I am not one to normally advocate suing someone or something. I know that in certain circumstances, it is necessary, but people like John Edwards, I think, have perverted this part of our justice system. However, in light of the recent events in Newark, with the execution of 3 college students and critical injuring of a 4th allegedly by at least 2 illegal immigrants, one of which had been arrested multiple times, once on charges of sexually assaulting a child, I think it calls for new action.
Newark, along with other cities, including, I'm sad to say, my own Columbus, Ohio, is a sanctuary city. This means that, either officially or unofficially, city officials, including law enforcement officials, are instructed to not inform ICE of the status of illegals. Even if an illegal immigrant is arrested, they are not to inform ICE that they have an illegal alien in custody. This is in violation of federal immigration laws. In the case of the situation of Newark, the ringleader in these executions had been arrested many times, and it was known that he was in the country illegally. Not only that, but he was also linked to gang activities. Rather than reporting him to ICE so that, following serving any sentences he might incur for illegal activities in this country, he could be deported, he was released on bail each time. As a result, a man that should have never been released from custody, and should have been deported a long time ago, orchestrated the shooting of 4 college students, leaving 3 of them dead. Congressman Tom Tancredo believes that the city of Newark shares culpability in this crime. I tend to agree. If we can sue gun companies for gun related violence, why can't the city of Newark be sued for releasing a repeat offender illegal alien back onto the streets in violation of federal law? If they had abided by federal law, this man would not have been able to commit this crime. I think that this threat should hang over the heads of all such sanctuary cities. Certainly we can't hold them responsible for any and all criminal acts committed by illegals, but in instances such as this one, where they had ample opportunity to remove this person from the public in accordance with federal law, and they chose not to, then they should definitely have to bear responsibility for their inaction.
In a rarely seen bright spot in the area of immigration enforcement, Elvira Arellano has been deported back to Mexico. You will remember her as the illegal who entered the country not once, but twice. First in 1997, when she was apprehended and deported. Then in 1999, when she gave birth to a son. She was picked up in a post-9/11 security sweep and found to have a fake Social Security number. Rather than report for an immigration hearing, she sought sanctuary in a Methodist church in Chicago for the last year. This week she decided to leave the confines of the church to head to LA for a rally, and immigration officials carried out their legally mandated job by arresting her and promptly escorting her to the border. Liberals will tell you this is heartless, and she should be allowed to stay here to raise her son, a U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. She is perfectly able to take her son back to Mexico with her. She can then begin the process of trying to enter the country legally. I am still unclear why it is that liberals and pro-illegal immigration hacks feel that the U.S. needs to be the accommodating one, when she is the one who broke the law.
Finally, approval ratings for the Democrat-controlled Congress are now tied for the lowest ever since such ratings have been tracked beginning back in the early '70s. They are now at 18%. Interestingly, the other time in history that approval ratings were this low was the last time Democrats were in control of Congress back in 1992, with a series of scandals rocking their party that would result in sweeping Republicans into power 2 years later. The next lowest approval rating occurred in 1979 with approval at 19%. I'll let you guess who was in power then, as well. And these low numbers are not simply being weighed down by a lot of Republicans giving Democrats a thumbs down. When you break the numbers down by party affiliation, you find that Republicans give Congress a 17% approval, while Democrats give Congress only a 21% approval. Not much of a difference there. Incidentally, I'll let you guess when the highest approval ratings for Congress were (excluding the huge spike that occurred in September 2001). The approval ratings began a steady climb beginning around 1994 (wasn't there a significant mid-term election that year?) and climbed to around 50%, staying level there until about 2003. Just some food for thought.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
Your Tax Money Hard at Work . . . Buying New Democrat Voters
The recent crash in the housing sector known as subprime lending has been all in the news lately. People who, for whatever reason, had sub-par credit ratings that prohibited them from obtaining advantageous mortgages to buy a home sought out much more easily acquired variable rate loans. Why they did this, I don't know. There are certain attractions to variable rate loans. Initially, they often promise an interest rate much lower than you would normally obtain from a fixed-rate loan. The problem is, variable means exactly what it sounds like. That rate can change. And it is almost certainly not going to vary in your favor. So now we have people who unwisely signed their names on the dotted lines to finance purchases that they could not normally afford, and figured tomorrow would never come.
As we all should know, though, from Little Orphan Annie, tomorrow is only a day away. Now that rates have jumped up for these people, many can no longer afford their houses, and so there has been a jump in foreclosures in this sector. What to do? Enter Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democrat presidential hopefuls. Bit off more than you can chew? Eyes bigger than your stomach? No problem. We'll bail you out. Hillary Clinton's big idea was to set aside $1 billion of government funds (you know, that money that just mysteriously appears in the federal budget) to assist these people (i.e. bail them out).
Now I understand that this is a horrible situation to be put in. What could be worse than being forced to leave your home. But come on, people. If I go out tomorrow and buy myself a Ferrari, and discover that, in a few months time, I can no longer afford the payments, can I request assistance from Uncle Sam? I realize a house is not a luxury vehicle, but the principle is the same. When you go to make such an important purchase, there are a few things you need to consider. Number one, can I actually afford this purchase? Will my income cover my monthly payment, and allow me to purchase everything else I need? Will I just barely have enough money? A house is not something that you want to be scraping together every last penny for. Also, can I get a decent mortgage, or will I have to choose a more risky loan? Even if you have a fixed rate loan, housing costs invariably go up for most people. While my own loan is fixed rate, other things, such as property taxes, go up fairly regularly.
