Again, criminals and Democrats, if you are looking for a good scam artist, look no further than Harry Reid - a Democrat, of course. If it were a Republican that was involved in this scam, the media would be on it every day for weeks until everyone was convinced he is guilty, even if he wasn't. And then, of course, according to the rules of the Republican Party, he would have to resign if found to be compromised in any way.
This is way the Democrat party is loaded with criminals.
Harry, on the other hand, will get a pass by everyone because of the political stakes involved. The power in the senate would change back to the Republicans and we can't have that.
Hey, William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana got a pass even when he was caught on tape - it didn't matter. He was reelected and is back in Washington - and Harry Reid won't get a pass - pleeeeease.
Questions Surround Reid Land Deal (NewsMax)
New Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bought undeveloped land in Arizona far below its assessed value, then introduced legislation that could have aided the seller of the property.
Revelations about the land deal follow last year’s reports that Reid, a Nevada Democrat, had collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn’t personally owned the property for three years.
In the newly disclosed land deal – uncovered during an investigation by the Los Angeles Times – Reid paid $10,000 to gain control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City, Ariz., in 2002.
Story Continues Below
The money was paid to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Los Vegas lubricants distributor and Reid’s friend for 50 years. The deal gave Reid – who had already owned a five-eighths interest in the property, equivalent to 120 of the 160 acres – full control of the parcel.
The purchase price for the remaining three-eighths, or 60 acres, breaks down to just $166 an acre, less than one-tenth of the value an assessor had placed on it at the time, according to the Times.
Six months after the deal closed, Reid introduced legislation that sought to protect lubricants distributors from abrupt cancellations by their suppliers.
The Haycock family had lost business in 1994 when Mobil Oil Co. canceled the family’s distributorship of lubricants.
The Times noted: "It is a potential violation of congressional ethics for a member to accept anything of value – including a real estate discount – from a person with interests before Congress.”
But Reid’s spokesman, Jon Summers, insisted that the transaction was not a gift and the Senator paid a fair price for the pension fund’s minority interest.
And Clair Haycock told the Times that Reid "has never taken any official action to provide personal financial benefit to me, and I would never have asked him to.”
Nevertheless, Prof. Crocker H. Liu, chair of real estate at Arizona State’s University W.P. Carey School of Business, told the Times that the price Reid paid to gain control of the parcel "strikes me as low. But I don’t know what other considerations – valuable or otherwise – were part of this transaction. Usually when a purchase price is that low, there is other juice in the deal.”
Footnote: Since taking full control of the property, Reid has urged federal funding for a new bridge over the Colorado River – a few miles from his Arizona property.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
John Kerry Walks a Crooked Path
Did you hear what John Kerry had to say about the United States when he was giving a speech in Switzerland? (I think it was Switzerland) No matter, the point is he said horrible things about this country's government and her people.
Much like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter before him, John Kerry had no problem using America as a political football for personal gain - if what he says causes Americans to die, he feels that the means justifies the ends. There is no sacrifice to large for others to suffer for the greater cause in the pursuit of political gain for John Kerry.
Why is it that you never hear a Republican, a conservative, say such things about our country, not ever!!!??? What is it that makes these two factions so different?
Maybe we have to examine more closely what exactly is the definition of a Marxist socialist? What is the definition of a traitor?
Someone once said, "Integrity, when once compromised, is gone forever and is not replaceable" knew the true meaning of citizenship, of honor, of pride and, not least among these, common sense.
The Bible says in Proverbs 10: 9 "The man of integrity walks securely, but he who takes crooked paths will be found out." It isn't difficult to determine who has taken the crooked path and has been found out.
Much like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter before him, John Kerry had no problem using America as a political football for personal gain - if what he says causes Americans to die, he feels that the means justifies the ends. There is no sacrifice to large for others to suffer for the greater cause in the pursuit of political gain for John Kerry.
Why is it that you never hear a Republican, a conservative, say such things about our country, not ever!!!??? What is it that makes these two factions so different?
Maybe we have to examine more closely what exactly is the definition of a Marxist socialist? What is the definition of a traitor?
Someone once said, "Integrity, when once compromised, is gone forever and is not replaceable" knew the true meaning of citizenship, of honor, of pride and, not least among these, common sense.
The Bible says in Proverbs 10: 9 "The man of integrity walks securely, but he who takes crooked paths will be found out." It isn't difficult to determine who has taken the crooked path and has been found out.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Is California A Sink Hole for Waste?
This is a good story from the nightmare that is California - we need a fence around that hell hole as well as our souther boarder.
CALIFORNIA: THE END OF THE WORLD
Take the time to read this, it's worth it..... Makes you think !!
This should make everyone think, be you Democrat or Republican or Independent,,,,,From a California school teacher - - -"As you listen to the news aboutthe student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:"I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a
large Southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels.Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens,
Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.One hundred percent of the students in this school and other Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program.
When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll --
but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits andjuices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight.About 75% or more DO have cell phones.
The school also provides day care centers for theunwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids.(OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for
anything; my budget was already substantial.
I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative
students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education
in America.
(OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hellwith the female teachers, calling them "Putas", whores, and throwing things that the teachers were in tears.Free medical, free education, free food, day care etc., etc., etc.
Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?Our congress has helped to sell-out this country with this pro-illegal policy.To my friends who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they
LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to payless for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases etc., etc, etc.For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.We need to wake up.
The guest worker program will be a disaster because we won't have the guts to enforce it.Does anyone in their right mind really think they will voluntarily leave and return?There are many hardworking Hispanic/American citizens that contribute to our country and many that I consider my true friends
We should encourage and accept those Hispanics who have doneit the right and legal way.It does, however, have everything to do with culture: A third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnantand dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate,
and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about "politically correct" that we don't have the will to doanything about it.
CALIFORNIA: THE END OF THE WORLD
Take the time to read this, it's worth it..... Makes you think !!
This should make everyone think, be you Democrat or Republican or Independent,,,,,From a California school teacher - - -"As you listen to the news aboutthe student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:"I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a
large Southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels.Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens,
Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.One hundred percent of the students in this school and other Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program.
When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking a glass of milk and roll --
but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits andjuices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight.About 75% or more DO have cell phones.
The school also provides day care centers for theunwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids.(OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for
anything; my budget was already substantial.
I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative
students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education
in America.
(OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less then 3 months who raised so much hellwith the female teachers, calling them "Putas", whores, and throwing things that the teachers were in tears.Free medical, free education, free food, day care etc., etc., etc.
Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?Our congress has helped to sell-out this country with this pro-illegal policy.To my friends who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they
LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to payless for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs.Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases etc., etc, etc.For me, I'll pay more for tomatoes.We need to wake up.
The guest worker program will be a disaster because we won't have the guts to enforce it.Does anyone in their right mind really think they will voluntarily leave and return?There are many hardworking Hispanic/American citizens that contribute to our country and many that I consider my true friends
We should encourage and accept those Hispanics who have doneit the right and legal way.It does, however, have everything to do with culture: A third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnantand dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate,
and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about "politically correct" that we don't have the will to doanything about it.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Chavez in Trouble: Jimmy Carter Not Happy
I knew it would only be a matter of time before this communist would begin his spiral into oblivion - except now the terrorist community will try and take the country away from him to continue it's conversion to a totalitarian state.
It appears Jimmy Carter will do what ever he can to make sure that happens if Chavez is forced out - liberal Democrats will get behind the push as well to ensure Venezuela's total collapse and conversion to communism - having a communist state in our back yard will help the Democrats in their quest to convert America to a socialist nightmare.
- -time will tell.
(this if from Newmax)
Expert: Chavez’s Venezuela Headed for ‘Collapse’
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is steering his oil-rich country toward an almost inevitable economic collapse.
