Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na BUSH-MAN! Well, that doesn't exactly fly but there are some comparisons. Andrew Klavan wrote a opinion piece about what Bush and Batman have in common. Klavan states that both Bush and Batman "confront terrorists in the only terms they understand". It is a great piece you should read for yourself http//onlinewsj.com/article/SB121694247343482821.html
I was so intrigued by this I went to see the movie. To me the biggest similarity between our fight against Islamo-fascist and Gotham's fight against the Joker was the way many people attacked their defenders as being the problem. Many of the Gotham citizens and policemen called for Batman to acquiesce to the Jokers demands in hopes that that would end the violence. Just as many Americans call for us to get out of Iraq, forgetting who is perpetrating the violence. Essentially the Gotham's were excusing the Joker's direct actions, killing people, and blaming Batman for his actions which were antagonizing the criminals of their city including the mentally deranged Joker.
Since we have held fast in Iraq we have not had demonstrated for us what would happen if we acquiesce to the Islamo-fascists demands. In The Dark Night we did see what happened. Stop reading here if you haven't seen the film yet. The Joker didn't stop killing people, he just changed the target and told the citizens of Gotham to kill a person or he would unleash more terrorism on the city. Several citizens did try to carry out that execution request. Hey, just because the Joker didn't keep his first promise doesn't mean he wouldn't keep a second one.
You should see the eyes roll when I say that Star Wars helped Ronald Reagan get elected but this film, The Dark Knight" could help us win the war on terror. Like Star Wars, it could remind us that there is good and evil. There are enemies with whom we cannot negotiate. Enemies who must be defeated and very probably destroyed if we want to survive.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Senator Obama, Who Are You Calling Bitter?
Barack Obama has described the people of Pennsylvania as "bitter". This alleged bitterness he attributes to jobs that left their communities 25 years ago.
I think a better example of a bitter person would be Michelle Obama. Still nursing a grudge because she didn't feel that she fit in at college. Despite having achieved the American Dream Mrs. Obama is not proud of her country, except when it is cheering her husband. Mrs Obama has described the United States of America as a country that is "downright mean". Yep, we are so mean that we gave her a 100k job at a hospital and when her husband was elected to the Senate she got a 200k raise. No wonder she hsates America.
How about the Reverend Wright. Couldn't he be described as bitter? He so hates America that he called the attacks of 9/11 "America's chickens coming home to roost". Screaming in front of his congregation that their government had created A.I.D.S. in an attempt to kill them. What kind of a parent would allow their children to hear such a thing, in church! The reverend then drives home to the more than a million dollar home he was given by his church. A home in a gated, white, upper-class, golf community. Makes you wonder how he keeps the bitterness alive.
Barack Obama. His wife is angry, his minister is angry. He is not who he claims to be. He is not who his supporters think he is and he cannot unify anyone.
I think a better example of a bitter person would be Michelle Obama. Still nursing a grudge because she didn't feel that she fit in at college. Despite having achieved the American Dream Mrs. Obama is not proud of her country, except when it is cheering her husband. Mrs Obama has described the United States of America as a country that is "downright mean". Yep, we are so mean that we gave her a 100k job at a hospital and when her husband was elected to the Senate she got a 200k raise. No wonder she hsates America.
How about the Reverend Wright. Couldn't he be described as bitter? He so hates America that he called the attacks of 9/11 "America's chickens coming home to roost". Screaming in front of his congregation that their government had created A.I.D.S. in an attempt to kill them. What kind of a parent would allow their children to hear such a thing, in church! The reverend then drives home to the more than a million dollar home he was given by his church. A home in a gated, white, upper-class, golf community. Makes you wonder how he keeps the bitterness alive.
Barack Obama. His wife is angry, his minister is angry. He is not who he claims to be. He is not who his supporters think he is and he cannot unify anyone.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Will Politicians Ever Learn
Recently Hillary was caught in a whopper of a lie about her visit to Bosnia during the Clinton administration. When will politicians learn that they can't get away with stuff like this any more. Since the advent of LexusNexis every statement ever made that appeared in print can be easily retrieved and compared to current statements. That alone should have corrected the tendency of many public figures to tailor their statements to the audience of that moment.
Even more recently, Barack Obama's arrogance was exposed when he spoke about "small town Pennsylvania" to a crowd in San Francisco. Obama said You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, and it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Wow, so Obama sees hardworking folks in Pennsylvania as bitter losers who turn to religion or cling to their guns. If they dare to oppose illegal immigration it isn't that they want our laws enforced or our borders secured to keep us safe. No they're just angry that they haven't had a job for 25 years and are looking for someone to blame. Finally, since Sen. Obama is speaking out against NAFTA and opposes a trade agreement with Columbia who is he to claim that some Americans are anti-trade because they are bitter? Is this the way Obama plans to "unite" America?
Now with YouTube readily available to most Americans public figures will need to think twice before fabricating events or telling elites in San Francisco how little they respect rubes in another part of the country. Even average Americans are finding that more of their behavior is being filmed and saved for posterity whether they want it to be or not. With video cameras in every public place and in perhaps as much as twenty-five percent of cell phones there is no longer any safe place to act the fool.
In the case of our elected officials I like the idea of being able to see for myself what they said and being able to hold them responsible for their statements. It's a good deal more difficult to claim you were "misquoted" or taken out of context when we can see you as you made that statement.
In the case of private individuals I hope public behavior will improve with the knowledge that you too could have embarrassing behavior available for anyone in the world to view at their leisure. So, as my Grandmother used to say, "watch your P's & Q's".
Even more recently, Barack Obama's arrogance was exposed when he spoke about "small town Pennsylvania" to a crowd in San Francisco. Obama said You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, and it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Wow, so Obama sees hardworking folks in Pennsylvania as bitter losers who turn to religion or cling to their guns. If they dare to oppose illegal immigration it isn't that they want our laws enforced or our borders secured to keep us safe. No they're just angry that they haven't had a job for 25 years and are looking for someone to blame. Finally, since Sen. Obama is speaking out against NAFTA and opposes a trade agreement with Columbia who is he to claim that some Americans are anti-trade because they are bitter? Is this the way Obama plans to "unite" America?
Now with YouTube readily available to most Americans public figures will need to think twice before fabricating events or telling elites in San Francisco how little they respect rubes in another part of the country. Even average Americans are finding that more of their behavior is being filmed and saved for posterity whether they want it to be or not. With video cameras in every public place and in perhaps as much as twenty-five percent of cell phones there is no longer any safe place to act the fool.
In the case of our elected officials I like the idea of being able to see for myself what they said and being able to hold them responsible for their statements. It's a good deal more difficult to claim you were "misquoted" or taken out of context when we can see you as you made that statement.
In the case of private individuals I hope public behavior will improve with the knowledge that you too could have embarrassing behavior available for anyone in the world to view at their leisure. So, as my Grandmother used to say, "watch your P's & Q's".
Friday, March 07, 2008
Barack Obama Could Be the First Black Jimmy Carter
If the "Clinton Machine" fails to put an end to the presidential aspirations of Barack Obama, for 2008 at least, he could become our next President. I have always felt that any of the Republican candidates would be able to beat Hillary but possibly not Obama. The media has convinced most of America that John McCain was the only candidate who could have a shot at winning and consequently we in the GOP got stuck with him. The Democrat front runner is currently Barack Obama and if he wins the White House it will be Jimmy Carter all over again.
I was first eligible to vote way back when Jimmy Carter was facing Jerry Ford. I knew almost nothing about politics and was a registered Democrat, but then I repeat myself. Despite my naivete I looked at the two men asking for my vote and I voted for Ford. Judging from how the following four years went I stand by my choice. Then came the Reagan years and to this day I have always voted for the person I considered the best choice. I have never voted for a Democrat for President. I was a Republican in my heart only for years. I was on jury duty once and hanging around the courthouse with nothing to do. I noticed the Supervisor of Elections office and went in and officially changed parties.
