This is a very powerful article that lays out just what the Democrats have in mind for America.
It is something that I have been saying for years about the connection between the liberals and the forces in this world that want to destroy America, but Kohlmayer says it so much better than I.
This is a must read. It's a little long but right on the mark!!
Published 30 Nov 06
Democrats, terrorists and 'brotherly way'
By Vasko KohlmayerSpecial to World Defense Review
In one of the most startling incidents in our history, America's sworn enemy used the term 'brotherly' when referring to one of our major political parties. The remarkable pronouncement came amidst the celebrations that erupted in the terrorist ranks after the democratic victory in the latest elections.
Given all that the democrats have done, the affection in which they are held by our foes is neither unjustified nor surprising. They have more than earned it by systematically subverting this country's war effort while simultaneously proffering assistance to those who have pledged to destroy us.
Democrats' devious deeds are too numerous to be fully recounted, but here at least are some of the highlights:
They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls
They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists
They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions
They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs
They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act
They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists
They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst
They have impugned and demeaned our military
They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal
They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary
They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort
They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.
To see just how bad things really are, ponder this question: If the terrorists were represented by a party in our political system, how would their foreign policy program substantially differ from that of the present-day democrats?
By effectively becoming a political arm of our sworn enemy, the Democratic Party has staked out a position that is unparalleled in our country's history. They have gone so far that now even the terrorists toss about the term 'brotherly' when celebrating their electoral success. This is truly something to marvel at, since democrats are infidels too and as such should be anathema in Islamists' eyes. How many times have they told us that in their world the Allah-less must either convert or die? So helpful have the democrats been, however, that even these virulent fanatics are willing – for the time being at least – to overlook their faithlessness and instead speak of them in the most endearing of terms.
The suspicion that many democrats are not on our side has been grating on the American psyche for some time now. But since most people can't fathom why some Americans would want us to lose, the suspicion has not coalesced into a firm conviction. To put it differently, there is a reluctance to conclude the obvious, because we don't want to believe that such treachery could possibly reside in American hearts.
The inability to grasp their motive, however, should not preclude us from making the correct inference based on the evidence of their actions. And the mass of that evidence points overwhelmingly toward this conclusion: America's liberal elites want us to lose this war and they are using the Democratic Party to accomplish their objective.
It would not be the first time they have tried to do this. Some three decades ago, they did all they could to bring about our disgrace in Vietnam. In the end they succeeded and the United States suffered the most humiliating and ignominious defeat in its history.
It is as revealing as it is worrisome that almost all of the current democratic leadership was actively involved in that effort. Bill and Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Nancy Pelosi were all in one way or another personally engaged in the anti-war movement. And when at last it bore its disastrous fruit, they gloated and danced in the streets. Exhilarated and jubilant, they deemed America's disgrace their finest hour. In their skewed world, America's defeat came to represent their personal triumph.
Today these very people hold the reins of the Democratic Party and are trying to achieve in Iraq what they did in Vietnam. Should they succeed, we will face consequences too terrible to contemplate. While the Vietnamese communists were content with humiliating us on their own soil, the Islamists will come after us with a vengeance which is something they have pledged over and over again. This time the toll will not be confined to our military casualties, but will translate into death and mayhem in our midst.
The terrorists' exhilaration at the election results show just how certain they are where the democrats' allegiance lies. Even though they live behind the ocean, they understand something we have tried so hard to overlook: The Democratic establishment will give them its support and assistance all the while stripping America of the tools and abilities to carry on the fight.
It is time that the American people finally realized what the terrorists know all too well: America's liberals are not on our side and will do all they possibly can to bring about our defeat. The fact that most of us cannot relate to their dark desire does not mean it's not real. An honest look at their behavior reveals just how powerful it really is and to what lengths they are willing to go to see it fulfilled.
Wise men and prophets throughout the ages have warned against the darkness that lurks in the human heart. That this darkness takes many forms is attested by the ignominy and perfidy that comprise much of mankind's history. In our time and place, hatred of one's country is one of its most insidious manifestations. Sadly, the Democratic Party has become a willing receptacle for those who under its spell.
Not all democrats dislike their own country, but some clearly do. Most importantly, this dislike is endemic among the liberal leadership of the Democratic establishment. So embittered are they that they are willing to do virtually anything to demean America, even to have her beaten by our enemies. Thirty years ago they brought about our humiliation at the hands of the Vietnamese communists and today they seek a repeat with Islamic terrorists.
It is unsettling that even after the agonizing lessons of Vietnam these people are once again succeeding in duping many well-meaning citizens into supporting policies that cannot but result in a defeat that will be even more painful and dire.
The terrorists have grasped the truth about the Democratic Party some time ago. Let's hope that the American public will do so before it's too late.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
How the Democrats will Govern or Not
I think Dick Morris has some good insight here but he is too optimistic on how bad the liberals will perform - they have a lot of troops waiting in the wings, and they are ruthless in their quest for control.
As I have stated previously, this election cycle victories can have a decidedly bad effect on the liberal agenda as they will have to come out of the shadows to get their socialist programs passed. Promise more of everything for everyone at someone eles's expense. Take from the productive and give to the unproductive.
Remember, they have the press on their side to run interference and the terrorists around the world more than willing to cooperate anyway they can. Never forget who these people are.
Dick Morris: Pitiful Democrats
For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that now that it is upon us it can do little or nothing but harass the administration. There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels. In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush's administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen's filibuster applies. Story continues below...
The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60. In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority 218 to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.
Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army disciplined, unified and determined the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail caucus by caucus.
First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus hat in hand to see if one's bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one's legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the
Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats the out and out conservatives.
If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses.
Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage. This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem dej vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the
Democrats in the House. Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle.
By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, "I didn't even recognize myself." Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.
So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don't worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel's, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It's not going to happen.
What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can't pass legislation. Eileen McGann co-authored this column.
Copyright 2006 Dick Morris, All Rights Reserved.
As I have stated previously, this election cycle victories can have a decidedly bad effect on the liberal agenda as they will have to come out of the shadows to get their socialist programs passed. Promise more of everything for everyone at someone eles's expense. Take from the productive and give to the unproductive.
Here is just one case in point - over 40% of the population in 2006 pays not tax. Get the idea? Make that 60% or higher and you have a Marxist retreat.
Will they be like a deer in the heads lights - maybe, but I think they have waited too long for this opportunity to hit back to fold now. They feed on power, and to think they would give it up at any point time is nonsense.Remember, they have the press on their side to run interference and the terrorists around the world more than willing to cooperate anyway they can. Never forget who these people are.
Dick Morris: Pitiful Democrats
For all of the dire warnings and pre-election commotion about the impact of a Democratic majority in Congress, the fact is that now that it is upon us it can do little or nothing but harass the administration. There is no real danger of any legislative action emerging from this Congress. Yes, the president has a veto the Democrats cannot override, but nothing will ever make it as far as the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., are just spinning their wheels. In the Senate, there is no such thing as a majority. Ever since the elder Bush's administration, the filibuster has become routine. No longer reserved for civil-rights issues or for egregious legislation, it now is used to counter even motions for recess and adjournment. Members of the Senate are no longer subjected to the indignity of standing on their feet and reading a telephone book. Rather, the gentlemen's filibuster applies. Story continues below...
The majority leader phones the minority leader and asks if a filibuster is in effect. With his feet up on his desk, the Republican replies that it is and the Democrat, despite his majority, does not even think about bringing up his bill for consideration unless he has a good shot at the 60 votes required to shut off debate. In the Senate, 51 votes determine who gets the corner office, but to pass legislation, one needs 60. In the House of Representatives, with its 435 members, the Republican Party needed a simple majority 218 to rule. The Democrats need considerably more. The normal rules of a mathematical majority do not take into account the fractious nature of the Democratic Party.
Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army disciplined, unified and determined the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail caucus by caucus.
First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus hat in hand to see if one's bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one's legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the
Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats the out and out conservatives.
If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses.
Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage. This road map will be familiar to all veterans of the Clinton White House of 1993 and 1994. The most recent administration that had to deal with a Democratic House, the shopping from caucus to caucus and the festooning of moderate legislation with all manner of amendments will seem dej vu to all of the early Clintonites. When Clinton proposed an anti-crime bill with a federal death penalty, he needed to add pork projects in the inner city like midnight basketball to get it past the
Democrats in the House. Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle.
By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, "I didn't even recognize myself." Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.
So forget the nightmares about an amended Patriot Act or restrictions on wiretapping for homeland security. Don't worry about House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel's, D-N.Y., ravings about the draft or the rumors of a tax increase. It's not going to happen.
What is the Democratic majority good for? One thing and one thing only to give their party control of the committees and the subpoena power that goes with it. The two House Democratic majority can only make noise and make trouble. It can't pass legislation. Eileen McGann co-authored this column.
Copyright 2006 Dick Morris, All Rights Reserved.
Colin Powell Joins liberal Gang
Is Powell that much out of the loop that he would say things like this in an Arab country know? I guess his tenure as Secretary of State was a mistake on his part and President Bush's. For four years Powell was invested in the defeat of our military.
The question I have now is he part of the conspiracy within our government to bring down the President? Was he, and is he now, working to help lose the war in Iraq by giving national security secrets to the New York Times? His second in command, Armitage, has confessed to leaking Plame's name and one other secret to the press.
How many others?
Colin Powell: Reach Out to Arabs and Muslims
Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday President George W. Bush could fight terrorism better by reaching out to Arabs and Muslims.
"We are conveying a bad message, that America does not welcome you particularly - Arabs and Muslims," Powell told a business forum in the United Arab Emirates.
"The greatest weapon against terrorism for America is to open up for the rest of the world."
Arabs and Muslims have criticised U.S. policies as biased towards Israel. Tensions escalated after the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a backlash against Muslims and Arabs in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
The 19 al Qaeda hijackers who attacked U.S. cities in 2001 were Arab Muslims, mainly from Saudi Arabia.
"I hope President Bush and Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice would double the effort to bring stability to this part of the world (Middle East)," he added.
Powell said the number of Arabs and Muslims who visit the U.S. has dropped since the attacks and reflected negatively on educational institutions and leisure destinations.
Arabs and Muslims complain of heavy security searches in U.S. airports and denial of access to the country. Many Arab students, mainly from Gulf Arab states, left the United States after the attacks on fears of discrimination.
"This is bad, not good for America," said Powell.
"When students come to America for a couple of years they will understand Americans more. This is a great weapon against terrorism... not the use of the military."
(c) Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.
The question I have now is he part of the conspiracy within our government to bring down the President? Was he, and is he now, working to help lose the war in Iraq by giving national security secrets to the New York Times? His second in command, Armitage, has confessed to leaking Plame's name and one other secret to the press.
How many others?
Colin Powell: Reach Out to Arabs and Muslims
Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday President George W. Bush could fight terrorism better by reaching out to Arabs and Muslims.
"We are conveying a bad message, that America does not welcome you particularly - Arabs and Muslims," Powell told a business forum in the United Arab Emirates.
"The greatest weapon against terrorism for America is to open up for the rest of the world."
Arabs and Muslims have criticised U.S. policies as biased towards Israel. Tensions escalated after the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a backlash against Muslims and Arabs in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
The 19 al Qaeda hijackers who attacked U.S. cities in 2001 were Arab Muslims, mainly from Saudi Arabia.
"I hope President Bush and Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice would double the effort to bring stability to this part of the world (Middle East)," he added.
Powell said the number of Arabs and Muslims who visit the U.S. has dropped since the attacks and reflected negatively on educational institutions and leisure destinations.
Arabs and Muslims complain of heavy security searches in U.S. airports and denial of access to the country. Many Arab students, mainly from Gulf Arab states, left the United States after the attacks on fears of discrimination.
"This is bad, not good for America," said Powell.
"When students come to America for a couple of years they will understand Americans more. This is a great weapon against terrorism... not the use of the military."
(c) Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The New York Times - A Terrorist Organization
It is clear to me the terrorist network in the world today is a three prong assault on America and the world.
The three members of the network are the Islamofascists, the main stream media, world wide, and the liberal Democrats in this country.
As the this article shows, the New York Times will go covet in it's mission to crush Democracy and freedom. They are the enemy among us.
New York Times loses
Clarice Feldman
The New York Times has lost another major case regarding journalists' right to protect the confidentiality of its sources.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation of a terrorism-funding probe.
The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon.
The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation
Theoretically, this should make it easier for the government to pursue its investigations against the paper for its serial leaks of classified information.
Unfortunately, as we noted sometime ago, the paper foresaw this eventuality and in future such cases, its reporters will certainly utilize communication methods which make examination of reporters' phone records less fruitful source material for investigators.
Its reporters will be keeping no records, using disposable phones and generally leaving no trace of their contacts.
The three members of the network are the Islamofascists, the main stream media, world wide, and the liberal Democrats in this country.
As the this article shows, the New York Times will go covet in it's mission to crush Democracy and freedom. They are the enemy among us.
New York Times loses
Clarice Feldman
The New York Times has lost another major case regarding journalists' right to protect the confidentiality of its sources.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled against The New York Times on Monday, refusing to block the government from reviewing the phone records of two Times reporters in a leak investigation of a terrorism-funding probe.
The one-sentence order came in a First Amendment battle that involves stories written in 2001 by Times reporters Judith Miller and Philip Shenon.
The stories revealed the government's plans to freeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation
Theoretically, this should make it easier for the government to pursue its investigations against the paper for its serial leaks of classified information.
Unfortunately, as we noted sometime ago, the paper foresaw this eventuality and in future such cases, its reporters will certainly utilize communication methods which make examination of reporters' phone records less fruitful source material for investigators.
Its reporters will be keeping no records, using disposable phones and generally leaving no trace of their contacts.
Target Denies salvation Army, Again
Last year, Target refused to allow the Salvation Army's traditional bell ringers access to the front of their stores. They claimed if they allowed the Salvation Army they would have to allow everyone else.
This caused a big back lash in the blogesphere and talk radio. The major media outlets, the "drive by media", had little to say on the matter as they hate Christians to begin with, so to say nothing, they gave Target a pass.