That’s the warning from Richard W. Rahn, director general of the Center for Global Economic Growth, a project of the FreedomWorks Foundation. “What has not been reported is the full extent of the corruption in Venezuela and how this ultimately will destroy the economy,”
Rahn writes in a commentary that appeared in The Washington Times. “Venezuela has had a rapidly growing economy for the last few years, due to high oil prices, but the house of cards is about to collapse.” Chavez was first elected president on an anti-corruption platform. But he has been steadily dismantling independent political institutions and is taking control of the oil, telecommunications, and energy sectors as well as the media.
He has also misappropriated much of the Central Bank’s reserves, according to Rahn, who reports that since 2004, the Bank has transferred about $22.5 billion to accounts abroad — and about $12 billion of that remains unaccounted for. Chavez’s government has used the nation’s wealth to buy foreign political influence and loyalties in Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and other countries; and to buy weapons from Russia, Spain, and elsewhere.
The money has also gone to local cronies for inflated economic development projects and to buy the loyalty of government officials, according to Rahn, who writes in the article reprinted in Petroleumworld:
“The Venezuelan economy will collapse, despite massive oil revenues, because we know socialist economies perform poorly . . . “Venezuela no longer has an independent central bank, and inflation is already up to 17 percent and rapidly rising . . . “Venezuelans will be increasingly squeezed, and you can bet the blood from the innocent Venezuelan people will be drained long before those on the take from Mr. Chavez agree to have their looting stopped.”
It appears Jimmy Carter will do what ever he can to make sure that happens if Chavez is forced out - liberal Democrats will get behind the push as well to ensure Venezuela's total collapse and conversion to communism - having a communist state in our back yard will help the Democrats in their quest to convert America to a socialist nightmare.
- -time will tell.
(this if from Newmax)
Expert: Chavez’s Venezuela Headed for ‘Collapse’
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is steering his oil-rich country toward an almost inevitable economic collapse.
That’s the warning from Richard W. Rahn, director general of the Center for Global Economic Growth, a project of the FreedomWorks Foundation. “What has not been reported is the full extent of the corruption in Venezuela and how this ultimately will destroy the economy,”
Rahn writes in a commentary that appeared in The Washington Times. “Venezuela has had a rapidly growing economy for the last few years, due to high oil prices, but the house of cards is about to collapse.” Chavez was first elected president on an anti-corruption platform. But he has been steadily dismantling independent political institutions and is taking control of the oil, telecommunications, and energy sectors as well as the media.
He has also misappropriated much of the Central Bank’s reserves, according to Rahn, who reports that since 2004, the Bank has transferred about $22.5 billion to accounts abroad — and about $12 billion of that remains unaccounted for. Chavez’s government has used the nation’s wealth to buy foreign political influence and loyalties in Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and other countries; and to buy weapons from Russia, Spain, and elsewhere.
The money has also gone to local cronies for inflated economic development projects and to buy the loyalty of government officials, according to Rahn, who writes in the article reprinted in Petroleumworld:
“The Venezuelan economy will collapse, despite massive oil revenues, because we know socialist economies perform poorly . . . “Venezuela no longer has an independent central bank, and inflation is already up to 17 percent and rapidly rising . . . “Venezuelans will be increasingly squeezed, and you can bet the blood from the innocent Venezuelan people will be drained long before those on the take from Mr. Chavez agree to have their looting stopped.”
Friday, January 26, 2007
I Have Broad Band - Finally
After many months of deliberation, I have finally gotten on the satellite program - I live in the country where DSL or cable is not available.
- this program is expensive but so much better than dial-up -
- this program is expensive but so much better than dial-up -
Monday, January 22, 2007
Associated Press Associated with Terrorists
I have always believed that our media is part of the terrorist net work world wide. The main stream press has always been willing to sell it's bottom line to anyone that is will to help destroy America. We see it every day of the week - The MSM is operated for the sole purpose to destroy freedom in the west.
If the middle east terrorists are to succeed, they must convince the west that to fight them is futile. The west must be isolated in this corner of the world until all other countries have been defeated. Then it will be our turn to bend the knee to the Muslim world.
We have millions in this country that are willing to do just that even now. Proof? Look how many people voted for the liberals.
How the AP helped stoke civil war in Iraq
James Lewis
The Associated Press is among the large news organizations whose reporting in Iraq has been challenged by bloggers. Beyond the specifics of any one incident, a certain pattern and practice of news gathering has made for systematic bias. The end result is propaganda.
Michelle Malkin has a new report on the "Jamil Hussein" fiasco at the Associated Press. "Jamil Hussein" is the alleged Iraqi Police captain who has been cited 61 times by AP, recently as a source for an atrocity story that now looks mighty dubious.
What has been lost in the debate about "Who is Jamil Hussein?" is the substance of his Iraqi atrocity stories peddled by the AP. The most recent ones have been denied by the US military, which has much better sources than the Associated Press. They have also not been confirmed by other news outlets. Whether "Jamil Hussein" was a cover name, an AP fabrication, or a real person is not as important as the content of his apparent disinformation. What was the purpose of the lie about six Iraqis being deliberately burned to death by terrorists?
What about the other 60 AP stories that cited "Hussein"? How many lent credibility to other atrocity tales?
Two hypotheses spring to mind. One is that "Jamil Hussein" was benefiting from being an AP source. He was smart enough to know that AP wanted horror stories, and that's what he gave them. Maybe he was paid. Maybe he liked instant fame. But 61 citations as an AP source suggests an ongoing relationship, one with a clear and sustained purpose.
A more sinister interpretation is that "Jamil Hussein" was a political plant, whose primary goal was to feed atrocity stories to the AP. He could be an Iranian plant in the Iraqi Police, which is heavily infiltrated by Mahdi Army killers who are paid by Iran. They were the ones who shouted "Muqtada Al Sadr!" when Saddam Hussein was hanged. An Iranian mole's purpose would be to stir up civil war, and at the same time to provide more "evidence" for the American Leftist news narrative that Iraq is a hopeless mess.
So "Jamil Hussein's" disinformation could have served two goals.
One: to worsen ethnic warfare in Iraq, and
T
wo: to demoralize the American home front.
Objectively, AP has clearly served both purposes in the past and continues to do so today, whatever one believes about motive or lack thereof. This is its obsessive story line, and "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" would be seeding prepared ground. That's straight disinformation practice. Always tell the newsies what they want to hear.
Our Organs of Propaganda --- AKA the "news media" --- know perfectly well that most of their sources have an axe to grind. When Saddam Hussein was still in power he arm-twisted the Western media for favorable coverage, as we now know from former CNN executive Eason Jordan. The same thing happens every day with other terror regimes like Hamas, Fatah and Hizb'allah, where the media trade access for favorable coverage. That is unbelievably cynical, profoundly corrupt and massively destructive, but it has been routine at least since Stalin's time. That is why we have Organs of Propaganda, in Karl Marx's phrase, and not honest news sources.
In this case, the defeatist narrative makes the Western media into propaganda tools for Ahmadinejad, Al Qaida, and the Baath fascists in Iraq.
That is the real take-home lesson about the lies peddled by the Associated Press in the name of "Jamil Hussein." If full-scale civil war breaks out in Iraq, and if the Democrats force a military withdrawal after the next election, this kind of disinformation will have accomplished its aim.
The propaganda war is the real war.
James Lewis is a nom de plume of a frequent contributor. http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/
If the middle east terrorists are to succeed, they must convince the west that to fight them is futile. The west must be isolated in this corner of the world until all other countries have been defeated. Then it will be our turn to bend the knee to the Muslim world.
We have millions in this country that are willing to do just that even now. Proof? Look how many people voted for the liberals.
