As reported here, Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
Can you say Socialism, anybody? Redistribution of your wealth is Clinton's number one goal in life. She wants to turn America into one huge "collective", where no one is "better off" than anyone else, which actually means that we'll all be worse off!
America stands for freedom of the individual, no matter how repugnant that may be to Clinton and those who think like her. I, for one, prefer the fact that if I take it upon myself, get off my lazy duff and work hard, I will be able to enjoy the rewards inherent in that hard work.
I just have to wonder, if she succeeds in her "Socialist Utopia", how much of her wealth will get redistributed my way?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Vandals burn flags at two cemeteries
This past weekend, our country observed Memorial Day, honoring those who had given the ultimate sacrifice to protect our nation and the freedoms we hold so dear. Well, most of us did, anyway. There were apparently some who thought that observing Memorial Day properly, by honoring America's fallen veterans by placing American flags on their grave stones and maybe taking a moment to silently reflect on their sacrifice was, well, not the thing to do. They decided that, instead, the thing to do was to steal the flags and burn them, and replace them with hand drawn Nazi swastika's.
In two separate incidents, one in Orcas Island, WA and one in Natick, MA, vandals stole commemorative American flags, burned them, and in the incident in Orcas Island, replaced American flags with the Nazi swastika's. In both cases, no known motive for these outrageous acts of vandalism exists, and some are speculating that it may have been teenagers out on a lark.
Well, let me tell whoever it was that perpetrated these acts something. I'm a veteran of the US Navy (and one of the folks who are getting a H/T for the above links is a veteran of the US Air Force), and these despicable acts of vandalism, which you probably got all giggly about when you were doing them, has me extremely angry.
Those veterans who were being honored by those little flags, sacrificed much more than their life so that you could live in a country that is the most free country on this planet. They sacrificed their time, in many cases a happy home life with their family, and ultimately their lives, so that the rest of us could go to school, get a job, buy a house, read whatever books and magazines we want, listen to whatever type of music we want, watch whatever TV show or movies we want, shop for and wear whatever clothes we want, go to Starbucks whenever the mood strikes us, engage in speech freely, worship as we please (or not, if that pleases us). The list goes on and on and on. And yet, you felt it was the right thing to do to, to "diss" those veterans, and burn those flags and replace them with swastika's.
If this was merely a prank, it was the wrong thing to do, and I hope someone rats you out. If this was some type of political statement to show your "displeasure" with our current President and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was still the wrong thing to do, and again, I hope that someone rats you out.
All of you who did these despicable acts of vandalism deserve to go to jail, and my sincere wish is that when you are caught, that the presiding judges will throw the book at you.
You clueless morons disgust me!
H/T hollie-is-right and agtiger
In two separate incidents, one in Orcas Island, WA and one in Natick, MA, vandals stole commemorative American flags, burned them, and in the incident in Orcas Island, replaced American flags with the Nazi swastika's. In both cases, no known motive for these outrageous acts of vandalism exists, and some are speculating that it may have been teenagers out on a lark.
Well, let me tell whoever it was that perpetrated these acts something. I'm a veteran of the US Navy (and one of the folks who are getting a H/T for the above links is a veteran of the US Air Force), and these despicable acts of vandalism, which you probably got all giggly about when you were doing them, has me extremely angry.
Those veterans who were being honored by those little flags, sacrificed much more than their life so that you could live in a country that is the most free country on this planet. They sacrificed their time, in many cases a happy home life with their family, and ultimately their lives, so that the rest of us could go to school, get a job, buy a house, read whatever books and magazines we want, listen to whatever type of music we want, watch whatever TV show or movies we want, shop for and wear whatever clothes we want, go to Starbucks whenever the mood strikes us, engage in speech freely, worship as we please (or not, if that pleases us). The list goes on and on and on. And yet, you felt it was the right thing to do to, to "diss" those veterans, and burn those flags and replace them with swastika's.
If this was merely a prank, it was the wrong thing to do, and I hope someone rats you out. If this was some type of political statement to show your "displeasure" with our current President and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was still the wrong thing to do, and again, I hope that someone rats you out.
All of you who did these despicable acts of vandalism deserve to go to jail, and my sincere wish is that when you are caught, that the presiding judges will throw the book at you.
You clueless morons disgust me!
