I haven't created any political cartoons for awhile. Time to change that.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)