Ladies and gentlemen, the unthinkable has happened...

Sometimes I Get Lazy and Just Post a Picture

2007-03-11T15:51:00.000-07:00

A funny website I came accross thepeoplescube.com , another good feature is the Progresive Truth Generator.

Tucker is Tuffer than Edwards

2007-03-05T17:46:00.000-08:00

Tucker Carlson: Ann Coulter referred to me as gay once, but I didn't cry about it

I think what everyone is really mad about is the way Ann sunk to the level of Liberal commentators. It should be obvious, but I will take this moment to point out the double standard that exist between liberal and conservative commentators. I know no one listens to Air-America or reads books by liberal authors but take my word on it, liberals say much worse things. Bill Maher said he wishes Cheney were dead. The only difference is AC sells books, a lot of books. Maybe Edwards should get a thicker skin if he thinks he can be President. The guy in the bow tie seems to be tougher.

I'll be Damed "the Rascal" Is (mostly)Right

2007-02-14T16:51:00.000-08:00

"You and your pinhead friend Mark might like to know that the so-called "famous Lincoln quote" is a fabrication, as countless Web sites are reporting this morning. By the way, why aren't you and Mark serving in Iraq? Chickenhawks, right?"

--The Rascal

Childish name calling is just typical liberal banter in should not be humored.

On February 10th I posted a quote from Lincoln that turns out to be untrue. I got the quote from Insight magazine. Author J. Michael Waller claims the quote was his words describing Lincoln's policy during the Civil War. The editor accidentally put quotes around it making it appear to be Lincolns worlds.

The point of the post still works. Obama claims to be running the spirit of Lincoln. Lincoln however would not agree. Consider the following from http://www.southernevents.org/lincolnWar.htm

"Clement Vallandigham was a Congressman from Ohio and a nationally prominent Democrat. In May 1863 he made a speech attacking the Lincoln administration's conduct in the war. He was arrested, convicted by a military tribunal, although a civilian, and deported into the Confederacy."

If thats not good enough to prove Lincoln's disdain for the peace movement then consider the following from http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm

". . . However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority . . . "

In closing, the quote was wrong, but the point is still there, Lincoln would have nothing to do with Obama and the rest of his ilk. Who knows maybe Lincoln would have deported Obama to Iraq.

Q&A

2007-02-12T17:46:00.000-08:00

Lets assume the US backs out of Iraq and begins a policy of non-interference in the middle east.

Would you feel more or less safe from terrorist attack?

How do you think Iran would react?

What affect would that have on Israel?

How do you think that would affect the amount of people dying in middle east right now?

I Don't Think Lincoln Would Agree

2007-02-10T12:44:00.000-08:00

"And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a divided house to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States."

-- Barack Obama

Perhaps while voting on the Non-Binding Iraq Resolution Senator Obama will remember a famous Lincoln quote.

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs who should be arrested, exiled or hanged."

--J. Michael Waller

Minimum Wage Bill Passes

2007-02-03T13:50:00.000-08:00

The Minimum Wage bill has finally passed the Senate. A few things that needed to be fixed by Republicans before the bill goes to the President:

No exemption for corporations in Pelosi's district.

Tax breaks to help small business incur the added expense.

Refresh my memory, which party is for small business?

"Workers of the world, unite!" --Karl Marx

2007-01-26T16:21:00.000-08:00

" . . .Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt. . . ."

Can someone tell me what the economic imbalance in our country is? Who is getting rich at our expense? Is Jim Webb calling for a workers revolt? Maybe I read it wrong, judge for yourself:

Full Transcript

Why did that section of the rebuttal sound very similar to what middle east leaders are telling their own people? Whats next, the democrats call for Jihad?

***update***
". . .The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in 10 years, and the Senate will soon follow."

Not so fast Webb. The Senate floored the bill as it did not have any tax breaks for small business. They might as well of called it the "Walmart Wins Bill" . Law making is hard, you cant just throw this stuff together. First we had Pelosi's exemption for corporations in her district, now we have no way of protecting "mom and pops" stores from raised cost of doing business. You can't be too hard on the Dems they just didn't know that taxes could be lowered.

Whats the plan boss?

2007-01-21T09:44:00.000-08:00

Ladies and gentlemen, the unthinkable has happened, America has voted the democrats into congress. Hence the new name of this blog. Some things we have not seen since the last election is Republicans vowing to oppose the new majority. The 04 election all we heard was democrats describing themselves as the "opposition party" and it would seem America has rewarded them for it. I'm sure buyers remorse will set in well before 08 as it did in Regan's second term.

It is interesting how history repeats itself, some other Presidents who lost seats in their sixth year are as follows: Franklin D. Roosevelt,Dwight Eisenhower,John F. Kennedy/Lyndon,Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. In fact the only two termer who didn't loose seats his second term was Clinton, he lost his after two years in office. The Cold war is now replaced with the war on terror and the left is once again suggesting we back out. I remember when Regan's congress suffered loses the Democrats rejoiced, soon they would have the Presidency. Bush Sr. won in a landslide. Hopefully this repeat of history will continue.

So for two years the Democrats have announced "We are ready to lead". Now is your chance . I am an objective person, if the new majority has some plans lets hear them. Plan for Iraq? I googled it and came up with nothing except they don't like Bush's plan. That may have sailed when they were the minority but now they have to come up with something. As a closing note, if the new democrat plan for Iraq includes the words "We need a plan" then it is in fact not a plan at all is it?

Cox & Forkum's take

2006-09-27T18:12:00.000-07:00

The Clinton Legacy

Posted by Forkum at 05:45 PM / Permalink

The Guilty Dog Barks First

2006-09-08T13:19:00.000-07:00

Why are the democrats so afraid of the ABC mini-serious “Path to 9/11”? Could it be they have something to hide? To most of America it is no mystery that Democrats have historically been bad on defense. I think Democrats are more afraid of Democrat voters seeing the film. There have been books and books written on how the Clinton administration left our country wide open to attack by cutting down the military and scaling back our intelligence gathering. What scares Democrats is the idea of a movie. If you write something in a book especially one without pictures the chance of getting a democrat voter to see it are slim. Movies and non-news TV is how most democrats stay up to date with current events. The only more efficient way to get a message across to Democrats would be to put it in a video game.

Where is the outcry? Elected officials are trying to silence the media. This is one of many examples where Democrats are given a double standard. If the tables were turned and Republicans were trying to cancel a TV broadcast the ACLU and every nut in a tie dye shirt would be coming out chanting the bill or rights and the constitution. Now they are all mysteriously silent.

I hope this movie explains to the public why "Sandy" Berger, United States National Security Advisor under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 pleaded guilty to stealing documents from the National Archives during the 9/11 investigation. He said it was a mis-understanding and an accident. I myself have never accidentally shoved classified documents down my pants, but then again I'm not a Democrat so I wouldn't understand. Oh yeah once again the media and government "watchdogs" were mysteriously silent.