As I am composing this I hear on the radio that twenty percent of white Democrats say they will vote for John McCain if Obama is their nominee. I can assure you that if twenty percent of white Democrats say that, there is another twenty percent who say they will vote for Obama but will not. People have a limited comfort zone. Some dedicated Democrats will find themselves in that voting booth and either feel unsure about voting for a black man or be uncomfortable with the idea of President Obama. Now, President McCain sounds more like what most of us are accustom to.
However, if some twist of fate puts Senator Obama in the Oval Office I predict that he will be as unsuccessful in that office as Jimmy Carter. President Carter had no true love for this country. Look at the things he said and did in office and since. Carter was and is always critical of the US. You would be hard pressed to find evidence Carter was ever really proud of this country. Carter always proceeded as though the US deserved to be humbled. In his time in office he gave away the Panama Canal, he denied us an Olympics, a national Christmas tree, and warm homes. All this from a Southern white man who had been successful in America and should have had no ax to grind against us.
Then comes Obama. The son of an anthropologist described in the Chicago Tribune last year as a "fellow traveler" the warm and fuzzy term used to describe a communist sympathizer. Obama's mother, Ann Dunham married first a Kenyan economics student who abandoned her and her infant and then an Indonesian. When her second husband had his student visa revoked she followed him to Indonesia in 1967. Ann Dunham's doctoral dissertation reflected her admiration for more primitive cultures. She praised the peasant blacksmiths of Indonesia in terms she would never offer to any Americans. Anthropology was and is one of the far left fringes of our already left leaning universities. Raised by a mother like this Senator Obama could not possibly develop great admiration for America.
The second, and perhaps more important women in Obama's life, his wife is also no fan or the good old U S of A. The subject of Michelle Obama's college thesis was "Blackness at Princeton".
Mrs. Obama stated that she felt like a visitor at Princeton, like someone who didn't really belong. This was presented as the fault of Princeton not due to some sensitivity or shortcoming on the part of Mrs Obama. An average American would look at Mrs. Obama's life and think she had it pretty good. Attending Princeton and then Harvard law School is considered the pinnacle of academic achievement. Again Mrs. Obama speaks not of the opportunities she has enjoyed but of the hardships she has endured.
While urging a group of lower middle class women at a day care center in Ohio to eschew careers in lucrative jobs like corporate law and hedge fund management Mrs. Obama complained about the burden of student loans. Although she had a job at a Chicago Hospital making $120K she claimed they were unable to retire their student loans and save for their children in their 40's. I'm sure things began to look up when her husband was elected to the Senate and her salary was raised to $312K. That impressive raise made the news in the Chicago area.
Much has been said about Mrs. Obama's statement that she is now "for the first time in her adult life, really proud of my country", well, at least she called America "my country". I was more troubled by the rest of her statement. Mrs Obama went on to say that she has been "desperate to see our country moving in that direction" and "feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment". This is a woman angling to be our First Lady and when she describes this great country that has afforded her so much the words she uses are desperate, frustration and disappointment. As negative as these statements sound in print they are much worse when delivered by Mrs Obama. The only word I can find to describe the look on Mrs. Obama's face during these statements is "hate".
Since then Mrs Obama has gone on to repeatedly give a stump speech that she wrote for herself that includes the following. America is a country of "cynics, sloths, and complacents" we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,”. I didn't go to Princeton or Harvard and I never got more then half way to earning a six-figure income but I know that America is anything but a "downright mean" country. I am six years older than Mrs. Obama but I have been "really proud" of my country time and time again.
Has Mrs. Obama never seen the space shuttle launch? She has traveled a lot I would guess. Has she never looked out of the window of the plane with awe and wonder at the magnificence of our great country. Would a "mean" country have given three billion to help the victims of the Sumatra Tsunami in 2004. Americans gave $283.05 billion in 2005 and an estimated $295.02 billion in 2006 to charitable causes, and those figures exclude disaster relief.
Anyway, enough about the wife except to say that no one would be married to this women unless he shared her beliefs. Obama speaks out against the American presence in Iraq in terms that can only undermine our attempts there and demean the country as a whole in world opinion. His own statement that he wants to make it possible for young Americans traveling abroad to "hold their heads high when they say they are Americans" makes clear that he feels they do not have reason to do so now. Like many on the left Barack Obama sees his country as the problem not the solution.
Would General Motors hire a CEO who believed that it was inferior to every other car maker on the planet? Would Starbucks choose a CEO who thought that no one should drink coffee? Should the American people elect a President who thinks that you should hang your heads in shame when you travel the globe? We did so at least once before, and the results were not positive.
I was first eligible to vote way back when Jimmy Carter was facing Jerry Ford. I knew almost nothing about politics and was a registered Democrat, but then I repeat myself. Despite my naivete I looked at the two men asking for my vote and I voted for Ford. Judging from how the following four years went I stand by my choice. Then came the Reagan years and to this day I have always voted for the person I considered the best choice. I have never voted for a Democrat for President. I was a Republican in my heart only for years. I was on jury duty once and hanging around the courthouse with nothing to do. I noticed the Supervisor of Elections office and went in and officially changed parties.
As I am composing this I hear on the radio that twenty percent of white Democrats say they will vote for John McCain if Obama is their nominee. I can assure you that if twenty percent of white Democrats say that, there is another twenty percent who say they will vote for Obama but will not. People have a limited comfort zone. Some dedicated Democrats will find themselves in that voting booth and either feel unsure about voting for a black man or be uncomfortable with the idea of President Obama. Now, President McCain sounds more like what most of us are accustom to.
However, if some twist of fate puts Senator Obama in the Oval Office I predict that he will be as unsuccessful in that office as Jimmy Carter. President Carter had no true love for this country. Look at the things he said and did in office and since. Carter was and is always critical of the US. You would be hard pressed to find evidence Carter was ever really proud of this country. Carter always proceeded as though the US deserved to be humbled. In his time in office he gave away the Panama Canal, he denied us an Olympics, a national Christmas tree, and warm homes. All this from a Southern white man who had been successful in America and should have had no ax to grind against us.
Then comes Obama. The son of an anthropologist described in the Chicago Tribune last year as a "fellow traveler" the warm and fuzzy term used to describe a communist sympathizer. Obama's mother, Ann Dunham married first a Kenyan economics student who abandoned her and her infant and then an Indonesian. When her second husband had his student visa revoked she followed him to Indonesia in 1967. Ann Dunham's doctoral dissertation reflected her admiration for more primitive cultures. She praised the peasant blacksmiths of Indonesia in terms she would never offer to any Americans. Anthropology was and is one of the far left fringes of our already left leaning universities. Raised by a mother like this Senator Obama could not possibly develop great admiration for America.
The second, and perhaps more important women in Obama's life, his wife is also no fan or the good old U S of A. The subject of Michelle Obama's college thesis was "Blackness at Princeton".
Mrs. Obama stated that she felt like a visitor at Princeton, like someone who didn't really belong. This was presented as the fault of Princeton not due to some sensitivity or shortcoming on the part of Mrs Obama. An average American would look at Mrs. Obama's life and think she had it pretty good. Attending Princeton and then Harvard law School is considered the pinnacle of academic achievement. Again Mrs. Obama speaks not of the opportunities she has enjoyed but of the hardships she has endured.
While urging a group of lower middle class women at a day care center in Ohio to eschew careers in lucrative jobs like corporate law and hedge fund management Mrs. Obama complained about the burden of student loans. Although she had a job at a Chicago Hospital making $120K she claimed they were unable to retire their student loans and save for their children in their 40's. I'm sure things began to look up when her husband was elected to the Senate and her salary was raised to $312K. That impressive raise made the news in the Chicago area.