H/T hollie-is-right and agtiger
Monday, May 28, 2007
Memorial Day
Today is the day where we observe Memorial Day, a day set aside to honor those who have fallen in the service of our nation, protecting and advancing those ideals of liberty and freedom we hold so dear. We need to keep in mind that of those who have served, all gave some, and some gave all, which is the ultimate purpose for this day.
Today, I would like to honor all those who have fallen, to say thank you for your sacrifice, by honoring one specific individual. I never had the opportunity to meet the young man who is the subject of this piece, yet I think he exemplifies the attitudes, and the willingness to sacrifice, of those who serve.
The young man I would like to honor today is a recipient of the US Navy Medal of Honor, for actions on the battlefield in Iraq, which was presented posthumously to his parents. The young mans' name is Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, of Scio, NY. Cpl. Dunham was born on November 10th, 1981, and succumbed to the wounds he received in battle on April 22nd, 2004. Cpl. Dunham served with K Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, based in Twentynine Palms, Calif.
The citation of the Medal of Honor, which was presented by President George W. Bush to his parents on January 11th, 2007 can be found here.
To Cpl. Jason L. Dunham I say a heartfelt thank you for your dedication to, and sacrifice for, your country, your Corps, and those you served with.
Semper Fi.
Today, I would like to honor all those who have fallen, to say thank you for your sacrifice, by honoring one specific individual. I never had the opportunity to meet the young man who is the subject of this piece, yet I think he exemplifies the attitudes, and the willingness to sacrifice, of those who serve.
The young man I would like to honor today is a recipient of the US Navy Medal of Honor, for actions on the battlefield in Iraq, which was presented posthumously to his parents. The young mans' name is Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, of Scio, NY. Cpl. Dunham was born on November 10th, 1981, and succumbed to the wounds he received in battle on April 22nd, 2004. Cpl. Dunham served with K Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, based in Twentynine Palms, Calif.
The citation of the Medal of Honor, which was presented by President George W. Bush to his parents on January 11th, 2007 can be found here.
To Cpl. Jason L. Dunham I say a heartfelt thank you for your dedication to, and sacrifice for, your country, your Corps, and those you served with.
Semper Fi.
Leaked phone-call case could cost McDermott $1 million
As reported here, Rep. Jim McDermott has had the luxury of winning big and cheaply in recent elections, facing only token opposition.
But that fortunate history could pose a problem for McDermott if the Seattle Democrat is forced to pay more than $1 million in legal fees and penalties to settle his long-running legal battle with House Minority Leader John Boehner.
Unlike colleagues who have been able to tap into campaign funds for legal costs, McDermott doesn't have enough cash in his coffers to cover his bills.
The prospect that McDermott soon will be liable for a huge payout became a real possibility earlier this month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 5-4 against him. The defeat leaves him with one remaining legal recourse -- an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. McDermott and his lawyers have until July to decide, but legal observers say it's highly unlikely an appeal would be successful.
That would mean by midsummer, McDermott would have to ramp up a fundraising effort that has been gathering dust for nearly a decade. He must pay a court-ordered $60,000 fine and Boehner's legal fees, which attorneys estimate are $880,000 and counting. McDermott also would have to pay his own legal bills, which, after 10 years of fighting Boehner in federal court, are substantial.
Gee, that's just too bad, you know? To paraphrase an old rhyme, if you can't (or are unwilling) to pay the fine, don't do the crime.
How McDermott would settle the debt is unclear, and his aides say any talk about payment is premature.
"The most recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seriously undermines the First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and we continue to review the significant constitutional issues involved," McDermott said in a statement last week after Boehner's lawyers recommended that settlement talks begin.
Just a reminder, Jim - the First Amendment protects people from limiting actions on speech undertaken by the government. What you did was to turn over an illegally obtained conversation to two newspapers, violating Rep. Boehner's right to privacy (a right actually not specified in the Bill of Rights, but mandated by Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, said right being something the Democrat's trumpet loudly and often, not realizing that it could one day come back to bite one of their own in the rear).
McDermott's office would not comment on whether campaign funds would be used.
But if money must be raised, McDermott could rely on a moderate national profile. He gained widespread attention for his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and as president of Americans for Democratic Action he has a potential national network of donors.
Jim McDermott has a "moderate national profile"? That's news to me, and to everyone in Washington State that has two brain cells to rub together! The fact that he appeared in Moore's propaganda flick demonstrates the fallacy of that statement. But if that isn't enough to convince you, let me just say that McDermott goes out of his way to try to out-Liberal Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, two of the most liberal Senators we have by anyone's standards.