Good Questions from Ann Coulter

2006-09-06T16:15:00.000-07:00

JOE WILSON: THE END OF AN ERROR

September 6, 2006

As National Public Radio described the story behind Joe Wilson's amusingly titled book, "The Politics of Truth" (available on the $1 table in fine bookstores everywhere), in May 2004:

"Last July Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times saying that this particular intelligence regarding Iraq was false. A week later, columnist Robert Novak revealed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative."

This is like saying: "John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan; Reagan later died." Every word of that is true, but what it implies — that Hinckley killed Reagan — is false.

In the exact same way, the grand White House conspiracy promoted by Wilson and the mainstream media cites chronological events to prove causation.

The media's conspiracy theory is:

(1) Wilson said Bush's famed "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address — "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" — were a lie.

(2) Wilson's wife was then revealed to be an "undercover" spy at the CIA, exposing Wilson and his family to danger.

(3) Therefore, she was "outed" by the White House as retaliation against Wilson for calling Bush a liar.

Point 1 of liberals' conspiracy theory has been proved false since Britain's Butler Commission reviewed its government's pre-war intelligence on Iraq and concluded that "the British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium."

It was again proved false when our own Senate Intelligence Committee also concluded, in July 2004, that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger.

So there went the White House's motive for muddying up Wilson: Government fact-finding commissions, here and in the United Kingdom, were muddying up Wilson on their own simply by finding facts.

Point 2, that Wilson's wife was an undercover agent, has been proved false even to the willfully blind since Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced the conclusion to his pointless investigation last year, saying that Plame's employment with the CIA was not undercover, but merely "classified."

Everything is "classified" at the CIA. They have no idea when 19 terrorists are about to hijack commercial aircraft and slaughter 3,000 Americans, but the CIA is very good at play-acting James Bond spy games.

How covert was Valerie Plame at the CIA? Her top-secret code name was "Valerie Plame."

All this should have been enough to end conspiracy theories of White House skullduggery. But the nation's newsrooms simply continued asserting that someone in the Bush White House had "outed" Valerie Plame, despite the fact that revealing her employment with the CIA was not illegal.

Thus, as recently as January of this year, a New York Times editorial said the issue of the "leak" about Wilson's wife, whom the Times called "a covert CIA operative whose identity was leaked" (two strikes already), concerned "whether the White House was using this information in an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband, a critic of the Iraq invasion."

Wilson was more precise about the White House "leaker," variously naming Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and Dick Cheney as the source. He even described "a meeting in the suite of offices that the vice president occupies, chaired by either the vice president or Mr. Libby," where, Wilson said, the decision was made to destroy him.

(If the secret plan hatched in the vice president's office was to send evil spirits to enter Wilson's body and make him act like a fool, the plan worked brilliantly.)

Now it turns out, even Point 3 of liberals' conspiracy theory was false: The original "leaker" of Plame's name to columnist Bob Novak — not a crime — was not in the White House at all. It was Richard Armitage, a State Department official and opponent of the Iraq war.

The information that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA had nothing to do with harming Wilson. It did not come from the White House. It did not even come from someone who supported the war in Iraq.

The rest of the world found out Armitage was Novak's source last week, something Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew from the first week of his investigation. So what was Fitzgerald investigating?

Even people who think the president should not be subject to civil suits in office do not deny that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and lied about it in a civil suit brought by Paula Jones. However irritating it is to liberals that lying about sex under oath is a crime, there was a crime that Ken Starr was investigating.

What was Fitzgerald investigating? Not only was there no underlying crime, there was not even — as the Times put it — "an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband" (or an attempt "to respond to people calling you a liar in The New York Times," as normal people put it).

Fitzgerald's entire investigation was nothing but a perjury trap from beginning to end for anyone who misremembered anything about who told whom what about a low-level nobody at the CIA who happened to be married to a Walter Mitty fantasist.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

To wait or not to wait

2006-08-30T15:43:00.000-07:00

Robert Tracinski's excellent article: Five Minutes to Midnight.

Observing the events of today—the hesitation and uncertainty, the stubborn clinging to the fantasy that the enemy can be appeased if we just keep talking and find the right diplomatic solution—I now feel that, for the first time, I really understand the leaders of the 1930s. Their illusion that Hitler could be appeased has always seemed, in historical hindsight, to be such a willful evasion of the facts that I have never grasped how it was possible for those men to deceive themselves. But I can now see how they clung to their evasions because they could not imagine anything worse than a return to the mass slaughter of the First World War. They wanted to believe that something, anything could prevent a return to war. What they refused to imagine is that, in trying to avoid the horrors of the previous war, they were allowing Hitler to unleash the much greater horrors of a new war.
Today's leaders and commentators have less excuse. The "horror" they are afraid of repeating is the insurgency we're fighting in Iraq—a war whose cost in lives, dollars, and resolve is among the smallest America has ever had to pay. And it takes no great feat of imagination to project how much more horrible the coming conflict will be if we wait on events long enough for Iran to arm itself with nuclear technology. Among the horrific consequences is the specter of a new Holocaust, courtesy of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Where is the Culture of Corruption

2006-08-29T17:34:00.000-07:00

News of Libby, Rove and Bush's obvious innocence came in yesterday. I am still upset that it is not getting nearly as much attention as the investigation did. It would appear that the "unbiased" press forgot to report they already knew Plame's employer long before talking to Libby, Rove etc. So I started to wonder with all these Republicans being exonerated, whom will the Democrats complain about now? For months we had to listen to the "Culture of Corruption" tag line. Then I remembered it was on their web site (www.dnc.org) but low and behold the Corruption link is gone. I knew it was there, but where could it be now?
The sad part of all this is, the damage has already been done. Democrats and their friends in the media know they cant win with ideas so they have to resort to smear campaigns. I know President Bush does not use poll numbers to make decisions but I have to wonder what the Presidents polls would be if Democrats and the media had some integrity.

I Think An Apology is in Order

2006-08-28T17:58:00.000-07:00

State Department Official Outed Ex-CIA Officer

By JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 28, 2006

A top State Department official, Richard Armitage, disclosed the identity of a CIA officer, Valerie Plame, to at least two prominent reporters and failed to tell prosecutors about one of those contacts for more than two years, according to an account in Newsweek magazine.

The confirmation of Mr. Armitage's role, which had been widely assumed in Washington, undercut claims by liberal activists that Ms. Plame was deliberately exposed in retaliation for criticism her husband, Joseph Wilson IV, had leveled at President Bush.

An investigation of the leak led to the indictment of the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, I. Lewis Libby Jr., for perjury and obstruction of justice. Neither Mr. Armitage nor anyone else has been charged for disclosing Ms. Plame's CIA ties.

Mr. Libby's backers argued that Mr. Armitage's alleged role and the lack of any charges against him indicated prosecutors had applied a double standard. "If you were against the war, it was okay to forget or to reveal details about Valerie Plame, but if you supported the war, you get indicted," a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration, Victoria Toensing, said in an interview yesterday. "It's a simple as that."