Much has been said about Mrs. Obama's statement that she is now "for the first time in her adult life, really proud of my country", well, at least she called America "my country". I was more troubled by the rest of her statement. Mrs Obama went on to say that she has been "desperate to see our country moving in that direction" and "feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment". This is a woman angling to be our First Lady and when she describes this great country that has afforded her so much the words she uses are desperate, frustration and disappointment. As negative as these statements sound in print they are much worse when delivered by Mrs Obama. The only word I can find to describe the look on Mrs. Obama's face during these statements is "hate".
Since then Mrs Obama has gone on to repeatedly give a stump speech that she wrote for herself that includes the following. America is a country of "cynics, sloths, and complacents" we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,”. I didn't go to Princeton or Harvard and I never got more then half way to earning a six-figure income but I know that America is anything but a "downright mean" country. I am six years older than Mrs. Obama but I have been "really proud" of my country time and time again.
Has Mrs. Obama never seen the space shuttle launch? She has traveled a lot I would guess. Has she never looked out of the window of the plane with awe and wonder at the magnificence of our great country. Would a "mean" country have given three billion to help the victims of the Sumatra Tsunami in 2004. Americans gave $283.05 billion in 2005 and an estimated $295.02 billion in 2006 to charitable causes, and those figures exclude disaster relief.
Anyway, enough about the wife except to say that no one would be married to this women unless he shared her beliefs. Obama speaks out against the American presence in Iraq in terms that can only undermine our attempts there and demean the country as a whole in world opinion. His own statement that he wants to make it possible for young Americans traveling abroad to "hold their heads high when they say they are Americans" makes clear that he feels they do not have reason to do so now. Like many on the left Barack Obama sees his country as the problem not the solution.
Would General Motors hire a CEO who believed that it was inferior to every other car maker on the planet? Would Starbucks choose a CEO who thought that no one should drink coffee? Should the American people elect a President who thinks that you should hang your heads in shame when you travel the globe? We did so at least once before, and the results were not positive.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
GOP Bane, John McCain
John McCain is a war hero. Let's go ahead and get that out of the way first. McCain is not a phony war hero like John Kerry who spent a few months in Viet Nam and received three Purple Hearts without ever needing to spend a single night in the hospital. John McCain truly suffered in his service to his country and could not be more of a war hero unless he was that guy who blinked in morse code while reading the statement demanded by his captors. Now that that has been said let's review how Senator John McCain has served his country recently.
McCain teamed with uber-liberal Russ Feingold to limit your right to free speech. This bill wasn't aimed at pornography or what the politically correct call "hate speech". No, the McCain Feingold legislation was specifically directed at political speech. By some this was dubbed the "incumbent protection act" and this law has limited the ability of groups of citizens to get their message out regarding candidates running for elections during the time period when most voters are paying the most attention.
Senator McCain promised this legislation would "get the money out of politics" and just the opposite has happened. This faulty legislation has created 527's which allowed one man, George Soros to spend 24 million dollars to defeat the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. Soros failed in this but he sure has gotten a lot of Americans stirred up and these organizations have kept people that way for the past 4 years.
McCain teamed with uber-liberal Russ Feingold to limit your right to free speech. This bill wasn't aimed at pornography or what the politically correct call "hate speech". No, the McCain Feingold legislation was specifically directed at political speech. By some this was dubbed the "incumbent protection act" and this law has limited the ability of groups of citizens to get their message out regarding candidates running for elections during the time period when most voters are paying the most attention.
Senator McCain promised this legislation would "get the money out of politics" and just the opposite has happened. This faulty legislation has created 527's which allowed one man, George Soros to spend 24 million dollars to defeat the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004. Soros failed in this but he sure has gotten a lot of Americans stirred up and these organizations have kept people that way for the past 4 years.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Could Al Gore be a Bigger Nimrod?
Moronic megalomaniac Al Gore was in Oslo yesterday to accept his Nobel Peace Prize. Gore made a big show of arriving via public transportation. I haven't heard yet how exactly he got to Sweden. Gore's usual mode of transportation is a private plane. I did learn that while he was riding a bus from the airport his luggage was transported in a limousine.
Finally, finally some questions are being asked about the incredible amount of money Al gore has made pushing his junk science theory on global warming. At a Fortune Forum summit last month Gore collected 100,000 British pounds for a thirty minute speech. In addition to giving a speech that was a real snoozer Gore put off guests and journalists by acting like a diva. Gore is really raking it in giving essentially the same speech over and over again for fat fees.
While Gore was accepting his ridiculous award and making yet another rambling wooden speech, ice storms were taking aim at the Midwest region of the United States. Also, the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society has published a report that CO2 is not a pollutant and that the warming the earth has experienced in recent years is natural and cannot be affected by an actions we may or may not take.
The report cites the cause of global warming as most likely variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. Even more damaging to Gores insistence that CO2 levels are causing warming is the finding that earth's atmosphere is warming at the same rate as the surface. If Gore's "Greenhouse Effect" was truly occurring the atmosphere would be warming two to three times faster than the surface.
Consequently, reducing CO2 emissions would have no impact on global warming and would only be an incredible expense. An expense that Al Gore and others who are hawking "carbon offsets" will be collecting and taking to the bank.
Finally, finally some questions are being asked about the incredible amount of money Al gore has made pushing his junk science theory on global warming. At a Fortune Forum summit last month Gore collected 100,000 British pounds for a thirty minute speech. In addition to giving a speech that was a real snoozer Gore put off guests and journalists by acting like a diva. Gore is really raking it in giving essentially the same speech over and over again for fat fees.
While Gore was accepting his ridiculous award and making yet another rambling wooden speech, ice storms were taking aim at the Midwest region of the United States. Also, the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society has published a report that CO2 is not a pollutant and that the warming the earth has experienced in recent years is natural and cannot be affected by an actions we may or may not take.
The report cites the cause of global warming as most likely variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. Even more damaging to Gores insistence that CO2 levels are causing warming is the finding that earth's atmosphere is warming at the same rate as the surface. If Gore's "Greenhouse Effect" was truly occurring the atmosphere would be warming two to three times faster than the surface.
Consequently, reducing CO2 emissions would have no impact on global warming and would only be an incredible expense. An expense that Al Gore and others who are hawking "carbon offsets" will be collecting and taking to the bank.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Clinton News Network Rolls Over, Again!
During the Bill Clinton Presidency many of us on the Right referred to CNN as the Clinton News Network. This was due to CNN's habit of reporting glowingly of anything done by William Jefferson Clinton, his wife or any member of his administration. A kindness they never provided to the two men who proceeded him or the one who followed him.
What is CNN's motto? I think it has something to do with trust. Well you can certainly trust CNN to report only bad news as long as George W Bush is in the White House. I remember way back when, Bill Clinton was just taking office and Rush Limbaugh promised that the "Homeless Problem" that the media had been harping on since Ronald Reagan took office would disappear. Darned if it didn't only to resurface, though with less intensity once we had another Republican elected President.
During Al Gore's and John Kerry's run for office I got to see how hard the media would work to assist a Democrat into the Presidency. To this day Kerry still hasn't answered the many questions asked by the over 200 Viet Nam Veterans who became the Swiftboaters for Truth, or made good on his promise to have ALL of his military records released. He did accept a million dollar bet recently to disprove at least one of the charges the Swiftboaters alleged. I can't wait to see how that wager comes out. Kerry didn't have to worry about answering the questions during the 2004 election. The media, for the most part, investigated only the men bringing the charges not the validity of those claims. The facts supported the swiftboaters, Kerry did receive three Purple Hearts without ever spending one night in a hospital.
The recent CNN Democrat debate was carefully orchestrated to make sure Hillary didn't have a second disastrous performance. Although Wolf Blitzer claims he was not warned by the Clinton camp to "go easy" he did do just that. Blitzer gave Mrs Clinton all the time she needed to answer as she choose. Even when her answer contradicted prior statements Blitzer never asked a follow up question or challenged Mrs. Clinton in any way.
