I thought the debate was half decent in spite of itself. The questions were by and large chosen based on CNN's stereotypical view of what Republicans are. And of course, at least four of the 'ordinary citizens' were nothing of the kind, but were actually affilliated with or supporters of Democratic campaigns. Makes you wonder how many of the others were plants by the DNC or CNN.
I liked Thompson and Duncan Hunter, find too much to disagree with when it comes to McCain and Giuliani, and don't really trust Romney, though all of the above have their good points. Ron Paul is clueless on several important issues, and Huckabee comes across as a bit too slick. Sort of like Bill Clinton in a more subtle way. The debate last night, for all it's shortcomings, did a good job of drawing out and contrasting the candidates, so it served a purpose.
If it wouldn't validate the Democrats smears, I'd say the Republicans should do to CNN what the Democrats have done to Fox, and boycott the network. But I'd hate to give any backhanded credibility to the Democrats attempts to paint Fox News as a political rather than a news network. And in any case, CNN's smear attempts are pretty transparent this time around. Maybe it's best to let the network keep digging itself into a hole.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
First out of the gate
Fred Thompson has put a proposal on the table to deal with the Social Security mess. It sounds like a good plan so far.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119466143891488863.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox">
"The Republican candidate laid out a detailed, four-page proposal calling for the creation of voluntary personal retirement accounts and a change in the formula for future retirees that would result in lower Social Security benefits.
It is a risky move for the former actor and lawmaker from Tennessee. He is the only presidential candidate so far to make Social Security an anchor of his campaign. Although all of the presidential candidates have spoken, when asked, about the need to fix the Social Security system, none has offered such a detailed plan nor talked so eagerly and often about the issue.
They all recall President Bush's failed effort in 2005 as a lesson in the political pitfalls and substantive complexities of trying to change the program. He twice campaigned on letting workers carve private accounts from Social Security revenues. But even fellow Republicans wouldn't go along, in large part because of the borrowing his plan would require for a nation already in deep debt.
By the government's calculations, Social Security won't be collecting enough revenues to pay full benefits to recipients starting about 2041.
"I've been concerned about this for some time," Mr. Thompson told reporters Friday. "Basically, [my plan] will assist Americans in saving more for themselves during their working years and not having to depend on the government for their entire retirement."
The Thompson campaign said its proposal wouldn't affect Social Security benefits received by current retirees or those nearing retirement. To pay for his private-account program, the government, which is likely to be running deficits for the foreseeable future, would have to borrow more money.
Mr. Thompson is proposing cutting future Social Security benefits for workers under age 57 by calculating their initial monthly benefit using a formula that indexes to prices rather than wages."
Sounds like a variation on the 401K plan. And it sounds like a solid idea. It's far better to prepare for one's retirement now than to wait and hope the government will be able to do so later. Of course, given the beating George Bush took for a similar idea, who knows what the odds are that this will get through Congress? Just about everyone up there pays lip service to fixing the system, but are afraid to actually do anything.
I don't want my taxes doubled to pay for Social Security down the road. Nor do I want 20 million illegals given amnesty so they can help prop up the system. I think it's time to face the truth that the government can't provide for us in our old age, and that we'd better prepare for that ourselves.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119466143891488863.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox">
"The Republican candidate laid out a detailed, four-page proposal calling for the creation of voluntary personal retirement accounts and a change in the formula for future retirees that would result in lower Social Security benefits.
It is a risky move for the former actor and lawmaker from Tennessee. He is the only presidential candidate so far to make Social Security an anchor of his campaign. Although all of the presidential candidates have spoken, when asked, about the need to fix the Social Security system, none has offered such a detailed plan nor talked so eagerly and often about the issue.
They all recall President Bush's failed effort in 2005 as a lesson in the political pitfalls and substantive complexities of trying to change the program. He twice campaigned on letting workers carve private accounts from Social Security revenues. But even fellow Republicans wouldn't go along, in large part because of the borrowing his plan would require for a nation already in deep debt.
By the government's calculations, Social Security won't be collecting enough revenues to pay full benefits to recipients starting about 2041.
"I've been concerned about this for some time," Mr. Thompson told reporters Friday. "Basically, [my plan] will assist Americans in saving more for themselves during their working years and not having to depend on the government for their entire retirement."
The Thompson campaign said its proposal wouldn't affect Social Security benefits received by current retirees or those nearing retirement. To pay for his private-account program, the government, which is likely to be running deficits for the foreseeable future, would have to borrow more money.
Mr. Thompson is proposing cutting future Social Security benefits for workers under age 57 by calculating their initial monthly benefit using a formula that indexes to prices rather than wages."
Sounds like a variation on the 401K plan. And it sounds like a solid idea. It's far better to prepare for one's retirement now than to wait and hope the government will be able to do so later. Of course, given the beating George Bush took for a similar idea, who knows what the odds are that this will get through Congress? Just about everyone up there pays lip service to fixing the system, but are afraid to actually do anything.
I don't want my taxes doubled to pay for Social Security down the road. Nor do I want 20 million illegals given amnesty so they can help prop up the system. I think it's time to face the truth that the government can't provide for us in our old age, and that we'd better prepare for that ourselves.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Where is the news from Iraq?
Seriously... we must be winning, because the major media is ignoring Iraq as much as they can. The daily IED casualty counts have stopped, the daily troop deathwatch has become scarce, and the doom and gloom predictions have also become few and far between.
Where are the news stores about our military victories?
Where are the news stores about our military victories?
Monday, October 29, 2007
President Clinton? Not again!
I hope Hillary is NOT elected. What a disaster for the country THAT would be.
Might as well go on record now: I don't think she's electable. Not at this point. Too many people don't like her. Now I'm well aware that a major attempt to make her seem nice and friendly and likeable is underway and will intensify over the next year, and some people will fall for it. But not enough, I fervently hope.
If the Republican party has the sense to nominate a good solid conservative and be proud about it, they can beat her. Time will tell if they have the sense to do that or not. Hopefully their time in the woodshed has been beneficial.
Might as well go on record now: I don't think she's electable. Not at this point. Too many people don't like her. Now I'm well aware that a major attempt to make her seem nice and friendly and likeable is underway and will intensify over the next year, and some people will fall for it. But not enough, I fervently hope.
If the Republican party has the sense to nominate a good solid conservative and be proud about it, they can beat her. Time will tell if they have the sense to do that or not. Hopefully their time in the woodshed has been beneficial.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Do we need a two-year presidential race?
The short answer is NO. Absolutely not.