This year, as the following article indicates, Target is trying to placate the Christians by giving money up-front and thereby have a legitimate reason to deny the Salvation Army access to their stores.
You be the judge -
Target bans Salvation Army again
by James Estrada
Once again this year, Target Stores has banned the Salvation Army bell-ringers from their stores. Instead the company is donating one million dollars to the charity, and other changes on offer by the company promise to make up much of the none million dollars the charity used to raise each year in front of its stores, according to Salvation Army spokeswoman Melissa Temme.
Local supermarkets, Wal-Mart and other retailers don’t seem to have a problem with the Christian organization founded by William Booth to help the downtrodden, so why does Target? Does the Salvation Army seem too downscale for Tar-zhay? Only the company knows. But at least it is making up some or most of the funds the bell ringers won’t be collecting.A little history:
William Booth found himself one day at the edge of the River. The world is a better place for Booth taking the plunge into that River.At the age of seventeen, Booth made a commitment to Christ and to humanity. While he served for some time as a Methodist minister, he made the greatest impact on the poor of his native England by forming a movement in 1865 he called “The Christian Mission.” He preached on the streets and in old warehouses.
Sometimes he faced ridicule, name-calling and stone-throwing; at other times, his hardships were rewarded with converts to the faith. In 1878, he changed the name of The Christian Mission to The Salvation Army.Between
Thanksgiving and Christmas, a trip to most stores will provide an opportunity to help families and individuals in need by dropping a few coins into a red kettle.
The bell ringing signals to our hearts that there is more to this season than buying the latest electronic gadget and gathering the most charming tree ornaments. It is a time to aid in the salvation of lost and helpless souls, to help feed and cloth the needy among us. A working man between jobs may benefit by having his family’s electric bill paid, or, a mother needing food for her children will find a box of canned goods, pasta and cereal waiting for her.
This caused a big back lash in the blogesphere and talk radio. The major media outlets, the "drive by media", had little to say on the matter as they hate Christians to begin with, so to say nothing, they gave Target a pass.
This year, as the following article indicates, Target is trying to placate the Christians by giving money up-front and thereby have a legitimate reason to deny the Salvation Army access to their stores.
You be the judge -
Target bans Salvation Army again
by James Estrada
Once again this year, Target Stores has banned the Salvation Army bell-ringers from their stores. Instead the company is donating one million dollars to the charity, and other changes on offer by the company promise to make up much of the none million dollars the charity used to raise each year in front of its stores, according to Salvation Army spokeswoman Melissa Temme.
Local supermarkets, Wal-Mart and other retailers don’t seem to have a problem with the Christian organization founded by William Booth to help the downtrodden, so why does Target? Does the Salvation Army seem too downscale for Tar-zhay? Only the company knows. But at least it is making up some or most of the funds the bell ringers won’t be collecting.A little history:
William Booth found himself one day at the edge of the River. The world is a better place for Booth taking the plunge into that River.At the age of seventeen, Booth made a commitment to Christ and to humanity. While he served for some time as a Methodist minister, he made the greatest impact on the poor of his native England by forming a movement in 1865 he called “The Christian Mission.” He preached on the streets and in old warehouses.
Sometimes he faced ridicule, name-calling and stone-throwing; at other times, his hardships were rewarded with converts to the faith. In 1878, he changed the name of The Christian Mission to The Salvation Army.Between
Thanksgiving and Christmas, a trip to most stores will provide an opportunity to help families and individuals in need by dropping a few coins into a red kettle.
The bell ringing signals to our hearts that there is more to this season than buying the latest electronic gadget and gathering the most charming tree ornaments. It is a time to aid in the salvation of lost and helpless souls, to help feed and cloth the needy among us. A working man between jobs may benefit by having his family’s electric bill paid, or, a mother needing food for her children will find a box of canned goods, pasta and cereal waiting for her.
Liberals On Display
The Democrats are on display for all to see - they really don't have enough power to change much of anything, all they can do is cause pain and destruction. They are who they are and now will all will see what the really stand for.
The following is an article that understands the liberal mind-set. They told us what they wanted to do before the election and now they are following through on their rhetoric -
Who vetoed for them? The majority! But Why?
A Defeatist Strategy
By Bob Weir
The Democrats have an interesting method of turning events into self-fulfilling prophesies. They say they're for the troops, but against the war (after they were for it). Then, they proceed to endanger the lives of the troops by condemning the war, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy, emboldening further action and convincing them to hold out for eventual retreat. The tactic they use has been to criticize "the way the war is being handled" as they start a propaganda campaign to convince the American public that the war was a mistake.
While they continuously bash the Commander in Chief at home, the enemy on the battlefield becomes more emboldened, with the ultimate result being that more US soldiers and many more civilians are killed, and the war begins to seem like an exercise in futility. As more troops become casualties and the enemy appears to be gaining ground, the Democrats blame the President for a "failed policy."
The fact is, the policy may have been sound, but it was doomed to failure when a vocal minority in this country took to the airwaves with a steady antiwar chant that could be heard and seen around the world. How could Democrats claim to be for the troops while at the same time engaging in actions that were increasing the body count? The answer lies somewhere in the radical ideology of the liberal wing of the party.
First of all, to say you are antiwar is to make you appear as a decent person, one who is considerate of his fellow man. After all, who is for war? Every sane person would agree that war is the lowest and most destructive form of human endeavor. However, just because you deplore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Law-abiding people deplore criminal activity, but they are intelligent enough to have locks on their doors and alarm systems to protect against intruders.
Similarly, you can detest war while simultaneously recognizing that there are times when it is inevitable. We've often heard about President Clinton's lack of aggressive action toward the terrorists who struck at US interests around the world, including the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
Perhaps if he had stopped womanizing for a few days he could have concentrated on national security and saved 3000 lives on 9/11. President Bush saw a future threat coming from Iraq and took steps to neutralize it. He also initiated the Patriot Act, another move that has been vilified by Democrats, even though it has protected the country and prevented another attack.
With people like this to deal with, we can never win a war on terrorism or a war on crime. Just as the criminals know they will have defenders when they get caught, the terrorists know they will have defenders when they pose a threat to our country. It's often been said that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged; but for how long?
America was savagely mugged on 9/11 and everyone was united in an effort to keep it from reoccurring. That was before the Democrats decided it would be a good issue to run against this year. What happens next is anyone's guess.
The following is an article that understands the liberal mind-set. They told us what they wanted to do before the election and now they are following through on their rhetoric -
Who vetoed for them? The majority! But Why?
A Defeatist Strategy
By Bob Weir
The Democrats have an interesting method of turning events into self-fulfilling prophesies. They say they're for the troops, but against the war (after they were for it). Then, they proceed to endanger the lives of the troops by condemning the war, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy, emboldening further action and convincing them to hold out for eventual retreat. The tactic they use has been to criticize "the way the war is being handled" as they start a propaganda campaign to convince the American public that the war was a mistake.
While they continuously bash the Commander in Chief at home, the enemy on the battlefield becomes more emboldened, with the ultimate result being that more US soldiers and many more civilians are killed, and the war begins to seem like an exercise in futility. As more troops become casualties and the enemy appears to be gaining ground, the Democrats blame the President for a "failed policy."
The fact is, the policy may have been sound, but it was doomed to failure when a vocal minority in this country took to the airwaves with a steady antiwar chant that could be heard and seen around the world. How could Democrats claim to be for the troops while at the same time engaging in actions that were increasing the body count? The answer lies somewhere in the radical ideology of the liberal wing of the party.
First of all, to say you are antiwar is to make you appear as a decent person, one who is considerate of his fellow man. After all, who is for war? Every sane person would agree that war is the lowest and most destructive form of human endeavor. However, just because you deplore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Law-abiding people deplore criminal activity, but they are intelligent enough to have locks on their doors and alarm systems to protect against intruders.
Similarly, you can detest war while simultaneously recognizing that there are times when it is inevitable. We've often heard about President Clinton's lack of aggressive action toward the terrorists who struck at US interests around the world, including the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
Perhaps if he had stopped womanizing for a few days he could have concentrated on national security and saved 3000 lives on 9/11. President Bush saw a future threat coming from Iraq and took steps to neutralize it. He also initiated the Patriot Act, another move that has been vilified by Democrats, even though it has protected the country and prevented another attack.
With people like this to deal with, we can never win a war on terrorism or a war on crime. Just as the criminals know they will have defenders when they get caught, the terrorists know they will have defenders when they pose a threat to our country. It's often been said that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged; but for how long?
America was savagely mugged on 9/11 and everyone was united in an effort to keep it from reoccurring. That was before the Democrats decided it would be a good issue to run against this year. What happens next is anyone's guess.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Rezoning Nightmare
In about one hour, my wife and I will be off to the City-County building in Madison, Wi. to appear at a public hearing before the county board of supervisors. We have to explain why we want to rezone from Exclusive agriculture (A1) to Exclusive agriculture (A2). This sounds simple enough, right? Not!
We want to expand our business of training dogs, and to do that, we have to construct a new building that we can use year round. Under A1, we can not construct a building for training dogs or any other animal other than a farm animal. Under A2, we can apply for a conditional use permit that will allow us to train dogs.
Next week we then have to appear before the township planning board to present our case which then they will send the results of that meeting to the county board for review.
Then on December 12th, we will appear again before a working session of the county board to answer questions that may arise from the township meeting.
On December 19th, we will appear again at a public hearing for any further discussion that may come up during the time between meetings.
Then on February 6th, we have to appear again when the county executive signs the conditional use permits and answer any questions that she might have.
Does this sound like a mess to you as much as it does to us? We applied for a building permit the second week in August. We should have the permit sometime in February.
We want to expand our business of training dogs, and to do that, we have to construct a new building that we can use year round. Under A1, we can not construct a building for training dogs or any other animal other than a farm animal. Under A2, we can apply for a conditional use permit that will allow us to train dogs.
Next week we then have to appear before the township planning board to present our case which then they will send the results of that meeting to the county board for review.
Then on December 12th, we will appear again before a working session of the county board to answer questions that may arise from the township meeting.
On December 19th, we will appear again at a public hearing for any further discussion that may come up during the time between meetings.
Then on February 6th, we have to appear again when the county executive signs the conditional use permits and answer any questions that she might have.
Does this sound like a mess to you as much as it does to us? We applied for a building permit the second week in August. We should have the permit sometime in February.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Dog Gone Good
Some dogs just get use to having the better things in life - he didn't think that this was outlandish or unusual, just something tha
t a
good dog should have.
t agood dog should have.
UN Wants to Brain Wash Kids
The United Nations has decided to take control of not only country, but now they also want to control our kids as well - This is brain washing.
These people are so use to doing this in their home countries that to do it here just seems natural - Now we are suppose to feel some kind of graifrcation for their efforts to educating our children - Al Gore style?
U.N. Book Scares Kids on Climate Change
A new United Nations children’s book promotes fears of catastrophic manmade global warming – and is replete with exaggerations and inaccuracies, according to a U.S. Senate report.
The book, "Tore and the Town on Thin Ice,” is published by the United Nations Environment Programme and blames "rich countries” for creating a climate catastrophe. [Editor's Note: Read about how Al Gore and friends spin global warming with this Special Offer from NewsMax Magazine. Go Here Now.]
A release issued Monday by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works reads in part:
"The book is about a young kid named Tore who lives in an Arctic village. Tore loses a dog sled race because he crashes through the thinning ice allegedly caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions. The book features colorful drawings and large text to appeal to young children.
"After the boy loses the dog sled race, he is visited by ‘Sedna, the Mother of the Sea’ in a dream. The ‘Sea Mother’ informs the boy in blunt terms that the thinning ice that caused his loss in the dog sled race was due to manmade global warming . . .
"The morning after his dream, Tore sets out on a quest for knowledge about the dangers of catastrophic manmade global warming. A ‘snowy owl’ informs Tore that ‘the planet’s heating up’ and that both the Arctic and Antarctica ‘are warming almost twice as fast as elsewhere.’”
The committee’s release notes: "The Arctic, according to the International Arctic Research Center, was warmer during the 1930s than today and both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding – on balance – Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.”
The release continues: "The ‘snowy owl’ also asserts that ‘the great ice cap here in Greenland – mountains of snow and ice up to about four kilometers thick – is thawing.”
Again, the committee refutes that allegation, stating: "A 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass.”
In the book, a polar bear informs Tore that it is hungry because the ice is too thin to stand on and hunt and says that other bears have "starved.” The polar bear adds, "We may not have much of a future.”
The committee release states: "In May of 2006, biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, a territory of Canada, noted that ‘Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.’”
After a whale appears and presents more climate fear, the boy finally screams, "Listen, I’ve had all the bad news I can stand. Our world is melting. Polar bears are starving and all sorts of animals won’t survive. I don’t want to hear anymore!”
The whale continues, telling the child that more hurricanes and "other things you call ‘natural disasters’ are on their way, too – and they’re getting harsher.”
The committee’s release notes: "The relationships between global warming and hurricanes is currently under debate, with the great majority of scientists believing there is little connection. For instance, 2006 was anticipated to be a record year for hurricanes, but turned out to be one of the calmest seasons in many, many years.”
In the book, the "Sea Mother” singles out the industrialized world as the cause of her predicted climate catastrophe.
The release goes on to state the "Sea Mother” tells the boy: "Rich countries use – and waste – an awful lot of energy. Huge cars. Too many cars instead of efficient trains and buses.”
The committee interjects that "several developing world nations will soon pass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions. China alone will pass the U.S. in emissions in 2009.”
The book is being promoted at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Kenya.
These people are so use to doing this in their home countries that to do it here just seems natural - Now we are suppose to feel some kind of graifrcation for their efforts to educating our children - Al Gore style?
U.N. Book Scares Kids on Climate Change
A new United Nations children’s book promotes fears of catastrophic manmade global warming – and is replete with exaggerations and inaccuracies, according to a U.S. Senate report.
The book, "Tore and the Town on Thin Ice,” is published by the United Nations Environment Programme and blames "rich countries” for creating a climate catastrophe. [Editor's Note: Read about how Al Gore and friends spin global warming with this Special Offer from NewsMax Magazine. Go Here Now.]