Now it turns out that everyone of the "Independent, undecided citizens" selected at random to ask a question of the candidates were democrat operatives. One is a seventeen-year-old who works for Harry Reid. This is not "Freedom of the Press" at it's best.
What is CNN's motto? I think it has something to do with trust. Well you can certainly trust CNN to report only bad news as long as George W Bush is in the White House. I remember way back when, Bill Clinton was just taking office and Rush Limbaugh promised that the "Homeless Problem" that the media had been harping on since Ronald Reagan took office would disappear. Darned if it didn't only to resurface, though with less intensity once we had another Republican elected President.
During Al Gore's and John Kerry's run for office I got to see how hard the media would work to assist a Democrat into the Presidency. To this day Kerry still hasn't answered the many questions asked by the over 200 Viet Nam Veterans who became the Swiftboaters for Truth, or made good on his promise to have ALL of his military records released. He did accept a million dollar bet recently to disprove at least one of the charges the Swiftboaters alleged. I can't wait to see how that wager comes out. Kerry didn't have to worry about answering the questions during the 2004 election. The media, for the most part, investigated only the men bringing the charges not the validity of those claims. The facts supported the swiftboaters, Kerry did receive three Purple Hearts without ever spending one night in a hospital.
The recent CNN Democrat debate was carefully orchestrated to make sure Hillary didn't have a second disastrous performance. Although Wolf Blitzer claims he was not warned by the Clinton camp to "go easy" he did do just that. Blitzer gave Mrs Clinton all the time she needed to answer as she choose. Even when her answer contradicted prior statements Blitzer never asked a follow up question or challenged Mrs. Clinton in any way.
Now it turns out that everyone of the "Independent, undecided citizens" selected at random to ask a question of the candidates were democrat operatives. One is a seventeen-year-old who works for Harry Reid. This is not "Freedom of the Press" at it's best.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Shrillary's Not Great Debate
Surprisingly, Tim Russert asked some tough questions in the Democrat debate on Monday night. Hillary was not pleased and under pressure for the first time in her political career Mrs. Clinton made some serious mistakes. The following may not be in chronological order.
Until now Mrs. Clinton has not been asked about the New York Governor's unpopular plan to provide drivers licenses to illegal alien's even though she is one of the Senator's from that state. Russert asked her "Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?" Mrs. Clinton's initial response was to explain that what the Governor is trying to accomplish with this policy is "to fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform". Brilliant, except that the President supported immigration reform and it was the Senate who did not produce a solution that could pass and be sent to the President for signature.
What was truly remarkable is that two minutes after defending the policy when Chris Dodd said he found the policy "troublesome" Mrs Clinton butt in with "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize what Governor Spitzer is trying to do, and we have failed, we have failed." Dodd replied "No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it." Mrs. Clinton replied "No, I didn't, Chris", but she did, we all heard her. Russert pressed the point causing Mrs. Clinton to accuse him of playing "Gotcha" and to fall back on the party line of getting people to "come out of the shadows".
John Edwards pointed out that Hillary has accepted more in political donations from lobbyists, the drug companies, the insurance companies and the defense industry than any other Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. The point he was making is that Mrs. Clinton is not the person to change the way things currently work in Washington DC. Mrs. Clinton's reply was chilling her exact words were "I'm going to take $10 billion away from a lot of these industries". Then she threw two bogeymen under the bus, Halliburton and the HMO's. Luckily, for these lying Democrats, most Americans don't remember that Halliburton got "no bid contracts" during the Clinton Administration too, and our all knowing congress created the HMO's. Oh, and just for good measure, she threw in a reference to the Supreme Court handing the Presidency to George W. Bush, the left lunatic fringe loves to hear that fantasy repeated.
Mrs. Clinton was asked about the "mother of all tax increases" proposed by Charlie Rangle and waffled masterfully. Initially Mrs. Clinton claimed ignorance of the "details" of the plan but a few seconds later stated "I don't agree with all the details" So, does she know that details or not and if she doesn't know them how does she know that she disagrees with them.
Finally in a truly Clintonian example of duplicity, when Tim Russert asked if Mrs. Clinton would
allow the National Archives to release the documents regarding her communications with the president and the advice she gave to verify that she held an important role in that administration Mrs clinton did the following. First she tried to claim that documents were being released "as rapidly as the archives moves". Russert, that brute, pointed out that President Clinton has written a letter specifically asking that any communication between Mrs. Clinton and he not be made available to the public until 2012. When Russert asked again "Would you lift that ban?" the reply delivered with a huff and a sigh was "Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has, but certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits." Don't hold your breath.
Same old, same old Clinton triangulation, misdirection, and faked umbrage that these question dare be asked of them. The Clinton's have built a political house of cards and eventually it will fall. Perhaps Al Gore will join the fray and the media which has protected the Clinton's for so long will turn on them. If the media ever began to really report on all the Clinton shady dealings their political careers would be dead and buried in 30 days. I think I'll visit that "Draft Gore" web site. See you there.
Until now Mrs. Clinton has not been asked about the New York Governor's unpopular plan to provide drivers licenses to illegal alien's even though she is one of the Senator's from that state. Russert asked her "Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?" Mrs. Clinton's initial response was to explain that what the Governor is trying to accomplish with this policy is "to fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform". Brilliant, except that the President supported immigration reform and it was the Senate who did not produce a solution that could pass and be sent to the President for signature.
What was truly remarkable is that two minutes after defending the policy when Chris Dodd said he found the policy "troublesome" Mrs Clinton butt in with "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize what Governor Spitzer is trying to do, and we have failed, we have failed." Dodd replied "No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it." Mrs. Clinton replied "No, I didn't, Chris", but she did, we all heard her. Russert pressed the point causing Mrs. Clinton to accuse him of playing "Gotcha" and to fall back on the party line of getting people to "come out of the shadows".
John Edwards pointed out that Hillary has accepted more in political donations from lobbyists, the drug companies, the insurance companies and the defense industry than any other Presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. The point he was making is that Mrs. Clinton is not the person to change the way things currently work in Washington DC. Mrs. Clinton's reply was chilling her exact words were "I'm going to take $10 billion away from a lot of these industries". Then she threw two bogeymen under the bus, Halliburton and the HMO's. Luckily, for these lying Democrats, most Americans don't remember that Halliburton got "no bid contracts" during the Clinton Administration too, and our all knowing congress created the HMO's. Oh, and just for good measure, she threw in a reference to the Supreme Court handing the Presidency to George W. Bush, the left lunatic fringe loves to hear that fantasy repeated.
Mrs. Clinton was asked about the "mother of all tax increases" proposed by Charlie Rangle and waffled masterfully. Initially Mrs. Clinton claimed ignorance of the "details" of the plan but a few seconds later stated "I don't agree with all the details" So, does she know that details or not and if she doesn't know them how does she know that she disagrees with them.
Finally in a truly Clintonian example of duplicity, when Tim Russert asked if Mrs. Clinton would
allow the National Archives to release the documents regarding her communications with the president and the advice she gave to verify that she held an important role in that administration Mrs clinton did the following. First she tried to claim that documents were being released "as rapidly as the archives moves". Russert, that brute, pointed out that President Clinton has written a letter specifically asking that any communication between Mrs. Clinton and he not be made available to the public until 2012. When Russert asked again "Would you lift that ban?" the reply delivered with a huff and a sigh was "Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has, but certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits." Don't hold your breath.
Same old, same old Clinton triangulation, misdirection, and faked umbrage that these question dare be asked of them. The Clinton's have built a political house of cards and eventually it will fall. Perhaps Al Gore will join the fray and the media which has protected the Clinton's for so long will turn on them. If the media ever began to really report on all the Clinton shady dealings their political careers would be dead and buried in 30 days. I think I'll visit that "Draft Gore" web site. See you there.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Why Shun Shunning?