How the AP helped stoke civil war in Iraq
James Lewis
The Associated Press is among the large news organizations whose reporting in Iraq has been challenged by bloggers. Beyond the specifics of any one incident, a certain pattern and practice of news gathering has made for systematic bias. The end result is propaganda.
Michelle Malkin has a new report on the "Jamil Hussein" fiasco at the Associated Press. "Jamil Hussein" is the alleged Iraqi Police captain who has been cited 61 times by AP, recently as a source for an atrocity story that now looks mighty dubious.
What has been lost in the debate about "Who is Jamil Hussein?" is the substance of his Iraqi atrocity stories peddled by the AP. The most recent ones have been denied by the US military, which has much better sources than the Associated Press. They have also not been confirmed by other news outlets. Whether "Jamil Hussein" was a cover name, an AP fabrication, or a real person is not as important as the content of his apparent disinformation. What was the purpose of the lie about six Iraqis being deliberately burned to death by terrorists?
What about the other 60 AP stories that cited "Hussein"? How many lent credibility to other atrocity tales?
Two hypotheses spring to mind. One is that "Jamil Hussein" was benefiting from being an AP source. He was smart enough to know that AP wanted horror stories, and that's what he gave them. Maybe he was paid. Maybe he liked instant fame. But 61 citations as an AP source suggests an ongoing relationship, one with a clear and sustained purpose.
A more sinister interpretation is that "Jamil Hussein" was a political plant, whose primary goal was to feed atrocity stories to the AP. He could be an Iranian plant in the Iraqi Police, which is heavily infiltrated by Mahdi Army killers who are paid by Iran. They were the ones who shouted "Muqtada Al Sadr!" when Saddam Hussein was hanged. An Iranian mole's purpose would be to stir up civil war, and at the same time to provide more "evidence" for the American Leftist news narrative that Iraq is a hopeless mess.
So "Jamil Hussein's" disinformation could have served two goals.
One: to worsen ethnic warfare in Iraq, and
T
wo: to demoralize the American home front.
Objectively, AP has clearly served both purposes in the past and continues to do so today, whatever one believes about motive or lack thereof. This is its obsessive story line, and "Police Captain Jamil Hussein" would be seeding prepared ground. That's straight disinformation practice. Always tell the newsies what they want to hear.
Our Organs of Propaganda --- AKA the "news media" --- know perfectly well that most of their sources have an axe to grind. When Saddam Hussein was still in power he arm-twisted the Western media for favorable coverage, as we now know from former CNN executive Eason Jordan. The same thing happens every day with other terror regimes like Hamas, Fatah and Hizb'allah, where the media trade access for favorable coverage. That is unbelievably cynical, profoundly corrupt and massively destructive, but it has been routine at least since Stalin's time. That is why we have Organs of Propaganda, in Karl Marx's phrase, and not honest news sources.
In this case, the defeatist narrative makes the Western media into propaganda tools for Ahmadinejad, Al Qaida, and the Baath fascists in Iraq.
That is the real take-home lesson about the lies peddled by the Associated Press in the name of "Jamil Hussein." If full-scale civil war breaks out in Iraq, and if the Democrats force a military withdrawal after the next election, this kind of disinformation will have accomplished its aim.
The propaganda war is the real war.
James Lewis is a nom de plume of a frequent contributor. http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/
Zeros are Zeros - No Spin Here
No matter how you add them up, a bunch of zeros is equal to zero - the new liberal Democratic party that was going to set the world on fire can't seem to get even a spark going - their agenda is to destroy what better people have done -
The have no new or fresh ideas - how did they get into office? Is the voting public that ill-informed, or is it that they just don't have the time to think this stuff through?
Is everyone doing that well that they can afford to sacrifice everything that this country has achieved over the past fifty years just so they are not inconvenienced in anyway?
I believe that this is true - the voting public is lazy and fat with prosperity - they just don't have time to think anymore.
Now were safer - Liberal Democrats are in control of national security - God help us!
The have no new or fresh ideas - how did they get into office? Is the voting public that ill-informed, or is it that they just don't have the time to think this stuff through?
Is everyone doing that well that they can afford to sacrifice everything that this country has achieved over the past fifty years just so they are not inconvenienced in anyway?
I believe that this is true - the voting public is lazy and fat with prosperity - they just don't have time to think anymore.
Now were safer - Liberal Democrats are in control of national security - God help us!
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Liberals are Zeros - Lots of Them
What happened to the oil price? The liberals said it would go up after the election. Why hasn't the media taken them to task for this? Oh, that's right, the media is liberal! It was just a ploy - dah!
The Oil Price Weapon ( in part )
Thomas Lifson
Numbers of leftists predicted with certainty that following the November elections oil prices would rebound. Their conspiracy theory had it that Bushalliburton was conspiring with its flunkies to dupe the ignorant masses into voting Republican. Once the elections were over, the sheep would once again be sheared by the oil patch gang.
Exactly the contrary has happened. Oil prices are going down. Warm weather in the eastern United States helped, as did a slowing of our economy. There hasn't yet been and won't be a chorus of apologies, or even demands from the right for a reckoning. Such foolishness speaks for itself.
Only one actor has the ability to substantially influence oil prices at the margin: Saudi Arabia. The reason is simple. Only Saudi Arabia has substantial unused production capacity. Because it can raise or lower its own production by roughly 3 million barrels a day, Saudi has an oil weapon to use. The major use for the weapon has been to enforce some discipline on OPEC.
Saudi does not want sustained high prices (above $50-60 a barrel, roughly) because at that level it becomes economical to develop tar sands, oil shale, and other substitutes. It wants the maximum price that prevents development of new resources outside of its control.
Commentators are beginning to notice that Saudi is pushing prices down, and the reason seems to be more than economic. Iran needs every penny it can get from oil. High prices have funded the mullahs' nuclear development plan, and helped keep a lid on civil discontent.
The Oil Price Weapon ( in part )
Thomas Lifson
Numbers of leftists predicted with certainty that following the November elections oil prices would rebound. Their conspiracy theory had it that Bushalliburton was conspiring with its flunkies to dupe the ignorant masses into voting Republican. Once the elections were over, the sheep would once again be sheared by the oil patch gang.
Exactly the contrary has happened. Oil prices are going down. Warm weather in the eastern United States helped, as did a slowing of our economy. There hasn't yet been and won't be a chorus of apologies, or even demands from the right for a reckoning. Such foolishness speaks for itself.
Only one actor has the ability to substantially influence oil prices at the margin: Saudi Arabia. The reason is simple. Only Saudi Arabia has substantial unused production capacity. Because it can raise or lower its own production by roughly 3 million barrels a day, Saudi has an oil weapon to use. The major use for the weapon has been to enforce some discipline on OPEC.
Saudi does not want sustained high prices (above $50-60 a barrel, roughly) because at that level it becomes economical to develop tar sands, oil shale, and other substitutes. It wants the maximum price that prevents development of new resources outside of its control.
Commentators are beginning to notice that Saudi is pushing prices down, and the reason seems to be more than economic. Iran needs every penny it can get from oil. High prices have funded the mullahs' nuclear development plan, and helped keep a lid on civil discontent.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Win the War in America First
This is a good article as it points out the problem that I have been talking about for some time - the fight in Iraq is not the war that will kills us, the war in America with the liberal left trying to destroy democracy is the one that we must win if we want to have any kind of a future for the next generation.
(This is from The Traditional Values net work of Rev Lou Sheldon)
The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11
Whenever Muslims charge that the war on terror is really a war against Islam, Americans hasten to assure them they are wrong. Yet as Dinesh D’Souza argues in this powerful and timely polemic, these Muslim critics of America are right--there really is a war against Islam. Only this war is not being waged by Christian conservatives bent on a moral crusade to impose democracy abroad, as many liberals maintain, but by the American cultural left, which has for years been vigorously exporting its domestic war against religion and traditional morality to the rest of the world.