The latest report, based on a forthcoming book co-written by an investigative reporter for Newsweek, Michael Isikoff, and the Washington bureau chief for the Nation, David Corn, identifies Mr. Armitage as the primary source for the first article to out Ms. Plame, a July 2003 column by Robert Novak.

"The initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone," Mr. Isikoff wrote in Newsweek.

He said Mr. Armitage realized he was Mr. Novak's first source only after the syndicated columnist wrote a follow-up in October 2003, saying he learned of Ms. Plame's affiliation with the CIA in "an offhand revelation" from an official "who is no partisan gunslinger."
. . .

Did the Tax Cuts Work

2006-08-25T16:46:00.000-07:00

The Bush Administration announced that the projected deficit will be cut by 50% next year. Increased tax revenue being the major factor. How can this be, you must be asking. With tax cuts the government gets less money right? Liberals get mad (liberals smash!!) because then you cant create huge government programs and expand the federal government to our doorstep with lots of taxes. On top of that the war and all this terrorism and gas prices have been bleeding this county dry. It is amazing anyone has a dollar to his name. Right? Well not exactly. It would seem that Bush had a plan when he cut taxes in 2002, I can only speculate that he figured if more people pay less taxes then the economy will grow stronger. Just look at his presidency. First he had 9/11 which shut down air travel and the stock market, then we had soring gas prices that effect everything we buy in stores and our own gas tanks, on top of that we had Katrina. Yet the economy is still strong and growing and the deficit is projected to be cut in half.

As far as I know this news is not being reported in the main stream media. I may be wrong since I got a new IPOD and listen to it on the way to work. The story came my way from the Seattle Post who where not happy and gave some counter points, which is really weird for liberal to offer counter points, usually they just call names and yell slogans fed to them by moveon.org. But I digress, the Seattle Post raised two points:

First, the deficit projections were made by the administration (Translation: We're blowing your money, but it's not as rotten as we once told you it would be)
Bush's first six years is still not cause for celebration. It totals $1.4 trillion, more than double the $682 billion cumulative deficit at the same point in Bill Clinton's presidency. Remember, during Clinton's sixth year there was a $69 billion budget surplus.

Point number one is valid and all I can say is lets wait and see. If this projection does come true as many of Bush's projections have, then lets give credit where credit is due. The second point makes less sense. Comparing Bush's presidency to Clinton's is hard to do. Clinton had a cake walk, sure he had problems but they were all self inflicted. I would like to point out to our liberal readers that just because Clinton had a budget surplus does not mean the deficit went away, we still were $5.4 trillion in the hole. I wish Clinton would have used the surplus to increase intelligence gathering or even kept the CIA intact, who knows we may have about 3000 more New Yorkers running around and two more tall buildings to grace the sky-line. On top of that I wish Clinton would have used the surpluses to enforce the cease fire agreement with Iraq. We may not have a war on our hands if Saddam wasn't given eight years to shuffle weapon inspectors around, which was really weird since he didn't have any weapons right? Before you accuse me of judging with hindsight I remember seeing Colon Powell and Oliver North warning the President Clinton to monitor and capture al qaeda terrorists. I guess he thought it was someone else's problem.

Stay tuned, see how this turns out give credit where credit is due. Wo to the Dems if Bush even comes close to his projection. They got noting else.

2006-08-14T08:03:00.000-07:00

"Stop the U.S.-Israeli War" rally in San Francisco

2006-08-13T21:10:00.000-07:00

Here are some pictures from a little town out in California.

"Stop the U.S.-Israeli War" rally in San Francisco

My favorite is the one where they accuse the US of orchestrating 9/11. This is in no way a reference to my last few posts (yes it is).

Here are a few more photos describing the altering of photos my major media outlets. I know this may come as a surprise to many of you (mainly those who have never heard of Dan Rather) But it is a fact that well know magazines are publishing known fraudulent photos. A astonishing coincidence, the people hurt by the bad P.R just happen to be people who support our President.

Reuters photo fraud

thanks to http://cat-e-whompus.blogspot.com

Take The Hook

2006-08-11T18:50:00.000-07:00

I don't usually post other people's work, but Ann Coulter's last piece was too good to pass up. In debate circles there is something called a "hook". Basically the best way to lure your opponent into a trap is to lead them to ask a specific question or raise a specific point. Coulter is a master at this, every piece she does has a statement or adjective that draws out her opponents out and forces them to counter with a weak point.

Coulter used the term "mindless patriotism" to draw out her critics and I piggybacked on that in order to counter with one question. When is it logical and necessary to hate your country? I assert that patriotism is the love of ones country so therefore the opposite of patriotism is to hate your country.

This blogs favorite topic is the lack of patriotism among the left. I am amazed how in a country where you can leave at any time and emigrate to a host of other nations, do you have no love for America. Look at the flag burning issue. During the Clinton administration, where there conservatives burning flags? Did the Young Republicans come out and decry our nation and burn its flag? I have never heard of a single flag burning by a conservative group. Liberals will counter with "I love my freedom, so therefore I burn the flag of the nation that protects said freedom". That is like saying you beat your wife because you love her.

So perhaps Coulter's use of the word mindless is insulting to those of us who can never imagine libeling our nation, I would replace it with loyal or even say my patriotism is worth my life (regardless of what political party is in office). But then again, thats not much of a conversation starter.

One of many Good Editorials By Ms. Coulter

2006-08-10T19:01:00.000-07:00

The following post came from http://www.anncoulter.com :

I suppose we'll have to wait yet another election cycle for all those "Scoop Jackson Democrats" to come roaring back in and give us a Democratic Party that does not consistently root against America.

On the bright side, it is now official: Democrats are not merely confused patriots, so blinded by their hatred for President Bush that they cannot see their way to supporting any aspect of the war on terrorism. Would that they were mere opportunistic traitors!

As some of us have been trying to tell you, Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a "D" after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism. In the past three decades, there have been more legitimate sightings of Big Foot than of "Scoop Jackson Democrats."

That's why Hillary Clinton has anti-war protestors howling at her public events. That's why she has drawn an anti-war primary opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who appears to believe that Israel is a terrorist state. If those rumors I've been hearing about a Hezbollah/Hamas/DNC merger are true, we might be in for a slightly longer fight.

In Tuesday's primary, Connecticut Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against all the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords. Oh yes, this was also the same Joe Lieberman who was the Democrats' own vice presidential candidate six years ago.

Despite all this, Connecticut Democrats preferred stalwart anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, great-nephew of Corliss Lamont, WASP plutocrat fund-raiser for Stalin. Lamont's main political asset is that he is a walking, breathing argument in favor of a massive inheritance tax. His plan for fighting the terrorists is to enact a single-payer government health plan and universal pre-K education programs. His goal is to unite the "cut" and "run" wings of his party into one glorious coalition.

