AARP & Other Liberals Spearhead Charge for Clintoncare II

Author: J.J. Jackson

As groups get bigger I swear their collective intelligence decreases. Nothing could be a truer example of this than one of the largest groups in America, the American Association of Retired Persons. Often affectionately known as the AARP I prefer to call them the Anti-American Retired Persons because I believe in truth in advertising.

Here you have a group that on one hand uses the power of capitalism. They flaunt the purchasing power of their vast membership to negotiate with companies all over the globe to get special discounts and incentives for their members in return for promoting these same companies to their members. But on the other hand they pimp anti-American ideas such as socialism and collectivism.

Case and point, the AARP has been running ads featuring cute, and dare I say naive, children who are reading from their given script and pleading with Americans to support candidates that promise universal health insurance coverage. They’re basically promoting Democrats and other liberals.

It’s no real big surprise. Their constituents are on two of the largest unconstitutional programs ever devised, namely Social Security and Medicare. You knew it could only be a matter of time before they decided that they needed to try and expand that base and their power.

So this push by the AARP just ahead of Hillary’s big announcement of her new and improved socialist plan for America shocks none.

Forget that she already tried to float this idea past American citizens in nineties and that it was soundly rejected. But hey, try, try again right?

So here comes Senatorette Clinton this week giving us Clintoncare Part Deux.

All you need to know about Hillary Clinton is that she said of her grand scheme, "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed”. The key words being “at this point”. You got to love the way they couch their plans and telegraph their future intentions don’t you?

At this point there is no punishment. How about tomorrow? Well, we’ll get back to you...

You just wait for those “future” plans Comrade Hillary slyly discusses. Because what is going to happen if Americans do not join? If even one person chooses that path then the whole claim of universal health insurance (not care mind you) falls apart and you can bet your bottom dollar that all sorts of punishments will be created to deal with those people who won’t fall in line.

Clinton did however slip up and let out what she though at least one punishment for not joining Hillarycare will be. She envisions a day when, “you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination”.

So join or you can’t work?

On a side note, and unfortunately for Hillary, her claim about vaccinations and public schools is not true. For example in Pennsylvania you do not have to be vaccinated to attend public school. So I am not sure where Hillary is getting her “facts” from. Perhaps she is just making things up again? She seems to do that quite often and has shown that she is certainly not above letting the “facts” get in the way of a good story.

I apologize to those of you who have decided not to vaccinate your children. For I am sure I’ve just given Comrade Clinton a new item to add to her list of “things to order the unwashed masses to do”. After all, mommy knows best!

Hillary Clinton also said of her rehashed socialist agenda that her plan, “expands personal choice and increases competition to get costs down.” You have to love how liberals claim that having no choice is actually a “choice”. Mandating that you must participate in this plan as in her own self-professed future vision, if you want to work is, is somehow a “choice”?

In further nanny state fashion, Senatorette Clinton thinks that she can wield the power of government to coerce people to act the way she desires them to. Most notably, she plans to use the tax code. She has said of her plan, “We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans." And what if Americans disagree? Well, were back to the “at this point” clarification of there being no “punitive” measures. This is the same government that used the tax code for years to punish couples for getting married. Remember that.

The facts are, that beyond talking points Hillary Clinton still has given little details about her health insurance (not health care) for all plan. But that reality hasn’t stopped those who fawn over Marxist ideas from touting Senatorette Clinton as having “detailed” her plans. Break it all down and here is what it comes down to; government nebulously mandating how insurance companies and private industries operate and even how the citizenry must behave. And of course, it would be “paid for” in part by the left’s favorite past time; raising taxes. Don’t complain. Don’t you know that it’s their money?

What? You disagree? Be careful. The re-education camps await you.

If you are an insurance company and don’t want to insure pre-existing conditions because you are rightfully scared of people only buying insurance after they have been diagnosed with a disease only to drop it once they have been treated, taken tens of thousands of dollars in care and before they have paid enough in premiums to even cover the cost, oh well! Too bad. Government says otherwise, so you will comply if you want to be in the health insurance business.

Freedom to contract and freedom of association be damned. It’s just not the liberal way.

The truth they are trying to hide is that everyone in America has “health care” if they seek it out. What everyone does not have is “health insurance” to help defray the costs when they do. Nor should they. Insurance is a luxury. Not everyone has a 50’ yacht either and I doubt many would suggest government should provide such for the people that do not.

People like Clinton claim that we need universal coverage because the uninsured cost the rest of us in higher premiums and other costs. But who do you think is going to pay for those that would be covered under this plan but don’t have insurance now when the government runs it? The Tooth Fairy? Or will the money just come from the magical, mystical money tree Hillary has in her back yard? Heck no! The cost of the current “uninsured” will still be carried by the rest of us. It is just a shell game to try and hide that fact and grant more power to the government. Hence why she needs to raise taxes.

Clinton can’t even discuss her ideas without the obligatory double speak saying, “My Republican opponents will try to equate healthcare for all Americans with government-run healthcare.” Well, uh yeah Comrade Clinton because it is! If the government is mandating that all Americans have to have healthcare, creating laws regarding how the system works, dictating what you must do once in the program and enforcing that doctors, hospitals and insurance companies do what government says they must in order to cover all Americans then it is “government-run healthcare” by default. When you pass a law it isn’t a “recommendation” or a “request”. It’s a law! Did you ever take a civics course that you actually passed? Because this is pretty basic stuff here!

But then again, this is from the frontrunner for the nomination of the party that claims that it is a “pro-choice” yet is forcing you to pay into a government retirement plan. And let’s not forget that the party she represents frequently gets endorsements from the Communist Party USA for their presidential candidates. Are those little red lights in your brain going off yet?

Clinton said of her plan, “I believe everyone – every man, woman and child – should have quality, affordable healthcare in America. I intend to be the president who will do that.” Well, that’s all well and good that you believe that. Now do you mind pointing to where in the Constitution you and your fellow travelers are granted the power by “We the People” to mandate how we manage our own choices with regards to healthcare? Are you going to point out to us, finally after all these years of waiting patiently, where you are given the power to dictate what price something should be and hence its “affordability”? Or are you just going to ignore that major problem with your plans like you always do?

Uh huh. Silence. That’s what I thought.

We already have Medicaid for the “poor” who supposedly can’t afford health insurance and Medicare for the elderly who are dubbed by the left as too stupid to save for their own needs after retirement and Congress wants to make families with an income of up to $80,000 eligible for SCHIP. How much more do we have to give?

Once again, please let myself and other Americans that still actually believe in liberty have real choice and chose to pass on this and chose not to contribute to the program. But then again, that “choice” isn’t one of the government approved “choices” now is it?

For the left, “choice” is simply a mandate from them. And you will abide by it “or else”. If not they will eventually get you with future punishments that don’t exist at this time while they stick the camel’s nose under the tent today.

"The sad reality is that the uninsured don't just struggle with costs themselves, they impose costs on the rest of us," Clinton said. And why is that? Is it because politicians and the courts let them impose these problems on us by allowing them to get out of paying their debts, bailing them out with tax payer dollars and maybe only at best paying a fraction of the cost to those that provide their services thus increasing costs to the rest of us? There once was a time in America when if you owed a debt you paid it you either paid it, rotted in jail or were ordered to work off you debts to those you owed them to.

But then again, hard work scares liberals. Responsibility is too much to ask them to promote. So those concepts are certainly not on the table. But government mandates? Heck, that’s the way they think they can create utopia!

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/aarp-other-liberals-spearhead-charge-for-clintoncare-ii-219155.html

About the Author:J.J. Jackson is the owner of American Conservative Daily Blog . He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts . His weekly articles and exclusive content can be found at Liberty Reborn .

A Hillary by Any Other Name

I have been spending a lot of time thinking about the former first lady. I will admit my thoughts are not positive in nature. I try to not let them seep into a hateful rage and remain grounded in the truth that this is a women with the wrong set of ideas. I think many individuals are thinking about this women especially as she runs for our nation's highest office. But I wonder sometimes what the fate of this women would be if her last name was Smith or Jones? Would we be talking about Hillary Smith as the next President of the United States? I am of the opinion that we would not and there is where I see the real problem.

I suppose by my comments that I imply a certain illegitimacy to Senator Clinton's presidential run. The problem is that without her infamous attachment with her president husband I do not see how politician Hillary emerges to run for chief of the West Wing. Certainly I think most would have to admit this fact and in doing so might have to concede, Hillary Clinton is an artificial candidate created by creators of the Bill Clinton mystique.

I would say that Mrs. Clinton has used this mystique and the presumed glamorous times of the nineties with the Clinton White House occupation in her quest to fulfill her ambitions. Ambitions that have recently come to light in books detailing the Clinton's partnership and alliance to make all of their political dreams come true. It happened for Bill and as his time in the sun set Hillary's was beginning to rise.

She was not content to live out the behind the scenes life of a former first lady but instead to seek out some of the same glory and power her husband enjoyed. So she pursued a Senate seat in New York, a state very accepting of her kind, liberals. She now had the position to cultivate real political experience. She was not long for the Senate and we now have candidate Hillary again, but this time she wants her own keys to the White House. And with her husband's political machine, and deity-like image among Democrats behind her, she has vaulted to position number one for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Hillary finds herself in a top three with a one-term senator and a first-term senator. Not a group with a vast amount of political dirt under the fingernails. No, the real experienced pols have been relegated to the proverbial second-tier status. The Democrats say they want change, maybe shying away from experience is what they mean by that?