By the “cultural left” D’Souza does not mean all liberals or even all Democrats, but the militant secularists, feminists and gay activists who make up the left wing of the Democratic party, along with their allies in Hollywood, the academy, the antiwar movement, and the human rights establishment. D’Souza contends that the cultural left is responsible for 9/11 in two ways: by fostering a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies--especially traditional and religious ones; and by promoting, at home and abroad, an anti-American attitude that blames America for all the problems of the world.
Why did 9/11 occur? D’Souza traces the roots to the Khomeini revolution, the first regime to target America as the Great Satan. He documents the role of the Carter administration and its left-wing allies in displacing the Shah and consolidating Khomeini’s rule. D’Souza also shows that after the Cold War the radical Muslims were fighting to overthrow their local governments, what they termed the “near enemy.” But then Bin Laden and others got the idea that perhaps the United States—the “far enemy”—was even more vulnerable than the near enemy.
Starting in the mid-1990s, Islamic radicals tested their theory of American weakness by launching a series of strikes against American targets, such as the Khobar Tower facility in Saudi Arabia, the two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the U.S.S. Cole. During this period the Clinton administration was focused on its own political and cultural agenda: integrating homosexuals into the military, promoting ethnic diversity in the CIA, and discrediting special prosecutor Ken Starr. Clinton’s response to Bin Laden was feeble and ineffective. This inaction confirmed Bin Laden in his conviction that America was cowardly and weak, and that’s when he decided to launch the 9/11 attacks.
D’Souza shows that Islamic anti-Americanism is not merely a reaction to U.S. foreign policy but is also rooted in a revulsion against what Muslims perceive to be the atheism and moral depravity of American popular culture. “They don’t hate us for our freedom,” D’Souza writes, “They hate us for how we use our freedom.” Muslims and other traditional people around the world allege that American values are being imposed on their societies, and these values undermine religious belief, weaken the traditional family, and corrupt the innocence of children. Muslim fears are largely justified, but it is not “America” that is doing this to them, it is the cultural left. What traditional societies consider repulsive and immoral, the cultural left considers progressive and liberating.
Taking issue with those on the right who speak of a “clash of civilizations,” D’Souza argues that the war on terror is really a war for the hearts and minds of traditional Muslims—and traditional peoples everywhere. The only way to win the struggle with radical Islam is to convince traditional Muslims that America is on their side. To prove this the U.S. must allow Muslim countries to defend Muslim interests and live according to their own moral precepts. Moreover, America’s leaders must contest the notion that liberal depravity equals American depravity. If America were to proclaim itself a Judeo-Christian society and stand up for the principles of traditional morality worldwide, this would greatly weaken the threat posed by radical Islam.
We are accustomed to thinking of the war on terror and the culture war as two distinct and separate struggles. D’Souza shows that they are really one and the same. Conservatives must recognize that the left is now allied with the Islamic radicals in a combined effort to defeat Bush’s war on terror. So Bush and the right are fighting not only a war against radical Islam, but also a political “war against the war” in America. A whole new strategy is needed to fight both wars. “In order to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad,” D’Souza writes, “we must defeat the enemy at home.”
(This is from The Traditional Values net work of Rev Lou Sheldon)
The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11
Whenever Muslims charge that the war on terror is really a war against Islam, Americans hasten to assure them they are wrong. Yet as Dinesh D’Souza argues in this powerful and timely polemic, these Muslim critics of America are right--there really is a war against Islam. Only this war is not being waged by Christian conservatives bent on a moral crusade to impose democracy abroad, as many liberals maintain, but by the American cultural left, which has for years been vigorously exporting its domestic war against religion and traditional morality to the rest of the world.
By the “cultural left” D’Souza does not mean all liberals or even all Democrats, but the militant secularists, feminists and gay activists who make up the left wing of the Democratic party, along with their allies in Hollywood, the academy, the antiwar movement, and the human rights establishment. D’Souza contends that the cultural left is responsible for 9/11 in two ways: by fostering a decadent and depraved American culture that angers and repulses other societies--especially traditional and religious ones; and by promoting, at home and abroad, an anti-American attitude that blames America for all the problems of the world.
Why did 9/11 occur? D’Souza traces the roots to the Khomeini revolution, the first regime to target America as the Great Satan. He documents the role of the Carter administration and its left-wing allies in displacing the Shah and consolidating Khomeini’s rule. D’Souza also shows that after the Cold War the radical Muslims were fighting to overthrow their local governments, what they termed the “near enemy.” But then Bin Laden and others got the idea that perhaps the United States—the “far enemy”—was even more vulnerable than the near enemy.
Starting in the mid-1990s, Islamic radicals tested their theory of American weakness by launching a series of strikes against American targets, such as the Khobar Tower facility in Saudi Arabia, the two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the U.S.S. Cole. During this period the Clinton administration was focused on its own political and cultural agenda: integrating homosexuals into the military, promoting ethnic diversity in the CIA, and discrediting special prosecutor Ken Starr. Clinton’s response to Bin Laden was feeble and ineffective. This inaction confirmed Bin Laden in his conviction that America was cowardly and weak, and that’s when he decided to launch the 9/11 attacks.
D’Souza shows that Islamic anti-Americanism is not merely a reaction to U.S. foreign policy but is also rooted in a revulsion against what Muslims perceive to be the atheism and moral depravity of American popular culture. “They don’t hate us for our freedom,” D’Souza writes, “They hate us for how we use our freedom.” Muslims and other traditional people around the world allege that American values are being imposed on their societies, and these values undermine religious belief, weaken the traditional family, and corrupt the innocence of children. Muslim fears are largely justified, but it is not “America” that is doing this to them, it is the cultural left. What traditional societies consider repulsive and immoral, the cultural left considers progressive and liberating.
Taking issue with those on the right who speak of a “clash of civilizations,” D’Souza argues that the war on terror is really a war for the hearts and minds of traditional Muslims—and traditional peoples everywhere. The only way to win the struggle with radical Islam is to convince traditional Muslims that America is on their side. To prove this the U.S. must allow Muslim countries to defend Muslim interests and live according to their own moral precepts. Moreover, America’s leaders must contest the notion that liberal depravity equals American depravity. If America were to proclaim itself a Judeo-Christian society and stand up for the principles of traditional morality worldwide, this would greatly weaken the threat posed by radical Islam.
We are accustomed to thinking of the war on terror and the culture war as two distinct and separate struggles. D’Souza shows that they are really one and the same. Conservatives must recognize that the left is now allied with the Islamic radicals in a combined effort to defeat Bush’s war on terror. So Bush and the right are fighting not only a war against radical Islam, but also a political “war against the war” in America. A whole new strategy is needed to fight both wars. “In order to defeat the Islamic radicals abroad,” D’Souza writes, “we must defeat the enemy at home.”
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The Democrats are Empty Suits
Just a quick note about the Democrats first 100 hours - remember they said they will set the congress on fire with all kinds of new initiatives that will turn the country around - stop the war and repair all of the damage that George Bush has caused this nation.
But wait, nobody knows what hour it is in that hundred - and it seems nobody cares, I guess, as nothing has happened yet. What can they do anyway? They have no original ideas. They have no agenda other than hate for George Bush. I guess it all too obvious now why they hate George, he has some new ideas and that is as good as any reasom to hate someone, even though he seems to have trouble making them work.
Social security reform was a good one that he started but it died due to lack of support from both sides of the aisle. Everyone was afraid of the seniors even though it wouldn't effect them at all. It was just another ploy, read road block, thrown up by the do nothing liberals on a good program of the Bush administration.