Now just because somebody else did not go to the trouble that I did in researching a purchase as important and expensive as a house, why should I be penalized? Who do you think has to come up with that $1 billion that Hillary wants to set aside for these people? My heart goes out to them, I hope they come through it okay, but that does not give them the right to reach into my wallet to bail them out of their poor decisions.
Here is my advice to them. If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. If you are going to get a variable rate loan, and you are not expecting a significant increase in your income in the near future so that you can refinance for a fixed rate before your rates change, don't do it. Maybe you have to rent for a bit longer. But isn't that preferable to foreclosure, which will only further damage your credit rating? Hillary likes to shift virtually all of the blame for this on the lenders, and to be sure, there are some unscrupulous people out there that took advantage of a lot of people to make a buck. But what is going to shut down this type of predatory lending faster? Further regulations, or letting people take responsibility for their poor decisions and learn from their mistakes. What is the incentive to not go out and get one of these ill-advised mortgages if there is the virtual guarantee that, should you be unable to make the payment, the government would bail you out?
As for those who like to point out how such a view might be unbecoming of a Christian, I think we understand the teachings of Christ differently. Christ never taught dependency on anything other than his grace. Sure, Christ helped the needy, but he did not provide their every need. I find it interesting that, when presented with a man that was lame, who had to be lowered into a building where Christ was teaching, that, rather than personally carrying the man around for the rest of his life, Christ healed him, then told him to pick up his bed and walk. Christ gave the man the ability to do for himself. When the fishermen that were to be his future disciples had an unprofitable day of fishing, Christ did not send them to petition their neighbors and the government for subsidies to help them through their difficult times, nor did he chastise their neighbors into supporting them in their misfortune. Rather, he told them to go out and casts their nets on the other side. He helped, but he still required them to make their own effort. Christ did teach compassion, which we should all exercise, and to give what we can to those less fortunate. But he did not teach those less fortunate to be dependent on others. He also taught that there are consequences for our actions that we must accept.
As we all should know, though, from Little Orphan Annie, tomorrow is only a day away. Now that rates have jumped up for these people, many can no longer afford their houses, and so there has been a jump in foreclosures in this sector. What to do? Enter Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Democrat presidential hopefuls. Bit off more than you can chew? Eyes bigger than your stomach? No problem. We'll bail you out. Hillary Clinton's big idea was to set aside $1 billion of government funds (you know, that money that just mysteriously appears in the federal budget) to assist these people (i.e. bail them out).
Now I understand that this is a horrible situation to be put in. What could be worse than being forced to leave your home. But come on, people. If I go out tomorrow and buy myself a Ferrari, and discover that, in a few months time, I can no longer afford the payments, can I request assistance from Uncle Sam? I realize a house is not a luxury vehicle, but the principle is the same. When you go to make such an important purchase, there are a few things you need to consider. Number one, can I actually afford this purchase? Will my income cover my monthly payment, and allow me to purchase everything else I need? Will I just barely have enough money? A house is not something that you want to be scraping together every last penny for. Also, can I get a decent mortgage, or will I have to choose a more risky loan? Even if you have a fixed rate loan, housing costs invariably go up for most people. While my own loan is fixed rate, other things, such as property taxes, go up fairly regularly.
Now just because somebody else did not go to the trouble that I did in researching a purchase as important and expensive as a house, why should I be penalized? Who do you think has to come up with that $1 billion that Hillary wants to set aside for these people? My heart goes out to them, I hope they come through it okay, but that does not give them the right to reach into my wallet to bail them out of their poor decisions.
Here is my advice to them. If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. If you are going to get a variable rate loan, and you are not expecting a significant increase in your income in the near future so that you can refinance for a fixed rate before your rates change, don't do it. Maybe you have to rent for a bit longer. But isn't that preferable to foreclosure, which will only further damage your credit rating? Hillary likes to shift virtually all of the blame for this on the lenders, and to be sure, there are some unscrupulous people out there that took advantage of a lot of people to make a buck. But what is going to shut down this type of predatory lending faster? Further regulations, or letting people take responsibility for their poor decisions and learn from their mistakes. What is the incentive to not go out and get one of these ill-advised mortgages if there is the virtual guarantee that, should you be unable to make the payment, the government would bail you out?
As for those who like to point out how such a view might be unbecoming of a Christian, I think we understand the teachings of Christ differently. Christ never taught dependency on anything other than his grace. Sure, Christ helped the needy, but he did not provide their every need. I find it interesting that, when presented with a man that was lame, who had to be lowered into a building where Christ was teaching, that, rather than personally carrying the man around for the rest of his life, Christ healed him, then told him to pick up his bed and walk. Christ gave the man the ability to do for himself. When the fishermen that were to be his future disciples had an unprofitable day of fishing, Christ did not send them to petition their neighbors and the government for subsidies to help them through their difficult times, nor did he chastise their neighbors into supporting them in their misfortune. Rather, he told them to go out and casts their nets on the other side. He helped, but he still required them to make their own effort. Christ did teach compassion, which we should all exercise, and to give what we can to those less fortunate. But he did not teach those less fortunate to be dependent on others. He also taught that there are consequences for our actions that we must accept.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Scientists find . . . asphalt is hotter than dirt!
As one of those most likely to be smeared as a "global warming denier," I think it might be useful to make a few points today regarding the "flawless" data that supports the idea of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.