A release issued Monday by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works reads in part:
"The book is about a young kid named Tore who lives in an Arctic village. Tore loses a dog sled race because he crashes through the thinning ice allegedly caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions. The book features colorful drawings and large text to appeal to young children.
"After the boy loses the dog sled race, he is visited by ‘Sedna, the Mother of the Sea’ in a dream. The ‘Sea Mother’ informs the boy in blunt terms that the thinning ice that caused his loss in the dog sled race was due to manmade global warming . . .
"The morning after his dream, Tore sets out on a quest for knowledge about the dangers of catastrophic manmade global warming. A ‘snowy owl’ informs Tore that ‘the planet’s heating up’ and that both the Arctic and Antarctica ‘are warming almost twice as fast as elsewhere.’”
The committee’s release notes: "The Arctic, according to the International Arctic Research Center, was warmer during the 1930s than today and both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding – on balance – Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.”
The release continues: "The ‘snowy owl’ also asserts that ‘the great ice cap here in Greenland – mountains of snow and ice up to about four kilometers thick – is thawing.”
Again, the committee refutes that allegation, stating: "A 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showed that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass.”
In the book, a polar bear informs Tore that it is hungry because the ice is too thin to stand on and hunt and says that other bears have "starved.” The polar bear adds, "We may not have much of a future.”
The committee release states: "In May of 2006, biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, a territory of Canada, noted that ‘Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.’”
After a whale appears and presents more climate fear, the boy finally screams, "Listen, I’ve had all the bad news I can stand. Our world is melting. Polar bears are starving and all sorts of animals won’t survive. I don’t want to hear anymore!”
The whale continues, telling the child that more hurricanes and "other things you call ‘natural disasters’ are on their way, too – and they’re getting harsher.”
The committee’s release notes: "The relationships between global warming and hurricanes is currently under debate, with the great majority of scientists believing there is little connection. For instance, 2006 was anticipated to be a record year for hurricanes, but turned out to be one of the calmest seasons in many, many years.”
In the book, the "Sea Mother” singles out the industrialized world as the cause of her predicted climate catastrophe.
The release goes on to state the "Sea Mother” tells the boy: "Rich countries use – and waste – an awful lot of energy. Huge cars. Too many cars instead of efficient trains and buses.”
The committee interjects that "several developing world nations will soon pass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions. China alone will pass the U.S. in emissions in 2009.”
The book is being promoted at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Kenya.
Men Can Live Longer - Really?
Hey guys, pay attention to this article about why we have a tendency to expire before the ladies in our lives. Not that this is a fountain of youth thing but it can't hurt to do what ever it takes to extend ones life and feel better at the same time -
Why Men Incur More Disease and Age Faster
by Bill Sardi
The Lew Rockwell website recently linked to an article by New York Times staff writer Roni Rabin about men being the weaker sex, that men die earlier and incur more disease than women.
The editor of a new journal for male health is quoted in Rabin’s article as saying "We’ve got men dying at higher rates of just about every disease, and we don’t know why." Sometimes the obvious escapes attention.
The suggestion that that the federal government establish an office for men’s health is unlikely to reveal a fact that is well hidden in modern medicine – that males have higher iron stores and higher risks for disease and shorter lifespans.
During youth, virtually all of the iron that is ingested in the diet is directed towards the production of new red blood cells, which contain about 80% of the body’s iron stores. Since red blood cell volume is expanding during youth, it is virtually impossible to become iron overloaded.
The primary reason why very young children need to take naps is to catch upon on red blood cell production. During growth spurts, young children may experience difficulty with mental tasks due to a shortage of iron, a fact that is often misdiagnosed as attention deficit disorder. A pale, easily fatigued child with cold hands and feet should be fed iron-rich foods, like red meat (iron pills are problematic and induce nausea).
But once full growth is achieved, the demand for iron wanes and males begin to accumulate about 1 excess milligram of iron per day of life thereafter. By middle age males have twice the iron load as females and double the rate of diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Males are also subject to higher rates of infection since bacteria, viruses and fungi all require iron for growth. Virtually all of the age-related brain disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s) involve the loss of iron control.
Females on the other hand lose about 30 milligrams of iron in monthly menstrual blood loss. This is nature’s way of keeping the baby carriers of the species healthy. True, women are pale, weak and easily fatigued, but they outlive males by 5–8 years.
If women undergo early hysterectomy or reach menopause, which halts the menstrual cycle, they lose their advantage and have the same rates of disease as males. About a third of women undergo hysterectomy in the U.S., may take iron pills, still thinking they are still subject to iron deficiency anemia as when they were young. They are never informed of the change in their need for iron. The onset of a major disease 1–2 years following hysterectomy is very common.
The idea of relieving women of the inconvenience of a monthly cycle by using hormone pills, which is currently being promoted, is absolute folly.
The fact that women are on the anemic side and often purchase and prepare most of the food for the family, and crave iron-rich foods like red meat, results in accelerated aging, disease and mortality among males. The fatter the meat (marbeling), the greater the iron absorption. Should a man habitually consume red meat with an alcoholic beverage like beer, even more iron will be absorbed at a meal.
Virtually every health measure that is widely practiced controls iron. Exercise causes loss of iron in sweat. A vegetarian diet reduces iron absorption since iron from plant foods is only absorbed on an as-needed basis. A daily aspirin tablet induces a small amount of blood loss and subsequent loss of iron. Tea, wine, grapes, olives and whole grains, all considered healthy foods, bind to iron and inhibit its absorption.
Dr. Francesco S. Facchini, author of The Iron Factor of Aging (Fenestra Books 2002), has conclusively shown that removal of iron stores from the body by bloodletting effectively treats diabetes, gout and heart disease. Bloodletting has even been suggested as therapy for cancer and liver diseases. [Seminar Liver Diseases 16: 65–82, 1996] The liver is where iron is stored outside of red blood cells.
The removal of too much blood led to the demise of President George Washington, but the practice of blood letting throughout the ages was not archaic. It should be undergoing a renaissance. It’s indiscriminate use in children, who have a high demand for iron to facilitate growth, was a misdirection by ancient physicians.
In third-world human populations, intestinal parasites often consume much of the iron in the diet, which results in stunted growth and poor mental development in children, but the parasites protect against mortal disease. The removal of intestinal parasites, which is being achieved by de-worming campaigns in China, results in increased iron levels and an increase in diseases such as diabetes.
Iron can also be removed by intravenous EDTA chelation therapy, or more conveniently and economically by the use of IP6 rice bran extract, available at health food stores or online (brands: Jarrow, Source Naturals, Purity Products). The consumption of IP6 rice bran extract on an empty stomach with water will chelate (remove) excess iron and other heavy metals from the liver, kidneys, gallbladder, brain, heart and other organs. IP6 does not remove iron from red blood cells.
If IP6 is used excessively for long periods of time it could induce anemia, which would cause symptoms of fatigue, paleness, craving of acidic foods (tomatoes) and cold hands and feet.
Periodic cleansing of iron from the body by full-grown males and postmenopausal females may be advantageous. Much of this is explained in a book I wrote entitled The Iron Time Bomb, which is available as an online ebook.
November 27, 2006
Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a consumer advocate and health journalist, writing from San Dimas, California. He offers a free downloadable book, The Collapse of Conventional Medicine, at his website.
Copyright © 2006 Bill Sardi Word of Knowledge Agency, San Dimas, California. Not intended for commercial use or posting on other websites. Permission to reprint should be obtained from the author
Why Men Incur More Disease and Age Faster
by Bill Sardi
The Lew Rockwell website recently linked to an article by New York Times staff writer Roni Rabin about men being the weaker sex, that men die earlier and incur more disease than women.
The editor of a new journal for male health is quoted in Rabin’s article as saying "We’ve got men dying at higher rates of just about every disease, and we don’t know why." Sometimes the obvious escapes attention.
The suggestion that that the federal government establish an office for men’s health is unlikely to reveal a fact that is well hidden in modern medicine – that males have higher iron stores and higher risks for disease and shorter lifespans.
During youth, virtually all of the iron that is ingested in the diet is directed towards the production of new red blood cells, which contain about 80% of the body’s iron stores. Since red blood cell volume is expanding during youth, it is virtually impossible to become iron overloaded.
The primary reason why very young children need to take naps is to catch upon on red blood cell production. During growth spurts, young children may experience difficulty with mental tasks due to a shortage of iron, a fact that is often misdiagnosed as attention deficit disorder. A pale, easily fatigued child with cold hands and feet should be fed iron-rich foods, like red meat (iron pills are problematic and induce nausea).
But once full growth is achieved, the demand for iron wanes and males begin to accumulate about 1 excess milligram of iron per day of life thereafter. By middle age males have twice the iron load as females and double the rate of diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Males are also subject to higher rates of infection since bacteria, viruses and fungi all require iron for growth. Virtually all of the age-related brain disorders (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s) involve the loss of iron control.
Females on the other hand lose about 30 milligrams of iron in monthly menstrual blood loss. This is nature’s way of keeping the baby carriers of the species healthy. True, women are pale, weak and easily fatigued, but they outlive males by 5–8 years.
If women undergo early hysterectomy or reach menopause, which halts the menstrual cycle, they lose their advantage and have the same rates of disease as males. About a third of women undergo hysterectomy in the U.S., may take iron pills, still thinking they are still subject to iron deficiency anemia as when they were young. They are never informed of the change in their need for iron. The onset of a major disease 1–2 years following hysterectomy is very common.
The idea of relieving women of the inconvenience of a monthly cycle by using hormone pills, which is currently being promoted, is absolute folly.
The fact that women are on the anemic side and often purchase and prepare most of the food for the family, and crave iron-rich foods like red meat, results in accelerated aging, disease and mortality among males. The fatter the meat (marbeling), the greater the iron absorption. Should a man habitually consume red meat with an alcoholic beverage like beer, even more iron will be absorbed at a meal.
Virtually every health measure that is widely practiced controls iron. Exercise causes loss of iron in sweat. A vegetarian diet reduces iron absorption since iron from plant foods is only absorbed on an as-needed basis. A daily aspirin tablet induces a small amount of blood loss and subsequent loss of iron. Tea, wine, grapes, olives and whole grains, all considered healthy foods, bind to iron and inhibit its absorption.
Dr. Francesco S. Facchini, author of The Iron Factor of Aging (Fenestra Books 2002), has conclusively shown that removal of iron stores from the body by bloodletting effectively treats diabetes, gout and heart disease. Bloodletting has even been suggested as therapy for cancer and liver diseases. [Seminar Liver Diseases 16: 65–82, 1996] The liver is where iron is stored outside of red blood cells.
The removal of too much blood led to the demise of President George Washington, but the practice of blood letting throughout the ages was not archaic. It should be undergoing a renaissance. It’s indiscriminate use in children, who have a high demand for iron to facilitate growth, was a misdirection by ancient physicians.
In third-world human populations, intestinal parasites often consume much of the iron in the diet, which results in stunted growth and poor mental development in children, but the parasites protect against mortal disease. The removal of intestinal parasites, which is being achieved by de-worming campaigns in China, results in increased iron levels and an increase in diseases such as diabetes.
Iron can also be removed by intravenous EDTA chelation therapy, or more conveniently and economically by the use of IP6 rice bran extract, available at health food stores or online (brands: Jarrow, Source Naturals, Purity Products). The consumption of IP6 rice bran extract on an empty stomach with water will chelate (remove) excess iron and other heavy metals from the liver, kidneys, gallbladder, brain, heart and other organs. IP6 does not remove iron from red blood cells.
If IP6 is used excessively for long periods of time it could induce anemia, which would cause symptoms of fatigue, paleness, craving of acidic foods (tomatoes) and cold hands and feet.
Periodic cleansing of iron from the body by full-grown males and postmenopausal females may be advantageous. Much of this is explained in a book I wrote entitled The Iron Time Bomb, which is available as an online ebook.
November 27, 2006
Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a consumer advocate and health journalist, writing from San Dimas, California. He offers a free downloadable book, The Collapse of Conventional Medicine, at his website.
Copyright © 2006 Bill Sardi Word of Knowledge Agency, San Dimas, California. Not intended for commercial use or posting on other websites. Permission to reprint should be obtained from the author
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Democrats Drive the Wedge
The Democrat agenda is one of confrontation and subversion. They have no intention of setting forth a program that will bring security and prosperity to our nation.
The Democrats are not about ideas and solutions. Democrats are about power and how to gain total power. Democrats have no vision for the future and therefore have no sense of destiny. They live for today. The future exist only for those that are willing to place themselves at risk of failure.
Therefore it is clear to me, Democrats have no future as they use the risk-takers as stepping stone to gain power. Democrats have no intention of taking responsibility for their actions when they can just as easily blame others for actual or fabricated failure. And the media is always ready and willing to carry this message of deception.
As this article indicates, the Democrats will divide us further with their quest for political domination. And as this article also points out, the people have decided they agree the Democrat agenda. America needs to be brought to heel - now, unfortunately, we all have to live it
Our Divided American HouseBy John Redding
The peaceful transfer of political power in this country is taken as a given and is rightly considered a distinguishing characteristic of American governance. Not one of the presidential Inauguration Days that occur every four years has ever been marred by violence and only once, when Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office, was the use of violence threatened.
It cannot be said, however, that political power is always transferred tranquilly. After the “stolen election” of 1824, Andrew Jackson was a harsh and relentless critic of the administration of John Quincy Adams who Jackson believed had conspired with Henry Clay to win the presidency in the House of Representatives. This criticism apparently paved the way for his election in 1828. Outgoing President Buchanan handed the reins of government peacefully to incoming President Abraham Lincoln but voters in Southern states and many in the Northern ones as well did not react peaceably to this development.
In the aftermath of the 2000 election, the graceless Al Gore refused to concede the election. Instead he pursued a highly suspect attempt to change the vote count on the advice of his campaign chair Bill Daley who learned all about such political shenanigans growing up in Chicago.
