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.