Jim, do the right thing. Pay the fine and the legal costs.
But that fortunate history could pose a problem for McDermott if the Seattle Democrat is forced to pay more than $1 million in legal fees and penalties to settle his long-running legal battle with House Minority Leader John Boehner.
Unlike colleagues who have been able to tap into campaign funds for legal costs, McDermott doesn't have enough cash in his coffers to cover his bills.
The prospect that McDermott soon will be liable for a huge payout became a real possibility earlier this month after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 5-4 against him. The defeat leaves him with one remaining legal recourse -- an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. McDermott and his lawyers have until July to decide, but legal observers say it's highly unlikely an appeal would be successful.
That would mean by midsummer, McDermott would have to ramp up a fundraising effort that has been gathering dust for nearly a decade. He must pay a court-ordered $60,000 fine and Boehner's legal fees, which attorneys estimate are $880,000 and counting. McDermott also would have to pay his own legal bills, which, after 10 years of fighting Boehner in federal court, are substantial.
Gee, that's just too bad, you know? To paraphrase an old rhyme, if you can't (or are unwilling) to pay the fine, don't do the crime.
How McDermott would settle the debt is unclear, and his aides say any talk about payment is premature.
"The most recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seriously undermines the First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution, and we continue to review the significant constitutional issues involved," McDermott said in a statement last week after Boehner's lawyers recommended that settlement talks begin.
Just a reminder, Jim - the First Amendment protects people from limiting actions on speech undertaken by the government. What you did was to turn over an illegally obtained conversation to two newspapers, violating Rep. Boehner's right to privacy (a right actually not specified in the Bill of Rights, but mandated by Liberal judges on the Supreme Court, said right being something the Democrat's trumpet loudly and often, not realizing that it could one day come back to bite one of their own in the rear).
McDermott's office would not comment on whether campaign funds would be used.
But if money must be raised, McDermott could rely on a moderate national profile. He gained widespread attention for his appearance in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and as president of Americans for Democratic Action he has a potential national network of donors.
Jim McDermott has a "moderate national profile"? That's news to me, and to everyone in Washington State that has two brain cells to rub together! The fact that he appeared in Moore's propaganda flick demonstrates the fallacy of that statement. But if that isn't enough to convince you, let me just say that McDermott goes out of his way to try to out-Liberal Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, two of the most liberal Senators we have by anyone's standards.
Jim, do the right thing. Pay the fine and the legal costs.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
I don't know ...
... whether to be amused by this, or annoyed.
I recently found out from a well placed, very anonymous, source that access to this blog is blocked by a local area hospital.
The reason? "Extreme". Yet, anyone can access this site.
Now, I considered writing a letter demanding an explanation, citing constitutionally protected political free speech, defamation, and some other choice things, with the hint of litigation if access to this blog wasn't allowed. But, two things stopped me from doing that.
One is that the identity of my anonymous source could possibly be revealed, resulting in some unpleasant moments, shall we say, for my source. I don't want that to happen.
The other is that, the hospital is a private entity, and therefore has control over what their employees can, and cannot, see or hear, so First Amendment protections do not apply.
In all actuality, the fact that they have blocked access to this blog - because of being "extreme" - I find rather interesting, as it means that "someone" has taken notice of what I write and feels threatened enough by what I write to try to prevent others from reading my posts.
I wonder, though, why they may feel that way? Oh, wait! They must be afraid that I might "convert" someone! That's gotta be it! ;)
I recently found out from a well placed, very anonymous, source that access to this blog is blocked by a local area hospital.
The reason? "Extreme". Yet, anyone can access this site.
Now, I considered writing a letter demanding an explanation, citing constitutionally protected political free speech, defamation, and some other choice things, with the hint of litigation if access to this blog wasn't allowed. But, two things stopped me from doing that.
One is that the identity of my anonymous source could possibly be revealed, resulting in some unpleasant moments, shall we say, for my source. I don't want that to happen.
The other is that, the hospital is a private entity, and therefore has control over what their employees can, and cannot, see or hear, so First Amendment protections do not apply.
In all actuality, the fact that they have blocked access to this blog - because of being "extreme" - I find rather interesting, as it means that "someone" has taken notice of what I write and feels threatened enough by what I write to try to prevent others from reading my posts.