The long answer: we don't and here's why.
1) Too much money spent on the race. Look at the millions that have been raised and will be spent by the candidates on both sides. Should it take that much to run for president? No, it shouldn't, but the current length of the campaign ensures that only mega-bucks will keep someone in for long. Though there are exceptions. Ask Mike Huckabee.
2) Burnout. Candidates get tired, people get tired of them... we have presidential fatigue before the candidate is even elected.
3) Way too much focus on the future occupant of the White House instead of on the here and now. That ought to be self-explanatory. Everybody's looking for "the next fix" instead of dealing with issues and the leaders that we have at the moment.
4) It feels as if we're stuck in a constant election cycle. We finish one election, and we're already looking ahead to who will win the next one. No one's ever content to sit and work.
I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but I'll stop there for now. I think there should be no campaigning until the actual year of the election, and no primaries should be held before May or June of the election year.
The long answer: we don't and here's why.
1) Too much money spent on the race. Look at the millions that have been raised and will be spent by the candidates on both sides. Should it take that much to run for president? No, it shouldn't, but the current length of the campaign ensures that only mega-bucks will keep someone in for long. Though there are exceptions. Ask Mike Huckabee.
2) Burnout. Candidates get tired, people get tired of them... we have presidential fatigue before the candidate is even elected.
3) Way too much focus on the future occupant of the White House instead of on the here and now. That ought to be self-explanatory. Everybody's looking for "the next fix" instead of dealing with issues and the leaders that we have at the moment.
4) It feels as if we're stuck in a constant election cycle. We finish one election, and we're already looking ahead to who will win the next one. No one's ever content to sit and work.
I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons, but I'll stop there for now. I think there should be no campaigning until the actual year of the election, and no primaries should be held before May or June of the election year.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Too quiet around here
It's been awhile since I posted anything here. Not that there hasn't been a ton going on to rant about, but I guess I've been more interested in taking it easy and enjoying my hobbies lately.
Or perhaps there's just so much craziness going on that it's overwhelming.
Or perhaps there's just so much craziness going on that it's overwhelming.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Transformers Mosaic
If you like the Transformers, go and check out this project, which I am participating in.
http://transformers-mosaic.deviantart.com
It's a series of one-page comics by the fans, for the fans, as they say. Well worth a read. Maybe even some involvement, if you have some skill at writing or drawing.
http://transformers-mosaic.deviantart.com
It's a series of one-page comics by the fans, for the fans, as they say. Well worth a read. Maybe even some involvement, if you have some skill at writing or drawing.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Courts and the Democratic agenda
We all know that Democrats and liberals have used the courts for years to push their views on the public. They're fully aware that they don't win elections by honestly pushing socialism, massive tax increases, rights for criminals, et. al, so they've slowly pushed those ideas through using the courts.
And now they're having hissy fits because the Supreme Court has chipped away at some of their precious left-wing dogma.
[quote]New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.
Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.
“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.[/quote]
What a liar. The whole point the hearings as far as Schumer and the other Democrats were concerned was to find a reason not to confirm Bush's appointees. Alito and Roberts didn't give them that reason. So now it's "we were tricked! Waaah!"
I can't stand liars like Schumer. He knows full well that a left-leaning Supreme Court is the liberal's best friend in this country. Without that, they have major problems.
And now they're having hissy fits because the Supreme Court has chipped away at some of their precious left-wing dogma.
[quote]New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.
Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.
“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.[/quote]
What a liar. The whole point the hearings as far as Schumer and the other Democrats were concerned was to find a reason not to confirm Bush's appointees. Alito and Roberts didn't give them that reason. So now it's "we were tricked! Waaah!"
I can't stand liars like Schumer. He knows full well that a left-leaning Supreme Court is the liberal's best friend in this country. Without that, they have major problems.
Friday, July 06, 2007
How about something non-political?
My Transformers movie review
I’m no movie critic. I know what I like, and if I find a movie enjoyable, I’m not going to pick it apart to find the flaws. I’m going to sing its praises and try to convince as many people as I can that they should go see it as well. To that end, I have to say that “Transformers” is awesome. From the opening moments of the movie where Peter Cullen reprises his role as Optimus Prime from 20 years ago, I was hooked. Giant shape-changing robots slugging it out is absolutely my idea of great entertainment.
The movie opens with Optimus Prime spelling out the backstory for the film. “In the beginning was the cube...”. The “cube” is the Allspark, the object which gives life to the Transformers, and in this movie, the object over which they are waging their war. It’s the “macguffin” that drives the plot, and of course, it’s come to Earth after drifting through the cosmos for millenia. After the introduction, the expectation of the audience to see the giant robots is sated by a quick action sequence where the Decepticon Blackout attacks and destroys a US military base in Qatar, from which only a few survivors escape, including two of our protagonists. The group is pursued through the desert by Scorponok, who burrows under the sand and bursts out to attack, and curiously is never seen to transform. The special effects are excellent, and the sight of a lone Decepticon trashing an entire military base on his own (admittedly in a sneak attack) confirms everything we fans have known about these guys for years. They’re dangerous and scary, and not to be taken lightly. In fact, all the Decepticons in this movie are impressively ruthless and deadly, as they should be.
If that’s the B plot, then the main storyline is the one involving Sam Witwicky and Bumblebee. Shia LeBouf is not an actor I’ve seen in anything else, but I was impressed with him here. He really does carry much of the movie with his acting, and despite the fact that one of my major complaints is that we should have had less humans and more Transformers, I find that Shia’s character Sam Witwicky doesn’t wear out his welcome. He’s very sympathetic and entertaining to watch, and his friendship with Bumblebee, particularly later in the film, is well-played. I initially found the idea of making Bumblebee mute to be irritating, but I’ve changed my mind. It serves to distance him a bit at first, as well as forcing the filmmakers to let his actions and body language speak for him, and that approach works surprisingly well. It keeps him distant and alien, something which is lost when the other Transformers start speaking and the robots become essentially human, at least in character. Not that I’d want them mute by any means, but the tone of the film undoubtedly changes when they appear and introduce themselves. This slow buildup to the robot reveal actually works quite well, which again surprised me, given that I’d be happy with two straight hours of wall to wall Transformer action.