What ensued in Florida and eventually at the Supreme Court led to the widespread belief on the political left that George Bush stole the election. Despite ample evidence to the contrary, the left clings, perhaps willfully, to the belief that the Bush presidency is illegitimate.Consequently, the political left, which clearly now includes the mainstream American media, has stubbornly refused to yield political power without protest, choosing instead to undermine the Bush presidency at every turn.
They chose to not oppose Bush solely with reasonable debate and political maneuvering. Instead the left has sought to deny him the exercise of his constitutionally conferred power to, for example, conduct a war and appoint judges to the bench. After all, he was selected not elected.
The nation today is a house divided. Not just evenly divided on nearly every important political issue but divided because Democrats refused for six years to be bound by the political decisions of a Republican led government. Abraham Lincoln said, when the country was evenly divided over slavery, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” How right he was.
Not wanting to be bound by the political decisions of their countrymen, eleven states left Union and took their political power with them. It is inconceivable that our modern day problems will result in armed conflict among citizens. The house won’t fall that way. But a divided house, a weakened house, can fall if attacked by our enemies on the outside. Writing about the Democrats return to power in The American Spectator, Lawrence Henry articulated what conservatives believe.
“That is where we are. The electorate has bought it, and, if we believe in our way of government, that is what we must accept” [emphasis added].
But for how long will conservatives and Republicans gallantly accept such results when Democrats and the political left eschew such notions? If in the next Congress Democrats strip the President of his war making power by defunding the war, will Republicans retaliate by filibustering any and all pieces of legislation? Can we afford the resulting paralysis at a time when enemies, who may be armed with nuclear weapons, have promised our destruction?
George Will observed that the problem with Iraq’s attempts to form a functioning government is “a dearth of the trust and good will and sheer human capital required for democratic governance.” It would not be far off the mark to say the same of American governance. We Americans on the left and the right need to work on that: building trust and goodwill.
If that sounds utterly distasteful to you, trying using your instinct for survival to help you overcome it.
The Democrats are not about ideas and solutions. Democrats are about power and how to gain total power. Democrats have no vision for the future and therefore have no sense of destiny. They live for today. The future exist only for those that are willing to place themselves at risk of failure.
Therefore it is clear to me, Democrats have no future as they use the risk-takers as stepping stone to gain power. Democrats have no intention of taking responsibility for their actions when they can just as easily blame others for actual or fabricated failure. And the media is always ready and willing to carry this message of deception.
As this article indicates, the Democrats will divide us further with their quest for political domination. And as this article also points out, the people have decided they agree the Democrat agenda. America needs to be brought to heel - now, unfortunately, we all have to live it
Our Divided American HouseBy John Redding
The peaceful transfer of political power in this country is taken as a given and is rightly considered a distinguishing characteristic of American governance. Not one of the presidential Inauguration Days that occur every four years has ever been marred by violence and only once, when Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office, was the use of violence threatened.
It cannot be said, however, that political power is always transferred tranquilly. After the “stolen election” of 1824, Andrew Jackson was a harsh and relentless critic of the administration of John Quincy Adams who Jackson believed had conspired with Henry Clay to win the presidency in the House of Representatives. This criticism apparently paved the way for his election in 1828. Outgoing President Buchanan handed the reins of government peacefully to incoming President Abraham Lincoln but voters in Southern states and many in the Northern ones as well did not react peaceably to this development.
In the aftermath of the 2000 election, the graceless Al Gore refused to concede the election. Instead he pursued a highly suspect attempt to change the vote count on the advice of his campaign chair Bill Daley who learned all about such political shenanigans growing up in Chicago.
What ensued in Florida and eventually at the Supreme Court led to the widespread belief on the political left that George Bush stole the election. Despite ample evidence to the contrary, the left clings, perhaps willfully, to the belief that the Bush presidency is illegitimate.Consequently, the political left, which clearly now includes the mainstream American media, has stubbornly refused to yield political power without protest, choosing instead to undermine the Bush presidency at every turn.
They chose to not oppose Bush solely with reasonable debate and political maneuvering. Instead the left has sought to deny him the exercise of his constitutionally conferred power to, for example, conduct a war and appoint judges to the bench. After all, he was selected not elected.
The nation today is a house divided. Not just evenly divided on nearly every important political issue but divided because Democrats refused for six years to be bound by the political decisions of a Republican led government. Abraham Lincoln said, when the country was evenly divided over slavery, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” How right he was.
Not wanting to be bound by the political decisions of their countrymen, eleven states left Union and took their political power with them. It is inconceivable that our modern day problems will result in armed conflict among citizens. The house won’t fall that way. But a divided house, a weakened house, can fall if attacked by our enemies on the outside. Writing about the Democrats return to power in The American Spectator, Lawrence Henry articulated what conservatives believe.
“That is where we are. The electorate has bought it, and, if we believe in our way of government, that is what we must accept” [emphasis added].
But for how long will conservatives and Republicans gallantly accept such results when Democrats and the political left eschew such notions? If in the next Congress Democrats strip the President of his war making power by defunding the war, will Republicans retaliate by filibustering any and all pieces of legislation? Can we afford the resulting paralysis at a time when enemies, who may be armed with nuclear weapons, have promised our destruction?
George Will observed that the problem with Iraq’s attempts to form a functioning government is “a dearth of the trust and good will and sheer human capital required for democratic governance.” It would not be far off the mark to say the same of American governance. We Americans on the left and the right need to work on that: building trust and goodwill.
If that sounds utterly distasteful to you, trying using your instinct for survival to help you overcome it.
Not Raising Taxes is a Problem?
Is it any wonder why there is so much confusion in the Republican party these days when a pledge to not raise taxes becomes some kind of political liability - members that don't sign this pledge need to be removed from office.
Norquist Names Tax Pledge Delinquents (Newsmax)
Following the midterm elections, 15 Republican members of Congress have not yet signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to oppose all tax hikes.
The pledge was formulated by Americans for Tax Reform and its president, Grover Norquist, and seeks to have politicians put in writing what they often promise verbally: no new taxes.
A mass e-mail from Norquist reveals the GOP Senators and Congressman who have not signed the Pledge.
Senate:
Richard Lugar (Ind.)
Charles Grassley (Iowa)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Pete Domenici (N.Mex.)
George Voinovich (Ohio)
House:
Christopher Shays (Conn.)
Michael Castle (Del.)
Steve Buyer (Ind.)
Harold Rogers (Ken.)
Vernon Ehlers (Mich.)
Ralph Regula (Ohio)
Todd Russell Platts (Pa.)
Frank Wolf (Va.)
Norquist Names Tax Pledge Delinquents (Newsmax)
Following the midterm elections, 15 Republican members of Congress have not yet signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge to oppose all tax hikes.
The pledge was formulated by Americans for Tax Reform and its president, Grover Norquist, and seeks to have politicians put in writing what they often promise verbally: no new taxes.
A mass e-mail from Norquist reveals the GOP Senators and Congressman who have not signed the Pledge.
Senate:
Richard Lugar (Ind.)
Charles Grassley (Iowa)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Pete Domenici (N.Mex.)
George Voinovich (Ohio)
House:
Christopher Shays (Conn.)
Michael Castle (Del.)
Steve Buyer (Ind.)
Harold Rogers (Ken.)
Vernon Ehlers (Mich.)
Ralph Regula (Ohio)
Todd Russell Platts (Pa.)
Frank Wolf (Va.)
Gobal Warming: Power Grab
Gobal warming is just another chance for the liberals to gain a tighter grip on the American and world populations. The following is one of many reports that highlights the misinformation that has come from the left here in this country and the UN -
New Report Refutes Global Warming ( Newsmax)
A recent report from Britain's Sir Nicholas Stern warned of the devastating economic effects global warming could have on the world in coming years.
But a British researcher has added his voice to those saying the "hysteria" over manmade global warming distorts the truth.
Stern — former chief economist at the World Bank — cautioned that if greenhouse gas emissions weren't significantly reduced, by 2050 the global economy would shrink by up to 20 percent, millions of people would be permanently displaced and droughts would plague the earth.
Now journalist Christopher Monckton, who was a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, has published a detailed report attacking the manmade global warming theory from various angles — including the so-called "medieval warm period."
The United Nations, which has issued a widely quoted report on global warming, "abolished the medieval warm period — the global warming at the end of the First Millennium A.D.," according to Monckton.
A U.N. report in 1996 "showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today," Monckton writes in Britain's Sunday Telegraph.
"But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years . . .
"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to [5 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than now.
"Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes; today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland; now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole — a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic in 1421 and found none."
Monckton also writes that Antarctica has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, and the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years.
He calculates that global temperatures will rise only .18 to 2.5 degrees in the coming century, "well within the medieval temperature range."
And he suggests that rather than point to greenhouse gases as the culprit behind any measurable global warming, we might blame the sun. He cites a scientist who maintains that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years.
Monckton's conclusion: "Politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St. John the Divine than of science."
He also remarks: "Al Gore please note."
New Report Refutes Global Warming ( Newsmax)
A recent report from Britain's Sir Nicholas Stern warned of the devastating economic effects global warming could have on the world in coming years.
But a British researcher has added his voice to those saying the "hysteria" over manmade global warming distorts the truth.
Stern — former chief economist at the World Bank — cautioned that if greenhouse gas emissions weren't significantly reduced, by 2050 the global economy would shrink by up to 20 percent, millions of people would be permanently displaced and droughts would plague the earth.
Now journalist Christopher Monckton, who was a policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, has published a detailed report attacking the manmade global warming theory from various angles — including the so-called "medieval warm period."
The United Nations, which has issued a widely quoted report on global warming, "abolished the medieval warm period — the global warming at the end of the First Millennium A.D.," according to Monckton.
A U.N. report in 1996 "showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today," Monckton writes in Britain's Sunday Telegraph.
"But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years . . .
"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to [5 degrees Fahrenheit] warmer than now.
"Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes; today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland; now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole — a Chinese naval squadron sailed right around the Arctic in 1421 and found none."
Monckton also writes that Antarctica has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, and the oceans have cooled sharply in the past two years.
He calculates that global temperatures will rise only .18 to 2.5 degrees in the coming century, "well within the medieval temperature range."
And he suggests that rather than point to greenhouse gases as the culprit behind any measurable global warming, we might blame the sun. He cites a scientist who maintains that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years.
Monckton's conclusion: "Politicians, scientists and bureaucrats contrived a threat of Biblical floods, droughts, plagues, and extinctions worthier of St. John the Divine than of science."
He also remarks: "Al Gore please note."
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Fear of the Angry left media
What would the Democrats do? Did our commander act correctly or was just the fear of attack by the media and the socialist left that prevented him from firing on the sub? What will it be next time?
Playing Chicken with China
A few weeks ago a Chinese diesel submarine surfaced about five miles from a US carrier battle group. Even in peacetime conditions such a provocation entitles a defender to open fire and sink the intruder, but the commander of the US carrier group chose not to.
Whether or not his decision was the right one is almost beside the point now. For those who are aware of what the Chinese have been up to over the last three decades, the surfacing was another in a long series of examples of their preparations for war.While US Navy submarines have shadowed the warships of various unfriendly nations since the end of the Second World War, such surveillance has been free of deliberately risky and provocative actions.
The Chinese intent was to see if the US Navy was prepared to shoot. Unless the testosterone levels of the sub’s crew rendered them mind-numbed zealots they must have been very relieved that the experiment went as well as it did.The formal Chinese reaction to the surfacing (a yawn: “we weren’t aware of the incident”) is in sharp contrast to their super aggressive action against US spy plane flights near the Chinese coast but still out over international waters.
In 2001 the Chinese deliberately downed a US spy plane by ordering two of their jet fighters to ram it. All on board the US Navy EP-3E Aries II survived but one fighter pilot was presumed to have been killed. Just having the US plane that close to their coast was considered a “brazen” act by the Chinese and worth the international incident. The sub surfacing incident meets and surpasses any reality based test of the word ‘brazen’…and it also means a great deal more than that.Even if, for the sake of argument, the sub surfacing was just an accident, diplomacy dictates that the offender evince some sort of apology albeit an insincere one.
But so far they have declined and this clearly demonstrates their hostile attitude toward the US and the rest of the world. This incident represents another example of the Chinese regime’s mantra of never missing an opportunity to diss the US over practically anything even at the risk of making it appear as though their military doesn’t know what it’s up to.But the Chinese do know what they are up to.
By their actions they’re signaling anyone who’s ‘listening’ that their real objective is to re-unite Taiwan with the mainland, through force if necessary.If they ever accomplish their goal, their next step would be to present the US with a choice between war over a lost cause or perhaps an uncharacteristically generous offer to open China’s market in exchange for the status quo.
However, the Chinese are acutely aware of their military might and numbers…a political ace in their weapons arsenal and a political watershed for any would-be contender. No gestures of appeasement will ever be presented for they know all too well that faced with the choice of going to war or accepting an undesirable but peaceful status quo, any American president would be intensely pressured to choose the latter.The US has a lot on its plate right now, but in the long run the Chinese bag has the most marbles in it. Our current relationship with
China should be reviewed and steps should be taken to change what has not worked. Our present ‘trade relationship’ with China, for one, has to be revamped.The Chinese chafe over Pax Americana…they strongly desire to see it replaced with one that serves their needs, rather than the West…and that puts the Middle Kingdom firmly in the place where they believe it belongs.
Posted by Thomas Lifson
Playing Chicken with China
A few weeks ago a Chinese diesel submarine surfaced about five miles from a US carrier battle group. Even in peacetime conditions such a provocation entitles a defender to open fire and sink the intruder, but the commander of the US carrier group chose not to.
Whether or not his decision was the right one is almost beside the point now. For those who are aware of what the Chinese have been up to over the last three decades, the surfacing was another in a long series of examples of their preparations for war.While US Navy submarines have shadowed the warships of various unfriendly nations since the end of the Second World War, such surveillance has been free of deliberately risky and provocative actions.
The Chinese intent was to see if the US Navy was prepared to shoot. Unless the testosterone levels of the sub’s crew rendered them mind-numbed zealots they must have been very relieved that the experiment went as well as it did.The formal Chinese reaction to the surfacing (a yawn: “we weren’t aware of the incident”) is in sharp contrast to their super aggressive action against US spy plane flights near the Chinese coast but still out over international waters.