Immigration is on the block but the Democrats blocked that by not funding the 700 miles of wall that is to be built between us and Mexico. (Bush really didn't get behind this either. )
Health care with part 'D' in the Medicare package - the Democrats said it wouldn't work and did everything they could to stop it but now it looks like it is a success - or it must be as the liberals have nothing to say about now. By all indication it works great and it cost a lot less than the liberal hate groups said it would.
Anyway, the Democrats will have a tough time doing anything of any consequence in the next two years. Empty suits are like that. The question is just how much can be accomplished when your entire agenda is based on a negative premise - hate everyone that opposes you and do what it takes to destroy them. How can you govern with an attitude like that? Oh wait, they have no intention of governing - all they really wanted was power.
But wait, nobody knows what hour it is in that hundred - and it seems nobody cares, I guess, as nothing has happened yet. What can they do anyway? They have no original ideas. They have no agenda other than hate for George Bush. I guess it all too obvious now why they hate George, he has some new ideas and that is as good as any reasom to hate someone, even though he seems to have trouble making them work.
Social security reform was a good one that he started but it died due to lack of support from both sides of the aisle. Everyone was afraid of the seniors even though it wouldn't effect them at all. It was just another ploy, read road block, thrown up by the do nothing liberals on a good program of the Bush administration.
Immigration is on the block but the Democrats blocked that by not funding the 700 miles of wall that is to be built between us and Mexico. (Bush really didn't get behind this either. )
Health care with part 'D' in the Medicare package - the Democrats said it wouldn't work and did everything they could to stop it but now it looks like it is a success - or it must be as the liberals have nothing to say about now. By all indication it works great and it cost a lot less than the liberal hate groups said it would.
Anyway, the Democrats will have a tough time doing anything of any consequence in the next two years. Empty suits are like that. The question is just how much can be accomplished when your entire agenda is based on a negative premise - hate everyone that opposes you and do what it takes to destroy them. How can you govern with an attitude like that? Oh wait, they have no intention of governing - all they really wanted was power.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Who is to Blame for the next Attack?
The blame game has already started - who will be responsible for the next attack on America - which president? Not congress for sure - not the terrorists or the liberal media - not all the American citizens that have denighed we were even attacked in the first place.
I'm not sure just who it will be, but one thing I am sure of, those who assess the blame will make sure that person will be well qualified to assume the responsibility of those that did nothing to prevent it from happening. It's sad that so many of us fit into this category.
I'm not sure just who it will be, but one thing I am sure of, those who assess the blame will make sure that person will be well qualified to assume the responsibility of those that did nothing to prevent it from happening. It's sad that so many of us fit into this category.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Jimmy Carter - Marxist Monster
This is a must read - Jimmy has always been, and will always be, a Marxist. If you take the time to look and listen, you will find that the liberal wing of the Democratic party has the same agenda a Jimmy. Remember how he loves Hugo Chavze and Castro.
Now he says he hates America and what we stand for, maybe not out right, but just read his book, if you have the stomach for it. Get it from the library, don't buy it.
It's all there for the world to see. He is working to destroy the American dream just as many in the Democratic party are doing every day in our government.
By Rev. Louis P. SheldonChairman, Traditional Values Coalition
January 16, 2007 -
If historians accurately describe the record of ex-President Jimmy Carter, they will be forced to conclude that Carter was probably the worst President in America’s history.
Why? A bit of history is in order. Those old enough to remember Carter’s four dismal years in the White House should recall that it was Carter who withdrew American support for the pro-Western Shah of Iran for his alleged “human rights” violations.
As a result of Carter’s withdrawal of support from the Shah, the pro-Western nation fell into the hands of the radical Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly murdered more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians by firing squad. Iran became a stronghold for Islamists and destabilized the entire Middle East.
One of Khomeini’s henchmen at the time is now the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In 1979, Ahmadinejad was a rabid college student who helped organize the storming of the American Embassy on November 4. He was joined in this attack by 400 Iranians wielding sticks and chains. They invaded the embassy in Tehran and held the embassy personnel until January 1981.
Ahmadinejad served as a liaison between the hostage-takers and Ali Khamenei, who currently serves as Iran’s Supreme (spiritual) Leader.
By subverting the pro-Western Shah, Jimmy Carter gave us Islamic radicalism in Iran – and a dangerous nuclear threat. Within a year after Khomeini seized power in Iran, it was at war with Iraq. More than 500,000 died in this war. These people died because of Carter’s personal weakness and his outright subversion of the Shah.
In addition, the Soviet Union recognized the weakness of Carter and invaded Afghanistan. In an attempt to protect the Afghans from Soviet oppression, America helped the Mullahs fight back. One of those Muslim leaders was Osama Bin Laden. Carter can be indirectly linked to the empowerment of Bin Laden in Afghanistan and the spread of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Now, the ex-President is in the news again. This time it’s about his anti-Israel book, probable plagiarism and the resignation of 14 Carter Center leaders over his pro-Islamic terrorist comments. They have resigned over concern about lies and distortions in his book. In addition, former Ambassador Dennis Ross is also concerned that Carter ripped off maps that he had created and never credited him in the book. Ross is calling for a correction and attribution.
The 14 Carter Center officials who resigned sent a joint letter to Carter. In it, they said: “We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support.”
But, wait. There’s more! Not only is Carter in the news over his anti-Israel, pro-Islamist screed, but he and Bill Clinton have decided to create a broad and “inclusive” Baptist movement to overcome what they see as a negative image of Baptists. Carter and Clinton announced their new project at the Carter Center on January 9.
They claim they want a Baptist movement that is more concerned about the environment and global conflicts. Jimmy Carter should know about global conflicts. He helped foment several wars while President. And perhaps Bill Clinton wishes to create an inclusive Ten Commandments that does away with such negative commands as “do not commit adultery,” and “do not lie.”
Carter and Clinton are the perfect pair for subverting Baptists because both of them have difficulty telling the truth. The world would be better off if both of them kept their mouths shut, but this is unlikely to happen. Both are ego-driven and can’t stand to be out of the limelight—even if it’s negative publicity.
I’m afraid we’re going to be enduring their underhanded activities for years to come. Let’s pray that they fail in all of their efforts.
Now he says he hates America and what we stand for, maybe not out right, but just read his book, if you have the stomach for it. Get it from the library, don't buy it.
It's all there for the world to see. He is working to destroy the American dream just as many in the Democratic party are doing every day in our government.
By Rev. Louis P. SheldonChairman, Traditional Values Coalition
January 16, 2007 -
If historians accurately describe the record of ex-President Jimmy Carter, they will be forced to conclude that Carter was probably the worst President in America’s history.
Why? A bit of history is in order. Those old enough to remember Carter’s four dismal years in the White House should recall that it was Carter who withdrew American support for the pro-Western Shah of Iran for his alleged “human rights” violations.
As a result of Carter’s withdrawal of support from the Shah, the pro-Western nation fell into the hands of the radical Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini, who promptly murdered more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians by firing squad. Iran became a stronghold for Islamists and destabilized the entire Middle East.
One of Khomeini’s henchmen at the time is now the current President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In 1979, Ahmadinejad was a rabid college student who helped organize the storming of the American Embassy on November 4. He was joined in this attack by 400 Iranians wielding sticks and chains. They invaded the embassy in Tehran and held the embassy personnel until January 1981.
Ahmadinejad served as a liaison between the hostage-takers and Ali Khamenei, who currently serves as Iran’s Supreme (spiritual) Leader.
By subverting the pro-Western Shah, Jimmy Carter gave us Islamic radicalism in Iran – and a dangerous nuclear threat. Within a year after Khomeini seized power in Iran, it was at war with Iraq. More than 500,000 died in this war. These people died because of Carter’s personal weakness and his outright subversion of the Shah.