I wonder, though, why they may feel that way? Oh, wait! They must be afraid that I might "convert" someone! That's gotta be it! ;)
A personal note
It's been a couple of weeks since I last posted, and so to the three or four regular readers that stop by now and then, I apologize for the lack of fresh stuff lately.
I've had a lot of things going on in my real life, that have precluded me from being able to post more regularly. Hopefully, things will calm down, so I can continue to awe you all with my incredible insight and my dazzling wit on a more regular basis. ;)
Okay, now that I've removed my tongue from being planted firmly in my cheek, let me just say thanks to those who actually do stop by to read what I write for your patience. I appreciate your patronage.
I've had a lot of things going on in my real life, that have precluded me from being able to post more regularly. Hopefully, things will calm down, so I can continue to awe you all with my incredible insight and my dazzling wit on a more regular basis. ;)
Okay, now that I've removed my tongue from being planted firmly in my cheek, let me just say thanks to those who actually do stop by to read what I write for your patience. I appreciate your patronage.
A new link
I've added a new link to our blogroll, done by a friend of mine, called The Marching Camp. Go on over and check it out. You'll be glad you did.
While there, check out this moving video by Darryl Worley (H/T Zero Ponsdorf over at Another Voice). I think this song fits well with Armed Forces Day.
While there, check out this moving video by Darryl Worley (H/T Zero Ponsdorf over at Another Voice). I think this song fits well with Armed Forces Day.
Today is Armed Forces Day
Today is Armed Forces Day, a day established to honor those who serve our nation in both peace and war. As a veteran of the US Navy, I want to say thank you so very much for your service to our nation. Freedom isn't free, and the sacrifices that you, and your families, make on our behalf are deeply appreciated by this writer.
So, again, to those men and women serving in the US Navy, US Army, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, and the US Coast Guard, thank you. Your service and sacrifice mean more to me than you will ever know.
So, again, to those men and women serving in the US Navy, US Army, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, and the US Coast Guard, thank you. Your service and sacrifice mean more to me than you will ever know.
Carter Condemns Blair's Support for Bush
As reported here, the man who led this nation into double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, is a friend to terrorists and political thugs, let Americans languish in Iranian hands for 444 days, and still thinks he's politically relevant states that, Britain's support for the war in Iraq was a "major tragedy" for the world, former President Jimmy Carter said Saturday as he criticized Tony Blair's unwavering support for President Bush.
Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, a Republican, the former Democratic president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.", adding, "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
No, Mr. Carter, the real major tragedy for the world was your embracing Yasser Arafat to the detriment of the Israeli's and American interests, and your abandonment of the Shah of Iran, allowing the thugs who currently rule Iran to not only over throw the Shah, but take American personnel prisoner, holding them for 444 days while you did nothing but wring your hands in defeat. Your so-called policies have directly led us to the place where we are regarding the Middle East, growing Islamofascism, and the continued problems faced by Israel posed by Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah, with the latter two (and probably all three) "organizations" receiving direct aid and support from Iran.
Tony Blair is more of a man of courage than you could ever hope to be, and for you to criticize him in such a shameful way takes a lot of gall.
Asked how he would judge Blair's support of Bush, a Republican, the former Democratic president said: "Abominable. Loyal. Blind. Apparently subservient.", adding, "And I think the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world," Carter told British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
No, Mr. Carter, the real major tragedy for the world was your embracing Yasser Arafat to the detriment of the Israeli's and American interests, and your abandonment of the Shah of Iran, allowing the thugs who currently rule Iran to not only over throw the Shah, but take American personnel prisoner, holding them for 444 days while you did nothing but wring your hands in defeat. Your so-called policies have directly led us to the place where we are regarding the Middle East, growing Islamofascism, and the continued problems faced by Israel posed by Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah, with the latter two (and probably all three) "organizations" receiving direct aid and support from Iran.
Tony Blair is more of a man of courage than you could ever hope to be, and for you to criticize him in such a shameful way takes a lot of gall.
The Immigration Bill: Comprehensive or Incomprehensible?
Congress is set to vote on the latest attempt to grant amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants here in the US at comprehensive immigration reform.
Fred Thompson expresses his view on this latest attempt by Congress at this.