In 2001 the Chinese deliberately downed a US spy plane by ordering two of their jet fighters to ram it. All on board the US Navy EP-3E Aries II survived but one fighter pilot was presumed to have been killed. Just having the US plane that close to their coast was considered a “brazen” act by the Chinese and worth the international incident. The sub surfacing incident meets and surpasses any reality based test of the word ‘brazen’…and it also means a great deal more than that.Even if, for the sake of argument, the sub surfacing was just an accident, diplomacy dictates that the offender evince some sort of apology albeit an insincere one.
But so far they have declined and this clearly demonstrates their hostile attitude toward the US and the rest of the world. This incident represents another example of the Chinese regime’s mantra of never missing an opportunity to diss the US over practically anything even at the risk of making it appear as though their military doesn’t know what it’s up to.But the Chinese do know what they are up to.
By their actions they’re signaling anyone who’s ‘listening’ that their real objective is to re-unite Taiwan with the mainland, through force if necessary.If they ever accomplish their goal, their next step would be to present the US with a choice between war over a lost cause or perhaps an uncharacteristically generous offer to open China’s market in exchange for the status quo.
However, the Chinese are acutely aware of their military might and numbers…a political ace in their weapons arsenal and a political watershed for any would-be contender. No gestures of appeasement will ever be presented for they know all too well that faced with the choice of going to war or accepting an undesirable but peaceful status quo, any American president would be intensely pressured to choose the latter.The US has a lot on its plate right now, but in the long run the Chinese bag has the most marbles in it. Our current relationship with
China should be reviewed and steps should be taken to change what has not worked. Our present ‘trade relationship’ with China, for one, has to be revamped.The Chinese chafe over Pax Americana…they strongly desire to see it replaced with one that serves their needs, rather than the West…and that puts the Middle Kingdom firmly in the place where they believe it belongs.
Posted by Thomas Lifson
Fight or Retreat?
Good question - with the Democrats in control of congress, and with their attitude of isolation and fear of making hard decesions, what will the out come be? Will we wind up in the same mess that Europe is in now, and will always be in, due to their spineless approach to national securtiy? You be the judge. You voted them in.
Can America Catch its Second Wind?
By James Lewis
There comes a time in all marathons when the temptation to give in becomes overwhelming. We are facing such a moment in our national response to 9/11. The enticing voices of ease and retreat are sounding louder and more confident, and our will to persist is suffering the death of a thousand cuts. Yet if we fail to persist in our response to the terror attacks we will fail, period. Mentally, we have almost fallen back to 9/10 - out of breath, unsure of ourselves, and a big, fat target for those who want to kill us. 9/11 is the first great challenge to America that we have failed to respond to as a nation. Pearl Harbor is a close comparison: more than 2,000 dead, a surprise attack by an enemy inspired to suicidal martyrdom in war.
The World War Two generation would not recognize our flabby and self-indulgent reaction today. They would have won in Iraq and Iran by this time, increased the size of the military to be adequate to all challenges, and reasserted the values of liberty around the world. The Middle East has seen democratic government only in small fits and starts; but European democracy was not exactly healthy when we intervened in World War Two. We can make democracy happen in the Middle East if we use our power. The defeatist media are hoping that the 9/11 phenomenon will just go away; but it's a fool's hope.
We can blame the appeasers, the Left's constant picking at our sense of self-confidence, our downsized Clintonized armed forces. There will be a thousand excuses. But if we fail to save a whole and prosperous Iraq for the future, when we could do so with a moderate increment in military strength, the grim echoes of our defeat with resound throughout the world. Vladimir Putin is reasserting Russian imperialism with a vengeance, the Islamofascists want to cut our throats, and the Chinese are staging open provocations against the US Navy in the Pacific. Even Venezuela's chief clown Hugo Chavez shows us his naked backside. These are only signs, but they have meaning:
They proclaim that the American moment in history is on a knife's edge. The alternatives to American assertiveness in the world are not fun to contemplate. Any other power arrangement would be far, far worse than the United States. Al Qaeda and Ahmadinejad could not destroy US armed forces in Iraq, so they did the next best thing: They stirred up civil war between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. That strategy seems to be working, to the benefit of the mullahs and Bin Laden, our own sworn enemies.
We have to understand the extraordinary forbearance shown by Shi'a leaders like Ayatollah Sistani during this period. Sistani kept on telling his following to control the temptation to take revenge, until the Sunni terror groups exploded one too many car bombs at Shi'a mosques. Iran undoubtedly meddled in Iraq, by arming and stoking the fires of Shi'a militias, until the voices of sanity were drowned out. What Iraq needs now is an assertion of strength and will by the United States. Any other "solution" would strengthen those who hate us as the Great Satan, or those who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. We can impose peace in Baghdad.
We can protect the borders. It can be done. SecDef Rumsfeld and General Abizaid may have had a case for a "light US footprint" at the beginning of the war. Today things have changed. Iraqis who hope to save their country now are looking for more American troops, not fewer. Every serious war is a marathon race. Victory goes to those who can tolerate the wall of pain and still keep running.
Our deadly enemies are strong in will, but weak in power - so far. If they persist and we give up, they will become invulnerable as soon as Iran explodes its first bomb. Now is the time to pour on American strength. We can win in the Middle East, or allow the civilized world to be put in far, far greater danger. This is a watershed moment in history.
Can America Catch its Second Wind?
By James Lewis
There comes a time in all marathons when the temptation to give in becomes overwhelming. We are facing such a moment in our national response to 9/11. The enticing voices of ease and retreat are sounding louder and more confident, and our will to persist is suffering the death of a thousand cuts. Yet if we fail to persist in our response to the terror attacks we will fail, period. Mentally, we have almost fallen back to 9/10 - out of breath, unsure of ourselves, and a big, fat target for those who want to kill us. 9/11 is the first great challenge to America that we have failed to respond to as a nation. Pearl Harbor is a close comparison: more than 2,000 dead, a surprise attack by an enemy inspired to suicidal martyrdom in war.
The World War Two generation would not recognize our flabby and self-indulgent reaction today. They would have won in Iraq and Iran by this time, increased the size of the military to be adequate to all challenges, and reasserted the values of liberty around the world. The Middle East has seen democratic government only in small fits and starts; but European democracy was not exactly healthy when we intervened in World War Two. We can make democracy happen in the Middle East if we use our power. The defeatist media are hoping that the 9/11 phenomenon will just go away; but it's a fool's hope.
We can blame the appeasers, the Left's constant picking at our sense of self-confidence, our downsized Clintonized armed forces. There will be a thousand excuses. But if we fail to save a whole and prosperous Iraq for the future, when we could do so with a moderate increment in military strength, the grim echoes of our defeat with resound throughout the world. Vladimir Putin is reasserting Russian imperialism with a vengeance, the Islamofascists want to cut our throats, and the Chinese are staging open provocations against the US Navy in the Pacific. Even Venezuela's chief clown Hugo Chavez shows us his naked backside. These are only signs, but they have meaning:
They proclaim that the American moment in history is on a knife's edge. The alternatives to American assertiveness in the world are not fun to contemplate. Any other power arrangement would be far, far worse than the United States. Al Qaeda and Ahmadinejad could not destroy US armed forces in Iraq, so they did the next best thing: They stirred up civil war between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. That strategy seems to be working, to the benefit of the mullahs and Bin Laden, our own sworn enemies.
We have to understand the extraordinary forbearance shown by Shi'a leaders like Ayatollah Sistani during this period. Sistani kept on telling his following to control the temptation to take revenge, until the Sunni terror groups exploded one too many car bombs at Shi'a mosques. Iran undoubtedly meddled in Iraq, by arming and stoking the fires of Shi'a militias, until the voices of sanity were drowned out. What Iraq needs now is an assertion of strength and will by the United States. Any other "solution" would strengthen those who hate us as the Great Satan, or those who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. We can impose peace in Baghdad.
We can protect the borders. It can be done. SecDef Rumsfeld and General Abizaid may have had a case for a "light US footprint" at the beginning of the war. Today things have changed. Iraqis who hope to save their country now are looking for more American troops, not fewer. Every serious war is a marathon race. Victory goes to those who can tolerate the wall of pain and still keep running.
Our deadly enemies are strong in will, but weak in power - so far. If they persist and we give up, they will become invulnerable as soon as Iran explodes its first bomb. Now is the time to pour on American strength. We can win in the Middle East, or allow the civilized world to be put in far, far greater danger. This is a watershed moment in history.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Black Racism
This is good article that points up the racism that exists in both black and white communities. It is common knowledge, in America, that blacks can and do say just about anything they want and nobody will care. In fact, it is encouraged as a device to throw off the chains of slavery that the white people still have around the necks of the black people, or so their leaders keep saying.
Reality has a different twist to this story. Fact is there is racism on both sides, all we have to do is recognize this fact and deal with it. No problem that I know of only has one set of factors that determines it's outcome.
The Crucifixion of Kramer
By Bob Weir
I’ve never been a fan of Seinfeld, and I’m not very familiar with the characters. When the show went into syndication a few years ago, I began to come across it whenever I did any channel surfing. I don’t know anything about Michael Richards, the guy who played Kramer on the show.When I read about his onstage rant at a comedy club in Hollywood last week, I figured the guy has some serious anger management problems. Anyone who has performed in front of a live audience knows of the danger posed by hecklers; it comes with the territory.
Hence, when Mr. Richards was interrupted by a small group at a nearby table, he should have been competent enough to deal with it without engaging in racist invective. Having said that, let’s look at what it means to lose your temper and make a few stupid remarks in the ultra-sensitive country that we’ve become. Since the guy imploded onstage, the video quickly made its way onto the international airwaves, resulting in the type of condemnation that should be reserved for, say, a man who butchered 2 people and got away with it.When OJ Simpson was acquitted by a predominantly black jury, there were scenes of black people celebrating the gross injustice all across the country.
The pain on the faces of the Brown and Goldman families, as they sat in the courtroom watching the murderer being congratulated for beating the system, was heart-wrenching to all decent people. Yet, we didn’t hear from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or any other so-called black leaders.Anyone with an IQ higher than a fire hydrant knew the man was the killer.
Imagine if a white man had just slaughtered 2 black people and left that much evidence behind. If a white jury acquitted him, there’d be rioting from coast to coast. Recently, when the obnoxious monster tried to thumb his nose at the public again with his “If I did it” obscenity, where was the denunciation from the black community?
Why didn’t we see Mr. Sharpton on the David Letterman Show castigating those responsible for foisting that pathological display of arrogance on our nation? Are a few forbidden words by a disgruntled, has-been comic worse than a tantalizing tongue-in-cheek “confession” from a murderer who cheated justice? To say our priorities are distorted is a gross understatement.
When someone like Mr. Richards makes a bunch of stupid comments he’s immediately crucified and no one seems to have the courage to point out that it was merely some angry words from an emotionally disturbed man, it wasn’t homicide.How many people know that the blacks at that table were referring to Richards as a “white cracker”?Evidently, it’s okay to be pejorative toward whites if you’re black. In fact, it’s acceptable for blacks to use scurrilous language toward other blacks, as is often heard in the lyrics of rap music.
Moreover, blacks can use similarly disparaging words toward other ethnic groups and refer to women in the vilest type of street language imaginable.The question is: do blacks have some special privileges granted to them by the Constitutional description of freedom of speech?Whites and blacks have fought, and often died, in the struggle for equality.
However, it appears that what we have arrived at is a disproportionate equality that gives blacks the exclusive right to be offended by non-blacks. When Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock make racist comments about whites during their standup routines, there’s no hue and cry from the white community.
But, let a white comic take similar jabs at blacks and you’d have an earthquake that would shatter the Richter Scale.Undoubtedly, there are those reading this who will accuse me of racism, but that too, comes with the territory. Someone must point out these things to a public that has become robotically trained to go into knee-jerk mode every time some white fool blows his cool.
This marvelous, melting-pot experiment in democracy will never work until we rid ourselves of this one-sided view of race relations. If certain words and phrases are to be prohibited from use by one segment of society, they must be prohibited from use by all. Otherwise, the countless number of lives lost, both black and white, to obtain “equality for all,” has resulted in a most bizarre and incongruous definition of the phrase.
Reality has a different twist to this story. Fact is there is racism on both sides, all we have to do is recognize this fact and deal with it. No problem that I know of only has one set of factors that determines it's outcome.
The Crucifixion of Kramer
By Bob Weir
I’ve never been a fan of Seinfeld, and I’m not very familiar with the characters. When the show went into syndication a few years ago, I began to come across it whenever I did any channel surfing. I don’t know anything about Michael Richards, the guy who played Kramer on the show.When I read about his onstage rant at a comedy club in Hollywood last week, I figured the guy has some serious anger management problems. Anyone who has performed in front of a live audience knows of the danger posed by hecklers; it comes with the territory.
Hence, when Mr. Richards was interrupted by a small group at a nearby table, he should have been competent enough to deal with it without engaging in racist invective. Having said that, let’s look at what it means to lose your temper and make a few stupid remarks in the ultra-sensitive country that we’ve become. Since the guy imploded onstage, the video quickly made its way onto the international airwaves, resulting in the type of condemnation that should be reserved for, say, a man who butchered 2 people and got away with it.When OJ Simpson was acquitted by a predominantly black jury, there were scenes of black people celebrating the gross injustice all across the country.
The pain on the faces of the Brown and Goldman families, as they sat in the courtroom watching the murderer being congratulated for beating the system, was heart-wrenching to all decent people. Yet, we didn’t hear from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or any other so-called black leaders.Anyone with an IQ higher than a fire hydrant knew the man was the killer.
Imagine if a white man had just slaughtered 2 black people and left that much evidence behind. If a white jury acquitted him, there’d be rioting from coast to coast. Recently, when the obnoxious monster tried to thumb his nose at the public again with his “If I did it” obscenity, where was the denunciation from the black community?