The two storylines are loosely connected, and the movie cuts back and forth between them regularly. It takes a surprisingly long time for the Transformers to appear en masse, leaving them to be almost supporting characters in their own film. Since this is an introductory film in many ways, that’s more acceptable than it would be in a hypothetical sequel, but it’s noticeable all the same. The Decepticons get short shrift in this regard, with Blackout and Scorponok featuring early on, leaving Barricade and Frenzy to pretty much represent the Decepticons during the middle of the film. Many of the others don’t appear until near the end, including Starscream and Megatron, surprisingly. Several of the characters show up only to be finished off rather quickly, including Brawl (named Devastator in the subtitles) and Bonecrusher, who makes the mistake of tackling Optimus Prime. And while the fate of several characters is decisive, Scorponok and Barricade are not accounted for at the end (at least, not to my knowledge) and Starscream is clearly shown escaping Earth’s atmosphere.
The Autobots fare better, though there are only five of them. Of those five, Optimus and Bumblebee get the most screen time, leaving Ratchet, Ironhide and Jazz as secondary characters, allbeit all with some good character moments. Jazz is the only Autobot fatality, torn in two by Megatron, who seems absolutely unstoppable. All of the others survive. And without a doubt, if any of them had to get the most dialogue, I’m glad it was Optimus. My inner 13 year old was cheering every time he spoke. Bringing back Peter Cullen gave the film the stamp of authenticity for this Transformer fan, and I’m grateful he was given the job. I’m glad to hear he’ll be back if a sequel is made. I’m disappointed Frank Welker didn’t get to reprise Megatron opposite Cullen, but such is life. Hugo Weaving certainly did a good job with the part, and he deserves credit for that.
The CGI robots are outstanding. The movie designs were another thing that I was iffy about when they first appeared, but they work very well. The computer models are very complex, and it seems as though every little piece of these guys shifts and turns when they transform. It had to have taken a whale of an designer to create the movie Transformers, and some dedicated animators to make them move. And they blend almost seamlessly into their environment, be it desert sand, back yard or downtown LA (or wherever the city was meant to be). The transformations are always one of those “oh yeah!” moments, particularly when the bot in question is driving at a high rate of speed, or flying through the air. The sequence where Starscream is flying among a squad of F22s, transforms and shoots some of them down, and then returns to plane mode, all while in midair flying amongst skyscrapers, is particularly worthy of note. The bots move with relatively fluid motions, and interact well with the environment. Prime in particular runs along the freeway leaving broken pavement behind, hangs under a bridge over a helicopter at one point, and descends between two buildings, leaving showers of brick and masonry falling on his way down.
The movie had its flaws of course. Some of the humor was in poor taste, particularly the “were you masturbating” scene, and the instance when Bumblebee leaks oil all over the sector seven leader as though he were urinating on him. The audience laughed at both, but crude humor doesn’t appeal to me, and the movie could have done without it. I also found the whole subplot with Anthony Anderson’s computer hacker character a waste of time. It added some laughs, but did little or nothing to advance the plot and probably ought to have been cut altogether, in my view.
Several occurances are never explained, such as the bots the Allspark creates near the end of the movie like the steering wheel Transformer or the Mountain Dew machine bot. Are they still wandering around the city? Why are all the bots created by the Allspark evil? What happened to Scorponok and Barricade? And there were other things I wondered about that just aren’t coming to mind right now.
The bottom line: far better than I had hoped for, “Transformers” does a pretty good job of bringing back the robots in disguise as a live action movie. It doesn’t have the spirit of the old cartoon or comic, but as a modern adaption, it’s not half bad. I really enjoyed it, and despite the flaws, I’d give it a “A”. A good effort, and hopefully one which will spawn some sequels which will go on to give us more robots and less humans. Time will tell. Go see it!
I’m no movie critic. I know what I like, and if I find a movie enjoyable, I’m not going to pick it apart to find the flaws. I’m going to sing its praises and try to convince as many people as I can that they should go see it as well. To that end, I have to say that “Transformers” is awesome. From the opening moments of the movie where Peter Cullen reprises his role as Optimus Prime from 20 years ago, I was hooked. Giant shape-changing robots slugging it out is absolutely my idea of great entertainment.
The movie opens with Optimus Prime spelling out the backstory for the film. “In the beginning was the cube...”. The “cube” is the Allspark, the object which gives life to the Transformers, and in this movie, the object over which they are waging their war. It’s the “macguffin” that drives the plot, and of course, it’s come to Earth after drifting through the cosmos for millenia. After the introduction, the expectation of the audience to see the giant robots is sated by a quick action sequence where the Decepticon Blackout attacks and destroys a US military base in Qatar, from which only a few survivors escape, including two of our protagonists. The group is pursued through the desert by Scorponok, who burrows under the sand and bursts out to attack, and curiously is never seen to transform. The special effects are excellent, and the sight of a lone Decepticon trashing an entire military base on his own (admittedly in a sneak attack) confirms everything we fans have known about these guys for years. They’re dangerous and scary, and not to be taken lightly. In fact, all the Decepticons in this movie are impressively ruthless and deadly, as they should be.
If that’s the B plot, then the main storyline is the one involving Sam Witwicky and Bumblebee. Shia LeBouf is not an actor I’ve seen in anything else, but I was impressed with him here. He really does carry much of the movie with his acting, and despite the fact that one of my major complaints is that we should have had less humans and more Transformers, I find that Shia’s character Sam Witwicky doesn’t wear out his welcome. He’s very sympathetic and entertaining to watch, and his friendship with Bumblebee, particularly later in the film, is well-played. I initially found the idea of making Bumblebee mute to be irritating, but I’ve changed my mind. It serves to distance him a bit at first, as well as forcing the filmmakers to let his actions and body language speak for him, and that approach works surprisingly well. It keeps him distant and alien, something which is lost when the other Transformers start speaking and the robots become essentially human, at least in character. Not that I’d want them mute by any means, but the tone of the film undoubtedly changes when they appear and introduce themselves. This slow buildup to the robot reveal actually works quite well, which again surprised me, given that I’d be happy with two straight hours of wall to wall Transformer action.
The two storylines are loosely connected, and the movie cuts back and forth between them regularly. It takes a surprisingly long time for the Transformers to appear en masse, leaving them to be almost supporting characters in their own film. Since this is an introductory film in many ways, that’s more acceptable than it would be in a hypothetical sequel, but it’s noticeable all the same. The Decepticons get short shrift in this regard, with Blackout and Scorponok featuring early on, leaving Barricade and Frenzy to pretty much represent the Decepticons during the middle of the film. Many of the others don’t appear until near the end, including Starscream and Megatron, surprisingly. Several of the characters show up only to be finished off rather quickly, including Brawl (named Devastator in the subtitles) and Bonecrusher, who makes the mistake of tackling Optimus Prime. And while the fate of several characters is decisive, Scorponok and Barricade are not accounted for at the end (at least, not to my knowledge) and Starscream is clearly shown escaping Earth’s atmosphere.