Fred Thompson expresses his view on this latest attempt by Congress at this.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Radio hosts exempt from campaign finance laws
As reported here, [a] unanimous state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that two radio talk-show hosts who used airtime to support a gas-tax rollback initiative they launched were not required to report their commentary as an in-kind political contribution.
The court also reinstated a countersuit filed by the No New Gas Tax campaign against the local governments that initially sued: San Juan County and the cities of Auburn, Kent and Seattle.
"This is a victory for free speech and a free press in Washington state," said William Maurer, executive director of the Institute for Justice Washington chapter, who argued the case before the high court.
The ruling overturns a 2005 ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham that talk-show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur at Seattle radio station KVI-AM/570 were key organizers and promoters of Initiative 912. The ballot measure was aimed at heading off a four-step, 9.5-cent-a-gallon increase in the state gasoline tax.
The judge said the airtime amounted to an in-kind contribution to the campaign and required that the value be reported to the state Public Disclosure Commission.
State law says editorials, commentaries and other types of news reports are not considered contributions.
Wilbur, Carlson and the station argued their role with the initiative was within the normal bounds of radio fare, and the high court agreed.
The Washington State Supreme Court did the right thing by overturning the over reaching, blatant attempt to stifle political free speech by Wickham and the municipalities. Not only did they overturn it, they did it unanimously. This is a very welcome development in this case, which I previously posted about here and here.
The court also reinstated a countersuit filed by the No New Gas Tax campaign against the local governments that initially sued: San Juan County and the cities of Auburn, Kent and Seattle.
"This is a victory for free speech and a free press in Washington state," said William Maurer, executive director of the Institute for Justice Washington chapter, who argued the case before the high court.
The ruling overturns a 2005 ruling by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham that talk-show hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur at Seattle radio station KVI-AM/570 were key organizers and promoters of Initiative 912. The ballot measure was aimed at heading off a four-step, 9.5-cent-a-gallon increase in the state gasoline tax.
The judge said the airtime amounted to an in-kind contribution to the campaign and required that the value be reported to the state Public Disclosure Commission.
State law says editorials, commentaries and other types of news reports are not considered contributions.
Wilbur, Carlson and the station argued their role with the initiative was within the normal bounds of radio fare, and the high court agreed.
The Washington State Supreme Court did the right thing by overturning the over reaching, blatant attempt to stifle political free speech by Wickham and the municipalities. Not only did they overturn it, they did it unanimously. This is a very welcome development in this case, which I previously posted about here and here.
Democrats turn to GOP on new Iraq bill
As reported here, Democratic leaders are turning to Republicans to help them pass a new Iraq war spending bill that President Bush won't veto - unlike the one Congress will send him [this] week with a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has talked to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, about how to move forward.
I could tell Reid how to do it, and hopefully McConnell told him the same thing as I have in mind, which is to not put any time tables for withdrawal in the bill, and don't load it up with "pork".
I mean, it really is that simple.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has talked to Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader, about how to move forward.
I could tell Reid how to do it, and hopefully McConnell told him the same thing as I have in mind, which is to not put any time tables for withdrawal in the bill, and don't load it up with "pork".
I mean, it really is that simple.
Senate OK sends Iraq bill to Bush
As reported here, [i]n a bold challenge to President Bush, the Democratic-controlled Congress cleared legislation Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1 with a goal of a complete pullout six months later.
A "bold challenge"? More like an abject surrender to various special interest groups on the left (Moveon.org., Code Pink, etc.) and the terrorists, if you ask me.
The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival."
President Bush has already stated that he will veto this bill as it stands right now, with the troop pull out time table and all of the non-war funding appropriations (read "pork") included, and the Democrats know - know! - that they do not have enough votes to overturn his veto.
The 51-46 Senate vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage a day earlier it underscored that the war's congressional opponents are far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.
So why go ahead with this?
Democrats marked Thursday's final passage with a news conference during which they repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider his veto threat. "This bill for the first time gives the president of the United States an exit strategy" from Iraq, said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin.
I think we already have an "exit strategy from Iraq", and that would be when the Iraqi's can deal with the sectarian killings, and the terrorists on their own. Until such time, they still need our help.
The legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Reid is delusional. Reid doesn't know what he's talking about when he states that the legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want.", in that, most people that I know - and I'll remind you that the majority of the people living here in Seattle are liberals - want us to finish the job we started, whether they agreed with going there in the first place or not.