In addition, the Soviet Union recognized the weakness of Carter and invaded Afghanistan. In an attempt to protect the Afghans from Soviet oppression, America helped the Mullahs fight back. One of those Muslim leaders was Osama Bin Laden. Carter can be indirectly linked to the empowerment of Bin Laden in Afghanistan and the spread of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Now, the ex-President is in the news again. This time it’s about his anti-Israel book, probable plagiarism and the resignation of 14 Carter Center leaders over his pro-Islamic terrorist comments. They have resigned over concern about lies and distortions in his book. In addition, former Ambassador Dennis Ross is also concerned that Carter ripped off maps that he had created and never credited him in the book. Ross is calling for a correction and attribution.
The 14 Carter Center officials who resigned sent a joint letter to Carter. In it, they said: “We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or the Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support.”
But, wait. There’s more! Not only is Carter in the news over his anti-Israel, pro-Islamist screed, but he and Bill Clinton have decided to create a broad and “inclusive” Baptist movement to overcome what they see as a negative image of Baptists. Carter and Clinton announced their new project at the Carter Center on January 9.
They claim they want a Baptist movement that is more concerned about the environment and global conflicts. Jimmy Carter should know about global conflicts. He helped foment several wars while President. And perhaps Bill Clinton wishes to create an inclusive Ten Commandments that does away with such negative commands as “do not commit adultery,” and “do not lie.”
Carter and Clinton are the perfect pair for subverting Baptists because both of them have difficulty telling the truth. The world would be better off if both of them kept their mouths shut, but this is unlikely to happen. Both are ego-driven and can’t stand to be out of the limelight—even if it’s negative publicity.
I’m afraid we’re going to be enduring their underhanded activities for years to come. Let’s pray that they fail in all of their efforts.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Rules for Immigration - 1907
Everyone has an idea for immigration - what to demand from them when they get and who should be let in and how many - but it seems that there aren't very many who want those who come here to be Americans and live the life of Americans -
What is so bad about being an American? I love this country - it is the best of all worlds and that is why millions want to come here.
This short paragraph from a true statesman brings clarity to this dilemma.
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.
We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
What is so bad about being an American? I love this country - it is the best of all worlds and that is why millions want to come here.
This short paragraph from a true statesman brings clarity to this dilemma.
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.
But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.
We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Friday, January 12, 2007
Democrats Can't Govern - No Soul or Direction
It's rapidly become evident that the Democrats have no agenda other than trying to destroy the existing government. They will stop at nothing to bring down George Bush and the his Republican administration even if it means the complete destruction of our nation. Nothing matters but power. They can't see pass it.
They are seen now to have no cohesive agenda on the war, immigration, health care or anything else. Their first 100 hours is one of confusion and in-fighting. They have been in the 'destroy mode' for so long that for them to come up with good compresensive ideas that will move the country forward is impossible.
In reality, they have never had any good ideas. Clinton didn't do anything of any substance in his eight years in office. Why would we expect the liberals now to have any ideas that would benefit the country as a whole. Again, Democrats are not in government to help anyone other than themselves. It's who they are.
This short article by Dick Morris is on point - every day the Democrats show us just who they are - did you hear Barbara Boxer talking to Secretary Rice today?
It's started - pay attention.
The Looming Democratic Party Civil War
Iraq is not the only place that is threatening to dissolve into the anarchy and bloodletting of a civil war. It's about to happen to the Democratic Party. Reacting to Bush's planned "surge" in troop strength, the Democratic leaders in Congress, savoring their victory, are contemplating taking only symbolic steps to protest Bush's war policies, a timidity that will highly displease their leftist boosters.
The liberal activists who funded and impelled the Democratic victory in 2006 did not focus on winning a congressional majority so that it would take merely symbolic action. Symbolic action would have been appropriate for a minority party, but the backers of a party in the majority expect something more. So the
Democrats are about to form their customary firing squad — a circular one — and begin again the battles that ripped their party apart in the late 1960s.
The battle lines are the same: The new left vs. the party establishment. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are about to squander their credibility with their supporters on the left by failing to cut back, or cut off entirely, funding for the war. The Democratic Party's left wing is not to be trifled with. It is a massive force, fully mobilized, and led by aggressive online organizations such as Moveon.org.
It has plenty of political leaders — like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry — who are more than willing to articulate fundamental differences with the party's congressional leadership and are not shy about doing so. The congressional leaders' plan is to give Bush all the rope he needs to hang himself by increasing troop strength in Iraq. They are deeply skeptical about whether more soldiers will accomplish anything besides increasing casualties. But they are not about to take the rap in front of the American people for seeming to sell out our troops by cutting their funding and forcing the administration to retreat. Nor are they ready for a constitutional confrontation with the commander in chief over his wartime powers. So, instead, they are going to hold hearings during which a parade of former generals will voice their misgivings and air their disagreements, past and present.
It will be like one of Bob Woodward's books enacted on a congressional stage. But this theater is not going to appease the left. They did not elect Democrats to Congress so they could hold hearings. They expect laws not shows. Their frustration will become increasingly apparent as the Cindy Sheehans of the world react to the increased troop commitment in Baghdad.
The left will launch campaigns of civil disobedience, public marches and protests, online petitions, and the like. It will be the 1960s all over again. As long as the Democratic Party could be counted upon to represent the left on Iraq, protests against the war were channeled through the political process and were aimed at electing a Democratic Congress.
But now that the Democratic leadership has, in the eyes of the leaders of the left, "betrayed" them, look for protest to overflow the bounds of partisan politics and go into the streets. One can expect candidates in the Democratic primaries to run to the left seeking to capitalize on the frustration of peace activists at the passivity of the party's congressional leaders in the face of Bush's determination to add to troop strength committed to Iraq.
Moderate candidates like Barack Obama, John Edwards, and even Hillary Clinton may find themselves outflanked by those more willing to run to the left like Al Gore and John Kerry. Until now, we have had a two-party system in our post 9/11 debates. Now a new entrant is in the field: the new left.
Copyright Eileen McGann and Dick Morris 2006.
They are seen now to have no cohesive agenda on the war, immigration, health care or anything else. Their first 100 hours is one of confusion and in-fighting. They have been in the 'destroy mode' for so long that for them to come up with good compresensive ideas that will move the country forward is impossible.
In reality, they have never had any good ideas. Clinton didn't do anything of any substance in his eight years in office. Why would we expect the liberals now to have any ideas that would benefit the country as a whole. Again, Democrats are not in government to help anyone other than themselves. It's who they are.
This short article by Dick Morris is on point - every day the Democrats show us just who they are - did you hear Barbara Boxer talking to Secretary Rice today?
It's started - pay attention.
The Looming Democratic Party Civil War
Iraq is not the only place that is threatening to dissolve into the anarchy and bloodletting of a civil war. It's about to happen to the Democratic Party. Reacting to Bush's planned "surge" in troop strength, the Democratic leaders in Congress, savoring their victory, are contemplating taking only symbolic steps to protest Bush's war policies, a timidity that will highly displease their leftist boosters.
The liberal activists who funded and impelled the Democratic victory in 2006 did not focus on winning a congressional majority so that it would take merely symbolic action. Symbolic action would have been appropriate for a minority party, but the backers of a party in the majority expect something more. So the
Democrats are about to form their customary firing squad — a circular one — and begin again the battles that ripped their party apart in the late 1960s.
The battle lines are the same: The new left vs. the party establishment. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are about to squander their credibility with their supporters on the left by failing to cut back, or cut off entirely, funding for the war. The Democratic Party's left wing is not to be trifled with. It is a massive force, fully mobilized, and led by aggressive online organizations such as Moveon.org.