The Autobots fare better, though there are only five of them. Of those five, Optimus and Bumblebee get the most screen time, leaving Ratchet, Ironhide and Jazz as secondary characters, allbeit all with some good character moments. Jazz is the only Autobot fatality, torn in two by Megatron, who seems absolutely unstoppable. All of the others survive. And without a doubt, if any of them had to get the most dialogue, I’m glad it was Optimus. My inner 13 year old was cheering every time he spoke. Bringing back Peter Cullen gave the film the stamp of authenticity for this Transformer fan, and I’m grateful he was given the job. I’m glad to hear he’ll be back if a sequel is made. I’m disappointed Frank Welker didn’t get to reprise Megatron opposite Cullen, but such is life. Hugo Weaving certainly did a good job with the part, and he deserves credit for that.
The CGI robots are outstanding. The movie designs were another thing that I was iffy about when they first appeared, but they work very well. The computer models are very complex, and it seems as though every little piece of these guys shifts and turns when they transform. It had to have taken a whale of an designer to create the movie Transformers, and some dedicated animators to make them move. And they blend almost seamlessly into their environment, be it desert sand, back yard or downtown LA (or wherever the city was meant to be). The transformations are always one of those “oh yeah!” moments, particularly when the bot in question is driving at a high rate of speed, or flying through the air. The sequence where Starscream is flying among a squad of F22s, transforms and shoots some of them down, and then returns to plane mode, all while in midair flying amongst skyscrapers, is particularly worthy of note. The bots move with relatively fluid motions, and interact well with the environment. Prime in particular runs along the freeway leaving broken pavement behind, hangs under a bridge over a helicopter at one point, and descends between two buildings, leaving showers of brick and masonry falling on his way down.
The movie had its flaws of course. Some of the humor was in poor taste, particularly the “were you masturbating” scene, and the instance when Bumblebee leaks oil all over the sector seven leader as though he were urinating on him. The audience laughed at both, but crude humor doesn’t appeal to me, and the movie could have done without it. I also found the whole subplot with Anthony Anderson’s computer hacker character a waste of time. It added some laughs, but did little or nothing to advance the plot and probably ought to have been cut altogether, in my view.
Several occurances are never explained, such as the bots the Allspark creates near the end of the movie like the steering wheel Transformer or the Mountain Dew machine bot. Are they still wandering around the city? Why are all the bots created by the Allspark evil? What happened to Scorponok and Barricade? And there were other things I wondered about that just aren’t coming to mind right now.
The bottom line: far better than I had hoped for, “Transformers” does a pretty good job of bringing back the robots in disguise as a live action movie. It doesn’t have the spirit of the old cartoon or comic, but as a modern adaption, it’s not half bad. I really enjoyed it, and despite the flaws, I’d give it a “A”. A good effort, and hopefully one which will spawn some sequels which will go on to give us more robots and less humans. Time will tell. Go see it!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Here they go again
First we had lost the war. Now the surge has failed, if you listen to Democrats. This pronouncement comes despite the fact that the military has said it will be at least September before they can make preliminary assessments. September is three months away.
Anyone who can't see that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are trying to force a loss in Iraq simply has blinders on. They're just far too eager to proclaim the whole thing a lost cause.
And of course, unless they're just complete idiots, they know Bush will simply veto any timelines and restrictions they attempt to place on him. This is the 'death by a thousand bills' approach. Keep sending doomed bill after doomed bill until Bush gives up. It's not the action of a responsible leader, but then the Democrats are not leading. They're still playing opposition party to Bush's agenda.
op US congressional Democrats bluntly told President George W. Bush Wednesday that his Iraq troop "surge" policy was a failure.
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged the president over Iraq by sending him a letter, ahead of a White House meeting later on Wednesday.
"As many had forseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results," the two leaders wrote.
"The increase in US forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation.
"It has not enhanced Americas national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on US forces have increased.
"In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for US troops.
The letter appeared to preview a fresh showdown over Iraq between anti-war Democrats and the president, just a few weeks after Bush forced his foes to strip troop withdrawal timelines from a 100 billion dollar emergency war budget.
It also came a few days after the US military mourned its 3,500th soldier killed in action in Iraq.
Pelosi and Reid told Bush in the letter that they planned to send him new legislation to "limit the US mission in Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of US forces, and bring the war to a responsible end."
On Tuesday, Reid said that Senate Democrats would attach troop withdrawal deadlines to a Defense Department Authorization bill, due to be debated within weeks.
Anyone who can't see that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are trying to force a loss in Iraq simply has blinders on. They're just far too eager to proclaim the whole thing a lost cause.
And of course, unless they're just complete idiots, they know Bush will simply veto any timelines and restrictions they attempt to place on him. This is the 'death by a thousand bills' approach. Keep sending doomed bill after doomed bill until Bush gives up. It's not the action of a responsible leader, but then the Democrats are not leading. They're still playing opposition party to Bush's agenda.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Harry Reid's favorable rating way down
Someone recently told me that I had a Pelosi fixation. It's actually Harry Reid that earns more scorn from me. I'm therefore pleased to see that this lying fraud's approval numbers from the public are considerably lower than George Bush's numbers. Apparently even Democrats don't like him.
Couldn't happen to a nicer fellow. Now if only his constituents will vote him out of office just like South Dakota voted Tom Daschle out a few years ago. We can only hope.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Advertisment
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters and unfavorably by 45%. Just 3% have a Very Favorable opinion while 22% hold a Very Unfavorable views.
Reid has been very visible over the past week in the furor over immigration reform. The effort to pass a bill that was more popular in Congress than among voters may have hurt public perceptions of the Democratic leader. His ratings are down from a month ago when 26% had a favorable opinion of the Democratic Senator. Reid’s highest ratings were 30% favorable in February.
Each week, Rasmussen Reports updates favorability ratings for a number of political figures and others in the news.
Couldn't happen to a nicer fellow. Now if only his constituents will vote him out of office just like South Dakota voted Tom Daschle out a few years ago. We can only hope.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Good riddance to the "immigration" bill
If you've listened to talk radio for five minutes during the past two weeks, or even read some of the mainstream news reports, you can't have missed the anger in Republican circles over this debacle of an immigration bill. We expect Republicans to show more sense than they've shown, particularly after losing the election this past November. But they haven't learned their lesson yet, or at least some of them haven't.