At a recent dinner party my husband recounted a long ago incident which he remembers as me behaving rudely. When he spotted a former boyfriend of mine was at a restaurant where we were waiting for a table we kept our distance. It was our hope to avoid having to speak to this individual. Our plan almost succeeded. When this person barged up to our table asking if I knew he had married and thrusting his wedding ring under my nose I was taken aback. My reply was a bit unkind. I said, "No I didn't know you had gotten married and I never noticed what short stubby fingers you have". Now my former boyfriend was the one taken aback and he withdrew his ring clad hand as if it had been bitten.
I could have been nicer and I usually recommend erring on the side of kindness but do not regret my remark. This man had been a fairly rotten boyfriend. He and I were on a ski trip long ago the trip where I first learned to ski. We had been dating for a while at this time and we agreed that he would ski with his friends while I took skiing lessons. The deal was that if I learned to ski well enough to brave the blue ski runs after three days of lessons he would ski with me the last afternoon of our trip. I worked really hard to learn to ski and I made great progress. Then when the time came for us to ski together it just was not enough fun for him and he abandoned me.
There were other instances none really worth mentioning but eventually I decided the relationship had run it's course. I wrote a letter explaining exactly why I did not want to continue the relationship. Since people in our ski club were sure to notice we had split he brought an attractive young lady to the very next meeting. I don't recall her name and we never saw her again after that short appearance, she was after all only a prop. He did accomplish his goal. I was mildly humiliated and he was able to give the appearance that he had been the one who chose to move on from our relationship.
There was a time when it was considered part of one's societal responsibility to shun persons who had behaved badly. Before people became completely non-judgemental and learned that there would be no consequences to their actions people behaved better. Fifty years ago would Woody Allen have dared to marry his adopted daughter? He would have been turned away from "polite society" and told to never darken their doors again. Instead he explains "The heart wants what it wants" and gets to do exactly as he pleases with minimal criticism. When a man marries a woman young enough to be his daughter, and in this case one who was raised as his daughter, he is following one of his organs but it isn't his heart.
So, if Woody Allen rushes up to your table in a restaurant to show you his wedding ring feel free to be as rude to him as you like. You have my permission.
I could have been nicer and I usually recommend erring on the side of kindness but do not regret my remark. This man had been a fairly rotten boyfriend. He and I were on a ski trip long ago the trip where I first learned to ski. We had been dating for a while at this time and we agreed that he would ski with his friends while I took skiing lessons. The deal was that if I learned to ski well enough to brave the blue ski runs after three days of lessons he would ski with me the last afternoon of our trip. I worked really hard to learn to ski and I made great progress. Then when the time came for us to ski together it just was not enough fun for him and he abandoned me.
There were other instances none really worth mentioning but eventually I decided the relationship had run it's course. I wrote a letter explaining exactly why I did not want to continue the relationship. Since people in our ski club were sure to notice we had split he brought an attractive young lady to the very next meeting. I don't recall her name and we never saw her again after that short appearance, she was after all only a prop. He did accomplish his goal. I was mildly humiliated and he was able to give the appearance that he had been the one who chose to move on from our relationship.
There was a time when it was considered part of one's societal responsibility to shun persons who had behaved badly. Before people became completely non-judgemental and learned that there would be no consequences to their actions people behaved better. Fifty years ago would Woody Allen have dared to marry his adopted daughter? He would have been turned away from "polite society" and told to never darken their doors again. Instead he explains "The heart wants what it wants" and gets to do exactly as he pleases with minimal criticism. When a man marries a woman young enough to be his daughter, and in this case one who was raised as his daughter, he is following one of his organs but it isn't his heart.
So, if Woody Allen rushes up to your table in a restaurant to show you his wedding ring feel free to be as rude to him as you like. You have my permission.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
How the Clinton's Led the Left to Sell Their Souls
The Devil made me do it has never really flown as a legitimate excuse for any one's actions but let's take a look at what the Clinton's have led their supporters to do.
Because of Bill Clinton feminists had to defend not just an adulterer, but a a serial womanizer, a sleazy groper and most likely an actual rapist. This couldn't have been easy for the "no means NO" crowd.
Veterans had to defend not just a draft dodger but one who escaped the draft by promising to join the ROTC and then weaseled out of that commitment in a letter where he admitted that he "loathes the military". Veterans had to defend this draft dodger while he was running against two true WWII war hero's, George Bush and Bob Dole. That had to feel wrong, wrong, wrong especially after Clinton's first action in office. The courageous "Don't ask don't tell" policy. That's was really impressive leadership.
Unions leaders had to let thousands of sweet, high paying jobs go by the wayside to save Anwar, a desolate frozen area that most closely resembles the surface of the moon. They had to let all those jobs and all the new union members the jobs could have generated go to save a place where no one lives and which no one would want to visit. Then the most bitter pill of all they saw the passage of NAFTA. That can't have been easy to swallow.
The trial lawyers probably had the least trouble. No one can put their principles aside like a trial lawyer. It's almost as if they have none. However even lawyers take umbrage at perjury and obstruction of justice. This was the only time the Supreme Court boycotted a state of the union address right? It was all of the Justices too, not just the non-liberal ones.
I may be wrong about this as the Left may have been soulless prior to the Clinton's arrival. They are, after all, Godless and generally joyless. Still, you can understand that some of them are apprehensive at the idea of another Clinton administration. As well they should be.
Because of Bill Clinton feminists had to defend not just an adulterer, but a a serial womanizer, a sleazy groper and most likely an actual rapist. This couldn't have been easy for the "no means NO" crowd.
Veterans had to defend not just a draft dodger but one who escaped the draft by promising to join the ROTC and then weaseled out of that commitment in a letter where he admitted that he "loathes the military". Veterans had to defend this draft dodger while he was running against two true WWII war hero's, George Bush and Bob Dole. That had to feel wrong, wrong, wrong especially after Clinton's first action in office. The courageous "Don't ask don't tell" policy. That's was really impressive leadership.
Unions leaders had to let thousands of sweet, high paying jobs go by the wayside to save Anwar, a desolate frozen area that most closely resembles the surface of the moon. They had to let all those jobs and all the new union members the jobs could have generated go to save a place where no one lives and which no one would want to visit. Then the most bitter pill of all they saw the passage of NAFTA. That can't have been easy to swallow.
The trial lawyers probably had the least trouble. No one can put their principles aside like a trial lawyer. It's almost as if they have none. However even lawyers take umbrage at perjury and obstruction of justice. This was the only time the Supreme Court boycotted a state of the union address right? It was all of the Justices too, not just the non-liberal ones.
I may be wrong about this as the Left may have been soulless prior to the Clinton's arrival. They are, after all, Godless and generally joyless. Still, you can understand that some of them are apprehensive at the idea of another Clinton administration. As well they should be.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
You May Not Know Jack, But You BETTER Know About George
George Soros that is. This guy has a finger in every left leaning pie in the world Many people know Soros is one of the biggest financiers of MoveOn.org but there is much more George supports and not everyone knows he is out there working behind the scenes to influence public policy.
There is an organization called the "Open Society Institute. In addition to supporting lots of liberal causes this organization has been very helpful to NASA's James Hansen. Any scientists who is skeptical of the "global warming consensus" is accused of being backed by big oil. James Hansen has been described as a "lone whistle blower" who was allegedly censored by the Bush administration. An accusation that is made laughable by the fact that NASA changed it's media policies to allow Hansen to continue his crusade. It was recently reported that Hansen received $720,000 to help him spread the alarm about "global warming". Who is politicizing science now? How would Hansen's credibility been affected if everyone knew who was backing him?