It has plenty of political leaders — like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry — who are more than willing to articulate fundamental differences with the party's congressional leadership and are not shy about doing so. The congressional leaders' plan is to give Bush all the rope he needs to hang himself by increasing troop strength in Iraq. They are deeply skeptical about whether more soldiers will accomplish anything besides increasing casualties. But they are not about to take the rap in front of the American people for seeming to sell out our troops by cutting their funding and forcing the administration to retreat. Nor are they ready for a constitutional confrontation with the commander in chief over his wartime powers. So, instead, they are going to hold hearings during which a parade of former generals will voice their misgivings and air their disagreements, past and present.
It will be like one of Bob Woodward's books enacted on a congressional stage. But this theater is not going to appease the left. They did not elect Democrats to Congress so they could hold hearings. They expect laws not shows. Their frustration will become increasingly apparent as the Cindy Sheehans of the world react to the increased troop commitment in Baghdad.
The left will launch campaigns of civil disobedience, public marches and protests, online petitions, and the like. It will be the 1960s all over again. As long as the Democratic Party could be counted upon to represent the left on Iraq, protests against the war were channeled through the political process and were aimed at electing a Democratic Congress.
But now that the Democratic leadership has, in the eyes of the leaders of the left, "betrayed" them, look for protest to overflow the bounds of partisan politics and go into the streets. One can expect candidates in the Democratic primaries to run to the left seeking to capitalize on the frustration of peace activists at the passivity of the party's congressional leaders in the face of Bush's determination to add to troop strength committed to Iraq.
Moderate candidates like Barack Obama, John Edwards, and even Hillary Clinton may find themselves outflanked by those more willing to run to the left like Al Gore and John Kerry. Until now, we have had a two-party system in our post 9/11 debates. Now a new entrant is in the field: the new left.
Copyright Eileen McGann and Dick Morris 2006.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Back From God's Country - North Dakota
I'm exhausted - I have been on the go since the 4th of this month. With the funeral in ND and the cemetery here in WI, I drove some thirteen hundred miles and entertained an average of four people nearly every day. This is the first day that I haven't had someone in the house.
I hope to get back to some routine around here in the near future, including posting - and whether it matter to anyone or not - heh later, The Slickster!
I hope to get back to some routine around here in the near future, including posting - and whether it matter to anyone or not - heh later, The Slickster!
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Gone to North Dakota
I'm off to North Dakota tomorrow for the last time - my father died yesterday morning in his sleep. He was 99.
So, I will not be able to enlighten you with my wit for the next five or six days. Please check back next week for more fun and games. The Slickster!
So, I will not be able to enlighten you with my wit for the next five or six days. Please check back next week for more fun and games. The Slickster!
Democrats Want Socialized Medicine
Since Democrats are socialists, it stands to reason they would want to socialize the medical profession. They believe by guaranteeing government sponsored medical care everyone will get good medical treatment at a reasonable cost.
That is, the tax payers will wind up paying the tab like they have to pay for everything else that the Democrats in congress dream up to even the playing field. Such nonsense.
It's just more of the same clap-trap from people that have everything and feel bad that everyone else doesn't have the same advantages that they do, especially with health care.
To make this work. the liberal Democrats will have to raise taxes on the middle class. What this is called is Income redistribution. Carl Marx would love this.
What the Democrats want to do is tax those that have worked all their lives to have security in their later years. Tax anyone that has initiative to get ahead and prosper. Tax everyone that takes responsibility for their own lives. It's a plan that the Democrats will try and ram through the congress.
Hey, you voted for them - so get out your wallets and be prepared to move into a nice trailer park with what you have left over - and you will probably die there waiting for medical care that won't come.
This article gives just a hint to how socialized medicine would work in America.
Reality strikes British Socialized Medicine
Ethel C. Fenig
So, still believe that socialized medicine is the cure for all that's supposedly wrong with the US's health system? Tired of smug Europeans crowing about their supposedly cheap, comprehensive health care system? And now that the Democrats are about to control Congress, do you need a snappy reply to their belief that government funded health care in the US can defy basic laws of economics?
If you answered yes to any of the above why read this on the most recent health care crisis afflicting England's vaunted (by certain advocates here) socialized system.
Hospitals in Britain have been told to hold off operating on some patients until they've been on a waiting list for 20 weeks, documents show.
The instructions for delaying treatment as long as possible were included in letters sent to hospital managers, who also were told how many operations could be postponed until after the new fiscal year, which starts in April, the Telegraph said Tuesday. The instructions indicate the seriousness of the health services financial crisis, observers said.
Patients were having their treatment artificially delayed because the trusts that provide local medical care for National Health Services had to ensure they would break even, political leaders said. The trusts are in the throes of a $2.6 billion deficit.
In one letter, a health manager for East of England trust, outlined a plan to ensure hospital operations were "restricted to the minimum required to meet required access targets" regarding elective activities.
Why in those 20 weeks the patients could fly to India, have the surgery and return to England. And maybe have a vacation in the process as a little extra. Yes, that is what some will do.
And the others? Some will notice their health will actually improve. As for the remainder, why they'll probably just hang out for those 20 weeks mudddling through in their own British fashion all the while hoping their health won't deteriorate forcing elective surgery into complicated emergency status.
That is, the tax payers will wind up paying the tab like they have to pay for everything else that the Democrats in congress dream up to even the playing field. Such nonsense.
It's just more of the same clap-trap from people that have everything and feel bad that everyone else doesn't have the same advantages that they do, especially with health care.
To make this work. the liberal Democrats will have to raise taxes on the middle class. What this is called is Income redistribution. Carl Marx would love this.
What the Democrats want to do is tax those that have worked all their lives to have security in their later years. Tax anyone that has initiative to get ahead and prosper. Tax everyone that takes responsibility for their own lives. It's a plan that the Democrats will try and ram through the congress.
Hey, you voted for them - so get out your wallets and be prepared to move into a nice trailer park with what you have left over - and you will probably die there waiting for medical care that won't come.
This article gives just a hint to how socialized medicine would work in America.
Reality strikes British Socialized Medicine
Ethel C. Fenig
So, still believe that socialized medicine is the cure for all that's supposedly wrong with the US's health system? Tired of smug Europeans crowing about their supposedly cheap, comprehensive health care system? And now that the Democrats are about to control Congress, do you need a snappy reply to their belief that government funded health care in the US can defy basic laws of economics?
If you answered yes to any of the above why read this on the most recent health care crisis afflicting England's vaunted (by certain advocates here) socialized system.
Hospitals in Britain have been told to hold off operating on some patients until they've been on a waiting list for 20 weeks, documents show.
The instructions for delaying treatment as long as possible were included in letters sent to hospital managers, who also were told how many operations could be postponed until after the new fiscal year, which starts in April, the Telegraph said Tuesday. The instructions indicate the seriousness of the health services financial crisis, observers said.
Patients were having their treatment artificially delayed because the trusts that provide local medical care for National Health Services had to ensure they would break even, political leaders said. The trusts are in the throes of a $2.6 billion deficit.
In one letter, a health manager for East of England trust, outlined a plan to ensure hospital operations were "restricted to the minimum required to meet required access targets" regarding elective activities.
Why in those 20 weeks the patients could fly to India, have the surgery and return to England. And maybe have a vacation in the process as a little extra. Yes, that is what some will do.
And the others? Some will notice their health will actually improve. As for the remainder, why they'll probably just hang out for those 20 weeks mudddling through in their own British fashion all the while hoping their health won't deteriorate forcing elective surgery into complicated emergency status.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Arab street Quite, For Now
Everyone thought when Saddam 'tripped the light fantastic' the Arab street would go nuts but that wasn't the case. The following is a report from the street.
