and California congressman Duncan Hunter. A lousy night for, in no particular order, former Wisconsin Gov, Tommy Thompson, congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo), congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas).
All in all, a good night for Mitt Romney and a good chance to start moving up in the poll.
Hopefully, MSNBC will show this debate over the weekend and I can give complete analysis.
While Mr. Hewitt did make the disclaimer that he is the author of the book on Mitt Romney, "A Mormon In The White House? 10 Things Everyone Should Know About Mitt Romney," According to him, many in the blogosphere, and National Review http://nationalreview.com, Mitt Romney won the debate and may have had the breakout moment of his candidacy making him finally a serious second or even front runner on the GOP side.
I will say this. As much as Chris Matthews is more or less a partisan hack for the Democrats, he was a much better moderator for this than say, oh Keith Olberman, who worships at the God of the Democrat donkey.
This much from my perusing the web, Mr. Matthews asked some dumb questions, but got pretty good responses from Mr. Romney, which made him look presidential and one who could go tow-to-tow with an Obama or Hilary.
Apparently, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) looked not all that good and Rudy Giuliani looked rather out of his element and fumbled around some serious questions which Republican voters look seriously at and one was on faith. Not that it is not important to some Democrats, but a majority of Republican voters see this as a hot button issue.
The second tier showed that this was a good night for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and California congressman Duncan Hunter. A lousy night for, in no particular order, former Wisconsin Gov, Tommy Thompson, congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo), congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas).
All in all, a good night for Mitt Romney and a good chance to start moving up in the poll.
Hopefully, MSNBC will show this debate over the weekend and I can give complete analysis.
Robert Novak Should Know Better
I have to write that I am really surprised that a veteran columnist/reporter such as Robert Novak has lowered himself to write a column about GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and a movie called "September Dawn" which is about a massacre perpetuated by Mormon leader Brigham Young in the 18th century.
In Mr. Novak's column, he basically asserts that Mr. Romney, as a Mormon, must address this issue. Although Mr. Novak couches his assertion in a Seinfeldian moment of Mr. Romney being a Mormon, not that there is anything wrong with it, then writes that he tried to get a comment from Mr. Romney about this movie and event. Of course Mr. Romney has not called back and if I were Mr. Novak, I would not wait by the phone for that call.
If I were running for office and was asked what I think about issue A, B, C, etc. that the Episcopal Church has done and to comment on it, I would not have that much time first of all and just because my denomination has not always done the right thing or does, I am not a spokesman for the Episcopal Church. Nor is Mr. Romney a spokesman for the Mormons and it would be pointless for him to comment on an event that happened in the 18th century.
Should we ask Mr. Novak his view of Roman Catholic issues since he, like Mr. Romney is a a devout Mormon, is a devout Roman Catholic?
At the end of the day, do we really care what a candidate thinks about his or her religion, but specifically what their particular denomination has or has not done? I do not really think so. But the issue is when hard core lefties and some righty fellow-travellers buy into this veiled, and sometimes not so veiled, anti-Mormonism, some like myself will rise to defend a practitioner of that religion. Believe me though, if you have read any of this blog, you know I hardly agree with much, if any, of Mormon doctrine.
Robert Novak knows better and should spend his next column apologizing to Mr. Romney.
In Mr. Novak's column, he basically asserts that Mr. Romney, as a Mormon, must address this issue. Although Mr. Novak couches his assertion in a Seinfeldian moment of Mr. Romney being a Mormon, not that there is anything wrong with it, then writes that he tried to get a comment from Mr. Romney about this movie and event. Of course Mr. Romney has not called back and if I were Mr. Novak, I would not wait by the phone for that call.
If I were running for office and was asked what I think about issue A, B, C, etc. that the Episcopal Church has done and to comment on it, I would not have that much time first of all and just because my denomination has not always done the right thing or does, I am not a spokesman for the Episcopal Church. Nor is Mr. Romney a spokesman for the Mormons and it would be pointless for him to comment on an event that happened in the 18th century.