And despite generally being a supporter of President Bush, I have to strongly disagree with him on immigration reform.
The more I learn about this bill, the worse it looks. And it may come back. Take a look at some of the provisions:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/8/101354.shtml?s=lh
-Allows illegal immigrants who were in the country as of Jan. 1, 2007, to come forward, pay fees and fines, pass a background check and receive an indefinitely renewable four-year Z visa to live and work legally in the U.S.
-Allows Z visa holders to get on a path to citizenship after an approximately eight-year green card backlog is cleared if they pay fines, hold down jobs and learn English. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries to apply.
-Creates a new temporary worker program that would allow up to 200,000 guest-workers per year to enter on two-year Y visas that could be renewed twice, provided they returned to their home countries for a year between each stint. Sunsets the program after five years.
-Prevents the Y and Z visa programs from taking effect until security and enforcement triggers are met, including adding 20,000 border agents, 370 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and a new worker verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers.
-Creates a new employment-based point system for new immigrants to qualify for green cards based on their education and skill level, and eliminates or limits visa preferences for family members of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.
-Includes a special, less burdensome path to legal status for undocumented agricultural workers and high school graduates who came to the U.S. illegally with their parents.
Here's the bottom line: this bill is not about fixing our illegal immigration problem. It's about legalizing twenty million government dependents who will vote Democrat, and who will provide cheap labor for big business. This isn't a case of either Democrats or Republicans singly giving in to lobbyists. This is bipartisan wrecking of the country.
I've been more involved with letting my voice be heard on this bill than on anything so far. I called and e-mailed both my state senators to express my opposition to the bill. I e-mailed Mitch McConnell to express my hope that he would oppose the bill. I went to a town meeting held by my local representative to get my point of view across.
The bottom line is this: once the bill is signed, all bets are off. Given that the government has had no desire to enforce immigration law for the past twenty years, I have no reason to believe that new laws will be enforced either. Once these illegals are made legal, there will be no incentive to penalize them or send them home. It will never happen. To be even more plain, the government cannot be trusted to enforce the laws that they have written.
Immigration doesn't need to be dealt with in one massive comprehensive boondoggle of a bill. It needs to be done one step at a time. First things first: seal up the border. Second, revamp the system so it's not so difficult for those who want to legally come here to do so. Third, take away all incentive and then penalize employers who hire illegals. Those who are just here for money will leave on their own sooner or later, and those who want to assimilate and become Americans can do so. Finally, make English the national language. Make it the glue that helps to create our common culture.
RIP Immigration bill. Good riddance. Let's keep it dead. Sorry President Bush. Sorry John McCain and Lindsey Grahamnesty. You're wrong on this one.
And despite generally being a supporter of President Bush, I have to strongly disagree with him on immigration reform.
The more I learn about this bill, the worse it looks. And it may come back. Take a look at some of the provisions:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/8/101354.shtml?s=lh
-Allows illegal immigrants who were in the country as of Jan. 1, 2007, to come forward, pay fees and fines, pass a background check and receive an indefinitely renewable four-year Z visa to live and work legally in the U.S.
-Allows Z visa holders to get on a path to citizenship after an approximately eight-year green card backlog is cleared if they pay fines, hold down jobs and learn English. Heads of households would have to return to their home countries to apply.
-Creates a new temporary worker program that would allow up to 200,000 guest-workers per year to enter on two-year Y visas that could be renewed twice, provided they returned to their home countries for a year between each stint. Sunsets the program after five years.
-Prevents the Y and Z visa programs from taking effect until security and enforcement triggers are met, including adding 20,000 border agents, 370 miles of fencing, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and a new worker verification system to prevent the hiring of illegal workers.
-Creates a new employment-based point system for new immigrants to qualify for green cards based on their education and skill level, and eliminates or limits visa preferences for family members of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.
-Includes a special, less burdensome path to legal status for undocumented agricultural workers and high school graduates who came to the U.S. illegally with their parents.
Here's the bottom line: this bill is not about fixing our illegal immigration problem. It's about legalizing twenty million government dependents who will vote Democrat, and who will provide cheap labor for big business. This isn't a case of either Democrats or Republicans singly giving in to lobbyists. This is bipartisan wrecking of the country.
I've been more involved with letting my voice be heard on this bill than on anything so far. I called and e-mailed both my state senators to express my opposition to the bill. I e-mailed Mitch McConnell to express my hope that he would oppose the bill. I went to a town meeting held by my local representative to get my point of view across.
The bottom line is this: once the bill is signed, all bets are off. Given that the government has had no desire to enforce immigration law for the past twenty years, I have no reason to believe that new laws will be enforced either. Once these illegals are made legal, there will be no incentive to penalize them or send them home. It will never happen. To be even more plain, the government cannot be trusted to enforce the laws that they have written.
Immigration doesn't need to be dealt with in one massive comprehensive boondoggle of a bill. It needs to be done one step at a time. First things first: seal up the border. Second, revamp the system so it's not so difficult for those who want to legally come here to do so. Third, take away all incentive and then penalize employers who hire illegals. Those who are just here for money will leave on their own sooner or later, and those who want to assimilate and become Americans can do so. Finally, make English the national language. Make it the glue that helps to create our common culture.
RIP Immigration bill. Good riddance. Let's keep it dead. Sorry President Bush. Sorry John McCain and Lindsey Grahamnesty. You're wrong on this one.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Senators rebukes Joe Wilson
The whole question of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson and the 'sixteen words' in Bush's state of the union speech about Nigeria have come up again and again. Since we've discussed them here from time to time, and people are still of the impression that Bush made it all up, when I saw this article, I thought it was worth posting. I'm still looking to see if CNN or Reuters publishes anything, but it wouldn't surprise me if they ignore this completely. Having used the Valerie Plame non-scandal to attack Bush for years, they're not likely to be interested in the truth.
http://www.inboxrobot.com/news/senate-select-committee-intelligence
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1843217/posts
[quote]In a rare rebuke of a public official by name, the [B]Senate Select Intelligence Committee has issued a scathing report blasting former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV[/B].
The report claims [B]Wilson mislead the public and the intelligence committee about his trip to Niger in 2002[/B] on behalf of the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium in Africa.
Best know as the husband of former CIA officer Valerie Plame, Ambassador Wilson was catapulted to the limelight after he published an Op-Ed in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq to make the case for war.