After a Canadian found a flaw in the calculations used to determine temperature anomalies in the United States from the global average, NASA was forced to correct their data. To give you some context, this is the very data that Al Gore cited in his now mythical "An Inconvenient Truth" when telling us all that 1998 was the hottest year in U.S. history. It turns out that there was a flaw in the software that generated this data as a result of the Y2K bug. With the newly revised data, it turns out that 1998 is now only the second hottest. The hottest day on record in the U.S. was 1934, you know, back when there was a chicken in every pot and an SUV in every driveway. Oh wait, that's right, there wasn't. In fact, of the top 10 hottest days in U.S. history, 6 occurred on or before 1953. 5 of them were 1939 or before.
One industrious individual in Chico, California, got suspicious after seeing what seemed to be an unexplained drastic jump in temperatures from one of the temperature sensors around the country that is used to collect temperatures to track the earth's "fever," as Al Gore calls it. He found that the jump in the sensor's readings, at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, corresponded almost exactly with when 2 air conditioning units were moved off of a nearby building and set up on the ground in close proximity to the sensor. He and some assistants have gone around the country and surveyed these critical measuring instruments, and found that many are not properly positioned, but are in fact placed near asphalt, buildings, and other things, like air conditioning units, that will result in higher than accurate readings.
My third point relates to a paper that I read in the journal Science, one of the top peer-reviewed Science journals in the world. It was regarding a new method for predicting climate change. Apparently, previous models neglect to include certain aspects of the climate that are difficult to model. Do you understand the full impact of that statement? Scientists make predictions on the climate without taking into account all the various factors. Nor do they even fully understand all the factors that influence climate change. This particular study developed a new model that took into account things like El Nino. To test this model, they did retrospective predictions, and compared them to what was actually recorded. The new model worked better than other models, and was even able to predict some cooling that actually did occur in the last 20 years. Importantly, the other models were never able to accurately predict cooling. They could only predict warming, even when tested retrospectively. A model is only as good as the scientist that generates it, reflecting his/her understanding of how various factors impact the climate. And it appears that many models are only good for predicting warming. This new model actually predicted some cooling within the next five year period, with warming thereafter. And you wonder why some people are skeptical?
Finally, a new Zogby poll shows Bush's approval rating down 2 points to 32%. Congress is currently at 15%. Importantly, Democrats give their Democrat-controlled Congress a whopping 80% disapproval rating. Nancy Pelosi isn't doing too good of a job for the American people, or for the children. With all the carping about how irresponsible it is for the Iraqi parliament to be on summer recess, what about our Congress? If they really feel that it is a moral imperative to bring our troops home now, how reprehensible is it for them to be off on vacation when they should be hard at work trying to bring our troops home?
After a Canadian found a flaw in the calculations used to determine temperature anomalies in the United States from the global average, NASA was forced to correct their data. To give you some context, this is the very data that Al Gore cited in his now mythical "An Inconvenient Truth" when telling us all that 1998 was the hottest year in U.S. history. It turns out that there was a flaw in the software that generated this data as a result of the Y2K bug. With the newly revised data, it turns out that 1998 is now only the second hottest. The hottest day on record in the U.S. was 1934, you know, back when there was a chicken in every pot and an SUV in every driveway. Oh wait, that's right, there wasn't. In fact, of the top 10 hottest days in U.S. history, 6 occurred on or before 1953. 5 of them were 1939 or before.
One industrious individual in Chico, California, got suspicious after seeing what seemed to be an unexplained drastic jump in temperatures from one of the temperature sensors around the country that is used to collect temperatures to track the earth's "fever," as Al Gore calls it. He found that the jump in the sensor's readings, at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, corresponded almost exactly with when 2 air conditioning units were moved off of a nearby building and set up on the ground in close proximity to the sensor. He and some assistants have gone around the country and surveyed these critical measuring instruments, and found that many are not properly positioned, but are in fact placed near asphalt, buildings, and other things, like air conditioning units, that will result in higher than accurate readings.
My third point relates to a paper that I read in the journal Science, one of the top peer-reviewed Science journals in the world. It was regarding a new method for predicting climate change. Apparently, previous models neglect to include certain aspects of the climate that are difficult to model. Do you understand the full impact of that statement? Scientists make predictions on the climate without taking into account all the various factors. Nor do they even fully understand all the factors that influence climate change. This particular study developed a new model that took into account things like El Nino. To test this model, they did retrospective predictions, and compared them to what was actually recorded. The new model worked better than other models, and was even able to predict some cooling that actually did occur in the last 20 years. Importantly, the other models were never able to accurately predict cooling. They could only predict warming, even when tested retrospectively. A model is only as good as the scientist that generates it, reflecting his/her understanding of how various factors impact the climate. And it appears that many models are only good for predicting warming. This new model actually predicted some cooling within the next five year period, with warming thereafter. And you wonder why some people are skeptical?
Finally, a new Zogby poll shows Bush's approval rating down 2 points to 32%. Congress is currently at 15%. Importantly, Democrats give their Democrat-controlled Congress a whopping 80% disapproval rating. Nancy Pelosi isn't doing too good of a job for the American people, or for the children. With all the carping about how irresponsible it is for the Iraqi parliament to be on summer recess, what about our Congress? If they really feel that it is a moral imperative to bring our troops home now, how reprehensible is it for them to be off on vacation when they should be hard at work trying to bring our troops home?
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Illegal Immigration - Still Stuck on Stupid
The recent executions of 3 college students in Newark, with a fourth seriously injured, underscores the arguments that conservatives have made about the illegal immigration situation in this country. While the crime was perpetrated by several people, the man believed to be at the head was an illegal alien from South America. What makes this crime particularly galling is that this man had been in custody for multiple crimes, and had repeatedly been released on bail. Never was his illegal status reported to immigration officials. One of the charges he faced before this latest crime was sexual assault of a minor.