Why didn’t we see Mr. Sharpton on the David Letterman Show castigating those responsible for foisting that pathological display of arrogance on our nation? Are a few forbidden words by a disgruntled, has-been comic worse than a tantalizing tongue-in-cheek “confession” from a murderer who cheated justice? To say our priorities are distorted is a gross understatement.
When someone like Mr. Richards makes a bunch of stupid comments he’s immediately crucified and no one seems to have the courage to point out that it was merely some angry words from an emotionally disturbed man, it wasn’t homicide.How many people know that the blacks at that table were referring to Richards as a “white cracker”?Evidently, it’s okay to be pejorative toward whites if you’re black. In fact, it’s acceptable for blacks to use scurrilous language toward other blacks, as is often heard in the lyrics of rap music.
Moreover, blacks can use similarly disparaging words toward other ethnic groups and refer to women in the vilest type of street language imaginable.The question is: do blacks have some special privileges granted to them by the Constitutional description of freedom of speech?Whites and blacks have fought, and often died, in the struggle for equality.
However, it appears that what we have arrived at is a disproportionate equality that gives blacks the exclusive right to be offended by non-blacks. When Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock make racist comments about whites during their standup routines, there’s no hue and cry from the white community.
But, let a white comic take similar jabs at blacks and you’d have an earthquake that would shatter the Richter Scale.Undoubtedly, there are those reading this who will accuse me of racism, but that too, comes with the territory. Someone must point out these things to a public that has become robotically trained to go into knee-jerk mode every time some white fool blows his cool.
This marvelous, melting-pot experiment in democracy will never work until we rid ourselves of this one-sided view of race relations. If certain words and phrases are to be prohibited from use by one segment of society, they must be prohibited from use by all. Otherwise, the countless number of lives lost, both black and white, to obtain “equality for all,” has resulted in a most bizarre and incongruous definition of the phrase.
Thank God for America
I sincerely hope everyone had a very pleasant Thanksgiving - We have so much to be thankful for in this country. There are those among us that find fault with everything that we do no matter how small the circumstance.
It's extremely important to take a few minutes and just look around and see what we all enjoy without a second thought to how it came about - it's isn't free, someone had to pay and pay dearly for what we enjoy today and many think it is their right as Americans. It isn't.
So let's take a walk down main street or in the country by a small creek. Now think what is your worst worry? Being shot? Being arrested for not having proper ID? Not having permission to walk along the country road from the local police? None of these, of course, we live in America, after all. WOW, how cool is that!
It's extremely important to take a few minutes and just look around and see what we all enjoy without a second thought to how it came about - it's isn't free, someone had to pay and pay dearly for what we enjoy today and many think it is their right as Americans. It isn't.
So let's take a walk down main street or in the country by a small creek. Now think what is your worst worry? Being shot? Being arrested for not having proper ID? Not having permission to walk along the country road from the local police? None of these, of course, we live in America, after all. WOW, how cool is that!
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Iraq Reconstruction on Schedule
The untold story of Iraq reconstruction
What should be driven home in “lessons learned” concerning the Iraq Campaign is that first and foremost, the enemy must be utterly defeated before starting any massive humanitarian projects. Yet, in spite of the skewed views of some of our leadership in this regard, the story of Iraq reconstruction is nothing short of remarkable taking place as it does in the face of increasing insurgent attacks and a non-existent Iraqi private contracting sector.
The Washington Times’ Rowan Scarborough chronicles the heroic efforts of military, civilian, and private contractors in completing over 4,000 projects since the 2003 invasion. The Army is the executive agent for Iraqi reconstruction, and the effort is led by Dean G. Popps, who is the principal assistant secretary of the Army for acquisitions, logistics and technology. According to Popps:
“Most Americans don’t understand something equivalent to the Marshall Plan has been accomplished in Iraq.”
Under the supervision of the Army Corps of Engineers, electric grids, health care centers, schools, water and sewage treatment facilities, and police stations have been refurbished or built from scratch. This huge program has been extremely successful, while receiving largely negative press coverage with an emphasis on corruption and mismanagement. But the latest assessment from Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, notes that the vast majority of projects have “proceeded as required.”
Popps reveals a critical factor not frequently discussed in the media. US intelligence knew Saddam had not adequately maintained Iraq’s infrastructure, but it turned out that they wildly underestimated the decrepit state of Saddam’s Iraq. The Corps of Engineers were stunned to find out that,
• The three regional sewage treatments plants in greater Baghdad did not work; raw waste poured into the Tigris River and downstream through villages.
• Sadr City, the impoverished Shi’ite slum repressed by the ruling Sunni Ba’ath Party, lacked any sewage system. [“Some slam the Americans because there is sewage in Sadr City,” said an incredulous Mr. Popps. “Please.”]
• Few towns had a central supply of clean water.
• The electrical grid suffered under 1950s technology and disrepair. Saddam Hussein starved the rest of the country of power to give the capital of 6 million about 20 hours a day.
• The country lacked any primary health care facilities; .. new hospitals had not been built in 20 years.
Some of the accomplishments so far:
• Six new primary care facilities, with 66 more under construction; 11 hospitals renovated
• More than 800 schools fixed up; more than 300 police stations and facilities and 248 border control forts.
• Added 407,000 cubic meters per day of water treatment; a new sewage-treatment system for Basra; work on Baghdad’s three plants continues.
• Oil production exceeds the 2002 level of 2 million barrels a day by 500,000. [emphasis mine]
• The Ministry of Electricity now sends power to Baghdad for four to eight hours a day, and 10 to 12 for the rest of the country.
• Iraqis are now free to buy consumer items such as generators, which provide some homes with power around-the-clock.
Keep in mind that all of this was accomplished with great sacrifice including loss of life by Iraqis and all components of our forces including uniformed military, civil servants, and yes, even those much-maligned contractors.
On this Thanksgiving, we owe all of them and Secretary Popps our deepest gratitude for what ultimately will best serve our national security; a free and prosperous Iraq.
Douglas Hanson 11 22 06
What should be driven home in “lessons learned” concerning the Iraq Campaign is that first and foremost, the enemy must be utterly defeated before starting any massive humanitarian projects. Yet, in spite of the skewed views of some of our leadership in this regard, the story of Iraq reconstruction is nothing short of remarkable taking place as it does in the face of increasing insurgent attacks and a non-existent Iraqi private contracting sector.
The Washington Times’ Rowan Scarborough chronicles the heroic efforts of military, civilian, and private contractors in completing over 4,000 projects since the 2003 invasion. The Army is the executive agent for Iraqi reconstruction, and the effort is led by Dean G. Popps, who is the principal assistant secretary of the Army for acquisitions, logistics and technology. According to Popps:
“Most Americans don’t understand something equivalent to the Marshall Plan has been accomplished in Iraq.”
Under the supervision of the Army Corps of Engineers, electric grids, health care centers, schools, water and sewage treatment facilities, and police stations have been refurbished or built from scratch. This huge program has been extremely successful, while receiving largely negative press coverage with an emphasis on corruption and mismanagement. But the latest assessment from Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, notes that the vast majority of projects have “proceeded as required.”
Popps reveals a critical factor not frequently discussed in the media. US intelligence knew Saddam had not adequately maintained Iraq’s infrastructure, but it turned out that they wildly underestimated the decrepit state of Saddam’s Iraq. The Corps of Engineers were stunned to find out that,
• The three regional sewage treatments plants in greater Baghdad did not work; raw waste poured into the Tigris River and downstream through villages.
• Sadr City, the impoverished Shi’ite slum repressed by the ruling Sunni Ba’ath Party, lacked any sewage system. [“Some slam the Americans because there is sewage in Sadr City,” said an incredulous Mr. Popps. “Please.”]
• Few towns had a central supply of clean water.
• The electrical grid suffered under 1950s technology and disrepair. Saddam Hussein starved the rest of the country of power to give the capital of 6 million about 20 hours a day.
• The country lacked any primary health care facilities; .. new hospitals had not been built in 20 years.
Some of the accomplishments so far:
• Six new primary care facilities, with 66 more under construction; 11 hospitals renovated
• More than 800 schools fixed up; more than 300 police stations and facilities and 248 border control forts.
• Added 407,000 cubic meters per day of water treatment; a new sewage-treatment system for Basra; work on Baghdad’s three plants continues.
• Oil production exceeds the 2002 level of 2 million barrels a day by 500,000. [emphasis mine]
• The Ministry of Electricity now sends power to Baghdad for four to eight hours a day, and 10 to 12 for the rest of the country.
• Iraqis are now free to buy consumer items such as generators, which provide some homes with power around-the-clock.
Keep in mind that all of this was accomplished with great sacrifice including loss of life by Iraqis and all components of our forces including uniformed military, civil servants, and yes, even those much-maligned contractors.
On this Thanksgiving, we owe all of them and Secretary Popps our deepest gratitude for what ultimately will best serve our national security; a free and prosperous Iraq.
Douglas Hanson 11 22 06
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Democrat Win Still a Mystery
I keep seeing reasons why the Republicans lost and I keep thinking they are wrong. I just read an article that listed the items ranging from immigration to Iraq and, of course, the economy.
Another reason mentioned was honesty in government and that the public expects the Republicans to be a leader in this field. But the only bump that appeared for the Republicans was the Abramoff thing, but that was nothing to the Clinton years and he won at a walk. The moderates and non-aligned overlooked Clinton's indiscretion along with all of the Democrats.
Again, why the republicans lost and lost big is still a mystery to me. I have gone over this in past posts but I am still looking for that one fact that will convince me that it wasn't the constant drum-beat of the press and liberal Democrats with a message of misinformation and outright lies on the war and the economy.
The economy is doing great and the war is gong in the right direction, but just not fast enough. A generation that demands instant gratification for everything. Here the general intelligence of the voting public about the war and the economy is the problem, as well as some sound knowledge of American history.
Another reason mentioned was honesty in government and that the public expects the Republicans to be a leader in this field. But the only bump that appeared for the Republicans was the Abramoff thing, but that was nothing to the Clinton years and he won at a walk. The moderates and non-aligned overlooked Clinton's indiscretion along with all of the Democrats.
Again, why the republicans lost and lost big is still a mystery to me. I have gone over this in past posts but I am still looking for that one fact that will convince me that it wasn't the constant drum-beat of the press and liberal Democrats with a message of misinformation and outright lies on the war and the economy.
The economy is doing great and the war is gong in the right direction, but just not fast enough. A generation that demands instant gratification for everything. Here the general intelligence of the voting public about the war and the economy is the problem, as well as some sound knowledge of American history.
As the story goes, tell a lie often enough and soon it becomes a fact. Democrats are masters at this.
Sour grapes? Maybe.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Dainal Schorr - National Discrace
Dainal Schorr and NPR reveal their true association - they both hate Bush and America while blood sucking tax dollar.
Daniel Schorr should apologize
Reader David R. (he prefers anonymity) shared with us a letter he sent to NPR over the on-air behavior of Daniel Schorr. Since NPR receives tax money, it has an obligation to be both fair and accurate. Here is the letter:
Dear Mr. Scott Simon,
Daniel Schorr almost got through a news analysis on your Saturday morning show without a cheapshot at the President, but could not resist concluding with a snide and irrelevant remark about how Mr. Bush had “tried so hard” to avoid going to Viet Nam in his youth.
In this regard I would like to make two points to you and to NPR:
1. In this and in many other instances Mr. Schorr has made it clear that he has strong personal biases, and also that they color his reportage. Your own transcripts will offer hundreds of examples, by my memory. His value as an honest source of news analysis is highly questionable, and in giving him standing as your “Senior News Analyst” you cheapen the NPR brand profoundly.
2. Secondly, it is a fact that the young Mr. Bush did volunteer for duty in Viet Nam after he had completed his flight training, but that at that point in time, the aircraft he was trained to fly was being retired from overseas combat, and his thus there was no demand for his skills there.
The whole meme of the future President “avoiding” Viet Nam is based on the fact that he would not (and could not) volunteer for overseas duty when reporting for flight training, because it would have rather obviously conflicted with the flight training he HAD volunteered for.
It may comes as a surprise to the NPR staff, but in order for the Air Force to make the investment of nearly a million dollars to “make” a pilot, a young man had to commit to the going through the training! I might as well ask you, Scott, why you are sitting in a warm studio fulfilling your contract, instead of out on the cold streets comforting the homeless! By the same logic the media applies to Mr. Bush’s actions, this proves that you are a mean-spirited, greedy person!
George W. Bush qualified for that training by virtue of having a college degree, being in excellent health, and being willing to commit several years of his life to a role for which there were constant shortages. He did not jump to the front of any line: for what he was qualified to do, there was no line! Yes, there was a line for non-degreed enlistees wanting to be in the ANG, but in the officer positions required of pilot trainees, the ANG was begging for applicants. No doubt most of the recent Yale grads were out helping the poor.
Mr. Schorr is well aware of these facts, but slyly keeps re-playing the canard that Mr. Bush somehow exhibited cowardice and took advantage of family connections when he volunteered to undergo several years of full-time, dangerous as hell, flight training. I would wager that Mr. Schorr has never done anything half so brave – I know I haven’t – and it is about time he and NPR apologized for the knowing slander he is allowed to utter on your radio network nearly every week.
11 19 06
Daniel Schorr should apologize
Reader David R. (he prefers anonymity) shared with us a letter he sent to NPR over the on-air behavior of Daniel Schorr. Since NPR receives tax money, it has an obligation to be both fair and accurate. Here is the letter:
Dear Mr. Scott Simon,
Daniel Schorr almost got through a news analysis on your Saturday morning show without a cheapshot at the President, but could not resist concluding with a snide and irrelevant remark about how Mr. Bush had “tried so hard” to avoid going to Viet Nam in his youth.
In this regard I would like to make two points to you and to NPR:
1. In this and in many other instances Mr. Schorr has made it clear that he has strong personal biases, and also that they color his reportage. Your own transcripts will offer hundreds of examples, by my memory. His value as an honest source of news analysis is highly questionable, and in giving him standing as your “Senior News Analyst” you cheapen the NPR brand profoundly.
2. Secondly, it is a fact that the young Mr. Bush did volunteer for duty in Viet Nam after he had completed his flight training, but that at that point in time, the aircraft he was trained to fly was being retired from overseas combat, and his thus there was no demand for his skills there.