There is an organization called the "Open Society Institute. In addition to supporting lots of liberal causes this organization has been very helpful to NASA's James Hansen. Any scientists who is skeptical of the "global warming consensus" is accused of being backed by big oil. James Hansen has been described as a "lone whistle blower" who was allegedly censored by the Bush administration. An accusation that is made laughable by the fact that NASA changed it's media policies to allow Hansen to continue his crusade. It was recently reported that Hansen received $720,000 to help him spread the alarm about "global warming". Who is politicizing science now? How would Hansen's credibility been affected if everyone knew who was backing him?
The Open Society Institute had a hand in another big news story in 2006. When all the "immigration rallies" began it was reported that this was a spontaneous grass roots movement. There was no mention of an organizer or instigator except for a Los Angeles Spanish-language radio station. That was not true. The truth is that the 17 million dollar Justice Fund, a underling of the OSI listed 19 projects for 2006 and one was "immigration rallies" another was funding illegal immigrants activists groups court cases. These immigrants and their supporters didn't "rise up" on their own. They were manipulated by one of Soro's well funded groups.
You have heard, I'm sure, about some of the court cases that seem to favor terrorists. Have you ever wondered who brings these suits? The Open Society Institute spent $74 million in 2006 to "shape U.S. policy". Some court cases they backed and won include the Supreme Court's decision to abolish military commissions judging terrorists at Guantanamo. They financially supported the radicals who pressured the TSA to eliminate their "Secure Flight" program, which matched passenger lists against lists of terrorists names. The lawyers who persuaded the Texas judge to block tracking terrorists cell phones were funded by OSI too. Soros' OSI partners with a group called the Tides Foundation which is a cause Terri Kerry supports and which is know for very quietly transferring funds from wealthy donors to left wing "fringe groups" like eco-terrorism.
Another "below the radar" political organization called "Democracy Alliance" enjoys great largess from Soros. The policy of Democracy Alliance seems to be that the party whose name is closest to the word Democracy gets full control of the government. This group was formed in 2005 and until this week I had never heard of them, had you? This is another group throwing vast sums of money and misinformation around to further their far left agenda.
That brings us to America Coming Together or ACT which is not dedicated to the sexual fulfillment of all Americans, but would be less worrisome if it were. Remember all the news about "disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff"? Well ACT was fined $775,000 by the Federal Election Commission, the third largest fine in FEC history and there was hardly a ripple in the main stream news about it. In 2004 ACT raised $137 million in 17 states, most of which the FEC says were illegal contributions. Why isn't this BIG NEWS?
Wake up America! You need to know who these people are and what they are doing behind the scenes to manipulate you.
Friday, September 21, 2007
ENVIRO-COMMUNISM or Is Green the New Red?
With the fall of the Soviet Union Communism lost most of it's luster. American Liberals finally had to give up the dream. Without the USSR Communism was never going to catch on and overcome Capitalism. Too bad for the Left but those folks, if anything, are resourceful. They saw early that taking up the cause to "Save the Planet" could open another front in the fight against Capitalism.
From the Nixon administration's creation of the EPA on there has been a never ending battle between capitalism and so called environmentalists (which I shall here in refer to as Enviro-Mentals). Whenever and where ever someone wanted to build homes, factories or any commercial enterprise they would have to run a gauntlet of inspections, regulations and frequently litigation. Hundred year-old family farms were left to dry up and blow away while the water was reserved to save a tiny fish, the snail darter. Logging interests had to be shut down to save the spotted owl who we were told could only live in certain trees. This was disproved when a family of these owls took up residence in a K-Mart sign.
The Enviro-Mentals have successfully prevented the construction of an oil refinery in this country for over thirty years. They opposed the Alaskan Pipeline but were unable to prevent it. Their dire warnings of the destruction the pipeline would cause never came true. Just the opposite occurred. Caribou populations expanded as they found some previously unavailable warmth generated by the pipeline. The Enviro-Mentals have successfully prevented us from tapping the huge oil reserves in Anwar while other Liberals and some reasonable folks denounce our dependence on foreign oil.
The new Crisis du jour from the Enviro-Mentals is "Global Warming" Ah, if not for Global Warming we might have heard the last of Al Gore, but no such luck. Again, those who so loudly decry the horror of an increase in the temperature of the northern hemisphere of less than two degrees in one hundred years vehemently oppose the one source of energy which causes no carbon emissions, nuclear power.
Most Americans may be unaware that Canada uses nuclear power for a lot of their energy needs. France produces 76% of it's electricity from 56 nuclear power plants. There hasn't been a nuclear incident for decades and we can certainly make safe use of a power source that has been mastered by the French. Does Global Warming guru Al Gore call for a switch to nuclear power? Absolutely not. Instead he calls for all of us to live our lives greener. Gore himself can't do so, his mission is too important, but he expects you to lessen the way you live your life.
From the Nixon administration's creation of the EPA on there has been a never ending battle between capitalism and so called environmentalists (which I shall here in refer to as Enviro-Mentals). Whenever and where ever someone wanted to build homes, factories or any commercial enterprise they would have to run a gauntlet of inspections, regulations and frequently litigation. Hundred year-old family farms were left to dry up and blow away while the water was reserved to save a tiny fish, the snail darter. Logging interests had to be shut down to save the spotted owl who we were told could only live in certain trees. This was disproved when a family of these owls took up residence in a K-Mart sign.
The Enviro-Mentals have successfully prevented the construction of an oil refinery in this country for over thirty years. They opposed the Alaskan Pipeline but were unable to prevent it. Their dire warnings of the destruction the pipeline would cause never came true. Just the opposite occurred. Caribou populations expanded as they found some previously unavailable warmth generated by the pipeline. The Enviro-Mentals have successfully prevented us from tapping the huge oil reserves in Anwar while other Liberals and some reasonable folks denounce our dependence on foreign oil.
The new Crisis du jour from the Enviro-Mentals is "Global Warming" Ah, if not for Global Warming we might have heard the last of Al Gore, but no such luck. Again, those who so loudly decry the horror of an increase in the temperature of the northern hemisphere of less than two degrees in one hundred years vehemently oppose the one source of energy which causes no carbon emissions, nuclear power.
Most Americans may be unaware that Canada uses nuclear power for a lot of their energy needs. France produces 76% of it's electricity from 56 nuclear power plants. There hasn't been a nuclear incident for decades and we can certainly make safe use of a power source that has been mastered by the French. Does Global Warming guru Al Gore call for a switch to nuclear power? Absolutely not. Instead he calls for all of us to live our lives greener. Gore himself can't do so, his mission is too important, but he expects you to lessen the way you live your life.
Some scientists disagree with the "global warming consensus". Al Gore calls them "Deniers" comparing them to people who claim one of history's darkest events never happened. Anyone who fails to buy the "global warming lie" hook line and sinker is attacked. During the Clinton Administration any government scientist who doubted global warming was fired any others were advised they would be blacklisted from receiving any government grants.
The only solution the Enviro-Mentals will accept is to throw even more draconian hurdles in front of American business interests. The estimated cost to our economy for reducing carbon emissions per Al Gore's baby, the Kyoto Treaty was 77 to 338 Billion in 1992 dollars. I assure you the price hasn't decreased in the past 15 years. A hefty price tag has never been a deterrent to those on the left who seek bigger and bigger government. No problem, they'll just "tax the rich".
All to keep the planet at it's current temperature. The benefits of some additional warming are never discussed. There is significant scientific evidence to support theories that the earth has been warmer than current temperatures in the past. Directly prior to the Renaissance for example. A warming trend resulted in longer growing seasons and world wide benefits to mankind. Now record heat is big news and record cold is ignored. Here's an idea, if we have to ignore something let's make it Al Gore.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
I Love Liberals
I love liberals, don't you? Only a liberal can pick a fight and then if you respond in any manner other than total capitulation they accuse you of attacking them and suddenly take the high road. Recently I had two email encounters that seemed to go that way. The first was quite a shock as seemingly out of the blue a business acquaintance sent me a brief tirade about President Bush and Vice-Pres Chaney. When I replied with some defense I got a haughty reply about how neither of us will likely convince the other so we should drop it. HE started it but WE should drop it. No problem there I deleted him form my address book. He was a flaky attorney from Dade County. He won't be missed.