Not all illegal immigrants are going to be sexual predators and murderers. But the very fact that they are here illegally is a crime. And that so many officials at every level of government have ignored enforcing laws that are already on the books is simply reprehensible. America is already teeming with its own homegrown criminals. Surely we don't believe now that crime is also a "job" that normal Americans won't do, and thus we must allow illegals to come here to perpetrate crimes that are beneath legal citizens? While I can at least understand the economic arguments for allowing illegals to stay here to bolster the workforce, by what stretch of the imagination must we harbor those who are not only here illegally, but commit heinous crimes in our midst?
Action is required. While cracking down on employers will help, and tracking down on fake social security numbers, along with building the fence will discourage the workers, more can be done. Pressure needs to be put on state and local governments that flaunt the law. Certain federal funds need to be withheld from these governments that set up "sanctuary" laws, restricting law enforcement officials from reporting illegals to immigration authorities. Additionally, pressure must be brought to bare on any municipality that releases out into the general public someone who is arrested for a crime and verified as having entered the country illegally.
I know that those more "enlightened" than me will view my ideas in this area as a sign of my inherent racism and my being anti-immigration, but to those who think this way, I can only shake my head at your lack of intellectual agility. I support immigration of the legal kind. I fully support those who enter the country legally and strive to become productive, assimilated American citizens. It is what has built this country into the great nation that it is today. My opposition is to the illegal variety that today threatens to tear down this country. To say that being opposed to illegal immigration is akin to being anti immigration and immigrants would be logically the equivalent of saying that my opposition to theft indicates a greater opposition to capitalism. The two are completely different concepts. I oppose illegal weapons trafficking, but support the right to legally keep and bear arms afforded by the second amendment. I am opposed to murder, but support capital punishment for those who do murder. To say that my opposition to illegal immigration is merely an opposition to immigration in general is both vapid and asinine.
Finally, is it really wise for the Democrats to hitch their political future onto hopes that the Iraq War will end in our miserable defeat and surrender? But this is what they are doing. That is why, even now that members of their own faction are defecting away from the view that this war is not winnable, their leaders like Senators Feingold and Reid continue to champion this view. They have let it be known that they will not accept any positive reports from Iraq. God himself could appear on the streets of Baghdad and singlehandedly eradicate the terrorists and the sectarian violence while simultaneously setting up a celestial government, and they would still look the American people in the eye and say that the war is lost. You see, they have to. All of their political hopes and dreams are tied to this operation being a failure and their having the final proof, in their minds, of just how evil George W. Bush really is. But who really wants to stand behind a group so wedded to the idea of American inferiority?
Not all illegal immigrants are going to be sexual predators and murderers. But the very fact that they are here illegally is a crime. And that so many officials at every level of government have ignored enforcing laws that are already on the books is simply reprehensible. America is already teeming with its own homegrown criminals. Surely we don't believe now that crime is also a "job" that normal Americans won't do, and thus we must allow illegals to come here to perpetrate crimes that are beneath legal citizens? While I can at least understand the economic arguments for allowing illegals to stay here to bolster the workforce, by what stretch of the imagination must we harbor those who are not only here illegally, but commit heinous crimes in our midst?
Action is required. While cracking down on employers will help, and tracking down on fake social security numbers, along with building the fence will discourage the workers, more can be done. Pressure needs to be put on state and local governments that flaunt the law. Certain federal funds need to be withheld from these governments that set up "sanctuary" laws, restricting law enforcement officials from reporting illegals to immigration authorities. Additionally, pressure must be brought to bare on any municipality that releases out into the general public someone who is arrested for a crime and verified as having entered the country illegally.
I know that those more "enlightened" than me will view my ideas in this area as a sign of my inherent racism and my being anti-immigration, but to those who think this way, I can only shake my head at your lack of intellectual agility. I support immigration of the legal kind. I fully support those who enter the country legally and strive to become productive, assimilated American citizens. It is what has built this country into the great nation that it is today. My opposition is to the illegal variety that today threatens to tear down this country. To say that being opposed to illegal immigration is akin to being anti immigration and immigrants would be logically the equivalent of saying that my opposition to theft indicates a greater opposition to capitalism. The two are completely different concepts. I oppose illegal weapons trafficking, but support the right to legally keep and bear arms afforded by the second amendment. I am opposed to murder, but support capital punishment for those who do murder. To say that my opposition to illegal immigration is merely an opposition to immigration in general is both vapid and asinine.
Finally, is it really wise for the Democrats to hitch their political future onto hopes that the Iraq War will end in our miserable defeat and surrender? But this is what they are doing. That is why, even now that members of their own faction are defecting away from the view that this war is not winnable, their leaders like Senators Feingold and Reid continue to champion this view. They have let it be known that they will not accept any positive reports from Iraq. God himself could appear on the streets of Baghdad and singlehandedly eradicate the terrorists and the sectarian violence while simultaneously setting up a celestial government, and they would still look the American people in the eye and say that the war is lost. You see, they have to. All of their political hopes and dreams are tied to this operation being a failure and their having the final proof, in their minds, of just how evil George W. Bush really is. But who really wants to stand behind a group so wedded to the idea of American inferiority?
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Unbelievable
The left always likes to tout their pro-military credentials by parading in front of the American people real, honest-to-goodness military personnel that parrot the anti-war feelings that they hold so dear, with the idea that, because they have actually served, their words are unimpeachable. This was their logic behind nominating John Kerry for the presidency when it was perceived that they needed to bolster their national defense credentials. The problem that they continue to run into, though, is credibility. People start to scratch their heads about John Kerry complaining about being sent on a mission into Cambodia in his much-famed swift boat by President Nixon the Christmas before Nixon entered the White House.