The whole meme of the future President “avoiding” Viet Nam is based on the fact that he would not (and could not) volunteer for overseas duty when reporting for flight training, because it would have rather obviously conflicted with the flight training he HAD volunteered for.
It may comes as a surprise to the NPR staff, but in order for the Air Force to make the investment of nearly a million dollars to “make” a pilot, a young man had to commit to the going through the training! I might as well ask you, Scott, why you are sitting in a warm studio fulfilling your contract, instead of out on the cold streets comforting the homeless! By the same logic the media applies to Mr. Bush’s actions, this proves that you are a mean-spirited, greedy person!
George W. Bush qualified for that training by virtue of having a college degree, being in excellent health, and being willing to commit several years of his life to a role for which there were constant shortages. He did not jump to the front of any line: for what he was qualified to do, there was no line! Yes, there was a line for non-degreed enlistees wanting to be in the ANG, but in the officer positions required of pilot trainees, the ANG was begging for applicants. No doubt most of the recent Yale grads were out helping the poor.
Mr. Schorr is well aware of these facts, but slyly keeps re-playing the canard that Mr. Bush somehow exhibited cowardice and took advantage of family connections when he volunteered to undergo several years of full-time, dangerous as hell, flight training. I would wager that Mr. Schorr has never done anything half so brave – I know I haven’t – and it is about time he and NPR apologized for the knowing slander he is allowed to utter on your radio network nearly every week.
11 19 06
More Good Economic News
Here is some good news you won't find in the liberal press - it's news that shows the economy is in good shape working well. Bad news for the Democrat agenda of all bad news all the time.
Missing headlines
Quote: From the most recent report from the Congressional Budget Office:
1. Corporate income tax revenues almost doubled over the last two years, from $189 billion in 2004 to $354 billion in FY 2006.
2. Corporate income tax receipts rose by 27.2% from FY 2005 to FY 2006.
3. Individual income tax revenues increased by 12.6% in 2006 to more than $1 trillion, the highest level in US history.
4. The budget deficit, as a percent of GDP, fell to 1.9% in FY 2006, the lowest level in 4 years, and well below the average of 2.3% since 1965.”
Hat tip: Flares into Darkness
Clarice Feldman 11 20 06
Missing headlines
Quote: From the most recent report from the Congressional Budget Office:
1. Corporate income tax revenues almost doubled over the last two years, from $189 billion in 2004 to $354 billion in FY 2006.
2. Corporate income tax receipts rose by 27.2% from FY 2005 to FY 2006.
3. Individual income tax revenues increased by 12.6% in 2006 to more than $1 trillion, the highest level in US history.
4. The budget deficit, as a percent of GDP, fell to 1.9% in FY 2006, the lowest level in 4 years, and well below the average of 2.3% since 1965.”
Hat tip: Flares into Darkness
Clarice Feldman 11 20 06
Iraqis On the Offensive
This is very interesting - take a minute and find good news about Iraq -
Ramadi fights back
Something has been happening in Ramadi, a city described by the UK Times as fighting against becoming al Qaeda’s capital. Perhaps you missed this in your reading of the American media:
While the world’s attention has been focused on Baghdad’s slide into sectarian warfare, something remarkable has been happening in Ramadi, a city of 400,000 inhabitants that al-Qaeda and its Iraqi allies have controlled since mid-2004 and would like to make the capital of their cherished Islamic caliphate.
A power struggle has erupted: al-Qaeda’s reign of terror is being challenged. Sheikh Sittar and many of his fellow tribal leaders have cast their lot with the once-reviled US military. They are persuading hundreds of their followers to sign up for the previously defunct Iraqi police.
American troops are moving into a city that was, until recently, a virtual no-go area. A battle is raging for the allegiance of Ramadi’s battered and terrified citizens and the outcome could have far-reaching consequences.
Joseph Crowley 11 20 06
Ramadi fights back
Something has been happening in Ramadi, a city described by the UK Times as fighting against becoming al Qaeda’s capital. Perhaps you missed this in your reading of the American media:
While the world’s attention has been focused on Baghdad’s slide into sectarian warfare, something remarkable has been happening in Ramadi, a city of 400,000 inhabitants that al-Qaeda and its Iraqi allies have controlled since mid-2004 and would like to make the capital of their cherished Islamic caliphate.
A power struggle has erupted: al-Qaeda’s reign of terror is being challenged. Sheikh Sittar and many of his fellow tribal leaders have cast their lot with the once-reviled US military. They are persuading hundreds of their followers to sign up for the previously defunct Iraqi police.
American troops are moving into a city that was, until recently, a virtual no-go area. A battle is raging for the allegiance of Ramadi’s battered and terrified citizens and the outcome could have far-reaching consequences.
Joseph Crowley 11 20 06
Democrat Rangel - Nutjob
Isn't this just a kick - Rangel was the guy that introduced this bill back in '04 a few months before the election. When the Republicans called him on it and put the bill up for a vote, it was defeated 402 to 2, or there abouts. Rangel even voted against his own bill. He even went so far as to call other Democrats and asked them not to vote for it.
The Democrats can't help but reveal themselves as the two faced unethical thugs ever time they open their mouths.
Now he wants to do the same thing again. He was on a Sunday talk show expounding on the merits of the bill by saying it would end wars because the fat cats in the administration would have to put their own sons and daughters on the front lines instead of the poor and helpless members of our population.
The last time I looked, out military service is a voluntary organization. Nobody is forced to join any branch of the service. This is completely lost on Rangel. It is possible he didn't know this, or care for that matter. It isn't about the military anyway. And as he is a liberal, and as the liberals hate the military, it makes sense that they wouldn't pay any attention to it's actual operation.
But to go on national television and shoot his mouth off about wanting the draft to be reinstated for no other reason other then partisan politics is pure Democrat party agenda. Just think how this talk of a draft sits with all of the guys just coming out of high school - what a piece a work.
I still main maintain Democrats and liberals are not humans as most other people are. They are a subspecies that resembles the normal homo sapian - their gene make-up is different.
They have no god or morals. They are not innovative or compassionate. They only react to their environment as a means to gain power and crush their enemies.
This article is just the beginning - it's from NewsMax.
Charles Rangel Wants to Reinstate Draft
Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of
Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.
Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.
The Democrats can't help but reveal themselves as the two faced unethical thugs ever time they open their mouths.
Now he wants to do the same thing again. He was on a Sunday talk show expounding on the merits of the bill by saying it would end wars because the fat cats in the administration would have to put their own sons and daughters on the front lines instead of the poor and helpless members of our population.
The last time I looked, out military service is a voluntary organization. Nobody is forced to join any branch of the service. This is completely lost on Rangel. It is possible he didn't know this, or care for that matter. It isn't about the military anyway. And as he is a liberal, and as the liberals hate the military, it makes sense that they wouldn't pay any attention to it's actual operation.
But to go on national television and shoot his mouth off about wanting the draft to be reinstated for no other reason other then partisan politics is pure Democrat party agenda. Just think how this talk of a draft sits with all of the guys just coming out of high school - what a piece a work.
I still main maintain Democrats and liberals are not humans as most other people are. They are a subspecies that resembles the normal homo sapian - their gene make-up is different.
They have no god or morals. They are not innovative or compassionate. They only react to their environment as a means to gain power and crush their enemies.
This article is just the beginning - it's from NewsMax.
Charles Rangel Wants to Reinstate Draft
Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of
Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.
Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, has said the all-volunteer military disproportionately puts the burden of war on minorities and lower-income families.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
God's Country Revisited
Whoa! I'm back - two things have kept me on the run - the most important of these is another trip out to God's country, North Dakota, to see my dad, and the second is my computer went south on me.
After much cursing and stomping around, thinking of ways to hurt Bill Gates, I am up and running -
There is so much stuff I don't know where to begin - I have guests for tonight so I won't have anything until tomorrow, so hang in there with me - later
After much cursing and stomping around, thinking of ways to hurt Bill Gates, I am up and running -
There is so much stuff I don't know where to begin - I have guests for tonight so I won't have anything until tomorrow, so hang in there with me - later
Saturday, November 11, 2006
The US Economy Hurting? What? - Nah
Yesterday I wrote a piece on the media influence on the election. Today I find several bloggers of national standing talking about the same thing - maybe it's true - maybe I am on to something that might explain why we lost in such gigantic proportions. Can it be brain washing, media style?
I believe it's the reason people's ignorance on the economy so wide spread. How else could so many people decide that the economy is in such bad shape, or proclaim that social security is just fine in the face of a host of experts pronouncing it dead in twenty five years.
But for now, lets look at the economy for just a minute. How can so many people believe that with unemployment at 4.4 %, anything under 5% is full employment, real sustained growth at nearly 3%, consumer confidence for the year at or over 120, the deficit cut in half four years ahead of schedule, capital expenditures at or above 2004 levels, tax receivables 24% ahead of last year, that's 214 billion more in the treasury and that's in the face of Katrina and the Iraq war, graduate hiring out of collage is at an all time high running 11% ahead of two years ago. There's more good news but this will suffice for now.
So where is the problem? Do you think that the voting public is stupid or just misinformed? I believe a majority of them have no idea what the economy is doing or why. All they know is what the read in the newspapers or watch on television. Any wonder they are convinced the economy is hurting.
It's not just about conservative valves being abandoned, maybe a little, but what it's really about is doing some critical thinking on what you read and hear. Do you think the majority of the voting public believes everything they get in the newspapers or watch on TV?. Apparently.
The real question is then has the general public asked themselves the all important question, " am I better off today then I was six years ago?" Obviously they didn't connect the dots or they don't have the tools mentally to make a decision one way or other. With all the good news that's out there for the taking, all they know is bad news or no news at all.
It apparently is much easier to let some one else do the thinking. This is where the media comes into play. They are always willing to take you down the old garden path and drop into that big dark hole of called ignorance. Misinformation is their stock and trade.
I believe it's the reason people's ignorance on the economy so wide spread. How else could so many people decide that the economy is in such bad shape, or proclaim that social security is just fine in the face of a host of experts pronouncing it dead in twenty five years.
But for now, lets look at the economy for just a minute. How can so many people believe that with unemployment at 4.4 %, anything under 5% is full employment, real sustained growth at nearly 3%, consumer confidence for the year at or over 120, the deficit cut in half four years ahead of schedule, capital expenditures at or above 2004 levels, tax receivables 24% ahead of last year, that's 214 billion more in the treasury and that's in the face of Katrina and the Iraq war, graduate hiring out of collage is at an all time high running 11% ahead of two years ago. There's more good news but this will suffice for now.
So where is the problem? Do you think that the voting public is stupid or just misinformed? I believe a majority of them have no idea what the economy is doing or why. All they know is what the read in the newspapers or watch on television. Any wonder they are convinced the economy is hurting.
It's not just about conservative valves being abandoned, maybe a little, but what it's really about is doing some critical thinking on what you read and hear. Do you think the majority of the voting public believes everything they get in the newspapers or watch on TV?. Apparently.
The real question is then has the general public asked themselves the all important question, " am I better off today then I was six years ago?" Obviously they didn't connect the dots or they don't have the tools mentally to make a decision one way or other. With all the good news that's out there for the taking, all they know is bad news or no news at all.
It apparently is much easier to let some one else do the thinking. This is where the media comes into play. They are always willing to take you down the old garden path and drop into that big dark hole of called ignorance. Misinformation is their stock and trade.
Snow - Already?
Is this Saturday already? How time flies. We got our first snow storm last night. It was much, about two inches but it was wet and now, this morning, it is frozen to everything. The weather man says the sun will be out sometime today to help remove the white stuff from the sagging trees and roads.
My wife called me on her cell phone last night from points north on the interstate indicating she was involved in a blizzard. This mornings report from her told of 6 inches of the wet stuff, and further north, up to 12 inches of the white menace. Goodness this is an early development even for Wisconsin.
There have been years that I have ridden my mountain bike in the woods as late as thanksgiving and the temperatures were in the sixties.
I believe this is just an early warning sign of a hard winter. I also believe we will have some good weather before the bad stuff will be here to stay. I think it's called Indian summer. With any luck, it will come soon as I have a ton of work to do outside to prepare for the onslaught of the cold.
My wife called me on her cell phone last night from points north on the interstate indicating she was involved in a blizzard. This mornings report from her told of 6 inches of the wet stuff, and further north, up to 12 inches of the white menace. Goodness this is an early development even for Wisconsin.
There have been years that I have ridden my mountain bike in the woods as late as thanksgiving and the temperatures were in the sixties.
I believe this is just an early warning sign of a hard winter. I also believe we will have some good weather before the bad stuff will be here to stay. I think it's called Indian summer. With any luck, it will come soon as I have a ton of work to do outside to prepare for the onslaught of the cold.
Friday, November 10, 2006
What Happened Part 2
I am still trying to come to grips with the over-whelming rout that happened on November 7. The question that I can not understand is why so many people thought the Democrats could do a better job on national security, the economy, immigration, health care, social security reform and just about any other program nationally.
A poll, such as it is, indicated that a majority of voters gave these reasons for their voting for the liberals. How can this be? How can the general public be so far off base? How can the voting public be so ill-informed? What did they use as a source of information to form their opinions?
It is becoming clear that for the last six years the drive-by media's constant bombardment of misinformation and out right lies has taken a fierce toll on this country. The general public had no idea what they were doing when they voted? Let's take a quick peak at just one aspect of this election.
If it was the Republicans lack of conservative agenda and party unity, as so many champions of hind sight seem to think, why was the defeat so wide spread? The loses were everywhere. Nation wide. Could it be that Bush and all the Republicans were so bad that they all needed to be thrown out? Whole states were turned over, both houses in one massive hit.
Democrats had no agenda at all except to get Bush or maybe just an agenda driven by hate. Was that enough for the voting public to vote Democrat? I can't believe this was the driving force in the voters minds.
I have to keep after this just for my own well being - I want to believe there is some reason for this slaughter other than just plain ignorance.