The Democrats can hold it in for a few years, but eventually the McGovernite face of the Democratic Party reappears.

Lamont declared victory surrounded by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Kim Gandy of the fanatically pro-abortion group known euphemistically as the "National Organization for Women."

Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe "soft" on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America.

Gandy's support for Lamont must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lieberman to swallow, inasmuch as he has long belonged to the world's smallest organization solely to satisfy bloodthirsty feminists like Gandy — Orthodox Jews for Partial-Birth Abortion. (OJFPBA has just slightly more members than GBRFC, "Gay Black Republicans for Choice.")

To give you a snapshot of today's Democratic Party, in 2004, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters if they believed America was generally a fair and decent country and whether they believed the world would be a better place if more countries were like America.

Republicans agreed that America is generally fair and decent, 83 percent to 7 percent. Eighty-one percent agreed that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

By contrast, Democrats were nearly split, with only 46 percent agreeing that America is generally a fair and decent country, and with 37 percent saying America is not a generally fair and decent country. Only 48 percent of Democrats said they thought that the world would be a better place if more countries were like the United States.

Democrats constantly complain that the nation has never been so divided, but consider that half of them think the statement that America is a good country is a divisive remark.

So remember: When you vote Democratic, you're saying NO to mindless patriotism. This country isn't so great!

The free world, which is rapidly boiling down to us and Israel, is under savage attack. Treason is rampant in the country. True, Democrats hate Bush, but they would hate anybody who fights the war on terrorism. It is a hostile world, and there is now a real question about the will of the American people to survive.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

---------------------------------------------------
For all those who don't know who Scoop Jackson is

Todays News Is Long Overdue. . .

2006-07-24T19:38:00.000-07:00

In the early morning hours of 23 October 1983, a truck loaded with explosives crashed through the security perimeter of the United States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. In the explosion that followed, 241 U.S. Military personnel were killed and 80 seriously wounded.These young people, on a mission of peace in a land stricken by violence, were killed as they slept.

Twenty-one (21) of the young American victims of this cowardly act were returned to the United States and were buried near one another in Section 59 of Arlington National Cemetery. Near their gravesites is planted a Cedar of Lebanon tree which commemorates their sacrifice.

They are remembered here in grateful appreciation of their sacrifice on behalf of freedom.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/terror.htm

For Those Who Are Not Part Of The Majority

2006-07-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

The High Price For Cheap Tactics

2006-06-28T19:41:00.000-07:00

I hope our great nation as well as the rest of the world is paying attention to what is happening in the Gaza strip. If the US would have reacted this way to terrorism 25 years ago we would not be fighting this war now. God speed Israel and happy hunting.

The burden of serving your country

2006-06-26T19:36:00.000-07:00

Right again Rusty!

2006-06-19T19:06:00.000-07:00

Well it has been a while since my last post. My job has been taking me places that don't give me a lot of time to write or even pay attention to the news. Since I have been gone my blog has turned one year old and more important than that, my first prediction has come true. I am referring to the Tome Delay indictment. For some time ol Earl has been trying to convince judge after judge that Delay was a one man conspiracy, who broke a law that at the time did not exist. Democrats got what they wanted though, the media convicted him and the DNC stuck their "Culture of Corruption" label on all conservatives, all based on a dropped indictment. I'm sure the apologies are on the way.

A Compromise?

2006-02-20T17:07:00.000-08:00

Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by
intellectual powers like those of man?

--Charles Darwin Origin of the Species

USATODAY reported that scientist in St. Louis were calling for the end of intelligent design in the science classroom as opposed to Darwinian evolution. This confuses me, I was educated in a private Christ-Centered school yet Darwin's book The Origin of the Species was required reading. Darwin never once in his book asserts that one species became another. The book does give credit to the Creator for the ingeniousness of his design. I feel the compromise to this problem that is plaguing public schools all over America is to make the students read the Origin of the Species and decide for themselves.

Lets Face it, Liberals Are Not Patriotic (part 2)

2006-02-16T15:04:00.000-08:00

The left wing will always say their patriotism is not to be questioned (they have to say that because there are always liberals doing things that seem unpatriotic). But with so many former Presidents of the liberal persuasion going oversees on “bash-America” speaking engagements, it is had to think otherwise. I will be the first to say that it is every American's right to speak out against our government but going oversees and doing it is something totally different.
Ever since George Washington left office it was considered very undignified for a former President to speak out against the sitting president. Till only recently that tradition was upheld. Former President Carter when to Venezuela to attend a rally that protested the United States, President Clinton spoke out against the war at a college in the United Arab Emirates and Gore recently went to Saudi Arabia to discus America's hatred of Arabs
These very prominent democrats who have held our nations highest positions have all gone oversees and spoke out against our current President and the policy of the United States. Forgive me if this seems unpatriotic but I don't think that term has any meaning to the dyed in the wool democrats.

“A liberal will be quick to tell you who and what they hate, and slow to profess love for the country.... and even slower to prove it. “

SAT question of the day

2006-02-07T18:07:00.000-08:00

Carter compares the wiretapping of Martin Luther King to the Bush Wiretapping suspected terrorist in other countries. Consider the transitive properties of equality (thats a=b=c then a=c for all those who vote democrat) I guess Carter equates Martin Luther King with suspected terrorist, or suspected terrorist as Martin Luther King. Now I think it was wrong for President Kennedy to have his attorney general (aka his little brother) to wiretap the Kings. But for Carter to compare that to wiretapping communications from the enemy during a time of war makes no sense.

2006-02-07T15:48:00.000-08:00

2006-02-07T15:36:00.000-08:00

I wonder why no one gets this worried when comedy central makes fun of Jesus.

Media Bias?

2006-02-05T22:53:00.000-08:00

One thing I always though was funny was the way the opposition to President Bush approached the WMD situation. Logically one has two choices when coming to a conclusion about the absence of WMDs. First is Bush lied, second is Sadam lied. Out of the two people I just mentioned which one of them has a history of acting irrational. Now if your an anti-republican I'm sure your mind is cooking up all sorts of democrat talking points right now. Or you are a objective thinker then you are leaning toward Sadam as the deceiver.

Enter General Georges Sada, Sadams number two man in the Iraq Air Force. Mr. Sada recently authored a book detailing the smuggling of WMDs to Syria. He gives time lines and names of the pilots who flew the missions, details of the planes used and the man in Syria who accepted the WMDs on behalf of the Syrian government. It is a point of fact that Mr. Sada will be testifying before the Senate Intelligence committee.

If you haven't heard about these “goings-on” it is probably because the main steam media has all but ignored this developing story. I had to find it in the foreign section of the New York Sun. When it becomes too big to ignore and the critics of the administration can no longer live in their “bubble” that they claim engulfs our President you can always say you heard it here first. Your welcome.