Not that I am saying that Washington experience is the be all end all or even preferred in most cases. I just cringe when I hear the pundits and sycophants drool over their top-tier candidates and most notably Mrs. Clinton. All I hear is how experienced she is and how that will be a welcome change from our current president. Well from reading her bio on Wikipedia I have found that before becoming a senator she was a lawyer, served on some corporate board, and was wife to a philandering pervert. That may qualify her for life in Washington D.C. but does that constitute a presidential resume?

I think it is great if some no-name American wants to throw their hat into the ring of politics. It is certainly every citizens right to run for public office. I just have a problem with this one particular politician because of the office she is running for. Seething rage will only get you so far before you have to look at the opposition's ideas. The truth is I believe that the junior senator from New York is wrong on the ideas. I worry that she may get that chance to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office, because at this point in history she just might get that chance. I just hope there are enough worriers out across the country who see the disaster on the horizon. Because that is what I think a Hillary Clinton presidency would be, a disaster. Whether it be a naive approach to foreign policy or an over expansion of government control of our lives, I think selecting such a leader would be a mistake. My point is that I wonder if we would even have these concerns if she was a Hillary by any other name?

Tough Love: Why the Federal Reserve Should NOT Cut Interest Rates

by Robert M. Clinger III

With the real estate bubble having burst and the financial system in a tizzy over the attending fallout in the mortgage markets, bankers, investors, homeowners, and CEOs are calling on the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to cut the federal funds rate in an effort to avert a financial meltdown. However, the Federal Reserve should see through these self-serving calls and hold rates steady for the time being.

A cut in the federal funds rate, or several cuts as the futures markets are predicting, may well spur growth in GDP from the tepid rate of the first half of the year. With this, however, comes the risk of increasing inflationary pressures at a time when inflation is likely to remain above a comfortable level for maximum economic output. In addition, increased economic activity resulting from lower interest rates at a time of sustained higher energy prices could result in inflationary pressures spiraling out of control.

A cut in the federal funds rate would also likely result in a long-term strengthening in the dollar. With the dollar currently weak in the foreign exchange markets, consumers here in America may find domestic-made goods less expensive than imported foreign goods. Likewise, foreign trading partners would find American produced goods relatively less expensive than their own domestic goods. Thus, the weaker dollar may well lead to a shrinking of the current account deficit. Cutting rates and strengthening the dollar could lead to an increased current account deficit which could have adverse economic consequences.

Further, a cut in rates now may well lead to increased spending by consumers, many of whom have already spent beyond their means. Higher rates have reduced the proclivity of consumers to make purchases on credit and have prompted repayment of debt and increased savings. This increased savings comes at a time when America has become a nation of dissavers in recent years.

More importantly, cutting rates now is not going to stem the much needed cooling of the housing market. Highly accommodative monetary policy that saw the federal funds rate cut to 1% was what the economy needed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 and likely helped to avert a potentially deep recession. However, the FOMC, as is so often the case, overshot on the downside by cutting rates so aggressively. The environment of virtually free money, credit, and mortgages from 2002 to 2004 created a moral hazard--mortgage companies and banks loaned money for real estate purchases to many individuals who otherwise would not have been able to afford such investments. At one point, exotic mortgages (reverse amortization for example) and interest only mortgages accounted for over half of those underwritten.

Cheap money could not last forever, and, ultimately, the time would come to pay the piper when rates began to rise. Little heed, evidently, was given by lenders to the ability to service the debt obligation when rates increased down the road. By then, the underwriters would have packaged and resold those loans to other investors. Consumers also failed to consider the consequences of when the music stopped and they were unable to pay for purchases made on credit that had been and were still beyond their means. The irrational exuberance that surrounded the noble desire to achieve the American dream of home ownership clouded some consumer's and lender's judgment.

The blame for the current situation has to be shared by all parties. Consumers thirsted for the American dream but spent beyond their means with mortgages and credit cards. Lenders made the American dream sound possible with sales pitches that seemed too good to be true. Investors bought speculative properties and flipped them for quick gains with what was perceived to be no risk, driving up prices in some places and further fueling the exuberance. The FOMC failed to take the punch bowl away whilst the party was still going strong by opting for a measured removal of accommodative monetary policy in twenty-five basis point increments. Whereas their rate cuts had, at times been in fifty basis point increments, their reaction in removing accommodation was weak and timid.

Through all of this, did no one--lenders, consumers, investors, the Federal Reserve policymakers--recall the old adage, "If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn't true?"
Now that the party is over and everyone has a bad hangover, these same partygoers are turning to the Fed to bail them out of the problems that they have created. During the Greenspan era at the Fed, investors and financial market participants manifested in their minds the existence of a protective "Greenspan put"-the notion that the Fed would aggressively cut interest rates to avoid a steep decline in the markets. Indeed, the Fed cut rates in the early 1990s following the savings and loan crisis and again in the late 1990s following the Asian contagion and bailed out the markets following the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management.

The mandate of the Federal Reserve, however, is not to protect the markets from sharp declines. The mandate of the Fed is, as defined by the Federal Reserve Act, to "maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." Whilst working to ensure the stability in the overall financial system is important, this should in no way imply that the Fed should bail investors out of bad investment decisions. Declines in markets (a.k.a. corrections) are a perfectly natural part of a well-functioning, orderly financial system and serve to adjust asset prices towards more fundamental valuations.

To be sure, the Fed should not cut interest rates now. Yes, credit conditions did deteriorate considerably in mid- to late August. The injection of over $69 billion into the system coupled with a cut in the discount rate helped shore up confidence amongst lending institutions. But cutting the federal funds rate (leading to lower interest rates overall) will not stop the pain the real estate market is feeling and the further pain that is to come. To stop the default on loans and subsequent foreclosure on properties with adjustable rate mortgages would require a cut in rates to levels of 2003 and 2004 when the federal funds rate was still under 2.25%. However, consumers who are already stretched too thin and who are buried under mountains of mortgage and credit card debt would still not likely be able to satisfy their debt obligations. Additionally, such a dramatic cut in rates again would start a vicious cycle of loose policy all over, further compounding the situation.

But more importantly, doing so would send a signal to the financial markets that this Fed will bail them out when they get into trouble as a result of bad investment decisions. Thus, the Fed would be obligated to bail out the next hedge fund that goes bust, and the next one, and the next publicly-traded mortgage lender that goes under, etc. Much like a spoiled child whose parents continue to bail him out of trouble without any consequences, the Fed would play this role well for unruly investors. And like the spoiled child, the investors would never learn their lessons. No, what we need is tough love from the Fed. Let the markets and investors sort this one out on their own. The Fed must hold rates steady. After all, the best lesson is a bought lesson, and it appears that investors and lenders may have bought and paid for this one to the tune of $50-$100 billion.

Robert M. Clinger III & Sebastian G. PereyCopyright 2007 Thinking Outside the Boxehttp://www.thinkingoutsidetheboxe.com/
Article Source: http://www.articlecube.com/

Rep. King Enters No P.C. Zone

Representative Peter King of New York made one thing clear, he is not concerned with political correctness. This was obivious after his comments about there being too many mosques in America.

The reaction that such comments would elicit would be highly predictable. But these reactions would simply be reactions to the congressman's statement on a purely superficial level. I think what Rep. King was doing was being a honest politician, the kind of thing we constantly complain that we do not have enough of.

"There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam," King said.

I think his point is an honest assessment of the current situation. When Islamic extremists carry out terrorists acts there is no condemnation or outrage from the moderate Muslim population.

We tend to judge people by their actions or lack of action as in these cases. I think it is entirely appropriate to question the motives of those in our country that have such an association to radical extremism and terrorism. If not, we risk a slow and steady infiltration of unwanted elements that do not wish to live out the great American dream but to destroy it.

Iraq War: to Leave or not to Leave

Author: Josh Greenberger
(September 17, 2007) It's probably safe to say that all Americans, regardless of whether they were for or against the Iraq war, would like to see our troops come home. The problem is, to pull out we need to leave a stable country behind. An immediate withdrawal would leave Iraq with a vulnerable military force, sectarian infighting and a power vacuum that would immediately be filled by terrorist factions.

Calling for an immediate withdrawal, as some are doing, ignores the many lessons learned from middle east politics and turmoil.

After the 2005 Lebanese elections, Hezbollah won 14 seats in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament, and now also has 2 ministers in the government. Hezbollah has since launched thousands of rockets into Israel. On July 12th, 2006, Hezbollah captured 2 Israeli soldiers, sparking a 34-day military conflict with Israel. By August 13, 2006, Hezbollah had fired close to 4,000 rockets into Israel.

In August of 2005, Israel pulled out of Gaza. That territory has been racked with violence ever since. As late as June 2007, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett lamented, "Once again, extremists carrying guns have prevented progress against the wishes of the majority ... "

With terrorists already in Iraq, why does anyone believe things would be different there? Will terrorists just get up and leave if we do? Hardly likely. In fact, Iraq would be a far bigger prize to terrorist than anything they've ever acquired before.