This does explain how so many liberals can support Hillary Clinton. I find it totally unreasonable for anyone to attack then cry foul, hardly good sportsmanship or even adult behavior. Apparently many disagree and that makes it reasonable, for them and for Hillary to have it both ways. When Hillary accuses some imaginary "Vast Right wing Conspiracy" for making up lies about her husband canoodling with an intern that is a perfectly legitimate claim. When it turns out that her husband was doing exactly what he was accused of he is the only liar in the scenario no apology is offered. When asked by Tim Russert if she owes an apology for that accusation Mrs. Clinton reverts to innocent victim replying only "I wish that none of us had to go through that very difficult time. Never taking any responsibility for causing the "very difficult time".
When Hillary and others accuse the President of every evil imaginable including knowingly allowing September 11th to happen that is their Constitutional Right. If anyone dares to reasonably point out that these statements might damage our country and hurt our chances of winning the war in Iraq they scream foul! "How dare you" they cry! "How dare you impugn my patriotism". It's amazing to me. You can watch it time and time again, first outrageous behavior and then when that behavior is commented upon immediate highhanded victim hood. This passive aggressive ploy has silenced Americans nationwide. Millions of conservative and moderate Americans just pipe down to avoid the theatrics the left employs if you dare speak up.
One good example occurred at a women's bible class of all places. A very outspoken woman thought it appropriate to say in a bible class how she "hates" being in any group that thinks President Bush is so great. This was not in response to anything said in class, politics had not been mentioned. This woman just wanted us all to know that if we had anything positive to say about the President, that would be offensive to her. I think I would have been happier living in the 1950's when folks were more likely to be offended by negative statements about the President.
Here we are, in a country where you would hesitate to say in public "I think President Bush is doing the best job possible under very difficult circumstances". Hows that for muzzeling the opposition. Millions of people are afraid to voice and support for our President. Supporting the President openly has been deemed "rude" but defaming him venomously is perfectly allowed.
It's a crazy time! And, not in a good way.
This does explain how so many liberals can support Hillary Clinton. I find it totally unreasonable for anyone to attack then cry foul, hardly good sportsmanship or even adult behavior. Apparently many disagree and that makes it reasonable, for them and for Hillary to have it both ways. When Hillary accuses some imaginary "Vast Right wing Conspiracy" for making up lies about her husband canoodling with an intern that is a perfectly legitimate claim. When it turns out that her husband was doing exactly what he was accused of he is the only liar in the scenario no apology is offered. When asked by Tim Russert if she owes an apology for that accusation Mrs. Clinton reverts to innocent victim replying only "I wish that none of us had to go through that very difficult time. Never taking any responsibility for causing the "very difficult time".
When Hillary and others accuse the President of every evil imaginable including knowingly allowing September 11th to happen that is their Constitutional Right. If anyone dares to reasonably point out that these statements might damage our country and hurt our chances of winning the war in Iraq they scream foul! "How dare you" they cry! "How dare you impugn my patriotism". It's amazing to me. You can watch it time and time again, first outrageous behavior and then when that behavior is commented upon immediate highhanded victim hood. This passive aggressive ploy has silenced Americans nationwide. Millions of conservative and moderate Americans just pipe down to avoid the theatrics the left employs if you dare speak up.
One good example occurred at a women's bible class of all places. A very outspoken woman thought it appropriate to say in a bible class how she "hates" being in any group that thinks President Bush is so great. This was not in response to anything said in class, politics had not been mentioned. This woman just wanted us all to know that if we had anything positive to say about the President, that would be offensive to her. I think I would have been happier living in the 1950's when folks were more likely to be offended by negative statements about the President.
Here we are, in a country where you would hesitate to say in public "I think President Bush is doing the best job possible under very difficult circumstances". Hows that for muzzeling the opposition. Millions of people are afraid to voice and support for our President. Supporting the President openly has been deemed "rude" but defaming him venomously is perfectly allowed.
It's a crazy time! And, not in a good way.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Second Clinton Fundrasing Scandal - THIS WEEK
The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that a small home in Daly City, CA was one of the biggest Democrat donors. There was a connection between the occupants of that house, the Paw family and a New York businessman named Norman Hsu. Hsu, is a "Hillraiser", the title given to someone who has committed to raising $100,000 for Hilliary Clinton.
Today we learn that Mr. Hsu is a wanted man. There has been a warrant for his arrest in California since 1992. Many Democrats who have enjoyed Mr Hsu's financial support are returning the funds or giving them to charity. So far, only Minnesota Rep. Michael Honda is returning the donations from the Paws and another contributor Hsu lined up.
In an unrelated additional scandal another "fundraiser", Abdul Rehman Jinnah, is thought to have fled the country after an indictment on charges of conspiracy and making illegal campaign contributions. This gentleman, a Pakistani immigrant, disappeared in May after being indicted and is thought to have returned to Pakistan.
Prior to the indictment Jinnah directed $30,000 to Mrs Clinton's campaign and $50, 000 to Barbara Boxer. It is alleged that he organized fake fundraisers where he would collect contributions from friends and family members and reimburse them. His flight makes one think the allegations are probably true.
Today we learn that Mr. Hsu is a wanted man. There has been a warrant for his arrest in California since 1992. Many Democrats who have enjoyed Mr Hsu's financial support are returning the funds or giving them to charity. So far, only Minnesota Rep. Michael Honda is returning the donations from the Paws and another contributor Hsu lined up.
In an unrelated additional scandal another "fundraiser", Abdul Rehman Jinnah, is thought to have fled the country after an indictment on charges of conspiracy and making illegal campaign contributions. This gentleman, a Pakistani immigrant, disappeared in May after being indicted and is thought to have returned to Pakistan.
Prior to the indictment Jinnah directed $30,000 to Mrs Clinton's campaign and $50, 000 to Barbara Boxer. It is alleged that he organized fake fundraisers where he would collect contributions from friends and family members and reimburse them. His flight makes one think the allegations are probably true.
Please No Forwards on Politics
Today, as a second foreign Clinton contributor has reportedly fled the country to avoid indictment on charges of conspiracy and making illegal campaign contributions, I received a reply to my email about yesterday's Clinton campaign scandal. That reply from a family member was "Please no forwards on politics". That one line sums up the way we went through eight years of Bill Clinton and how some plan to get through Hillary's campaign and heaven forbid another Clinton administration. Normally rational people will close their eyes to any and nearly all Clinton misdeeds with their fingers in their ears chanting "la, la, la, la, la".
The same people who have openly expressed their desire to personally harm our President chide me for daring to bring some shady dealings to their attention. People who never hesitate to tell you how much they absolutely hate President Bush act as though you are behaving boorishly if you mention that Ms. Clinton has not one but two new fund raising scandals to explain. People who will believe our President capable of any evil up to and including knowing about the September 11th attacks in advance but allowing thy to occur in some mad grab for power go all huffy on you for questioning the character of a proved liar, swindler and generally despicable person.
My reply, which will go unspoken to that family member is "I'll respect your wishes but cannot respect your attitude".
The same people who have openly expressed their desire to personally harm our President chide me for daring to bring some shady dealings to their attention. People who never hesitate to tell you how much they absolutely hate President Bush act as though you are behaving boorishly if you mention that Ms. Clinton has not one but two new fund raising scandals to explain. People who will believe our President capable of any evil up to and including knowing about the September 11th attacks in advance but allowing thy to occur in some mad grab for power go all huffy on you for questioning the character of a proved liar, swindler and generally despicable person.
My reply, which will go unspoken to that family member is "I'll respect your wishes but cannot respect your attitude".