Democrats show where they stand

2006-02-01T14:49:00.000-08:00

What stood out most in last nights state of the union address was the Democrats standing and applauding for not even trying to save Social Security. The President reminds us that in 24 years our nation will be spending over half its budget to repay Social Security benefits. Democrats thought that was great and applaud themselves for doing nothing. If they don't agree with the Presidents solution then offer up an alternative. If they cant even do that then they should remain in their seats and let the party America voted for take the lead. The democrats have no ideas, no solutions and no right to criticize anyone. If anyone can prove me wrong please do so.

Ann Coulter, keeping it real

2006-01-20T23:03:00.000-08:00

The following was an excerpt from Ann Coulter's web site. Ms. Coulter is funny but this time she has outdone herself

...Madam Hillary also said the Bush administration "will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country." While Hillary is certainly qualified to comment on what the all-time worst presidential administrations were, having had firsthand experience in one of them, I think she might want to avoid the phrase "go down in history."...

2006-01-13T15:38:00.000-08:00

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The florist is pleased and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open his shop there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The cop is happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The Republican is pleased and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a dozen different books such as “How to Improve Your Business” and “Becoming More Successful.”

Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: “I’m sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I’m doing community service this week.” The Democrat is ecstatic and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.

http://www.evilconservativeblog.com

National Security Agency

2006-01-04T07:28:00.000-08:00

December 28, 2005--Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure. . .

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm

I guess it all comes down to is President Bush legally permitted to authorize wiretaps between people in the United States and terrorism suspects in other countries.

Wake up Democrats; its a trap! (more visions of things to come)

2005-12-28T22:53:00.000-08:00

This NSA thing where we all act like were surprised when we hear phone calls to known terrorist in other countries are monitored by the government. Let me make a prediction, the impeach anything democrats are going to continue manufacturing a scandal even when the majority of America agrees with what the president is doing. Then right around June the White House will release a story about how the NSA's eavesdropping saved us from a terrorist attack. Then right before November we will all be subjected to video clips of the before mentioned democrats sticking their foots in their mouths. I will be reprinting this post as a big I told you so. See ya around June.

I Sir am a Nationalist

2005-12-02T20:16:00.000-08:00

U.S.A!!!

U.S.A!!!

U.S.A!!!

Tall tales and split hairs

2005-12-02T20:00:00.000-08:00

I was reading over some of the comments from a previous post and one stuck out and made me laugh more so than the rest. The author of the comment stated that the war in Iraq is seeing the same casualties in the first 2-1/2 years as the Vietnam conflict did. I have to ask when did the Vietnam conflict begin? If you say 1963 then you are somewhat right but why stop there why not say the war started in 1955 when the first American military member was killed. Then you could say the death toll in Iraq is 2000 times higher than Vietnam.

The truth is major fighting in Vietnam didn't start until 1965 and in the first two years more than 4834 American men were killed. . .

. . .if you are going to compare the two do it right.

Visions of Things to Come.

2005-11-22T14:25:00.000-08:00

Like last November, the Democrats will fool themselves that they are winning. CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Show and SNL will spend all there time putting the Republicans down. Prominent Democrats will become more boisterous over the War In Iraq. Then in the blink of an eye the war will be over. Bush will pull out the troops (or at least most of them) and the Dems will be stuck ranting about the past, just like last November. Bookmark this post, remember my words. This is how the Republicans will win in November.

Lets Face it, Liberals Are Not Patriotic

2005-11-17T18:46:00.000-08:00

A Liberal is someone who wants to make laws to force people to behave as they behave. The name stems from the liberal use of governmental power. Liberals come in all shapes and sizes. There are environmental liberals, anti-war liberals, racist liberals, sexist liberals, gay liberals, atheist liberals and many more. One thing all liberals can agree on is all Republican presidents are evil and America should not be as successful as it is.

Patriotism is defined as love of one's own country and one's willingness to sacrifice for it. How can any liberal today claim to love this country? Liberal leaders are calling for surrender in Iraq, and Bill Clinton went to the Middle-East; the apex of anti-American thought, and spoke out against our country. We should not be surprised... last time it was is the USSR.

San Francisco, a historically liberal city, voted to ban military recruiters in public schools, and on top of that are trying to offer alternatives to military service. This can only be seen as a desire to weaken the country's military for some political agenda.

Historically, liberals have been on the opposite side. During Vietnam, they called our young men in the battlefield murders. During the Reagan administration, they did everything they could to stop Reagan from winning the Cold War. Today they are rallying to stop our President from waging war on terrorism. They claim the insurgency in Iraq is somehow not terrorist, despite the suicide bombings and massive civilian casualties. A liberal will be quick to tell you who and what they hate, and slow to profess love for the country.... and even slower to prove it. Without a doubt liberals do not meet the definition of Patriotic.

Democrats vow to loose war at any cost.

2005-11-12T08:29:00.000-08:00

“more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.”

President Bush, 11 November 2005

The real crisis the democrats don't talk about is the timing of the vote. Democrates had access to all information before the vote, the problem was it was classified and therefore they could not go public and let the pollsters tell them what to do. To be on the safe side they voted with the President. Today the Democrats want to back out of this war call it a defeat and blame it on the President, so maybe they can win an election in 06 or 08.

In order for the Democrats to win in 08, our troops have to loose.

Quotables and facts

2005-11-10T21:54:00.000-08:00

With all that in the news about pre-war intel and how the poor Dems were fooled into going to war I found some interesting facts about our poor naive Democrat leadership and their demands that the senate investigate pre-war intel. It turns out someone already did the work, all three of these studies could not find any evidence Bush fudged the intelligence.

Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," Report Of A Committee Of Privy Counsellors, 7/14/04, p. 110
Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285
Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05

The list of dems that Bush fooled before he got into office is two long for a post on this blog. Here is one quote that I couldn't let get away.

Former Clinton Director For Defense Policy And Arms Control, National Security Council Staff, Peter Feaver:"How Could Even The All-Powerful Neocons Have Manipulated The Intelligence Estimates Of The Clinton Administration, French Intelligence, British Intelligence, German Intelligence And All The Other 'Co-Conspirators' Who Concurred On The Fundamentals Of The Bush Assessment?" (Peter D. Feaver, Op-Ed, "The Fog Of WMD," The Washington Post, 1/28/04)

I am well aware of the Dems all-wise comeback to historical facts that prove they too and most of the world believed as Bush did. The Democrat pundits are saying Bush actually acted on the intel then he is responsible. Last I checked the President can only wage war for thirty days or so. Congress then must approve the war. Congress did right before a mid-term election and here we are, blaming Bush. The voters were for this war in 2002, 2004 and they will be in 2006. The cut and run attitude or as I like to call it the “we will not win this war at any cost” attitude of the Democrats will not sit well with the average American people.