Should we ask Mr. Novak his view of Roman Catholic issues since he, like Mr. Romney is a a devout Mormon, is a devout Roman Catholic?
At the end of the day, do we really care what a candidate thinks about his or her religion, but specifically what their particular denomination has or has not done? I do not really think so. But the issue is when hard core lefties and some righty fellow-travellers buy into this veiled, and sometimes not so veiled, anti-Mormonism, some like myself will rise to defend a practitioner of that religion. Believe me though, if you have read any of this blog, you know I hardly agree with much, if any, of Mormon doctrine.
Robert Novak knows better and should spend his next column apologizing to Mr. Romney.
The Episcopal Church Still Going For The Lowest Common Denominator
As I return from a short respite celebrating Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast's and mine wedding anniversary, I am afraid that I come back to really tragic news about my slowly devolving Episcopal Church.
Just when I think that the church can not sink to new depths, I read today from Fox News http://FoxNews.com that former New Jersey governor James McGreevey has not only been received to the Episcopal Church (that means he is coming from another Christian denomination and does not have to be baptised again) but he has been accepted to the General Theological Seminary and is going through the discernment process to become, I can not believe this, an Episcopal priest.
If you do not know the story, former Gov. McGreevy had to resign from office when he was outed as being gay. That should not be a big deal however he was married with a daughter and cheating on his wife. He was supposedly cheating with a male state employee of the New Jersey department of homeland security. Apparently, Mr. McGreevy helped get the gentleman in that position, the job.
So, he wrote a "tell all" book, was counseled by Oprah and is living happily ever after with his latest boyfriend. Too bad for the soon to be former Mrs. McGreevy as she is in a big, drag out divorce with Mr. McGreevy.
I just do not understand the rationale for Mr. McGreevy being accepted into a preeminent seminary within the Episcopal Church. Do these people not realize that this is confusing to the pew sitter, or better yet, do they care?
I do not think that they care, pure and simple. The theological liberals and lefties dominating the leadership of the church has made it clear, starting with the so-called presiding bishop, Katherine Jefferts-Schori.
If the conservative faction successfully leaves the church, then those of us who stay will be lonely warriors for the maintenance of some tradition and scripture.
Instead, we are treated to allowing a cheat who to my knowledge has not repented, and that is the lowest common denominator and I am sorry to be a part of it.
Just when I think that the church can not sink to new depths, I read today from Fox News http://FoxNews.com that former New Jersey governor James McGreevey has not only been received to the Episcopal Church (that means he is coming from another Christian denomination and does not have to be baptised again) but he has been accepted to the General Theological Seminary and is going through the discernment process to become, I can not believe this, an Episcopal priest.
If you do not know the story, former Gov. McGreevy had to resign from office when he was outed as being gay. That should not be a big deal however he was married with a daughter and cheating on his wife. He was supposedly cheating with a male state employee of the New Jersey department of homeland security. Apparently, Mr. McGreevy helped get the gentleman in that position, the job.
So, he wrote a "tell all" book, was counseled by Oprah and is living happily ever after with his latest boyfriend. Too bad for the soon to be former Mrs. McGreevy as she is in a big, drag out divorce with Mr. McGreevy.
I just do not understand the rationale for Mr. McGreevy being accepted into a preeminent seminary within the Episcopal Church. Do these people not realize that this is confusing to the pew sitter, or better yet, do they care?
I do not think that they care, pure and simple. The theological liberals and lefties dominating the leadership of the church has made it clear, starting with the so-called presiding bishop, Katherine Jefferts-Schori.
If the conservative faction successfully leaves the church, then those of us who stay will be lonely warriors for the maintenance of some tradition and scripture.
Instead, we are treated to allowing a cheat who to my knowledge has not repented, and that is the lowest common denominator and I am sorry to be a part of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)