Lebanon has a population of around 4 million, covers around 10 thousand sq km, and has no oil. Iraq, on the other hand, has a population of almost 30 million, covers an area of over 400 thousand sq km., and possesses one of the world's largest proven oil reserves. With such vast resources at its disposal, a terrorists organization could grow exponentially.

We either finish the job today or fight again tomorrow. The difference is, today, as organized and as powerful as terrorists have become, we're still fighting rag-tag cells. Tomorrow we could be fighting a major power.

by Josh Greenberger
from shopndrop.com
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/iraq-war-to-leave-or-not-to-leave-215937.html
About the Author:

Real Clear Politics Latest Poll

Tuesday, September 11
Race
Poll
Period
Results
Spread
California Republican Primary
SurveyUSA
09/07 - 09/09
Giuliani 28, Thompson 26, Romney 14, McCain 18
Giuliani +2.0%
California Democratic Primary
SurveyUSA
09/07 - 09/09
Clinton 51, Obama 27, Edwards 14
Clinton +24.0%
Republican Presidential Nomination
NYT/CBS News*
09/04 - 09/09
Giuliani 27, Thompson 22, Romney 14, McCain 18
Giuliani +5.0%
Democratic Presidential Nomination
NYT/CBS News*
09/04 - 09/09
Clinton 44, Obama 26, Edwards 17
Clinton +18.0%

The First Hsu to Drop?

Scandals and politics seem to go together like peanut butter and jelly. They have been occurring at all periods of time and we have seen a rash of them in recent years. Some involve sex, some involve bribes and money, and others consist of sex and money. What I am saying is that we should not be surprised when scandals occur and a politician is somehow involved in the story. And certainly when we hear the name of one political family and scandal we should be far from surprised. Of course I am talking about the Clintons. Many volumes of books and articles have been written on the Clinton's exploits over the years. And they contain all the salacious parts of a scandal, namely sex and money. Most of attention had been paid Bill in his early political career and during his time residing in the White House. But Hillary herself was not immune to the scandal scrutiny, the Rose Law firm and Whitewater to name a few. You would think that after there time in the White House, having achieved the power and position that they had so ambitiously sought, that the word scandal would have disassociated itself from them. Well so far it has from the former president but not from his Oval Office seeking wife. Ironically it involves an Asian fundraiser not unlike the ones associated with the ex-President Clinton. His name is Norman Hsu and he has been a very prominent Democratic Party donor. His exploits have been released into the public by the media. The controversy involves bundling of contributions and the Paws, a middle income family living in California, who by accounts have contributed $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005. In a bizarre mystery Mr. Hsu was apprehended recently in Colorado after failing to appear in court. The illness he suffered is not known but with the involvement of the Clintons into the story speculations abound. Some of those associated with the Clintons have been known to suddenly die in unusual circumstances amid swirling controversies. This is hardly something that Senator Clinton wants to follow her on the campaign trail but we will have to wait and see if the story gains any traction among the media. Is this the only bump for Mrs. Clinton on her road to the White House, or like her husband is this only the first of many mysteries and controversies to come?

What Experience?

It has become standard for political candidates to try and distinguish themselves from their opponents by touting their experience. Each candidate points to their long public service records and commitment to serving the people as a reason why people should vote for them. This is not anything new in politics nor is it exclusive to the Republicans or Democrats. We have already seen many examples of this in this presidential election campaign season. But I got to thinking about those touted Democrat front-runners who each has declared they are the most experienced and qualified to sit behind the desk in the oval office. One would only have to look at the experience of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards to wonder what experience they are referring to. I start with John Edwards who is in the third position of first-tier candidates. What experience does he have? Well we know that he is a very wealthy man who made his millions as a slip and fall lawyer as Curtis Sliwa might say. I must not forget his forgettable term in the U.S. Senate where he was apart of so much important legislation, none comes to mind of course. Then we have the rock star Barack Obama. We know that he served in the Illinois legislature and is presently serving in the Senate. Certainly he has served the people of Illinois and continues to serve them, but does he have the experience necessary to run a country effectively? And finally we have the leader of the pack, the former first lady, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. I got to thinking about her experience that she claims to have over her opponents. It may be that I am not intelligent enough to understand the complexity of her experience that would make her the ideal person to lead the world's superpower. I know she used to be a lawyer, but with people's opinions of lawyers I do not know if that is something to run on. We know that she has been a spouse of a politician, a first lady of Arkansas and later the United States. Maybe that is the experience Mrs. Clinton is referring to? But I almost forgot that she serves the people in New York as their junior senator. Each of the three is lacking when it comes to meaningful legislation attached to their names. But yet we will constantly hear from the candidates or their handlers that each is more qualified then the other and infinitely more than the Republicans whose first-tier candidates have actually run major cities and states. I am sure this trend will continue as each candidate tries to convince the electorate that they can lead and preside where others cannot. I will continue to ask and wonder and I would hope for others to ask an honest question of these candidates, what experience?

Reconsidering Larry

After a week of heavy press coverage and press conferences we know one thing for certain, that Larry Craig is not gay. And maybe that is up in the air for the moment. It seems as if the Idaho senator has had a change of heart and is thinking about taking back his resignation declaration after people like Senator Arlen Specter have told him to fight on. I will say one thing about this entire situation, I have not come away very impressed with Senator Craig's judgment. We have him declaring he was not involved in a scandal involving pages back in 1982 before names were named and he pleads guilty to some sort of activity in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. I have been thinking about this situation as I turn from channel to channel and listen to talking head after talking head. I realize that lewd or sexual behavior in a public environment is wrong but is that the case in this situation. I am still very much confused with what exactly took place and what the crime was. To me it looks like at the most a man flashing his hands under a stall and touching another man's foot with his. I am not a lawyer but I thought solicitation involved certain acts being performed in exchange for money. With the absence of money being exchanged you have two individuals with consenting feet. It might have helped if the police officer in the other stall had been wearing a camera to record the lewd activity that Mr. Craig apparently exhibited. Or intent might have been better established if the officer had been able to get Senator Craig to enter his stall. I hope if Craig is innocent that he decides to fight on and clear his name. I think his excuse for pleading guilty to a lesser crime to make things go away is troubling. I think if you are innocent you should declare it up front and not take the fall for something you have not done. These people should be able to fight their charges without have to try and hide them for fear of the public hearing about them. In the end their innocence will either be proven or not. I still do not know what the whole truth surrounding this situation is. I think it comes down to two possibilities. You either have an innocent senator with a lousy judgment or you have a politician with a penchant for foot philandering.

Real Clear Politics Poll Average

Republican Presidential Nomination
8/06 to 8/28

Giuliani-27.9%

Thompson-16.9%

Romney-14.1%

McCain-11.1%

Battered Person Syndrome in Liberal Form

Battered person syndrome is a psychological condition resulting from the suffering of abuse at the hands of someone else. This results in the victim having a low self-esteem, believing the abuse is their fault, and seeking out the abuser for comfort. Although this is associated with a physical abuse situation I think some of the same principles can be applied to liberals and their feelings about terrorism. And maybe I would not associate it to all liberals but the far left acolytes of liberalism who seek to blame America first for inviting the terrorists to attack us. It is a mentality that I can not get any grasp of. How someone could blame us for the heinous and evil acts perpetrated by radical Islamists. But we have heard the voices of individuals like a Cindy Sheehan who denounce our actions against the radical Islamic fringe and instead refer to our leaders as war criminals for taking such actions. Even those on the other side of the aisle like Ron Paul want to limit our intervention and instead resort to a policy of stick your head in the sand a.k.a. isolationism. He made the comments during one debate seeming to say that we have brought the wrath of the radicals on ourselves with our policies towards the Middle East. I find it disappointing to say the least that an elected official would claim that we would be to blame for men flying planes into buildings on our shores whatever our foreign policy. I think some of this talk is a result of those on the left who are so concerned with how we as a nation are viewed by the rest of the world. We tell our children early on in life that they should not be concerned with how other people think of them and that they should be their own person. Well the message is not resonating and we end up with individuals who are obsessed with implementing the European model into our country. I think these people need to seek professional help with their infliction. It is not only a disappointing position to take but potentially a dangerous one. That mindset leaves us open to real threats and dangers by simply dismissing them as unreal or even worse our fault.