Times must be tough

2005-11-10T21:05:00.000-08:00

Last Tuesday the democrats announced on the dnc website the mid-mid term election sweep. I will hand it to the dems they did keep two governor seats that already belonged to them and the "govenator" lost to the people.
I don't try to make sense out of anything California does, on the same note when the people speak through voting, their choice must be respected; although times must be though for a party when keeping a seat is a mandate from the whole country. I will concede that the Republicans need to get in gear for the mid term elections, but I wouldn't get my hopes up for the Dems just because two states put new govenors in from the same political party as the last.

Having some fun with a fellow blogger

2005-11-06T14:25:00.000-08:00

Click here

For the real blog click here (its not bad for a liberal site)

Democrats demand answers

2005-11-05T09:34:00.000-08:00

This just in, Democrats are demanding to know who leaked classified information about alleged secret CIA prisons. Democrats explain that the CIA is essential to the security of our nation and leaking classified information could place American citizens in great danger.

Later review of this matter shows that Democrats don't care who leaked the secret CIA prisons. It turns out that there was no chance the leak was committed by a high ranking Republican so therefore is not a issue of national security or a crime at all.

In a related story the Democrats have re-defined the following words: torture and mainstream.

The old non-Democrat definition of torture was, the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions. Now torture shares the same definition as the word uncomfortable.

The old non-Democrat definition of mainstream was a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence. Mainstream's new definition is any thing Sen. Minority leader Harry Read says it is.

CIA Suspected of Operating Secret Prisons

2005-11-02T20:19:00.000-08:00

Today the Washington Post reported the CIA was suspected of operating secret prison camps. I myself hope this is true. One cannot blame the CIA for having to dodge the media. It is the American media who spoon feeds the middle-east trumped up stories of torture.

In an age where terrorist groups launched a war with the west because Americans stepped on Saudi sand, we have to be careful what stories are printed. I am not telling anyone the press should turn a blind eye to corruption. I am saying that the press should not put their hatred of our President in front of respect of our nation and the troops who serve.

A perfect example of what the press calls "torture" is the case of the flushed Koran. Michael Isikoff incorrectly reported American troops where flushing Korans down the toilet. The story was later retracted. The same day the story broke Sen. Durbin was comparing our troops to Nazis. These same reports and comments were broadcast on Aljazeera. Any sane person can see that the left wing press and elected officials are trying to sabotage the war to forward a political idea.

I know of one blogger who is convinced that American troops are raping little boys and girls. Where did he get that idea? At this point it does not matter, Left wing groups have already published the material as though it where true. Does anyone think a potential suicide bomber will check sources and facts, or the political motivation of the reporter/blogger or politician.

One can hardly wonder why the CIA would dodge the watchful and imaginative eye of the media. It is the media and left wing politicians who would walk over the backs of 2000 dead troops to forward their agenda.

Scooter Indited for Lying About Nothing

2005-10-28T13:38:00.000-07:00

Talk about having to settle. Democrats were so excited about "exposing" the Bush lie, bringing down Rove, and last but not least this investigation was going to get the Cheney Rumsfeld Cabal. What they have to do is settle for a "scooter" indite. According to the inditement the CIA leak didn't happen (well it did, but it didn't), Scooter just lied about the crime that didn't take place. I'm sure all the liberals are busy writing apology notes to Rove for saying all those bad things about him.

Elsewhere in the world, events that were not nearly as important as Scooter happened. Iran publicly calls for the destruction of Israel, I'm sure if we reason with them they will turn a total 180 and co-exist with Israel in peace and harmony, speaking of alternatives to war. Liberal darling George Galloway is accused of lying about accepting money from Saddam. I myself was surprised by this, I figured he would support Saddam for free.

What's the point?

2005-10-10T10:38:00.000-07:00

In politics one of the most often played games is "what if" . What if Gore won the election in 2000, would 9-11 still have happened? What if we never went to war in Iraq, would we be safer or in harms way? This is a pointless game but I still will raise by own "what if" question. My question is, what if Bush made it a priority to rebuild the levee in New Orleans on the very first day he entered office? I also point out for the reader that I am not an engineer and I have no experience building levees of any kind. I do however assume that a levee is either built and working or it is not. A partially completed levee probable wont offer that great of protection.

In May 23, 2005 the Army Corps of Engineers published a revised plan to repair the levee system in New Orleans. The plan states that they could have it done in seven years given the correct funding. For the sake of argument lets imagine the Corps were three years ahead of schedule when Bush took office.

This "what if" is pretty simple, even if Bush made the N.O. levee a top priority from day one and the levee project was three years ahead of schedule, it still would not have been ready in time for Katrina. What's my point, the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana were depending on the federal government to come up with 75% of the cost of the levee. When the feds didn't come through, the state and local government just decided to live in harms way, instead of coming up with the 500 million themselves.

source

This just in Conservatives by definition are skeptical

2005-10-09T12:48:00.000-07:00

After skimming the news I was surprised (but not shocked) by all the articles about conservatives being skeptical over Bush's nomination to the supreme Court. The authors were not surprised fellow conservatives were skeptical so much as they were astonished the critics spoke up. I for the life of me cant imagine why this is so new. Conservatives have always been skeptical of each other. Millions of conservatives voted independent when Bush H. and Dole ran for President, because they felt they were too moderate on issues important to them (Not important to the party). As a mater of fact six times more people voted for Perot then Nader. It was the Republican vote that suffered more in 1998 than in 1994. History has proven time and time again the Conservative movement's greatest strength and weakness is an unwillingness to compromise on principles. After all that is the defining factor of a true conservative.

source

Presidential Firsts

2005-10-05T10:52:00.000-07:00

I was reading an article from a fellow bloger and found out that Democrats will not put up with corruption while Republicans follow blindly, no matter what their elected leaders do. This surprised me a great deal, but after I thought about it he may be half-right (no pun intended). The following is a list of Clinton scandals and this may be why no one votes democrat any more.

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

source

This will go nowhere

2005-10-02T12:03:00.000-07:00

Since Democrats have proven that they have lost the ability to win an election, they must assert there views in other ways. For now I am referring to the Tom Delay indictment. My point is not to say the prosecutor Ronnie Earlel is a democrat tool, but in this case his biased interpretation of the law will suit the Democrats. Mr. Eariel thinks that corporations should not be able to give money to political campaigns. That is a valid opinion that has its merits. The Problem is, the Texas election law does not say that.

To make up for what Mr. Eariel sees as a shortfall in the Texas legal system, he has filed week indictments against several corporations, such as Sears, Cracker Barrel, Internet company Questerra, and the collection company Diversified Collection Service. All four of these companies have had the charges dropped only after making contributions to an organizations that Eariel favors.