Finishing the job does not entail setting a time table for leaving, allowing the terrorists to just sit back and wait until we're gone. It entails ridding Iraq of those terrorists.
But the Democrats don't see it like that, since they take their marching orders from the groups I mentioned above, who think that if we leave, things will get "back to normal". They couldn't be more wrong. They said the same thing in the late 1960's and early 1970's about Southeast Asia, and when we left, millions of people were killed and millions more were displaced in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
If we leave Iraq prematurely, we will be leaving millions of Iraqi's to a similar fate.
A "bold challenge"? More like an abject surrender to various special interest groups on the left (Moveon.org., Code Pink, etc.) and the terrorists, if you ask me.
The White House dismissed the legislation as "dead before arrival."
President Bush has already stated that he will veto this bill as it stands right now, with the troop pull out time table and all of the non-war funding appropriations (read "pork") included, and the Democrats know - know! - that they do not have enough votes to overturn his veto.
The 51-46 Senate vote was largely along party lines, and like House passage a day earlier it underscored that the war's congressional opponents are far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a Bush veto.
So why go ahead with this?
Democrats marked Thursday's final passage with a news conference during which they repeatedly urged Bush to reconsider his veto threat. "This bill for the first time gives the president of the United States an exit strategy" from Iraq, said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin.
I think we already have an "exit strategy from Iraq", and that would be when the Iraqi's can deal with the sectarian killings, and the terrorists on their own. Until such time, they still need our help.
The legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want," added Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
Reid is delusional. Reid doesn't know what he's talking about when he states that the legislation is "in keeping with what the American people want.", in that, most people that I know - and I'll remind you that the majority of the people living here in Seattle are liberals - want us to finish the job we started, whether they agreed with going there in the first place or not.
Finishing the job does not entail setting a time table for leaving, allowing the terrorists to just sit back and wait until we're gone. It entails ridding Iraq of those terrorists.
But the Democrats don't see it like that, since they take their marching orders from the groups I mentioned above, who think that if we leave, things will get "back to normal". They couldn't be more wrong. They said the same thing in the late 1960's and early 1970's about Southeast Asia, and when we left, millions of people were killed and millions more were displaced in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
If we leave Iraq prematurely, we will be leaving millions of Iraqi's to a similar fate.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
All in a Good Cause
Orson Scott Card, over at the The Ornery American, has written an excellent essay regarding the absolute hoax that "global warming" is, citing how climate data was manipulated by Michael Mann to fit his preconceived notions on what should be the results, rather than on the actual data, which produced the [in]famous "Hockey Stick" graph.
It's a very eye opening read, which you should take the time to check out.
H/T innermurk, via Reality Hammer
It's a very eye opening read, which you should take the time to check out.
H/T innermurk, via Reality Hammer
A matter of perspective
From time to time, friends will pop up with something that I feel needs to be passed along, and the following fits that bill. Please note - I did a tiny bit of editing to make this easier to read, but it essentially remains word for word the work of the original author.
Please read and don't think Republican or Democrat.
A Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence, two thirds of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the analytical thinker that I am, I started thinking,' what are we so unhappy about?' Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
Maybe it's the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year? Maybe it's the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean, safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family and your belongings.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of us unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world, who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country, instead of being thankful we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The
president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this days after 9-11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go, and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an
''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads, and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the
corner?
The media know this, and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife. But if he did? Insane!
Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the corrupt evil media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
WE ARE THE MOST BLESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH. WE SHOULD THANK GOD SEVERAL TIMES EVERY DAY.
Amen to that!
H/T michaelmichael
Please read and don't think Republican or Democrat.
A Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence, two thirds of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the analytical thinker that I am, I started thinking,' what are we so unhappy about?' Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
Maybe it's the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year? Maybe it's the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state? Or possibly the hundreds of clean, safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all involved. Whether you are rich or poor they treat your wounds and even, if necessary, send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family and your belongings.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of us unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world, who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country, instead of being thankful we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The
president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this days after 9-11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go, and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an
''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads, and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the
corner?
The media know this, and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book and do a TV special about how he didn't kill his wife. But if he did? Insane!
Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the corrupt evil media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
WE ARE THE MOST BLESSED PEOPLE ON EARTH. WE SHOULD THANK GOD SEVERAL TIMES EVERY DAY.
Amen to that!