Nattering Nabobs of Negativism

I think Spiro Agnew had it right when he referred to the media by that alliterative phrase. I think the statement would still apply to today's media which focuses on the negative more than the positive. It might be that the press corps is composed of pessimists or maybe they are unwilling to print the good news because it goes against their biases. It has certainly been hard to find the positive news during this current president's presidency. Two glaring examples of this are the coverage of the war and the economy. To find a news story about Iraq that does not contain doom and gloom is practically impossible. The stories tend to leave out the positive and focus on the negative. We hear about the death and destruction but not the reconstruction and rehabilitation of a country domineered by a tyrant. I do not have to tell you the kind of impact that has on the public back home. Poll after poll seem to suggest that the American support for the war has dwindled over the past five years. The media has done a good job of molding the story to fit their agenda. Even now as we are seeing some improvements with the surge the media is unwilling to give it a chance. You must ask yourself if the media is not vested in our defeat in the middle east from the rhetoric they fill their margins and columns with. The media has also shown a reluctance to report the good news of our economy. The Bush administration's economic policies have brought us out of the Clinton-Gore recession and the devastating effects of 9/11 to our economy. It is those tax cuts which have allowed for the economy to grow and prosper as we have seen in the dramatic rise of the stock market. But all we hear is how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Even the reduction in the unemployment rate to historic lows has not been enough to impress the media enough to report the positives. I think Agnew had it right when he referred to the media as nattering nabobs of negativism but I would include the politicians on the left side of the aisle under that umbrella as well. The Democrats in lock step with their liberal compatriots in the media have had an attitude of negativism since President Bush took office. It seems as if these two groups are opposed to anything with the president's fingerprints on it. This is clearly evident by their reaction to the economy and war in Iraq. The Democrats have made such an issue of denouncing the war in Iraq that with the success of the surge some in their leadership have become worried for their political futures. This would include Representative Clyburn who was worried about what would happen to the Democrat if we were successful in Iraq. And then you have Senator Harry Reid declaring the war lost a couple months ago. They makes these statements from the confines of Capitol Hill. We have seen recently the reports from those that have seen the situation on the ground and have come back with positive news. And not all of them have been conservatives but liberal-minded media and politicians. Maybe the Democrats should try to understand the truth of the situation before decrying the Petraeus report before it is given. I write all of this because I wonder what goes on in the mind of liberals. Those in the media and the politicians of the left have made it clear that negativism is their platform and standard operating procedure. They will continue to try and drive down confidence and support on issues like the economy and the war on terror because it does not fit their agenda. I hope that Americans start to realize this and are not swayed by this propaganda. I think we need more glass half full people in this world. So when you are confronted with these nattering nabobs of negativism confront them back with the truth and positiveness so that we can make them an extinct species.

Bush White House Loses Chief Architect

The man who was described as President Bush's brain has decided to vacate the White House. Karl Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisers and friends, has made the announcement that he is leaving at the end of the month. Rove is the man who is largely credited with helping Bush ascend to the presidency. He has decided that after six and a half years in the White House that he wants to spend more time with his family. It would seem odd that Mr. Rove would not finish out the second term with the president but the long hours and stress that accompany working in the west wing seem to have caught up to him like others before him. Pundits who discussed this on the twenty-four hour news channels felt that Rove could still be an influential voice for the White House and the Republican Party. Rove stated that he did not have a clear plan as to what he would do in the future. A book about his life in the White House is a real possibility. What is known is that the Democrats will not have him to aim their poison arrows at. Rove has been a target of the left and is hated at a level usually reserved for Dick Cheney. He has been a man who has been very successful in his career but liberals would only recognize him as being part of the dark side with some evil grand scheme. The president will now have to leave office is eighteen months with one less ally by his side. The president will now have to survive without his closest political advisor and friend.

Straw Poll Closes With Romney Victory

If you stayed until the end of the Iowa Straw Poll as I did you found out two things. The first being that it took too long to get the results, an hour and a half late, and two the winner was not a surprise. Former Governor Mitt Romney took the victory in yesterday's event with about 31% of the vote. That was not really a surprise as Mr. Romney has been the presumed winner for awhile now and with the lack of participation by the other front runners it was almost an inevitability. One surprise of the day was the second place finish of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Even in a watered down field he was still able to catapult over the other so-called second-tier candidates to a respectable showing in the poll. The question is whether this finish will allow him to increase his fundraising to keep his campaign going. The day may have not had the same feeling though as it did back in 2000. The attendance and vote totals were down from the last Iowa Straw Poll. The overwhelming heat may have had something to do with that or it may be that the event had to compete with the Iowa State Fair going on in Des Moines. Perhaps the reason was that the front runners in the race like Giuliani, McCain, or even a Fred Thompson were no shows and people were not as interested. I was able to make it down to the event and despite the weather I enjoyed the day. I think it gives people a chance to see the candidates up close and personal. I think it goes along with the whole idea of retail politics that defines the process in Iowa. Some may say the the event is not important because it is not a real vote. But it does show the organization of the campaigns and how they are able to mobilize their supporters. It will more than likely have the effect of weeding out some of the candidates like a Duncan Hunter or Tommy Thompson who both did not perform very well in the poll. We will have to see if those who finished near the top will be able gain some momentum and keep their campaigns going into the next couple of months before the caucus.

The Race to the Middle

If you have been keeping up with the politics you know that the campaign season for 2008 has started even earlier than previous election cycles. This year we have a multitude of candidates to choose from on both sides of the political aisle. We have already had a number of debates to find out how the candidates stand on the issues. We are at the point in the campaign cycle where the candidates are focusing their positions towards the primary voters. That means directing your views and comments towards your party's base. The point being to garner as much support from your base to get your party's nomination. So that is why we have the Democrats flying off to the Daily Kos convention to make an appearance. The people that participate on the Daily Kos website are increasingly becoming the base of the Democrat party. These are hard liners of the left that represent the radical views of people like Penn, Sheehan, and Glover. The Democrat's are so afraid of losing the support of these people that they practically let their political lives be dictated by them. I watched the interview between Bill O'Reilly and Senator Chris Dodd and watched as Senator Dodd defended the Daily Kos throughout the entire interview. O'Reilly pointed out the vile picture that had been put on the website but Dodd was unwilling to make even any hint of a remorseful statement about the picture. It revealed all to much to me as I watched the back and forth. That got me thinking about the usual trend in presidential politics. We usually see candidates speak to their base and try to convince them of their credentials but after winning the nomination they run to the middle. This being to attract any individuals in the middle who are undecided about their choice for president. The candidate seems to seek a new tone as they seek to show that they can not just lead the members of their party but the entire country. I wonder during this election cycle if we will see that race to the middle after both parties have chosen their candidates. I would hope that a candidate would stick with what they say along the political trail and not compromise their ideals to reach the masses of independents who ride the fencepost. Otherwise their positions seem somewhat disingenuous. I do hope however that if we do have a race to the middle that the Republicans are first to the finish line to pick up the moderate's vote. Because I fear for what a Democrat president we mean for our country. I think of that old phrase you are judged by the company you keep. One only has to look at the company the Democrats keep to know that they are the wrong choice to lead our country especially at this crucial time.

Pajama Party Politics

I apologize for the lack of updates. I am trying to get through the last couple of days of my online college classes. I did want to make mention of an occurrence that transpired last week. For all of you who paid attention to Congress you witnessed the legislative slumber party initiated by Senator Harry Reid D-Nevada. The futile attempt to try and lead the country towards surrender failed and the Democrats were left with sour faces and an approval rating that reflects their do-nothing agenda so far. It is clear that the Democrats are unable to pull themselves from the radical left that seems to have a strangle hold on their party. For anyone who doubts this you need only to look at the fact that these fringe elements have daily conference calls with the Democrats and their leadership. The exercise last week was simply another attempt by Democrats to show that they were trying to pull us out of Iraq. The Democrats brought in cots to prepare for the long night of politicking. What we know is that even some on the Democrat's side wanted to call it a night and return to the issue in the morning. The whole thing was pointless and a waste of time which would describe the Democrat agenda up until know. These politicians do not even want to give General Petraeus until September to report back the progress on the ground like they agreed to do. I would say that the surge is really in its infancy and will need longer than September to show its full strength. But the Democrats are so anxious to put out of Iraq as they feel we have done enough. They also point out the fact that this war has taken longer than WWII. I would say that the war against Nazism was an easier war not only because it was tied to a country but because we had real support in the world and individuals who understood the threat. We do not enjoy such support in the present except for a few allies namely Great Britain. So the Democrats can hold their all-nighters and dramatic displays of ignorance and stupidity in an attempt to end the war in Iraq. They will not take the means they have to end the war by cutting off the funding. I mean if they were really serious about ending our occupation of Iraq like they tell their frenzied and radical supporters then why not go all the way? The answer is that they are all to comfortable to keep playing politics which is what they are best at. The sad part is that while it may make sense for the support around the world to have diminished considering the changing face of Europe and other countries it is a shame that we cannot turn to many of our fellow citizens for support within our own borders.

The Fourth Necessity?