Now for the indictment, Eariel has indited Delay under Texas Election Code 523 and Texas Penal code 15.02. The way it breaks down is as follows: Corporations gave money to Texas based political group, TRMPAC. TRMPAC then gave the money to national based political group RNSEC. Then RNSEC gave the same amount of money to Texas legislators who were running for office. Since more than one person was involved it must be conspiracy under Penal Code 15.02

The problem with the indictments is that for one it is not against the law. If the Corporations would have sent the money directly to RNSEC then it would not have even been a mater of Texas law. Eariel is basically saying Delay and two others conspired to break the law when a perfectly legal option was available. The next problem is Eariel doesn't mention a corporation in the indictments. By inditing Delay and two other individuals under Chapter 523, Eariel is basically saying Delay conspired with corporations to launder money but no corporations were involved.

This case will not make it to trial but that was never the intent. All Eariel and the Democrats want is to drag Delay's name in the mud so maybe they can get a leg up in the next election. God knows they need it.

DNC Agenda?

2005-09-29T10:14:00.000-07:00

If you look at the DNC main website you will find a picture of Tom Delay and a story about Bill Frist. I guess the new Democrat Agenda is to indite republicans. This is the sad state of the left-wing in America. Democrat's have nothing to offer in the arena of ideas and solutions. By Contrast if you load www.GOP.com you will only see information that pertains to the Republican Party. As of today the GOP home page only has two references to the Democratic party. If anyone can tell me what the democrat's plan is for America (besides use the court system to defame republicans) I would be very interested to hear it.

What is the ANSWER?

2005-09-28T17:40:00.000-07:00

Last weekend the left wing group ANSWER held a protest in Washington as Hamas, who ANSWER supports, were randomly shooing grenades into Israel. ANSWER's festive of slander was held under the guise of anti-war, anyone who watched the rally would hear several prominent left-wingers shout their opinions about our President. Some other issues ANSWER is tackling are

-Stop the War in Iraq
-End Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine to Haiti
-Support the Palestinian PeopleÂs Right of Return
-Stop the Threats Against Venezuela, Cuba, Iran & North Korea
-U.S. Out of the Philippines
-U.S. Out of Puerto Rico
-Bring all the troops home now
-Stop the Racist, anti-Immigrant and anti-Labor Offensive at Home, Defend Civil Rights
-Military Recruiters Out of Our Schools and Communities

source

Hot Air America

2005-09-27T17:41:00.000-07:00

If you look at the title of this blog you will see my purpose is to document the decline of liberalism and left wing ideas. It is with that spirt I give you Air America. On the 21st of September, Air America became similar to the pan handler who hangs out in the intersection just a few blocks away from my home. Since honest work isn't working for them they have decided to look for hand outs. Where Air America has sunk lower than an everyday pan handler is sending kids out in the form of the "Boys & Girls Club" to pan handle for them. I guess baseless accusations and slander were not enough for them. In my opinion its a wonder they made it this long.

A history of incompetence and corruption.

2005-09-15T19:15:00.000-07:00

. . . Public corruption is a well known problem in Louisiana. The head of the FBI in New Orleans just this past year described the state´s public corruption as "epidemic, endemic, and entrenched. No branch of government is exempt." Over the last thirty years, a long list of Louisiana politicians have been convicted of crimes; the list includes a governor, an attorney general, an elections commissioner, an agriculture commissioner, three successive insurance commissioners, a congressman, a federal judge, a State Senate president, six other state legislators, and a host of appointed officials, local sheriffs, city councilmen, and parish police jurors. Given the documented public corruption in the state, I am not confident that Louisiana officials can be trusted to administer federal relief aid. . .

. . . "A year ago, as Hurricane Ivan approached, New Orleans ordered an evacuation but did not use city or school buses to help people evacuate. As a result many of the poorest citizens were unable to evacuate. Fortunately, the hurricane changed course and did not hit New Orleans, but both Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin acknowledged the need for a better evacuation plan...[but] did not take corrective actions. In 1998, during a threat by Hurricane George, 14,000 people were sent to the Superdome and theft and vandalism were rampant due to inadequate security. Again, these problems were not corrected." . . .

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=4939

The Jackson Lie

2005-09-08T19:40:00.000-07:00

Jesse Jackson appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight. Then later appeared again on Hannity and Combs. Both times the good Reverend mentioned that Homeland Security blocked the Red Cross from getting in. Chris Matthews stood idley by while Jackson was never corrected to say the Louisiana Dept. of Homeland Defense not the Federal Dept. of Homeland Defense. Sean Hannity did correct him just before Mr. Jackson changed the subject. I have to wonder if Mr. Jackson and Chris Matthews didn't know that in this case there are two different Homeland Defense Departments. I believe they do, the purpose of this lie unchecked is to defame Republican leadership in DC. This is a perfect example of why so many think the media is biased and irresponsible.

"Did Bush have the keys?"

2005-09-08T17:27:00.000-07:00

Louisiana Disaster Plan, page 13, paragraph 5, dated 01/00

"The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating..."

source

Louisiana Homeland Defense, Protects Superdome from Red Cross

2005-09-08T16:50:00.000-07:00

Officials for the Red Cross of America reported on Fox news that they were blocked from entering the Superdome immediately after the hurricane. Officials from the Red Cross say they were not allowed to enter because the state didn't want the Superdome to become a magnet for survivors.

source

Democrats once again show their terrible memory

2005-09-04T21:14:00.000-07:00

I have to roll my eyes every time I here some leftist talk about going to war on false pretenses. I guess they think Sadam should be let go. I cant stand it see or hear people yelling about Bush lying. So for the few people who are reading this blog I will put to rest the whole thing. First, Bush was not the first President of the United States. He took over the office from someone else who ran the country and observed intel data. So with that in mind, here are some quotes from some on the other side:

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

complete list

Also as I know leftist don't watch the news (I don't mean the daily show) here are some new developments that didn't make it into the mainstream media:

washingtonpost
nysun

Democrats Blame Their Own Failure On President

2005-09-04T14:48:00.000-07:00

Recent events have shown that once again the left wing loves a tragedy. Bloggers and media types were fast to blame the President for the flooding of New Orleans. Critics said Bush should have sent in troops earlier. They also say Bush should have built up the Levee.

Since many left wing democrats don't favor an education or the ability to compose there own opinions I will once again take this opportunity to enlighten them. First the President doesn't call the national guard to do anything. They don't even take an oath to serve just the President, they also take and oath to serve the Governor. The President can order the Governor to send troops, but I guess it never occurred to Bush to order the Governor to protect her own state. Second the Federal government has been warning the state about the Levee situation for years if not decades. It would seem they wanted to build casinos and resorts instead at the tax payers expense and let the feds take care of the Levee. Its amazing how easily federal support (welfare) comes to democrats.