H/T michaelmichael
Reid calls war 'lost,' angers Republicans
As reported here, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops.
Reid said he told President Bush on Wednesday he thought the war could not be won through military force, although he said the U.S. could still pursue political, economic and diplomatic means to make peace.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.
Don't you just love it when elected Democrat officials think they're the next incarnation of General George S. Patton? Reid is basing his assessment of the outcome of the war, and the effectiveness (or in his view, the lack thereof) of the surge on one day. One day! Imagine what he would have been saying on Dec. 7th, 1941!
Republicans pounced on the comment as evidence, they said, that Democrats do not support the troops.
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Democrats do not support the troops, and have been proving it time after time after time by rushing to declare the surge strategy - which they all clamored for! - "isn't working", so therefore, the "war is lost".
Senator, your "The sky is falling!" Chicken Little act has grown wearisome in the extreme. Stop it, already, will ya? Sheesh!
Reid said he told President Bush on Wednesday he thought the war could not be won through military force, although he said the U.S. could still pursue political, economic and diplomatic means to make peace.
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and -- you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows -- (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.
Don't you just love it when elected Democrat officials think they're the next incarnation of General George S. Patton? Reid is basing his assessment of the outcome of the war, and the effectiveness (or in his view, the lack thereof) of the surge on one day. One day! Imagine what he would have been saying on Dec. 7th, 1941!
Republicans pounced on the comment as evidence, they said, that Democrats do not support the troops.
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States Senate has declared the war is lost," said Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
Democrats do not support the troops, and have been proving it time after time after time by rushing to declare the surge strategy - which they all clamored for! - "isn't working", so therefore, the "war is lost".
Senator, your "The sky is falling!" Chicken Little act has grown wearisome in the extreme. Stop it, already, will ya? Sheesh!
Former Clinton backers defect to Obama camp
As reported here, [a]s Sen. Hillary Clinton seeks to reassemble the Democratic money machine her husband built, some of its major fundraisers already have signed on with Sen. Barack Obama.
Among the biggest fundraisers for Obama's campaign are as many as a half-dozen former guests of the Clinton White House. At least two are close enough to the Clintons to have slept in the Lincoln bedroom.
At minimum, a dozen were major fundraisers for President Clinton. At least four worked in the administration, and one, James Rubin, is a son of a former Clinton Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin. About two dozen of the top Obama fundraisers have contributed to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns or political action committee, some as recently as a few months ago.
Don't mind me. I just found this to be amusing. ;)
Among the biggest fundraisers for Obama's campaign are as many as a half-dozen former guests of the Clinton White House. At least two are close enough to the Clintons to have slept in the Lincoln bedroom.
At minimum, a dozen were major fundraisers for President Clinton. At least four worked in the administration, and one, James Rubin, is a son of a former Clinton Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin. About two dozen of the top Obama fundraisers have contributed to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns or political action committee, some as recently as a few months ago.
Don't mind me. I just found this to be amusing. ;)
State lawmakers discuss ending war
As reported here, [t]he (Washington State) Senate was decked in red, white and blue with Democrats and Republicans braced for an emotional debate on the Iraq war that never materialized Thursday.
After Democrats failed to build consensus for an anti-war resolution, only three lawmakers spoke out.
They did so using points of personal privilege, which the Senate allows for issues such as well wishes for sick colleagues or their families. Though the resolution would have been non-binding, it would have allowed a full debate, but without it members were allowed brief statements to air their personal views.
Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, has led the effort to discuss the possibility of presidential impeachment this year.
"We must end this war," Oemig said. "The commander in chief must be relieved of duty. The framers of our Constitution gave us the tools of impeachment and conviction. We must not be afraid to use these tools."
He explained why in his floor statement.
Democracy is easier to enjoy than it is to participate in and protect, he said, adding that a lot of mistakes have been made in the nation's history.
"It is with action that we fix our mistakes, and when people are honestly mistaken and they learn the truth, they either cease to be mistaken or they cease to be honest," he said. "If we do not act to correct our mistakes, our children will inherit them. We cannot restore the lives lost in Iraq or the lost limbs or the lives shattered, but we can act."
I'd like to ask State Senator Oemig some questions, which are as follows:
1. Since when has it ever - ever - been appropriate for a State Senator to stick his nose into something regarding the Federal Executive?