In his New York Times article, Wilson said that in February 2002 he was asked by the Central Intelligence Agency to travel to Niger to investigate "a particular intelligence report" that documented the sale of uranium to Iraq by the Niger government.
The CIA wanted him to "check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office," after Vice President Dick Cheney had raised questions about the purported uranium deals, he wrote.
Once he arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, Wilson says he met with U.S. Ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, then "spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea" and meeting with former government officials and others involved in the uranium business. "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."
And that is what he reported back to the CIA and to the State Department African Affairs Bureau, Wilson wrote. [B]But according to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, released last Friday, much of what Wilson wrote in the article, and has said since, about the trip "is not true."[/B]
Wilson wrote to the committee in July 2004 when they released an exhaustive investigation into the Niger uranium story that included the finding that he had been sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife. Wilson claimed that was "not true."
At the time, the Committee did not release the full text of the e-mail sent by Valerie Plame on Wilson to her superior that recommended him for the job, "thinking it was unnecessary in light of the other evidence" they had made public.
But now, "considering the controversy surrounding this document," the Senate committee decided to make the full text available to the public. The Valerie Plame e-mail shows without any doubt that she recommended her husband for the mission in Niger.
After recounting an earlier fact-finding mission he had carried out in Niger for the Agency, as well as his good contacts "with both the [prime minister] and the former minister of mines," she concluded by saying that her husband "may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything to pursue here."
In sworn testimony before the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform in March of this year, however, Plame denied categorically that she had suggested her husband's name. "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him," she said.
It was Valerie Plame's recommendation for the mission that caught the eye of Vice President Dick Cheney when Wilson's Op-Ed first appeared and ultimately led to the Special Counsel investigation into how her name — supposed classified — was "leaked" to the press.
[B]The committee found that internal intelligence community notes of meetings in which Valerie Plame participated "did not mark her name with a (C) as would be required to indicate that her association with the CIA was classified," as both Plame and her husband have said. These aren't the only instance where Wilson's account did not square with the facts, the senators found[/B].
Wilson has said in his book and in numerous public appearances that reports he reviewed from the U.S. ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, "indicated that there was nothing to the Niger-Iraq uranium story . . . This too is untrue," the committee found. On the contrary, Owens-Kirkpatrick wrote a cable to the State Department which said that the initial CIA reporting of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal "provides sufficient details to warrant another hard look at Niger's uranium sales."
Although Nigerien officials insisted in meetings with the Americans that no uranium would be sold to rogue nations, "we should not dismiss out of hand the possibility that some scheme could be, or has been, underway to supply Iraq with yellowcake from here," she wrote.
Perhaps the most damning conclusion of the Senate report has been known for nearly three years, but has remained classified until now. [B]In the initial July 2004 report, the Senate committee reported that the intelligence community "used or cleared the Niger-Iraq uranium intelligence fifteen times before the President's State of the Union address and four times after, saying in several papers that Iraq was ‘vigorously pursuing uranium from Africa.[/B]'"
Despite that finding, Democrats led by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin blasted President Bush for the "16 words" in the January 2003 speech that described Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, calling them an effort to "cherry-pick" intelligence and to "mislead" the country and the world in a "rush to war."
In fact, the U.S. intelligence community continued to believe in the veracity of the Niger uranium story for many months after the speech, and didn't call back its original reporting until June 2003 — well after the liberation of Iraq.[/quote]
http://www.inboxrobot.com/news/senate-select-committee-intelligence
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1843217/posts
[quote]In a rare rebuke of a public official by name, the [B]Senate Select Intelligence Committee has issued a scathing report blasting former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV[/B].
The report claims [B]Wilson mislead the public and the intelligence committee about his trip to Niger in 2002[/B] on behalf of the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium in Africa.
Best know as the husband of former CIA officer Valerie Plame, Ambassador Wilson was catapulted to the limelight after he published an Op-Ed in The New York Times on July 6, 2003, that accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraq to make the case for war.
In his New York Times article, Wilson said that in February 2002 he was asked by the Central Intelligence Agency to travel to Niger to investigate "a particular intelligence report" that documented the sale of uranium to Iraq by the Niger government.
The CIA wanted him to "check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office," after Vice President Dick Cheney had raised questions about the purported uranium deals, he wrote.
Once he arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, Wilson says he met with U.S. Ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, then "spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea" and meeting with former government officials and others involved in the uranium business. "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."
And that is what he reported back to the CIA and to the State Department African Affairs Bureau, Wilson wrote. [B]But according to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, released last Friday, much of what Wilson wrote in the article, and has said since, about the trip "is not true."[/B]
Wilson wrote to the committee in July 2004 when they released an exhaustive investigation into the Niger uranium story that included the finding that he had been sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife. Wilson claimed that was "not true."
At the time, the Committee did not release the full text of the e-mail sent by Valerie Plame on Wilson to her superior that recommended him for the job, "thinking it was unnecessary in light of the other evidence" they had made public.
But now, "considering the controversy surrounding this document," the Senate committee decided to make the full text available to the public. The Valerie Plame e-mail shows without any doubt that she recommended her husband for the mission in Niger.
After recounting an earlier fact-finding mission he had carried out in Niger for the Agency, as well as his good contacts "with both the [prime minister] and the former minister of mines," she concluded by saying that her husband "may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything to pursue here."
In sworn testimony before the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform in March of this year, however, Plame denied categorically that she had suggested her husband's name. "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him," she said.
It was Valerie Plame's recommendation for the mission that caught the eye of Vice President Dick Cheney when Wilson's Op-Ed first appeared and ultimately led to the Special Counsel investigation into how her name — supposed classified — was "leaked" to the press.
[B]The committee found that internal intelligence community notes of meetings in which Valerie Plame participated "did not mark her name with a (C) as would be required to indicate that her association with the CIA was classified," as both Plame and her husband have said. These aren't the only instance where Wilson's account did not square with the facts, the senators found[/B].
Wilson has said in his book and in numerous public appearances that reports he reviewed from the U.S. ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, "indicated that there was nothing to the Niger-Iraq uranium story . . . This too is untrue," the committee found. On the contrary, Owens-Kirkpatrick wrote a cable to the State Department which said that the initial CIA reporting of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal "provides sufficient details to warrant another hard look at Niger's uranium sales."
Although Nigerien officials insisted in meetings with the Americans that no uranium would be sold to rogue nations, "we should not dismiss out of hand the possibility that some scheme could be, or has been, underway to supply Iraq with yellowcake from here," she wrote.