The fact is when Bush realize the inept (and democrat) local government was not going to do their job he did step in. N.O. was secured and cleared in 24 hours. This is just another reason why left-wing democrats are on the decline and republicans are winning elections.

the real anit-war message

2005-08-28T09:14:00.000-07:00

Bad Day for Soldiers = Good Day for Liberals

2005-08-15T12:53:00.000-07:00

One place you are sure to find a lot of complaining is moveon.org. This website is pretty much the front end of the democrat party, as the owner purchased the party last November. Their newest endeavor is to use a mother of a war hero to draw support against the war. They keep saying Bush should meet with her. What they donÂt say is Bush already met with this woman. Like all left-wing endeavors the truth is always found in what has not been said. Her son took an oath to follow the President and all officers appointed over him. When you join the military you are advised that you might die in the line of service. As a member of the military I am disgusted with this mother and the legion of leftist who gather behind her. It would seem the left wing in America celebrate a dead solder more than the enemy, only this time there taking the mother of a fallen soldier to the party.

Why the new look?

2005-08-15T12:17:00.000-07:00

Well it has been a while (once again) but let’s face it, there is not much out there to respond to. I created this blog because there were too many left wing bomb throwers out there. I wanted to respond to the unintelligence of the left and provide a place for people to respond to my opinions. The sad fact is there is not alot of left wing substance out there. Too many web-masters post obscene and vulgar insults about our country and president and never allow anyone to respond; even worse trying to find an updated liberal website is getting harder and harder. If you do find one and engage in some debate they get their feelings hurt and ask you to go away.

I will keep trying, but instead of focusing my efforts on replying to bizarre liberals I will now focus on the decline in what we now know as the liberal.

Much to do about nothing

2005-07-21T20:11:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I posted. Work has been hectic and I have been ignoring the computer for a while. To be honest there is not a lot to write about. All the liberal web sites/blogs have been going nuts over Rove naming names, suddenly liberals are worried about national secrets. When President Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger, stuffed some classified documents in his pants and walked out of the the Justice Department during the 9/11 commission's investigation no one but Fox News even covered it. I guess Fox was just been biased. Oh wait their covering the Rove story too. I find it amazing that liberals even know what national security is. I don't remember any Democrats/liberals complaning when Clinton gave N. Korea nuclear materials.
This just goes to show you that to be a good democrat/liberal you have to have a short memory. If you want to criticize the Bush administration, you will have to forget about the Clinton years.

Bush's speech and who is the real enemy

2005-06-30T15:00:00.000-07:00

Just as surprising as the sun rising in the morning, the dems came out yelling and complaining that Bush is trying to link Iraq to 9/11 and there might not be any WMDs and my personal favorite, Bush wont broadcast his military "strategery" over national airwaves. Since when is it a good idea to announce future plans in a theater of war? That my friends is why America has no confidence in the dems for national security.

Going back to the Iraq and 9/11 thing. I don't remember Bush ever saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I do remember him saying we are at war with an ideal and this war will be long and hard fought. Who are the troops fighting, terrorist? If the enemy are not terrorist then they must be freedom fighters in the eyes of Democrats. Its always good to know where the dems stand (with our enemies)

The guilty dog barks first

2005-06-24T21:14:00.000-07:00

I dare anyone to look up Carl Rove's speech and do a word search for "democrat". You wont find it. He mentions liberals, gives an example, then backs it up with some publications. Why are democrats so mad, could it be liberal guilt? I guess that's what comes after hippy guilt.

Senator Byrd quotes

2005-06-24T21:01:00.000-07:00

"[I would never fight] with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels."

DEMOCRAT SENATOR ROBERT BYRD Letter dated Dec. 11, 1945 from Byrd to Senator Theodore Bilbo (D-Miss.)

Byrd was only 29 at the time so I guess he was too young to know any better. Interesting note, Senator Byrd's website bio never mentions the KKK. He has held more leadership positions in the Senate than any other senator. If I were a democrat I would be interested in my roots (I wonder if Byrd ever saw the movie Roots).

Point / Counter-Point

2005-06-11T08:16:00.000-07:00

Debating politics in no different that debating anything else. One party raises a point and the opposing party offers a counter point, until one has been bested. This takes place every night on our favorite cable news networks. The topics are the war in Iraq, democrats vs republicans, religion, stuff Howard Dean said and many others. My personal favorite is the war in Iraq. This is such a great topic because it can be tied to so many other issues. The 9-11 attacks, oil, the Taliban, the President and much more.

The purpose of this submission is to give some counter-points to the most popular liberal argument against the war. There were no WMDs.

What in the world would make the President think there were WMDs in Iraq? Lets forget for a minute about the intelligence agencies from around the world were (and many still are) convinced that weapons were there.

Since the end of the first Iraq war Saddam Hussein has been refusing weapon inspectors access to all of his country, contrary to the cease fire agreement. That alone makes the war legal. Next Saddam threatened to use WMDs if we attacked.

If you believe the war is "wrong" or illegal. Then you are of the option that President Bush should have ignored the cease fire agreement and also ignored the threats as evidence. Finally if you think this war is illegal then you also think the first Gulf War was illegal, technically we are still fighting it (per the cease fire agreement)

Howard Dean thinks Christians are evil (Well the white ones anyway)

2005-06-08T13:25:00.000-07:00

"This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good"
-- Howard Dean

"They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."
-- Howard Dean

As a Christian I have been waiting for this for a long time. The democrat party has been attacking devout Christians for a while. This time it is out in the open. I don't know what the difference between a white Christian and one of any other color is but Mr. Dean does. The best thing that could happen to the Christian church in America and the Republican party is a clear line in the sand being drawn between Christians and democrat's.
Many ask if this is just the ranting of a mad man or the opinion of the Democrat party. I suggest this explanation. Dean's primary role in the democrat party is to raise money. In order to get major fuming is to talk the talk that dyed in the wool democrat's with lots of money what to hear.
As far a racial stereotyping and discrimination that should be obvious, unless you account for the democrat's belief that you cannot be racist if the only people you don't like are whites.

Ohh how things have changed

2005-05-20T08:14:00.000-07:00

I have always thought a democrats greatest weapon is the short memory of those who vote democrate.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Congressional Record, 2/3/98)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”

The Devil is in the details.

2005-05-19T12:47:00.000-07:00

If you do a google search on judicial appointments blocked by the republicans, you will see pages upon pages of examples were Clinton appointments were blocked. Is it that simple? Democrats block judges today and republicans were blocking judges yesterday.

What if the "nuclear" option existed during the Clinton administration? Would the republicans have still been able to block all those judges? The answer is yes. When you look at the issue closer you may notice that the republicans didn't filibuster judges. They hung them up in committee. What's the difference? I am sure many left-wingers do not remember the republicans controlled the congress during much of the Clinton Administration. When you have a majority, blocking judges without a filibuster is easy.

If you don't believe me do the google search and see for yourself. Story after story of republicans blocking judges. No mention of filibusters, just vague stories of republicans blocking judges. I will concede there is a mention of some failed filibuster attempts, but if you remember the details, the republicans had the majority and still could not pull off a filibuster. How is that possible? The republicans as a whole would not lower themselves to that level.

The devils in these details are democrats who are so sure they know what's best for America; they openly combat the president and congress that was voted it by the American people.