Once again they have run into that same pesky little hurdle known as honesty. The New Republic, a very left-leaning periodical that has been highly critical of Bush (no surprise there) and the war in Iraq recently has published postings from the diary of an honest-to-goodness authentic military man serving in Iraq. The postings that this soldier has sent to the New Republic have documented how serving in the military in the war in Iraq has dehumanized our young men and women and turned them into barbaric savages, just as John Kerry testified. His stories told of he and his companions mocking a women in a mess tent in Iraq whose face had been "melted" by an IED, of one soldier wearing the fragment of a child's skull found in a mass grave, and of armored vehicle drivers reveling in destroying streets and running over dogs. You can almost hear this modern-day John Kerry testifying of our soldiers committing acts reminiscent of Genghis Khan. The problem? When confronted with these stories, the soldier admitted, under oath, that they were made up. Apparently, he wasn't even in Iraq when he claimed to be eating in an Iraqi mess tent, mocking a woman who had an unfortunate encounter with an IED. He was safely far away in Kuwait. And none of the other stories were true, either. It also turns out that he admitted to his family that he enlisted in the military so that he would have unimpeachable credentials later in life to write on military matters. Hmmm, wonder if this guy is from Massachusetts and one day plans on running for president. Democrats can't come up with real atrocity stories about our military, so they have to now make them up. Despite the soldiers sworn testimony that his stories were lies, the New Republic still stands by them. Kind of like Dan Rather standing by the forged documents about Bush's National Guard service. Sure, the source was lying, but the story is true. We just have no evidence to prove it. But we believe it, and it fits with our preconceived notions, so it must be true.
Finally, I thought I would share this little tidbit. Occasionally, as I have mentioned before, I venture over into the little known world of liberal talk radio to see what the other side is saying. This is in contrast to Democrats, who avoid conservative talk radio like Dracula avoids garlic. They prefer to parrot what the media tells them to believe. Anyways, I was listening to Ed Schultz on Monday, and he had as his guest Chris Dodd, the Democratic senator who is running a barely noticed run for the Democratic presidential nomination. They were discussing Congress' passing of legislation to authorize President Bush to intercept communications by terrorists, regardless of where they originate or end, without a warrant. Dodd was opposed to this. Schultz, playing devil's advocate, brought up the point that people will argue that this is only to monitor terrorists. Dodd, in a statement that floored me, said that we can't single out groups because we disagree with them. If we single out one group today, where does it end? Tomorrow, we will spy on everyone. Excuse me? Terrorists are a special interest group that we should not discriminate against? This guy is putting terrorists on the same level as, say, a religious group, or a racial group? These guys are murderous thugs, planning the destruction of innocents, and Chris Dodd doesn't think we should single them out because we disagree with them? I'm sorry, but even the kookiest of the Republican candidates, Ron Paul, isn't this insane, and Chris Dodd isn't even the lowest on their electoral totem pole. Chris Dodd honestly believes that tracking the communications of terrorists will lead us onto a slippery slope towards the government listening in on Joe Blow's phone call? Moronic doesn't even come close to describing this guy. He's lucky that nobody actually listens to liberal talk radio, or this would surely sink his prospects, and maybe even jeopardize his future in the Senate. Then again, do we really believe that he isn't simply expressing what all of the Democrat party believes?
Once again they have run into that same pesky little hurdle known as honesty. The New Republic, a very left-leaning periodical that has been highly critical of Bush (no surprise there) and the war in Iraq recently has published postings from the diary of an honest-to-goodness authentic military man serving in Iraq. The postings that this soldier has sent to the New Republic have documented how serving in the military in the war in Iraq has dehumanized our young men and women and turned them into barbaric savages, just as John Kerry testified. His stories told of he and his companions mocking a women in a mess tent in Iraq whose face had been "melted" by an IED, of one soldier wearing the fragment of a child's skull found in a mass grave, and of armored vehicle drivers reveling in destroying streets and running over dogs. You can almost hear this modern-day John Kerry testifying of our soldiers committing acts reminiscent of Genghis Khan. The problem? When confronted with these stories, the soldier admitted, under oath, that they were made up. Apparently, he wasn't even in Iraq when he claimed to be eating in an Iraqi mess tent, mocking a woman who had an unfortunate encounter with an IED. He was safely far away in Kuwait. And none of the other stories were true, either. It also turns out that he admitted to his family that he enlisted in the military so that he would have unimpeachable credentials later in life to write on military matters. Hmmm, wonder if this guy is from Massachusetts and one day plans on running for president. Democrats can't come up with real atrocity stories about our military, so they have to now make them up. Despite the soldiers sworn testimony that his stories were lies, the New Republic still stands by them. Kind of like Dan Rather standing by the forged documents about Bush's National Guard service. Sure, the source was lying, but the story is true. We just have no evidence to prove it. But we believe it, and it fits with our preconceived notions, so it must be true.