You check the cupboards and realize that you are out of groceries and badly in need of toilet paper. You wake up to the sound of a buzzing in your ear from the alarm clock you set the night before. You shower, possibly shave, get dressed and head out the door. But what comes next? Well in the world of today you climb into your car and head off to the store or to work. These are tasks that we all participate in on a regular basis. We are constantly traveling from point A to point B within the comfy confines of our vehicles. Vehicles that require gasoline to run and require it too often especially for you drivers of those hated gas guzzlers. But until we have engines that will run off of water or garbage like in Back to the Future, this is just something we have to live with, or is it? We have come to depend on oil, but is it necessary, or better yet is it a necessity? We can all list the basic necessities for human survival. Those would include food, clothing, and shelter. It might be said that oil is our fourth necessity. Our behavior towards oil would certainly suggest as much. We drive to school, work, and sometimes down the street at midnight for a convenience store burrito. We are consumers of energy and the demand keeps growing. The problem is trying to produce enough supply to keep up with demand. And despite what some may say the United States is not the only consumers with India and China producing greater and greater demand themselves. And when we try to create supply we are met with opposition from the left. They fear the impact it will have on the Earth. I understand their sensitivity about protecting the planet. As a Christian I understand the responsibility we have to be good stewards of God's creation. But we must also live in this world and we should use the minds and resources we were given to the fullest extent. This means building more refineries, nuclear plants, and drilling in Alaska and off our coasts. We need to at least explore these options until we come up with better alternatives. And I do not think corn is the answer, and that is coming from someone from Iowa. If we want cheaper energy we need to explore every option. I think of the people who complain about soaring gas prices and how they decry the efforts to build new refineries. I also think about the Kennedy family and their objections to windmills being built in sight of their compound. It is kind of like do it as long as it does not inconvenience me. Or in the minds of liberals, do as I say not as I do. the same statement could be applied to Al Gore. His house consumes great amounts of energy and with his many commitments he has to speak on global warming he flies around on his private jets. Meanwhile he talks about purchasing carbon credits to offset the footprints he is making on our planet. Reducing our dependance on oil would be both beneficial to our national security and to our wallets. But we must come to this rationally and intelligently. Maybe we do treat oil as a necessity. Our lives are built around convenience and driving fits or culture of convenience. It is certainly more convenient to drive a car somewhere then to hitch up the horse and buggy. We must not let the hyperbole about global warming to cloud our judgement. Is oil our fourth necessity? I do not know the answer to that. I think it is as close as it can be and as long as we depend on it to the extent we do we will be asking that question.

Break Down at the Border

Racist, bigot, xenophobe, these are all adjectives to describe Republicans and conservatives. It is the common response of the left to conservatives’ concerns about illegal immigration. This is the same tired response given when concerns are raised on this issue. This is in response to concerns about the immigration bill trying to gain life in the Senate. The main objection is the granting of amnesty to 12 to 20 billion illegal immigrants, and the still unsecured border. These are two common sense concerns that do not seem able to penetrate the nonsensical minds of liberals. The bill failed to garner enough votes in the Senate and looked to be dead but like Lazarus it is being resurrected for another go around. The Democrats are dangling carrots in the faces of Republicans in an effort to boost support. The sad part is we have many on the Republican side of the aisle who are eagerly supporting this bill. There seems to be a divide among the party between those who want comprehensive reform and those who want enforcement of the border first. Unfortunately our president supports the former option. He even went as far, in recent weeks, to question the motives of those who want to secure the border first. Needless to say this had a predictable reaction as congressmen were flooded with calls decrying the move to grant amnesty. To respond to my earlier statement, we are not racists, bigots, or xenophobes, we are concerned citizens. We have a right to be concerned considering amnesty was tried twenty years ago and we now have many times the illegal population residing within our borders. We also sit and wait earnestly for our borders to be secured as promised. How can we expect to curb the flow of illegal immigrants into our country when our door remains wide open? Every day our borders remain wide open we will se an influx of illegal elements crossing into our country, some well-intentioned and some not. I think Congress needs to take advantage of their world-class healthcare and get a prescription to restore their common sense. Instead we are left with a debate going nowhere, as a bridge in Alaska, and two sides unwilling to compromise. It would seem logical to secure the border first and then decide what to do with the people already in our country. Logic, however, seems to elude those in Washington. For all the talk about bipartisanship it would seem likely that both sides would agree that securing our borders would be a first priority. After all they are given this responsibility in the constitution. And we all know how Democrats love to quote and refer to the constitution when they think another right is being taken away from them. Our Congress needs to know our feelings about this and they have begun to hear them. The proof is the lack of a signed bill. This is an issue with great importance like the war against radical Islam. Not only are their national security implications but economic as well. We have all heard the statistics of what the cost will be if we allow the status quo to remain. That cost being left for future generations to pay like social security. The point is this, there are so many things we cannot control but his is one we can solve if we have the right leadership. Unfortunately the halls of Congress are increasingly devoid of such leaders.

The Eighty Mile Struggle

For those of you not from Iowa or most specifically from the Northwestern part of Iowa this post may fall on deaf ears. This is more of a regional story and one that cause my rant level to hit warp factor ten. It involves the completion, or lack thereof, of the four-lane expansion of Highway 20. It is infuriating to know that while the politicians down at the state house argue over meaningless pork projects that the last eighty miles of road remains unfinished. This is not a new story. This battle to complete the expansion of the highway to four-lanes has been languishing for many years and the end is not in sight. That last point is particularly disheartening to someone who makes the journey from Sioux City to Fort Dodge regularly. Not only would the expansion dramatically reduce the travel time from city to city but business expansion is being held back by the hold up. Many a time have I been stuck behind a convoy of big rigs sucking diesel exhaust with little recourse as passing points are as infrequent as a Republican in San Francisco. And the delay in completion is bringing with it more problems as with every passing year the price of the project projects to go up. Right now the figure to complete the undertaking is about five million dollars a mile. I was more than a little amazed at those figures until I saw that the costs will increase if the project is not finished soon. And soon is rapidly becoming a fixture in the rear view mirror as only a fraction of the money needed for the project has been appropriated. I know that in the grand scheme of things this is not a hugely important issue. But if you find yourselves living in the Northwest part of Iowa you will find yourselves drawn to this issue. When you find yourselves behind an endless stream of semis and blue-hairs maybe you will appreciate our plight here in the heartland.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Fear Itself, and Radical Islam

I think that is probably how the statement would go had it been uttered in today's environment. I say this as a proud American who realizes the greatness of our country and its resolve to deal with any adversity and conquer it. But we must realize the threat that radical Islam poses to our country and democracy around the world. I fear our country's resolve to deal with this danger fell drastically as a result of the results of last November's election. The danger is a nation becoming complacent and fall into a false sense of security. This is especially possible when certain political forces play down the threat from radical Islam. I think that attitude comes from the fact that they do not see the risk of terrorists following us to our shores as credible. The fact is when you have people that want to destroy us and an unprotected border you have an equation with disaster on the other side of the equal sign. But we may not have to wait for those to follow us home from Iraq. As the situation at Fort Dix showed us terrorism can be homemade as terror cells populate within our borders. And if a certain political party keeps attacking and wanting to take away all our tactics to fight these terrorists, the peace we have had these past few years since 9/11 may go up in smoke, literally. If we take this attitude as has been adopted by so many then we really will have something to fear. The best strategy we have is to go on offense and take the fight to the enemy. But we must be willing to go all the way in this fight. Right now we have a leader who understands this, but it may change in the next election cycle. War fatigue is frankly not an option. We will not solve this problem in a year or two. With a seemingly growing crop of new radicals being brainwashed and cultivated our commitment is needed now more than ever. We were once a nation that put democracy on a pedestal as a model for other nations to follow. Unfortunately that pedestal has been losing its support as a result of comments and actions of some, and is not as firmly in place as it once was. We are attacked for wanting to give other nations the security, prosperity, and freedom we enjoy. It may be unrealistic to expect every nation to be our duplicate. But if they can escape the violence and persecution of the evil entities that control them is not our campaign a noble and necessary one? Because planting democracy over there might just save ours over here.

Why Do Democrats Hate Minorities?

Why do Democrats hate minorities? I know many of you are saying to yourself that Democrats do not hate minorities, but embrace them into their party. I believe this is the general opinion of most Democrats because they are the big-tent party of minorities.I would agree with that statement. Minorities, especially African-Americans, have voted more for Democrats than Republicans. Another question I could pose is why do they? I would tie both questions together because they relate to each other in a cause and effect or action and consequence way. I pose this question because I think there is some evidence Democrats do hate minorities. The main reason is the policies they set and try to implement. Not only do they not work but they end up doing more harm then good. I fault the Democrats ideology as well-intentioned but misguided. They set up programs like welfare, social programs that create a dependence on the government. These types of social programs rarely are successful and cost the taxpayers millions if not billions over their lifetime. Why would you work any harder if you knew the government was going to take care of you? This nanny-state mentality is absurd and a wrong course of action.Take for example New Orleans which has been Democrat-run for decades. We all saw the conditions of the town when Hurricane Katrina hit. What should have been a panacea turned out to be anything but. What we got was a city crying out for the government to save them as if the government can really be counted on for much of anything. It seems like Democrats want to keep their core constituents under their thumb never wanting them to fully reach their potention for fear of losing their vote. When you are a party that constantly tells your voters that the government is keeping them from succeeding why would they ever try in the first place.Democrats even fail on one of the most important areas, education. Education is the cornerstone of personal success. But when it comes to school vouchers the liberal teachers union vote a resounding no. As a result many minority students fade away in poor schools. Maybe if we were truly focused on education and responsible choices we would not have the degree of minority teenage mothers that we do. We have children who are having children themselves at an alarming rate. As a result we have mothers with no education and very often no husband to help support them. Basically these women are starting life out with two strikes against them.Another smaller point deals with language. Democrats oppose making English the official language. They call it simply rascist and part of a far-right agenda. How successful a nation can we be when entire towns are unable to communicate with us and do not have enough workers who speak English, the language of success? Unfortunately this is a reality is at least one California town.Do I really think Democrats hate minorities? The answer to that is no, but based on their policies I wonder if they are truly concerned about their welfare as opposed to someone who will blindly vote for them. It might be a corny line but a hand up is better then a hand out.