Well, tomorrow I want to look at some other aspects of this holocaust like the war, the economy, immigration and others as the days unfold after this nightmare for our country unfolds.
Just think how all of these factors can be changed by misinformation - ponder this for a while - and then say hmmmm.
One example just today, Harry Reid is already talking about congressional oversight for everything the President does and has done. The Democrats are hate driven and they are out for blood - the country be damned.
A poll, such as it is, indicated that a majority of voters gave these reasons for their voting for the liberals. How can this be? How can the general public be so far off base? How can the voting public be so ill-informed? What did they use as a source of information to form their opinions?
It is becoming clear that for the last six years the drive-by media's constant bombardment of misinformation and out right lies has taken a fierce toll on this country. The general public had no idea what they were doing when they voted? Let's take a quick peak at just one aspect of this election.
If it was the Republicans lack of conservative agenda and party unity, as so many champions of hind sight seem to think, why was the defeat so wide spread? The loses were everywhere. Nation wide. Could it be that Bush and all the Republicans were so bad that they all needed to be thrown out? Whole states were turned over, both houses in one massive hit.
Democrats had no agenda at all except to get Bush or maybe just an agenda driven by hate. Was that enough for the voting public to vote Democrat? I can't believe this was the driving force in the voters minds.
I have to keep after this just for my own well being - I want to believe there is some reason for this slaughter other than just plain ignorance.
Well, tomorrow I want to look at some other aspects of this holocaust like the war, the economy, immigration and others as the days unfold after this nightmare for our country unfolds.
Just think how all of these factors can be changed by misinformation - ponder this for a while - and then say hmmmm.
One example just today, Harry Reid is already talking about congressional oversight for everything the President does and has done. The Democrats are hate driven and they are out for blood - the country be damned.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
What Went Wrong?
I have been looking for a good reason why the Republicans took such a hit last Tuesday. I find it extremely hard to convince myself that it was just a midterm thing or that the Democrats are just plain better than the conservatives as leaders or law makers. That's nonsense.
Never the less, I still can't put my finger on the reason for such a complete rout. It can't be the war in Iraq or the economy or immigration by themselves. Maybe it's a combination of a bunch of things.
The media certainly had a hand in presenting a false picture of what the Republicans were trying to accomplish, and of course, as an example, the security leaks in the New York Times was directed right at the Republicans and the President. What are we suppose to believe? The media doesn't lie, right?
As I have mention previously, voting for the Democrats was like allowing terrorist into your home. On Tuesday, the voters decided the terrorist aren't so bad after all - - - hmmmm - - nah - but then again - - the Democrats are set to control our lives.
This article comes as close to a sane rationalization for the defeat as any I have read. Everyone seems to have such good hide sight, but this article provides, I believe, a good foundation of what Republicans did or didn't do, and how we have to proceed in the future.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=6022
Never the less, I still can't put my finger on the reason for such a complete rout. It can't be the war in Iraq or the economy or immigration by themselves. Maybe it's a combination of a bunch of things.
The media certainly had a hand in presenting a false picture of what the Republicans were trying to accomplish, and of course, as an example, the security leaks in the New York Times was directed right at the Republicans and the President. What are we suppose to believe? The media doesn't lie, right?
Did it matter that this disinformation has been going on for six years - a constant flow of false and misleading information by almost every news outlet in the country? Certainly a factor.
Even so, I still don't know what happened to cause so many people to lose their common sense and it's driving me up the wall.As I have mention previously, voting for the Democrats was like allowing terrorist into your home. On Tuesday, the voters decided the terrorist aren't so bad after all - - - hmmmm - - nah - but then again - - the Democrats are set to control our lives.
This article comes as close to a sane rationalization for the defeat as any I have read. Everyone seems to have such good hide sight, but this article provides, I believe, a good foundation of what Republicans did or didn't do, and how we have to proceed in the future.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=6022
Liberals Block Bolton Appointment
It didn't take long for the liberals to start blocking the President's appointees. John Bolton is just what the curpt UN needs, but as we all know, the liberal Democrats love the UN just the way it is, curpt. What does this say about the liberals that now control congress? Hey, these guys won't even be sworn in until January and they still block anything that the President wants.
This is just the beginning -
(This article is from NewsMax)
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, will likely leave his post next month. After a rocky series of Senate confirmation hearings, Bolton was sent to the U.N. by President Bush in August 2005 under a recess appointment. That allowed the president to bypass Senate confirmation while it was in recess, but the appointee could only serve for the length of the current Congress which is set to expire at year's end.
There had been indications that Bolton might win Senate confirmation after the election when several key votes might be open to favoring Bolton. But the GOP's apparent loss of the Senate has doomed that hope. "This nomination is dead and we have known it for several days," a source close to the U.S. mission to the U.N. tells NewsMax. "We just don't know what the White House wants to do next," the source added.
Bolton has won high marks for his role at the U.N. as he has dealt with several crises, especially with North Korea, Iran, and the recent crisis between Israel and Lebanon. President Bush has strongly supported Bolton and has repeatedly called upon the Senate committee to allow the nomination to go to the full Senate for an "up and down vote."
Senate Democrats again blocked such a vote Wednesday evening.
Bolton has been one of the administration's few high-ranking conservatives.
During Bush's first term, Bolton served as under secretary of state for arms control and international security. At that post he aggressively pursued rogue state's like Iran who have been developing weapons of mass destruction.
Bolton has been credited in getting Libya to agree to dismantle its WMD program. Bolton's principled and sometimes confrontational approach has not won support from many congressional Democrats. "The Bolton nomination will not get voted on," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reportedly has told colleagues. Another leading Democrat, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., a long-time Bolton nemesis, seconded Reid's position on Wednesday. Biden is expected to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the new Congress convenes in January.
While Bolton's office in New York has not commented on developments, NewsMax has learned that the White House is considering reappointing Bolton under the same recess appointment provision. There is a hiccup: Bolton would be forced to serve without pay, an unlikely alternative sources say. Among those believed to be on a
White House short list to replace Bolton is former Senate majority leader and prominent Maine Democrat George Mitchell.
This is just the beginning -
(This article is from NewsMax)
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, will likely leave his post next month. After a rocky series of Senate confirmation hearings, Bolton was sent to the U.N. by President Bush in August 2005 under a recess appointment. That allowed the president to bypass Senate confirmation while it was in recess, but the appointee could only serve for the length of the current Congress which is set to expire at year's end.
There had been indications that Bolton might win Senate confirmation after the election when several key votes might be open to favoring Bolton. But the GOP's apparent loss of the Senate has doomed that hope. "This nomination is dead and we have known it for several days," a source close to the U.S. mission to the U.N. tells NewsMax. "We just don't know what the White House wants to do next," the source added.
Bolton has won high marks for his role at the U.N. as he has dealt with several crises, especially with North Korea, Iran, and the recent crisis between Israel and Lebanon. President Bush has strongly supported Bolton and has repeatedly called upon the Senate committee to allow the nomination to go to the full Senate for an "up and down vote."
Senate Democrats again blocked such a vote Wednesday evening.
Bolton has been one of the administration's few high-ranking conservatives.
During Bush's first term, Bolton served as under secretary of state for arms control and international security. At that post he aggressively pursued rogue state's like Iran who have been developing weapons of mass destruction.
Bolton has been credited in getting Libya to agree to dismantle its WMD program. Bolton's principled and sometimes confrontational approach has not won support from many congressional Democrats. "The Bolton nomination will not get voted on," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reportedly has told colleagues. Another leading Democrat, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., a long-time Bolton nemesis, seconded Reid's position on Wednesday. Biden is expected to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when the new Congress convenes in January.
While Bolton's office in New York has not commented on developments, NewsMax has learned that the White House is considering reappointing Bolton under the same recess appointment provision. There is a hiccup: Bolton would be forced to serve without pay, an unlikely alternative sources say. Among those believed to be on a
White House short list to replace Bolton is former Senate majority leader and prominent Maine Democrat George Mitchell.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Nancy Pelosi Unvailed - Again
Well here is a thumb nail of our glorious new leader of the House of Reps - you who voted the Democrats in should be happy with her back ground - we know the terrorists are.
The ‘Real' Speaker Pelosi
The Democrats will soon control the House of Representatives and San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi is set to become speaker, one of the most powerful constitutional offices in the United States. Do you really know Nancy Pelosi? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich does. He has warned that a Democratic victory will turn the House over to "the San Francisco values of would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi." Just how dangerous, then, is the House minority leader from California to those who hold to traditional conservative values?
Pelosi is one of the most liberal members of the House, receiving a 95 percent "liberal quotient" from the Americans for Democratic Action based on her support for the liberal position in key votes.
She voted against cutting taxes by $70 million, against renewing the Patriot Act, against reducing the death tax, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and against making it a crime to desecrate the U.S. flag. She supports gay marriage, and backed legislation allowing overseas military facilities to provide abortions for women in the military and military dependents. The would-be speaker also backed a measure calling for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, supported a bill requiring a 72-hour background check for persons buying weapons at gun shows — and opposed a bill strengthening the enforcement of immigration laws.
But a look behind the scenes exposes Pelosi as a Democratic leader who passionately fights for liberal policies, yet goes to great lengths to avoid applying those policies in her personal life. Best-selling author Peter Schweizer's book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" first revealed the glaring contradictions between
Pelosi and other prominent liberals' public stances and their real-life behavior. Pelosi claims to be a staunch union supporter, and, along with her husband, has received the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers Union, notes Schweizer. Unions are, in her words, "fighting for America's working families" and battling "the union-busting, family-hurting" Bush administration. But Schweizer uncovered that a $25 million Northern California vineyard the Pelosis own is a non-union shop! Pelosi's hypocrisy doesn't stop there. The congresswoman is the top recipient among members of Congress in campaign contributions from labor unions, and has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union than any other member of Congress in the last several election cycles. But in addition to the wine business, the Pelosis own a large stake in the exclusive Auberge du Soleil hotel in Rutherford, Calif. The hotel has more than 250 employees; but once again, Schweizer found, it is strictly a non-union shop.
The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees. "But a union card is not required to work there bussing tables, washing dishes, serving guests, or preparing food," Schweizer wrote in NewsMax Magazine. "As with Auberge du Soleil, at Piatti the Pelosis' commitment to organized labor ends at the front door." Pelosi has also demonstrated hypocrisy on the environment. "With us," she proclaims, "the environment is not an issue — it's an ethic. It's a value." That's what she says. Schweizer exposed what she does:
One of her largest investments is a private partnership called Lions Gate Limited, which operates the CordeValle Golf Club and Resort in San Martin, Calif. To get a permit to build the facility, the partners promised to build a "public course" providing considerable access to non-members, and to abide by several environmental requirements to ensure that there would be minimal ecological damage. But after the facility opened, the county's Planning Commission found that the golf course was in fact private — and the club had "ignored" many of its permit requirements concerning the environment! "The reality is that liberals like to preach in moral platitudes," says Schweizer. "But when it comes to applying those same standards to themselves, liberals are found to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy." Editor's note: Find out about the hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, John Kerry, and others. Go Here Now!
Now we all have to live with the results of the ingnorance and stupity of the voting public -
The ‘Real' Speaker Pelosi
The Democrats will soon control the House of Representatives and San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi is set to become speaker, one of the most powerful constitutional offices in the United States. Do you really know Nancy Pelosi? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich does. He has warned that a Democratic victory will turn the House over to "the San Francisco values of would-be Speaker Nancy Pelosi." Just how dangerous, then, is the House minority leader from California to those who hold to traditional conservative values?
Pelosi is one of the most liberal members of the House, receiving a 95 percent "liberal quotient" from the Americans for Democratic Action based on her support for the liberal position in key votes.
She voted against cutting taxes by $70 million, against renewing the Patriot Act, against reducing the death tax, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and against making it a crime to desecrate the U.S. flag. She supports gay marriage, and backed legislation allowing overseas military facilities to provide abortions for women in the military and military dependents. The would-be speaker also backed a measure calling for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, supported a bill requiring a 72-hour background check for persons buying weapons at gun shows — and opposed a bill strengthening the enforcement of immigration laws.
But a look behind the scenes exposes Pelosi as a Democratic leader who passionately fights for liberal policies, yet goes to great lengths to avoid applying those policies in her personal life. Best-selling author Peter Schweizer's book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" first revealed the glaring contradictions between
Pelosi and other prominent liberals' public stances and their real-life behavior. Pelosi claims to be a staunch union supporter, and, along with her husband, has received the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers Union, notes Schweizer. Unions are, in her words, "fighting for America's working families" and battling "the union-busting, family-hurting" Bush administration. But Schweizer uncovered that a $25 million Northern California vineyard the Pelosis own is a non-union shop! Pelosi's hypocrisy doesn't stop there. The congresswoman is the top recipient among members of Congress in campaign contributions from labor unions, and has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union than any other member of Congress in the last several election cycles. But in addition to the wine business, the Pelosis own a large stake in the exclusive Auberge du Soleil hotel in Rutherford, Calif. The hotel has more than 250 employees; but once again, Schweizer found, it is strictly a non-union shop.
The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees. "But a union card is not required to work there bussing tables, washing dishes, serving guests, or preparing food," Schweizer wrote in NewsMax Magazine. "As with Auberge du Soleil, at Piatti the Pelosis' commitment to organized labor ends at the front door." Pelosi has also demonstrated hypocrisy on the environment. "With us," she proclaims, "the environment is not an issue — it's an ethic. It's a value." That's what she says. Schweizer exposed what she does:
One of her largest investments is a private partnership called Lions Gate Limited, which operates the CordeValle Golf Club and Resort in San Martin, Calif. To get a permit to build the facility, the partners promised to build a "public course" providing considerable access to non-members, and to abide by several environmental requirements to ensure that there would be minimal ecological damage. But after the facility opened, the county's Planning Commission found that the golf course was in fact private — and the club had "ignored" many of its permit requirements concerning the environment! "The reality is that liberals like to preach in moral platitudes," says Schweizer. "But when it comes to applying those same standards to themselves, liberals are found to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy." Editor's note: Find out about the hypocrisy of Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, John Kerry, and others. Go Here Now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