Finally, I thought I would share this little tidbit. Occasionally, as I have mentioned before, I venture over into the little known world of liberal talk radio to see what the other side is saying. This is in contrast to Democrats, who avoid conservative talk radio like Dracula avoids garlic. They prefer to parrot what the media tells them to believe. Anyways, I was listening to Ed Schultz on Monday, and he had as his guest Chris Dodd, the Democratic senator who is running a barely noticed run for the Democratic presidential nomination. They were discussing Congress' passing of legislation to authorize President Bush to intercept communications by terrorists, regardless of where they originate or end, without a warrant. Dodd was opposed to this. Schultz, playing devil's advocate, brought up the point that people will argue that this is only to monitor terrorists. Dodd, in a statement that floored me, said that we can't single out groups because we disagree with them. If we single out one group today, where does it end? Tomorrow, we will spy on everyone. Excuse me? Terrorists are a special interest group that we should not discriminate against? This guy is putting terrorists on the same level as, say, a religious group, or a racial group? These guys are murderous thugs, planning the destruction of innocents, and Chris Dodd doesn't think we should single them out because we disagree with them? I'm sorry, but even the kookiest of the Republican candidates, Ron Paul, isn't this insane, and Chris Dodd isn't even the lowest on their electoral totem pole. Chris Dodd honestly believes that tracking the communications of terrorists will lead us onto a slippery slope towards the government listening in on Joe Blow's phone call? Moronic doesn't even come close to describing this guy. He's lucky that nobody actually listens to liberal talk radio, or this would surely sink his prospects, and maybe even jeopardize his future in the Senate. Then again, do we really believe that he isn't simply expressing what all of the Democrat party believes?
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Getting Desperate
Considering they control both the House and the Senate, and the conventional wisdom holds that the '08 election is theirs to lose, the Democrats sure don't look like they've got the political world in the palm of their hand. Consider the following things:
1) Last Thursday, Democrats had to do some underhanded parliamentary actions to prevent a voting outcome they didn't like. Republicans had brought a measure forward that would cut from the new farm bill language that would have allowed giving tax money to subsidize illegal immigrants. The measure was looking to win, 215 to 213, and the Democrats, showing how much they really care about the issue of illegal immigration, vacated the vote to prevent this from passing. This happened in the late hours of the night. Steny Hoyer has since admitted that it was a mistake on their part, but Nancy Pelosi denies that it was. The group in power shouldn't have to pull such pranks.
2) With all of the hot air Democrats blew around about how horrible Bush's domestic surveillance program was, they just passed a bill that Bush signed into law that lets him do exactly what they didn't want him to do. True, the bill didn't go nearly as far as he would have liked, and did add a few more restrictions, but ultimately they handed him a bill that allows him to wiretap and listen in on conversations with known terrorists and terrorist groups, even if one end of the conversation is in the U.S., without a warrant. Way to stay strong, Dems!
3) For whatever reason you choose to believe, it is quite obvious that Democrats have tied their hopes and dreams for increasing their hold in Washington in '08 on Iraq going badly. Last year, that didn't seem like such a losing bet for them. However, despite what Russ Feingold and Harry Reid tell you, conventional wisdom seems to be shifting to suggest that there is a wind of change blowing in Iraq now that Petraeus and his "surge" are in full swing. So much that even two scholars from the liberal Brookings Institute are now calling it a war we "just might win." Now, to be fair, these two were proponents of the original invasion of Iraq, and were opposed to the withdraw now crowd, but they had definitely fallen solidly in the camp of those who saw Iraq as a no win situation last year. While their new findings will no doubt be rejected by the hardcore anti-war crowd on the left, saner minds seem to be taking what they say, along with other reports coming in, that things are changing in Iraq. A new poll has just shown that those who believe we can win in Iraq has jumped up 9 points, while those who think we can't dropped by 10. Now those who think we can't win are still in the majority by a 20-point margin, but this definitely suggests a shift in the perception of how things are going in Iraq. And this does not bode well for the Democrats, or for their presidential wannabes who are all solidly for getting out of Iraq.
4) I usually think that politicians are horrible at cracking jokes (with Reagan being a welcomed exception), and think that most of their jokes fall short. But I did get quite a kick about Mitt Romney's comments about Obama. First he appeared confused that Obama in the previous week had basically admitted that he would sit down with our enemies and invade our allies. But his winning line was that in such a short time, Obama had gone from "Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove." Right now Obama seems to be looking a lot like Howard Dean in the 2004 primaries. A lot of grassroots excitement and lots of supporters, but ultimately it was discovered that the emperor was, in fact, wearing no clothes. The more this guy talks, the more he tries to lay out what an Obama presidency would entail, the more it becomes evident that this guy is all form and no substance. So other than the "great speech" that he gave at the Democrat national convention, what other reason does this guy have for running for president, other than the novelty of being the lone African-American?
So while there is much talk about how fractured the Republican party, and conservatives, seems to be, why is it that the Democrats look more like the Keystone Kops?
1) Last Thursday, Democrats had to do some underhanded parliamentary actions to prevent a voting outcome they didn't like. Republicans had brought a measure forward that would cut from the new farm bill language that would have allowed giving tax money to subsidize illegal immigrants. The measure was looking to win, 215 to 213, and the Democrats, showing how much they really care about the issue of illegal immigration, vacated the vote to prevent this from passing. This happened in the late hours of the night. Steny Hoyer has since admitted that it was a mistake on their part, but Nancy Pelosi denies that it was. The group in power shouldn't have to pull such pranks.
2) With all of the hot air Democrats blew around about how horrible Bush's domestic surveillance program was, they just passed a bill that Bush signed into law that lets him do exactly what they didn't want him to do. True, the bill didn't go nearly as far as he would have liked, and did add a few more restrictions, but ultimately they handed him a bill that allows him to wiretap and listen in on conversations with known terrorists and terrorist groups, even if one end of the conversation is in the U.S., without a warrant. Way to stay strong, Dems!