Giuliani Gives Ground

Some may be glad that the election is so far away, and one of those might be Rudy Giuliani. Tonight was the first Republican presidential debate and the former mayor of New York was a little off his game. All the pundits have said that the front runners in these debates want to hold their ground and not do anything to hurt their position, and the under dogs want to use the opportunity to make themselves known. Well, from many perspectives, including mine, Mr. Giuliani might want to prepare a little more for the next debate.It is now known that Giuliani has slipped in the polls; while still maintaining his first place lead, he has drifted closer to the pack. And tonight's performance might cause the gap to close even more. Giuliani probably had the hardest time during the debate because he had the most to answer for. As a politician of varying degrees of conservatism he looked a little out of sync when trying to account for his past stances on topics like abortion. It was pointed out that Giuliani was not able to navigate effectively through the questions, and at times appeared disinterested. It was also clear that considering his views on abortion and certainly knowing that he would be asked about those views, Mr. Giuliani seem to stumble through his answers.In the presence of the Reagan legacy it is Giuliani who probably has the furthest to come to convince the right of his conservative credentials. I will say that for the time being he is not my candidate of choice. I think his leading of New York after 9/11 was courageous and should be applauded, but I hardly think that grants him the keys to the White House. The polls seem to show that Mayor Giuliani would be able to beat both Senators Clinton and Obama in the election. If Giuliani would end up with the Republican nomination I would support him if he could defeat the Democrat opponent. Because, whatever misgivings I may have about Rudy Giuliani, he is supremely better than the alternative. I would feel much more comfortable with a Giuliani in the White House than two Clintons or someone with no real experience. The presidency is not an internship; on the job training is not an option is the times we live in.

The Real Crisis in America

When liberals talk about global warming they tend to present it as fact. More importantly, they portray global warming as an absolute fact not open for discussion or debate. I find this more than infuriating on many levels. First, liberals state there is a consensus on the issue and secondly, they close their minds to any reality that does not fit into their ideology. The truth is there is a significant segment of scientists and weather experts not yet willing to concede to this. Liberals, however, are tuned out to this message because it challenges one of their principle tenets, the environment. The "Blame America First" crowd has declared the Earth is on an ever increasing warming curve and humans are solely to blame. I hate that these are the same people that up until the early nineties thought we would encounter the next ice age. Well I must tell you that there are no polar bears or penguins in my backyard. But now we are to believe these individuals and their weather models. Sorry, but I ain't buying what they are selling.Listen, the earth may be warming but attributing it to humans is ridiculous. I am more than ready to blame the sun than humans for the warming. But I do thank Al Gore for telling our children that polar bears are going to die and the Earth will burn up. I thought the Republicans were the ones who played the fear card. I wish liberals would focus on the real and imminent threats to the planet like cancer. This disease, which takes the life of millions, is a real and present threat to humanity-- much more so than global warming. I do not know of a single person whose cause of death has been global warming, but I know many that have lost their lives as a result of cancer. How about throwing money at a real problem and not on carbon credits which are nothing more than modern day indulgences. Let's wise up, America, to the realities of our world. I fear this will not happen until the radical left stops seeing an SUV driving on a highway as a hate crime against nature.

Don Gets Dumped: The Bitter End of Don Imus

America's original shock jock falls amid an outrage that spawned from his choice of words, directed at the women's basketball team at Rutgers University. MSNBC, which ran Imus' radio simulcast, was the first to act by cancelling their simulcast and was followed days later by CBS radio. The story started off small, but grew in intensity as more and more outlets became involved in the story: namely Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who called for Don Imus to be fired for his comments. The popular show, which was able to bring many high-profile individuals in the political and journalism domains onto its airwaves, has been known to originate other controversial statements in the past. One of the interesting points to this story is the selective outrage by many of the people who have recently commented on this story, and especially Reverends Sharpton and Jackson. The people who went on the Don Imus show knew what had been said in the past by Imus and his crew, but only now called for him to be fired. Others I have heard claim a kind of ignorance which I find laughable. This attempt at a plausible denial is implausible. I think what Imus said was over the line especially when you look at who he was directing it at. These were young women who had achieved a great deal of success and were caught in Imus' cross-hair. But I also think we should look at how this story gained steam like it did. We had Sharpton and Jackson involved, like they always are in situations like this. These are two men who have not met soapbox they would not stand on to spout their opinions. These self-declared spokesmen for all African-Americans called for the head of Don Imus. This, at the time that the Rutgers' women had met with Imus and accepted his apology. But it was too late for Don Imus as sponsor after sponsor pulled out and the executives got scared and reacted. This reaction of course was not immediate, but after a few days when I guess Imus' words had gotten worse over time. The main point of my diatribe is focused on Sharpton and Jackson. These are two men who hardly have the moral authority to be denouncing anyone's words. I am sick of these two men constantly inserting themselves into every issue or event. I am really sick of the selective moral outrage shown by these two men. They condemn people like Imus but refuse to focus their attention on the music industry where such degrading speech is a constant presence. It seems they are blind to the real crises that the African-American community is confronted with like teenage pregnancy and school drop-outs. But individuals like Sharpton and Jackson have an agenda and instead look for easy prey that they can target and exploit for their own personal gain.

Pelosi Does Damascus: Nancy's Middle East Quest For Peace

Despite being told to keep out of Syria, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would not be denied the opportunity to speak with the state sponsors of terrorism. In doing so, Mrs. Pelosi may have violated a U.S. law against such actions.The Democrats want us to remember the elections of last fall, but it is they who should remember who was elected president. The constitution provides the House of Representatives with many responsibilites, but setting U.S. foreign policy is not one of them. The president is given this responsibility, and the Democrats seem to want to forget that.In fact, the House has no real foreign responsibility given to them. The Senate is the legislative body that is in charge of foreign treaties. It is bad policy and setting a bad precedent for the Democrats to provide competing foreign policies, especially to nations whose Hezbollah party is a major terrorist organization.Speaker Pelosi has turned herself into a propaganda tool that can be used by these evil actors to claim some right of legitimacy.I know some people have complained about the focus being solely put on Mrs. Pelosi and not on the Republican congressman that accompanied her. In answer: First of all, Mrs. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and being of such a high office, should realize the credibility that title carries to nations like Syria. I will concede that these congressman from the right side of the aisle should not have made the trip into Syria either. By meeting with individuals like Syrian President Assad, they condone a country who is a state sponser of terrorism and wants to destroy Israel.How do we rationally talk with people who will not recognize the right to exist of our greatest regional ally? Besides, what has the talking of the past decades gotten us? The answer to that, in my opinion, is nowhere.It seems to me that Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats think they have some grand design to bring about peace in a region marred by war and destruction. I, personally, doubt it. The Democrats appear to have this perspective about the entire Middle East. How can we negotiate with nations like Iran, who have repeatedly denied the Holocaust, or Israel's right to exist? To me that kind of mindset is a deal breaker at the negotiation table. Democrats preach diplomacy. But unless that diplomacy is backed up with the threat of force it has no power.

Dems Defund Threat Continues

I now see the current Democratic leadership as more pathetic creatures then I ever had previously. Recently Senator Harry Reid has ratcheted up the threat to cut off funding to the troops. Not only is this a completely idle threat many Democrats have stated as much recently. One such individual is congressman Charles Rangel who made the comments that the Democrats have no real chance of cutting funding for the troops nor does the majority want to. I mean after all Democrats had to load up the Iraq war supplemental bill with peanut storage and spinach subsidy pork that totalled billions. Never mind that this is an egregious use of taxpayer money but to include it in an emergency war bill to bribe congress members for votes is frankly criminal. Meanwhile the president has clearly stated that he will veto any bill with time lines for retreat that the radical activists who control the Democrat party call for. I guess the Democrats skipped the part of the constitution where it said that the president was commander in chief and not the members of the House and Senate. Where congress does have power is in the purse. Congress does have the power to defund the war and should if they are so opposed to our mission in Iraq. What is it that we constantly confronted with by Democrats? They repeatedly point back to the elections of last fall and Americans displeasure with the war as a reason to cut and run from Iraq. My answer to this is o.k. so defund the war. I am frankly sick of hearing this from Democrats. If they have such a mandate given to them by the American people why do they not cut the funding and bring our troops home now. Democrats are so worried about polls and how they will look if they give up on the military that they are scared and too cowardly to stand up for what they purport to believe. Obviously they fear a backlash from simply cutting the funding as opposed to their slow bleed plan of arbitrary timetables. I point to this as the reason the Democrats will not hold on to their power. They are fine sitting in the backseat calling the shots but when given control of the wheel they either get lost or drive the car into a telephone poll.