Iraqis React to Saddam's Execution by Rocco Dipippo
When I got word that Saddam Hussein would be executed on live television, I was repulsed. I thought that the last thing Iraq needed was another public display of bloodletting. Though I felt no mercy towards the brutal dictator who had tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of his countrymen, I think that broadcasting his execution was tasteless and prurient--by Western standards.
But in a country where many children prime themselves to commit future brutality by abusing and torturing animals, Saddam Hussein's execution was mild fare indeed.As Hussein was being marched to the gallows, I ducked into the guard shack in front of my office to get a look at the footage. The Iraqi men inside were laughing heartily, as if they were watching a sitcom.With a soundtrack of passionate, Arabic music playing in the background, the broadcast here in Iraq had the look and feel of a cheesey reality show. Since viewing brutal things eats at my soul, I ducked out of the shack before the "Great Uncle" dropped through the gallows's trap door on his way to final judgment.
I've seen far too many beheading and similar videos--I just can't go there anymore --one can only take so many knives to the heart and to the soul, and my limit is in sight.Locally, reactions to Saddam Hussein's death were mixed, but most of the Iraqis I know were in agreement with the sentence passed on him. I work with a very civilized group of Iraqi men and women.
Most of them were not pleased with the fact that he had been publicly executed. But they were satisfied he had been killed. When he ruled, Hussein pitted Iraqis against each other, and today the animosity built by that dynamic helps feed the warm, red river running through the streets of Baghdad.Right now, those streets are eerily quiet.
Though no curfew has yet been imposed, the people of Baghdad are staying home. And since Saddam died, the steady stream of car bomb explosions has slowed to a trickle. Some of the folks I work with are nervous about this, since they think that the relative calm indicates that the crazies are planning something big.I disagree. There are many separate groups of killers tearing up Baghdad's street but collectively, they are not centrally controlled. I think it is calm due to the following reason:
When Saddam Hussein was executed, most Iraqis stayed off the streets in fear of retaliatory violence from his supporters. Since there are currently few people on the streets, there is a dearth of targets for the bombers and the other killers. Unfortunately, when the streets again come to life, I think the violence will quickly return to the same level as before.On the evening of the dictator's death, I had a sublime experience that I will forever remember.
Almost every night, either I or one of my crew members escorts a friend across a bridge spanning the Tigris River leading to the Red Zone. On the day of Saddam Hussein's execution, it was my turn to do so. It is normally night when this occurs. But on that day we had left at dusk, since celebratory gunfire and violence were expected after nightfall.My friend and I were the only two people on the bridge. I had never seen the Tigris look so beautiful. The air was still and silent and the glow of a deep, red twilight reflected off the river's roiling surface. It almost felt like being in a peaceful, beautiful place, on a pleasant stroll with a close friend.Someday I will come back here, to see this country when it is at peace.
Iraqis React to Saddam's Execution by Rocco Dipippo
When I got word that Saddam Hussein would be executed on live television, I was repulsed. I thought that the last thing Iraq needed was another public display of bloodletting. Though I felt no mercy towards the brutal dictator who had tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of his countrymen, I think that broadcasting his execution was tasteless and prurient--by Western standards.
But in a country where many children prime themselves to commit future brutality by abusing and torturing animals, Saddam Hussein's execution was mild fare indeed.As Hussein was being marched to the gallows, I ducked into the guard shack in front of my office to get a look at the footage. The Iraqi men inside were laughing heartily, as if they were watching a sitcom.With a soundtrack of passionate, Arabic music playing in the background, the broadcast here in Iraq had the look and feel of a cheesey reality show. Since viewing brutal things eats at my soul, I ducked out of the shack before the "Great Uncle" dropped through the gallows's trap door on his way to final judgment.
I've seen far too many beheading and similar videos--I just can't go there anymore --one can only take so many knives to the heart and to the soul, and my limit is in sight.Locally, reactions to Saddam Hussein's death were mixed, but most of the Iraqis I know were in agreement with the sentence passed on him. I work with a very civilized group of Iraqi men and women.
Most of them were not pleased with the fact that he had been publicly executed. But they were satisfied he had been killed. When he ruled, Hussein pitted Iraqis against each other, and today the animosity built by that dynamic helps feed the warm, red river running through the streets of Baghdad.Right now, those streets are eerily quiet.
Though no curfew has yet been imposed, the people of Baghdad are staying home. And since Saddam died, the steady stream of car bomb explosions has slowed to a trickle. Some of the folks I work with are nervous about this, since they think that the relative calm indicates that the crazies are planning something big.I disagree. There are many separate groups of killers tearing up Baghdad's street but collectively, they are not centrally controlled. I think it is calm due to the following reason:
When Saddam Hussein was executed, most Iraqis stayed off the streets in fear of retaliatory violence from his supporters. Since there are currently few people on the streets, there is a dearth of targets for the bombers and the other killers. Unfortunately, when the streets again come to life, I think the violence will quickly return to the same level as before.On the evening of the dictator's death, I had a sublime experience that I will forever remember.
Almost every night, either I or one of my crew members escorts a friend across a bridge spanning the Tigris River leading to the Red Zone. On the day of Saddam Hussein's execution, it was my turn to do so. It is normally night when this occurs. But on that day we had left at dusk, since celebratory gunfire and violence were expected after nightfall.My friend and I were the only two people on the bridge. I had never seen the Tigris look so beautiful. The air was still and silent and the glow of a deep, red twilight reflected off the river's roiling surface. It almost felt like being in a peaceful, beautiful place, on a pleasant stroll with a close friend.Someday I will come back here, to see this country when it is at peace.
Monday, January 01, 2007
How Can Jews Vote Democrat
Did you ever wonder why the Jews vote Democrat? It doesn't make sense as the liberal Democrats hate Jews. The Jews know or have to know that the Democrat party has always supported the Palestinians and their terrorist handlers, Hamas.
As I have stated many times, the Democrats love killers and mass murders and that is what Hamas is and has always been. Killing Jews is a way of life for Hamas. So why don't the Jews in this country care about what happens to Israel? Read on - -
The high cost of Jewish allegiance to the Dems
Clarice Feldman
The always thoughtful Gabriel Schoenfeld has written an article about Jews, Muslims and the Democratic Party worth your attention. I fully concur with his conclusion:
Much has been written and spoken in recent months about the so-called "Israel lobby" in American politics, a movement allegedly made up of influential American Jewish organizations and individuals who cumulatively exercise a "stranglehold" over the U.S. Congress, skewing our foreign policy in directions inimical to the nation's proper aims and interests. As I and others have tried to show, this notion is a pernicious slander, and a lie.4 The truth is that, for a variety of historical reasons, the degree of influence exercised by American Jews in the political arena has always been limited; when it comes to Israel in particular, American governments have acted in different ways at different times, but always out of their sense of the American national interest and with the backing of the American people. [snip]
Muslim-Americans have become a group avidly sought after by both parties, a group whose numbers are growing and whose group preferences, strongly expressed, are and will continue to be taken into account. In the foreseeable future, it is highly unlikely that American Jews, whose numbers are in any case hardly increasing, can play such a role. They can certainly not do so as long as they remain unthinkingly wedded to a party that is paying them ever less heed.
At any rate, and thanks in part to the stubbornly lopsided Jewish allegiance to the Democratic party, the influence wielded by the Jewish community has not been increasing but receding, even while the numerical representation of Jews in public office has grown. Not only is the Democratic party of today farther than ever from the Democratic party of Jewish memory, but the steadfast lack of interest shown by American Jews in the Republican party has robbed them of any possibility of being courted by either party as a potentially valuable swing vote.
Worst of all is that this reality continues to be denied by Jewish spokesmen who most need to recognize and confront it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