Perhaps the most damning conclusion of the Senate report has been known for nearly three years, but has remained classified until now. [B]In the initial July 2004 report, the Senate committee reported that the intelligence community "used or cleared the Niger-Iraq uranium intelligence fifteen times before the President's State of the Union address and four times after, saying in several papers that Iraq was ‘vigorously pursuing uranium from Africa.[/B]'"
Despite that finding, Democrats led by Michigan Sen. Carl Levin blasted President Bush for the "16 words" in the January 2003 speech that described Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Africa, calling them an effort to "cherry-pick" intelligence and to "mislead" the country and the world in a "rush to war."
In fact, the U.S. intelligence community continued to believe in the veracity of the Niger uranium story for many months after the speech, and didn't call back its original reporting until June 2003 — well after the liberation of Iraq.[/quote]
Thursday, May 31, 2007
My view of global warming
First off, I'm a skeptic. While I'm willing to believe that the average temperature is rising, I don't believe the cause is due to mankind's industrial activity. I think it's very arrogant to assign ourselves that much power over nature.
There are two possibilities.
1) The natural cycle of warming and cooling of the Earth's climate that in the past produced the ice ages. There were no humans around back then to make the Earth freeze, nor presumably to make it warm up again. Somehow it did all of that unaided. I think we may well be seeing more of that now.
2) The sun is causing warming. Considering that Mars is also warming, and apparently Neptune is now getting warmer as well, there's one common denominator between all three planets, which is of course our sun.
Now I have no problem with a reasoned debate on the issue. What we have now is far from a reasoned debate. What we have is hysteria, where the people who believe that global warming is man-made are trying their best to shut down any dissent and to force us to do all sorts of irrational things to curb this supposed problem. I don't like scaremongering or bullying, and I think they would do well to moderate their tone and try to engage skeptics like myself rather than talk down to us or try to intimidate us.
I have other climate questions:
1) What is the optimum climate for the planet?
2) How do we know the current climate is the best?
3) How do we know that warming won't have benefits?
4) Why do we trust computer models that predict 50 years out when five or ten day forecasts are tenuous at best?
5) If the Earth can cool off enough to produce ice ages on its own and then warm back up over thousands of years, is it conceivable that we're in the midst of such a climate shift now?
6) When it comes to cutting carbon emissions, why exempt China?
I'm extremely wary of this global warming movement, which is more a religion than a science, judging by the reactions of those involved in promoting it. It's going to take a lot to convince me that they're right.
There are two possibilities.
1) The natural cycle of warming and cooling of the Earth's climate that in the past produced the ice ages. There were no humans around back then to make the Earth freeze, nor presumably to make it warm up again. Somehow it did all of that unaided. I think we may well be seeing more of that now.
2) The sun is causing warming. Considering that Mars is also warming, and apparently Neptune is now getting warmer as well, there's one common denominator between all three planets, which is of course our sun.
Now I have no problem with a reasoned debate on the issue. What we have now is far from a reasoned debate. What we have is hysteria, where the people who believe that global warming is man-made are trying their best to shut down any dissent and to force us to do all sorts of irrational things to curb this supposed problem. I don't like scaremongering or bullying, and I think they would do well to moderate their tone and try to engage skeptics like myself rather than talk down to us or try to intimidate us.
I have other climate questions:
1) What is the optimum climate for the planet?
2) How do we know the current climate is the best?
3) How do we know that warming won't have benefits?
4) Why do we trust computer models that predict 50 years out when five or ten day forecasts are tenuous at best?
5) If the Earth can cool off enough to produce ice ages on its own and then warm back up over thousands of years, is it conceivable that we're in the midst of such a climate shift now?
6) When it comes to cutting carbon emissions, why exempt China?
I'm extremely wary of this global warming movement, which is more a religion than a science, judging by the reactions of those involved in promoting it. It's going to take a lot to convince me that they're right.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
My senator defends the Republican suicide bill
Otherwise known as "immigration reform". Or more accurately, amnesty and cheap citizenship for sale. One of my state senators, Lindsey Graham, was booed when he defended it. I'm glad to hear it. Anything which gives illegals a chance to remain here is amnesty, no matter the pricetag.
http://www.thestate.com/154/v-print/story/69054.html
How can Graham be so right on the Iraq war, and so wrong on immigration? For that matter, how can President Bush be in exactly the same camp, right on Iraq but dead wrong on immigration? Do they simply think all of these illegals will vote Republican if we make them legal? Or do they honestly think that this is the right thing to do, as astounding as that is?
If Ted Kennedy thinks it's a good bill, it's bad. That's about all you need to know right there.
On the plus side, supporting this may sink McCain's campaign. I was astounded at his statement at the last Presidential debate that one of his qualifications for President was that he reached out to the other side. The fact that he does is precisely why I've mistrusted him for so long. Add his adamant support for this amnesty, and a good many Republican voters are going to write him off, which is probably a good thing.
http://www.thestate.com/154/v-print/story/69054.html
How can Graham be so right on the Iraq war, and so wrong on immigration? For that matter, how can President Bush be in exactly the same camp, right on Iraq but dead wrong on immigration? Do they simply think all of these illegals will vote Republican if we make them legal? Or do they honestly think that this is the right thing to do, as astounding as that is?
If Ted Kennedy thinks it's a good bill, it's bad. That's about all you need to know right there.
On the plus side, supporting this may sink McCain's campaign. I was astounded at his statement at the last Presidential debate that one of his qualifications for President was that he reached out to the other side. The fact that he does is precisely why I've mistrusted him for so long. Add his adamant support for this amnesty, and a good many Republican voters are going to write him off, which is probably a good thing.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Jerry Falwell has died
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a lot about the man other than what comes through the mass media, and I distrust that. I've read the quotes, and seen the leftists dancing a jig on his grave, and it makes me think that he must have preached the bible pretty well, or they wouldn't hate him so much.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Harry Reid: we've lost the war
What a vile man.
Harry Reid declares Iraq war lost
His point of view is almost understandable, assuming you think Harry Reid is a reasonable person. But I don't think he is. I've said before, and I'll say again that I think what's in his mind is next year's elections, and a lost Republican war would suit the Democrat party very well.
In any case, he never seems to realize just how much propoganda use the enemy will make out of his statement. I'm all for him expressing his views behind the scenes, but for one of the leaders of one of the two major political parties in the United States to come out, IN WARTIME, and declare that we've already lost is an amazing display of thoughtlessness and incompetence.
Nevada: vote this man out at the earliest opportunity. He's gone beyond being an embarassment to being a danger.