Congress Goes Green

Yesterday I happened to come across the congressional hearings on global climate change which aired on C-SPAN. The Democrats now control congress so the view of global warming as an unequivocal fact was made during the proceedings. They paraded out a scientist, Dr. James Hansen, from NASA who stated that global climate change was an absolute certainty and was a threat to our world. I guess the Democrats have not been watching Hannity's America where a running scroll appears detailing the numerous sceptics of the view held by people like Dr. Hansen and others of his persuasion. Liberals like Dr. Hansen who appeared on C-SPAN who referred to the Bush administration by comparing it to Nazi Germany. This of course represents the typical left response when one of their sacraments like global warming is challenged. Unfortunately when Republicans have representatives like Christopher Shays they must look elsewhere for leadership. Shays spoke yesterday during the hearings and made the comment that he weeps because the Bush administration has not carried the global warming banner and made it their issue. Does anyone else find that the least bit pathetic? I would not expect much more though from a Northeastern Republican that if he became any more purple ideologically would resemble a certain PBS dinosaur. My biggest problem with all of this is liberals professing global warming as stated and recognized fact. They routinely seek to place blame on humans for causing this threat to our planet. It does fit the profile of a liberal talking point. Blame everyone else for a problem and make them feel guilty enough so that they will support your issue. Liberals like Dr. Hansen and Al Gore do not even want to recognize the dissenting view because to them the issue of global warming and humans contribution to it is settled. I would compare this to people declaring the world flat and declaring it fact and ignoring the round worlders. Unfortunately the world did not turn out to be flat so we could send liberals on a voyage around the world to search for global warming.

A Return to Arms

Hello to all of you out in cyberspace that have ventured into my virtual landscape and reaped the benefits of my amazing knowledge. I have not contributed as much in recent days to the blog but I am recommitting myself to the cause of defending conservative principles against all enemies both foreign and domestic ( that means you liberals). I hope you will help me with this fight as we find ourselves in the full throws of the presidential campaign season.

Even Though It's Winter It's Flip Flop Weather in New England

I just wonder what it is about New England that causes the politicians to be born without a spine? Of course I am speaking about the Democrat politicians but it seems more and more rinos (Republican In Name Only) then elephants are popping up in the Republican ranks in New England. But I would like to keep my focus on the liberals that define the region of the country famous for fishing and maple syrup. Recently comments have been made by Democrat politicians about the troop surge in Iraq. It just so happens that these individuals have also been linked to presidential runs in 2008. They include the likes of Joe Biden, Christopher Dud, I mean Dodd, and the king flip flopper John Kerry. Each Senator has come out vehemently opposed to sending in more troops into Iraq to quell the violence and bring about a stable democratic regime in the region. You might ask what is the problem after all people are entitled to their opinions? The problem is these individuals had made previous statements quite contrary to their current ones. Each one had on a previous occasion declared the importance of success in Iraq and the need to increase troops in the region. Why Joe Biden not long after we had entered Iraq was declaring the need for more troops to do the job there effectively. I guess I do not understand the abrupt change in these men's thinking. We needed more troops before and now when they state that the region is on the verge of utter collapse we don't need more troops. I guess one could be disgusted by the way these men seem to stick their finger in the air to see where the wind blows to make a decision. I would simply say that this is how Democrats operate. They wait for the opinion polls to tell them how they should vote or what their position should be on an issue. One could almost respect someone even if they had a different opinion from their own if that person had the courage to stand up for what he believed in. President Bush may have his faults but you can't fault him for standing by his convictions. He knows some of his ideas are going to be vilified in the press and he still stands by them because he knows he is doing what is best for our country. These weak-willed cowards that hold elected office are all to willing to sell their souls to please the radicals that run their party. I hope whatever their prize that they covet is worth it be it power or glory because sooner or later someone is going to collect on what is owed them.

Obama makes it official, kind of

Well we finally have what everyone has been waiting with eager anticipation for and that is Barack Obama's entry into the 2008 presidential race. Well we have been told that is what everyone has been waiting for and he is not quite officially in yet. It seems as if he like many candidates has fallen into that vortex of politics referred to as forming an exploratory committee. Now what exactly does that mean? Well essentially it means that the junior senator from Illinois is going to ask people if he should run or not. He has one foot in the water but is timidly waiting for the all clear to jump into the pool. I must say I get sick of hearing about these candidates forming exploratory committees. I mean if you do not know if you want to run or not maybe it is just not in you. I mean you should know if you have a reasonable chance at your party's nomination unless you come from nowhere, Wyoming or wheretheheckamI, Rhode Island. Maybe Mr. Obama is considering whether he is ready to take on the Clinton monster. I mean he waited to announce his exploratory bid when Mrs. Clinton was out of the country in Iraq, some guts. Although he was able to shut Mrs. Clinton up as she postponed her speech so as to not be overshadowed by the media darling's announcement. I keep wondering what everyone seems to see in Obama. The media certainly has come down with a bad case of Obama fever as has the All-Powerful Oprah. This is a man with practically no experience who now believes he can lead the world's most powerful nation and in a post 9-11 world at that. Apparently Senator Obama's inexperience is not enough to shake loose Chris Matthews from the Obama train. He recently expressed that he thought the lack of experience might be good for Obama since he has not become corrupted by years in the Senate. What a wonderful image Chris Matthews paints of congress where you go in one way and come out a warped shell of your former self. Maybe I can't see the potential greatness because I am looking at things through conservative frames. But I cannot help it because they are prescription.

Doubting Thomas' Take Control of the Gavel

The Democrats recently took over control of congress from the Republicans. The Republicans had enjoyed a lengthy stay as the majority party before being tossed out as personas non grata. All eyes turn towards the Democrats as they lead off with their 100 hour plan to better America in their image. With the takeover comes changes in leadership positions as the chairs of the committee chairmanships are now being occupied by Charlie Rangel, Joe Biden, Carl Levin, and all the other old men who have out lived their peers to earn such top billing. We will now see the course the Democrats choose to take our country in. Will they keep us moving along down the highway or veer off into the opposite lane into oncoming traffic. The jury is still out on that especially since the Democrats are salivating to complete the trifecta by taking the White House in '08. The only thing we really know is that any attempts by President Bush to garner support by Democrats to push for success in Iraq is going to be met by the Democrats driving with the emergency brake all the way. Maybe it is because the Democrats feel it is still the Vietnam era and they must oppose this war at all costs to our country and our soldiers to save face with the radicals that now control their party. That is because the Democrat party is made up of sniveling cowards who break when things get tough. I will admit the current plan to send in an additional 21,000 troops may not solve the problems in Iraq. Maybe if we had gone in lock, stock, and smoking barrels and used our full military muscle we wouldn't have to deal with Dennis Kucinich and all the other liberal surrenderists. Maybe it was not such a great idea to treat our military like a pencil and sharpen it to a nub but instead keep it big and strong so it is fully capable to defend us from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Because if we must count on as Rush Limbaugh called Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco treat our country may not see another birthday.

Saddam Reaches the End of His Rope

For most of us the sight of Saddam Hussein dangling from the end of a rope would mean that one of the most ruthless men on the planet would no longer be a threat to us or his own people. Unfortunately not everyone seems to think the way we do and we call those people liberals. I know it seems as if I cast dispersions on liberals on a constant basis and maybe that is because it is so easy to. It is almost as if liberals are raised to be gluttons for punishment. I mean how else would you explain why they would believe the things they do. I saw the execution of Saddam Hussein as an end to a very long nightmare that the Iraqi people have had to live for a very long time. Those on the fringe would instead say that their was a miscarriage of justice and that we should not celebrate the end of the Butcher of Baghdad's cruel reign. How in the world was this a miscarriage of justice? Saddam Hussein invaded the country of Kuwait in the early nineties and we crushed him but made an egregious error in not pushing all the way into heart of Iraq and finishing the job. We let Hussein defy U.N. resolution after U.N. resolution so he could stockpile weapons which he would use on his own people. When Saddam was finally captured by our magnificent military we did not put a gun to his head and execute him in the field but instead returned Saddam to his own people to enact justice. Saddam was given a trial a symbol of democracy in a country that was dominated by the rule of one. Maybe his hanging should not have ended up as a video to be viewed along with a lonely girl and men putting mentos in diet coke but in the end the Iraqis could climb out from the shadows cast by Saddam. So you will not find a shed tear on my face when I think of the execution of Saddam Hussein. For those on the left who do I can only ask why? I know they abhor the penalty of death but can they forget those people like the Kurds who were gassed to death by a megalomaniac. Sadly I fear they will not because there ideology will not let them.

Tis the Season for Giving

It is appropriate that this story comes across the news desk at this time of year. I am talking about the comments made recently by an insurgent leader in Iraq. Abu Omar al-Baghdadi the leader of the Mujahideen Shura Council has graciously offered a one-month truce to our military forces to pull out of Iraq. The conditions of the truce state that we must vacate all of our military bases and leave behind all of our heavy weapons. Can you believe it? All we have to do is retreat from the battlefield and leave behind our military technology to radical insurgents and we can finally have a peaceful ending to the quagmire in Iraq. Unfortunately that is just the kind of sentence that would come from the lips of a liberal. We as the world power are just suppose to give in to the demands of those killing our soldiers and preventing democracy to take hold in Iraq and the middle east. On top of that we are supposed to leave our weaponry behind. We went into Iraq partly because we thought there was deadly weapons under Saddam's control but we are now supposed to leave ours behind for the terrorists to collect. The sad reality is that there are people in our county for whom this "truce" proposal makes sense. Those on the left are constantly beating the drum for our retreat from Iraq and I am sure they see this as a way for us to end our occupation in Iraq. The United States has been given two weeks to respond to the offer. My answer is simply this I think we should leave one bomb behind and that it is sent care on delivery to Mr. al-Baghdadi as it is rocketing towards him with all deliberate speed.