2. You are of the opinion that President Bush should be impeached. I'd like to know on what grounds? Mistakes made regarding Iraq? Since when do mistakes made regarding anything equate to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Senator?
3. Have you ever made a mistake as a State Senator? If so, does that mean that you should be impeached?
Vietnam War veteran and Purple Heart recipient Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, said the floor of the state Senate was not the place for discussing war and peace and the possibility of impeaching the president.
"That's not what we were elected to do," he said.
State Senator Swecker is correct. No State Senator or Representative has ever been elected to discuss war and peace or impeaching a sitting President. That's not your job, Senator Oemig. Your job is to conduct the business of, and for, the People of Washington State, period.
Leave all that other stuff to the grown ups, ok?
After Democrats failed to build consensus for an anti-war resolution, only three lawmakers spoke out.
They did so using points of personal privilege, which the Senate allows for issues such as well wishes for sick colleagues or their families. Though the resolution would have been non-binding, it would have allowed a full debate, but without it members were allowed brief statements to air their personal views.
Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, has led the effort to discuss the possibility of presidential impeachment this year.
"We must end this war," Oemig said. "The commander in chief must be relieved of duty. The framers of our Constitution gave us the tools of impeachment and conviction. We must not be afraid to use these tools."
He explained why in his floor statement.
Democracy is easier to enjoy than it is to participate in and protect, he said, adding that a lot of mistakes have been made in the nation's history.
"It is with action that we fix our mistakes, and when people are honestly mistaken and they learn the truth, they either cease to be mistaken or they cease to be honest," he said. "If we do not act to correct our mistakes, our children will inherit them. We cannot restore the lives lost in Iraq or the lost limbs or the lives shattered, but we can act."
I'd like to ask State Senator Oemig some questions, which are as follows:
1. Since when has it ever - ever - been appropriate for a State Senator to stick his nose into something regarding the Federal Executive?
2. You are of the opinion that President Bush should be impeached. I'd like to know on what grounds? Mistakes made regarding Iraq? Since when do mistakes made regarding anything equate to High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Senator?
3. Have you ever made a mistake as a State Senator? If so, does that mean that you should be impeached?
Vietnam War veteran and Purple Heart recipient Sen. Dan Swecker, R-Rochester, said the floor of the state Senate was not the place for discussing war and peace and the possibility of impeaching the president.
"That's not what we were elected to do," he said.
State Senator Swecker is correct. No State Senator or Representative has ever been elected to discuss war and peace or impeaching a sitting President. That's not your job, Senator Oemig. Your job is to conduct the business of, and for, the People of Washington State, period.
Leave all that other stuff to the grown ups, ok?
Monday, April 16, 2007
At least 33 dead in rampage on Virginia campus
As reported here, at least 33 people are dead in the worst mass shooting incident in US history, at Virginia Tech. The death toll includes the gunman who took his own life according to police. As of yet, no known motive for the shootings has been reported.
This is a horrible, horrible tragedy, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families.
UPDATE
As reported here, the gunman in the Virginia Tech shootings yesterday was a student of the school. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities.
UPDATE II
As reported here, the gunman has been identified as a 23 year old resident alien from S. Korea, Cho Seung-Hui. Apparently Cho suffered from acute depression, and wrote dark, disturbing essays and plays. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities, although from my previous sentence one can gather that Cho felt alienated from society for some unknown reason and wanted to lash out, which he did with tragic results.
Again, my heart goes out to all who have been affected by this tragedy.
This is a horrible, horrible tragedy, and my heart goes out to the victims and their families.
UPDATE
As reported here, the gunman in the Virginia Tech shootings yesterday was a student of the school. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities.
UPDATE II
As reported here, the gunman has been identified as a 23 year old resident alien from S. Korea, Cho Seung-Hui. Apparently Cho suffered from acute depression, and wrote dark, disturbing essays and plays. There has still been no motive for this act released by authorities, although from my previous sentence one can gather that Cho felt alienated from society for some unknown reason and wanted to lash out, which he did with tragic results.
Again, my heart goes out to all who have been affected by this tragedy.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Pratfall in Damascus
As anyone who has either a TV or an internet connection knows, Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) has made another attempt at usurping powers granted by the Constitution solely to the President by trying to substitute her foreign policy for the President's when she went to the Middle East, and spoke to the Syrian thug Basher Assad.
Even the Washington Post is disgusted with her.
Even the Washington Post is disgusted with her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)