3) For whatever reason you choose to believe, it is quite obvious that Democrats have tied their hopes and dreams for increasing their hold in Washington in '08 on Iraq going badly. Last year, that didn't seem like such a losing bet for them. However, despite what Russ Feingold and Harry Reid tell you, conventional wisdom seems to be shifting to suggest that there is a wind of change blowing in Iraq now that Petraeus and his "surge" are in full swing. So much that even two scholars from the liberal Brookings Institute are now calling it a war we "just might win." Now, to be fair, these two were proponents of the original invasion of Iraq, and were opposed to the withdraw now crowd, but they had definitely fallen solidly in the camp of those who saw Iraq as a no win situation last year. While their new findings will no doubt be rejected by the hardcore anti-war crowd on the left, saner minds seem to be taking what they say, along with other reports coming in, that things are changing in Iraq. A new poll has just shown that those who believe we can win in Iraq has jumped up 9 points, while those who think we can't dropped by 10. Now those who think we can't win are still in the majority by a 20-point margin, but this definitely suggests a shift in the perception of how things are going in Iraq. And this does not bode well for the Democrats, or for their presidential wannabes who are all solidly for getting out of Iraq.
4) I usually think that politicians are horrible at cracking jokes (with Reagan being a welcomed exception), and think that most of their jokes fall short. But I did get quite a kick about Mitt Romney's comments about Obama. First he appeared confused that Obama in the previous week had basically admitted that he would sit down with our enemies and invade our allies. But his winning line was that in such a short time, Obama had gone from "Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove." Right now Obama seems to be looking a lot like Howard Dean in the 2004 primaries. A lot of grassroots excitement and lots of supporters, but ultimately it was discovered that the emperor was, in fact, wearing no clothes. The more this guy talks, the more he tries to lay out what an Obama presidency would entail, the more it becomes evident that this guy is all form and no substance. So other than the "great speech" that he gave at the Democrat national convention, what other reason does this guy have for running for president, other than the novelty of being the lone African-American?
So while there is much talk about how fractured the Republican party, and conservatives, seems to be, why is it that the Democrats look more like the Keystone Kops?
Thursday, August 2, 2007
This Guy Wants to Run the Country?
All of the Democrat candidates are staunch supporters of the public education system, just don't ask them to send their kids to a public school. That is the message that we got from their YouBoob debate. Same as every other point with them, the main thing is to pander to the interest groups. To his credit, though, John Edwards did send his kids to public schools. Of course, it may also be that the high costs of sending your kids to a private school might have tapped into his hair care budget.
Boy, that Obama is a genius at foreign policy. We are slowly getting an emerging picture of what foreign policy under an Obama presidency would be like. First of all, any murderous, repressive dictator will be able to get face time with him, no stipulations. Great policy. Sounds like a winner. Second of all, if he gets good intelligence of a terrorist threat in Pakistan, he will send U.S. troops in. Just in case you missed that, that means he would send U.S. troops into one of our few allies in the middle east, without permission. A country where the leader is already having a tough time keeping his government stable against assassination attempts. An unauthorized incursion by U.S. troops should do wonders. But we need to treat Iran and Syria, where he have solid information of terrorist activities against the U.S., with kid gloves. We need to engage them in dialog. Sound like his foreign policy is schizophrenic? You're not alone.
The next question you have to ask is what exactly would he call good intelligence? After all, the intelligence that we had regarding WMD in Iraq prior to the war was certainly considered good intelligence by the Clinton administration, the UN, Senator Kerry, former vice-president Al Gore, British, German, French, and Russian intelligence. And yet now nutjobs on the left think Bush should be impeached for using that intelligence as one of the supporting causes for the action in Iraq. Does that mean that, should Obama act on similar intelligence, invade Pakistan without Pakistani approval, and then come up empty-handed, he will willingly submit himself to Congressional hearings and propose that articles of impeachment be brought up against him?
It is also interesting to read what Senator Biden had to say about Obama's fairly recent adeptness at foreign policy, when at a January hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Ambassador John Negroponte gave testimony, that rather than discuss Afghanistan and the Taliban, of which Obama recently cares so much about, Senator Obama focused on the topic of mercury in fish.
This sounds like exactly the kind of guy we need heading up Foreign Policy at this time in history. Maybe he is counting on having the help of the self-appointed U.S. foreign policy expert, Nancy Pelosi. After all, his policy of meeting with corrupt dictators sounds eerily like Nancy Pelosi's recent visit and kowtowing to Bashar Assad or Syria.
Boy, that Obama is a genius at foreign policy. We are slowly getting an emerging picture of what foreign policy under an Obama presidency would be like. First of all, any murderous, repressive dictator will be able to get face time with him, no stipulations. Great policy. Sounds like a winner. Second of all, if he gets good intelligence of a terrorist threat in Pakistan, he will send U.S. troops in. Just in case you missed that, that means he would send U.S. troops into one of our few allies in the middle east, without permission. A country where the leader is already having a tough time keeping his government stable against assassination attempts. An unauthorized incursion by U.S. troops should do wonders. But we need to treat Iran and Syria, where he have solid information of terrorist activities against the U.S., with kid gloves. We need to engage them in dialog. Sound like his foreign policy is schizophrenic? You're not alone.
The next question you have to ask is what exactly would he call good intelligence? After all, the intelligence that we had regarding WMD in Iraq prior to the war was certainly considered good intelligence by the Clinton administration, the UN, Senator Kerry, former vice-president Al Gore, British, German, French, and Russian intelligence. And yet now nutjobs on the left think Bush should be impeached for using that intelligence as one of the supporting causes for the action in Iraq. Does that mean that, should Obama act on similar intelligence, invade Pakistan without Pakistani approval, and then come up empty-handed, he will willingly submit himself to Congressional hearings and propose that articles of impeachment be brought up against him?