Time Picks You

Well the time has finally come for Time Magazine to announce their person of the year. And what do you know it is not a person at all per se but many persons. Time has picked you as the person of the year. That's right all of us are the person of the year. It is quite surprising that I would be picked person of the year considering I have not done much. Much hype has been put on this year's Time person of the year and I got to say I am kind of disappointed. I think Time took the easy way out by simply making the American citizen the person of the year. They spend countless hours around a table debating the pros and cons of many candidates and this year they simply pick you. I am not saying that you out there across the fruited plains do not deserve such an honor. I am sure many of you have made a worthwhile difference in the world this year and deserve the accolade. I am just saying that out of all the newsmakers of the past year the editors at Time decided that you are the most deserving. I will admit the choice was not what I had anticipated. I could have accepted Barack Obama the politician du jour as the media eagerly looks to crown him the next president. Or how about YouTube which has become such a phenomenon and keeps Comedy Central relevant. But if not these then how about another choice. I wonder if the folks at time ever considered selecting the American soldier as the person of the year. I really could think of no one more deserving as those who give their all sometimes their lives to defend our freedoms. I don't know about you but that qualifies them in my book. Instead you have been chosen as the person of the year. You who voted the Democrats back into power and you who in increasing numbers turn your back on the war on terror and the fight to preserve our way of life. I am not saying you did not deserve to be person of the year but maybe it is worth asking what did you really do this year?

CNN Uses F-Word

I was recently channel surfing the other day and happened to end up on CNN. I normally do not give CNN the time of day for obvious reasons, i.e. Clinton News Network. And believe me that monikor stills holds as true today as ever. Jack Cafferty happened to be on at the time I momentarily stopped on CNN and I decided to listen to what he was talking about. He proceeded on a long diatribe about Bush and blaming him for the death of so many American soldiers. It was quite clear to me that Mr. Cafferty was a cut and runner. I also realized that CNN apparently no longer feels the need to try and hide their liberal bias. One only has to listen to the words pouring forth from stodgy curmudgeons like Cafferty. At another point during the broadcast Mr. Cafferty made reference to its competition or rival the Fox News Channel. Of course to be considered a rivalry both sides need to be somewhat equal and by looking at the ratings of both channels we know that is not true. But to get back on point Mr. Cafferty did not refer to Fox by name but referred to it as the F-word network. I find it laughable when I come across these deep held aggressions aimed at Fox. Routinely you can find Keith Olberman tearing into the likes of Bill O'Reilly. I wonder why these individuals feel the need to trash their competition. I would assume a large part of it would be jealousy. CNN and MSNBC continually place behind Fox News in the ratings. Maybe they feel by attacking Fox they will garner more support for their network and take down their competition. But those individuals fail to observe one key point, they stink. One only has to watch for a few minutes to know that CNN and MSNBC are still playing in the minors waiting to be called up to the major leagues. It is fine for these supposed news network to be liberally biased as much of the media is. But do not insult our intelligence by claiming to be an unbiased news source. After all CNN is the network who felt it necessary to air essentially radical Islamic propaganda and give relevance by talking to David Duke about his involvement in the Holocaust denial conference. It comes down to this Fox News is the standard and the rest is just televised fish wrap. I mean who would you rather get your news from Brit Hume or a former ESPN flunky?

Pay Pal Donation

If you notice my blog you will see that I have added a pay pal donation button. I would ask that if you enjoy reading my blog and feel moved to send me any donation I would very much appreciate it.

Defending the United States to the World

It seems incredible that one would have to defend the United States to the rest of the world and within our own borders. But I as the loyal servant of America and proud patriot will attempt to do so. Really when one looks at things from a rational position instead of a radical and warped concept of reality the United States would not have to defend itself to the rest of the world. It is those that associate America with being an imperialistic juggernaut always on the look out for more of the world to conquer and spread its evil concepts like democracy. The reality is the world by its prior actions has necessitated the United States in its current form as not just a world power but the world power. Remember during the two world wars when Europe and the rest of the world depended on us to stop Germany's tyrannical grab for power and the spread of Nazism . The world was not complaining when our brave soldiers were sacrificing their lives and they are doing today to preserve freedom and democracy not just in America but the world. The United States rises to the challenges placed before it as the world's defender and savior but the world only has in return a cold shoulder for us as they continue to denounce us as the problem. One only has to look at the United Nations and its ineptitude to do anything in the world or to solve any problem. We provide the bulk of financial support for the U.N. and receive a slap in the face from the world in return. I can tell you right now I know the United Nations needs America more then we need the U.N. We allow the United Nations to headquarter on our shores but routinely are met with no support such as fighting the war on terror. Maybe the world would like us to remain as isolationist as we were prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor so they can deal with things their way. The fact is the United States does not need to defend itself. We have done more to liberate and free oppressed people then the United Nations could dream of doing. I constantly hear about America's poor standing with the world and the same words keep running through my mind, who cares! The problem is not the United States. The problem is that the United States foresees problems and tries to deal with them before they become catastrophic while the world sits back and waits for the problem to explode. Then they usually turn to the United States to fix the problem.

Congresswoman Looks to Leave One Last Mark

America's favorite congressional crazy is back and looking to leave her mark on Congress. Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has made one of her last pieces of legislation the impeachment of President George W. Bush. Soon to be Speaker of the House Pelosi has said that the Democrats will not push for the impeachment of President Bush but after being ousted from her congressional seat this past election the Georgia congresswoman has nothing to lose. She will certainly lose no respect as that was lost in her scuffle with a capitol hill policeman in which she became physical with the officer after he did not recognize her and she was without her congressional pin to identify her. Thank goodness the fine people in McKinney's congressional jurisdiction had the common sense to rid themselves of Representative Cynthia McKinney and all of her lunacy. This is a women who has made the claim that our president had prior knowledge of 9/11 and wanted a federal investigation into the death of rapper Tupac Shakur. That is just what we should be spending the people's money on, getting to the bottom of the East coast West coast rap rivalry. I sometimes wonder how people like Cynthia McKinney get elected in the first place. Is her district so devoid of any sensible alternative that the voters and left with no real choice. Of course one only has to look at our pop culture and a uninformed electorate and it becomes easier to see how we wind up with the Cynthia McKinney's of the world taken up space in the hallowed halls of Congress.

Bush Bolts on Bolton

Well Democrats will no longer have U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton to kick around anymore. That is because he has given his resignation to President Bush who accepted it. Bolton was due for another round of confirmation hearings because he was a recess appointment by President Bush last year. It looked as if Bolton might not get confirmed as the Democrats and some Republicans made it clear they would not be supporting Bolton's nomination. I am a little surprised Bolton resigned but even more so that President Bush did not push harder for him to remain as our U.N. ambassador considering the job he has done at that post. I do not know why the so called tolerant Democrats are so intolerant of someone who does not fit into their mold of what a diplomat should be. Bolton was someone who was sent to try to provide a new kind of leadership at the U.N. and be a strong diplomat for the United States. But Democrats apparently did not like how Bolton did things apparently they feel that U.S. diplomats should roll over to the rest of the world and placate every dictator and malcontent. Democrats always go back to the same script as they repeatedly tell us how America's reputation in the world has never been lower since President Bush came into office. Furthermore they seem to feel that our diplomats must restrain themselves in dealing with the world because we must not use our powerful status to solve diplomatic problems. Democrats but more correctly liberals always seem to blame America first. It is always are fault for the problems in the rest of the world and so our diplomacy must be centered around that tenet. I recently came across a question comparing blind patriotism to discerning patriotism. Well I have another how about visible patriotism. Liberals at every turn seem to make it harder to tell whose side they are on as they openly blame America for the world's problems which makes dealing with the world that much more difficult not to mention when we are trying to fight a war. I think it is a great loss to lose John Bolton because he has proven that he is more then capable of being an effective representative for the United States. I only hope his replacement follows in his footsteps in dealing with the world and problems facing America. We cannot let the liberals dictate on this issue because they have shown in the past and with their continuing attitude that America's best interest it not always on their minds.

Here is What I Know

I know that the sky is blue.
I know that the grass is green.
I know that as hard as you look you will not find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
I know two plus two equals four.
I know the atomic weight of Cadmium is 112.411
I know we do not need six Rocky movies.
I know the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
I know gravity keeps us firmly on the ground.
And I also know some other things.
I know liberals like to raise taxes.
I know liberals are weaker on defense.
I know liberals have a small moral compass.
I know liberals like to create victims.
I know liberals love the welfare state
I know global warming was created by Al Gore like the internet.
I know liberals do not believe in prisons or jails.
I know liberals put us on equal footing as the animals.
I know liberals want you to think we evolved from apes.
I know liberals think patriotism is synonymous with fascism.
I know one thing I do not want to be a liberal.
And these are the things I know.