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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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