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Here Comes Another One Just Like the Other One
What is it with the Chinese and the Clinton's? Bill Clinton took tons of illegal donations from Chinese and Hillary appears to be doing the same.
There is a six member family, the Paws, who live in a 1280 square foot residence that sits in Daly City, CA under one of the flight paths for San Francisco International airport. Although Mr and Mrs Paw and their four grown children are of modest means they are some of the Democrat Party's biggest contributors. Since 2005 the Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democrats $45,000 of that going to Ms Clinton.
The Paws are Chinese and all got their Social Security numbers in 1982. They did not seem to be politically active until this recent generous support of all things Democrat. Five of the six Paws are registered to vote as Non-partisans and according to county election officials vote only "sporadically". There was no record of any political donations made by the Paws until they gave $3,600 to John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election . The Paws first donation to Ms Clinton was the maximum allowed (at the time) $4,000 to her Senate campaign in December of 2004. Odd that a member of a middle class family in Daly City, California would contribute to a New York Senate race. Another donation of $17,500 went to Ms Clinton in March 2005.
There is something else fishy about the Paw family donations. Another benefactor for the Democrats and specifically Ms Clinton is New York businessman Norman Hsu and his donations have been made on the same dates and in the amounts as the Paws donations. Oh, one other odd detail, Mr Hsu previously listed the Paw residence as his home address.
I'm sure there is a simple explanation for his but doubt it will ever be given or even asked for by our "main stream media" who always gives Democrats and especially the Clinton's a pass.
There is a six member family, the Paws, who live in a 1280 square foot residence that sits in Daly City, CA under one of the flight paths for San Francisco International airport. Although Mr and Mrs Paw and their four grown children are of modest means they are some of the Democrat Party's biggest contributors. Since 2005 the Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democrats $45,000 of that going to Ms Clinton.
The Paws are Chinese and all got their Social Security numbers in 1982. They did not seem to be politically active until this recent generous support of all things Democrat. Five of the six Paws are registered to vote as Non-partisans and according to county election officials vote only "sporadically". There was no record of any political donations made by the Paws until they gave $3,600 to John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election . The Paws first donation to Ms Clinton was the maximum allowed (at the time) $4,000 to her Senate campaign in December of 2004. Odd that a member of a middle class family in Daly City, California would contribute to a New York Senate race. Another donation of $17,500 went to Ms Clinton in March 2005.
There is something else fishy about the Paw family donations. Another benefactor for the Democrats and specifically Ms Clinton is New York businessman Norman Hsu and his donations have been made on the same dates and in the amounts as the Paws donations. Oh, one other odd detail, Mr Hsu previously listed the Paw residence as his home address.
I'm sure there is a simple explanation for his but doubt it will ever be given or even asked for by our "main stream media" who always gives Democrats and especially the Clinton's a pass.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
LEARNING TO READ
I really wish I could remember learning to read. For an unknown, to me at least, period of time I had "read" Green Eggs and Ham to my Dad every night. I had memorized the book from his prior reading to me and could recite every line on each page so I must of had some idea of the relationship between the words on the pages and the words coming out of my mouth. Although I think I associated the words I remembered with the pictures on the pages.
I have lots of memories from the first grade but do not recall the exact moment when I learned how to read. Kindergarten was optional at the time and no one had ever heard of pre-school. The first grade was my first experience with formal education. I clearly remember standing with the class and reciting the alphabet. There was also a version we did that went "A, apple, B, Ball etc. In that version X was a bit sticky as none of us had ever seen or heard of a xylophone. I later remember sitting in a circle on the floor of the classroom reading aloud when my turn came. I don't recall the reading matter but think I was in the "best readers" circle. Imagine the hue and cry if in today's first grade classroom the teacher tried to designate a small group as "the best" anything and allowed them to read from more advanced texts.
Still, I am sorry I cannot recall that moment of enlightenment when I realized that the letters made words and the words contained meanings. It must have been like discovering an amazing decoder ring that could unlock the mysteries of the universe. Or maybe it was just a quick "Ahhh" moment.
I have lots of memories from the first grade but do not recall the exact moment when I learned how to read. Kindergarten was optional at the time and no one had ever heard of pre-school. The first grade was my first experience with formal education. I clearly remember standing with the class and reciting the alphabet. There was also a version we did that went "A, apple, B, Ball etc. In that version X was a bit sticky as none of us had ever seen or heard of a xylophone. I later remember sitting in a circle on the floor of the classroom reading aloud when my turn came. I don't recall the reading matter but think I was in the "best readers" circle. Imagine the hue and cry if in today's first grade classroom the teacher tried to designate a small group as "the best" anything and allowed them to read from more advanced texts.
Still, I am sorry I cannot recall that moment of enlightenment when I realized that the letters made words and the words contained meanings. It must have been like discovering an amazing decoder ring that could unlock the mysteries of the universe. Or maybe it was just a quick "Ahhh" moment.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
DO WOMEN HAVE FEET?
It is amazing how much time and money women spend on their feet. Shoes are a passion with most women and the prices for designer footwear are off the charts. A pedicure, once a luxury, is now a monthly necessity for almost all women. Why do we put so much effort into the most overlooked feature of our bodies? Sure your girlfriends notice your shoes but men don't. Most men are barely aware that women have feet. By the way, if you meet a man who takes notice of your shoes, kick those shoes off and run for your life!
CARTER SUPPORTS HAMAS
Former President Carters latest outrage clarifies his inclination to support thugs and terrorists.
Carter says the U.S. should stop favoring Fatah over Hamas. In a speech to a group of Irish "human rights activists" Carter said that "the Bush administration's refusal to accept Hamas' election was criminal". Funny, Carter thought his own refusal to accept the 1979 election results in Zimbabwe during his presidency was just peachy keen. Thanks to Carter and others on the Left who ignored the elected leader Abel Muzorewa and continued to support Robert Mugabe he was able to steal the 1980 election and seize power. How has Mugabe worked out for Zimbabwe? Well in the past 27 years thousands have been tortured and murdered, there has been genocide and mass starvation the world's highest level of inflation and lowest life expect ency. Carter leter claimed he had done the right thing but that Mugabe had become corrupted by power.
Since the last Palestinian election there has been a Fatah-Hamas power-sharing government. Last week Hamas fighters seized control of the Gaza Strip by force, driving Fatah out of the area. President Abbas then dissolved the government and set up a Fatah-led administration to govern the west bank. The Bush administration and the European Union (how often do these two entities agree?) decided to provide aid that has been withheld since the election to the interim Fatah government.
Despite the fact that there was a full out civil war going on in the region Cater claimed the decision to give aid to the new Fatah government only was an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples". Carter cares not a whit that the Hamas leadership refuses to renounce violence and continues to call for the destruction of Israel.
On Monday of this week as hundreds of terrified civilians tried to flee the Gaza Strip for sanctuary in Israel, disguised Hamas gunmen blended in with the crowd and then threw hand grenades at Israeli soldiers. They killed one Palestinian and injured 15 others at Erez. That is the tactics of the group Carter wants us to treat like an ally.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Are We Ready NOW To Admit Israel Is NOT The Problem?
For the past week the so called "Palestinians" have been busy killing each other in the Gaza Strip. This is the stretch of land formerly occupied by Israeli forces that was handed over as a step in the "road map to peace". Well, thanks to Ha mas and Fatah we have veered sharply off the "road map to peace". Sympathy for the innocent aside I have no problem with these two groups of people killing each other especially if it precludes them from blowing up children and their grandmothers having pizza in Israel.
Hamas got a foot in the door in the recent election and are moving to take full control by force. If you have doubts about the need for us to finish the job in Iraq just look at Hamas in the Gaza Strip to see what Iraq will turn into if we leave prematurely.
Hamas got a foot in the door in the recent election and are moving to take full control by force. If you have doubts about the need for us to finish the job in Iraq just look at Hamas in the Gaza Strip to see what Iraq will turn into if we leave prematurely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