Harry Reid declares Iraq war lost
His point of view is almost understandable, assuming you think Harry Reid is a reasonable person. But I don't think he is. I've said before, and I'll say again that I think what's in his mind is next year's elections, and a lost Republican war would suit the Democrat party very well.
In any case, he never seems to realize just how much propoganda use the enemy will make out of his statement. I'm all for him expressing his views behind the scenes, but for one of the leaders of one of the two major political parties in the United States to come out, IN WARTIME, and declare that we've already lost is an amazing display of thoughtlessness and incompetence.
Nevada: vote this man out at the earliest opportunity. He's gone beyond being an embarassment to being a danger.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
The Travesty that is the Democrat leadership
The image in the following article is a joke. Or would be, if things weren't so serious.
Democrats Support the Troops?
Support? By playing games with their funding? Trying to intrude on the commander-in-chief's constitutional powers?
According to Harry Reid, "the American people voted for change in Iraq." While true, I wonder if he ever thought that the course change they wanted was one of victory rather than treading water, waiting for the Iraqis to come around? Reid is imposing his own anti-war biases on us by insisting that the only course change must be "redeployment" out of Iraq.
What he really means is that the troops need to leave at the height of primary season next year, so that the Democrats will have an issue to bash the Republicans with. The lives of our troops, a loss in Iraq and America's future safety are something Reid and other Democrats are perfectly willing to subordinate to their own political power.
They ought to be ashamed. Sadly, Democrats have no shame.
Democrats Support the Troops?
Support? By playing games with their funding? Trying to intrude on the commander-in-chief's constitutional powers?
According to Harry Reid, "the American people voted for change in Iraq." While true, I wonder if he ever thought that the course change they wanted was one of victory rather than treading water, waiting for the Iraqis to come around? Reid is imposing his own anti-war biases on us by insisting that the only course change must be "redeployment" out of Iraq.
What he really means is that the troops need to leave at the height of primary season next year, so that the Democrats will have an issue to bash the Republicans with. The lives of our troops, a loss in Iraq and America's future safety are something Reid and other Democrats are perfectly willing to subordinate to their own political power.
They ought to be ashamed. Sadly, Democrats have no shame.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Clarification, or don't post when Harry Reid has ticked you off
Just to clarify my post of April 5, it's not all Democrats who disgust me. It's the leadership mainly. I listed a lot of names, and I could add Howard Dean to that list, or Terry McAuliffe, one of the most genuinely unpleasant people I've ever seen. So why do these men disgust me?
It's because they have no moral character. These men want to drag America into their version of some socialist, big-government nanny state, where the all-powerful federal government controls everything. They want to toss morality overboard and replace it with their own, where all sorts of immoral behavior from homosexuality to abortion is accepted as right and proper, while actual moral choices such as being free to express religious views in a public forum are suppressed.
The do this incrementally, and they fight dirty. I can't help but notice that they have spent nearly every waking moment since they took over in January conducting "oversight" of the Bush administration. By which I mean they've been conducting witch hunts, looking for any excuse whatsoever to call for someone's resignation. They've invented the scandal with the fired US attorneys, and put on this facade of righteous indignation. Speaking of which, add Pat Leahy to my list of disgusting Democrats.
By far the worse thing they've done is treat Iraq war funding as a political football. They want to end the war by next year, not out of principle, but because they want a lost war and a chaotic Iraq as a campaign issue for the 2008 presidential election. In short, they are willing for American service men and women to die, and for Iraqis to be slaughtered, and for Al Queda and Iran to be emboldened, all so they can gain the Presidency back in 2008.
That's why they disgust me. They are vile, immoral opportunists. I hope the public can see this and deal with them properly on election day.
It's because they have no moral character. These men want to drag America into their version of some socialist, big-government nanny state, where the all-powerful federal government controls everything. They want to toss morality overboard and replace it with their own, where all sorts of immoral behavior from homosexuality to abortion is accepted as right and proper, while actual moral choices such as being free to express religious views in a public forum are suppressed.
The do this incrementally, and they fight dirty. I can't help but notice that they have spent nearly every waking moment since they took over in January conducting "oversight" of the Bush administration. By which I mean they've been conducting witch hunts, looking for any excuse whatsoever to call for someone's resignation. They've invented the scandal with the fired US attorneys, and put on this facade of righteous indignation. Speaking of which, add Pat Leahy to my list of disgusting Democrats.
By far the worse thing they've done is treat Iraq war funding as a political football. They want to end the war by next year, not out of principle, but because they want a lost war and a chaotic Iraq as a campaign issue for the 2008 presidential election. In short, they are willing for American service men and women to die, and for Iraqis to be slaughtered, and for Al Queda and Iran to be emboldened, all so they can gain the Presidency back in 2008.
That's why they disgust me. They are vile, immoral opportunists. I hope the public can see this and deal with them properly on election day.
Pelosi in Syria
Isn't it nice when our elected Democrat leaders cannot confine their attempts to destroy President Bush to the domestic political landscape, but have to go overseas as well? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has apparently decided that she's now Secretary of State. She's also decided that meeting with Basher Assad is a good idea. This is the man who is the head of state in Syria, a nation that supports a number of terrorist organizations. He's also implicated in a high-profile political assassination as well.
So the speaker of the house goes to visit him, and in effect endorses his presidency, and all that goes with it. And she can't see why this was a bad idea?
So the speaker of the house goes to visit him, and in effect endorses his presidency, and all that goes with it. And she can't see why this was a bad idea?
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Democrats disgust me
Should I name names? Harry Reid. Nancy Pelosi. Dick Durbin. Jack Murtha. Arrogant, lying hypocrites, every one of them, who think that they run the show now. They're ready to end the war in Iraq and force us to lose. They're ready to cut the funding or else give it and tie the commander-in-chief's hands in the process.
They pretend that it's just a case of oversight, or of fulfilling the election results, but it's nothing but an escalation of their six-year attempt to destroy George Bush.
Then of course there are the stubborn fools who insist that we've lost the war and that Iraq is tied up in a civil war and that running away is the solution.
They pretend that it's just a case of oversight, or of fulfilling the election results, but it's nothing but an escalation of their six-year attempt to destroy George Bush.
Then of course there are the stubborn fools who insist that we've lost the war and that Iraq is tied up in a civil war and that running away is the solution.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Post-election burnout
I always seem to get it. After the election is over, I'm done with politics for awhile, or at least have nothing to say about them. Time to start ranting again. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)