It is also interesting to read what Senator Biden had to say about Obama's fairly recent adeptness at foreign policy, when at a January hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Ambassador John Negroponte gave testimony, that rather than discuss Afghanistan and the Taliban, of which Obama recently cares so much about, Senator Obama focused on the topic of mercury in fish.
This sounds like exactly the kind of guy we need heading up Foreign Policy at this time in history. Maybe he is counting on having the help of the self-appointed U.S. foreign policy expert, Nancy Pelosi. After all, his policy of meeting with corrupt dictators sounds eerily like Nancy Pelosi's recent visit and kowtowing to Bashar Assad or Syria.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
How Far We Have Come
I realize I discussed this briefly yesterday, but the chill this should send down our spines justifies lingering over this topic for at least one more day. We should take this opportunity to do an appraisal of where liberal social policies have taken us.
In the United States of America, you can immerse a cross in urine, or you can smear elephant dung on a statue of the Virgin Mary, and rather than be castigated for these actions, you can actually apply for, and receive, grant money from the NEA. People will pay to see this in an "art exhibit" and praise you for "speaking truth to power." You will be acclaimed by the educated elites, while the uncleaned, redneck masses object to their tax dollars being used to support such work. This is what happens when you desecrate Christian images. Nobody will fine you. Nobody will throw you in jail. Nobody will charge you with a hate crime. All criticism will be turned, instead, on those who seek to suppress your right to free expression. This is what happens in a country that was founded on Judeo-Christian, western civilization principles.
On the other hand, if you take a copy of the Koran and flush it down a toilet in the state of New York, you don't get charged with destruction of property or vandalism - no, you get charged with a hate crime. We charge people as criminals now based on what they think, but only regarding certain issues. If you hate, say, Christianity, the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Jews, the state of Israel, this is all acceptable. Nobody will bat an eye. You can burn the flag, desecrate images of the leader of the Catholic church, etc., and your right to free expression is upheld. But don't you dare flush a Koran. That is hateful, and we will punish you for that. Freedom of expression be damned.
So let me see if I have this right. Liberals believe that there is a mysterious right to privacy written into the Constitution, and that right means that the government can't control what a women chooses to do with a life growing inside her body. Further, they believe that it allows two consenting adults to do pretty much whatever they want to do in the bedroom. But the right to privacy apparently does not extend to our minds. If you have feelings of hate (but only towards certain groups), then you can be prosecuted for it.
What is the deal with hate crimes, anyway? You remember this came up in the 2000 election because Bush didn't sign some Texas hate crime legislation. The idea was, based on a commercial by the NAACP, that Bush was somehow culpable in the murder of an African-American man because he didn't sign into law this legislation. Nevermind the fact that the people responsible were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. The death sentence was not enough for these murderers. What they really needed for justice to be met was for a jury to find these men also guilty of hate. That would deter more crime. Liberals want thoughts to now be a crime, as long as they get to dictate what thoughts are criminal. Hate Christianity or Judaism, and you are hailed as open-minded. Hate African-Americans or Islam, and you are the worst kind of criminal imaginable.
Something tells me our Koran flusher will not be receiving representation from the ACLU. Welcome to 1984. Watch out for those thought police!
In the United States of America, you can immerse a cross in urine, or you can smear elephant dung on a statue of the Virgin Mary, and rather than be castigated for these actions, you can actually apply for, and receive, grant money from the NEA. People will pay to see this in an "art exhibit" and praise you for "speaking truth to power." You will be acclaimed by the educated elites, while the uncleaned, redneck masses object to their tax dollars being used to support such work. This is what happens when you desecrate Christian images. Nobody will fine you. Nobody will throw you in jail. Nobody will charge you with a hate crime. All criticism will be turned, instead, on those who seek to suppress your right to free expression. This is what happens in a country that was founded on Judeo-Christian, western civilization principles.
On the other hand, if you take a copy of the Koran and flush it down a toilet in the state of New York, you don't get charged with destruction of property or vandalism - no, you get charged with a hate crime. We charge people as criminals now based on what they think, but only regarding certain issues. If you hate, say, Christianity, the Catholic Church, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Jews, the state of Israel, this is all acceptable. Nobody will bat an eye. You can burn the flag, desecrate images of the leader of the Catholic church, etc., and your right to free expression is upheld. But don't you dare flush a Koran. That is hateful, and we will punish you for that. Freedom of expression be damned.
So let me see if I have this right. Liberals believe that there is a mysterious right to privacy written into the Constitution, and that right means that the government can't control what a women chooses to do with a life growing inside her body. Further, they believe that it allows two consenting adults to do pretty much whatever they want to do in the bedroom. But the right to privacy apparently does not extend to our minds. If you have feelings of hate (but only towards certain groups), then you can be prosecuted for it.
What is the deal with hate crimes, anyway? You remember this came up in the 2000 election because Bush didn't sign some Texas hate crime legislation. The idea was, based on a commercial by the NAACP, that Bush was somehow culpable in the murder of an African-American man because he didn't sign into law this legislation. Nevermind the fact that the people responsible were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. The death sentence was not enough for these murderers. What they really needed for justice to be met was for a jury to find these men also guilty of hate. That would deter more crime. Liberals want thoughts to now be a crime, as long as they get to dictate what thoughts are criminal. Hate Christianity or Judaism, and you are hailed as open-minded. Hate African-Americans or Islam, and you are the worst kind of criminal imaginable.
Something tells me our Koran flusher will not be receiving representation from the ACLU. Welcome to 1984. Watch out for those thought police!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
